Slashdot Mirror
Japanese Shuttle has Successful Test Flight
spacecomputer writes "First test flight of scaled-down version of Hope-X is a success! They have additional test flights in the coming week, but have no funding to proceed beyond the test stage."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I seem to recall hearing that Russia was having big financial problems with their space program, and that if they didn't scrape up funding in some form, that it may adversely impact the long term construction plans for the ISS over the next few years.
Would the full size final version of this thinger be able to ferry big structural pieces or modules, in place of the Russian rockets? I get the impression that the it would be too small, which would suck.
The angel in the oatmeal.
I agree, it's long past time to create a vehicle that can get into and out of space, with a heavy payload, without the three stage rocket system. That having been said, it's not going to be easy, and this thing is a long way off. They haven't gone to work on the engine yet, and if they hope to bring any kind of sizeable payload into space, it's going to have to be one mamba-jamba of an engine, unless they have very tiny sattelites, which, knowing the Japanese and miniturization, they might. The article does mentions a re-useable rocket, so there is that.
At any rate, I wish these guys the best, but I don't see this replacing the shuttle anytime soon.
"Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
Most of the manned mission to space has just resulted into exploring curiosity without any real scientific research (certainly not worth the cost).
It was ego that resulted in mission to moon. It was miscalculation of cost that resulted into US space shuttle (they thought that the reusability of space shuttle boosters will make it cheaper than traditional rockets). No wonder, during the time, space shuttle was developed, Europians overtook US in launching commercial satellites. Russian space shuttle Buran is a failure but their traditional rocket business is successful. ISS hasn't produced anything scientifically or technologically to justify the cost. The only scientific advantage of US shuttle program could be successful launch and subsequent repair/upgrade of Hubble space telescope. Excluding this, the manned space mission have been mostly wastage of public money.
With development costs likely to be astronomical, however, Japanese space officials are hoping to develop the vehicle in conjunction with their counterparts in Europe and elsewhere.
Japan previously worked on developing a space shuttle dubbed the Hope, but the project was frozen due to a lack of funds and other difficulties.
Japan has been trying 'government by construction' for years trying to revitalize their economy and have achieved the industrialized world's biggest national debt. So where are they getting the money for a space program?
Seriously, Japan just built an 11 mile long tunnel under Tokyo Bay in '97 that cost almost 11 billion dollars (1.44 trillion yen), yet no one uses it. Why? The toll is about $50. Does Japan really need a space program?
I'm not from Japan and I don't pretend to be infallible - these are my thoughts on the subject. If you live in Japan, what do you think? Also, there was a good article on Tokyo in last month's National Geographic, check it out in print if you can.
Satanists get good grades too...suspiciously good grades
The space shuttle has been a terrible disappointment in that its capacity is far lower than had been initially planned while its cost per pound of payload is far higher than had been predicted. Part of that is due to the fact that, regardless of its payload, it must be manned. Building a craft to support humans in space with adequate safety margins and backup equipment is incredibly expensive both in weight and cost. If we had to rely on the space shuttle to launch communications satellites into orbit, we would still be running trans-Atlantic cables for our communications needs.
Yeah. The ISS has a Soyuz docked to it, to serve as a lifeboat, if the ISS suffers a disastrous failure. The Soyuz can fit three spacesuits, so when the shuttle leaves they only leave three scientists aboard the shuttle at any one time.
Well, the Soyuz isn't left there permanently. They loft a new one every six months or so. So, if the Russians pack up their Space program either the ISS inhabitants have to get left there with no lifeboat, or a substitute has to be designed.
How difficult would designing a return module be? It wouldn't have to be as robust or sophisticated as a Soyuz, Apollo or Gemini, if its sole purpose was to serve as a lifeboat. It could be brought to the ISS by a shuttle, so it wouldn't need to control the one shot rocket that launched it. And, it wouldn't require the endurance of an Apollo or Soyuz. Its mission would last less than an hour or two. It would only have to endure long enough to bring the ISS researchers back to Earth.
I asked this elsewhere. How many shuttle missions leave with a full payload? I believe that Hubble filled the cargo bay, as did the various ISS modules, and the European Spacelab. But doesn't that leave dozens of missions with partially loaded cargo bays?
Buran, the Soviet shuttle, has been discussed here on slashdot in the past. I spent most of an afternoon following some links other slashdotters had provided to details of Buran's design.
I found it fascinating. They do look similar. But there were some important differences, under the skin.
One of the web-pages discussed the similarity in appearance of Buran and the American shuttles. It said that Soviet engineers had considered a number of hull designs, with differing appearances. The other hulls looked, on paper, as if they would be just as successful as the American hull design. IIRC the only advantage of the American hull design was that it was a proven design.
The American shuttle uses strap on boosters fueled with solid fuel. Buran's boosters are liquid fueled, and it could strap on three of them. Consequently, it had a much larger lift capacity than the American shuttle.
Buran's crew, at least four of them, were protected by ejection seats.
It has been a year or two since I read these pages. I may not remember them correctly. But wouldn't Buran's liquid fueled boosters be innately safer than the American shuttle. Solid fueled rockets can't be shut down. If the challenger had liquid fueled boosters, would they have been able to shut down the booster, and have a greater chance of survival? Liquid fueled boosters wouldn't have had the dangerous "O ring" feature.