Slashdot Mirror

TThere is no plane big enough to carry an Apollo style mission into the sky. For example, Pegasus can only launch 1000 pound payloads into low Earth orbit (LEO), while an Apollo mission's command module, lunar lander, 3 astronauts with many weeks of supplies, and extra rocket fuel to get all the way to the moon weighed many many tons.

Actually, the design in the upper lefthand corner is actually a ripoff of the BOR-4, a Soviet era-launch developed in the 1970s. NASA's Vehicle Analysis Branch thought the design (which maximizes lift) looked promising, and began studying it in the 1980s. NASA engineers now working at Orbital are pushing for its construction as a shuttle alternative.

The crew size was cut when the X33 program was shutdown. The program lost its budget just as it was ready for full testing when the money was lost. Now there is talk of going back to a capsule for the crew or a crew only shuttle. Too bad Lockheed has reassigned the people working on this.

These kinds of programs are not cheap and they only get more expensive each time they are cancled. We could have been there and done that if a good plan was produced, not meddled with and followed through.

.end friday_rant
:wq

The orbiter itself may not rationally NEED wings, but the launcher should, unless you're talking really massive payloads. Here's why: The typical first-stage rocket booster uses most of its propellant just to get the first few dozen feet of altitude and few dozens of feet per second of velocity. If you use an air-breathing first stage (such as Scaled Composites' X-prize candidate, which uses a turbojet carrier plane as the first stage, or Orbital Science's Pegasus satellite launcher, which is lauched from a jet plane), you eliminate a LOT of mass. An airplane is just LOTS more fuel-efficient than a rocket at 40,000 feet and below. Use an air-breather from zero to 30,000 feet and 250 knots, and a rocket for the rest.

What Carmack (Armadillo Aerospace) is proposing is to "re-invent the wheel" every month or so until the deed is done.

My money's on the Canadian Arrow. Why? The Arrow's based on the German V2 rocket - a tried and tested, 1940's design which was then quite capable of putting a 738kg payload beyond the required 100km altitude - all for the measly sum of 119600 Reichsmarks ($47,840 US in 1940 dollars). Reference:V2 Rocket.com. Trade in the payload for 3 astronauts plus gear, install parachutes to recover the main bits, and the job's done.

Scaled Composites is my second favorite. Why? Based on another tried and tested design - the Pegasus - first launched 1990. The Pegasus can put a 455kg satellite in low earth orbit (about 150 kilometers up with a net velocity of at least 7,814 m/s ) - not much of a technical breakthrough required to put 3 astronauts up a mere 100 km. Reference:Orbital Pegasus Page
Also, here's a website that has a downloadable working simulator that illustrates how Scaled Composite's design (SpaceShipOne)works: PRE-Flight Sim Homepage

Orbital Space Plane @ orbital.com
Orbital Space Plane @ globalsecurity.org

Not to pick nits, but I'm not sure why you think that planes haven't been used as successful launch platforms.

Most of the X-Planes were air-launched, mostly from B-36 and B-52 bombers. Orbital Sciences' Pegasus rocket is launched from an L-1011 (commercial jet liner).

The Backfire was a bomber, designed to launch cruise missiles. At one point, I believe that the Backfire was hypothesized to fire the cruise missiles backwards out of the bomb bay. I don't know if this was ever proven operationally, but I have a hard time understanding how it would have been advantageous to do so.

Some variants of SU-27 can fire short range air to air missiles backwards, but that's a different kettle of fish.

Anyhow. : )

Hm, you got your insightful points out of moderator ignorance I suppose. Ever heard of this little launch system called Pegasus? There is actually a commercially viable business around that one. It uses a solid fuel rocket that is launched from a refurbished Lockheed Tristar. Look here.

That's a moot point. If you check NASA's launch schedule, you'll find that the missions for the forseeable future after Columbia's were dedicated to ISS:

• March 1: STS-114 Atlantis to the ISS.
• May 23: STS-115 Endeavour to the ISS.
• July 24: STS-116 Atlantis to the ISS.
• Oct. 2: STS-117 Endeavour to the ISS.
• Nov. 13: STS-118 Columbia to the ISS.
• [see the rest]

A shuttle at ISS doesn't need Canadarm, ISS has got Canadarm2 which is bigger and better. A shuttle at ISS doesn't need EVA packs, ISS has got both Russian and US EVA packs and two separate airlock systems. A shuttle at ISS doesn't need a rescue system, the astronauts can camp out there (albeit uncomfortably) for as long as it takes to bring them down with Soyuz or other shuttles (or OSP in the future).

Basically, NASA was extremely unfortunate by having this failure happen on the last flight it could have happened on.

A new spaceplane, designed for crew. See the Orbital Space Plane.

A new technology, reusable launch vehicle. See the Space Launch Initiative.

Continuing with the Prometheus Project. We fucked up when we stopped persuing NERVA/Rover.

Mars. Need I say more?

I'd also like to see a space elevator persued, but I don't know that we have the tech yet. Then again, I haven't looked into it that much either.

Yeah, so that's my wishlist. Only a few hundreds of billions of dollars in imaginary cash NASA doesn't have...

Anyone wishing to launch a satellite today can do so with a handful of companies worldwide, such as Arianespace, Orbital Science, or you could launch your commercial satellite with a Titan, Proton, or Delta rocket. NASA does not have a monopoly on lauch capability. You're just misinformed and somewhat disturbingly paranoid.

Columbia's next flight was to go to ISS: STS-118

> The long term solution (circa five years)would be to completely replace the STS with a new, cheap and safe reusable launch system.

Development of the Orbital Space Plane was announced last fall. Due for operation in 2008.

But if the shuttles are grounded for two years (like after Challanger), there will be no ISS for the Orbital Space Plane to go to. Much as everyone hates the ISS, if we lose it, the USA will loose critical mass and discover that it is starting form scratch.

After Challenger we had the luxury of being able to take our time. But ISS urgently needs shuttle flights. We need to either get back online right away, or close up shop.

Looking at the cost per kg is not really relevant when comparing a rocket carrying a 12.5 ton payload with a rocket designed for a 470 kg microsatellite. The cost/kg is always higher for small payloads. For a small payload this is actually pretty cheap - about half the cost of the Orbital Sciences Pegasus.

BTW, the first stage of Musk's Falcon LV is supposed to be reusable. Getting down to $0.5K $1K range is possible only if you make dozens of launches per year but the market for microsatellites just isn't that big.

There's been a couple of replies, but they've missed the real answer.

Trademarks apply only to a category of products. As long as the products are different types, there is no infrigement... thus, apple computer and apple records. (actually that's a bad example because the products overlap when you get computers playing music). But, compare orbital and orbital. No infringement. Thus, if "windows" is a software product, and "wordperfect for dummies" is a book, there is no overlap, thus no infringement.

But ya' gotta love the irony!

I know you are trying to be funny, but some people took you seriously, so I will clarify: The X-43 in that picture is designed to be dropped from beneath the wing of a b-52. The X-43A, which tried to fly last june and failed, is only 12 feet long. It is fitted to the front of a pegasus rocket, carried to altitude, and dropped. Once it falls free of the aircraft the pegasus ignites, pushing the vehicle to a speed at which the scramjet engine can work; there the pegasus releases and the airbreathing engines take over.

The X-43B is much larger, for sure, and is not powered by a pegasus, but it is still going to be dropped from either a B-52H or an L-1011. Probably the B-52H which Nasa just acquired from the USAF.

Now, when you start talking about single stage to orbit vehicles with combined cycle engines designed to carry freight cheaply,you will be talking about aircraft 200 feet long weighing upwards of 1.5 million pounds. Anything less and the incredible inefficiencies of fixed structure cause your useful cargo load to be negative (I could write a whole lot more about this, and may, later, but it is going-home-time now :) If you really care, there are plenty of references on the net).

Neh
aero geek

It was Defense Systems, Inc, which was bought out by CTA and renamed CTA Space Systems, which was bought out by Orbital (aka OSC).

Yep, Orbital didn't own that plane; they own the L-1011. You can both at a non-official site here.
Did anyone notice how close the rocket is to the ground on the L-1011? The body is close, but the fins are even closer! The top fin sticks into the body of the plane. I don't think I'd want to be on that plane when it lands -- the 43,457 pounds of propellent in that missle makes it too close to a bomb. Incidently, landing with the rocket is SOP - it's used to ferry the rocket to the launch and/or integration sites.

Incidently, a friend was at one of the launches. There were two fighter jet chase planes - one NASA owned, and one military (air force?). The NASA guys used the whole runway for takeoffs and landings; the AF guy used as little as possible. Interesting difference.

Don't miss the Pegasus User's Guide -- it's an interesting read.

Half true. The shuttle is a huge political stone around NASA's neck, but there is still a strong desire in most of the agency to get launch costs down and reliability up.

The simple reality of the situation is that rocketry is hard. Here's a partial list of commercial enterprises trying to get in on it:

• Orbital Sciences
• Kistler Aerospace
• Andrews Space and Technology
• Rotary Rocket Co. (dead)
• EER (Conestoga) (dead)
• JP Aerospace
• Kelly Space and Technology

And of course the big boys like Boeing, Lock-Mart, and all the various non-Amurrican folks like Russia, China, Japan, and the EU.

Any of these enterprises would be, er, on top of the world if they could develop a low cost launch vehicle. It's much easier to grumble about how expensive access to space is than it is to actually do something about it. Whether NASA is going about it in a sensible way is a separate question, but it's not like all they're just sitting on their duffs waiting for the right incentive.

They currently have a $4 billion and some cost overrun. Think about that. NASA has spent (or allocated) $4 billion more than it has, only it's not sure where it spent it. The fuck? No company in the world would be allowed to do that. This is a big boondoggle even by government standards. Think how far $4 billion would go if spent on researching new technologies, rather than poured into supporting old ones.

I don't view this $4 billion overrun as incompetence. I view it as theft. Theft from people who could have spent it on improving the future rather than maintaining the status quo.

I could use the same argument against "defense" spending, which has a vastly larger budget and has zero *direct* return on investment. No one is saying there is any way to be *directly* profitable going into space. The space program is our ticket into the future, possibly on another planet in case something happens to this one - be it our fault, a huge meteor or heck even hostile aliens. Plus many useful spin-off technologies have come out of the space program.

Here's my radical solution. Privatise NASA. Float it on the market. Let it keep all of its assets, gift it five years worth of funding, and wish it good luck. Cut it free of red tape, let it come up with its own projects and it's own standards.

No one is stopping you from starting your own private space company. In fact a few already exist including Orbital.

Why don't you take your brilliant "privitization" theory and apply it to the road system and the military? It won't work there either because they cost money too and reap no profits in return. Face it, R&D costs money and that's exactly what the space program is - a giant R&D program.

We've been promised commercial space exploitation within the next ten years, for at least the past thirty years. It's well past time to put up or shut up.

NASA has launching private satellites into orbit for years.

I propose this not because I think that we shouldn't be in space, but because I want us to get out there and stay out there. If space travel can be sustainable rather than a series of staggeringly expensive proofs of concept, then let's demonstrate that.

No one's stopping you from doing it. PUOSU. BTW, there is this thing called the international space station that is being built right now and people are already inhabiting it. In fact, there have been space stations in orbit since the 1970s. The new ones are getting better and better. That's how all technology works.

In a somewhat related story, NASA's HESSI (High Energy Solar SpectroScopic Imager) spacecraft has had its launch delayed again. It was supposed to launch July 4th 2000 but had to have many of its insturments recailbarated at GSFC when JPL shattered the mounting brackets by mistake in a vibration test. After that, a problem in the Pegasus launch vehicle was discovered and had to be fixed, delaying launch until 3 weeks after the X43 failure. KSC and Orbital Sciences (makers of the Pegasus) cleared HESSI for launch. NASA decided to wait until the X43 investigation was over. This caused HESSI's launch to be delayed indeffinatly while at leist 6 spacecraft launch this summer (NASA refuses to work them back in). This is a problem. HESSI is designed to study the solar maximum, which has practically been missed, and it will fail its mission parameters if not launched by September 2001. This is NASA's fault, not the HESSI team. The HESSI team has done everything possible to get this bird in space, it just hasn't happened. Pull and hope that this bird flies (After the JPL accident, I worked on calibrating the Roll Angle Sensor (RAS) for the star-tracker navigation telescope on board).

I thought that the most interesting thing about the article was the info about the launch method (for those who missed the link it's here .) I had not realised that this (logical) idea had actually been capitalised on! I had wondered for a while if a jet powered launch module with wings might be more cost effective (cost + reuseability) than using rockets to throw stuff into space, and here is someone who's simply using old jet aircraft to do the job! They've even been doing it for 10 years, just to make me feel silly for having not noticed it before. Now all we need is for them to be able to take larger cargos, and we can begin to work our way up to putting humans in space at reasonable prices. That might require specially designed launchers, but I suspect that you could still use standard jet engines... The advantage with my not having noticed it for 10 years is that their patents must be expiring soon :-)

Also... Orbital. The company, not the seminal and insanely great techno group.

This was done with a smaller rocket, the Pegasus, built by Orbital Sciences, which (interestingly) they claim to be the world's first privately developed space launch vehicle which, interestingly, they claim to be the first privately developed space launch vehicle. It's launched off of an L-1011 (a Lockheed airliner that looks like a DC-10), but it's only useful for small satellite payloads.

This was done with a smaller rocket, the Pegasus, built by Orbital Sciences, which (interestingly) they claim to be the world's first privately developed space launch vehicle which, interestingly, they claim to be the first privately developed space launch vehicle. It's launched off of an L-1011 (a Lockheed airliner that looks like a DC-10), but it's only useful for small satellite payloads.

Congratulations, you just reinvented the Pegasus.

Orbital Sciences makes the Pegasus, a completely privately developed launch vehicle. NASA loved it. Anything that opens up competition in the launch industry NASA loves, NASA hates being beholden to a couple of companies.

Anyway, Pegasus has been a complete disaster. One went off course into Russian airspace and required the president to ring the Kremlim, a number have failed with NASA payloads, etc. NASA has gone back to McBoeing and Lock-Mart products for the time being....

Congratulations, you just reinvented the Pegasus.

Orbital Sciences makes the Pegasus, a completely privately developed launch vehicle. NASA loved it. Anything that opens up competition in the launch industry NASA loves, NASA hates being beholden to a couple of companies.

Anyway, Pegasus has been a complete disaster. One went off course into Russian airspace and required the president to ring the Kremlim, a number have failed with NASA payloads, etc. NASA has gone back to McBoeing and Lock-Mart products for the time being....

The article seems to have ignored Orbital, perhaps because they only launch small payloads, but Orbital is one company trying to reduce the cost of putting things in orbit.

The article seems to have ignored Orbital, perhaps because they only launch small payloads, but Orbital is one company trying to reduce the cost of putting things in orbit.

This is, I believe, pretty much the design of the pegasus? Also, given the fact that you have a mobile launch platform, seems like you can get tricky inclinations fairly cheaply.

there's no way in Hell that the FAA would approve this. If it works, it means nothing for the FAA. If anything at all goes wrong, they'll get blamed. No vitamins at all for them.

Try it without FAA approval, and he'll spend a *long* time in jail (if he survives, of course). Legally, it would probably be in the same category as shooting a Stinger missle at an airliner.

NASA and the military have a monopoly on rocket flights in the US, and they're going to keep it that way. Look at all the hassles that Orbital Sciences went through to be able to launch their own rockets. Basically, they have to opeaate under the total control of the military.