Slashdot Mirror

I've read this twice today since it was on Fark about 8 hours ago and I have a problem with Mister Oberg's story.

From Encyclopedia Astronautica - http://www.astronautix.com/flights/sts51l.htm
"At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of 1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally enveloped in the explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control system ruptured and a hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as it exited the oxygen-hydrogen flames. The reddish brown colors of the hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the edge of the main fireball. The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections that can be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward fuselage trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the payload bay.
The Explosion 73 seconds after liftoff claimed crew and vehicle. Cause of explosion was determined to be an O-ring failure in right SRB. Cold weather was a contributing factor. Launch Weight: 268,829 lbs. "

From the Commission's Report

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/ docs/rogers-commission/Chapter-3.txt

"At 73.124 seconds,. a circumferential white vapor pattern was observed blooming from the side of the External Tank bottom dome. This was the beginning of the structural failure of hydrogen tank that culminated in the entire aft dome dropping away. This released massive amounts of liquid hydrogen from the tank and created a sudden forward thrust of about 2.8 million pounds, pushing the hydrogen tank upward into the intertank structure. At about the same time, the rotating right Solid Rocket Booster impacted the intertank structure and the lower part of the liquid oxygen tank. These structures failed at 73.137 seconds as evidenced by the white vapors appearing in the intertank region.

Within milliseconds there was massive, almost explosive, burning of the hydrogen streaming from the failed tank bottom and liquid oxygen breach in the area of the intertank.

At this point in its trajectory, while traveling at a Mach number of 1.92 at an altitude of 46,000 feet, the Challenger was totally enveloped in the explosive burn. The Challenger's reaction control system ruptured and a hypergolic burn of its propellants occurred as it exited the oxygen-hydrogen flames. The reddish brown colors of the hypergolic fuel burn are visible on the edge of the main fireball. The Orbiter, under severe aerodynamic loads, broke into several large sections which emerged from the fireball. Separate sections that can be identified on film include the main engine/tail section with the engines still burning, one wing of the Orbiter, and the forward fuselage trailing a mass of umbilical lines pulled loose from the payload bay."

From Mister Oberg's story

"The shuttle did not explode in the common definition of that word. There was no shock wave, no detonation, no "bang" -- viewers on the ground just heard the roar of the engines stop as the shuttle's fuel tank tore apart, spilling liquid oxygen and hydrogen which formed a huge fireball at an altitude of 46,000 ft. (Some television documentaries later added the sound of an explosion to these images.) But both solid-fuel strap-on boosters climbed up out of the cloud, still firing and unharmed by any explosion. Challenger itself was torn apart as it was flung free of the other rocket components and turned broadside into the Mach 2 airstream. Individual propellant tanks were seen exploding -- but by then, the spacecraft was already in pieces."

The Shuttle at that time was made up of the Orbiter, a Fuel Tank and two Solid Rocket Boosters, there was an explosion, so I think Mister Oberg is wrong for saying it did not "explode in the common definition of that word". It blew up.

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

As opposed to the ones that have a powered ejection seat...

As opposed to the ones that have any form of escapesystem at all. The Gemini and the Vostok used ejection seats (the use of which was the normal mode of ladning in the case of the Vostok - the cosmonaut did not ride his capsule all the way down). The majority of manned spacecrafts (Mercury, all the various versions of the Soyuz, Apollo, Shenzhou and the planned CEV) fetures escape towers - a rocket that will pull the part of the spacecraft with people inside away from any accidents (and hopefully high enought up for parachutes to work). As far as I can tell, the Shuttle shares the dubious distinction to be one of two (the other was Voskhod, which was basicly a juryrigged Vostok) to have flown in space with no escapesystem at all.

Back in the 'good, old days', a lot of thought went into weird and wonderfull ways to bail out from orbit, but these days it seems like there is little will to admidt that things can go horrible wrong up there...

I saw this referred to in the Encyclopedia Astronautica (no images). There's also a section that lists the "leading" proposed manned Mars missions.

I saw this referred to in the Encyclopedia Astronautica (no images). There's also a section that lists the "leading" proposed manned Mars missions.

Lunokhod vehicles had a radioactive source that would keep the internals warm during the lunar nights. Link.
That was back in the 70s.
Back when USSR had the guts and money to explore the "final frontier".

Yes, for some time now. In fact, NASA supplied sounding rockets and telemetry equipment during ISRO's initial days. See launch log of Thumba -- India's first launch site.

... you just havent looked hard enough:

xcor

blue origin (Jeff Bezos, Amazon)

spaceX

Armadillo Aerospace (John Carmack)

(Not mentioning the obvious: Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites.)

And don't forget about America's Space Prize a $50 million dollar prize for the development of a reusable vehicle to service http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/">Bigelow Aerospace's inflatable space hotel. (Robert Bigelow owns the "Budget Suites of America" hoetl chain). Several contendors for the prize at the moment.

And actually the american government is quite progressive on commercial space travel. They have an office: the office of Commercial Space Transportation. They actually recently put out a 120+ page proposal on regulations for human spaceflight, open for suggestions from the "players". Revisions are being suggested from companies and actually heeded. The system is working quite well.

Just from discussing it with customers of mine (who pay $150,000 for a week in Vegas for 2 people, what's $150,000 to hit space?), I bet there are at least 100,000 people in the world who would pay $50,000 to travel.

I've read studies that have similar numbers of people willing to pay bigger dollar amounts. The market is there; thats why the companies listed, among others, are working on a solution.

For anyone who has done more research than I could, what are the obstacles to private research? There's a market, there's a will, so there must be a way. Who is putting the kibosh on it?

Money. Gotta get those venture capitalists to see the vision. There are safer investments than human space travel. The companies that are most likely to succeed are the ones that are self-funded (see the ones with big names next to them) or the ones that handle both commercial and govenment contracts (for example, Xcor does government research, and spaceX does government launches. It pays the bills and bolsters investor confidence.)

-everphilski-

IIRC some of the solid core nuclear thermal rocket designs were supposed to have good enough thrust to weight ratios to escape Earth's gravity under their own power (e.g. DUMBO).

Is this the report you're thinking of? DUMBO was indeed a paper design intended to show that the engines could be lighter and more powerful. Even so, I don't think the design was ever sufficient to reach orbit. Project Timberwind continued the work for the StarWars project and had a thrust to weight of 30:1. In comparison, the Space Shuttle Main Engines have a 73:1 thrust ratio and they still need assistance from the higher thrust SRBs. (The SRBs provide 71.4% of the Space Shuttle's thrust during liftoff, each providing 3,300,000 lbf vs. the 400,000 lbf each SSME generates.)

The only reliable way to overcome the thrust-to-weight problems that plague the NTR engines is to run the reactor so hot it melts the uranium fuel. As you can imagine, anything that can melt Uranium can melt most materials we have available. The solution to this problem is the Gas Core Nuclear Rocket which relies on the "nuclear lightbulb" concept to keep the reactor gasses from interacting with the walls of the engine. I've spoken with a former NASA Nuclear Propulsion engineer on the issue, however, and he's very concerned about whether the concept is feasible or not. It seems that there's a lot of research that still needs to be done on the subject. It's a wonderful dream, however. :-)

Besides those, you have nuclear pulse propulsion (e.g. Orion), which most definitively would have a good enough thrust to weight ratio.

I do believe we were talking about NTR engines, but Orion can certainly attain orbit. The only problem (which is also one of the reasons why the Orion was never built) is that the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963 made it illegal to launch an Orion from inside the atmosphere. This relegates it to being a space-only engine, and/or a useful craft for Moon or Mars launches.

It's a wonderful site on anything involving historical space exploration and rocketry. I've been going there for years. I have a lot of these wonderful historical sites. These are quasi-related:

http://www.astronautix.com/
The home page of this site.

http://www.nuclearweaponarchive.com/
A site on the history of nuclear weaponry.

http://www.fas.org/
The Federation of American Scientists. Look on the left menu for links to weapons, rockets, missiles...

http://seds.lpl.arizona.edu/nineplanets/nineplanet s/
The Nine Planets - A site about our solar system.

Every time I find a good historical site, I add it to my collection. Wikipedia.org just goes without saying.

Didn't the Soyuz 11A511U have Gimballed Thrusters?

This is NASA's fourth try at this, at least. The Flight Telerobotic Servicer was the first. NASA blew $288 million on that without producing working hardware. Then there was the Robotic Satellite Servicer. Then there was a sort of "flying PDA" for the ISS. This time, at least, they're trying something small first.

This is NASA's fourth try at this, at least. The Flight Telerobotic Servicer was the first. NASA blew $288 million on that without producing working hardware. Then there was the Robotic Satellite Servicer. Then there was a sort of "flying PDA" for the ISS. This time, at least, they're trying something small first.

Actually, Ariane 1 was based on French Diamant launcher technology, in turn based on the precious stones military launch vehicle series. Which came from Veronique, which was designed by... a bunch of "Nazis" including, among others, Eugen Sänger.

The USA, Soviet Union and France all had ex-"Nazi" scientists working on their rocket programs. IIRC the USA had the V-2 team, the Soviet Union had the Wasserfall team, and the French got the folks working on rocketplanes.

Still, I wonder why some seem to like putting Europe's space program down so much. I mean, Arianespace had for many years the commercial launch market leader in Ariane, ESA subcontractors designed some nice launchers, have working indigenous LH2 rocket designs, and manage to do Carbon/Carbon rocket nozzles. Is this not significant?

Actually, Ariane 1 was based on French Diamant launcher technology, in turn based on the precious stones military launch vehicle series. Which came from Veronique, which was designed by... a bunch of "Nazis" including, among others, Eugen Sänger.

The USA, Soviet Union and France all had ex-"Nazi" scientists working on their rocket programs. IIRC the USA had the V-2 team, the Soviet Union had the Wasserfall team, and the French got the folks working on rocketplanes.

Still, I wonder why some seem to like putting Europe's space program down so much. I mean, Arianespace had for many years the commercial launch market leader in Ariane, ESA subcontractors designed some nice launchers, have working indigenous LH2 rocket designs, and manage to do Carbon/Carbon rocket nozzles. Is this not significant?

Actually, Ariane 1 was based on French Diamant launcher technology, in turn based on the precious stones military launch vehicle series. Which came from Veronique, which was designed by... a bunch of "Nazis" including, among others, Eugen Sänger.

The USA, Soviet Union and France all had ex-"Nazi" scientists working on their rocket programs. IIRC the USA had the V-2 team, the Soviet Union had the Wasserfall team, and the French got the folks working on rocketplanes.

Still, I wonder why some seem to like putting Europe's space program down so much. I mean, Arianespace had for many years the commercial launch market leader in Ariane, ESA subcontractors designed some nice launchers, have working indigenous LH2 rocket designs, and manage to do Carbon/Carbon rocket nozzles. Is this not significant?

The link doesn't mention it, but I remember reading an article about then-curring edeg FEM (finite element method) thermal simulations on the Hermes nose cone. Computations showed that the nose cone would overheat during reentry and that the material of choice for the nose cone tile was unobtainium. Of course, it might just have been a technical excuse to scrap a project doomed by management failures, as is too often the case with state-run projects.

The Kliper is a response to the space shuttle not the CEV.

No. The Buran was a response to the space shuttle. The Phase 1 contract for the CEV was awarded in 2004 (before the elections; meaning the idea was out there long before that). The initial press release for the Kliper was in 2004 as well. The Kliper was a response to the CEV.

-everphilski-

Which doesn't really support your original claim that Soyuz is 'much safer'. At best it shows it is might be slightly safer, but the sample size is small enough that is statistically pretty meaningless. Especially if you start to look at the other close calls Soyuz has had: Soyuz 5 the first attempt of Soyuz 18 the first attempt at Soyuz t-10 The first 2 of those were only non-fatal by a large amount of luck.

Nor is recent history flawless:
- Loss of cabin pressure on TMA-6 landing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/
- Thruster malfunction on TMA-5 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma5.html
- battery problems on TMA-5 http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/04/soyuz_ba ttery_p.html
- Pyro accident and H2O2 tank problems in TMA-5 prelaunch processing. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp10/status .html
- Fuel pressurization problem on TMA-3 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp8_soyuz_04 0428.html
- Flight computer failure/ballistic landing on TMA-1 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma1.html

The above obviously aren't in the same league as the early incidents, but do show a system that is encountering a significant loss of redundancy on nearly every flight. If you go back over the Mir era flights, you will find plenty more, although the Russians were even less inclined to talk about them.

I'm not trying to bash Soyuz... if you offered me a seat today, I'd jump on it. I'm just pointing out that the commonly held assumption that it is a whole lot safer than the shuttle doesn't really add up.

Which doesn't really support your original claim that Soyuz is 'much safer'. At best it shows it is might be slightly safer, but the sample size is small enough that is statistically pretty meaningless. Especially if you start to look at the other close calls Soyuz has had: Soyuz 5 the first attempt of Soyuz 18 the first attempt at Soyuz t-10 The first 2 of those were only non-fatal by a large amount of luck.

Nor is recent history flawless:
- Loss of cabin pressure on TMA-6 landing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/
- Thruster malfunction on TMA-5 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma5.html
- battery problems on TMA-5 http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/04/soyuz_ba ttery_p.html
- Pyro accident and H2O2 tank problems in TMA-5 prelaunch processing. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp10/status .html
- Fuel pressurization problem on TMA-3 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp8_soyuz_04 0428.html
- Flight computer failure/ballistic landing on TMA-1 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma1.html

The above obviously aren't in the same league as the early incidents, but do show a system that is encountering a significant loss of redundancy on nearly every flight. If you go back over the Mir era flights, you will find plenty more, although the Russians were even less inclined to talk about them.

I'm not trying to bash Soyuz... if you offered me a seat today, I'd jump on it. I'm just pointing out that the commonly held assumption that it is a whole lot safer than the shuttle doesn't really add up.

Which doesn't really support your original claim that Soyuz is 'much safer'. At best it shows it is might be slightly safer, but the sample size is small enough that is statistically pretty meaningless. Especially if you start to look at the other close calls Soyuz has had: Soyuz 5 the first attempt of Soyuz 18 the first attempt at Soyuz t-10 The first 2 of those were only non-fatal by a large amount of luck.

Nor is recent history flawless:
- Loss of cabin pressure on TMA-6 landing http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9888881/
- Thruster malfunction on TMA-5 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma5.html
- battery problems on TMA-5 http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/04/soyuz_ba ttery_p.html
- Pyro accident and H2O2 tank problems in TMA-5 prelaunch processing. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/station/exp10/status .html
- Fuel pressurization problem on TMA-3 http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/exp8_soyuz_04 0428.html
- Flight computer failure/ballistic landing on TMA-1 http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_soyuztma1.html

The above obviously aren't in the same league as the early incidents, but do show a system that is encountering a significant loss of redundancy on nearly every flight. If you go back over the Mir era flights, you will find plenty more, although the Russians were even less inclined to talk about them.

I'm not trying to bash Soyuz... if you offered me a seat today, I'd jump on it. I'm just pointing out that the commonly held assumption that it is a whole lot safer than the shuttle doesn't really add up.

I looked at the aforementioned wikipedia article, and it is lame at best, which is something I have discovered about that site. I use wiki as a last resort most of the time.

If you want better info on ISS, go here. Or, if you wish, just google "international space station history".

... as for the obvious question "Why don't we launch from Hawaii, then?" I don't know. This page indicates that it was considered at one point, but rejected in favor of Cape Canaveral being cheaper for some unspecified reason.

They could have done that, but it would have added a *lot* of weight - and that would have reduced payload. Shuttle's design was all about trade-offs; one of the initial requirements from the Air Force was for a very generous cross-range requirement, that ate up a lot of spare weight.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

They'd already added extra engines to the orbiter to give it an abort capability, remember. Anyway, if you're interested read the above link for a detailed history of the design compromises that were made.

Jules Verne thought that in the future man would get to the moon by being fired there in a bullet shaped craft from a gigantic canon, and for a time afterwards many scientists agreed that the easiest way to get something into orbit would be some form of "Verne canon". Of course then you get all those wacky guys in the 20s playing around with rockets with good results. Later some Germans sped up the research into these rockets to be used as weapons of war and the development of rocket systems well, skyrocketed. Several of their best rocket scientists went to the West after WWII and development continued, though this time the focus was split between missile design and space exploration. Meanwhile, in Canada a few nutty guys were involed in a little project called the High Altitude Research Program (HARP), the idea was that payloads could simply be fired into orbit by a huge canon, mind you the payloads would be inorganic (satellites, radar chaff, other innert material, etc) because the escape velocity would be too great for living creatures to widthstand.

At the time (the 60s) people were interested in sending people into space, not to mention the Canadian Gov't no longer had interest in the project it was killed off by 1967. Now, I think the focus has changed a bit (what with successful robotic expeditions and the desire for a cheap way to get material into orbit) that the Verne Canon might once again be relevant.

There has been one British astronaut flying under a UK flag, Helen Sharman, on a Soyuz, in 1991.

Soyuz was designed by Sergei Korolev's design team as the R-7 ICBM. UR-100N (NATO designation SS-19) was from Vladimir Chelomei's design team (see Rokot). They also designed Proton, and that is a fairly reliable launcher. Proton is marketed by ILS.

Soyuz was designed by Sergei Korolev's design team as the R-7 ICBM. UR-100N (NATO designation SS-19) was from Vladimir Chelomei's design team (see Rokot). They also designed Proton, and that is a fairly reliable launcher. Proton is marketed by ILS.

The launch of a Soyuz costs around 20M US$. Roskosmos is basically having Olsen pay for the entire flight. Still, that is pretty cheap. NASA will have to pay Energia (or whoever the operator is, that's not quite clear) 60M US$, and a tourist who wants to fly around the moon (that includes two Soyuz launches) pays 100M US$ to Space Adventures, an American company. The two launches for the moonflight are necessary to get the Soyuz-TMA to escape orbit.

Guess which is the highest-payload rocket in the market right now? That is right, the 10 ton Ariane 5 ECA.

Really? I could have sworn that was the Atlas V Heavy with 25000 kg to GTO. The Delta IV Heavy comes in next with 13,130 kg to GTO, leaving the Ariane 5 in third with 10,500 kg to GTO.

Russia's past experience with Buran TPS was allegedly less than stellar, with the thing returning with a lot of tiles blown off and the chassis warped from the temperatures at reentry.

*cough*Bullshit*cough* That was a rumor started on Usenet years ago. It has since been tracked down and squashed.

This will most likely need a new rocket,

It will use the Zenit booster.

new launch facilities

Is there something wrong with the Russian Cosmodrome?

and then you will have to put a winged vehicle on top of a rocket

<sarcasm>No!</sarcasm>

which to the best of my knowledge no one has got working yet.

You know, the Space Shuttle didn't just appear out of nowhere. The idea came from the Dynasoar program which was able to trace its roots back to the original German rocketry done during WWII. No one has yet used inline wings because of reentry problems with the vehicle, not launch problems.

The Clipper functions very differently from the shuttle; it doesn't do a winged landing. The aerodynamic shape is a "lifting body". This helps it stay in the atmosphere longer during reentry (making it easier to take reentry heating) and provides for more manuverability before landing (to prevent things like breaking through a frozen lake or nearly rolling off a cliff. The slowing of its landing, however, is to be due to parachutes.

The Clipper functions very differently from the shuttle; it doesn't do a winged landing. The aerodynamic shape is a "lifting body". This helps it stay in the atmosphere longer during reentry (making it easier to take reentry heating) and provides for more manuverability before landing (to prevent things like breaking through a frozen lake or nearly rolling off a cliff. The slowing of its landing, however, is to be due to parachutes.

Actually the USSR has pursued nuclear and nuclear-electricpropulsion. Their limited funding has all but ceased these efforts but a partnership with the EU may accellerate those projects. Of course the US will not be of any assistance as long as they continue to beat their chests regarding Iran. But as we've seen in recent days, practical matters can overcome congressional paranoia.

The big problem with the Soviet lunar program wasn't their crew vehicle - it was the N1 booster. The N1 was a humiliatingly bad piece of junk: four launches, four catastrophic failures. Heck, they even messed up when christening the first booster - they broke the bottle of champaign over the crawler instead of the rocket ;)

Now, Buran's energia booster had the payload capacity for a lunar launch in its heaviest configuration. However, they'd have to bring the program back from the dead; there's not too much actual hardware left that could be salvaged. Perhaps not as tough as the US trying to bring back a Saturn V, but still a major, costly task.

http://www.sciencemaster.com/jump/space/shuttle.ph p

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/news/facts/shu ttlefacts-toc.html

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/shfact s.htm

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/factoids/orbite r.htm

http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/spacesta ts.html

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

You're welcome.

June 19790 - Launch Vehicle: Shuttle.
Independent studies of NASA's shuttle ordered. Nation: USA.
The new NASA Administrator, James Fletcher, had found that the NASA internal estimates of the cost to develop and operate the space shuttle were treated by the Office of Management of the Budget with great scepticism. Therefore he authorised several independent studies. Lockheed was to report on how the shuttle could reduce payload costs. Aerospace Corporation was to make an independent estimate of the cost of developing and operating the shuttle. Mathematica was to use these studies to make a definitive report comparing the cost of the shuttle with that of using existing expendable boosters.

The Mathematica study would become notorious, for it forecast enormous savings in the use of the shuttle. It became very influential in government and congressional circles in shifting opinion to support the project. This, as NASA Administrator Low would dryly comment later, was 'unfortunate'. All earlier studies for the USAF and NASA, notably a RAND study in 1970, showed no cost advantage for reusable boosters when research and development costs were taken into account. RAND had concluded that a manned space station supported by expendable boosters would be cheaper, and more flexible and useful.

Fletcher also directed NASA to take US Air Force requirements for the shuttle into account. The US Defence Department's requirements included the ability to carry 18 m long payloads, and deliver a mass of 18,000 kg to a polar orbit from Vandenberg AFB, or 30,000 kg to a low earth orbit from Cape Canaveral. The 4.5 m diameter for the payload bay was a NASA requirement, established by the planned diameter of future space station modules. 18 m x 4.5 m also corresponded to the dimensions of a liquid hydrogen tank with a mass of 30,000 kg, the lowest-density payload imaginable. The USAF also wanted an 1800 to 2400 km cross range on re-entry, and an initial operational capability of December 1977.

The Aerospace Corporation study of NASA Phase A proposals concluded that the weight of a shuttle's thermal protection system would vary in relation to the fourth root of the required cross range. Aerospace also believed that sequential ignition of the booster and orbiter was a better approach than the triamese-type all-engines running at lift-off. It also declared that the USAF's desired operational date was unrealistic -- the earliest a shuttle could be available was mid to late 1979.

Yes we do know, the program was cancelled in 1988...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

Unless the new ABM system we are deploying in alaska has a yet untested asat capability we lack the capability. Note it is not designed to lob the interceptor to the navstar altitude.

Link to the abandoned soviet system (from the 70's)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

A better link on the history.
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/starwars.htm

Note the us ASAT system had a max theorized altitude of 620 miles, navstars (gps) orbit at 12,000 miles. It comes up a little short. Navstar is not a low orbit satelite, and hitting 28 of them at once will require 28 large launches over the course of a day that will raise many eyebrows (dam celestral mechanics). If you have that many large missiles just lob the damm nukes.

Yes we do know, the program was cancelled in 1988...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

Unless the new ABM system we are deploying in alaska has a yet untested asat capability we lack the capability. Note it is not designed to lob the interceptor to the navstar altitude.

Link to the abandoned soviet system (from the 70's)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

A better link on the history.
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/starwars.htm

Note the us ASAT system had a max theorized altitude of 620 miles, navstars (gps) orbit at 12,000 miles. It comes up a little short. Navstar is not a low orbit satelite, and hitting 28 of them at once will require 28 large launches over the course of a day that will raise many eyebrows (dam celestral mechanics). If you have that many large missiles just lob the damm nukes.

Yes we do know, the program was cancelled in 1988...

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

Unless the new ABM system we are deploying in alaska has a yet untested asat capability we lack the capability. Note it is not designed to lob the interceptor to the navstar altitude.

Link to the abandoned soviet system (from the 70's)
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/asat.htm

A better link on the history.
http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/starwars.htm

Note the us ASAT system had a max theorized altitude of 620 miles, navstars (gps) orbit at 12,000 miles. It comes up a little short. Navstar is not a low orbit satelite, and hitting 28 of them at once will require 28 large launches over the course of a day that will raise many eyebrows (dam celestral mechanics). If you have that many large missiles just lob the damm nukes.

From the designation of the old satellite, I presume that this position is number 20 on GPS receiving equipment. Just a guess.

By the way, does anybody know how they plan to move the old one out of the way? According to info found here the origional was a 3-axis stabilized NAVSTAR, but I doubt it will be able to move significantly with only its thrusters.

Another interesting point: the page lists the design life of this series at 7.5 years. Which means this satellite was replaced a mere 4 years, 10 months, and 13 days beyond its expected service life.

According to this site
Saturn C-5 max payload: 127 metric tons
New Booster may payload: 100+ metric tons

May be less payload, but last time I checked we weren't building Saturn 5 components.

For crew capacity, technology has changed. We can take out a lot of mass and replace it with new technology compared to the apollo era. Remember, we were still using vacum tubes then and no solar panels. Adding solar panels (which is in the plans) means fewer batteries are needed. Replacing vacume tubes with solid state decreases power and mass and space.

The good news is that NASA are finally picking up where they left off 30 years ago. The bad news is that NASA are picking up where they left off 30 years ago. . . and we have precious little to show for the decades, lives, and many billions of dollars sacrificed to the Shuttle.

We got some info out of it, just not as much as we could have since we got sidetracked with the original moon missions. I've heard that JFK set the space program back (or held it back) 50 years. However, that does not mean we haven't gotten anything out of the shuttle. Otherwise we wouldn't be using shuttle components in these new lifters.

Which parts are complicated? Some googling suggested this page

http://www.astronautix.com/engines/rd0120.htm

which mentions the nozzle cooling system and two turbopumps as complexities. What others are there?

The fact sheet that accompanied the announcement, here, explictly states they'll be using the J2-S. Astronautix.com notes that "It was estimated by ATK Thiokol in 2005 that restarting the J-2S program, including engine fabrication, design and reliability verification, certification, and production, would require four years." Looks like the ghost of the S-IVB (America's favourite stage!) will live on yet...