Slashdot Mirror


US & Russia Show Off New Rocket Designs

jonerik writes "Following up on today's story on the Soviet Union's massive N1 rocket are these two articles on the latest US and Russian rocket designs. Space.com covers the American side of things, with a story on Lockheed Martin's Atlas 5 and Boeing's Delta 4 boosters. The Associated Press has this article on the Russians' Rokot booster, originally built in the '70s as the SS-19 ICBM and converted to civilian use in the mid-'90s. The Rokot was in the news this past weekend when it successfully launched a pair of US-German satellites - dubbed Tom and Jerry - into orbit to map the Earth's gravitational field and 'chart large-scale movements of water around Earth.'"

121 comments

  1. The US REALLY needs some competition by dolphin558 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Our private sector isn't taking off as many expected and NASA is...well NASA(this is coming from a former employee). We should covertly help China and Russia with their space and rocketry programs in order to kickstart congressional butts(read $$moolah) into action. Mars is a waste of time(radiation, gullies caused by CO2 not water, etc etc) The Space Station needs fiscal help Europa and Pluto missions are up in the air. something really needs to be done.

    1. Re:The US REALLY needs some competition by dolphin558 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      How does the scoring work? Are fellow members doing it? Can someone please explain this?

    2. Re:The US REALLY needs some competition by El+Pollo+Loco · · Score: 1

      I agree, competition will be very good for the US. For quite a long time, we've been able to tout many space acheivements, namely going to the moon, while at the same time completly ignoring the fact that the rest of the world has space travel as well. I just talked to some friends, most of them didn't even know anyone BESIDES russia and the us had space programs. And most of them thought russias space prog was non existent. Congress still at least slightly follows the will of the people, and until people get more knowledgeable and vocal about space travel, nothing will happen. And more to the topic, the us is now gonna have to fight a little bit more to be #1, as we all know we can't rest until we are.

    3. Re:The US REALLY needs some competition by XNormal · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mars is a waste of time(radiation, gullies caused by CO2 not water, etc etc) The Space Station needs fiscal help Europa and Pluto missions are up in the air.

      Well, other scientists claim that the IIS is the waste of time and that Mars is the shining jewel. Why should anyone believe one or the other, especially with billions of dollars on the line? Most people would be inclined to say "oh, fuck them both".

      --
      Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
    4. Re:The US REALLY needs some competition by KjetilK · · Score: 2

      Most people would be inclined to say "oh, fuck them both".

      Raises hand. Well, I'm a cosmologist, so obviously, the solar system is a bit too down-to-earth from my perspective.

      There is so much research we can do without putting people up there. The costs of having people in orbit is just enormous. OK, there are some things that it is convenient to have people for, and obviously, when you are researching the effects of e.g. microgravity on people, you need people up there.

      But, I feel, that most of the manned spaceflight stuff is more for prestige than for science, and while it would be cool to do a few orbits, the last thing we need up there is more junk.

      So, I think one should think hard and well before making a lot of manned flights.

      That being said, if humanity could gather around the common goal of going to Mars rather than running around killing each other, then, go for it!

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
    5. Re:The US REALLY needs some competition by Longing · · Score: 1

      IIS really IS a waste of time! Oh, you meant the ISS? My bad.

  2. No Atlas IV? by shlong · · Score: 1

    The Atlas IV is conspicuously absent from Lockheed's website. It was definitely more cool looking than the II or III, but it's success rate hovered pretty close to 0%.

    --
    Cat, the other, tastier white meat.
    1. Re:No Atlas IV? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's success rate hovered pretty close to 0%.

      Hmmm...isn't that the success rate for all American rockets? Anyone can easily tell you the Soviet designs were much better. That is why Soviet hardware and weapons such as planes, guns, mines, explosives, and even dirty nuclear bombs are such hot sellers.

    2. Re:No Atlas IV? by bonzoesc · · Score: 3, Funny

      It was pretty, though. Doesn't that count for anything? Prettiest crushing failure since 1986. MS should put wallpaper on their BSODs.

    3. Re:No Atlas IV? by NecrosisLabs · · Score: 1

      The reason why the success rate for the Atlas IV is close to zero is that there never was an Atlas IV. Perhaps you are thinking of the Titan IV? The Titan IV has been very successful, with an over 95% success rate, with 33 launches.

      The Atlas III was originally called the IIAR, but with the NPO Energomash RD-180 engine, they decided to give it a new name entirely.

  3. Will space improve Russia's economy? by Bonker · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Our good friends in the Eastern hemisphere have had a hell of a century from which they're still recovering. Lately, however, I'm hearing quite a bit of good things about Russia's space program. While it may have started out rocky and dangerous due to the influence of the communist party, this is the same space program that gave humanity both the longest-working manned space station in the form of MIR and the Progress supply frieghter rocket, which supplies the ISS right now. Say what you will about these two, but in terms of space programs, the Americans have always striven to become 'doers of deeds' while the Russians have been 'completers of tasks'. Think about which one of those pays off in the long run.

    Recently, more and more of Russia's space program seems geared to provide access to space for both commercial and scientific work. Space Tourism in ISS, anyone? I would be willing to bet that if they become even a little more efficient at this, their costs will quickly drop because they will be the less expensive option when compared to the U.S. space program. Perhaps space could be a growth industry for Russia, the same way information technology has been for the United States.

    Anyone agree, disagree with me?

    --
    The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    1. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by schwatoo · · Score: 1

      "started out rocky and dangerous due to the influence of the communist party". Yeah. That must have been a real set back. Could be why they didn't put up the first satelite into orbit or put the first man into space or have the longest continually manned space station.

      --
      I have trouble with passwords among other things.
    2. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by torpor · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I agree with you. Space *is* a growth industry for Russia, and they are very good at it, if not the best - depending on the criteria by which you judge success.

      I have so much faith in Russia's space program, and European efforts in general, that I'm abandoning all hope of going to space by way of the USofA, (Inc.) - a nation crippled by its own nationalism - and moving to Europe to pursue, rather aggressively, my own attempts to do a few orbits by way of Star City.

      This may sound strange, but really - a private citizen such as myself has a better chance in Europe, than in the US, for getting into orbit in their lifetime ... thanks to Russia.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    3. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by Bonker · · Score: 2

      Could be why they didn't put up the first satelite into orbit or put the first man into space or have the longest continually manned space station.

      When the USSR's manned spaceflight program began, several people died because the rockets they were on were too shakey, pulled too many G's, or some other factors.

      If that's not 'rockey and dangerous', then I don't know what is.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    4. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      if they become even a little more efficient at this, their costs will quickly drop because they will be the less expensive option

      So basically what you're saying is that if they can find some way to decrease their costs, their costs will drop quickly because they will cost less? Okay...

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    5. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by Bonker · · Score: 2

      Hehe... that's the way it works. You *fight* for that first price decrease, knowing you can make it up in volume. Then you have more experience and capital necessary to make another price decrease... and another... and another.

      This is the pattern that 'Moore's Law' is based on.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    6. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Space *is* a growth industry for Russia, and they are very good at it, if not the best"

      And let's not forget that, unlike the US where space is a relatively low priority, Russia is still in big trouble economically and space is one of the few areas where they have a competitive international product. Thus space is going to be given a higher priority there.

      The Russians have worked miracles for decades on a fraction of the US space budget, so with them freed from Soviet-era political control things could really blossom.

    7. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by sean23007 · · Score: 1

      Just seems a little obvious, is all I'm saying. (I was not, by any means, contradicting you.)

      --

      Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
    8. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called economies of scale.

      Wait 'till rockets get to the mass production stage, then you'll see the costs *really* drop.

      Much more sensible to concentrate on building large numbers of cheap, expendable, unmanned rockets more efficiently to launch most stuff rather than a small number of expensive, re-useable, human-rated Shuttles if you want to make access to space cheap.

    9. Re:Will space improve Russia's economy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget that party internal politics diluted the Russian moon rocket effort, with Cholemei (sp?) white-anting Korolev at every opportunity. This quite possibly contributed to Korolev's premature death and the resulting serious problems with and cancellation of the N1 program.

  4. Russian v. US by guamman · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In this instance, the russians have the right idea, their Rokot booster follows the market to a tea. As a general rule, private companies have used for smaller and therefore cheaper rockets with up to a 20 ton cargo capacity. It is this private investment that will make space travle feasible. The governemnts of the world cannot simply fund a continuing space progam to the fullest extent and other sources must be sought. Big rockets may be better for space travel to Mars and the like, but the demand now is for smaller ones and that may be how Russia gets its feet off the ground (literally).

    1. Re:Russian v. US by SEE · · Score: 2
      The governemnts of the world cannot simply fund a continuing space progam to the fullest extent

      Bullshit. They will not, but there is absolutely no reason why the United States cannot fund a space program far more ambitious than the one we used to. Give me fifteen minutes of dictatorship, and I can cut the U.S. Federal Budget 5% without touching anything important. That'll free up enough money to increase the NASA budget fifty times.

      The same goes for the ESA member states, and Japan. Between tham I could at least match the U.S. expenditures. There could be a massive expansion of the International Space Station, simultaneous manned programs to both Mars and the Moon, plus a whole set of new unmanned probes to each and every planet and larger-than-Pluto object in the Solar System.

      It isn't going to happen, but it's a lack of will, not a lack of means.

    2. Re:Russian v. US by bluGill · · Score: 2

      Everyone says they can cut the budget 5%, but when it comes down to it, there are always enough people who want any particular (wasteful) program that no politition is willing to cut it. And when you cut that 5% you will suddenly become unpopular with those who benifit from that program. And just because it cost 5% doesn't mean that 5% of the people are affected.

    3. Re:Russian v. US by Saeger · · Score: 2
      I can cut the U.S. Federal Budget 5% without touching anything important.

      Well, you'd probably give a few newly-unemployed government workers a heart attack - the shock of having to join a productive workfoce, doing actual work, is more stress than they can handle. :)

      As long as you're dictator for 15 minutes, can you order NASA to stop throwing away perfectly good space station components?

      --

      --
      Power to the Peaceful
    4. Re:Russian v. US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Give me fifteen minutes of dictatorship"

      Sounds like another reason why the Chinese will be next on the moon!

    5. Re:Russian v. US by SEE · · Score: 1

      Well, sure, no politician is willing to cut. But the point is that it's the will to spend the money, not a lack of money, that's keeping us out of space.

    6. Re:Russian v. US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NASA did a study on the use of the external tanks in the construction of a space station and it was rejected for one very big reason, SAFETY. There is usually a small percentage of oxygen & hydrogen that remains in their respective tanks and performing any construction work on those components would be an undue risk of explosion.

  5. Re:americans==too cocky by dolphin558 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Pretty easy to be cocky when most everyone else is poor and/or illiterate. score!

  6. $10,000 per pound by dolphin558 · · Score: 1

    When the price of getting up there gets to $2,000(due to some new form of propulsion likely) then we'll see great strides such as Space Station wheels(2001, movie) and spacecraft to Venus, Moon, etc.

    1. Re:$10,000 per pound by LWolenczak · · Score: 2

      Impulse drive. Impulse drive will send us to the moon, mars, and as far as we can get till we have working warp drive.

  7. NASROCKET by Baldrson · · Score: 2, Offtopic

    Until people stop thinking about rockets as though they were religious icons and start thinking about them like dragsters, we will get nowhere fast in space.

    1. Re:NASROCKET by Qrlx · · Score: 1

      Dude, your link has been slashdotted.

    2. Re:NASROCKET by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Did somebody say "fault tolerant"?

      Remember, when a car engine blows up, you have a good chance of stopping and getting out.

      When a rocket engine blows up people die.

      Though I'd have to agree with you that we need to change our design philosophy. We could learn a lot from the russians in that respect -- build them big, dumb, and solid :)

      --
      Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
    3. Re:NASROCKET by Baldrson · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      people die

      All the time... Even at NASCAR rallys and Winternationals.

      You need to spend more time around rednecks.

  8. Orbiting Hotels by Alien54 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Slightly off topic, but I saw this item on RFN a few weeks back:

    Former Astronaut Buzz Aldrin is planning a chain of "orbiting hotels" cruising perpetually between the Earth and Mars. [...] The main trick to the operation is to have the main ships in a constant regular solar orbit so that no fuel is ever needed to keep going, just enough for boosters, manuvering, etc. The estimated trip time between the Earth and Mars is 8 Months.

    (more links in the original story)

    Maybe he might want to pick up some of the surplus items?

    [smile]

    There has to be a use for a lot of this surplus stuff for business.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:Orbiting Hotels by KjetilK · · Score: 1

      Hehe, cool, but I mean, Mars and Earth are awfully far away from each other at times....?

      --
      Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
  9. wheels, the latest thing by adminispheroid · · Score: 1
    When the price of getting up there gets to $2,000(due to some new form of propulsion likely) then we'll see great strides such as Space Station wheels...

    Yes, it will be a great advance when we can get wheels on the Space Station. Those oxen dragging it along on skids just isn't very efficient.

    1. Re:wheels, the latest thing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      skids? i thought it was a stomper?!

  10. Re:americans==too cocky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And everything they thought up on their own (N-1) BLEW UP ON THE FUCKING PAD!!! HAHAHAHAH!!

    AHAHAHA!!! And Challenger took a couple of seconds to blow up! BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ... .wait a minute! that isnt funny.

  11. Atlas V is russian powered.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Note that the Atlas V is not powered by an American engine, it's powered by a closed-cycle Russian engine - the type Americans could never manage to work out how to build..

    It's interesting to see 1960s Russian tech comfortably beating American tech, despite the sizable difference in available resources.

    1. Re:Atlas V is russian powered.. by glwtta · · Score: 2

      I am not sure which way that difference in resources goes (or went), note that Russia's dirt poor now (and for some time) because so many resources have been diverted to things like rockets, in the 60s and on.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Atlas V is russian powered.. by counterfeitfake · · Score: 1

      I'm picturing a lowered Atlas V with tinted windows, a giant spoiler on the back, and a huge POWERED BY RUSSIA sticker across the windshield.

    3. Re:Atlas V is russian powered.. by $pacemold · · Score: 2, Informative
      It's interesting to see 1960s Russian tech comfortably beating American tech, despite the sizable difference in available resources.

      According to Encyclopedia Astronautica, RD-170 and RD-171, the original designs that led to Atlas III and Atlas V RD-180, were developed 1973-1985.

      12 years - that's quite a bit of work.
    4. Re:Atlas V is russian powered.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What also strikes me is that the approach taken with the new launchers is the Russian one: just keep updating the same proven old 1950's design. But for the Atlas V they've had to go to the Russians to get suitable engines...

      Note that the article refers to doing more of the pre-flight testing etc before the rocket is rolled out and concentrating on streamlining production and that these are the techniques used by the Russians and the Europeans.

      Obvious conclusions:

      (1) these new rockets are just getting the USA back to international parity

      (2) they show how badly US expendable launcher technology lagged because the space shuttle was supposed to be the be-all and end-all for satellite launching. If you'd said at the time of N1 vs Saturn V that the Russians would be ahead of the US in expendable launcher engine technology in thirty years you'd have been greeted by howls of laughter...

      (3) can you imagine how cheap launches would be now had this sort of path (incrementally maximising the efficiency at all stages of the expendable launcher life-cycle) been followed by the US instead of that clean-sheet white elephant, the Space Shithole?

  12. A Dying Bread by Daveman692 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Rockets, at least in my opinion, are dying out or at least should be. Reusable fixed wing craft are what we need if we want to continue to make progress in the future. We should spend the money on space exploration and not wait for another national crisis to get the president to order us to "get to the moon" before another country. Space is a vast frontier that we can learn a lot from.

    1. Re:A Dying Bread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      never had dying bread... i prefer wheat

    2. Re:A Dying Bread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, but how to 'funeral crackers' relate to space travel?

    3. Re:A Dying Bread by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed. We should fund another vastly-overbudget, jack of all trades decent at none, unreliable, over-complex piece of crap like the Space Shuttle!

      Which, for all intents and purposes, is a rocket.

    4. Re:A Dying Bread by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      The book "Firestar" by Michael Flynn had, among other things, a single stage to orbit (SSTO) machine. I'm not well versed in rocketry and orbital mechanics, but the book seemed plausible. The only problem was that it took several major companies in several different industries, all run by a parent company, to pull together the resources to build the thing; and it only had a 3-5% payload capability, which according to the book was right on the line for profitable flying. It was a pretty good read, but it also several other subplots totally unrelated to space travel (just so you know).

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  13. US v. Russia by rackrent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The ISS is a good example of how each country has screwed up. First, most of the cost of the ISS was underestimated (intentionally) by the US just so they could get something into orbit. Then, the bankrupt Russian Space program couldn't get their modules into orbit quickly enough, thus increasing the burden on the US to use their (very expensive) mechanism of delivery, the Space Shuttle.

    The Russians have the right idea with using expendable rockets & modules like the progress to deliver supplies; let's hope the US is trying to do that as well.

    --
    --- There is a man in a smiling bag.
  14. Re: (this is coming from a former employee) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, an employee of fuckin' McDonald's!

  15. Consolidated warfare development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Man, how many good bucks could've been saved if US and Soviet developt their warfare stuff together?
    We didn't they think of this before? =)

    1. Re:Consolidated warfare development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      especially during the cold war....

    2. Re:Consolidated warfare development by Qrlx · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You know, that actually makes a lot of sense. I mean, I know they would never go for it, but look at the way things went down. US builds X, russia says "we need those" and copies it and the copy is better. Like the MiG-29 is a copy of the F-15, only it's better.

      A big part of the cold war was Mutually Assured Destruction, right? Like if USA had nuked USSR in the early 50s they might not have been obliterated in turn, but after that it was accepted that no one side would nuke the other because they'd just get nuked back. (Now it's all crazy with terrorists and missing warheads and US will nuke first, but hey we live in different times now. Except that most of the guys in the Bush administration are from the cold war era...)

      I think there are a few reasons why consolidated warfare development wouldn't work, but they are all political. To some it would be unPatriotic to go this route. Others would see a loss of American jobs which would of course be Bad.

      But from a economics standpoint, it seems a very workable model. Do we really need X number of countries producing fighter jets in state-sanctioned monopolies?

      The way things are going I expect to see this issue come before the WTO in the next five years. China will start submitting bids for U.S. defense contracts. Who knows maybe in 10 years the USAF will be flying Saabs.

      It sounds ridiculous to me (as an american) but not too many countries see the value in producing from scratch their own jet fighters when the US will grant you the foreign aid money to buy the American product.

    3. Re:Consolidated warfare development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, offtopic, but it's really the MiG-25 Foxbat that's the "copy" of the F-15. When the rumors about the F-15 (then only in development) appeared in Russia, they became quite terrified about the performance claims (speed and acceleration) of the F-15. Since the plane was not actually built yet, these were just rumors - it was said that the F-15 could outrun AAM's, no good thing if you're relying on AAM's for AA fighting.

      The Russians decided to play it safe and designed the MiG-25 with its MONSTER engines - the fighter is capable of going well over Mach 3 :-)

    4. Re:Consolidated warfare development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't the USN or USAF fly SAAB Viggen for disssimilar air combat training a while back under lease ?

    5. Re:Consolidated warfare development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Errr you have it backwards.

      The Mig-25 came first, one of the major driving forces for the development of the F-15 was that we needed an aircraft that could catch the Mig-25.

      The Mig-25, in turn, was built to intercept the stillborn XB-70. Also the fastest the Mig-25 can safely sustain is Mach 2.8 - it has a dash speed of mach 3.2 with one major limitation - the engines will be destroyed & require complete overhaul after only a few seconds of flight at that speed.

      The Russian fighters are not copies of Western designs, while they were certainly influenced by Western aircraft, they are excellent designs in their own right

    6. Re:Consolidated warfare development by jonerik · · Score: 2

      Didn't the USN or USAF fly SAAB Viggen for disssimilar air combat training a while back under lease ?

      You're probably thinking of the Israeli Kfir, an unlicensed copy (using American engines) of France's Mirage III. 25 were leased by Israel to the US in the late '80s, redesignated as the F-21A, and used by US Navy and USMC aggressor squadrons. The Kfir resembles the Viggen.

  16. What about the Ariane-Design? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always thougt, that the European Ariane-Design shoul be the most advanced.

    The article about the US-Rocket states this, as it sees the Ariane as its mayor copetitor, and not the russian ... (sadly i wasn't able to get the russian-rocket-article ...)

  17. friction stir welding by Syre · · Score: 2

    The new Delta uses a novel technique called friction stir welding. They weld the tanks and fuselage using this method, and also weld the tanks TO the fuselage this way.

    Friction stir welding uses a spinning mandrel's friction to heat the materials to be welded, and can make lighter-weight products because no extra thickness in the weld area is required.

    More information on the technique is here.

    1. Re:friction stir welding by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 2, Funny

      Does the Chinese CZ Launch vehicle then use friction stir-fry welding?

      I Couldn't resist!

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
  18. Re:americans==too cocky by glwtta · · Score: 2

    Not to start anything here, but literacy is really not one of the things Americans should be cocky about. Wealth on the other hand? Right on!!

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  19. Re:americans==too cocky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, most other countries have themselves to blame.. Choosing Marxism in different forms instead of freemarked economy is ALWAYS a bad, bad, bad idea!!

  20. NOBODY expects the new rocket designs by Bemmu · · Score: 0

    We are the cosmonauts who say N1!

  21. Re:Obvious what happened by Bender+Unit+22 · · Score: 1

    Well, who were enemies? A lot of guys in high places bitching. Meanwhile people everywhere tried to live their life.
    I think you would be amazed to see how well some people have adopted "capitalist way of life". Specially organized crime. :)

    oh btw, the moonlanding was all fake, everybody knows that. Just a bunch of capitalist provaganda. :)

  22. F15 came out in reaction to the MiG-25 by DABANSHEE · · Score: 2

    You got things the wrong way arround.

    The MiG-29 is the Russian answer to the F18, while the Su-27 was their answer to the F15 & the Su-33 is the Russian answer to the F14.

    & the Su-32/Su-34 is the Russian answer to the F15D Strike Eagle.

    Its a generational thing, each side takes turns being on top

    1. Re:F15 came out in reaction to the MiG-25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey DAB - get back to Ars you madman ;-)

    2. Re:F15 came out in reaction to the MiG-25 by crawling_chaos · · Score: 2
      I always thought that the Mig-29 was an answer to the F-16, not the F-18. As I understand it, it went something like this:
      <Scooby-Doo Disolve>
      The U.S. builds the the F-15 to replace the aging F-4 and F-111 fighters. They spend a lot of money to build just about the best air superiority fighter buildable at the time. The Russians take one look at it and realize that they can't build a fighter as good, but that their designs are about ten times cheaper than the F-15, so they'll build a lot more.

      The U.S. Air Force takes a look at the situation and tries buy a lot more F-15s to match the huge number of MIG-27s (principally) that the Soviets are building. Congress gets a look at the price tag and craps their pants.

      Someone has a brilliant idea: we'll build a fighter that's not quite as good, but a whole lot cheaper. We'll use the really good stuff at critical points and still have enough of the cheaper fighters so that we're not outnumbered 10 to 1.

      Congress approves. The defense industry gets a hold of the design of the cheap fighter and keeps adding widgets to it until it nearly costs as much as the original F-15. In the meantime, though, the F-15 has been upgraded a few times, so it's still technically more expensive. Both fighters are deployed.

      The Soviets decide that they need to upgrade their fighters. They either research the technologies involved in building the latest U.S. fighters, or the KGB buys the plans off of a disgruntled defense worker. Instead of building one relatively inexpensive fighter with modern technology and then building a whole lot of them (a la the MIG-27 series) they decide that they need to build a fighter to compete with each of the U.S. designs.

      Therefore, the current production fighters are both built as an answer to all of those Soviet MIG-27s, which are currently going out of service. Kind of ironic, when you think about it.

      --
      You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
      -- Colonel Adolphus Busch
    3. Re:F15 came out in reaction to the MiG-25 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Russia has produced/produces more different types of fighters then the U.S. The Su-27 and up series was developed (not stolen) by the Russians throughout the 1970's. It was an effort to outclass not match the west. MiG's are generally worse performs then the Su series and are used mostly as intercepters. They are not air supperiorty fighters. The latest Su is the Su-37 and it easily ouclasses ALL western fighters. Russia has no money to purchase them in bulk however. The plane is so good that it outclasses our new F-22. And has even led many to question why the crappier F-35 should even be developed.

  23. No by Arsewiper · · Score: 0
    Space travel is so expensive for so little return it will not improve anyone's economy no matter how many tourists you chuck into space. If one space tourist becomes toast the whole tourism as funding model dies anyway.

    NASA went to the moon and all I got was a non-stick frying pan.
    Most countries (especially Russia)could make much better use of the money - the rest is Sci-fi dreaming.

    1. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The computer you are posting from owes some of it's development to computers developed for Apollo, as does the engine management system for your car, and about a million other things I am too lazy to name here...

    2. Re:No by ericski · · Score: 1

      I, for one, am quite greatful for my non-stick frying pan.....

  24. Re:Obvious what happened by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dude.. Organized crime is by definition THE OPOSITE of capitalism...! Sosialism, on the other hand uses the principes of Mafia activities widely..

  25. Re:Obvious what happened by invid · · Score: 1

    Organized crime is capitalism taken to extremes. It applies capitalism to things that the government wants to prohibit, like prostitution and drugs. If unrestricted capitalism was allowed there would be no organized crime because it would be legal to sell anything, and they wouldn't have a source of income.

    --
    The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
  26. [OT} Rotary Rocket? by Psiren · · Score: 2

    Anyone know what's happened to the Rotary Rocket Company? The website is unavailable. Have they folded? I hope not, as it was one of the coolest SSTO vehicles I've seen.

    1. Re:[OT} Rotary Rocket? by morbid · · Score: 0

      Yes, they folded and for want of a few $10k.
      :-(
      If I had a million dollars, I'd have been straight in there. I'd have given up work and gone to work on their rocket for nothing.

      --
      I'm out of my tree just now but please feel free to leave a banana.
    2. Re:[OT} Rotary Rocket? by edremy · · Score: 2
      They're basically dead. They got the scale model of the Roton off the ground a few times then ran out of money.

      Basically, the implosion of services like Iridium killed the market for small, low earth orbit satellites, the only things that a Roton could carry.

      --
      "Seven Deadly Sins? I thought it was a to-do list!"
  27. Nice double standard you have there by Rayonic · · Score: 2

    So when the Russians are thrifty and practical there's no end to the praise they get, but if an American company chooses to be thrifty and practical (by using a pre-existing engine, why re-invent the wheel?) then suddenly the whole U.S. is forty years behind Russia when it comes to rocketry? Sure.

    1. Re:Nice double standard you have there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The US is many years behind Russia on engine design. Like I said in my first comment, the Russians got closed-cycle engines to work a long time ago.

      They're substantially more effecient that all US-designed engines (which are all open-cycle), and until 1997 when the technology was demonstrated to Americans, it was regarded as impossible to build.

    2. Re:Nice double standard you have there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a retard.

  28. Re:Obvious what happened by jonerik · · Score: 3, Informative

    Aren't Russians and the other ex-communist countries against America and the capitalist way of life? Don't they hold spite against these people who were their enemies or do they completely forgive Americans and have no loyalty to communism?

    Pretty much all of the folks from eastern Europe who I've talked to were thrilled to be rid of the Russians and communism. There are few who would say that the transition was easy or that capitalism doesn't have its own set of problems, and some countries (Poland, the Czech Republic, East Germany) have done better for themselves than others (Yugoslavia, Albania), but in many of the countries you'd be hard-pressed to find many people who'd be up for turning back the clock.
    The Russians are another matter. Clearly, they've had a hard time of it, and I doubt they'll ever again be half as powerful as they were as part of the U.S.S.R. There's certainly some bitterness in some quarters, as well as a nostalgia for the communist era when the country was powerful. You know, "Communism beat the nazis, communism took us to space, and communism very nearly made us masters of the world!"
    Would Russia ever go back to communism? At this point I'd be surprised, particularly since communist nostalgia means less and less to Russia's young as the years go by. But bitterness and nationalism? Yeah, that's there.

  29. Yep by Goonie · · Score: 2
    The US economy's annual GDP is round about 10 trillion dollars, according to the CIA World Factbook. Government spending is about 1.7 trillion per year. Let's say we spend 200 billion over 10 years to do a Mars mission (NASA did a design reference mission that claims about 50 billion for a Mars program, but we'll be safe and quadruple it). That's 20 billion a year. Sounds a lot, doesn't it? It's about 1.2% of the annual budget.

    The US could afford to start a Mars program (or go to the Moon, or land a whole bunch of probes on Europa) any time it wanted and wouldn't notice the cost. It's just that priorities lie elsewhere right now.

    --

    Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
    --Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
  30. Good Change by Chayce · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's nice to see old I.C.B.M. designs used as satelite launch vehicles and not the other way around. I say this because a lot of ICBM testing was done with the cover story of being failed sattelite launches. If a craft is launched and falls apart in suborbit, and the people who launched it say it was a failed satelite shot, it's easy to miss when the mock warhead comes down in the middle of the pacific to be picked up by a ship for telemetry download. So perhaps times are really changing now. Or maybe the lies have changed.

    --
    I like replies better than Karma, even if they are flames, because that tells me I got someone thinking.
  31. It's not about capitalism, but US double standards by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Some insider's observations:

    Today most of Russians have nothing against US or Western capitalism - they have a lot of struggling between private and public sectors in their own country.

    But what a lot of people cannot ignore is a policy of double standards that US perform. US gov't is against terrorrism, but does killing in other countries without any international court warrant. What's that? They condemn crime and do crime at the same time?

    That certainly keeps a lot of other countries warring. And that gives a lot of arguments to other goverments to be prepared against US from military prospective.

  32. Re:EDITORS ABUSING POWER AGAIN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're asuming it was Slashdot folks. If you're who I think you are, it was me, and I don't work for Slashdot or VA.

    Suffer, troll.

  33. It will cost millions anywhere you try it by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 2

    If you think any of these agencies is going to put a private citizen into orbit for less than $5 million in the next ten years, you are deluding yourself. Recreational space travel has absolutely nothing to do with people who aren't extremely wealthy, at least for the next ten years.

    1. Re:It will cost millions anywhere you try it by torpor · · Score: 2

      I'm willing to bet that within 5 years, the costs for, say, a seat in Progress and a few days in orbit will come down to the 6-figure mark - making it affordable to me and a couple others, anyway.

      And that's a start. I'm willing to put my money where my ass wants to sit, and fund as many hungry Russian space scientists as my hard-earned moolah can support.

      There's no other way to do it. Space is hard, especially if you're an average citizen, so everything I do will be to get me there - even if it means making sacrifices and spending hard-earned cash to get there ...

      I'm not alone. There are a lot of people in similar financial positions who would spend the money were it feasible - and the point is, its rapidly becoming feasible.

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
  34. Jerry? by guinsu · · Score: 2

    I am surpised in this politically correct day and age that a German satelliete would be called "Jerry" :) Of course I don't even want to go into what Tom implies.

    1. Re:Jerry? by belg4mit · · Score: 1

      Maybe Tom was German and Jerry was American.

      --
      Were that I say, pancakes?
  35. You got it right: It's about lack of will... by Irie · · Score: 1

    political will that is...

    If the citizens of the US or of the member states of the ESA stood up and demanded, right now, that we get a man to mars, it'd be done within 10 years. Just like the moon race, With everyone being fat, happy, clueless, consumers however things will just muddle along. Witness the mustering of political willpower in the wake of 09.11.01, just by way of recent example.

    The Feds did a study once... it actually cost less money to fund the Apollo program than it would have to have had all the folks who worked on the project collect welfare (a.k.a. be on the dole for you brits out there).

    Conclusions: It's not really (for once) about the money because if the Poly-trick-sters thought they'd get votes for funding the Mars shot, by God they would find the money. It's about balls or in this case the lack thereof.
    Thus the West turns it's back on the outside world and proceeds down the path that all other cultures have trod before it...

    Assignment: Consider the effect of political willpower on the historical impetus and the lifecycle of host culture...

    There will be an essay test on this topic in the morning, bring a blue book and a #2 pencil...

    class dismissed

    --
    use Signature::Witty;
    1. Re:You got it right: It's about lack of will... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If the citizens of the US or of the member states of the ESA stood up and demanded, right now, that we get a man to mars, it'd be done within 10 years. Just like the moon race"

      Yeah, just like the moon race; we'll go there and then scrap the program when the public loses interest. (You did know that the last two Apollo missions, 18 and 19, were canned *after all the hardware had been built*?)

      What's needed is a continuous program leading to a permanent Mars outpost. Anything less (as we learnt from Apollo) is going to just be a flash in the pan that will be very hard to repeat.

  36. The sad state of modern rocketry by hacksoncode · · Score: 1
    Before we all ooh and ahh about how impressive this is, check out the performance stats of the most notable piece of 1960's American technology.

    Especially interesting tidbit from that page: Payload: 118,000 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. Payload: 47,000 kg. to a: Translunar trajectory

  37. about time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so without having read the advert. how fast does it go, and how far, given a set amount of pounds.

    ?

  38. Money funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i think US better spend their money that they have to space program rather than sponsoring Israel to slaughter Palestinians' kid & women for throwing stones at Israelis tank. the world should in the other hand should consider US sponsorship to Israel as an act that initiate, spur and promote terrosism.

    Peace to the World.