Slashdot Mirror

http://www.aviationnow.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/SPACE07298.xml&headline=USAF%20Sets%20Orbital%20Spaceplane%20Test%20Flight&channel=space

Actually, it will only work on the IR-guided missiles. This would include the vast majority of man-portable SAMs, but not something like an RPG. Though in trying to shoot down a plane a .50-caliber machine gun would probably work better than an RPG. The threat that they are trying to defend against is from an individual outside the airport, trying to shoot down an airliner from a short but significant distance away. Far enough to avoid being noticed (and quickly killed or arrested) is probably too far to have much assurance of a hit from an RPG.

The laser system is apparently designed to spoof IR seekers (slightly better article; company PR site), which seems fairly intriguing. As a feasibility study, this is probably a good idea. But I think that it would be a waste of time and money to install it on airliners in general.

Funny, you can find this "article" here, here, and here. Since so many places cover this, it must be true, but for some reason, I can't find any reference to the source of this rumor here. Thanks for supporting web spammers. It's people like you that really help lower the signal to noise ratio.

Independent how? Scaled Composites has already done enough Pentagon projects to fully qualify as a member of the Military Industrial Complex.

So Elon Musk flaps his gums about what he's going to do, and its news? He should probably be concerned about the sorry state of Falcon. Then again he founded Paypal. Now there're some space credentials.

If you are looking for an interesting space story try this. I submitted the story but the slashdot priests rejected it. Maybe musk should use his billions and buy this thing.

I agree. NASA might even consider something like this. The Huygen's descent images were so familiar in a way it is easy to forget what a weird place Titan is.

Aviation Week has already covered the fact that the airship has already flown. It looks like Lockheed is in exploration mode for aircraft right now because the traditional market of milking the government teet for manned fighter and bomber contracts has a decidedly less than glorious future.

It's looking like there should be quite a bit of competition soon in human orbital spaceflight. Here are the
various competitors I can think of off-hand:
 
* USA: Shuttle-derived system, probably with a CEV capsule on top. There's several downsides to a shuttle-derived system, but it keeps the constituencies happy and should have enough government momentum to keep on going.
 
* Russia and Europe: Kliper's been searching around for financial support for a while, and it looks like they finally got at least -some- funding from Europe.
 
* China: various iterations of Shenzhou spacecraft
 
In the private sector:
 
* t/Space: The (Rutan-affiliated?) company just completed a parachute drop test and water landing of a full-scale model of their proposed CXV space capsule. It's uncertain if they'll get more funding from NASA, but their concept seems sound and may get private investment. Oh, and their web page has some really spiffy videos.
 
* SpaceX: They've already announced their intent to compete for Bigelow's
orbital prize, and their upcoming man-rated Falcon V will be large enough to carry a Gemini-style capsule.
 
Now what about destinations? Besides the ISS, we've got Robert Bigelow's inflatable space station modules, which should be up and operational by 2010, with several prototype launches before then. He's planning on selling these modules to various groups and countries, so hopefully we'll have several different space stations up there.
 
Between Shenzhou 8 and 9 China is planning on launching a small orbital laboratory, which Shenzhou 9 will be docking with. Various members of the Chinese space program have also been visiting Bigelow's facility, so perhaps we'll see them doing something with his modules.
 
The future should be interesting.

For example, here. But you should really google yourself. Russian space agency budget is mere $130 million in total per year. That is why $20 million for a paying customer is a big deal. Note that a single Shuttle launch costs around $400-500 million. Presently the Russians are not receiving even the contract work they used to due to the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 as the US law forbids it.

However, I won't be heartened if the numbers show the US is "saving money" by investing it in the Russian space industry rather than our own. Our space program spins off manifold its cost in benefit to our economy, not to mention our national pride.

What I was pointing out is that the total amount is miniscule by comparison to the NASA budget.

I don't mind producing science and engineering knowledge the rest of the world also gets secondhand. In fact, that's one of the benefits to the US: we're valuable to other countries. It's one of the social benefits from the essentially transnational scientific community that has been possibly the most civilizing force in our species for hundreds of years. But I don't want us getting it secondhand from other countries at our expense.

It all depends by what do you mean at your "expense". The zero-g Russian experience from two decades of operating orbital facilities would be very expensive to obtain otherwise. Or are you suggesting that the US should have not built the ISS with the rest of the world and made a new Skylab (NASA's last orbital habitat experience was 30 years old)?

I want us investing in our own space industry, which also grows our own commercial aerospace industry (those huge contracts go to aerospace corporations, not just relatively small NASA units). So we can stay competitive, even with the extremely experienced Russians and their cheaper economy.

As I said, you are making an issue from some spare change on the fringes of the American space activities.

It's looking like there should be quite a bit of competition soon in human orbital spaceflight. Here are the various competitors I can think of off-hand:

* USA: Shuttle-derived system, probably with a CEV capsule on top. There's several downsides to a shuttle-derived system, but it keeps the constituencies happy and should have enough government momentum to keep on going.

* Russia and Europe: Kliper's been searching around for financial support for a while, and it looks like they finally got at least -some- funding from Europe.

* China: various iterations of Shenzhou spacecraft

In the private sector:

* t/Space: The (Rutan-affiliated?) company just completed a parachute drop test and water landing of a full-scale model of their proposed CXV space capsule. It's uncertain if they'll get more funding from NASA, but their concept seems sound and may get private investment. Oh, and their web page has some really spiffy videos.

* SpaceX: They've already announced their intent to compete for Bigelow's orbital prize, and their upcoming man-rated Falcon V will be large enough to carry a Gemini-style capsule.

Now what about destinations? Besides the ISS, we've got Robert Bigelow's inflatable space station modules, which should be up and operational by 2010, with several prototype launches before then. He's planning on selling these modules to various groups and countries, so hopefully we'll have several different space stations up there.

Between Shenzhou 8 and 9 China is planning on launching a small orbital laboratory, which Shenzhou 9 will be docking with. Various members of the Chinese space program have also been visiting Bigelow's facility, so perhaps we'll see them doing something with his modules.

The future should be interesting.

Last year Aviation Week & Space Technology had a detailed article on Bigelow Aerospace. I don't believe I've ever heard somebody refer to them as a pulp rag by any means.

Given that this structure has been receiving more support and interest lately, why has no government (especially NASA) looked at it for building a space station?

According to this article, there have been some negotiations with the Chinese government. I believe the docking module is already being designed to fit with a Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft.

From the article:

China is eyeing participation in new privately funded U.S. space ventures, such as the Bigelow Aerospace inflatable habitat for biotech or other space-business endeavors.

A Chinese role in these ventures could challenge the U.S. government to focus more attention on space cooperation with China. This is especially so, since the U.S. State Dept. would have to rule on such commercial cooperation. ...

China Great Wall Industries managers recently visited Bigelow facilities in Nevada. They sounded out the company on the possible launch of Bigelow test or operational modules on Long March boosters or the in-orbit support of Nautilus by Shenzhou Chinese manned spacecraft.

The Chinese are also planning to develop their own small space station, which could theoretically provide orbital infrastructure for the docking of a Nautilus inflatable.

"We talked to the Chinese on a confidential basis, and they indicated they are thinking seriously of opening their program to space commercialization," said Robert T. Bigelow, president and founder of the company. ...

An entrepreneur who made his fortune as the founder of Budget Suites of America, along with other real estate deals, Bigelow is personally financing the module development, costing several tens of millions of dollars. He has not had detailed discussions with the Chinese, and has talked more with the Russians about potential Soyuz in-orbit and launch support. But he also said there's an "opportunity for America" in cooperating with the Chinese space program, and he disagrees with what he regards as the current negative U.S. policy toward such cooperation.

First, read this article.

Right now, launch costs are the biggest barrier to having lots of cool things (orbital hotels, factories, lunar bases, etc.) zipping around in space. According to this interview, Musk was previously planning on self-funding a mission to put an experimental greenhouse on Mars, but decided to start SpaceX when he realized that the overall mission cost would be dominated by the launch price.

SpaceX's Falcon I is designed to compete with the Pegasus rocket, which currently dominates the "low-cost" launch market. The Pegasus costs around $20 million to launch 375kg into space. The Falcon I will cost $6 million to launch 670kg into space. Stated differently, the Pegasus costs around $53,000 per kg, while the Falcon I will cost around $9000 per kg.

Things change even more with SpaceX's larger Falcon V rocket, scheduled for a launch this November. This will compete directly with the Delta IV Medium, which costs $90 million to lift 8600kg to LEO. The Falcon V will cost $12 million to lift 6020kg to LEO. That's around $10000 per kg for the Delta IV Medium and around $2000 per kg for the Falcon V.

One of SpaceX's goals is to reuse as much in terms of engines, components, and software as they build larger and larger rocket. As they benefit from economies of scale and build larger rockets, the costs will only drop.

"There is some interest in maybe trying to pass something, either as a stand-alone bill or some other vehicle, during the lame-duck session," Sponberg said during an industry day in Washington Nov. 15. "Even if that doesn't happen, I would anticipate that when the new Congress comes in early next year, we [will] probably move out pretty quickly to try to get that authorization for those larger prizes."

Here's the video for the Centennial Challenge presentation and the PDF slides.

Your understanding is not correct.

NASA and the Air Force were going to co-operate on the X43-C project (a follow on to the X43-A), but it was cancelled. However, hypersonics research at NASA is not over. You can read all about it here.

One reason why it makes sense for NASA to work on this is that the technology may be used to improve access to space. This is not an avenue the USAF is likely to pursue.

More details available from SpaceFlightNow, which is actually a re-print of an Aviation Week & Space Technology article.

I work at Lockheed, and it bothers me to no end when we have to fix old systems that have been in place since the 70's... written in some crippled form of assembly for god's sake.

I would love to see newer systems out there, in fact we are in the process now of replacing the enroute traffic systems across the country right now.

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/channel_avia tiondaily_story.jsp?id=news/pro08134.xml

Not only that, but the US manned space program shouldn't necessarily be limited to government efforts. Besides the great suborbital work being done by the X Prize contestants, SpaceX is looking very promising.

In a couple of months, SpaceX will start launching their Falcon I vehicle, which can carry about 500 kg of payload to low earth orbit for $6 million, a fraction of what it currently costs. Next year they're scheduled to launch their Falcon V, which will be considerably larger, carrying about 4000 kg to LEO. This is all being done without government funding.

Notably, the maiden flight of the Falcon V will carry a prototype of the inflatable space station module being produced by Bigelow Aerospace. Additionally, the Falcon V is planned to be man-rated, the first spacecraft to have such a rating since the space shuttle.

This same guy was featured in one of the McGraw-Hill aviation mags (maybe Aviation Week?) preaching the same thing over 6 months ago - heck, I submitted it as a story then (Rejected, of course). He's watching his business base evaporate.

Green Hills can still make money if they debug their software, work on tools and add platforms - areas where F/OSS doesn't have the depth - esp. in niche processors.

According to this, SS1 does have attitude thrusters.

I already posted this in another discussion here, but probably it is worth mentioning again. The bigger cousin of X-43A, X-43C, is being cancelled because it does not fit in the new space plans.

The official site of RS-84 does not mention it but it seems to be true. I saw the announcement in usenet .

Gimmie a break; every country with a leisure economy (i.e., those that can afford it) does this research. America has always had the leisure economy (yes, even now) and has fostered a culture of individualistic quirky projects. America is not lacking in goofy cool projects.

--
Evan

Parent should not have been marked flamebait. This is the straight truth (though my understanding is that the death toll sits at at least 23).

I found this at Aviation Now

JSFs will eventually take on the Air Force's close air support mission, although in the interim some A-10s will be enhanced to continue the role. Other A-10s will be retired to free up funds to upgrade the remaining aircraft. Hornburg says creating the A-10 "on steroids" would involve upgrades: new avionics, new engines, precision strike capabilities (only some of the ground-attack aircraft currently carry a targeting pod) and data link additions. The exact components to be added may not be known for some time, but Hornburg says that over the summer the plan should exist at a macro level.

THE A-10S' ENGINES will likely be General Electric TF34-100Bs, using parts from the existing powerplants but adding 33-35% more thrust, according to industry officials. The aircraft also would be slated for a self-protection boost, with the common missile warning system and Raytheon's Comet pyrophoric flare pod considered the likely devices to be installed.

It seems to me that given all of the helo losses to small arms fire in Iraq, the military is looking toward fixed wing attack aircraft for ground support in the future.

You forget highly urban markets where all of the available radio stations (both AM and FM) have been taken over by Clear Channel, and the available public radio stations have all gone NPR, or don't have enough power to reach your area (ie, their transmitter is in a valley.)

Ironically, XM is owned in part by Clear Channel - could it be they have a vested interest in making local radio so crappy, that people will HAVE to subscribe to XM?

Eight years from now, an Ariane 5 is expected to boost the 5,400-kg. (11,880-lb.) observatory toward the second Lagrangian point (L2), 1.5 million km. (930,000 mi.) beyond Earth's orbit

That's a pretty good distance from the Hubble.

One of the greatest side-effects of the claiming of the X Prize will be something that no one could have predicted just a year ago:

The X Prize will be won while the space shuttle is grounded.

So what, you might ask. Well, it's a big deal. For years, various groups have been trying to persuade NASA to work with, not compete with,
private ventures. And NASA has always given many reasons to refuse, the biggest one being "when was the last time a private company flew a man in space on their own rocket... er, never?" Of course, that's a perfectly legitimate concern.

But when the X-Prize is won while the shuttle is grounded, I think it will send a big message to both NASA and the people in the Administration who hold the purse strings, and we might see some interesting changes in NASA policy, the kind of changes that might speed up the day when every middle class American can enjoy a trip into space for a reasonable price.

Cool, huh?

And it's clear that the X Prize is going to be won soon. Check out
this article, which describes Rutan's plans to fly into space by December.

MJC

Interesting bit about inflation cages.

sPh

And, online versions mean that you don't have to toss out a pile of mags every so often.

I just read this week's copy of Aviation Week, and it said somewhere that NASA's overall budget is like somewhere like 15 billion bucks. Who cares about 15k? It's spit in a bucket!

Dunn is also working on Fuel Cell planes.

Fuel Cell and Aviation

He says, "There is a limitless supply of hydrogen, and it poses no environmental harm, unlike carbon dioxide and other compounds generated by traditional gasoline or diesel engines," Dunn said. "

It's a story picked up from the London-based Times, which apparently quotes the UK's Civial Aviation Authority as saying "more research is needed".

Throwing a few keywords at Google found this article in Aviation Week's online pages from June 17 amongst other stories. From this, it appears that the unexpected effects occured at much higher usage levels than would be typical in consumer devices and only under some usage scenarios. While it does sound as though the interaction between this new source of interference and aircraft electronics needs more investigation, gleeful /. extrapolations to hand-held open-spark transmitters appear unwarranted.

Relax. The sky isn't falling yet.

Here. Also being considered for the AC-130 gunship. Explanation of aiming problems, one turret or two, etc. Much more detail.

Mig-31 has the same characteristics (Mach 3), and is still on duty (it's an evolution of Mig-25).

But i think that the famous U2 (it's called TR-1 in latest evolutions), was shot by a SAM, not that Mig.

BTW, SR-71 shouldn't have been called that way, it's a mistake from Carter. I think it should have been RS-71.

Make the title (that which appears in the title bar of your browser window) describe what the page is. At least on my browser, when you bookmark a page, this title is what appears in the bookmarks list. In this context, "Welcome", "Home", "Buy Online" etc. are very unhelpful, but "Acme Products Mail Order" lets me find your site again.

Others have commented on font - I'll just point to an example of how not to do it. Here is a story from Aviation Week. Notice how, having used a minscule font, they then add to the effect by using mid-grey for the text on a white background.

Checkout also the interface hall of shame, although this is aimed more at applications than web pages.

This article had an annoying lack of details. These stories have more information on why this is being explored now:

aviationnow
and
savannahmorningnews

While the thought of having a hypersonic commercial vehicle is enticing, I think the intended use of scramjets are more for the military than anything. Remember this is a DARPA project. There isn't many DARPA projects that made it into the commercial realm. Well, I can think of at least one. ;-)

Heck, just a hypersonic projectile and/or missile would really change the landscape for Ballistic Missle Defense. Having a velocity several times faster than your target is a major advantage.

It wasn't mentioned in the article but the projectile used gaseous ethylene at 1000 psi, not hydgrogen, as its fuel. I love my Aviation Week subscription. :-)

As mentioned in another posting hydrogen embrittlement would be a concern in a larger vehicle, this is a 20% scale model. The biggest barrier is heating. Atmospheric heating is a big deal at Mach 7+.

A more detailed article can be found here at Aviation Weeks online site.

According to someone I know on the project, they might have a launch opportunity for Triana if they send the shuttle up to recover UARS.

According to this article, when reusable launch vehicles become commonplace, MRO spending (maintenance, repair and overhaul) will eclipse the revenues from building the launchers.

look on the AviationNow site here

Any odds on it landing on NASA HQ ?

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken

look on the AviationNow site here

Any odds on it landing on NASA HQ ?

TastesLikeHerringFlavoredChicken