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.'"
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!
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"
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.
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.
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.
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.