Slashdot Mirror
The Return of Apollo?
hpulley writes "Bell bottoms are back, the Stones are still touring and Time has a piece on how NASA's _new_ space vehicle may actually be the return of a very old friend, a highly modified and modernized version of the Apollo Space Capsule. Manned spacecraft might actually leave low earth orbit again! Initially they'd fly with Delta and Atlas but more powerful boosters could be developed. We could go to the Moon again, and perhaps to Mars but I'm getting ahead of myself. Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught? Expensive steps backward?"
Didn't they just come off of serious embarassment with the Columbia disaster and now they are going to re-instate 50-year-old technology?
and I couldn't imagine living in the capsule for an extended period of time.. sure hope they make it bigger!
I'm a big fan of capsules to go into space. There's no reason why a capsule can't be reusable. They sit on top of the rocket, the best place for a payload. A rocket can be attached to the top for an escape option. They are a lot cheaper. On and on. NASA can still work on reusable boosters, without having to change the basic capsule design.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Kick in the Head
Ha!
First we bring back the Apple I, now Apollo. Please tell me disco isn't coming back too.
Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught?
No, it doesn't. We've learned a LOT about spaceflight in the last 30 years, from both successes and failures. The shuttle program had both hits and misses, and a lot of important research was conducted regardless.
And I don't think anyones going to mars in one of those little tin cans. Imagine a year in that thing?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
why this would be necessary when we already have the Eagles used on Moonbase Alpha? I mean, they were built more then four years ago and they're still going strong (though they do occasionally get blown up by marauding aliens and stored nuclear waste).
We've been to the moon? I thought Jonathan Frakes proved that it was a 40 billion dollar hoax!
One thing's been learnt (even if it was learnt the hard way), and that's that the risks associated with going into space shouldn't be taken lightly.
NASA beaurocrats got real complacent and lazy, perhaps not with Challenger but definitely so with Columbia. In future, they'll be less reluctant to listen to the advice of their engineering teams and will take fewer risks with the lives of their astronauts.
The lives lost on Challenger and Columbia won't be the last but, hopefully, they won't have been lost in vain.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I can't imagine spending 6 months in something as small as the apollo craft, get the mars, and then come back in the same soup-can-size thing. Anything we send to mars as to be a little bigger, for the crews sake.
In other news, the website reporting this releases their 50 year old bandwidth. Which is really slow because well, there wasnt the internet then.
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
Worth checking out, not bad brain-candy and an interesting look at what "coulda' been"...
Amazon link for the lazy: Voyage
a booster a day keeps the exploding space shuttles away: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html
It worked. Also a space craft with wings seems to complicate most flight operations as opposed to simplifying them. Is it really more efficient to have the shuttle land than to just fish a capsule out of the water? It seems that numberous take-off and flight issues are created by the addition of wings simply so the craft can land like a plane.
Seriously with today's technology in robotics and computers why do we need to send humans out to space?
Initially they'd fly with Delta
Bad decision. They should fly with Southwest or Jet Blue.
Avoid Delta. United too, for that matter.
(sarcasm)Well, we're still using the space shuttle after some ungodly amount of time.....why not bring back Apollo too!(/sarcasm)
Shoot 'em up, let them drop like a rock. The inherent simplicity of Apollo is its virtue, IMO. The Shuttle is more like the government bureaucratic approch to space travel, while Apollo was designed by engineers back in the good-ol-days.
Healthcare article at Kuro5hin
"No, it doesn't. We've learned a LOT about spaceflight in the last 30 years, from both successes and failures"
Have we really done spaceflight in the last 30 years? Certainly nothing manned, outside of low-earth orbit which is barely space at all. Sure, we've sent tin buckets with cameras to a few more planets, but we were already pretty good at that.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Disco never died - it always smelled that way.
T-shirt in 22nd century: "Disco _still_ sucks." (from an old Omni magazine contest)
Atlas, etc. are good rockets, but they can't beat the sheer power and relatively low G forces of the Saturn V. Since they'll (mostly) be going to LEO, as well as building a capsule that is 5-8% larger to accomodate a 4th passenger, why not take another look at the Saturn series of rockets?
They could use the upper stage as a cargo hold -- arrive in orbit and unlock/unbolt the sides (can't use explosive bolts that close to the ISS) to remove your stuff. Anyone know the diameter of the Saturn V third stage compared to the shuttle's cargo bay?
Chip H.
In an effort at budgetary restraint, NASA's new guidance computer is a highly modified and modernized version of the slide rule.
"There's no reason why a capsule can't be reusable. "
Other than the cost of re-upholstering to get rid of those blood and puke stains. Or worse if you have a space program that still sends monkeys.
The capsules are fine for moving people, but space planes would be better as "trucks" hauling materials into space to build upon the ISS.
An active capsule system will also allow for better and more frequent moon visits and (wildly overdue) MOON BASES which could be visited by SPACE PLANES.
Then we'd be Rockin'... If we can build Moon bases, we can then look at Mars bases... We really need to rationalise this who space enterprise thing, and I think developing a multiplicity of space vehicles is a smart idea - capsule people movers, Spaceplane trucks, it all makes sense...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Bell bottoms are back, the Stones are still touring and...
Oh, wait. For a minute there I was expecting this apollo.
So, we still do things the way they were done 40 years ago. I refuse to believe that the best way to get into space is to fill a monstrous tube with combustibles and light it all up, just to get a few tons of gear in orbit. Before serious interplanetary exploration, we should establish a good moon base, and do vehicle construction and launches from there.
...
Great idea. The Rocky franchise bottomed out after Drago broke him in that exhibition. I foresee dozens of Rocky sequels featuring Apollo and other members of the undead...
America never went to the moon.
As long as it is a one-way ticket....two words:
Lance Bass.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"Express elevator to Hell, goin' _DOWN_!"
Sounds like a fun ride. Screw bungee jumping!
Also, I honestly think this Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) idea is foolish and stupid. Most of what I have read seems to indicate that a dual stage system would lower the cost per pound from USD 100k to about $6k and one could have two pieces that are reusable. To me that makes a lot more sense and by all acounts more doable.
If we are serious about keeping the ISS up there, the next generation of space craft could save space to be a delivery and construction/repiar work on satelites and the ISS, then save expiraments for the ISS.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Not at all. Look at how much we've learned. The experience we've gained has been enormous. We learned that building a reusable winged spaceship is doable, but doing so on less-than-shoestring budget isn't the smart way to go. Once we've established a real infrastructure in orbit, in another hundred years or so, I think a reusable shuttle will again make sense. Right now it doesn't. It was supposed to be cheap. It's not. It was supposed to be safe. It's not as good as it could be. When you think about it, both Challenger and Columbia were doomed by the Rube Goldberg contraption that boosts the orbiter into space. The original design called for a reusable flyback booster as well. That was scrapped early in the program to save money.
... I had heard a rumour that they were going to use an Edsel.
Yet the reality is that all we know about space is that it is toxic to humans. And still we don't know of any way that we might travel anywhere meaningful in the two to three hundred years we might live as purely organic creatures under the best predictions of biotech (if we could even keep from going insane that long out there).
Face it, humans as they exist now are not getting off of this rock. It is likely we will have to merge with machinery to explore space..in essence, stop being purely organic. It is likely that meaningful space travel will require tens of thousands of years of time out there. This means unmanned is the best way to go, and a hybrid model is likely in the future once you get past all the crap scifi feeds us about present day humans surviving for long periods of time (physically and mentally) in space.
We all know older stuff is better. (Except computers) Stuff was built tougher then. People put time, effort, and sweat into what they did, and they where proud of it. Now things are made for efficiency and low cost. Those things are good. But the low coast plastic parts now-a-days will never hold up like the higher-cost-but-oh-so-sturdy metal parts of the past.
Case in point 1:
Geo metros get excellent gas milage. But when a Geo crashes into a 30 year old Dodge brute, which car do you want to be riding in?
Case in point 2:
My furnace is older than my grandfather. It works just fine. It is not small, sleek, stylish, or 99% efficient. But it has lasted over 60 years! (our house inspector's book of heaters didn't even go back that far!)
There's lots of great things about new products and technology. But there's no replacing good OLD industrial strength.
Slashdot Syndrome: the sudden, extreme urge to correct someone in order to validate one's self.
Or at least according to the caption on the picture accompanying that article. It shows one of the capsules floating in an ocean, with the orange airbags around it, but says the photo is from 1974. Considering Apollo 12 landed on the moon on Nov. 14th, 1969, that's quite a feat!
Mod me funny or die, earthling scum.
Allegedly real newspaper headline from 1998:
Man Struck by Lightning Faces Battery Charge
Not quite.
We're finally seeing an admission from the aerospace establishment that the shuttle has failed as an experiment. Wings on space craft are essentially a burden. Mercury-Gemini-Apollo demonstrated that you could come back to earth -- even in a controlled fashion -- without wings. Shuttle had wings to meet an Air Force requirement on cross range capability. Now the Air Force doesn't even use the shuttle.
So, the immediate future of vehicles intended to reach orbit looks like something that's been proven to work for both the United States and Russia. It's good to see people actually looking for something that works well.
In other ways, though, this development is a further criticism of the NASA culture. Much has been reported about the suppression of dissent in the safety culture. This is one aspect of a larger suppression of independent thinking in aerospace culture. The lack of new ideas shows another aspect. The unwillingness to examine things outside the industry (the "not invented here" syndrome) demonstrates still another.
New ideas and technologies thrive in free atmospheres. People are more willing to try new things. Good ideas get promoted. Faulty ones, even if held by people with power, are more likely to be challenged. For the aerospace industry to succeed, such a model must be embraced, not shunned.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
oh right, forgot that for some people world = US
Manned spacecraft might actually leave low earth orbit again!
Again? What again? Soyuz is capable of this all the time (it was meant for moon missions initially)
The Russians have had to do space on the cheap for years, and their response was to stick with the Soyuz capsule, which has now been in service for nearly 40 years, and is one of the most reliable launch vehicles available, and certainly far less expensive than the shuttle.
The last fatal Soyuz accident was in 1971. In 1983, a Soyuz rocket exploded on the pad, but the crew was whisked to safety thanks to an escape rocket, which is lacking on the shuttle. Given the choice, I would fly to space on a Soyuz any day over the shuttle.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
I just recently read a novel with with some interesting parallels to what's going on with today's space program. Titan by Stephen Baxter deals with using modern (Shuttle) and Apollo-era technology for a voyage to Titan. It was written in 1997 but most interestingly it all begins with the destruction of the Shuttle Columbia. It's kind of a depressing novel, but very good and worth the read.
sudo eat my shorts
A space craft has absolutely no need for wings. When you are in space they are just useless weight. In flight the are a vulnerable and complex system not needed for reentry. To get x amount of weight into space you have to burn x amount of fuel. Get over the fact that most of the vehicle is not reusable with any degree of reliability. Plant a capsule on a huge solid rocket booster and light the candle. It just does not have to get any harder than that.
Got Code?
sarcasm
At least we know the article is current.
/sarcasm
The capsule system was inherently "modular" thus the inspiration for this bit of classic SF. The only irony I find in all this is how accurate SF may have once again proven to be.
Just don't tell anyone in Hollywood. After seeing what they did with Lost In space, I don't want even a chance of them getting hold of my fave SF series for one of their ticky-tacky plotless rehashes.
As with so much in life an investment is necessary to get the returns. To really benefit from space we must spend tens of billions on basic infrastructure. The ROI will be worth it. Big projects. A catapult for bulk loads would be a good start and possible with off the shelf technology.
Even better would be a genuine attempt to build a space plane. All the half-assed three or four million dollar projects to date were nothing more than a waste of time.
Best would be to immediately begin work on an elevator. Current best estimates say that an elevator could be built in about ten years, with a budget of six billion. Considering that the US is spending more than $8 billion per month in Iraq, I'd say we obviously have $6 Billion to spend over the course of ten years...
When you think small, you get small results. I don't care if its NASA, or a private corporation, or a group of various space agencies and corporations, but we must begin thinking big or else nothing will ever happen.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Thank you! Were were wondering where that capsule from the 1969 mission was. Now we know it has been found somewhere. Time to send out the recovery mission, and I sure hope those boys in there had enough Tang to last them.
- NASA Capsule Recovery Crew.
Shuttle from day one was over complicated and tries to do to much. Payloads should be on one rocket and people on a second rocket. The abilty to leave earth orbit in a capsule ISN'T a plus. An apollo style capsule is good for getting to orbit and back to the ground safely. Let a bigger rocket push parts of a large ship up to the space station which then can be sent to the moon or mars.
Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
Why have a shuttle of both men and equipment? Capsules have been historically safe. There are very few moving parts, a SMALL area of heating surface, and can be disposable (lower cost?).
Have a seperate vehical for taking materials up, that is unmanned.
Have the manned vehical go up seperate, and reduce RISKS.
Now, the final word: Why have astronaughts go up for such a short time? If they risk their lives, make them stay up their till they can't stand it anymore.
This issue is all about risk, and a capsule solution for taking people into space is the right answer.
I have heard that Nixon issued an executive order to have all the blue prints related to the Apollo program be destroyed. So if true, is this but a replication in form only?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Since a majority of the cost of going into space is generating the thrust and velocity required for earth orbit, why not just focus on anti-gravity ?
This way you could place your payload into some kind of anti-gravity capsule and have it "float" into orbit.
"Qantas": We never crash, but we do have disintegratory premature landings."
Saturn 5, Ariane 4.
And unlike the shuttle, it can venture beyond low Earth orbit, which means the U.S. could once again send astronauts to the moon.
Just wondering.. Why can't the shuttle venture beyond low orbit anyways?
Semantics is the gravity of abstraction
"This paper investigates means for achieving human expeditions to Mars utilizing existing or near-term technology. Both mission plans described here, Mars Direct and Semi-Direct are accomplished with tandem direct launches of payloads to Mars using the upper stages of the heavy lift booster used to lift the payloads to orbit. No on-orbit assembly of large interplanetary spacecraft is required. In situ-propellant production of CH4/O2 and H2O on the Martian surface is used to reduce return propellant and surface consumable requirements, and thus total mission mass and cost. Chemical combustion powered ground vehicles are employed to afford the surface mission with the high degree of mobility required for an effective exploration program. Data is presented showing why medium-energy conjunction class trajectories are optimal for piloted missions, and mission analysis is given showing what technologies are optimal for each of the missions primary maneuvers. The optimal crew size and composition for initial piloted Mars missions is presented, along with a proposed surface systems payload manifest. The back-up plans and abort philosophy of the mission plans are described. An end to end point design for the Semi-Direct mission using either the Russian Energia B or a U.S. Saturn VII launch vehicle is presented and options for further evolution of the point design are discussed. It is concluded that both the Mars Direct and Semi-Direct plans offer viable options for robust piloted Mars missions employing near-term technology."
Read the whole thing here
This is from 1993!
The Case for Mars is good, but perhaps even better is Zubrin's Entering Space.
The Russian space industry is doing things right in a way that NASA have never managed. The Russians have focused on making spaceflight boring: so boring, in fact, that the last accident in a Soyuz capsule was in 1971. That's a safety record that makes the shuttle look a bit sick. It also helps that the cost is a tiny fraction of the shuttle; I worked out once that you for the price of a single shuttle launch, you could get the Russians to lift about four times the amount of cargo, plus people, in five seperate vehicles and still have change.
From an engineering point of view, the lesson is painfully obvious: generalisation means compromises. The shuttle is trying to be a heavylifter and a man-rated lifter and a space station and a reentry vehicle, so no wonder it sucks. Much better to focus on small, simple vehicles that do one thing very well.
The Russians have the best man-rated lifter in the world: the Soyuz. It doesn't do much, just takes people from the ground to LEO and back again, but it does it cheaply and reliably. They have the Progress, which I believe is the world's only orbital tug; it can launch, rendezvous with a vehicle, dock, undock and ditch safely, all by remote control. No-one else has anything like it. They have a whole selection of reliable heavylifters, although they are beginning to get competition in that area.
If the Russians with their, ah, mostly broken economy can do it, why are the Americans having so much trouble?
I just wish it were politically feasible for someone with money to just buy the entire Russian space industry, lock stock and barrel, and do some decent investment...
The funny thing about the "good-ol-days", is that everyone remembers the good parts, and forgets the bad parts. I wonder if in 50 years this will be someone's "good-ol-days", and they'll forget all the bad parts?
Which makes this remark all the more silly:
Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught?
Come on. Satellites. Voyager. Hubble.
Hey Sci-Fi is doing a Battlestar Galactica Mini-series in December.
It's all coming together.
Four weeks, Twenty papers, that's two dollars
When you have a bowl of soup, do you eat it with a fork just because the fork was invented thousands of years later than the spoon?
Sometimes an older approach is the right approach for a specific job.
Especially since they *currently* have to make TWO fishing trips with a boat to haul out the solid rocket boosters for reuse. If you were only after the capsule, it would be less work than the current shuttle, although your astronauts would get some quality time in the ocean.
The shuttle was ridiculous. The only rationalization for the design is if you're going to bring stuff back from space, and to my knowledge, we've never once done that.
No, we are always putting stuff into space, and plain old rockets do that job very, very well.
If the thing took off like an airplane, then that would be different. But it doesn't.
It's almost as if they went to the drawing board asking themselves how they could make a craft that suffers from all the problems of reusable rockets while offering all new problems in re-entry.
Let's ground the damn things already.
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
It's clear from reading the SpaceDaily article that NASA has amazing engineers and a terrible misunderstanding of its mission. Space Exploration at this point in time isn't about science or technology or anything useful to society, its a gigantic nationalistic pissing contest.
I'm not going to argue about whether that's right or wrong, but if Congress would just admit "Yes, we're out to showcase American knowhow" we would end up with a better use of funds. NASA's job isnt about efficiency, its about exploration. We don't care how good they are at launching 50 or 100 or 150 shuttles. Nobody cares. It's a waste of money. The point is to develop cool projects, launch them 4-5 times, show that they work, and then move on to the next envelope-pushing design.
Yes, it's more costly per flight, but I'd rather see money spent on developing neat new designs rather than seeing old designs beaten into the ground at significant cost to the taxpayer...
Me too. But they would need to get Starbuck back as well, or the project doesn't make any sense.
Much appreciated!
...though I don't doubt that will make a few mistakes similar to Hubble's curvature, and watch our first few NASA elevators come crashing down... (duck!)
I agree wholeheartedly: A mars mission would be as much claptrap as our moon missions were. Pointless to any real space development.
Much better would be to start a moonbase.
Indeed, when it comes down to it, why bother sending men at all, initially? Send some radio/robotic controlled smelting factories, mining equipment, and transport equipment, and establish the base before you ever put anyone up there. Then send supplies and stock the place. Once that is all ready, then and only then send people. After that, get some real industries going, up there, such as better nanotube construction.
Meanwhile, down here on earth, start using our earthbound nanotube construction to make taller and taller launchpads [it turns out that, done right, nanotubes are about as strong compressively as in tension]. Those launchpads will amount to huge savings in rocket mass.
At some point, between the earthbound nanotube production, and space-based nanotube production, we should be able to get an actual space elevator going.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I told you so... (Well almost..)
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Very shortly after the Columbia accident, a handful of old veteran astronauts, including Buzz Aldrin (likely the smartest engineer of the original astronaut groups) and John Young (first pilot of Columbia and the only astronaut from the original groups to fly Gemini, Apollo, and the Shuttle) were consultants to determine if Apollo technology could be used for a low budget to-and-fro human transport, as well as a rescue vehicle that could be mated as lifeboats to the International Space Station.
This, I thought, was a great idea. After the Apollo 1 fire of 1967, the Command Module (CM) was drastically redesigned for safety and was a winning design throughout the program. It especially showed its toughness during Apollo 13. The CM was completely powered down after the accident, and, 3 days later, was restarted on its reentry batteries (with a tiny bit of juice from the Lunar Module), and no electrical shorts occurred despite the heavy condensation in the spacecraft.
The Apollo CM design is tried and true. I prefer it as a lifepod, and NASA should reconsider the viablity of a combined vehicle that launches (with an orbiter atop) like a heavy plane to high altitude, where it serves as the launcher for the orbiter, which can use conventional and disposable boosters for the return trip. I still believe that glider vehicles make more sense and provide more abort options. Consider that Columbia and her sisters still have more ways to bail or return than a typical airliner.
No aerodynamic vehicle can survive with a damaged wing, in any case, which is why a CM-style rescue vehicle and parachutes are appealing. I just don't like the use of old ballistics like the Atlas (which have a nice record of exploding). Man-rating rockets like these is a pain in the ass.
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
Doesn't seem so bad to me. Sounds like any engineering project I've ever worked on:
Engineer says it will take X dollars and Y time to get it working if things go well, and not everything will go well so we add a little bit of padding.
The non-engineer who makes the decision doesn't really believe that things won't go well, and only hears the X and Y that he wants to hear.
Its too bad that the world works this way, but its not exactly the bombshell described in the article.
You will agree with me the first time you get on one and find out that the jerk who got off on the previous floor pressed all 677,803 floor buttons on the way out.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
a highly modified version of the Gloucester Meteor...
The only thing these two animals will have in common is the lifting body shape, which all comes from NASA's lifting body research of the 1950s anyway. And even that would change.
This is my sig.
Probably one of the issues requiring a carrier was that the capsule's exact splashdown location was not known, requiring the recovery fleet to have extensive search capabilities.
With modern technology, the capsule can tell the recovery fleet where it is.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Damn, does this mean I have to buy one of those bloody space-hoppers again?
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
Do you mean the one little problem with this idea, the good ol' "it would work great if we had this magic stuff that no one has invented yet and we have no idea if anyone will invent it" problem?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
So I've seen the argument that the shuttle wasn't specialized. I'm not seeing where the small-capsule-on-huge-rocket approach is going to improve things, other than NASA's budget. I'm trying to imagine an Apollo-style capsule shoring up to an artificial satellite, grasping it, and a crew doing repairs. I'm not seeing it happen.
Definitely a step backwards. Multiple, specialized capsules are going to be as expensive as the shuttle, because multiple capsules are going to require multiple launch vehicles. My opinion is that it is a cost-saving measure, and there are things that NASA just isn't going to do anymore.
Fred
"A fool and his freedom are soon parted"
-RMS
As mentioned briefly in the article, I would say that a *rocket-propelled* spacecraft with wings is a burden - it just doesn't make sense. However, if they could get something that takes off like a plane, then has a weaker rocket stage once it gets into the thinner upper atmosphere, that could be doable. Similarly, it could fly upon a very shallow re-entry, potentially preventing heat buildup, allowing it to land quite normally.
Ultimately, I think something like that is what they want, but is supposedly 20 years away.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"explain that to my 1998 Ford Ranger? It's built like a truck."
I sure would hope that the Ford engineers would reach a point where a truck would be built like a truck.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"Beyond the general shape of the capsule, however, the report reveals that little else from the Apollo CM would be retained."
The structure of the capsule would be modified so it could handle the 105 kilopascal (15 psi) air pressure used in the ISS today, rather than the 34 kPa (5 psi) pure oxygen environment that Apollo used. - The Space Review
Hmmm - I thought they went to a Nitrogen/Oxygen mix after the Apollo 1 fire?
Lodragan Draoidh
The more you explain it, the more I don't understand it. - Mark Twain
... there's no reason for a space vehicle to be capable of terrestrial flight.
more moving parts, less payload, more complexity, more expensive, no benefits.
with todays sensors, gps, radar and satellites, it isn't like a capsule can't be gotten to and found in time, even if it was dramatically off-course.
// "Can't clowns and pirates just -try- to get along?"
How about bad advertising slogans that are real?
It is hard to beat the car ad: "Eagle Vision: Not intended for the general public".
The general public took the hint and stayed away from this ungainly thing that looked like the grille of a Honda Prelude stuck onto the body of an Intrepid.
If this ad campaign had failed to keep buyers away, I suppose that Chrysler would have next tried putting snipers near Eagle dealerships.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
... have been for naught?"
Let's not forget that during these 30 years Russians made steady progress with 8 space stations and over than 100 manned flights using cheap disposable launch vehicles. So definetely as a mankind we did not stand still.
Don't understand why this is seen as a step backwards. Seems like using the right (read easy-to-use, easy-to-build, most cost efficient, etc.) tool for the right job is a Good Idea(tm). If it's the right tool then I say yea to space travel. With the problems they've had, I'd worry more if they came up with yet another grand plan. Remember the KISS principle applies everywhere.
"So definetely as a mankind we did not stand still."
"We" stood still. At best, we were marching in place. We got more experience in the Earth orbit matters, not space. "To boldly go where the Gemini capsule had gone before many years ago" is not any sort of advance.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
There are some real reasons it would actually take LONGER to build a SV today than it used to...
1)Environmental Laws - some stuff isn't allowed to be used anymore (asbestos anyone?)
2)Infrastructure. The US has lost a LOT of it's Mfg infrastructure in the last 30 years. Just as some LOW tech examples - You could not build the Golden Gate Bridge or the old GG-1 Railroad engine anymore! The steel mills and forging mills don't exist - not only in the US, but ANYWHERE. It would take TIME to build new plants, then you could start building the special tools, then you start building the rockets
It's the classic old problem in mfg. You have to build tools, to make tools, to make the product. Once the final Mfg tools are made - the first tools aren't needed, and they take up valuable space and maintainance money, so they are often scrapped. The problem is, if that 2nd generation of tools is also scrapped, your back to square 1
-- 73 de KG2V For the Children - RKBA! "You are what you do when it counts" - the Masso
we'd have built it by now.
I'd really like to see your sources for the "10 year, $6 billion" budget for a workable, safe, efficient space elevator.
Really, considering carbon nanotube technology is still in the basic sciences phase, it sounds like your figures came from the same people who believe a workable, affordable national ballistic missile defense in 5 years.
Light a fire for a man and he'll be warm for a day. Light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
It's like that season of Dalls were the decided to just can all the shitty episodes by claiming the whole seaon was a dream.
I watch way too much 'true holywood stories'....
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Sending carriers out for the Apollo missions was more about bravado and showing off then practicality. There would be no need whatsoever to even send a naval vessel - the work could even be contracted out I am sure to numerous capable marine firms.
" While manned spaceflight has been non-existent. The success of the various probes, landers and Hubble have more than made up for that"
Probes? We were pretty good at that since the 1960s. Hubble? It's another Earth orbit thing, no advance there in terms of space exploration. Landers? Well, there are the Viking and Mars landers. That's about the only real advance mentioned so far.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Here is one of my favorite web sites, which this article reminded me of, and which I thought some of you might enjoy: http://www.astronautix.com.
The place is filled with tons of mad info about programs that are, were, and never got out of blueprint stage. I am sure this will satisy those readers for whom the two paltry links in the story are far from satisfying. Lotsa cool pictures and thingies.
Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
Our space program invested time and money to invent an ink pen for our astronauts that had a pressurized ink cartridge that could still write in both zero gravity and at varying degrees of gravity while held at all pitch angles with respect to the direction force of gravity.
The Russians sent pencils into space with their cosmonauts to write with.
"...modernized version of the Apollo Space Capsule. Manned spacecraft might actually leave low earth orbit again!"
Now if only we can get the Saturn Rocket, HemiCudas, and Led Zeppelin back, I'll be set...
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Of course a carrier was required. This was before the good ol "Evil Empire" had fallen. You can be sure that the Soviet navy would have stepped in if there were no Navy firepower present in order to "protect the American cosmonauts" stranded in international waters, or perhaps claim salvage rights.
It is kinda interesting that now China is aiming for the moon, and the US decides (kinda outta right field) to bring back the system the got them to the moon long ago. Maybe a hint of jealousy?
This could be cool.
J
There is also the little problem of conservation of angular momentum. It is not as simple as merely lifting the payload to the height of the mooring satellite as that end point is actually in orbit around the Earth.
The energy of the system has to be conserved so as you lift the payload you essentialy start to de-orbit the end point of the the tether. So the end point has to be boosted back into the original orbit, using a similar amount of fuel that would be needed to boost the payload from the Earth's surface on a rocket. So a space elevator would not be 1000 times more efficent than a conventional launch, in fact if it could be constructed it would not be much more efficeint than a chemical rocket.
Well, we haven't scrapped the B-52 yet, so why not keep Apollo flying too!!
If you think the space shuttle was for naught, you might look at what the shuttle was designed for? Why do we have pickup trucks, 4 door sedans, station wagons, sports cars, buses, tractor-trailers, and trains? Different vehicles, different purposes. Maybe you should have asked, "What if NASA had split time, money, and resources between two big projects over the past 30 years?" Or, maybe you should have asked, "What if NASA has spent MORE money on two big projects? Would we still have the USSR and the cold war?" Now that technology has advanced, we might see some gains from moon visits. However, the liberals will not like "wasting" money on frivolous trips to the moon. They definitely won't like non-reuseable rockets. They'll whine and complain. A trip to Mars? Bah!
-- No sig for you!
"Say Columbus took the Apollo route to the New World. He starts off with three ships. Along about the Canary Islands he sinks the first ship, just throws it away, deliberately. And it's his biggest ship. Come [163] to the Bahamas, he throws away the second ship. He reaches the New World
"If that's what it took to cross the Atlantic, this part of the world would still belong to the Seminoles."
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
"My favorite T-Shirt [notmypresident.com]"
Like it or not, he's your president. Get over it.
...next time let's just stick a WiFi card in the thing and have it phone home, yes?
Is this truly the only Earth I can live on?
If they want to continue to lie their way into funding (even though the article says they are "changing" that), as well as provide space vehicles WITH NO PURPOSE except to rape the US citizens of their pocketbooks, SCRAP NASA.
Nasa serves no purpose now except to line the pockets of contractors. In 40 years, the only real missions of value were the Hubble telescope and the mars lander. So for something like 100billion dollars thats the result? GIVE IT UP!
I'm back.
" But at least we're close to removing the insufferable bastard that we put in charge of Iraq."
Tommy Franks? I did not know he was that obnoxious. Or is it Wolfowitz?
The Russian Shuttle was built like a tank. Since it was built after the majority of our own shuttles, isn't its heat tiling superior? Perhaps NASA should acquire it...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Yep, it does mean the last thirty years were pointless. Couldn't you tell?
Capsules are inherently stable ballistically. Aerodynamically speaking they must plunge through the atmosphere at the exact correct angle because of their very shape. Which is why waybackwhen, Von Braun et al chose that shape in the first place (and why the Russian TMA could land without computer guidance without coming to pieces and killing american astronauts.)
The shuttle, on the other hand, is NOT aerodynamically stable and the margin between safe reentry and horrible disaster is breathtakingly small, as we have seen. It was a noble experiment which failed, which does not mean the experiment itself was a failure.
Now if we continue to fly these things, that would be.
The important question is, given this plan, how long would it take to have Lance Bass and the rest of the Backsync Boys completely off-planet?
A very cute comment that I'd make sure to moderate as "Funny" if I weren't posting a rebuttal. As a previous poster said, the "bring back" capability wasn't used many times, but was a useful technique. In the case of the LDEF, it doesn't make sense to put 'er up unless you bring it back down to see what 6 years in orbit does to materials X, Y, Z.
Luke, help me take this mask off
http://www.wilhelm-aerospace.org/Space/Gemini/Gspa cecraft.html
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
Isn't it a couple of feet?
It is not a worry; We keep the WiFi device at Mission Control, as it is external, connected by a very long USB cable that starts to unspool upon liftoff.
...sits on its side inside a pavillion at the KSC visitor's center.
Werner Von Braun must be up to about 3,000 rpm about now as NASA struggles with internal problems and trying to figure out how to get people and materials up into space cheaply.
Listen, the rational part of me says -- of course we went to the moon, there's 10000 facts to back it up. But the emotional part says: WHY THE HELL don't we ever go back? I was like 2 when we last went.
Especially given all the neg press Nasa has, and even if its a huge waste of money and we won't learn anything, could somebody explain to me why we at least just don't go back *ONCE* every *THIRTY YEARS***, just to give people like me assurance, yep, they didn't bullshit me, we CAN do it.
A LOT of things are toxic to humans. Because of this, and a fortunate ability to create tools and record information, we've been able to create a lot of different machines to allow us to go places that should kill us, or that we could not go unassisted.
We are now purely organic beings, but that relationship between man and machine is already very strong. Without the machines we have created, we would be unable to feed ourselves, without some of the inventions that were unimagined 50 years ago, you wouldn't be reading this now.
Humans as they exist now are the same as humans as they existed 1000 years ago, with the benefit of a number of very useful inventions. It is just as likely that meaningful space travel will take tens of thousands of years (and the creation of "colony" ships or the hibernation you mentioned) as it is that some amazing new breakthrough in propulsion (steam power, internal combustion, rockets, etc.) will change that timeline to something more well-aligned with normal human lifespans.
Mechanical augmentation, medical knowledge, and biological engineering are already extending the lifetimes of humans and restoring lost function to broken bodies, so that kind of integration is a given, but to say that is the only way we'll ever get outta here is just silly.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
Oh, wait. For a minute there I was expecting this Richard Hatch. =)
"Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
The OSP is for docking with rendezvousing with the ISS, and for use as a sort of life raft in case we have further Shuttle program downtimes in the future. It doesn't have anything to do with renewed trips to the Moon or Mars.
"Ahh, the typical lamentation of the (relatively) rich American..."
No, just the lamentation of anyone who is civically and socially aware and knows of the problems if you let the rulers take over too much of the people's personal affairs.
Although, I don't agree that the government should stay out of taxation. They can keep doing it, as long as they do a lot less of it.
If George W Bush is indeed the insufferable bastard in charge of Iraq, he will be out office in 1 or 5 years. In the big scheme, I guess we are close to getting him out.
I've been told that NASA lost the plans to the Saturn V. So even if we wanted to, we couldn't go to the moon again. The era of trips to the moon is gone. Our society has begun its long plunge into the dark ages.
Yep.. a quick search pulled it up. Carbon nanotubes have twice the tensile strength needed to pull off a space elevator.
So it's invented, anyway... now the stumbling block is "how do you make a contiguous carbon nanotube long enough to hang down from GEO?"
Remember this?
The people here who bellyache about cost and danger and whether it should look like a plane or not, should look at this. It was a very serious contender for the X-33 program. It is a SSTO vehicle which is far more manueverable than the shuttle and far safer. And until an unfortuneate accident in 1997, the US had an actual working model. It is used to carry people into orbit. You want payload? Use a Detla V or an Arriane. You want a reusable work horse for people? Strongly consider reserecting this.
Oh and BTW
Space travel will be dangerous for the forseeable future. People will die. Maybe less people would die if we are more concerned about discovery and science and exploration than about cost. It's going to be expensive, but as one earlier poster pointed out, we are likely to get more out of a few billion spent on space exploration than we do out of the 8 Billion per MONTH spent in Iraq.
There. I feel better now.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
I think that was just for ground testing. IIRC, the problem with the fire on the ground was that they were running with 15 psi (one atmosphere) pure oxygen. In space, the pure oxygen at the lower pressure wasn't as big a risk, I guess.
50 year old proof-of-concept. New technology.
Dark Nexus
"Sanity is calming, but madness is more interesting."
" Given the choice, I would fly to space on a Soyuz any day over the shuttle."
Bottle of vodka? $16 rubles.
That pretty Ludmilla sitting next to you in babushka-and-spacesuit? $30 a night at a Tel Aviv brothel.
Lance Bass, earthbound and angry because you stole his seat? Priceless.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I have often suspected that items did not used to be better than things are today. In fact I suspect that in many cases they were worse. What has happened is that as each year passes everything that is crap gets thrown away and we are left with only the best of what came before.
Thus regrettable cars from the 50's are long gone and only the stylish or well engineered cars remain. This pretty much goes for all products.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
If the plans are gone, someones going to have to start crawling around the remaining 3 Saturn V's with a set of feeler guages and a truckload of notepaper! :)
If the Saturn 1B designs are still in existance, they have good commonality with the Saturn V (Saturn IVb) upper stages.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
One giant leap backward (34 years) for mankind. (I know its isn't quite true, i just couldn't help myself)
Think global, act loco
If there hadn't been any foreseeable potential payoff for continued expeditions, that probably would have happened after Columbus.
If there was a clearly attainable economic benefit to space exporation anything like the one European powers recognized in the "new" world, we'd be much more serious about the whole thing, right? Spain gambled on Columbus because they were looking for a new spice route, and governments established colonies in America because it was doable and promised potential big returns. Space presently doesn't really promise any payoff that can approach the expense of going anywhere much. Satellites in orbit, on the other hand, are worth the expense, and we're way into them.
Not that it won't happen, not that we're not all boosters, but you can't say it's a lack of will that keeps us from the grand gestures right now -- it's a lack of any realistic incentive. All the asteroid mining plans in the world aren't going to make the costs work out, not yet.
I say we work nice and steadily at developing a caravelle, with each step within our means -- without sacrificing our economy or defense along the way. Going to Mars'd be nice, but I want to collect Social Security too, you know?
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
For nothing? No... "Nothing's ever a complete waste of time -- it can always serve as a bad example"
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
I kind of wonder how NASA intends to get these things to the launch pad, when the crawlers are falling to pieces. I don't suppose NASA has announced plans, and budget, to replace these beasts of burden?
It might be agood idea for NASA to get their infrastructure together first.
The final reports on both shuttle disasters stated they were both caused by the same procedural/political problems.
I'm pretty serious when I say this. It seems the old school at NASA was a lot more practical in making macro-advances as where they've not even attempted those things with the new school and its micro-advances.
Why not build a tow-cable between the shuttle and the space station, and bring up crates of food and fuel to tow, also. They can do space walks to get it every month or so.
Also.. The U.S.'s first "space station" was just the hull of the third stage of a rocket, wasn't it? Tie a few of those together, bring up some air-tight rubber materials or whatever to wrap around the insides to increase its protection. What ever is simple and easy to do.
On the Moon, drop those things and burry them to build your hangers for shuttles. They're huge inside, use them for melting iron ore out of the martial rock and build stuff up there. C'mon.. Just use your heads like you did building tree houses. Frankly, it seems that exactly what the old school did and that's exactly what the Russians do. Seems to work better than what NASA does..
NASA needs to get off its high horse and achieve something, other than just on paper. Something macro, not micro. If they are too afriad of loosing lives, there are plenty in the country who are willing to take the necessary risks.
Just get us a decent moon base, let the commercial world go from there. NASA is holding us back and its looooooong been blatantly obvious.
Matthew
I believe you are right. They also got shot of all the flamable materials that had got into the capsule, most obvious example was the large amount of velcro that the astronauts just loved but burned like an SOB.
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-03zd.html
It seems our elected representives agree with us (for a change.) We seem to be stuck on the shuttle and low earth orbit. NASA has about as much vision of the future as the RIAA.
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
After Apollo 1 they did use a Nitrogen/Oxygen mix on the launch pad, after they got into space it was yet again a pure oxygen environment if memory serves.
"You say my way of thinking cannot be tolerated? What of it?"
Nope, Spain knew that columbus was doomed to fail. However the Kings's wife took a likeing to him and the brave man... So they gave him some really old (scrap) ships, some cheap labor (those they wanted to get rid of), and enough food to make it half way there, which was all columbus said he needed. A Cheap way to get rid of someone who is annoying to experts, but starting to get interest from those less influenced by facts. Not Spain's fault that there was a previously unknown continent in the way prevented the fool from starving to death.
After columbus Spain saw (and others) saw a chance at new lands, which might have gold and other things they wanted. Long term it worked. We can debate if it was worth it though. Would "Eddison" have developed the light bulb even if his ancesters were confined to europe. (Eddison in quotes because it wouldn't have to be the same person by any means) Perhaps sooner because less was spent on exploration. Perhaps latter becuase of a million other factors.
P.S. no I don't want socal security, good thing cause it is bankrupt.
"We are all Palestinian [sinkers.org]"
Nice neo-nazi site you link to there! The Final Solution won't come soon enough for you, will it?
that whole metro/brute thing is a bad example at best. I could just as easily say something like "But when my brand new abrams tank crashes into your 30-year-old Dodge, which car do you want to be in?"
or...
This whole "built better back then" thing drives me insane. It's just not true in general. Consider that back in the early sixties, you were lucky to get a car to last to 100K. <joke> Of course, if you're driving a Dodge, that may still be true.</joke>
""But when my brand new abrams tank crashes into your 30-year-old Dodge, which car do you want to be in?""
If it was a Pinto, I'd rather be in the Pinto. If it looks like I am about be rear-rended by the tank, I'd be able to open the door and jump out and roll away within seconds. It takes a lot longer to get out of a tank, and that is the unfortunate thing as both vehicles are incinerated from the massive explosion that results from a rear-end collision on a Ford Pinto.
That's not even remotely correct. The tether is under tension, and to lower the remote end you would need to lift a mass that is heavier than the tension of the cable, which would be hundreds of tons if I remember correctly. Angular momentum does come into effect, but for different reasons. For example, if you were to lift an entire mountain into space (a piece at a time) the rotation of earth would slow a tiny bit. Also, the tether will swing like a pendulum if the elevator launches aren't timed right (but it would be a small easily correctable effect).
Call me a jackass, but something else they should consider resurrecting from the Apllo era is their naming schema. Mercury, Gemini and Apollo all awaken something in our psyche; they are all culturally loaded, powerful metaphors. Just as the rockets -- Saturn, Atlas, etc., they draw on the mythological significance of the names of the planets themselves and it gives the entire endeavour a weighty significance that STS-* will never manage to create.
Any marketing (or propaganda) person will tell you how quickly people come to accept something as important if it seems important. The mythological naming schema gives the program some of the weight that it needs to win the battle for mindshare in the contemporary political environment. I propose Prometheus as the name for the new capsule program; space exploration could use a bringer of enlightenment.
bellbottoms were back ten years ago. they're gone again.
In all matters of opinion, our adversaries are insane. -Oscar Wilde
I went to the link you provided, and for a moment, I got a twin glimpse of the Saturn 5: the first was the view I had of a child of the magnificent machine that was going to take men to the moon; we build Estes Rocket versions of it, we wrote to NASA asking for pictures of it.
And then the adult in me realized the effort that went into that launch using 1960 technology. And the balls those astronauts had in strapping in.
Still, it felt good to think of the good old days for 2 minutes.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Use it to launch the BFG 9000 anti-terrorism cannon!
The link
There's a growing sense that even if The Future comes,
most of us won't be able to afford it.
-- Lemmy
Dream on. It is very likely that the next generation of spacecraft will have names like "Comerica", "CitiCorp", "Cisco", and "LexCorp".
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
To strengthen the analog, consider the automobile. Suppose that each time you drive to work, you enter a brand new car. This situation corresponds to case #1. Case #2 is where you enter the same car that you used previously. It is a used car. Clearly, in case #2, your car is much more likely to breakdown due to wear and tear. It is normal. An old car is simply more likely to breakdown than a brand new car even if we closely adhere to the recommended maintenance schedule.
So, of course, the space shuttle is more likely to suffer a breakdown than the space capsule. The space shuttle suffers normal wear and tear, but the space capsule is always brand new. Also, the space shuttle suffering a breakdown is vastly more horrific than your car suffering a breakdown. When the space shuttle is hurtling down to earth at thousands of miles per hour and suffers a breakdown, there is no nearby "gas station" to quickly patch things up.
In conclusion, switching from the space shuttle to the space capsule will definitely reduce the number of fatal mishaps in space but will not solve the central problem. It is "How do we eliminate fatal mishaps in re-usable space vehicles?" If we truly commercialize space and have manned space colonies, we cannot afford to build a brand space vehicle for every single trip to and from, say, Mars. Economics requires us to use re-usable space vehicles, but we must develop a way to maintain them so that they never breakdown.
After the loss of Challenger, and the DoD started the expendable launch vehicle program to promote new rockets of different sizes for launching payloads to space. This was part of the motivation for the new improved Delta and Atlas rockets (they use the names and not much else from their predecssors). Anyway, Boeing (I am pretty sure it was Boeing), proposed building updated Saturn rockets for the heavy lift portion of the program. They pointed out the high reliablility of these rockets. DoD didn't go for it at the time. I don't know why, but I suspect that the largest DoD planned payloads may not have been big enough to warrant a Saturn V. NASA of course was thinking of the shuttle and only the shuttle.
What happened to this idea?
Very long railgun on the ground, gently ascending up a hill?
Sure its a big initial capital investment, but after that you're just paying for the power.
And the vehicles can then basically just be gliders.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
Hos it under tension? The center of mass of the tether must be in geostationary orbit, it can't be past that point or the tether wouldn't be stationary. (not to mention that if it were under tension it mean that the tensile strngth of the material needed would gotr from bearly plausible to down-right unobtainium)
No, you just can't "steal" angular momentum from the Earth, the tether is not rigid. That extra energy has to be added to the system as the payload rises.
...we're back to following the Russian's lead on spaceflight? Kennedy is rolling in his grave.
mbbac
Just because a vehicle doesn't have people doesn't really mean that you can ignore risks. One of the recent "failed" launch vehicles (I don't recall if it was a Delta or a Titan) blew up. Ignoring the cost of the vehicle and launch itself, the *payload* that it had been commissioned to launch was worth several *billion* dollars.
Now, if your unmanned vehicles are in any way unreliable, it doesn't take too many of those before customers stop using your services (private industry), or government inquiries shut you down (government service).
steve
Oh, you're not stuck, you're just unable to let go of the onion rings.
I think it was in Upside? Maybe 6-8 years ago on why the "Race To The Moon" was a bad thing ultimately; it gave people the sense that if you throw enough money at the problem, the government can do or solve anything.
This despite the spectacular failure of virtually any government program with a lot of money.... War on Poverty, War On Cancer, War on Drugs, and now War on Terror.
In my opinion, the reason the space program succeeded was because of the vision of a small team of people at NASA; they were motivated by the challenge, and more importantly that team understood the challenges involved. By contrast, just throwing money around just wastes money. And more importantly, if you don't have people who are driven, intelligent and know what they need to accomplish, it just doesn't work.
The orbiter itself may not rationally NEED wings, but the launcher should, unless you're talking really massive payloads. Here's why: The typical first-stage rocket booster uses most of its propellant just to get the first few dozen feet of altitude and few dozens of feet per second of velocity. If you use an air-breathing first stage (such as Scaled Composites' X-prize candidate, which uses a turbojet carrier plane as the first stage, or Orbital Science's Pegasus satellite launcher, which is lauched from a jet plane), you eliminate a LOT of mass. An airplane is just LOTS more fuel-efficient than a rocket at 40,000 feet and below. Use an air-breather from zero to 30,000 feet and 250 knots, and a rocket for the rest.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
If we could work out that little safety hitch with nuclear energy, we could launch whatever the hell we wanted into orbit however we want. The energy/mass ratio is absurd. I'm sure nuclear boosters have been examined in the past, and I know they've used nuclear-powered ion engines in some satellites. Too bad radioactivity has that nasty habit of killing people.
"Repeat after me: Dictatorships are not a product of "socialist" governments."
:). I favor a sort of voucher system where the parents/students could choose the better schools and go to them. It gets the government largely out of the school management business.
There is certainly a connection. During the 20th century, almost all of the worst big-scale genocidal governments were socialist. Also, the most socialist countries have also been the most oppressive.
"And going to a private system where these people can't gain access to education at ALL is a better solution?"
I'm not a complete Randist
"Okay, let's tackle the obviously wrong one first: The media. The US media is MORE biased and LESS free than almost any media institution in the world, where the strings are pulled by a few powerful individuals whose only agendas are to make money and promote their own political views."
No, it is the most free, as it there are few that are more directly responsible to the public. In Canada, you have the CBC and its intendant censorship of "outside" ideas. The US media in contrast is accountable only to the public.
"The CBC, OTOH, is probably one of the most reliable, unbiased news agencies in the world, aside from maybe the BBC."
No, both are examples of official government media. A pure waste of money.
" including criticizing the government (which, in the US, would be viewed as "unpatriotic")."
Of course, you do not live here, where only a fraction of critcism of the government is considered to be unpatriotic (typically when it actually is unpatriotic, or hateful or ignorant).
"To even suggest that the US media is *freer* than Canada is laughable at best, and almost makes me think you're a troll."
No, it is very accurate, as the US media is left to the people more than in Canada. Government control of media is a hallmark of fascism, not freedom.
"the US healthcare system has an incredibly poor reputation, in case you hadn't noticed)"
I hadn't noticed, since it has an excellent reputation, and is the envy of the world... the engine that produces the most advances in treatment, and has the best hospitals. Mayo, anyone?
"OTOH, an entirely private system is, IMHO, a terrible idea."
The entire system should be private, of course, with support for the poor so they can pay for the private care.
"At least I can be sure I'm getting the best care possible, here"
Best possible in Canada under that inferior system. Go south to get better care.
"US, people, in fact, have much less freedom than they might think, since the HMO dictates: which doctors you go to, what drug treatments will be covered"
How can you miss the obvious? So Canada is freeer there there is one single "HMO" that everyone is forced to join as opposed to what you have in the US: a choice between a variety of HMO's and other non-HMO options? Of course not! We are a lot more free than you realize.
Fortunately, some Canadians are not blind sheep. I remember my friends who live mere miles from the border, which they have to cross to get care for their handicapped girl, who is denied care throughut Canada because of the "like or leave" one-size-fits-few mentality of Canadian healthcare.
"what drug treatments will be covered, what medical procedures are covered, etc, etc. And all these decisions are driven by the profit motive,"
So? They make their profits by serving their customers. A government-run system, in contrast, is driven by the relentless machine of bureacratic bloat and corruption. No public accountability at all: don't like it? leave the country. No freedom, no choice.
You need to distinguish between horizontal and vertical when you are specifing speeds. A 200MPH vertical landing (impact) is not surviable by either space craft or crew
" Repeat after me: Dictatorships are not a product of "socialist" "
Sure as beans produce gas. Socialist economics takes wealth from the people and place it all in the hands of the ruling class. Since such power corrupts, it is not a very big step at all to take what little is still left in the people's control.
This isn't that difficult. Your problem is you're assuming the same craft should be used for takeoff from earth, travel to mars or wherever, and then reentry back into Earth's atmosphere. If you use different craft for different tasks, you can get a much better solution.
A large, reusable, interplanetary craft should be built in orbit, using the space station as a building site. This craft doesn't have to endure the rigors of takeoff and reentry, so it won't be a problem using it over and over. The only problem is getting all the parts up into orbit to build it, but we're already getting experience with that in building the ISS.
Tiny, expendable, reentry capsules can be used to ferry people back and forth from Earth's surface. Stick one on top of a rocket, send some people up to the ISS, and they'll get in their interplanetary craft and go to Mars. Some other people, who just returned from Mars, will hop in the newly-arrived capsule and drop back to the Earth. A few extra capsules could even be stacked on top of one rocket to provide some spares to be kept at the space station in case an evacuation is necessary.
I've been following the X-Prize contenders, and it sure seems like Rutan's group are the odds-on favorite to produce a working system. They are VERY professional, solid engineering, and good well-buttoned lips. Sure, the White Knight/SpaceShipOne combo is suborbital, but that's just the first pass. Once they're selling tickets for zero-G joyrides and generating income above the X-prize purse, it's a very good bet we'll see a second-generation system. I sure hope so, anyway.
I *do* wish Carmack's crew well, but I think Rutan et al are closer to the goal and progressing faster.
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
The same people who believe this probably think that Gore had something to do with creating the Internet.
Note that the original poster made references to the shuttle being an "SUV"'s, ignoring the fact that SUV's became popular years after the shuttle program was well under way.
I would caution anybody who reads interested in space to be wary of spacedaily.com. It is very biased against the U.S. in general and for European space (oxymoron?). It is also littered with environmental political pablum. I prefer spaceflightnow.com.
an ill wind that blows no good
Open Source can solve all problems! Just turn a bunch of software geeks loose on the problem and watch that baby go!
Hell, there are no rules here. We're trying to accomplish something. - Thomas Edison
What's the point to waste tax-payer's money? Russians have already well designed and well-working cheap boosters. Buy the load and save your money. Cheap for you and good for them.
Globally thinking, all big american corps are outsourcing their business off-shore today. Why not to outsource space technology production and liftoffs to Russia?
Less is more !
Of course, the shuttle never has flown a polar orbit, and SLC-6 at Vandenberg has it's own little hard-luck story (don't build your launch site on Indian burial grounds). The short of it is, the military got spooked about the reliability of the shuttle after Challenger blew up, decided it wasn't worth it to fix the problems at Slick-6, and have used Titans ever since. For the shuttle, that was a lot of very lucrative business lost.
Were it not for Challenger, the shuttle might have operated out of Vandenberg. What would public perception of the program be like if that were the case?
Here's a listing of all military launches using the shuttle.
How to set up a viable mission* to Mars:
1) Install Dictator on Mars.
2) Hype Evilness of Dictator. (Name Mars, Venus & Uranus new Axis of Evil. Hint at WMD capability of Mars. )
3) Declare mission to free the poor oppressed microbes of Mars
4) Mass Deployment of forces to Mars
*Note: Will also result in long-term commitment of forces to Mars necessary to search for WMD, bring the hostile environment to more tolerable levels, and to create the infrastructure necessary for the peoples of Mars to thrive.
-R.I.
Voyager 6, Bengals 3.
Visit me on the web at Permanent4.com.
This is much like an inverse of state-based gambling... those states that allow it (and profit greatly) seem to merely leech discretionary income from the economies of their neighbor states.
The space shuttle was originallt speced out to be a REUSABLE spacecraft, just check the tires, top off the fluids, and it's good to go again.
In part, that changed during it's design when it turned out that reusable in that sense just wouldn't work out for some of the parts.
In other cases, we found out that in practice, various other componants were not really reusable.
Instead, the shuttle was actually REBUILDABLE though it was mostly designed to be reusable.
It probably would have worked a lot better had it been designed to be rebuildable from the start, and it certainly would have been cheaper than rebuilding a craft that wasn't designed to be rebuilt.
For an example, replace the very expensive and fragile (as it turns out, too fragile) heat tiles and carbon panels with a cheap ablative resin. On landing, sandblast the char away and re-apply. Instead, since it had to be reusable, they went with the much more expensive and risky tiles and panels.
Another interesting idea might be to leave parts of the thing in orbit. Each flight could dock with the service module and use it for the duration of their mission, then disconnect and leave it for the next crew. The part that returns would need to carry the expendibles, and have the self contained capability to return should something go wrong. That may or may not be useful (after all, space is a hostile environment, so unpowered equipment may not be durable enough to use again without serious work and time that is not available or worth it), but it's an interesting concept to consider.
That would also shift the burden of redundancy somewhat since it would no longer be necessary to trade off capacity vs. more redundancy. In theory, the entire service module could be replaced in orbit if it came to that. Even life support provisions could be provided. At the end of a mission, just before seperation, any reserves that were not used in the mission could be transferred to the SM for use on a later mission.
Another interesting option after further research is to actually use tethers to transfer momentum from the returning capsule to the SM in order to get what amounts to a boost for nothing.
I don't think that NASA has done absolutely NOTHING in the last few decades, it's just that by sticking with the shuttle as-is, it hasn't been able to take much advantage of the things it's learned. A more modular system is in order so that they don't get stuck again with an all or nothing technology update. Capsule, booster and SM should be seperate projects which are updated and improved more or less seperatly.
http://www.aerospaceguide.net/lv/energialv.html
h ttp://spacedaily.com/news/russia-space-general-01 m.html
They built two and almost had a third done.
They had equally grand plans as NASA did for the Shuttle, but didn't get to a second space flight.
Upon looking at those pictures, apart from a slightly different looking tail section, it looked so rediculously similar to NASA's version that it's not funny, one would think they'd have a more original looking design.
The program was simply too expensive to run.
They did have the Energia heavy lifter which would serve better as a parts mover. With the ISS, there is no need to have the parts mover and people mover to be the same. An exception would be when satellites might need updates and repairs, then the all-in-one shuttle would be nice.
Wow, after all these years, people are reading Time again?
Really this doesn't have to be all bad. They should be designing a mass-producable vehical/space station module. They could use the vehical/capsule for missions and "drop" the lab off at the IIS before droping back home in a little capsule. This would reduce the Mission payloads by not sending up extra stuff that's not comming back, as well as allow NASA to place a decent size order for some space parts. order 100 instead of 1 or 2.
Also, they need to get the auto companies involved in space hardware. Automakers are of the measure twice cut once mentality. That means you may have bad pieces, but the money you save on making them allows you to throw away the bad ones rather than "salvage" them like in typical aerospace. The FAA is on crack with all their paperwork. They'd rather spend 40 hours on reworking a circut board with jumper wires and hand soldering then approve the design change to replace a single SMT IC layout on the circut board...that extends to most commerical aircraft as well. It's nuts and the only way they manage it all is with extreme buracracy over all the "patches" which pulls much needed money away from doing it right the first time!
Jeez, next they'll be using some of those 30 year old operating systems, anyone ever heard of UNIX - that antiquated stuff! Good thing we've got 30 years of operating system progress, and look at my windows box (let me reboot first...). (thats a joke in case you are clue impaired)
Just because a technology is old doesn't mean that it can't be a great workhorse. Its like Zen, the master returns to the beginning and does almost the same as he did form the start - because it works... just throw in a few of the little lessons learned, and you're good to go. Ever *wonder* why soviet craft are STILL flying after all this time with almost no mods? Don't f*ck with a good thing
meh
Didn't all of the Apollo capsules use simple parachute clusters to land? I don't know how controllable a parachute is in general, or how controllable the Apollo chutes were specifically, but with parafoil style parachute, you could surely get a lot closer than 5 miles. You could probably put down with in 50 metres of your target.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
From the ISR space elevator FAQ.
******************
What about conservation of angular momentum?
When an elevator ascends the ribbon, it must be accelerated eastward because the Earth's rotation represents a larger eastward velocity the higher you go. The required eastward force on the ascending elevator would have to be provided by a corresponding westward force on the ribbon.
If you go through the math quantitatively, the angular momentum for the climbers requires a pound or so of force over the one-week travel time, and we do that easily with our many tons of material in the anchor and the counterweight.
The quantities really are tiny, but just to be complete, a climber going up pushes the entire elevator slightly to the east, causing it to lean. However, the ribbon recovers for the same reason that it stays up in the first place. Centripetal acceleration is acting on the upper two-thirds pulling it outward, and the lost angular momentum is replaced very quickly (essentially as fast as it is lost). The ribbon will never lose enough angular momentum to even deflect a single degree, let alone fall. The extra angular momentum is stolen from the Earth's rotation.
***********
I don't have time or a good recollection of my college dynamics class to verify this, but it seems they have it worked out. I'd be more concerned with the part about "dodging a satellite every 14 hours."
The problem with allowing a frontier to open up is the young females don't congregate in the urban centers as much as they usually do. This causes some degree of discomfort to those with power.
When the boomer females were coming of age it was a very dangerous time to allow the pioneer culture that settled the American frontier any breathing room. I mean just think of all that pussy that got fucked int he discos of the 1970s and the corporate middle management offices of the 1980s that would have gone and inbred with Norwegian bachelor farmers and the like.
Why, it would have been a crime against humanity!
Seastead this.
No matter how long you make the rails, chances are that if it is a manageable length, your "projectile" will need to have a minimum of about 25g's at the muzzle. Rail guns are fine for cargo and launching ISS modules once you build the gun, but there is no way you can accelerate a human to orbital velocity unless you make a 50-80 mile gun. Remember, the speed at the muzzle has to be more than 18k MPH because you are going to lose speed from drag.
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Soyuz is superior to Apollo in many ways. Or the "GE Apollo" design if you have the NIH disease and prefer it be good ole "American" design. The Chinese even use the same approaches in their Shenzhou design. Why do Americans persist in trying to cram so much into a simple re-entry capsule? For reference to Soyuz: http://www.astronautix.com/craftfam/soyuz.htm
If you are an American, he's your president. He won the election by getting voters to vote for him in enough states to win the electoral vote: that is how it always works. That is not theft.
I am concerned that there is a very real possibility that the US could abandon manned space flight.
Can you imagine what would come out of us loosing another shuttle? Here is a nightmare, imagine it happening within two years after the next launch.
The geeky part of me is deeply dissapointed that the next manned space vehicle will not be a leaner and meaner 22nd century version of the shuttle.
The practical side of me points out that X-prize contestants are doing a wonderful job of fulfilling that requirement. Hell I think they may slap NASA around like the bitch it is.
A leaner and meaner space shuttle is simply too far away to ever be constructed. An expensive project like that would need to survive at least two more administrations to ever take flight, and if you look at the history of NASA projects over the last 20 years you will see that is a very big problem.
While this Apollo era design idea isn't sexy, it is practical. I see a definite safety improvement in a design such as this. I wonder what the cost difference per launch would be compared to the 'reusable' space shuttle.
If you could build a new capsule, sit it on a booster and put it in orbit for less then the cost of 1 flight of the space shuttle, well what does that tell you about the reusability of the space shuttle?
If NASA and contractors get to work on this now we just might be able to survive another shuttle loss.
Not that I want another shuttle loss mind you. I just have this gut feeling like NASA isn't willing to do what needs to be done to run the shuttles.
It is correlation, since the concentration of power in the hands of the ruling class (socialism) is already a big step toward dictatorship. When the rulers control your economic life, there is not much left to take over.
The problem lies, of course, with socialism, which is an unjust ideology to justify the powerful having more power: it is the modern-day justification of the "divine right of kings".
While Canada is more socialist than the United States, it is not fair to call it "socialist" overall. While the rulers do control more than in the U.S., most of the economy is still in the hands of the people. The same is actually true of Sweden. Much further down the line you have the nearly-completely socialist states like Pol Pot's Cambodia, North Korea, or Soviet-era Poland, which can fairly be called "socialist" since just about everything is controlled by the rulers.
"1) Install Dictator on Mars"
Saddam Hussein installed himself (he got enough power to overthrow the previous bloodthirsty dictator who was much like himself), so the analogy is derailed at item #1. #2 fails too: Saddam did a great job of hyping his own evilness.
"humans aren't easily capable of surviving in 115-degree heat and searing sunshine, but here in Phoenix, Arizona, 3+ million people do it every day without many complaints"
Ever hear of Iraq? Civilization was born in that place, and it can sometimes top 120 degrees.... and no AC.
Or how about Survivor? Now *that* is something I'd watch... especially if the reward challeges were competing for, say, extra oxygen.
I wonder why we'd use an Atlas.... um? hmm? Didn't we loose, or destroy many important shematics and designs for the Saturn V?
um, maybe we could ask the Russians if they still have any of their intel on it.
See the Pictures of the Flood of '08
I'm in my mid 40's and remember the space race quite well. I remember when the Apollo program was scrapped for the shuttle. I said to myself why? The shuttle just orbits earth for what, a space station? The Apollo booster was the only booster to never fail in flight (Apollo 13 lost center engine 5 on the 2nd stage, but kept going). I wish they would have kept developing the Apollo and kept going to the moon. We went there, picked up some rocks and QUIT. We should have started EXPLORING the moon. Just think of all the interesting things we could have discovered with todays technology on they moon. At least the cash strapped Russians parked their white elephant and only flew it once. The shuttle is 70's technology that is just getting too old. Apollo, or any other ELV can be modernized...
The russian space programme may be considered as successful if not more so than the NASA programme. Not because of the objectives, but the service record of their tech. The fact that the Russians maintained the same technology throughout the last several decades, and the fact that the ISS relies on Soyuz for emergency backup is testimony to the fact that the technology always did, and always will just work.
NASA spent many, many man hours creating a pen that would work in space.... the Russians realised that ball point pens didn't work in space, and so they used pencils.
I think NASA could do with a bit more 'Zen' engineering. Cadillac's have no place in orbit.
Yeh but when it comes time to replace your old car you can go out and buy a new one for a reasonable price! Why? Cause there is a production line that builds the things... If you only manufactured cars every 20 years they would cost a lot more!
Seriously I think they should let the cargo haulers be the ones experimenting with new transport methods. It's a lot less painful to lose a thousand pounds of water than 7 humans. How many exotic techniques do you think you could find for delivering 1000 lbs of water if you can collect $500 a lb for it! One of those solutions would most likely lead to a major breakthrough. Perhaps NASA should create a "Water Contract" prize for ISS water supply.
The Return of Apollo?
What are we waiting for? Let's get started...
Seriously, does anyone else think that a plan that sounds as rational and reasonable as this has a snow balls chance in hell of actually happening?
Heard the onboard computer will be running at a whopping 33mhz with 640k of memory, which should be enough for anybody!.
All of the above is correct! The atmospheric pressures were higher during firing as well as the high nitro/low O2 mixture. Then once the bird made orbit and was on it's way, the pressure was gradually reduced and the mixture shifted to a purer O2 atmosphere to take the load off of the scrubbers.
First rule of holes; When in one, stop digging.
Some perspective is needed. Apollo had 12 manned capsules, three people each. One capsule was lost in a fire, one was almost lost in space. Accident rate is 1 in 6 flights.
Space shuttle has had about 114 missions, with crews numbering from 2 to 7. Two catastrophic losses. Accident rate is 1 in 57.
Prior foam strikes and other in-flight damage to the shuttle could of course have led to the more accidents. Nevertheless your own statement needed some qualification.
Also, neither Challenger nor, IMHO, Columbia were technically lost in space. But that's up for interpretation...
The danger of the shuttle was it was mounted to the side of the booster. It had no way of saving the astronauts during much of the ascent if something went wrong that threatened or caused a structural breakup.
l .net/~estar/orbiter.html
But for getting things into orbit for human space flight it is the most verstile craft ever built. This is because of it's payload bay and the weight it could loft into orbit.
Now granted that you could send more with a heavy lift rocket but what the shuttle did was allow you configure a spacecraft with humans onboard for a nearly infinite variety of missions.
The shuttle was and is a great means of putting a temporay space station into orbit or bringing up the pieces of a much larger one that needs human presence.
There is nothing unsafe about re-entry unless something hits you on the way up that compromises your heat shield. The shuttle has huge flexibility in where it can come down because of the wings. But if the air force wasn't involved the wings could have been made smaller scarificing cross-range (left to right travel). Perhaps then they could have mounted it on the top of a booster rather than on the side.
The apollo style replacement will do one thing well and that is move people from earth to orbit and back again. But it won't do all the shuttle can do.
The best bet in my options to have a capsule based system for moving people, a heavy lift rocket devoted to getting stuff into orbit, and perhaps a a 2 man or unmanned shuttle that can dock with a station or the capsule for missions that require something to be brought back.
Rob Conley
Shameless plug
You want try some of the possibilities fly Orbiter Sim.
http://www.orbitersim.com
http://www.allte
That's pretty convincing, but you'd still need a 6 mile radius area where there is a neglible chance to hit a boat, bridge or other valuable object sensitive to being hit with a few ton from above. And that describes no area in or near the SF Bay!
There should be plenty of remote areas to choose from though, especially in the open sea.
I have seen Russian Military parachuting of heavy heavy equipment demonstrated on a military show. What they used to slow down the desent of, lets say a truck or even a light tank was a split second burst of what can best described as a solid propelent burst, like a JATO rocket only used for a split second and that lite tank hits the ground running. So it does seem a little dangerous ,but if prefected could offer weight savings and a pratical way to fall and a reusable tolerent landing.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
Before you kids all start wetting yourselves....remember that the Apollo has serious and major defects. One crew died as a result.
While it's true that the remaining Apollo program was carried out to great success with only a few other big problems, that was due to some bubblegum and duct tape redesign. NASA made a few changes to satisfy concerns of the Apollo 1 accident and addressed some crew concerns.
I believe you'll find that most of the people who worked that project, crew especially, will tell you that Apollo was less than ideal.
Perhaps the concept of Apollo is a good place to start for a new system design. I wouldn't want to start by pulling out blueprints, to do it right you would need to go farther back than that.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
I feel another reason the shuttle was built and so much money spent and a void in manned missions to the moon is the simple fact the military has no use for the moon(until the time comes)or science that has no practical use for them. They have had what they wanted and now hardly a ripple in the pond with bolder manned missions to deeper space. I agree with you, we(people owned NASA) can take a pay cut on designing a reusable reentry veichle and use the military space science results that were over spent to find and go back to the moon.
I eat my grapes at room temperature, cuz the cold ones hurt my teeth
"Those requirements stated that the vehicle must be capable of carrying four people as well as transfer injured crew members to "definitive" medical care on Earth within 24 hours."
Lemme see here...I'm pretty sure that the tried and true Russian vehicle can carry three. Maybe four, and if not I would be very supprised if the design couldn't be just slightly modified for four. And a 24 hour launch readiness doesn't seem to be a stretch for it either.
"The vehicle had to be able to act as a CRV by 2010 and a CTV, launched on an expendable vehicle, by 2012."
Seems to me any redesign necessary could be done by then. I'm no rocket scientist, but I would be willing to bet hard cash that the Russians could do it....given hard cash.
"The vehicle also had to be cheaper, safer, and more maneuverable than the Space Shuttle."
Take a passing glance at the Russian method. Then you go back and take a detailed look. Again I'll bet hard cash they already have the answer for less money. Safe? Yeah, they've had a few fsck ups but I think their track record is FAR better than ours.
Manuverablility is something I won't comment on because I just don't have a clue on that. But for that kind of mission does it really need to be that much more manuverable?
Guys listen. I'm a former cold warrier and yes, we kicked their ass. But if there was one single thing that the soviets did right it was this kind of space work.
Why are we not considering this?!?!?!
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
The 60's saw two interesting concepts the KIWI and the NERVA projects.
Another nuclear propulsion project was the project orion.
To know is to have knowledge....to understand is to be enlightened.
option 1.use a combination of a railgun and a rocket engine or engines. i.e. you fire the railgun so that it can get some fast speed then when its high enough and going fast, it can fire a nice efficiant rocket engine to reach escape velocity and LEO. The rocket itself could either be some kind of nice reusable booster or better yet a dirt cheap "dumb booster" that isnt reusable but is made as cheap as possible (i.e. just a fuel tank with a rocket nozzle on the end) Then you have a payload section (basicly it would be a metal shell around whatever payload for example ISS parts or whatever) with some kind of capsule to hold the people and tools on the top.
The capsule would land using parachutes (like the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules did), be collected and inspected and then reused.
option 2.use a fast, high-flying supersonic airplane that would carry a booster rocket up to high-altitude and up to a fast speed and have the booster attatched to the top or bottom of the plane, which would then ignite and fire to reach LEO.
After the rocket has been launched, the plane can land like any other high-flying supersonic airplane for reuse. The rocket itself could either be some kind of nice reusable booster or better yet a dirt cheap "dumb booster" that isnt reusable but is made as cheap as possible (i.e. just a fuel tank with a rocket nozzle on the end). Then you have a payload section (basicly it would be a metal shell around whatever payload for example ISS parts or whatever) with some kind of capsule to hold the people and tools on the top.
The capsule would land using parachutes (like the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules did), be collected and inspected and then reused.
If you want retro scary, how about a double bill retro tour - Guns'n'Roses and New Kids on The Block ;)
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
That's so wierd. The Atlas was an early liquid-fueled ICBM originally authorized by President Truman. Later boosters were much better, but somehow, the Atlas lives on.
Simply google for "saturn v blueprints" and you'll find any number of sources debunking that "the Saturn V blueprints were destroyed" nonsence.
The difficulty with reviving the Saturn V is not in the absence of the plans... those are safe and sound; but in the fact that the Saturn V was built with 1960's technology, most of the parts aren't made anymore, and many of the companies that made parts of the Saturn V don't even exist anymore. Furthermore, the production facilities that made said parts have long since been either shut down, or retooled. And NASA's own facilities, including the all-important Launch Complex 39, have long since been modified from Saturn V specs, for use with the shuttle.
With all of the modifications to the design that would be necessary to start production on a new run of Saturn V's, on modern production lines, with modern manufactureing techniques, with modern components and electronics; it'd be easier just keep the basic math, but design an entirely new rocket. Certianly, it'd be a damn sight easier than finding vendors to recreate the '60's era parts to build new examples of the original design.
But not a whit of the Saturn V design or data is "gone".
cya,
john
Imagine all the people...
Why not build a tow-cable between the shuttle and the space station, and bring up crates of food and fuel to tow, also. They can do space walks to get it every month or so.
Wouldn't such a long cable be incredibly heavy and gigantic? I would think they would have to launch such a thing in many, many pieces with huge launch vehicles and attach them all in space. Essentially, I think this would basically have all the technical hurdles of a space elevator, which is what it would essentially be.
The shuttle was doomed from the start... There are only three advantages I can see the shuttle has that previous designs did not have the capability of doing; retrieving satellites (done once), landing on a runway instead of having a rescue crew (convenient!), and satisfying pilots' id by giving them a plane... at a cost to the safety of those who fly it, those who are below it, and the reduced flight range to orbital flight only (a.k.a. no moon flights).
Space flight is very different than air flight, and it requires a different approach. But pilots will be pilots and they will always want a plane, just as steam power was preferred in cars until gas and electric cars were refined enough to make the idea of steam power laughable.
If you look at any other craft NASA makes that delivers payloads it is based on a disposable rocket design... the mars landers and all landers that have EVER been sent to other worlds (other then the moon and other gassless bodies) have been capsule designs. The flexibility of a disposable rocket and capsule re-entry system cannot be refuted, even by nasa themselves. In all other aspects other then manned space flight, the rocket has been employed...
To use a shuttle is not entirely ridiculous, but the purpose for flying it has to be there, and the risk has to be justified, and acknowledged beforehand. Imagine driving a dumptruck to pick up groceries... Too much vehicle for the purpose; this is what the space shuttle is being used for most of the time. Using it for what its best at is a more appropriate use of resources.
For years the Russians have used capsules, because they don't try to fight physics, and as a result, they have a program that uses primitive computers, sloppy workmanship, and yet has not had a single in flight failure since 1971. As for the US, we have NEVER had an in flight failure with capsule-based spacecraft (almost with Apollo 13 and we had an on ground burn-up related to pure oxygen use on Apollo 1). It's a proven technology.
Its also safer for the inhabitants below... When the shuttle burned up, it scattered debris over 4 states at supersonic speeds... If craft flew over the ocean, a burn-up would not cause debris to tumble on the inhabitants below because they'd be over sea. The capsule would also tend to stay more clumped together upon separation, minimizing the debris on the ground.
Lastly, the disposable design allows for longer docking times, because the career lifetime of the parts would not have to include additional flights. This sounds wasteful, but the entire tank of the shuttle burns up, and therefore half of it by weight is disposable anyway. If you are a real granola, and are still not convinced that disposables are the way to go, then also realize that the solid boosters are known ozone depleters, and unlike most parts of govt., the space program is exempt from having to fix the problem. This renders any good in using a reusable craft like the shuttle nil by environmental damage created by the boosters. The Russians by contrast, use kerosene...
Some of the costs can be revamped by reusing flight hardware, but removing them for transfer to another capsule lends the opportunity to test each component before installing again, leading to a safer overall program.
I sent the following position paper to all my Congressmen and to JPL as well as NASA. Comments welcome.
To Whom It May Concern:
I believe that as long as we keep probes to Mars and the outer planets confined to robotics than I haven't much of a problem with costs, the science and technology generated pays for itself; however, I believe that we as a nation, and the world as partners, should be concentrating our manned efforts into a permanent Lunar colony.
The benefits of a Lunar base should be self-evident but somehow seem to be on a low priority, if any priority at all. The moon would make a wonderful laboratory for all sorts of science. Sunlight is abundant and could be harvested for microwave transmission back to Earth to help alleviate our energy needs. Collectors could be at both lunar poles thereby providing continuous, uninterrupted energy (except during lunar eclipses).
Observatories are another natural for the moon. Huge mirrors could be constructed and the telescopes used to detect, amongst other things, near-Earth objects that might prove disastrous to life here on Earth. Launching defenses against a threatening asteroid, comet, etc. would also be more cost effective from the moon allowing for larger payloads, even payloads such as reaction motors to push the object into a non-threatening orbit.
The moon could also serve as a base for other solar system exploration for the same reason, easier escape velocity would mean cheaper, larger payloads. With the unrestricted sunlight, even for half the time (away from the poles), linear accelerators would become the 'modus operandi' for launching vehicles back to earth and the rest of the system. Reaction fuel would not be needed except for maneuvering and breaking, again increasing the payload.
The moon should also prove to be a valuable source of minerals; and, as any permanent base would necessarily have to be built underground, finding those minerals would be a by-product of the development of bases.
Once Lunar colonies are established and, to some extent self-sufficient, then manned exploration of the rest of the planets and moons would be more practical.
I am a believer that Robert Heinlein was a visionary in this regard and once the 'romantic filler' for his stories about moon colonization are factored out, his ideas are not only practical but actually the only reasonable road to the rest of the Solar System. Our moon is the natural stepping stone to the planets, the stars, and beyond.
Let's focus on what's practical, economical, and with the highest possible long range payoff. Let's go to the moon and build there for permanence.
Mars is none of those things before the moon is utilized. A manned voyage there, at this time, would be monstrously risky with little or no return on investment. It is staggering to even contemplate the amount of fuel alone that would be required to go there, break into orbit, land, take-off again and launch back to Earth. Mars has a deep gravity well. Not as deep as Earth's but vastly deeper than the moon's.
With linear accelerators (LE) on the moon you could put lots of fuel pods and other supplies into orbit around Mars before a manned expedition even took off to go there. And, once the LE's were built, the cost of sending the supplies there (before the men) would be simply the cost of the supplies, no resources need be expended to get them there beyond the steering and breaking fuel for the containers; and, you'd need to send that however you went.
Doing it like that, you could establish a permanent base on Mars the very first manned trip there and be able to periodically re-supply it just that easy as well.
Just imagine this, the taxpayers would be able to watch the Luna colonies being built with a decent back yard telescope - that's priceless PR in and of itself.
Get off the dime, colonize the moon. Save the Mars dream for when it can become a practical reality. We need the moon to make that reality come true.
Keeper of the terrible karma ---
Im sure china could reverse engineer a saturn VI, with their spare 150,000 engineers working for $8/day.
:)
And they could do it in 6months and rebuilt 1000 new ones like ford plant for 1/100th the cost
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Actually, the fire hazard was caused by the combination of pure oxygen (even at low pressure) and gravity. The upward draft created by the hot burning gases ensure that fresh oxygen is quickly supplied to the flame.
In space, you don't have this problem; the hot gases stay more or less where they are due to the absence of gravity. You can burn things, but you get only a faint globular flame.
An important change after the Apollo 1 disaster was the complicated capsule door locking mechanism. If the astronauts had been able to unlock the door more quickly, they might have been able to get out in time.
My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I recall a project back in the 80s called Spartan. It was a simple orbital platform that supported various experiments. It was carried aloft in the shuttle, let loose for a few days, and then retrieved and returned to earth by the same shuttle. A friend of mine worked on the software for it.
No sig? Sigh...
As a Norwegian bachelor farmer, I highly resent the above.
For the sake of argument, let's say that only one state chooses to do so (not that it changes the argument, the picture is just clearer). The other states will not spend on healthcare assistance to the poor from their budget. This state does--in excess--since the poor move there for the government assistance.
See the suggested progression in the prior post. Not everyone is Horatio Alger, waiting to bootstrap themselves to some 19th century 'American Dream' of success.
THe idea the author was making was should have gone to orbit, built staion, then gone to moon, built base, then gone to mars, lather rinse repeat.
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
133?
Everything seemed to be going so nice
'till the end of all beings punched right through the ice
They perfected Apollo, it can be used as an escape pod for shuttles and transports for three people or less. All they need to do is make the rocket that takes it there reusable. Why reinvent when you have something that works? Just watch out for the low voltage problem that Apollo 13 had. :)
I sugges that this is completely bougus. I see no reason why you couldn't supply the Service module with enough internal smarts to be able to separate, maneuver, and then re-boost itself so that it can come down anywhere that you want it to.
The thought that the SM becomes a dumb rock after separation forgets the fact that you can now fit far more computer intelligence onto something the size and weight of a large wristwatch than Mission control had available on the ground during the Apollo missions. It would now be very easy to put the needed smarts into a Service Module to allow it to drop itself wherever you wanted it to.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
The neat thing about a tether is that if is is conductive (or has a conductive component) you can push current through it; a current loop will form that will interact with the Earth's magnetic field like an electric motor.
The tether experiment they tried on the shuttle a few years back was to examine using this effect to change orbits. The electric flow had a surge and fried the conductor, though, as I recall.
You could also reverse the effect and sacrifice orbital velocity for electricity, which could come in handy if you occasionally need to do some high-energy process in orbit.
Modernizing capsule technology is not a new idea. In the late 60's and early 70's, the US military was working on using the Gemini capsule for a number of military missions. The Air Force developed the Gemini B to use with it's Manned Orbiting Laboratory project, that got scrapped after one test flight, and the Navy developed the Blue Gemini, which was to be a space combat/sabotage/intel vehicle (see http://www.deepcold.com for interesting graphics).
Revamping the Apollo capsule will free us of depending on Russian capsules to mann the ISS, and will give us the altitude and cross range that the Shuttle lacks. Lots of interplanetary projects could become practical with mass production of Apollo capsules on the cheap, even establishing a base on the Moon, near earth asteroids, etc.
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves
What you say seems logical, but history does not bear you out. All 17 Apollo capsules landed with 3 miles of their pre-planned landing point. And the recovery ship was never more than 13 miles away-- and that one was a fluke.
See this guy's post. I didn't know they were that precise, either, but apparently the ocean pickups were no big deal.
A memo was passed to a number of Government departments asking for "A list of employees in your division broken down by sex."
Came back one reply:
"I'm sorry, but we have nobody in our department who fits your criteria. We do, however have four alcoholics."
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.