Slashdot Mirror


European Shuttle Program Update

Rolo Tomasi writes "ESA's reusable launch vehicle demonstrator, Phoenix, was recently wind tunnel tested to determine its low speed aerodynamics. A free flight for Phoenix is planned for early summer 2004. In case you haven't heard of it yet, here's an article from last year, describing the Phoenix/HOPPER concept. Here's another page at ESA, but it seems to be available only in German. What's interesting is the first sentence of the DLR press release, stating that (my translation) 'Europe's future and competitiveness in space substantially depend on an autonomous access to space and 'on a drastic decrease in the transport costs of getting there.'"

207 comments

  1. Bad choice for a name? by nordicfrost · · Score: 3, Funny

    I mean Phoenix was a bird of fire, maybe ESA should name it after something that does not soar across the sky in fire?

    1. Re:Bad choice for a name? by ComaVN · · Score: 1

      And isn't it the name of a database or something?

      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    2. Re:Bad choice for a name? by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

      "I mean Phoenix was a bird of fire, maybe ESA should name it after something that does not soar across the sky in fire? "

      Well they'd already rejected the name Icarus.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    3. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Simon+Lyngshede · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It wasn't a bird of fire, it was a bird who burned (Not that this makes it any better) and rose from the ashes.

      That may not be such a bad name, ESA previous worked on a shuttle called Hermes, which where cancelled many years ago. Maybe they used parts of the Hermes design for Phoenix?

    4. Re:Bad choice for a name? by danila · · Score: 2, Funny

      Yeah, but perhaps Phoenix would be a good name for Brazilian space project.

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    5. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      That's okay, it's just the project codename...

    6. Re:Bad choice for a name? by presroi · · Score: 1

      The Ikarus/Icare Project was used for a completely solar powered plane.

      Daedalus is the name for a series of human muscle powered plane.

    7. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Yeah, but perhaps Phoenix would be a good name for >Brazilian space project.

      Or Challenger...or Columbia....

    8. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope you like being modded down. It's going to happen to you quite a lot from now on.

      Danila Medvedev (Saint-Petersburg, Russian Federation) personal page: http://danila.da.ru e-mail: danila@geocities.com graduated from IMISP (http://www.imisp.spb.ru) working in Trigon Capital (http://www.trigoncapital.ru)

    9. Re:Bad choice for a name? by danila · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Frankly, I don't give a shit about negative moderation. :) Actually I enjoy it as much as positive one. On an unrelated note, what happened to people that they can't enjoy a little bit of black humour now and then?

      Too bad that you probably don't speak Russian, because on the largest Russian joke site (which is, BTW, the 8th most visited site in Russia) there is a special page listing the archives of special joke issues related to events such as
      • Iraqi war
      • Columbia disaster
      • Nord-Ost terrorist attack in Moscow
      • Tragic death of Sergey Bodrov in glacier
      • Collision of Tu-154 and Boeing-757 over Switzerland
      • Closing of independed TV channel "TV-6" by president Putin
      • September 11 (the funniest of all, judging by the number of jokes)
      • and other important events


      In Russia we do enjoy black humour and we find it important to laugh about the problems that we (or others) face. This is an important quality for the nation that faced as much turmoil in the past century as Russia did.

      If you cannot put up with that, go get some sensitivity training or read a book on cross-cultural issues, you insensitive clod.
      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    10. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Xenoproctologist · · Score: 1

      I'd call it 'karma whoring', except fishing for `da Funny is a karma-free exercise.

      ...Because, though it may be dead, "The Parking Lot Is Full" will live on in our hearts.

    11. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "This is an important quality for the nation that faced as much turmoil in the past century as Russia did."

      Oh please. A friend of mine went to Russia recently and said that what really spoilt it for him was the fact that practically everyone he spoke to went on and on and on about the "Russian spirit" or "character" and how they were different from everyone else. We KNOW you`re different!! No-one can queue up for potatoes like you do! We just wouldn't put up with it.

      I don't have a problem with black humour - perhaps you can translate some 9/11 jokes for us. I'm sure they'd be well received by at least some of the readers of this page.

    12. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Trurl's+Machine · · Score: 1, Funny

      Dobro pozhalovat', tovaristch :-). Thanks for the link. Seeing you writing:

      In Russia we do enjoy black humour and we find it important to laugh about the problems that we (or others) face.


      couldn't help but write: In Soviet Russia... black humour enjoys you :-)))

    13. Re:Bad choice for a name? by danila · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Oh, yeah, a shithole. At least we:


      In summary, it's you, my American friend, who might really need black humour soon. After all, it's highly unlikely that the situation in Russia will become worse. :)
      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    14. Re:Bad choice for a name? by 21mhz · · Score: 1
      At least we:
      • blah blah
      • Treat Chechens like humans (although criminals and enemies)
      If Russians in general treat all Chechens like criminals and enemies, it's a problem much worse than some dozens of Guantanamo prisoners.
      --
      My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.
    15. Re:Bad choice for a name? by danila · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I was more concerned about the HTML markup and didn't pay enough attention to the wording of my post. Of course, Russians do not treat all Chechens like criminals and enemies, that's reserved for the bandits (sometimes called "rebels") only. I would even go as far as to say that the attitude towards Chechens in Russia is better than the general attitude towards Arabs was in the USA after 9/11 (although I do not have enough information to make a truly objective comparison).

      Just recently a Russian officer, colonel Budanov was convicted of murder. He killed a captured female Chechen sniper. After a lengthy trial it seems that he will serve the sentence, unlike those Americans who ran over Korean girls or those who bombed Canadian soldiers (of course, I do realise it's anekdotal evidence and these cases are not representative of the general picture).

      So the correct wording should be: "We treat all Chechens like humans, and some Chechens (kidnappers, murderers and terrorists) like criminals and enemies."

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    16. Re:Bad choice for a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I would even go as far as to say that the attitude towards Chechens in Russia is better than the general attitude towards Arabs was in the USA after 9/11"

      Except noone is getting raped or having their teeth smashed with hammers in camp x-ray.

    17. Re:Bad choice for a name? by danila · · Score: 1

      There is a difference between the actions of Russian soldiers towards the enemies in Chechnya and the actions of civilians in, say, Moscow towards Chechens living there. There are many documented cases of kidnapping, murder, torture, rape and enslavement of Russian civilians by Chechens. This is not just a figment of my imagination, this is reality. Go and ask some Western journalists who've been there, preferably those who managed to leave the place as a whole and not in a coffin. Compared to that the things that Americans face in Iraq or Israelis face in Palestina are peanuts. So it is understandable that individual Russian soldiers (especially if you consider the sorry state of the Russian army) would sometimes not treat the Chechens lightly. Still, this is surely not the government policy and as far as I am aware, there is no racial profiling in the country. Heck, one of the candidates in Russian presidential elections was a Chechen!

      --
      Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
  2. Anybody with a decent translation or more info? by Mickut · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The wings look really small, so is that a lifting body shuttle?

    1. Re:Anybody with a decent translation or more info? by aXis100 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does it really need wings?

      I assume it gets into space by brute force, not aerodynamic lift. Re-entry isnt any more challenging - it's basically a steep glide.

    2. Re:Anybody with a decent translation or more info? by Mickut · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's sort of like saying, who needs a parachute, you'll go down even in what's basically a steep glide if you jump off a plane without one.

      I wouldn't want to be aboard a shuttle or any other space/aircraft (Parachuting capsules, VTOLs and helicopters excluded) that lands at a steep angle on the ground. Not to mention the relatively high speeds involved with a steep decline. I've already had my share of bumpy landings on regular jetliners.

      So some kind of mechanism for contolling the descent and velocity would be nice.

    3. Re:Anybody with a decent translation or more info? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I wouldn't want to be aboard a shuttle or any other space/aircraft (Parachuting capsules, VTOLs and helicopters excluded) that lands at a steep angle on the ground. Not to mention the relatively high speeds involved with a steep decline. I've already had my share of bumpy landings on regular jetliners.

      I guess that's why you're not an astro/cosmo-naut. Don't compare your "flight" experiences with re-entry, and btw, wtf kind of re-entry vehicle design do you have?... yeah I thought not.

    4. Re:Anybody with a decent translation or more info? by (54)T-Dub · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is that Adding wings to a space vehicle add so much weight and resistance that payload capacity his slaughtered. Truly the answer is to return to capsule style vehicles (mercury, gemini & appollo). The problem is that the air force has a big influence in keeping the program a "flight" (ie: wings) oreiented.

      --

      "I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
  3. Good choice for a name? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    They are hoping if it does crash and burst into flames that it will just rise from the ashes reborn. Phoenix technology would have saved the NASA space program billions.

  4. stop making space planes, dammit by Audent · · Score: 4, Insightful

    NASA (and now the ESA) appears to be completely sold on the idea that for a spacecraft to be reusable it has to fly in the atmosphere. Like, with wings. What's wrong with plummeting in an uncontrolled fashion like a capsule? The end result is usually the same and yet you haven't had to build in all those fancy pants expensive avionics. The Shuttle is something of a brick to fly, or so I read, and really, wouldn't the crew be that much safer with one giant heatshield for re-entry like the old Apollos and Geminis rather than the multitudinal tile system that seems to shed like an old labrador?

    Also, reusable and cheap seem to be mutually exclusive. The Shuttles are supposed to be reusable but they basically rebuild them completely every time they fly. That's no way to build a regular service to orbit... why not go with cheaper throw-away capsules that don't need piloting in the same way the Shuttle does? More room for the scientists/techs/tourists/reporters!

    --
    I am a leaf on the wind
    1. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, one design I saw was for a winged main booster. The idea behind it was when it detaches from the shuttle it could glide back down to earth.

      But yes, the Space Shuttle wasn't exactly what the space program needed for the long term, it was just the cheap sucker that passed congress. Don't get me wrong, it served it's purpose.

      But as far as going back to a capsule, well you could but I think part of our experimentation is attempting to actually create a vehicel that at some point could do a moonshot, land, launch, return, and refuel and get back underway in a short time. And yes, we do need a fleet of more traditional rockets, not so much because they are cheeper to build, but that whole issue of getting into higher orbits that the present shuttle just can't do.

      Landing has one key advantage vs splashdown in the fact that even with the flying brick shuttle you have some control as to where you land and how you land. If you screw up a splashdown and hit.. for example... land, you are pretty much screwed.

    2. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Heat tiles are the cutting edge of technology... for 30 years ago. Modern metal alloys exist that are structurally strong, yet can also withstand the temperatures of re-entry directly without having ceramic tiles. My guess about the different approaches:

      * Ceramic tiles = obsolete.
      * Heat shield = more weight to carry up with you = inefficient for payload and fuel.
      * Parachutes = explosives / mechanisms to release the chute are needed.

      Wings & landing gear may be the safest option given that if the landing gear fails - you can still slide along the dirt and live. If you remember capsules sinking and astronauts nearly drowning on a regular basis with splashdowns, an airport landing is looking more and more desirable.

    3. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by hughk · · Score: 5, Interesting
      You forget that one of the main problems with the Shuttle's reentry profile is that it is too long. The shuttle was designed with single orbit capability in mind, so that USAF could go up, take some photos and come down as quickly as possible for them to be processed (remember this was pre-CCD) However, they needed the ability to ensure that they could land in the continental US so a long reentry was selected.

      An alternative is to design for steeper/shorter reentry and to use multiple orbits to ensure correct positioning so that the landing could take place somewhere reasonable. This is what NASA wanted but it was nixxed by the USAF as they needed to be able to fly all the way down.

      The ESA could select something more like the original NASA flight profile and thus make something reusable, for less money. Purely ballistic reentry vehicles are fine, but they don't scale up so easily.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    4. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by schnuf · · Score: 4, Informative

      If you read the acticles on the ESA shuttle you would know that it doesn't leave the atmosphere itself, so the problems of re-entry don't apply. Oh, and it is unmanned and autonomous.

    5. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Rolo+Tomasi · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Well, the whole point in doing all this is to create a system that is cheaper than today's methods of transportation. Capsules would be kinda pointless, because Hopper is unmanned. Its purpose is to transport cargo from the earth to LEO, MEO or GEO. Space plane type vehicles can also carry more cargo compared to single-shot rockets like the Ariane.

      Reusable spacecraft are actually much cheaper to use, just not the way the Shuttle does it. The Hopper doesn't have any of that tile nonsense. From the third link (my translation): "Upon reentry of the compact Hopper, the reentry angle into the atmosphere is optimized in such a way that the resulting heat from friction is significantly lower than on the US Shuttle. Thus the delicate and expensive tiles can be replaced with a cheap and maintenance friendly heat protection system."

      --
      Did you know you can fertilize your lawn with used motor oil?
    6. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by krenshala · · Score: 5, Informative
      Landing has one key advantage vs splashdown in the fact that even with the flying brick shuttle you have some control as to where you land and how you land. If you screw up a splashdown and hit.. for example... land, you are pretty much screwed.


      I think you are forgetting the fact that the USSR/Russians have been landing capsules in the stepes this whole time. In fact, I seem to remember reading that they thought the US was very odd for intentionally landing at sea. ;)

      [and yes, i agree with you about the shuttle and control over landing point.]
      --

      krenshala

    7. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by kirinyaga · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Actually, capsules are much safer than "space planes". Russians recently suffered a generalized computer failure on reentry and landed without any problem, far away from the expected landing spot. Oh, and you don't need to "splashdown" in water, it can be done on the ground too. Also, you don't need all that dead weight : wings and all the control and surfaces needed for the reentry. That's several additional tons you need to throw on orbit, tons you cannot put in the payload. So, if you take the shuttle motors and reservoir (you don't even need those expensive refillable boosters any more, but you can take them too), then replace the shuttle body by a (reusable) capsule, you have a much much cheaper (and efficient) reusable vehicle. And it is also safer. And it is able to lift an heavier payload on a higher orbit. And ... why the hell did they add those wings already ? I guess it is an image problem. They want a "spaceship" ...

      --
      Kirinyaga
    8. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by ender81b · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What metal could withstand 1,650 C? I am seriously curious here because nothing that I know of can even come close to withstanding that much heat for that long of time.

      I remember reading a book about turojet (fan?) engines and how the blades, even made using fancy techniques such as single mold crystal or something like that, cannot withstand the heat inside a modern military jet engine and must use a series of complicated air ducts to vent fresh air over the metal. If they can't make a material to withstand the heat of an aircraft engine why would they be able to make a material to wisthand 10's of minutes of 1000+ C heat?

    9. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Wirr · · Score: 2, Informative

      What metal could withstand 1,650 C?

      Tungsten could. It has a melting point of 3300C.
      On the other hand it is the heaviest stable(not radioactive) metal. Most probably not ideal for space usage, where every kg counts.

    10. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by ralphclark · · Score: 1
      What's wrong with plummeting in an uncontrolled fashion like a capsule? The end result is usually the same

      What, you mean like... BCHHHHHHHHHHH!

    11. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      What metal could withstand 1,650 C?

      Here is the melting point of few metals:

      Scandium 1814 K (2805.8F), Titanium 1941 K (3034.4F), Vanadium 2183 K (3470F), Chromium 2180 K (3464.6F), Zirconium 2128 K (3371F), Niobium 2750 K (4490.6F), Molybdenum 2896 K (4753.4F), Technetium 2430 K (3914.6F), Ruthenium 2607 K (4233.2F), Rhodium 2237 K (3567.2F), Hafnium 2506 K (4051.4F), Tantalum 3290 K (5462.6F), Tungsten 3695 K (6191.6F), Rhenium 3459 K (5766.8F), Osmium 3306 K (5491.4F), Iridium 2719 K (4434.8F), Platinum 2041.4 K (3215.12F), etc

      From the Periodic Table, not all, I might even have picked one or two that aren't actually metals. The question not wether is they exist, the question is weight, price, flexibility, strength, availability, etc.

      I still have more faith in carbon 3823 K (6422F) though.

    12. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Tap-Sa · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One important property of ceramics / ablative heat shield is that they are very good heat insulators. The hull of 100% superduper Tungsten shuttle might survive the re-entry but everything inside would melt.

    13. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by orulz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Looks like you've fallen victim to a problem similar to one that bit NASA in the rear recently. The temperature 1650C is 1923K and 3002F- so if the ESA/NASA made a heat shield out of Scandium, the shuttle would be screwed.

    14. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by kirinyaga · · Score: 1

      The nickel alloys used in jet engines (inconel) are able to sustain 1300K (maybe more, I don't know the exact numbers). I think even superior (but more expensive) alloys can be made. In fact, the most heated parts of the shuttle are protected by carbon-carbon and nickel alloy. Only the less heated parts are covered with ceramic tiles ...
      I guess this is a problem of cost and weight, else they would have put carbon-carbon and nickel everywhere, not ceramic. Ceramic may also be more resistant to heat over time (I know nickel alloys parts have to be replaced on a regular basis).

      --
      Kirinyaga
    15. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Veles · · Score: 2, Informative

      Perhaps, but these are the melting points.

      Usually, metals are ductile at half their fusion points.

      For example, at 1000K Titanium start to deform. Like rubber.

      Also, fusion is not the only problem. Corrosion (in a wider sense chemic stability) is also a factor.

      --
      I will find later.
    16. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Upon reentry of the compact Hopper, the reentry angle into the atmosphere is optimized in such a way that the resulting heat from friction is significantly lower than on the US Shuttle

      Point is that with capsules you don't need to optimize the reentry angle, capsules stabilize themselves. The KISS principle at work. (I'll admit that spaceplanes look sexier though. But hey, so what?)

    17. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      I seem to remember reading that they thought the US was very odd for intentionally landing at sea. ;)
      The US landed at sea for a few good reasons.
      1. It was less likley to land on someone or something if it came down at sea. The USSR has lots of empty land and not very good access to the sea. The use has some empty land and very good access to the sea.
      2. In an emergencey being abile to land in water gives you a lot more choices. The earth is what 2/3 or 3/4ths water. Most of which you could land on. You would of course want to avoid hurricans or typhoons not to mention the poles. For land you would want to avoid cities, unfriendlys "A lot in the 60s", Mountians, forests, homes, farms, cows, pigs, sheep,....
      The US capsules "COULD" land on land. It would have been rough but do could be done.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by geoswan · · Score: 1
      This sounds interesting, but could you go into a bit more detail? I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

      How does a multiple orbit re-entry make for a shorter, steeper re-entry? How would the design of such a shuttle differ from the ones that were built?

    19. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by PierceLabs · · Score: 1

      Has more to do with maintenance. Metal when heated and subjected to stress gets fatigued. Its one thing to have that on a tile that you swap out - its something altogether difference to have an issue with the entire wing structure.

    20. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by ChrisK077 · · Score: 1

      In addition to this, Hopper is supposed to start horizontally (on a 4 km long carriage, or how you'd call that) and not like the Space Shuttle. It seems it would kinda need wings then, wouldn't it?

    21. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by cybercuzco · · Score: 4, Informative

      Well, first let me say IAAAE (I am an Aerospace Engineer) I work with hypersonic vechicles, so I know a thing or three about high temperature materials. As far as I know, there is no metal or metallic alloy that can withstand 1650C without yielding. According to NASA TPSX Inconel, the best commonly used alloy has a single use temperature limit of about 1030K, or 757C. It melts at ~1400C On the other hand, there have been significant advances in ceramics in the last 30 years. Current experimental ceramics can withstand temps up to 5000K. To demonstrate how important this is consider this: The temperature on the surface of the vehicle is directly proportional to the radius of curvature at that point. I.e a pointy vehicle has a hotter nose than a blunt one, which is why reentry capsule have a very blunt leading edge. Heres the kicker, the radius of the nose at a given temperature increases or decreases proportional to T^8. In other words if you double the amount of heat that your surface can take, you can decrease that radius of curvature by 256 times. So if your old heat tiles could withstand 1500K and you needed a nose radius of 10m to prevent damage, now if youve got a material that can take 3000K, your new nose radius can be ~4cm. Think MIT dome vs Baseball.

      --

    22. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by cybercuzco · · Score: 1

      So basically the Eurpeans have invented the unmanned aireal vehicle, oh and its rocket launched.

      --

    23. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      Point is that with capsules you don't need to optimize the reentry angle, capsules stabilize themselves. The KISS principle at work.

      That's a load of manure. If you head over to Encyclopedia Astronautica and read up, you'll find that every single caspule that has flown, from Vostok and Mercury to Shenzhou (the spanking new chinese capsule) had / has to hit the atmosphere at exact atmosphere for a number of reasons, among others the need to minimize the heatpulse and limit the amount of Gs (come in to shallow, and you burn to death, come in to steep and you're crushed).

      So, my cowardly friend, capsules do need to optimise their re-entry angle, even thought they are more or less selfstabelising once they have entered the atmosphere (ie, keeping the right side down).

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    24. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Experiment+626 · · Score: 1
      Modern metal alloys exist that are structurally strong, yet can also withstand the temperatures of re-entry directly without having ceramic tiles.

      Keep in mind that most metal alloys are also heat conductors, whereas ceramic tiles, for all their other shortcomings, are remarkably good insulators. One side can be many hundreds of degrees, and the other cool enough to touch.

      While keeping the hull of a space capsule from melting is obviously important, it is not enough if the inside of the capsule gets as hot as a kiln. This is particularly true for manned flights (which this one is not) but any craft would have to adequately protect its electronics, as these will be much more delicate than the heat shield.

    25. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by ciroknight · · Score: 1

      The reason NASA wanted a plane body for their next space craft was pretty deep actually. I remember reading back in the day about how NASA wanted to implement an aircraft that could "fly" into space using a rebreathing Scramjet engine, and booster pods. They thought originally that by now they'd be able to build one light enough to fly into space and return, but this was not the case.

      What we do have though, is a great aerodynamics experiment as well. For all intents and purposes, the Space Shuttle was the most expensive glider ever made. But for that, it was a glider, and it did teach us a few things about aerodynamics at higher elevations ( i.e. friction of the air, what kind of tolerances the structure would have to maintain, etc.)

      Simply put, the Space Shuttle was one of the best experiments in space we have ever done. With a failure rate of 1/50 or so.. they did hundreds of times better than the Apollo's, and earlier rockets. The problem with NASA is they didn't take the next step like they should have. If everything would have happened like it should have, they would have a next generation space craft, like the lifting body design, that had some kind of atmospheric propulsion agent (a ram- or scram-jet engine), that was lifted with something like the traditional space shuttle's reusable launch system (hopefully with a more useful hydrogen tank :-/). It would be able to lift the weight of the rocket in combination with the rocket engines into space, then shed the rockets (and possibly the [sc]ramjet engine, since it is now useless) and glide back into the atmosphere.

      Case and point though, they should have a platform with a lot less drastic reentry proceedure than just slamming themself into the atmosphere, like gliding into it slowly, and not worry about skidding off (possibly flying into the atmosphere upside down: it could use the lift of the airplane to pull itself back into earth, then flip back around and glide in).

      --
      "Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
    26. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Precisely: it's a HTOHL concept, which makes sense, unlike the Shuttle-type VTOHL concept which doesn't. In HTOHL the wings actually help you during the launch phase; in VTOHL they're just dead weight and extra drag.

      Using wings for takeoff and landing makes a lot more sense than only using them for landing IMHO.

    27. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by John+Carmack · · Score: 4, Interesting
      >Inconel, the best commonly used alloy has a single use temperature limit of about 1030K, or 757C. It melts at ~1400C

      The refractory metals are better, but less commonly used. Columbium/niobium is reasonable to form. Molybdenum and alloys like TZM take a bit more heat, but have a potentially annoing ductile to brittle transition point for systems that will cold soak. The state of the art is irridium coated rhenium, which doesn't melt until 2466 C / 4471 F.

      We fabricated a TZM chamber a while ago at fairly high expense, but still burned through it after an extended length run:

      burned TZM

      This experience has convinced me that active cooling methods, like transpiration cooling, are probably a good idea for high reusability reentry vehicles.

      John Carmack

    28. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Ealienation · · Score: 1

      I know X-15 back in the late 60s used some sort of spray on ablative heat sheild (http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/X-15/Small /ECN-1736.jpg).

      What happened to this approach - was it insufficient for re-entry velocities?

    29. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by hughk · · Score: 1
      Originally, there were to be two parallel projects, one military for the USAF and the other civil for NASA. The cost of doing both projects was seen to be much too large so the requirements were merged.

      The USAF/NRO needed reconnaisance capability that comes between the U2 or SR71 spy planes and spy satellites. The spy planes were vulnerable and spy satellites take too long to get into position. Also they have a limited 'retasking' capability because of the fuel that is needed for orbit changes. Also, older generation spy satellites used film and it could take a week for pictures to be taken, returned to earth and processed.

      So the USAF/NRO wanted something that could fly one orbit and then reenter. The problem is that they needed to be able to land back in the continental US. A capsule can land at sea, but a shuttle needs a runway. The problem was that to find a runway, they needed to be able to fly the shuttle 'cross-range' so that they could always get back to a runway. This means the shuttle comes in relatively shallow, but this means the reentry lasts longer. They also wanted to fly polar orbits as the planning was taking place during the cold war and the USSR was the enemy and the earth would rotate about 2000Km during the orbit.

      What NASA originally wanted was a vehicle that came in steeper, essentially in a controlled stall. The problem is that you lose both height and velocity quite quickly so you need to be close to your landing runway. In fact, I understand that one design had a cross range capability of just over 300Km (i.e. distance from de-orbit burn to landing). If you weren't in the right orbit, you had to wait for the earth to rotate completely, which the USAF didn't want.

      The other issue was that the steeper profile would mean more heat, albeit for a shorter time and a smaller section of the craft. The leading edges would not have experienced significant heating levels.

      If you want to read more, a lot of this is published on NASAs web site. A somewhat sanitised view is here. The full texts of some reports are also available if you hunt around and these show that NASA's reentry experts were rather unhappy with the USAF's requirement.

      Another critical requirement was the need for a large payload capability. This essentially prevented the use of "lifting bodies" - large aerodynamic structures that generate lift from the fuselage.

      --
      See my journal, I write things there
    30. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by cybercuzco · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Whew! you know its hot when your engine is glowing brighter than your exhaust! Yeah, active cooling will do the trick, but the problem is of course lots of pipes, a tank and a heavy pump that needs power. Transpiration cooling is worse because youre losing your working fluid as you go. This isnt as big a problem for reentry vehicles (except for the added expense). Im working on a steady state hypersonic cruise vehicle so I need something that will work for more than 15 minutes. High temp ceramics look promising but are pretty brittle. So far the compromise weve come up with is using the hypersoar trajectory, which skips out of the atmosphere periodically and keeps a lower total heat load.


      P.S good luck with the X-Prize, Im rootin for ya.

      --

    31. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USSR and now Russia capsules also could, and did. I remember at least one example when soyuz landed in the lake (during accidental and uncontrolled landing, which means waaay of planned course)...

      oh, and btw, it should be "The USSR had..." in one of your sentences. USSR is gone, remember? :>

    32. Re:stop making space planes, dammit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And add to it that thermal shields need to do just that - shieldnig, not only resisting to high temperatures. Ceramics are good thermal isolators, metals - not. So what they can resist high temperatures if they'll heat up interior of the vehicle?

  5. Carmack!!! by cliffy2000 · · Score: 4, Funny

    Where is John Carmack to explain this to us when we need him? Why have you left us, Carmack?
    WHY??? ::weeps over keyboard::

  6. NASA gets lots of grief but... by Omega1045 · · Score: 3, Funny

    With all the grief NASA gets, one should note how much this proto looks like the shuttle. It is nice to know that a bunch of smart US geeks built something cool back in the 1970s that is the model for today's new designs. Hopefully this one's systems are much less complex. Now why can't we (US) get off our arses and start developing a serious replacement for the shittle (spelling intentional). Now that Al gore is not doing anything, perhaps he can invent something new for us. I mean, really, he invented the internet some years ago. Isn't it time he got cracking on some new stuff for us?

    --

    Great ideas often receive violent opposition from mediocre minds. - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:NASA gets lots of grief but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny


      Hey, you guys already got the fantastic super duper laser shield coming. Should be costing enough tax dollars already I should think.

      -- don't be afraid of the void my friend, is it not merely the logical next step?

    2. Re:NASA gets lots of grief but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      That's only to be expected. Assuming a similar fundamental technology (eg "wings") the final design is largely dictated by the combination of requirements and the (im)possibilities of this technology.

      Therefore, when several people are independently designing a winged vehicle intended to survive reentry, they're bound to come up with substantially similar designs.

  7. Manned space flight is only for romantics by DOsinga · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Space just is not a very friendly environment for men. Machines are much more suitable and they don't require a return ticket. Instead of focussing on building machines to put people in space and take them, ESA should concentrate on developing robots to do the work and research.

    Support a lawyer free internet top level domain
    Sign the .ianal top level domain petition.

    1. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by NanoGator · · Score: 1, Funny

      "...just is not a very friendly environment for men. Machines are much more suitable and they don't require a return ticket."

      Must... resist... yo mama... joke...

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    2. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by zarniwhoop · · Score: 2, Funny

      >>>Space just is not a very friendly environment for men

      but its great for women !

    3. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by Epistax · · Score: 1

      Don't require a return ticket?

      BENDER!!!!!!!!!!!!! (or)
      DATA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
      (or)
      (insert nerd reference)

    4. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you please RTFA ... the thing is not going to carry any passangers or pilots, it's totally automated.

    5. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by cybercuzco · · Score: 1
      Space just is not a very friendly environment for men.

      What, is it full of feminists? *ducks*

      --

    6. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by canadian_right · · Score: 1
      Manned space flight is expensive and dangerous, but it is the only way to get MAN INTO SPACE. The long term goal of any space program should be long term habitation of space. We should be making a colony on the moon or Mars, or better yet, terraforming Mars.

      Space science can curently be done cheaper and safer with robotics, but space exploration requires men (and women) in space.

      --
      Anarchists never rule
    7. Re:Manned space flight is only for romantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      THIS IS A ROBOT!!! RTFA - it's an automated system for launching satellites and/or supplies. You could look on it as a re-usable Progress equivalent. Much simpler and lighter than making it man-rated.

      The idea is quite practical; remember that Buran's test orbit was unmanned.

  8. Man in space is a political decision....... by eclectro · · Score: 3, Interesting


    not a pratical/scientific one. In a sense, by putting a man in space a government is saying "look at what our technical infrastructure can do." Nothing more.

    This was the original reason behind the apollo program and winning the space race. Once NASA accomplished this, NASA was left with the difficult job of justifying itself, and arguably the reason why they have not had a sense of direction.

    Many will not like this post with responses like;

    1) We need to send a man to mars --
    This would take a huge amount of money by anyone's standards. Once there, what does he do?? Plant another flag and take soil samples?? A robot could do this much cheaper. Before spending all that money on a mars mission maybe Dubya should give that prescription drug beneffit to the seniors that he promised.

    2) We need man in space to mine exotic minerals from asteroids --
    The fact is that it will always be economically cheaper to find those minerals on earth, no matter what. It would be cheaper to send a man to the bottom of the ocean to mine it there if need be. But why send a man to do a dangerous job when a robot can do it cheaper and more efficiently in the first place??

    3) We need man in space to establish the new frontier where people can go to live --
    Again, it will always be cheaper to find places on earth for people to live than to shuttle them (and all the supplies they need) to outer space. Right now it's taking 1.5 billion dollars to maintain a couple people on the international space station. If this was meant to be, how much is it going to cost to shuttle a 100 million of their fellow Americans to orbit?? To say that it will be cheaper in the future is to ignore the obvious. NASA isn't asking for less money to do their job, they're asking for more money. As it is, there is no way for them to replace the aging shuttles that like to blow up every few years. Maybe it will be cheaper in the (very) distant future, but in the history of the space program the cost has never gone down to send a few people to orbit. Maybe they could use atomic rockets. We can only imagine the fun when something goes wrong there, not to mention all the radiation spewed into the enviroment. Fusion power remains a dream occasionally energized by lasers in buildings the size of small cities for a blink of an eye.

    I bet all that money that would be spent on new and improved space planes to replace the shuttles could buy vast tracts of homes built by Habitat for Humanity for people to live in. Maybe thay could take a few dollars that they were going to spend on new spacesuits and spend it on saving the enviroment we have.

    Everybody has lots of ways to conquer the laws of physics to get man into space. But nobody has a way to conquer the laws of economics.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    1. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by elbobo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We need man in space because it's cool.

      We've been writing books about it, making movies about it, saying we're going to grow up to do it, dreaming about it for so long now that turning around and saying we're not going to do it is impossible.

      Logic doesn't come into it. It's an over powering human desire to explore, discover and just generally do cool shit.

      That's my take anyway.

    2. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by huge · · Score: 3, Insightful
      from previous post :
      "Maybe it (manned space flights)will be cheaper in the (very) distant future"

      How do you think it'll get cheaper, if it aint done now?

      I think that people on board manned space flights should be considered as a part of the experiment. You simply cannot simulate the environment of the flight to Mars on the surface of Earth.

      Technological advances are only possible after enough research is done. In this case, IMHO, people onboard are part of the research - no way getting around it.

      One aspect is always that for media coverage it's not sexy enough to shoot couple of bots to orbit. Audience (excluding /. readers) wants to see people.
      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    3. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by eclectro · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One aspect is always that for media coverage it's not sexy enough to shoot couple of bots to orbit. Audience (excluding /. readers) wants to see people

      Yes, you have single-handedly discovered NASA's great dilemma, the secret that they keep locked in a deep underground vault somewhere.

      You have uncovered the secret of secrets grasshopper.

      If they stopped sending men to orbit, they won't have any of those PR stunts like a press conference with the astronauts or a live call in with students from an elementary school somewhere.

      No sexy PR means no funding from congress. Forget that the money might have been spent on a probe to detect gravity waves and thus discover the fundamental nature of the universe. That just is not sexy enough. Plus, they might as well dissolve NASA and turn it over to another governmental agency that might do more with less.

      Yup, NASA means a man in space, all else be da***d.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    4. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by eclectro · · Score: 1


      Logic doesn't come into it. It's an over powering human desire to explore, discover and just generally do cool shit.

      Maybe when you see a homeless person sleeping on the street, you could think of a way that some of that cool shit could help find him a place to sleep.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    5. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by huge · · Score: 2, Informative

      No sexy PR means no funding from congress. Forget that the money might have been spent on a probe to detect gravity waves and thus discover the fundamental nature of the universe.

      It's true that PR eats part of the funding but even if they would use 90% of the funding for PR stunts and total BS and only 10% for 'real' science, still the share that goes for real science is much larger than the funding it would otherwise get.

      --
      -- Reality checks don't bounce.
    6. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by elbobo · · Score: 1

      Don't be naive. Cutting spending on space programs won't magically funnel more money into social programs.

      Social spending is heavily weighted by the left or right leaning of the ruling party, and has little connection to the size of space exploration budgets.

      Anyway, if you're American, then you'd be more likely to see the space program funding being shifted into the military budget.

    7. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      during the apollo mission technology was created for that single purpose of getting man on the moon, yet it was usable on great number of other things than space travel as well.

      it goes the other way too, in 20 years from now you can create much more sophisticated pieces of metal for much cheaper than you can now, and have much more processing power for simulating stress on the hull, among other things that will be cheaper(to produce) than now at higher quality.

      what i mean to say is that you don't have to study space travel for technolgy usable on space travel to advance, research is advancing nicely without such boost now.

      .

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by nilsjuergens · · Score: 3, Insightful

      > Maybe thay could take a few dollars that they were
      > going to spend on new spacesuits and spend it on
      > saving the enviroment we have.

      Five minutes after the environment is saved,
      a big asteroid hits earth, leaving nothing but
      ruins for aliens to discover.

      --
      -- Having problems sending big files over the net? Try out Efisto (http://efisto.org)
    9. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by CaptainAmerica1941 · · Score: 1

      So which would you rather do - go to Hawaii, or check out a webcam view of it from the comfort of your own home? The webcam would certainly be cheaper, safer, and much better for the environment.

    10. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by Yanray · · Score: 0

      This discussion seems to be turning into a political debate on financing technology vs. human interest. I for one see the U.S. doing to much of this financing on useless projects; See the money flows between the US and the old central Asian Republics (or at least their mob connected dictators); and such high profile projects such as Wars to remove dangerous dictators.

      I for one am looking forward to the death of many of the 70's and 80's financial mega-millioniares and billionaires. Given modern medical technology they are quite likely to go senile before they die. This gives them a chance to become technological philanthrpists and start massive projects with their name on them. Hopefully Bill Gates will build his own Linear City like that Malayasia planned in the 1990's and name it Gatesopolis. To counter this threat to fame Warren Buffet creates a city sized subterranian city; not to be left out thousands of less wealthy and more ludicrious E-commerce guru's build an orbital hotel, and of course to protect themselves from assassination by disgruntalled ex-Enron employees, Anderson execs and Ken Laye build an secret underwater hide-out. Doesn't that sound like fun?

      --
      --"Sorry for the inconvience." Gods Last Words to his Creation
      DNA, So Long and Thanks for all the Fish
    11. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by WegianWarrior · · Score: 1

      Off course the descission to send men into space is a political decission, as long as the only ones capabel of doing it is various goverments around the globe. The day the technologys has filtered down to where corps can do it, it'll be an echonomical decission, and I guess you'll oppose that as well.

      We need to send a man to mars - No, we don't need to send a man anywhere. For that matter, we don't need to send robots either, or look in telescopes or even look up. No one is forcing our hands. But if we (or rather, the guys who sit on the moneybags) decide that mars should be explored, I do belive that we ought to send men there. A robot is limited by it's design and programming, and will be at a loss if it comes into a situation that its designers hadn't thought off. A man on the other hand is flexible and adaptable. Off course, that isn't to say we shoudl stop sending robots - we ought to do both.

      We need man in space to mine exotic minerals from asteroids - Again, we don't need to do this, but if you're going to use those exotic materials in space anyway, it can make a lot of sence to mine them up there in huge quantities (some of the more serious suggestions I've read about is about mining the moon btw, not going hunting for an astroid) rather than to mine them down here - at the bottom of the gravitywell - and burn up lots and lots of fuel sending them up there.

      We need man in space to establish the new frontier where people can go to live - Yet again, there is no need - today. But with the rate we are stripmining this planet for recourcess, it may be a good idea to start looking for a new neighbourhood. The day we really, really need to find a new place to expand, it is to late. Besides, by the logic you display here, the americas should never heve been needed to be colonised from Europe. After all, by the standards of the day, north america was as far away as the moon is today, and the enviroment was much less friendly. Couldn't they have have found places to live in Europe?

      We don't need to go to space - but we don't need to have dreams either.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    12. Re:Man in space is a political decision....... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I kind of agree with all your points except #3. Living in outer space SHOULD be cheaper in the medium and longer terms. It may be expensive to keep 2 people up in space but economies of scale will ensure that the cost/person for the 1000th person will drop significantly. In fact, if you can get 250 people to live in space for a short while, they can accomplish a lot... like building better housing, improving the situation up there, and so on.

      One more thing... the cost of living on earth often ignores the environmental costs. Large countries with lots of space may not have that problem but smaller countries will certainly run into problems. Once you have cut down all the trees to make way for roads and houses, the whole place is going to turn into a desert--or worse. (The other solution is living in oceans but I'm not going to go there)...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  9. This ship is not manned by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's entirely automatic, it has wings and looks a bit like a plane or the Space Shuttle, but unless I'm completely mistaken it's not meant to carry passengers.

  10. Not the answer. by ratfynk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anti grave is not the answer either. The applied use of directed magnetic fields is interesting again though. The research into this stopped in the 1960s when the distance calculations to reach escape velocity on a field launch ramp was calculated at roughly 30 miles of ramp. The problem was that air density at the ramp hight of 13,000 feet was still too dense to take the velocity achieved without supper heating the payload! Seems to me in the Andes there are places the ramp hieghts could reach 20,000+ feet adjacent to the Altiplano but the ramp construction contraints were considered too great. Well we have much better mag lev and supperconductor tech now and we also have much better high altitude construction techniques. The only reason this tech is not been brought forward is the tech would need to be applied somewhere other than in the US! It would require real international co-operation and would in the long run be so much cheaper than rockets. Houston and the Johnson would go out of business. Fuel payloads could be launched also and staged late burning correcting vessels could also be devised. Get your mind away from rockets for just one second. Yes they are important for getting around once you gain escape velocity but they are a stupid and dangerous way to achieve it!

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
    1. Re:Not the answer. by ratfynk · · Score: 1

      Wow.. I connot believe I posted that last knight. I must have had food and death on my mind! Maybe I will try to use Old English instead. I have the mind of a flax wench, and the wit of an Elephant pizzle!

      --
      OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  11. www.highliftsystems.com by fleppir · · Score: 5, Informative

    If ESA intends to get cheap access to space they should be looking at cheaper alternatives than a reusable space-shuttle. Even if the NASA model is made more economical, it's only going to be a fraction of the savings compared to looking at other alternatives

    --
    I am the Barber of Seville.
    1. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The decision to go for a "traditional" design is probably sound, given that you'll want something that you "know" will work and be affordable.

      The Space Elevator is an intresting concept, but it is a long-term, high-risk project. For starters the materials that would be used don't even exist yet. Developing and building a Space Elevator would cost a huge amount of money, probably much more than any single country or space agency could afford by itself.

      Another aspect with a space elevator is that you put all your eggs in one basket. If it fails due to design flaws, unexpected wheather or even terrorist attacks the entire launch capability is lost for many years. Loosing an unmanned vessel is not good either, but it's much, much easier to just replace the cargo and build a new vessel.

      AC

    2. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by ralphclark · · Score: 1

      I agree absolutely.

      This is just a sideshow, winged shuttle technology will never make space access cheap enough to make a difference. Plus it only gets you into LEO anyway, and there are already plenty of ways to get payloads into LEO.

      Space elevator is the way to go.

    3. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by MikShapi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You obviously haven't read the "Common misconceptions" on ISR's website.

      Here's a few you just made that are worth pointing out:
      1. Materials not only exist, but are under mass production. Go google for nanotubes.
      2. Actually, it's a giveaway. A 10-40B$ expenditure spread across 15 years? Or across many nations like the I$$? The war in Iraq costs a billion a week. Many skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges, and other architectural endeavors have cost much much more.
      And considering that by making space accessible for a fraction of the amount any shuttle will ever cost (think 100$/kg on first cable, or 5$/kg when you'll have many many elevators, say, 50 years down the road), it will return the investment quite shortly after being built.

      Worth pointing out is that the elevator also gives you the ultra-cheap inter-solar-system propulsion solution. Think 'Slingshot'. _BIG_ slingshot. No big engines required.
      Could actually lay out a neccesity for that hot-aired russian nuke-reactor-on-mars-within-30-years idea.

      So why are they laying their money on new shuttle designs? All we'll ever need is to put the initial cable in space. 2-7 shuttle launches, pending design. Then we can forget what a shuttle is altogether. Let alone design a new one.

      Old men with old ideas would be my guess. Same reason the RIAA can't let go of its business model. No visionaries or evangelists among their decision makers, only solidified rigid-thinking fossils.

      Too bad actually. We'd all reap the benefits. Cheap comms, cheap medicine...
      So, anyone wanna lay down a couple of billion$ and design a new steam engine instead?

      --
      -
    4. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by mamahuhu · · Score: 1

      The elevator is the only paradigm shifting technology that will make access to space cheaper. The technology that is used at the moment is basically developed 1940's tech - very refined and at a higher performance level - but it is still old tech. Think internal combustion engine - that's 100 years old and the performance is not an order of magnitude better after 100 years - the same with rocketry. The idea that we can incrementally improve it and get costs down is a farce.

      The Space Elevator is the way to go....

      http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_rep or t/pdf/521Edwards.pdf

      and

      http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_rep or t/pdf/472Edwards.pdf.bak

      If I've a thing about the Space Elevator it's 'cos I think it is a more realistic means to lower 'launch' costs than anything else out there.

      My post from a while ago explains my reasoning better than I remember it doing.

    5. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Institute for Scientific Research, Inc. (ISR).

      I don't think I can take any scientific site seriously that uses Macromedia Flash. Ye gods, it's supposed to be easily accessible information.

    6. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by ralphclark · · Score: 1
      Your NIAC URLs were a bit garbled.

      Here's the first one and here's the second one.

    7. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by DarenN · · Score: 1

      Don't you need carbon nanotubes to be longer than 4 mm to get to space. I'm no expert, but if we could use 4 mm to get to space now, I'd be forever bumping my head on the moon.

      --
      Rational thought is the only true freedom
    8. Re:www.highliftsystems.com by MikShapi · · Score: 1

      If I understood what I read correctly, you need a method to expoxy short pieces together rather than grow 35000km-long ones. I've read someplace that Brad Edwards carries around a 2ft-long piece of nanotube "cable"(sheet?).

      Either way, no substantial scientific breakthroughs are any longer neccesary, only research and improvement on existing tech - and not only in nanotubes and epoxy, but also in energy beaming (microwave or laser technology) and probbably some other stuff too.
      This is provided for in both isr's, portlift's elevator-design plan, and is more something that determines the amount of time before we have an operational one (~15 years) rather than prevents us from having one altogether and dictates using shuttles until we invent teleportation.

      --
      -
  12. Re:German language links on slashdot... by ExEleven · · Score: 2, Funny

    Let it be known that I am a multi linguist, who believes in international peace and love!!

    Explain the nick name then "evil_one666".

  13. Re:German language links on slashdot... by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think it makes sense to post comments in more or less readable English, but to exclude an interesting link to a story just because it is not written in the Kings English makes little sense.

    In Europe, especially in "New Europe" (Baltic and Eastern European countries, Russia), German is widely spoken and even more widely understood. Similar cases could be made for French in "Old Europe" and Spanish in the Americas (&Spain ;-).

    Using a link to an English page is great when such a link exist, but it would be silly to ignore a great story just because it is not available in English.

  14. Re:German language links on slashdot... by e-ville · · Score: 0

    Try using a translator to view the German page. You can use babelfish or google to translate: http://babelfish.altavista.com/ http://www.google.com/language_tools Or use the clickable link below: http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F %2Fwww.esa.int%2Fexport%2FesaCP%2FSEMHYN2A6BD_Germ any_0.html&langpair=de%7Cen&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF- 8&prev=%2Flanguage_tools

  15. Postus interruptus..... by eclectro · · Score: 1, Interesting


    Yes, it's apparent that this ship is not manned. But the same rule applies -- what ever can be done in space, there will always be a cheaper more viable alternative on earth.

    This is a knee jerk rant with all the stories of china/india other countries sending men to space.

    --
    Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
  16. here is the translation(albeit a rough one) by CowBovNeal · · Score: 3, Informative

    Space transporter of the future

    11 March 2003
    more?Der new one way in the universe? Space transporter of the next generation? if the topic of an high-informative exhibition of the German research council under co-operation of the European space travel organization is ESA, which on Thursday, which 13 March, 18,00 o'clock, open and by 26 April in Munich will have to be visited.

    Central problem of space travel are the transport costs for a kilogram of pay load into space. For one-way rocket systems they are to kilogram at present about 11,000 to 25,000 dollar per. Too highly, in order to be able to exist on a long-term basis in the competition. Economical, flexible and environmentalcompatible, re-usable systems are in demand: Unorthodox recycling solutions, which let the costs sink on for instance a tenth.
    The exhibition reflects this trend in descriptive way. In the center is located the development of a new generation of space transport systems, which can start and land like a normal airplane on an air haven. By the example of a fictitious mission the visitor learns first the elements of a flight? Start, flight, ascent, return, landing? as well as the respective problem areas know. Parallel for this the results of the three DFG promoted special research ranges become?Grundlagen the draft of aerospace planes? the RWTH Aachen?Transatmosphaerische flight systems? of DO Munich and the German Federal Armed Forces university Munich as well as?Hochtemperaturprobleme the returnable space transport systems? of the University of Stuttgart (heat protection tiles) presented. The German center for air and space travel (DLR) is involved with several projects in these special research ranges.

    Flow investigations in the wind tunnel
    Hopper - the euro-shuttle

    The compiled bases found entrance into projects of several industrial enterprises, as for example the Astrium GmbH, Bremen and Ottobrunn, to the MAN technology AG, Augsburg, the resident of Munich enterprise Kayser Threde as well as OHB system in Bremen. One of these projects is hopper. Behind it an unmanned autonomous aircraft hides itself, of Europe re-usable space shuttle. The start effected horizontal on 4 km carriages of the European space port Kourou in French Guyana are enough. Hopper in 130 km already suspends and returns few minutes after height the satellite pay load with upper stage then automatically to the earth. The upper stage is ignited. It brings the satellites to the desired place in the low, middle or geostationary orbit (LEO, MEO, GEO). With the return compact hopper is optimized in such a way the acceptance angle into the atmosphere that the developing frictional heat is importantly lower than at the outer skin of the US shuttle. With it the susceptible and expensive heat protection tiles can be replaced by a economical and low-maintenance thermal protection system.
    Due to its flight path hopper cannot return however again to the starting point. It lands in the territory of ESA member states on the Azores or another island in the Atlantic. The return motion of hopper takes place on the ship way. If the ESA should decide for the hopper concept, then the aircraft can be operational starting from 2015.

    Orbital glider Phoenix
    By aspera ad ASTRA

    In order to be able to build hoppers finally, it requires an intermediate step: Phoenix. With the small demonstrator the innovative technologies at the material object are to be tested. Due to the multiplicity of physical influences in the atmosphere all details of the aircraft cannot be examined by computer simulations or windkanalversuchen.
    Phoenix and hoppers are embedded into the development programs TETRA (technology program for future space transport systems) as well as ASTRA (selected systems and technologies for future applications of space transport systems). ASTRA again forms the German contribution for the development of re-usable transport systems on European level. In the context of ASTRA all necessary system abilities for an autonomous entrance to t

    --
    Bush is on fire and its not good for my lungs.
  17. I seriously hope ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    that the DLR are NOT involved in the ESA space flight programme!

  18. Space Travel by rf0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    We don't need shuttles just a very big catapult

    Rus

    1. Re:Space Travel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not so clever.
      Hussein wanted to build a huge cannon for space travel, and look now what had happend to him.

  19. Re:German language links on slashdot... by presroi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Your first point is absolutely valid to a certain extend.

    While I am a German native speaker, the majority of the information I read is
    a) English
    b) German with at least 20 per cent English buzzwords.

    Every time /. is linking towards non-English sites, there is someone posting a translation in here. (t+5minutes: automatic ones like babelfish, altavista or google; t+20 minutes exerpts in a usable translation; t+1h a nice translation).

    This is actually a good thing and the people who are doing these translations are heavyly dependant on your feedback.

    From a pracical side, it would be not so nice not to point to non-English sites, when they are covering an interesting topic. As long as there are people here who are helping those people who have chosen to learn different languages, I don't see you being handicapped.

    Btw. do I hear you volunteering to answer stupid questions from non-English-native-speakers to explain rare english words which can't be found in an online dictionary for some reason?

  20. Not so bad indeed. by presroi · · Score: 1, Funny

    Phoenix only incinerates itself every 500/1000 years. This is a tolerable lifetime for a space vehicle, imho.

    Short intro about the phoenix bird in German and English

  21. First stage by Rxke · · Score: 4, Informative

    This thing is only a sophisticated first stage, an unmanned plane-like vehicule that boosts sats with additional stages to 130 km. After that it returns to earth. Above 130km there's a lot less atmospheric drag, so this makes sense. They plan to have it fling in 2015, but the guys from X-Prize are doing essentially the same thing...

  22. Cheaper flights with Ryan-air? by adeyadey · · Score: 4, Funny

    Simple solution, get Ryan-air to do it!
    Then we will get:

    Moon - from 15.00 return
    Mars - from 25.00 return
    Sun - from 35.00 (one way)
    etc..

    Spaceport taxes not included.
    Of course if you want to travel at
    a time *you* want the cost is:

    Moon - from 2.5 billion return
    etc..

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    1. Re:Cheaper flights with Ryan-air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      As long as you don't mind been dropped off ~1000 kilometers from your destination and taking a bus / plane the rest of the way.

    2. Re:Cheaper flights with Ryan-air? by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      Yes the ryan-air spaceport for Mars is actually on Phobos. An oxygen mask/tank for the the flight costs extra too..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    3. Re:Cheaper flights with Ryan-air? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And by "Mars" they mean Stanstead, with connection by coach.

  23. The solution.. by adeyadey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Its an old point, but worth repeating:-
    I dont believe NASA/ESA will ever deliver
    really cheap space transport - they are
    good at some things, but they are just
    not the right people to do it..
    The X-Prize has yielded a whole raft of
    promising new vehicles, all for a measley
    $10 million. (remember the the shuttle is
    $600 million per launch)

    Just set up "competitions" for certain
    objectives and let entreprenuers figure
    out the rest..

    --
    "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    1. Re:The solution.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Make the space shuttle private and you will see two main results:
      1) The death toll will be much higher.
      2) Accountability for the escalating cost of sending things into space will vanish.


      Corporations are fine and good for some things (making VCR's and whatnot), but I for one wouldn't rely on a for-profit venture in a situation where safety and accountability are critical (ie: space exploration). Yes, the government sucks for many things, but to pretend huge corporations don't suck as just as much is to ignore reality.

    2. Re:The solution.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      but I for one wouldn't rely on a for-profit venture in a situation where safety and accountability are critical (ie: space exploration).

      But you do - what about aircraft manufacturers?

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
    3. Re:The solution.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, please...

      The X-prize is about developing systems for sub-orbital joy rides, a market which disappeared with the .bombs.

      Wake me up when someone comes up with a competition to get something into orbit.

      Nothing to see here, move along...

    4. Re:The solution.. by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      The X-prize is about developing systems for sub-orbital joy rides, a market which disappeared with the .bombs. Wake me up when someone comes up with a competition to get something into orbit..

      In the longer term the technology developed in pursuit of the X-Prize could deliver exactly that, at a genuinly cheap price..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  24. Breaking news: Phoenix renamed by schlpbch · · Score: 3, Funny

    to ESAFirebird because of copyright infringement.

    (Next logical step these days: a joke including SCO)

  25. Don't Hold Your Breath by N8F8 · · Score: 3, Funny

    Is this thing going to launch before or after they launch their GPS replacement system? Or finish the ISS?
    Besides, shuttles just are soooo 80's.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
  26. Its all very nice, by CooCooCaChoo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    however, when are they going to fix the problems with long term space flight? we can have the greatest space ship ever designed, however, unless the issues faced, aka, bone density deterioration due to weightless environment and the ability to haul a large amount of supply of food etc.

    Ulimately if there is ever to be a future in space travel and space "exploration", the dogma between the European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency and NASA have to be put to one side, pull all the collective resources together and focus on a common goal.

    With out a common goal and unified direction all there will be as a result is 3 organisations duplicating each others R&D, whichm IMHO is not a very efficient way of spending tax payers money.

    --

    "The difference between pornography and erotica is the lighting" - Woody Allen

    1. Re:Its all very nice, by Urkki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Common goal... Yeah. And communism is such a nice idea on paper too.

      We people need competition to bring out the ambition in us. It keeps us going, pushing to the limits. This applies both in individual level (my rocket engine will be the best, even if I have to work 80h a week), and at society level (our boys can get to the Moon first, never mind the cost).

      Co-operation is essential of course, but competition implies duplication to a certian degree, and trying to elimiate that will just get less done for same resources. Human nature.

    2. Re:Its all very nice, by CooCooCaChoo · · Score: 1

      1) What has communism got to do with this whole debate? absolutely *NOTHING*

      2) Need one drag out the issue of the French next generation space engine which chosen over the English model even though the French version was less fuel efficient.

      It doesn't matter if there is competition involved, the net result will always be, political interference will take place against the better judgement of engineers and scientists.

      3) Interesting that you talk about competition, yet, you *COMPLETELY* forget about the senate querying the amount NASA recieves and the percieved benefits to the public.

      Had the space agencies around the world combined, the cost of getting things done would be alot cheaper, meaning, less wastage and more can be done on the shoe string budget they receive.

      --

      "The difference between pornography and erotica is the lighting" - Woody Allen

    3. Re:Its all very nice, by Urkki · · Score: 1

      1) Communistic system failed largely due to lack of competition inside it, and economically superior competitive system outside it (western capitalism) wiping floor with it.

      2) I don't know about that case, but I imagine that if there had only been one engine developed, it would likely have been less fuel efficient than either of those you mention.

      3) Huh? I don't see any connection between competition and US Senate queries really, so you lost me here... Mind you, I'm not American, and just about all I know about US Senate is that it exists (which I bet is more than you know about my country's governmental system, but anyway ;).

      Co-operation is good, but "combining all space agencies" would be about as useful as "combining all international airlines". It would not make things more efficient or cheaper.

  27. Re:German language links on slashdot... by evil_one666 · · Score: 1
    OK! OK! enough already! I take it all back :o)

    I guess we shouldnt preclude a good slashdot article on the basis that it is in a language that we dont understand (although it does make browsing the links from a story a little less exciting)

    My point was to a certain extent as follows: Why so many german articles lately(as opposed to portugese, mandarin, polish or russian for ex.)?

    Additionally I hereby offer my translation services for all Norwegian words, and for the record, I dont consider anybody asking for clarifiction about something they dont know to be stupid.

  28. Re:German language links on slashdot... by presroi · · Score: 1
    Hi evil_one666.

    Thank you for replying.

    although it does make browsing the links from a story a little less exciting


    Depends on your expectations. On a boring day, there is nothing more exciting than discovering a forein language and playing around with it. The milage may vary but there have been many moments of success for me, when I tried to figure out the meaning of huge norwegian sentences :)

    Why so many german articles lately(as opposed to portugese, mandarin, polish or russian for ex.)?


    The answer is pretty easy (to a certain extend..): YOU DID NOT SUBMIT THEM!

    simple, isn't it? (okay, I may have skipped one or two steps)..

    Thank you for your offer.
    There might be some "Jeg forstar ikke"-mails in your mailbox :)

    Have a nice day.
  29. Phoenix? But..... by abhikhurana · · Score: 1

    Can't it be confused with the obscure databse package from Down under? How come the suppporters of the package are not asking the European Space Agency to change the name of the prototype which is not confusing. Afterall, it surely can cause some confusion if someoen says,"Oh Man! Pheonix is blazingly fast." So should we start voting on a new name if ESA agrees?

  30. We should send someone to Mars to stay there by RedLaggedTeut · · Score: 1
    I agree, there not much sense in sending someone to mars if a robot can do the same job.

    By why not send someone there to make a settlement ? First send up robots to set up a base, then send the humans when everything works.

    Why do we eventually need to settle elsewhere ? One big reason is that an asteroid might hit earth, killing everyone and destroying most ecosystems.

    The ultimate reason is that the sun will go supernova eventually.

    --
    I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
    1. Re:We should send someone to Mars to stay there by Paulrothrock · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'd volunteer to live on Mars. Anything to get away from idiots who see no use in a manned space program.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
  31. A couple of 9/11 jokes by danila · · Score: 0

    OK, here are a few of those that are shorter and easier to translate:

    USA after September 11: Americans hang out American flags, Arabs burn American flags, Jews sew and sell American flags.

    After the 9/11 Yasser Arafat expressed his condolences to president Bush and all American people. In reply president Bush promised to express his condolences to Yasser Arafat and all Arab people.

    1. A group of American financiers announced a reward for the head of Bin Laden - 1 billion US dollars.
    2. A group of cloning researchers urges Bin Laden to contact them for mutually beneficial cooperation.

    What is the difference between Afganistan and the USA?
    One is a savage and barbarian terrorist state ruled by illegitimate government - a gang of bandits relying on violence, a country populated by bloodthirsty fanatics, ready to kill men, women and children everywhere in the world, to stop at no crimes against moralilty and humanity, only because they hold views on life or opinions on any issue slightly different from those that these barbarians share at the moment.
    Another one is a small country in Central Asia.

    After the 9/11 events in New-York, Americans learned what "fear" means. After Tsereteli built on the Ground Zero a monument to the victims of the terrorist act, Americans learned what "horror" means.

    And the funniest of all and completely untranslatable:

    Pn September 11 Ben Laden sits in his undeground shelter in Afganistan mountains. The phone calls and when Ben Laden lifts the receiver, he hears: "Ben, this is Danila. Ben, I need help!"

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    1. Re:A couple of 9/11 jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ha ha ha -- hilarious, I'm looking for some good jokes on the moscow theater incident last October - do you have any?

  32. Space elevator is a better way to spend their EURs by Fjan11 · · Score: 2, Informative
    Why do they want to build another space shuttle, albeit an improved one? It would make more sense to pursue another way to get up there.

    This article claims a space elevator could be had for as little as $10 B: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /space_elevator_020327-1.html

    --
    This sig is just as redundant as the rest of this posting
  33. People are old hat by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 1

    Sending people into space isn't cool anymore.

    You need robots to be cool these days!
    Big bouncy balloon landers and squirmy snake robots. Maybe something spiderlike or a whole bunch of tumbleweed style bots rolling around.

    If you're sending a man up he better have some bad-ass exoskeleton if he's gonna be cool.

    --
    Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
  34. Ideal solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe 15 years ago, a Canadian (Borh, I think) was developing a massive cannon in Iraq to put satellites in low orbit. The cannon was built on the side of a mountain. The only problem is the Israelis got scared and bombeb it. No a bad solution.

    1. Re:Ideal solution by colenski · · Score: 1

      You are thinking of Gerald Bull Close enough, though.

  35. Very often people will translate it by theolein · · Score: 1

    The fact that there have been a number of article with links to German sites lately has a lot to do with SCO. Heise.de, the German computer publisher of c't and iX, has been following the case closely. Heise is highly regarded and their magazines are world class, as they are very detailed, provide truly unbiased critical reporting (If MS provides an interesting new technology, they report on it, and if MS fucks up they report on that too) and provide details of technologies, programming languages and products that one could only dream of in other tech publications.

    Very often, as in the recent SCO articles, they ask questions that no other rag will ask out of fear of losing advertising revenue (I'm thinking CNet here). I translated one of the articles here on slashdot as very often will happen. I've seen people translating spanish articles, and very occaisionally, Japanese one's as well. It helps us understand that there is indeed a world outside of the US.

  36. Re:An American legend? by Sr.+Zezinho · · Score: 1
    An ancient american legend from which tribe?

    Greeks? Romans?

    --
    os trabalhos e os dias: http://zmoreira.net
  37. Not American by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Most beings spring from other individuals; but there is a certain kind which reproduces itself. The Assyrians call it the Phoenix. It does not live on fruit or flowers, but on frankincense and odoriferous gums. When it has lived five hundred years, it builds itself a nest in the branches of an oak, on the top of a palm tree. In this it collects cinnamon and spikenard, and myrrh, and of these materials builds a pile on which it deposits itself, and dying, breathes out its last breath amidst odors. From the body of the parent bird, a young Phoenix issues forth, destined to live as long a life as its predecessor. When this has grown up and gained sufficient strength, it lifts its nest from the tree (its own cradle and its parent's sepulcher), and carries it to the city of Heliopolis in Egypt, and deposits it in the temple of the sun."
    Ovid, The Metamorphoses, Book XV, ll. 391-407
  38. Re:An American legend? by mamahuhu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sigh....

    Egyptian - it's an Egyption legend....

    http://cindyart.com/Pages/PhoenixEgypt.html
    htt p://www.nwpamed.com/Phoenix/birdhx.htm

    I'm never very sure whether these sorts of comments are meant to be funny or if it is the famous ignorance of ... well let's just not go there....

  39. decrease costs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    That's good, because there's nothing those European socialists know how to do better than cause prices to... uhh... rise, actually.

  40. Re:An American legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Er, Egyptian? The web pages you point to don't actually claim this, or provide any evidence for their claims. I'm pretty sure this legend didn't show up until Roman times.

  41. The Phoenix? by 56ksucks · · Score: 0

    They're 60 years too early, The Phoenix doesn't make it's first warp flight until 2063!!!!

    --

    ---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"

  42. Re:An American legend? by CrazyTalk · · Score: 0

    Apparently, the legend appears in a number of different cultures: Phoenix Legend

  43. Re:An American legend? by david614 · · Score: 1

    You are correct, of course. But, *Egyption*? :)

    --
    ELITISM: It's always lonely at the top. Uninvited company is rarely welcome.
  44. Landing isn't a priority. by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Figure it this way, except for the men and women we put up there most of what goes up stays up.

    Shuttles are pie in the sky, looks good in movies, and works in novels type of technology that easier for the public to understand.

    They are also a fraudulent waste of money. Buck Rogers looking tech may sell, but it doesn't get the job done efficiently.

    Big Dumb Boosters are the best route.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  45. Re:An American legend? by mamahuhu · · Score: 1

    Spell check - Must remember to spell check...

  46. ESA? Shuttle? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What the hell ever happened to the space elevator? At least then we had all those elevator music jokes =)

  47. Re:Space elevator is a better way to spend their E by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That article is making a lot of unsubstantiated claims. Not to mention that projects on that scale always run hugely over budget.

  48. melting point - schmelting point... by geoswan · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I am not a metalurgist. Nor do I play one on TV. But I did do a little reading and little playing around when I was a teenager.

    I can assure you, from practical experience, that the melting point is not as significant as you imply. The physical properties of metals change as significant heat is applied.

    I am sure most of us have seen a blacksmith make a wrougth-iron horseshoe, or reasonable equivalent. They heat the work-place up in their forge, until it is red-hot - which is still several hundred degrees below the melting point of iron. You heat it hot enough and iron or steel loses most of its strength and become quite ductile.

    I believe you will find the same to be true of all those other metals, and their alloys...

  49. Re:An American legend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Phoenix (fenix) has always been an egyptian bird.

  50. Re: Anti grave by ratfynk · · Score: 1

    Believe it or not I did not use a spell check I just typed it in. A grave situation indeed I must have been going /. gaga. The concept of an (excelleration) mag-lev ramp is not new. I just hope they do not use EXCEL to do the math work. Auto- correct formulas would be damn dangerous.

    --
    OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
  51. Ummm... by tgd · · Score: 1

    Man, yet another case of /. moderators not thinking...

    Anyway, not to be picky, but just because the X-prize is $10m doesn't mean the vehicles are costing $10m.

    I'd hazard a guess that not a single one of them will have cost even remotely close to that, when all is said and done. Thats less than the cost of a good business jet which can take advantage of the economies of scale. When you add the cost of the vehicles that fail to those that succeed, the cost of development for a successful private sub-orbital space vehicle might be pretty suprising.

    I agree with the general idea of your post though...

    1. Re:Ummm... by adeyadey · · Score: 1

      Ok but the cost to the public purse is only $10 million - presuming similar prizes are funded by the government in the future. Burt Rutan's sees all sorts of ways of making his craft (see http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/ ) pay its way. And I dont know how much he has spent on development, so its hard to make that judgement..

      --
      "You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
  52. What would it take to build a unmanned shuttle? by WoTG · · Score: 1

    Probably posting this too late to get a reply... but...

    Does anyone have a guess as to how feasible it would be to build a new shuttle, but make it unmanned? In other words, simplify it by stripping out all the human-support gear, yet still keep all the research that went into aerodynamics and construction. I would imagine that this would remain significantly cheaper than a complete redesign.

  53. Nah, Pirates! by DarenN · · Score: 1

    Nah, that's a load of crap. What you really need are Pirates

    Coz pirates kick ass

    --
    Rational thought is the only true freedom
  54. Re:German language links on slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    'Coz Germany is a technological superpower, arguably no. 2 after the US.

  55. Re:German language links on slashdot... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "In Europe, especially in "New Europe" (Baltic and Eastern European countries, Russia), German is widely spoken and even more widely understood. "

    Especially words such as "blitzkrieg" and "Stuka" :-) As a guide-book many years ago said about travelling in Eastern Europe, you'd find plenty of people (particularly older ones) who understood German, but you should make sure you speak it *badly*!

  56. Stop solar system sprawl! by RoboProg · · Score: 1

    AOL! (I agree), except for one thing:

    In the (distant..) future, some people will always want to go to GET THE HELL AS FAR FROM EVERYONE ELSE AS THEY CAN.

    I guess if you can affort a new home in the (asteroid) belt, anyway.

    --
    Yow! I'm supposed to have a plan?
  57. Why the shuttle has wings. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    The wings were an Air Force requirement, not a NASA one (remember that the Shuttle was also meant to function in a military capacity. After Challenger, when the Shuttle was grounded for two years, the Air Force realized that they couldn't afford to rely on such a vehicle, and after flying 5 more military missions, gave up on the Shuttle and switched entirely to Expendible Launch Vehicles (ELVs)).

    Anyhow, the reason the air force wanted wings is this: they wanted to be able to do "hop and pop" missions. In other words, they would launch the Shuttle into a polar orbit from Vandenburg Airforce Base (VAB) in California, toss a satellite out over Antarctica, and then land back at VAB after a single orbit. Meanwhile, their satellite (or weapon or whatever) could do an orbital plane change before entering Soviet radar coverage. They figured that this would be a helluva sneaky and confusing way to put something in orbit.

    The problem is that, coming back to land at VAB after 90 minutes, the earth would have rotated, and VAB would now be almost a thousand miles east. (This is called, IIRC, "precession of the ground track"). Unfortunately, the Shuttle expends all but a small amount of fuel on its way to orbit (the Orbital Maneuvering System (OMS) only has enough impulse to change the Shuttle's speed by a few hundred miles per hour). So, they needed to be able to bank the shuttle once it hit the atmosphere, fly it a thousand miles east of the orbital track until it reached California, and then land. They needed a thousand miles of this "cross range," and wings are the only way to get that. And that's why the Shuttle has wings.

    Epilogue: as it turns out, the launchpad at VAB was built, to the tune of $5 billion, but was never used. No "hop and pop" flights were ever conducted. No polar orbits have ever been attempted. The thousand-miles-of-crossrange capability has never been used. As a result, the wings have been so many %&)!@#%@!# thousand pound of ballast, for 23 years. And in February, they killed a crew.

    The End.

  58. A couple of Nord-Ost jokes by danila · · Score: 1

    Sure. It's definitely offtopic, but what can I do?

    http://anekdot.ru/an/an0210/f021025.html

    Federal Security Service in Moscow reports that the Washington sniper is already in Moscow and currently is moving in the direction of theatrical centre on Dubrovka.

    NEW! "Nord-Ost"!!! Now on video!!!

    Movsaev: "I came with my family to visit my relative in Moscow. He promised to buy us tickets to Nord-Ost. He didn't, so we had to go without the tickets..."

    Only at the "Nord-Ost" musical! For the first time in history a real plane with real terrorists lands on the scene! [1]

    Because of some tens of bandits who took the weapons in their hands, hundreds of thousands of other Chechens will suffer, who have their weapons hidden in caches.

    A few months after.
    A foreign journalist asks Vladimir Putin: "What happened with the hostages in Moscow?"
    Putin replies: "They died." [2]

    It's like always in Russia. They produce a musicle, but it turns out to be a tragedy!

    Today an unknown judoist moistened 45 terrorists in the toilet [3] of the theatre on Dubrovka. "I am happy that I finally got a chance to do that" he told to the journalists, after which he jumped on the tram's footboard and disappeared. [4]

    The terrorists are under the lead of the infamous Chechen warlord Zahvat Nordostov. [5]

    1 - It really was widely advertised that a real plane would land on the scene in the end of the musical.

    2 - plays on a similar Putin's reply to the question about "Kursk". When asked what happened with the submarine, he replied "it sank".

    3 - plays on the famous Putin's promise (live on TV) to moisten (Russian slang for "kill") terrorists even in the toilets. Putin is also a judoist.

    4 - plays on the famous Soviet kid's poem by Marshak about a man who saved a little girl from a burning house, but then disappeared because of modesty, and now he can't even be found by the combined efforts of firefighters, police and photographers. :)

    5 - untranslatable. :) "Zahvat Nordostov" means "capture of Nord-Osts" and sounds like a Chechen name (compare with "Movsar Mashadov" or something like that. This plays on an older joke about made-up names of Chechen terrorists, such as Ushat Pomoev (bucket of slops), Rekord Nadoev (record milk yields), Podryv Ustoev (undermining of moral principles), Ugon Harleev (hot-wiring Harley-Davidson bikes), or Parad Urodov (freak parade). :)

    Here are some plays on the names of other nationalities:
    Bulgarian: Pobelka Potolkov (whitewashing of the ceilings)
    Polish singer: Stojka Rakova (doggystyle position)
    Polish boxer: Vyn'ka Meloch' (take the coins from your pockets)
    Azerbaijanian musician: Obrygaj-ugly (belch in the corners)
    Vietnamese chess player: Pen' Pnem (dumb as a stump)
    Greek: Slunidopolu (slobber to the floor)
    Japanese farmer: Nakosika Sukasena (mow some hay, bitch)
    Japanese geisha: Atomuli Yadalato (did I fuck the right guy?)
    Japanese doctor: Komuto Herovato (somone feels like shit right now)
    Japanese racer: Toyama Tokanava (first a hole, then a ditch)

    --
    Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
    1. Re:A couple of Nord-Ost jokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fair enough - your "black humor" seems to be pretty even-handed .. not sure about your general world view though (or at least your impression of US treatment of taliban types at quantanamo in cuba) :

      http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s920538.htm

  59. Wonderful choices of materials. by adoll · · Score: 1
    In spite of me being a metallurgical engineer, don't consider this to be a professional recommendation.

    Titanium is extremely difficult to work with-- just ask the Australians who were lining high temperature autoclaves with them. Titanium is brittle and burns at high temp and high O2 overpressures (think Sodium fires). Welding it is an art and must be done under an inert atmosphere making it very succeptible to something known as 'human error'. Zirconium is in the same family as Titanium and likely suffers the same firey fate.

    I'm not aware of Molybdenum ever being used in its 'elemental' form. Most common uses are as sulphides and oxides as lubricants or in alloying with ferrous metals. There is likely a reason for nobody using it in elemental form - I don't know what it is. I'll check some of my reference books and get back to the group with the results. I suspect it is a promiscuous metal and will corrode easily.

    Technetium, Ruthenium, Iridium, Scandium and Hafnium are so rare that I have never encountered them in my career. I suspect you would have a hard time a) finding enough of them, and b) finding anybody who knows how to weld them.

    Tantalum is often used as a substitute for titanium in autoclave parts that are subjected to high O2 atmospheres. Unbelievably expensive... a solid Tantalum component is worth several times the costs of titanium in the same component.

    Platinum, Rhodium and other PGMs (paladium, etc) are expensive and ductile. Need to alloy them with something to get the strength up (think 24 karat gold versus 10 karat gold). But what happens to the melting temp when you start alloying it?

    Niobium is, to my knowledge, only mined in a single place in North America: Niobec. These guys don't make an elemental product, they make an alloy known as Ferroniobium that is sold to steel plants for use in alloying.

    -AD

  60. Propellant as coolant by OzJuggler · · Score: 2, Interesting
    What was wrong with the method that Boeing Rocketdyne were using for their aerospike engine? They were running their cold propellant fluid (hydrogen?) through the edge of the combustion chamber and circulating it back to the top just prior to burning. This seems a great idea, since you can cool the walls and get faster ignition from the fuel at the same time.

    Last time I checked you were using a cold liquid propellant. Does Armadillo have fabrication difficulties with such a design?

    -OzJuggler.

    --
    Life's a buffer; you can only get out of it what you put into it! C:-)