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.'"
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
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.
.ianal top level domain petition.
Support a lawyer free internet top level domain
Sign the
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.
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.
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
-- Reality checks don't bounce.
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.
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"
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
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.
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
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.
> 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)
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.
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...