Slashdot Mirror

This would do.

http://www.aerospaceguide.net/rocketengines/ssme.gif

I'm sure they sell liquid hydrogen and oxygen around here somewhere!

Not to mention that this has already been done on Mars. The SSI "Surface Stereoscopic Imager" was used by the Phoenix Mars Scout lander in 2008.

Bits of Skylab struck and killed a cow.

My understanding was that Hubble had a life expectancy of 20 years.

From where do you understand this?
Design Life: Designed for a 15 year life with on-orbit servicing. http://www.aerospaceguide.net/hubblespacetelescope.html
And naturally things would be going better if on-orbit servicing was still considered a regular option.

Maybe it's time [for NASA] to look at some of the commercial space projects being developed out there and take note how they're doing it. Perhaps even take one (or two) projects showing success under its wing and develop it further... Would surely save millions, decrease dependence on wacko nations like Russia and take reusability to a new level... Just my 2c.

Initial information on the Russian spacecraft was reported on New Scientist in 2005 which includes the ambitious goal of a probes trip to Mars.

"The Clipper, a six-person spacecraft similar to the U.S. space shuttle, is designed to replace the Soyuz and Progress carrier rockets in making regular flights to the International Space Station, and even the Moon and Mars. It will carry two professional astronauts and up to four passengers."

It is said to have an aircraft style hull which is designed as a "Load carrying hull [which] will enable the spaceship to land on any flat ground with a parachute."

Additional pictures can be found on Goolge.

That's because of a fundamental difference between Soviet/Russian space policy and American space policy. The Soviet space mission was always viewed as a military one, while the American space agency was a civilian organization. Therefore, there was always more fanfare around American launches, simply because NASA made itself more accessible to the public than the equivalent Soviet agency.

Again, you're comparing apples and oranges. The AN-225 was originally envisioned as a special carrier for the canceled Buran space shuttle. Only one was ever built, and even it was in storage until 2000, at which point it was retooled into a conventional transport. To compare a custom-built transport originally built for a single purpose to a multi-use mass-produced jetliner is unfair. You may as well compare Formula 1 cars to Toyota Camrys.

I didn't mention manned missions but development and engineering practices.

Take the example of the rocket engines developed independently by both sides . The American F-1 design didn't use staged combustion cycle because it was deemed unstable and unpredictable denying their engine a the vast performance boost. At the same time, Russians developed and tested the RD-170 using the staged combustion cycle. The development ended in 1976(!) and proved to be more powerful than the F-1A (Saturn V 1st stage) engines. All the RD-170 engines were to be scrapped but were preserved by the Russian engineering team. About 20 years later they were sold to the west which still didn't have engines as efficient.

The Atlas IIIA flew in 2000 using RD-180 engines - a scaled down version of the RD-170.

In some areas, russia's tech is way ahead of 'western' tech -
Mach 2.2/3.0 supersonic multistage ramjet/cruise antiship (destroyer killer):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/moskit.htm
Underwater supersonic rocket torpedo (carrier killer):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/russi a/shkval.htm
1988 soviet 'shuttle', buran, "Although the first orbital flight of Buran was unmanned, it demonstrated much promise. The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing."
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/buran/
The truth is out there; The lies are in your head ....

From your own link
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/dynasoar.html/

The USAF and NACA (now NASA) merged hypersonic aircraft studies into one research program.

So the blatant separation you pruport arent really all that clear, are they?

What on Earth? They merged a research program to work together! How the hell does that imply that two separate agencies suddenly became one agency?

NASA works with other agencies all the time. In this project, they are working with the NOAA and the USGS. That doesn't mean that the USGS is our space agency.

From your own link
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/dynasoar.html

The USAF and NACA (now NASA) merged hypersonic aircraft studies into one research program.

So the blatant separation you pruport arent really all that clear, are they?

Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.

Erm, what?!?

NASA has always been a separate, civilian agency. It grew out of the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), itself a civilian organization.

The Air Force did have its own space program during the late 1950s and early 1960s (around the same time as the creation of NASA), which centered around the X-20 Dyna-Soar and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. The USAF even built an astronaut school at Edwards Air Force Base, and Chuck Yeager was the commandant. However, that whole program lost steam in the mid 1960s and was abandoned by 1969. This led the USAF to send its best remaining astronaut pilots to NASA, and convert the school into a test pilot school.

Even so, many of the most famous astronauts from the Apollo days were not USAF pilots. Neil Armstrong was a civilian (he worked for NACA in the X-15 program), and Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell and Alan Shepard were US Navy pilots.

The difference between then and now, in terms of budgets is this: First, the entire nation was deathly afraid of the Red Menace and national pride was on the line (nobody wanted go to sleep by the light of a Commie moon); Second, a very charismatic US President had staked his legacy on the US getting to the moon before the end of the 1960s (this at a time when the US had only put one man in space, and briefly, at that) before being assassinated and leaving the entire nation in shock.

Congress voted big dollars to the space program because it helped fight the blasted Commies, and because Lyndon Johnson, among others, helped spread the pork to important states (California, Texas, Missouri, New York, Florida, etc.). It also helped the nation pay its final respects to JFK. By the early 1970s, however, Americans began to question the investment in the space program, regularly saying things such as, "I don't think it makes sense to spend so much money to send people to the moon when we have so many problems here on Earth that we need to deal with first, such as hunger, pollution, disease, poverty, etc."

You made some valid points in the rest of your piece, but your glaring fallacy about NASA's status kind of undermines your credibility, don'tcha think?

I could have sworn that it was launched in 1990. Which would make it 15...

Actually, it was completed in 1985, so it is, indeed, 20 years old. You're right, though, about it being put into orbit in 1990.

That said, is there any other telescope that can replace its functionality, or is it still the most advanced thing we have, even if it is 15?

I don't know. Somebody else commented on this story that it would be cheaper to put up a new telescope, but I really don't know.

Well, she's certainly in a better position to know, having phone banks, email addresses, PO boxes and staffs dedicated to keeping her in touch with what they want.

I vote. I even send emails (and the rare letter) to my representative telling them what I think about various issues. I don't think I've ever been asked for, or offered, my opinion on a budget issue as specific as this. I'm inclined to believe that she's making an educated (at best) guess. It is much more likely that the companies involved with the shuttle maintenance are letting her know what they want, via campaign contributions.

Now, can you see my point that the judgment calls they make should be to give their constituents what they want, be it for good or ill?

Yes. I think we only disagree on the scope, or meaning, of "what they want".

A representative answers not only to the people, but to special interest groups. Groups which, as entities, can not vote, and would normally have no vote were it not for the representative. However, these entities do have a voice in congress because of the representative, and this dilutes the will of the people.

If we're going to pretend that representatives are actually trying to give constituents what they want, I'd much rather have a direct democracy than a representative democracy. By having a representative democracy, we're implying that people are incapable of deciding for themselves, and need somebody to work in their best interests.

"didn't trust the average American to know what was good for themselves..."
Or, to my mind the most likely, some of both.

I agree. There was both a practical, and a philosophical side to this decision.

I disagree. A rep. who doesn't do what the people who voted her in want her to do gets voted out. She is there to be the voice of her constituents, even if they are all batshit insane.

Ok, but I think it doesn't work this way in practice, and I don't think it was intended to work this way in the first place. If we assume that the founding fathers wanted a "buffer," then they never intended the people to get everything they wanted. If Senators take money from special interest groups in the form of campaign contributions, if they listen to lobbyists funded primarily by corporations, then they aren't representing the will of their constituents.

Let me try putting it this way: If the sole job of a representative was to present the will of their constituents, then why not have a direct democracy? It would be a more accurate way to evaluate the will of the people. Since we don't have a representative democracy, there must be some other reason for having representatives, and it follows that it isn't their only job to represent the will of their constituents.

Even the most selfish person on Earth isn't that way 100% of the time.

No, they aren't. But, on the whole, people are mostly selfish. I think the Bill Gateses are more prevalent than the Mother Theresas. Greed is more common than altruism.

If everybody were always selfish then society wouldn't exist, we'd all be nomads fending for ourselves and screwing everybody else.

However, I should point out that even if the money were spent (and spent efficiently) on a new telescope, there's a lead time of many years on putting new telescopes in space. Hubble was originally funded in 1977 and launched in 1990. The James Webb Space Telescope isn't scheduled for launch until August of 2011, but funding for it started in 1995. This excludes that there was in both case extensive design and planning work going back at least a few years before funding started.

Asteroid, actually. Meteorite is an asteroid burning in the atmosphere (aka "shooting star"). As far as I can remember, Iapetus does not have any atmosphere worth mentioning. Check this for details.

Its a shame that the Buran and the Space Shuttle were developed in competition rather than cooperating on a space system that would be better than each individual system. If NASA used a lift system like Energia or the Energia itself, we would probably still have Challenger and Columbia which could be fitted to say, land on the moon or mars and then launch like a plane using internal fuel tanks and the SSMEs to return to earth.

With the cancelling of Venture Star and pipe dreams like the Space Plane, there aren't that many options left, and money isn't in great supply.

So back to the topic at hand, I read the restoration plan for the Saturn V at USS&RC. Nowhere does it mention any type of protection, just restoration. So in another five years it's going to cost another 5 mil to restore? Screw that, come up with a plan that doesn't require continued large spending.

some more interesting reading on Saturn V

Its a shame that the Buran and the Space Shuttle were developed in competition rather than cooperating on a space system that would be better than each individual system. If NASA used a lift system like Energia or the Energia itself, we would probably still have Challenger and Columbia which could be fitted to say, land on the moon or mars and then launch like a plane using internal fuel tanks and the SSMEs to return to earth.

With the cancelling of Venture Star and pipe dreams like the Space Plane, there aren't that many options left, and money isn't in great supply.

So back to the topic at hand, I read the restoration plan for the Saturn V at USS&RC. Nowhere does it mention any type of protection, just restoration. So in another five years it's going to cost another 5 mil to restore? Screw that, come up with a plan that doesn't require continued large spending.

some more interesting reading on Saturn V

... but "Welcome to the 60's !!!"

On a serious note... China, if you're reading this, Congrats !!!

Oh, and thanks for all the spam ;)

Thankfully the Soviets didn't put them on their N-1 rocket:

N-1 rocket

Its typically British that we're the only country that developed a launcher then cancelled it after one sucessful flight.

You may not remember, but Russia did the same with their Buran shuttle (and here are some interesting pictures of the jet-powered prototype almost identical to the one that flew to orbit [except, of course, for the propulsion system]). So they still had / have other means of getting into space - but all the same - it was a lot of effort for nothing.

The first hypersonic plane useable as a bomber was actually proposed 20 years ago by President Reagan. See here or here for a description. Notice that the picture in the BBC article and the pictures on the referenced web sites are essentially identical. Also read the following quote from the second link I provided:

"We're talking about the speed of response of an ICBM and the flexibility and recallability of a bomber, packaged in a plane that can scramble, get into orbit, and change orbit so the Soviets can't get a reading accurate enough to shoot at it. It offers strategic force survivability -- a fleet could sit alert like B-52s."

(By the way, the program was abandoned because (1) the technology was too hard and (2) ICBMs gave us all the international strike capability we need.)

Mars Observer

Mars Polar Lander

Mars Climate Orbiter

Deep Space 2

And so on...