Slashdot Mirror

  $1.00 for ALL of the Space Shuttle technology.

I'll have it shipped to the Energia Baikonur Cosmodrome.

Yours In Soyuz,
Kilgore Trout, Cosmonaut

You mean ULA, Arianespace and 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.

Deltas (II and IV) and Atlas (V) are still much newer and going strong. I don't think there will be a shortage of rockets for military satellites in the near future.

Have any idea how much work Lockheed Martin actually takes on? How many LM probes and satellites actually have 100% mission success each year?

The couple failures you mentioned represent less than 1% of the work LM does. Not that they aren't important, as every project is important, but LM does a TON of work and has extremely high mission success rates (especially considering the business they are in).

Just take a look at some of their launch vehicles, each having a 100% mission success rate over their entire life.

Atlas II
Atlas III
Atlas V

Have any idea how much work Lockheed Martin actually takes on? How many LM probes and satellites actually have 100% mission success each year?

The couple failures you mentioned represent less than 1% of the work LM does. Not that they aren't important, as every project is important, but LM does a TON of work and has extremely high mission success rates (especially considering the business they are in).

Just take a look at some of their launch vehicles, each having a 100% mission success rate over their entire life.

Atlas II
Atlas III
Atlas V

Have any idea how much work Lockheed Martin actually takes on? How many LM probes and satellites actually have 100% mission success each year?

The couple failures you mentioned represent less than 1% of the work LM does. Not that they aren't important, as every project is important, but LM does a TON of work and has extremely high mission success rates (especially considering the business they are in).

Just take a look at some of their launch vehicles, each having a 100% mission success rate over their entire life.

Atlas II
Atlas III
Atlas V

Not to mention the 100% success rate of each:

Atlas II
Atlas III
Atlas V

Not to mention the 100% success rate of each:

Atlas II
Atlas III
Atlas V

Not to mention the 100% success rate of each:

Atlas II
Atlas III
Atlas V

<a href="http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsre leases/rec197/"> Inaugural Atlas V Scores Success for ILS, Lockheed Martin</a>

<URL:http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsrel eases/rec197/>

<a href="http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsre leases/rec197/"> Inaugural Atlas V Scores Success for ILS, Lockheed Martin</a>

<URL:http://www.ilslaunch.com/newsarchives/newsrel eases/rec197/>

Today's launch was the last of the Atlas IIAS line. There were earlier models, and there will be models yet to come. There was an Atlas IIA, an Atlas II, and, of course, the Atlas A, the first US ICBM.

Meet the Atlas Family, all 15 of them. First flight of a small prototype was in 1947. The first real Atlas flew in 1957. Alan Shepard flew into space on an Atlas D.

It's a big pressurized stainless steel can with engines. Still a good design after half a century.

Today's launch was the last of the Atlas IIAS line. There were earlier models, and there will be models yet to come. There was an Atlas IIA, an Atlas II, and, of course, the Atlas A, the first US ICBM.

Meet the Atlas Family, all 15 of them. First flight of a small prototype was in 1947. The first real Atlas flew in 1957. Alan Shepard flew into space on an Atlas D.

It's a big pressurized stainless steel can with engines. Still a good design after half a century.

More info on atlas V can be found here .
Check out the launch video here

More info on atlas V can be found here .
Check out the launch video here

For those who may or may not have RTFA, it says that they will be replaces by the Atlas 5 rocket.

There are plenty of people developing new space transports. Most notably spacex. But there are many more such as the mysterious Blue Origin by Jeff Bezos and of course Burt Rutans followup to the SpaceShipOne.

And even if these efforts all fail, there are plenty of relatively cheap launchers available today, most notably the russian proton and the zenit sea launch.

And we most definitely do not need a new shuttle. We need cheap access to space, and the shuttle was a total failure in this regard.

Boeing recently canceled their Delta IV program due to a lack of customers in the commercial satellite business.

You didn't read the article. Boeing has not cancelled the Delta IV. Their launcher is still being considered for the manned OSP program, and has plenty of orders from the US military. Boeing only stopped taking new commercial orders for the Delta IV. This isn't a sign that space is stagnant, they're just coming to terms with the fact that their expensive rocket can't compete in a marketplace that passed them up years ago.

Space is heating up. Right now all the launches are going to countries with better rockets, but there are some startups like SpaceX and Orbital Recovery which have a good chance of turning things around for the American space industry.

First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.

Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.

If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.

this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.

(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).

First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.

Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.

If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.

this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.

(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).

First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.

Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.

If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.

this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.

(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).

First, the section of the flight from low earth orbit to mars most probably won't be on the same fuel as that used for launching from the ground, for the simple reason that it's not the most efficient way to do it.

Second, the most cost-effective method of hauling heavy equipment into low earth orbit from the ground is not the space shuttle. Even the ISS gets resupplies in soyuz pods.

If they launch to the ISS, then they don't always need to send a crew with it, becuase the ISS crew has a robotarm and can to spacewalks to assemble things in space.

this company already launches commercially in both ksc in florida and in baikonur in russia. With the Proton K rocket and also with the largest version of the Atlas V, they can launch over 45000 pounds into orbit, that's more than what the shuttle can, and I'm sure a protonk launch from baikonur is a lot cheaper than a shuttle launch from jfk. Maybe energia can make bigger rockets for this, but I don't speak russian to the website is all 'chinese to me'.

(of course this all assumes they're launching spaceship parts and fuel to the ISS and assemble there).