Slashdot Mirror

you are correct,

and just my own .02001 USD, both Tyson and Musk are Correct.
Government programs will carry the heavy lifting until the commercial side sees a way to make a profit.
but this is what Musk is trying to prove. that you can make a business model. i'm cheering him on like there is no tomorrow, but he hasn't done it yet.
we need more people like Musk. we need more people willing to invest in private space industries(not just the tourism).

what really annoys me is when you have people trying to move fwd on one side and S#!^ like this ( http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Russian_rocket_engine_export_ban_could_halt_US_space_program_999.html ) on the other.

The Russians want to extend it to 2028, with nothing but a pie in the sky mission statement.

Ahh, the International Space Shipyard ...

Are the materials that 3D printing is capable of using able to stand up to the tasks required of them?

It has been my understanding that most of the materials used are plastic, and not just any plastic will do, and
metal parts (if even possible) are simply not the same as cast and machined parts, either in strength or
precision.

Further this is done with powdered media, which will require advanced containment in a weightless environment, and a fair amount of power to operate the equipment. These machines aren't small enough yet to launch and install easily, so getting it there would be a problem.,

Further, the media plastic needs to be replaced often, sifted and cleaned/recycled.

In the final analysis, given the state of the art of 3d printing, I suspect it would be cheaper to launch each part as needed than it would be to launch a fresh batch of media to make each part.

Then there is the whole issue of the real value of the ISS, which has largely become a Russian playground with
no real mission, and the service life was planned to end in 2015, recently extended to 2020. The Russians want
to extend it to 2028, with nothing but a pie in the sky mission statement.

To correct you, Baikonur is South-east of Norway... the phenomenon was seen at a 120 degree perendendicular view from Finnmark (North Norway) ... check google maps. The rocket crashed in Zhezkazgan, Kazakhstan.

Thanks for the correction. You are correct about the orientation of the site vis Norway. Also, I wrote "protonks" (a pluralization of the old version of the proton rocket) because I'm so used to writing my nick, protonk. Was too hasty.

To correct you, Baikonur is South-east of Norway... the phenomenon was seen at a 120 degree perendendicular view from Finnmark (North Norway) ... check google maps. The rocket crashed in Zhezkazgan, Kazakhstan.

Which, given the fact that fairings don't particularly represent a difficult design or development problem, indicates that something (major) is wrong at SpaceX.

So, you're saying that fairings are, to use the phrase, "not rocket science"? It's certainly true that a fairing design and implementation is not nearly as difficult a nut to crack as designing a new liquid-fueled engine completely from scratch, but fairings and fairing separations aren't something so inherently mundane that they can be ignored.

The aerodynamics are not so trivial you can just say, "Eh, that looks about right..." and be at an energy-optimal solution. Additionally, while it's trivial to overbuild a solution that will protect the payload during ascent, reducing the mass of the fairing system is not so easy. (Like most things in engineering, the first bits are easy, with additional improvements coming with greater and greater effort.) Having additional time to shave off a few more kilograms from the fairing is certainly a net positive.

Now, as for fairing separation incidents, there have not been many, but a quick check does turn up three of note in the last decade or so:

• KSLV-1 (South Korea): Faulty fairing separation identified as main cause in failure of Narohoâ(TM)s satellite launch
• Taurus/OCO (Orbital Science): The Case Of The Fairing That Would Not
• Athena 2: Futron Design Reliability study (See table on page 4)

I cannot speak to the failure potential of a new fairing design on a new launch vehicle as compared to existing fairings on well-traveled vehicles, but if I were to go with a "feeling", I would certainly doubt that it is less.

(By the way, your ad hominem song and dance routine was hardly mature. Will you be coming to Geowoodstock next year up in your area? I'm thinking of possibly heading up for the event and some cold water diving next year, and I wouldn't mind betting a batch of my homemade chocolate chip cookies on SpaceX -- perhaps you can bet a family-restaurant-level dinner? I don't drink, so it shouldn't be expensive.)

Forgive the Chinese for using an old-school capsule for their first ever manned spacecraft, but the Russians at least are moving to a lifting-body design (the Kliper) with their Soyuz replacement program. They are planning to have the Kliper in service in 2015.

Even the newly-spacefaring Chinese are designing a 'shuttle' - it's known as Project 921-3.

So, yes, the Ares/Orion project does seem like a cobbled-together throwback using sub-optimal systems such as the solid booster as the primary engine. If we really wanted to re-use shuttle components the Direct Launcher proposal's Jupiter platform might make more sense as it retains the liquid/solid primary stage from the shuttle program but with more survivability and less complexity.

However, I for one prefer the lifting body approach proposed for Orion and adopted by the Russians. This allows more re-entry flexibility and landing profiles than does a capsule, and is far less complex and fragile than a winged craft.

Too bad I just ran out of mod points. This would be my best guess as to why they're trying to recreate space smells. Particularly onboard the ISS, it's a really big deal if something inside the station ends up leaking or burning. And if you're operating something critical like an airlock and you start smelling something funny, that's definitely something to worry about. Here's an article from a couple years ago where the crew smelled something strange and ended up shutting down the entire ventilation system until they identified the odor: http://www.space-travel.com/reports/ISS_Goes_Into_Emergency_Mode_After_Chemical_Leak_999.html

They're hardly comparable are they! Slashdot readers are far more interested in something which will take PEOPLE into space, rather than yet another satellite lifter that's only interesting because it's cheaper to make.

Apparently you've never heard of the Dragon. The Falcon series is designed to lift cargo *and* people to orbit. Unlike the shuttle, they made the wise (IMHO) decision to not require people to be on every liftoff; you include people when you want to lift people, and not otherwise. The first Dragon flight is scheduled for early next year. Both Falcon and Dragon have passed every NASA COTS review so far (example).

Also, once again, the old fallacy of "being in space is roughly equivalent to being in orbit" rears its ugly head. Sadly, this happens in pretty much every thread about SS1/SS2.

Apart from anything, SpaceShipOne/Two just simply looks WAY cooler!

You hit the nail on the head.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Japan_successfully_launches_high-speed_Internet_satellite_999.html

I want to see a moonbase.

The could, but perhaps it would be they who would be embarrassed.

I'm a european and it means that media isn't used to get money for science funds.

Yes, you use the funds to pay idle farmers.

This is however a missunderstanding, in technical design Russia is ahead, especialy in design of technology hardware.

Like these?

American flying wings, well take a look at the earodynamics of a mig 29 it can tilt backwards in flight.

Only a fool would suggest that a Mig 29 makes anything but a fine target for a front line American fighter.

Oh and their space airplane first space flight was radio controlled inlcuded the landing. Imagine the space shuttle did no human no risk cargo shipping, hmmmm.

The shuttle is capable of flying completely automated. Rumor has it that Buran fly with 4 tons of lead acid car batteries because the Russians could not master H2 fuel cells. If Buran was so good, why did it fly once?

There is a well-written article which describes a lot of fundamental flaws in the approach that NASA is taking here.

Converting a 4-segment SRB into a 5-segment SRB involves a lot more than adding an extra piece. The shape of the combustion area must be modified significantly. This adds years of testing to the process, negating the advantages of trying to re-use STS-based technology.

An elephant is a horse designed by committee.

Hang on... Thought occurs:
Space shuttle exists to complete the Space station. Space station now exists to be completed by the shuttle. Shuttle's other useful science missions like servicing hubble are cancelled because of space station. Is this now anything more than a perpetually self sustaning pork mission?
Now I'm all for the idea of building LEO infrastructure, for use as handy stepping points. In the same way as when you settle a new continent, one of first things you do is build a port, we should be building a port up there. If they have admitted this is what needs to happen and so are putting all resources into that in the form of this space station, then great.
However I'm a little concerned this is not the case. Especially after new they're cancelling research into nuke reactors for the moon base:
http://www.space-travel.com/news/nasa-05zf.html

So what actually is NASA's goal if they're cancelling all the stuff you need before you get to the moon and all the stuff you need once you're there?
This is beginning to look more and more like apollo 50 years later taking 10 years longer and acomplashing nothing more. And if they can't afford to maintain the space staion how will they maintain a moon base much further away, I just can't see it. Unless they will get the cash once other contries start playing around there too, so until then it's a spiral development program?