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.'"
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.
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
Where is John Carmack to explain this to us when we need him? Why have you left us, Carmack? ::weeps over keyboard::
WHY???
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 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."
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.
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!
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.
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.
Your first point is absolutely valid to a certain extend.
/. 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).
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
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?
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...
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.
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!"
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!"
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.