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.'"

Comments

Re:stop making space planes, dammit

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:stop making space planes, dammit

[hughk]

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.

Manned space flight is only for romantics

[DOsinga]

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.

www.highliftsystems.com

[fleppir]

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

Re:German language links on slashdot...

[Sigurd_Fafnersbane]

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.

Re:stop making space planes, dammit

[krenshala]

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.]

Re:stop making space planes, dammit

[kirinyaga]

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" ...

The solution..

[adeyadey]

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..