Slashdot Mirror

That is when SpaceX will go live with crew capability

I'm not sure if this is what you're getting at, but one of the limitations (if not the primary limitation) on the crew size is the lack of escape vehicle capacity. One possible option being looked at is to use on of SpaceX's Dragon capsules as a long-term crew escape vehicle docked to the ISS, which would allow for a higher crew capacity.

the actual video of the launch is here: WhiteKnightTwo launch

Taken from a comment on
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/30/hubble-telescope-back-on-the-air/

# Dan Fischer Says:
October 30th, 2008 at 10:09 am

Seems youâ(TM)ve missed the new bad news for Hubble, namely trouble with the ground spare that is to go up with the shuttle - this mission is now in danger. Todays NASA telecon (at 21:00 UTC) will be interesting â¦

Not of the interior, but someone walking around the outside. Video.

To me, it's depressingly unimpressive.

Flight article about the same thing

The only new picture i've seen is this grainy airborne spy shot that shows the wing attached to at least one of the booms.

I'm a little surprised that there are not more frequent progress updates from Virgin Galactic given the level of interest in the project.

Sure they can, they actually don't even need pilots for that. See here.

we have used RC aircrafts in the Arctic, using an Open Source autopilot

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2008/04/03/222680/cots-uav-makes-arctic-debut.html

The US hasn't had a man-rated traditional stack since the last Apollo in 1976, but the next-gen Ares launcher will be a traditional inline design with the payload at the top. That, plus the lack of enormous asymmetrical control and lifting surfaces required for (some value of) atmospheric flight pretty much eliminates the sources of danger caused by the shuttle design.

OTOH, the somewhat... controversial? decision to make the Ares first stage an adaption of the existing shuttle solid rocket boosters is proving rather problematic, owing to the well-known pogo oscillation modthrusterse problems of SRBs. (that's just a random story that popped up on google, no doubt there are much better overviews elsewhere.) Basically as designed the vehicle would crush the crew to jelly with high frequency +/1 70G vertical oscillations (shortly before the entire stack shakes itself to pieces.) (This wasn't a problem on the shuttle because there are two SRBs coupled through the external tank.)

Anyway, in a few years' time we'll be able to start comparing the safety of like with like.

No-one outside the space geek community seems to have noticed, but the Ariane-V launched ATV cargo vessel (payload: ~20 tons) has now launched human flight-rated hardware (the ATV, now docked to ISS), albeit without humans in it when it went off. I suspect there are some interesting things being doodled on napkins at cafes and bars all over Darmstadt.

NASA wants two separate companies to develop two separate vehicles capable of unmanned resupply of the ISS in a very short time frame. Now, this is an agency that has access to literally DOZENS of off the shelf rockets. None of them will do.

Actually, two of the four finalists are proposing to use those already-existing off-the-shelf rockets you mention. If I understand correctly, both Spacehab and PlanetSpace have partnered with Lockheed Martin in order to use their currently-existing rockets.

For future reference, since it wasn't mentioned in the original submission, here are the four finalists (info from rlvnews.com:

- Spacehab
- Andrews Space
- Orbital Sciences
- PlanetSpace

You have missed some interesting postings of late. here and Here. COTs 2 is going to be awarded shortly. That will PROBABLY go to spacedev. The real issue for NASA is astronaut launches, not cargo (EU's ATM and hopefully Japan's can carry the load). That pretty much means that spacedev will win COTs 2 (assuming that this is not another awarding to friends like kistler was). Spacex and Bigelow are not really leapfrogging. They are just getting marketing and they are the closests to launch. Scaled/virgin will have passengers to LEO by 2011(2012 at the outside). No doubt bigelow will be making heavy use of that. While I do not know, I think that scaled has the cheapest approach to space for LEO. But it will not carry beyond it, nor carry a saturn's worth of cargo. As to t/space, they strike me as being a LONG way back. Spacedev has the launcher (atlas or delta) as well as they have a CURRENT safe engine (their hybrid). In fact, they have already designed and built a tug boat for it. I believe that is what they are looking to launch on spacex's falcon 1 (as small version). So all that is left is the ship itself. Of course, the wind studies on it have already been done. They have built a mock up and are ready to go. Basically, they might be able to have human launch by middle 2010 if they win the COTS now. They might also have a tug boat to boot by allowing the service module drop off prior to returning. But this is all just guessing on my part.

So why the others? Armadillo and blue origin are looking at recreating the DC-X/lunar module. Basically, an engine that carries a load on top. But when you think about it, that approach really will not work for cheaply going to orbit from here. The reason is that we can carry the load part way up via plane (scaled) or simply use a big rocket from launch pad. But armadillos/blue origin/dcx is great for a place with lower gravity and you do not have a launch pad. IOW, it becomes a good lander on the moon/mars. Neither Bigelow nor Spacex's really will do that. So if these 2 change their set-up (a space truck for other smaller planets), then one or both will be in there.

Good point on the NEOs. But I would think that we would send a robot to those to simply push them into orbit here.

Secondly, NASA hasn't paid a dime towards the two Falcon 1 launches that have been carried out so far -- they were funded by DARPA, because the Air Force wants cheap access to space too (one of the other goals is very fast order-to-launch capability). That is false. First, Musk has openly said that he has used COTS money to help pay for the development on this. But ignoring that, why did Kisteler cost COTS 25Million for producing nothing? The simply fact is that COTS IS paying these ppl to develop these systems. And COTS has sent Spacex something liket 45 Million already. Darpa has been wishy-washy about all this. They paid for part of the first launch, but nothing towards the 2'nd or upcoming 3rd.
It's not SpaceX putting pressure on NASA -- it's NASA being enthusiastic about what SpaceX are doing, and worried about the political ramifications of giving billions of dollars more to the Russians to fly twice as many Soyuz missions.
This is because companies have told the agency that to accommodate industry lead times they need a contract next year. So the US agency intends to place the contract then.
Finally, the reason SpaceX have had two "failed" launches so far is because they're trying to move much more quickly and cheaply than the traditional approach, which is not to launch anything until they're absolutely certain it'll work flawlessly. Getting it Right First Time is very expensive.
Did I say that it was because they were quick/cheap? The truth is that this IS rocket science. Most systems have had 2-4 failures in the first few. My point to the original poster was not that Spacex was failing, but that NASA has been supportive of private enterprise. DARPA/DOD, OTH, has been lukewarm. They have been supportive of EELV with Boeing/LMart, that they allowed to just merge (big mistake for America). If you follow though a number of my postings, you will find that I am a big fan of spacex. But by the same token, credit must be given where due. Ppl here seem to not want to do that.
As to the costs, Yeah, I agree.

Trolling? Hmmm. Do you feel that you have no argument so bad that you need to resort to ad homen attacks?

"Flying unmanned is harder than sitting in the seat. Among other things, you can't feel the aircraft moving around(wind gusts), and you can't hear the change in engine sounds, and your vision is limited to what is on the monitor."

I blame the design of the system for that fault. The plane should know if the input it is getting will make it crash. The pilot station and engine also should not shutdown mid-flight. The Predators keep crashing and they keep blaming the pilots. At some point, the pilot is no longer at fault. They should be able to design this thing to take bad inputs from the pilot so the thing doesn't go into a dying spin to the ground.

Russian TV has video, with more technical details. They put a drag chute on the bomb, which they need if it's a fuel-air explosive - those don't work well if they're moving too fast. It doesn't seem to have a guidance system, so it's more of an area weapon than a bunker-buster. It's dropped from a bomber, so it can be delivered into hostile airspace.

The US's GBU-43/B bomb is GPS/inertial guided, using fins but no drag chute. It's not quite as powerful, but usually hits on target. It's dropped from a C-130 transport, which is not too hard to shoot down, so you have to have total air superiority to use the thing.

Neither has anywhere near the power of even a small tactical nuclear weapon.

Research into making more efficient and quieter propellers was conducted from the mid-70s to the mid-80s, because of the greater fuel efficiency of propellor-driven aircraft in light of the Arab oil embargo. This research led to the development of the 'propfan', a turboprop engine with wider, swept-back propeller blades. The Advanced Turboprop Project at NASA's Lewis Research Center's developed engine and propeller designs that would spark a resurgence of the turboprop era, but socio-economic factors -- primarily driven by a reduction in fuel costs, reducing the perception of any need for immediate and radical fuel conservation -- kept the new designs from making more than a peripheral entry to the aviation market. Many modern turboprop aircraft use propellers incorporating advances developed by the ATP, and the research contributed to the development of the high-bypass turbofan jet engines used in most modern airliners, but there was no significant return to the use of turboprop aircraft in commercial aviation. Research has continued, with some engine designs becoming more exotic, as in this image or this one, but commercial applications of the research continue to use ducted fan designs, such as the newest UHB (ultra-high bypass) turbofan designs. The designs produced by this research, however, bear sufficient similarities to the screw design in the satellite photo that it is clear that the same overall design considerations apply, subject to the differences in density, viscosity, and compressibility of the driving medium in each design case.

Obviously whoever supplied the inertial navigation solution for the F22 hasn't quite gotten there yet...

from a related article in flightglobal.com:
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/07/21 1939/too-many-us-weapons-not-suitable-says-top-dod -operational.html

One of the systems judged not operationally suitable is the Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor, says the report on fiscal year 2006 test activity. Follow-on testing completed last year judged the aircraft operationally effective, but cited deficiencies in air-to-ground weapons integration and defensive avionics capability, low diagnostics accuracy, long repair times and inadequate subsystem reliability.

The US Air Force is playing down the concerns, with Air Combat Command chief Gen Ronald Keys saying the F-22 is "ready to go to war". The first overseas deployment, to Kadena AFB in Japan, begins this month.
end quote

also from TFA:

Taking delivery of the first F-22 for the Pacific Air Forces at Lockheed's Marietta, Georgia plant on Monday, USAF Gen Paul Hester said the reason for sending the Raptors to Kadena is "to learn how to deploy with the F-22..."

PACAF's F-22s are being delivered to Langley for training, with the first eight aircraft to arrive at Elmendorf AFB in Alaska in August and two squadrons to be operational by the end of 2008. Eventually, Raptors will also be based at Hickam.
end quote

      The F-22 is judged not operationally suitable and hasn't been set up in the states for training with squadrons yet, but is being rushed straight to Japan because the Air Force says it's "ready to go to war"?

      At what point are generals nothing more than administration lackeys? Whatever it is, I think we've reached it.

  rd

For those who find it fishy that there's no article link for this story, here is one: http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/02/14/21 2102/pictures-navigational-software-glitch-forces- lockheed-martin-f-22-raptors-back-to-hawaii.html

jokes apart, [sic] will we be booting our cars up and installing flash updates every week to prevent computer viruses getting into the control systems?

It's no joke.

I take it you're a jealous Boeing fan. I encounter many of you on airdisaster.com every day but most have arguments that actually have some factual basis (I'm considered pretty neutral there since I'm neither European or American).

Who didn't see this one coming? A plane that is only a viable solution for no more than a handfull of routes worldwide, and based on the now long-dead "Mega-Hub" system (which has since given way to the "micro-hub" system).

Nobody knows for sure what the future of airtravel will be like but both Airbus and Boeing employ the best people possible to analyze the market since their salaries are nothing compared to the costs of developing new aircraft - I think we can safely say that their analyses are much better than yours and boeing have now also drawn the conclusion that there is demand for a larger aircraft than the 747 and have indeed decided to build a larger variant. So far they have only been able to sell the cargo version of it, though (quite understandable since the 747 has certain benefits over the A380 as a cargo plane but it remains to be seen if any airline will want a passenger version when the A380 is available).

Now couple that with the fact that it requires a specialized jetway to accomidate for the double-decker seating arrangement.

It doesn't require it - it only makes loading and unloading faster but that won't be relevant until a few years from now when there are more of it in existence.

Finally, add to that that the last real-life emergency exit test couldn't break 45 minutes for getting everyone out of the plane... the FAA requires 5 minutes; even the 747-400 can pull that off.

You got all the facts wrong. The FAA requires that both passengers and crew can be evacuated within 90 seconds with half the emergency exits blocked. The A380 passed with flying colors evacuating 853 passengers and 20 crew in 78 seconds (and remarkably few injuries compared to other such trials).

Here's the funniest part. Boeing decided to play it safe for a while, and then later announced a redesign of the 747, stretching the double-decker section to about half to 2/3rds the way down the plane, surpassing the capacity of the A380 with an already tried-and-true airframe design.

As I already noted, Boeing did indeed have to concede that there was a market for such a large airliner but the maximum pax capacity of the new Boeing is 467 vs. the A380's 853. They were certainly not playing it safe, though - it was announced without having a single launch customer because they had to have something for airlines to consider in addition to the A380.

Since then (something like 8 months ago), I've heard that many of the A380 orders have been canceled and shifted to Boeing's design. In the mean-time, Boeing creates one of the most revolutionary mid-large sized jets (the Dreamliner), which is proving to be a huge success (order-wise).

FedEx are the only customer to have canceled their order (but maintained their options). Quantas has placed an additional order and Singapore Airlines have placed two additional orders (after the delays had been announced and they are the launch customer and have waited for longer than anyone).

Airbus, your days are numbered, you've screwed up BIG TIME, and I mean "PlayStation 3" BIG TIME.

Admittedly, the A380 will take much longer to reach break-even but Airbus has been selling more aircraft than Boeing during the last three years and all other models have been more profitable than ever in the history of the company (Boeing still has more of the widebody market, which has higher profit margins per aircraft, though). So despite a number of managerial fuck-ups, Airbus' future looks good.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/2006/11/28/Na vigation/177/210809/USAF+starts+routine+flights+ov er+USA+of+Global+Hawk+UAV,+following+completion+of +Block+10.html

From: ESG gives you wings - the parachute system for special operations

In the future, high-tech wings will make it possible for parachutists to quickly cover a distance of up to 200 kilometres. (Berlin, 15 May 2006)
ESG Elektroniksystem- und Logistik-GmbH and Dräger (both part of the SPELCO Consortium) have designed a parachute system for the special operations units of the German Bundeswehr. The system has already been in use since 2003 but in the future it will be complemented with a special subsystem that is currently being developed in the form of a modular wing that is connected to the parachute. The wing is designed to enable parachutists to cover a distance of up to 200 kilometres (in the development stage).

As it is now, the system allows operation units to jump from a height of about ten kilo-metres and to cover a distance of up to 40 kilometres carrying up to 100 kilogrammes of equipment. Parachutists can thus penetrate into areas that are difficult to reach without their transport planes having to fly into a danger zone. At the same time, tracing this almost 100% silent parachute system using air or ground-based radar systems is extremely difficult. Night operations or operations under adverse weather conditions are possible.

With the newly developed wing, the radius of operation for the parachute is increased considerably. The parachutists can reach their target at a greater speed and are even less detectable than before. Also, the new wing allows them to operate unaffected, to a large extent, by wind conditions. The wing will be equipped with a guiding and stabilisation system. The integration of small turbo jet drives for UAVs in the second development stage will make it possible to carry persons over long distances without the need to jump from an extreme height.

And here's some info on the next generation (powered version).

From: James Bond-style strap-on jet pack flying wing to extend special forces' reach .

Two German companies are developing a propelled wing-suit for skydiving military personnel. The suit would allow the wearer to travel 200 km when dropped from 13,000 feet with the chute opening around 5000 ft. The wing has aileron- and flap-like control surfaces along its trailing edge, and around 2 litres (0.5USgal) of jet fuel housed in flexible containers in its leading edge. The surfaces would be controlled by the parachutist using handles linked to servomechanisms.

The engines are likely to be built into the wing, which also has a cargo compartment. The turbojets are expected to weigh around 7kg (15.4lb) each and could be model aircraft engines, industrial impellers or a new design. The wing system will weigh approximately 30kg with engines but no cargo. A parachutist could jump from up to 33,000ft using the system, with oxygen equipment and thermal clothing.

Carreras has been working for the parachute system's developers, German electronics and technology companies ESG and Dräger, which originally developed an unpowered version for the German army. Flight testing of this 14kg system is expected to finish by year-end, after which the prototype will be used for marketing. With the unpowered system a soldier could glide for 50km from a 33,000ft jump.

The powered version of the suit is expected to enter flight testing near the end of 2007.

And as the skies get more crowded, it will happen more.

And they're about to get much more crowded if the Air Taxi concept takes off. (No pun intended) That would put a lot of single-pilot jets in the skies. Automated avoidance systems will become necessary (or more necessary.)

The interesting thing is that if they do, and are sucessful, there'll be more call for, and less resistance to, doing something similar in automobiles.