Slashdot Mirror


European Space Shuttle Prototype Lands Safely In Sweden

This Nick Is Taken writes "Yahoo! News reports the successful test of a German designed prototype of the European space shuttle, Phoenix , taking place in the north of Sweden, moving the first all European mission into space one step closer."

284 comments

  1. Where have we heard that name before? by infonick · · Score: 5, Funny

    This prototype space shuttle (named Phoenix), is expected to replace the current shuttles in use in two years time.

    *time passes*

    The prototype space shuttle expected to replace the current fleet owned by ESA will no longer be realeased under the name Phoenix, but instead will be released under the name Firebird. The recent name change was due to another project already underway by the Russian Space Agency. Both decided the name change would be best to avoid confusion between the two projects.

    *time passes*

    ESA's new prototype shuttle was again recently re-dubbed Firefox (formerly Firebird, formerly Phoenix) to avoid confusion with a NASA program that had started up some months earlier...

    *time passes*

    ESA's prototype shuttle program is being braced for yet another name change. This time a Linux web browser project made claim to the name Firefox. The development team for the new shuttle is beginning to wonder weather a name for the project is nessesary.

    --

    You are confusing me with someone who cares.
    1. Re:Where have we heard that name before? by Chalybeous · · Score: 2, Funny

      ESA's new prototype shuttle was again recently re-dubbed Firefox (formerly Firebird, formerly Phoenix) to avoid confusion with a NASA program that had started up some months earlier...

      ... and receives a hefty lawsuit from Craig Thomas and MiG. Lovers of red pandas everywhere remain baffled, but the Mozilla project team see very little for potential in confusing a web browser with a space shuttle, and so choose to say nothing.

      --

      "It is dark. You are likely to be eaten by a grue." -- Zork

    2. Re:Where have we heard that name before? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      weather a name for the project is nessesary

      That's classic - can I quote you, dipshit?

      Illiteracy in the US - an entertainment.

    3. Re:Where have we heard that name before? by linhux · · Score: 1

      ...and then some witty hacker ports Firesomething (screenshot) to the ESA shuttle, resulting in all european citizens calling it different things. Except France and Iceland, of course, who made up their own names from the beginning and never even bothered to ask ESA what they should call it.

      (Personal Firesomething favorite: "Mozilla Fireklumpen")

    4. Re:Where have we heard that name before? by Impie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      *ROTFL*

      Best comment so far on slashdot.

      BTW. In risk of being redundant..

      Is Phoenix a good name for a craft. Isn't that the name of a specific bird that burns up? ;-)

      --
      I really have another userid as well
  2. All European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Then what's this flag in this picture?!

    1. Re:All European? by lfourrier · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you look carefully :
      1) the flag is along the pist, not on Phoenix
      2) don't recognize it. certainly not US (no blue at the top). Probably just to see the wind.

    2. Re:All European? by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The flag is attached to pheonix (see this picture), but it isn't the US flag.

    3. Re:All European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's the flag of bremen.

    4. Re:All European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, let's see. Three red stripes on a white background. Looks like some kind of protocol flag to me. European protocol, that is. :-D Sorry yankee boy.

    5. Re:All European? by LinuxGuyFriend · · Score: 1

      mmmm. The other pictures I saw before gave a different impression about the size. Maybe it's a Personal Space Vehicle.

    6. Re:All European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Apparently, it's the flag of Bremen the area of Germany where the design team is based.

    7. Re:All European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -3 redundant

    8. Re:All European? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Since they are paying, nice to use the flag for publicity. :-)

  3. Whoa! Where did this come from? by JessLeah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I've never even heard of a European space shuttle. The American one, yes. The old Soviet one (Buran), yes. But European? Hot damn, this is great news!

    Background info please? (Other than that Wikipedia article)

    (On second thought-- wow, does this mean Zefram Cochrane is going to be the first pilot?)

    1. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by Sygiinu · · Score: 5, Informative

      This isn't the first European spaceplane, back in the 70's/80's/90's we had a project called Hermes running, but there were a lot of re-designs and eventually the project was closed down due to bloat and ever changing requirements.

      Check out the Hermes space plane at Astronautix

    2. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by axonal · · Score: 5, Funny

      Now just to estimate the airspeed velocity of an unladen European space shuttle. It's just a simple question of weight ratios.

    3. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The good thing with this one is that there is actually a prototype, and I hear ESA will include it in its launch programme. Space.com also says that it will, together with Ariane 5 be part of ESA's manned space programme. I certainly hope so.

    4. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by WegianWarrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

      How about the german WW2 era Saenger-Bredt antipodal bomber, that where the inspiration for pretty much every winged spacecraft that has been developed, planned and / or built? While the Wikipedia don't have much on the Silverbird, it has an article on Saenger himself. And as allways, Google is your friend in finding more.

      Interesting fact; Saenger seems to have been the first to suggest the use of a regeneratively cooled engine, in which the nozzle are cooled with eitehr fuel or oxidizer which are then introdused to the burner itself.

      --
      Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
    5. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by Steve+Cox · · Score: 3, Funny

      Presumably the payload is carried by two shuttles using a length of creeper suspended under the dorsal guiding wings.

      Steve:)

    6. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually wikipedia has more information on the Silverbird/Silbervogel.

    7. Re:Whoa! Where did this come from? by NineteenSixtyNine · · Score: 0

      And don't forget the Moonraker!

      --

      --
      What would Bill Clinton do?
  4. Quick NASA needs more funding by Suburbanpride · · Score: 0, Troll

    Come on Dubya, you can't let those smelly europeans beat us in space travel! on another note, I believe russia actaully had a functioning space shuttle in the 80's, but the scraped it when the cold war ended.

    --
    sorry 'bout the mess...
    1. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Draveed · · Score: 1

      Yes, the Buran. Afaik, it only flew once, by remote control, to simply prove they could do it. After that, they just didn't have the money to keep it going.

      --
      Oh, Edmund, can it be true? that I hold here, in my mortal hand, a nugget of purest green?
    2. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Inigo+Soto · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Come on Dubya, you can't let those smelly europeans beat us in space travel! on another note, I believe russia actaully had a functioning space shuttle in the 80's, but the scraped it when the cold war ended.

      Actually, shuttle Buran, as it was called, was technologically more advanced than contemporary American Space Shuttles. It sported, among other things, remote controlled landings. Shuttle Phoenix seems to go one step further and allow for automatic landings.

    3. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Gonoff · · Score: 0, Troll

      but the scraped it when the cold war ended

      scraped it on waht? The ground??

      --
      I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
    4. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      IIRC (from a magazine article), the Russians built and test flew one flight item, and had two more under construction. The two under construction were disassembled, and the flight item is sitting in a hangar at Baikonour Cosmodrome. The article I read said that the hanger was in very poor condition, and was in risk of a roof collapse that would destroy the one remaining Buran.

      http://www.russianspaceweb.com/buran.html

      Just Googled and found that site, with a timeline of the project. The one Buran that flew unmanned was destroyed in a roof collapse on May 12 2002. Apparently a roof repair team was actually /on the roof/ during the callapse, but were uninjured. They probably had to buy new underwear, tho.

    5. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Richard_at_work · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the Buran was fully automated from launch to landing. From the link you gave: The autopilot that landed the shuttle was able to overcome a 34 mph crosswind to land within 5 feet of the runway center line. Also, of the 38,000 heat shield tiles that covered Buran, only 5 were missing.

      While being more technologically advanced, it was also just as expensive as the American shuttle, and the post Soviet government cancelled the project, having decided to upgrade the much cheaper Soyuz capsules. The energia booster flew once more and was also shelved, but only because no buyers could be found who needed that much capacity in a booster.

      Its interesting to note that the Russians scrapped Buran because it was too expensive, and focused on upgrading its capsule fleet, and this is almost exactly what Bush announced he was going to fund, a cancellation of shuttle flights and development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle, which will be a bigger and more versatile version of the Apollo capsule type, unknown yet if it is to be reusable.

      The reason the shuttle was necessary was because the US military demanded that it have the capability to glide to a precise landing point when on classified missions, and this is one ofthe main reasons that the shuttles budget exploded. Once you remove this feature requirement, the need for a reentry vehicle to have wings is pretty much gone, and a reusable capsule with a disposable cargo pod is a much better solution.

    6. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by twiddlingbits · · Score: 4, Informative

      The USAF was sort of conned into using the Shuttle as a rationale to get it funded. President Nixon could not get Congress to pass a purely civilian shuttle,and the USAF didn't really want the shuttle as rockets were doing a fine job. But in order to get a few other things the USAF wanted they agreed to try to use the Shuttle as part of the spy sattelite program. Now of course since they were now paying part of the tab they had unique requirements that had to be imposed on the shuttle designs, which of course added complexity and cost. The orignal shuttle did not have a lot of things like crosswind requirements, higher payload weight requirements or polar orbit requirements (those launches were to be from the West coast site at Vandenburg) etc. that were added by the USAF. This is all detailed in the Columbia Accident Report if anyone cares to read it. I have and was part of the team that complied a report on what changes the report should cause at a major NASA Center. The Shuttle program is full of politics and the associated compromises that overcame good engineering. I strongly suspect the EU version will eventually suffer the same problems. Buran was ditched as too expensive which was partly due to the fact that the Russians did not have the computing capability to make it 100% automated to orbit and back. There was a massive difference in costs between an unmanned fly-by-wire prototype and a man-rate re-usable launch vehicle. Hindsight being 20/20 the US Shuttle program should have been scrapped too, and I hope it is soon. The Return to orbit proejct is not going to fix the inherent systems problems of a 30 yr old space plane. Something else will go wrong and we'll lose another crew.

    7. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      More funding ... sorry, there is *no money*.

      More than 40$ the oil-barrel: bad political of Bush & Co.

    8. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by essreenim · · Score: 1

      I disagree,
      We don't have the same political BS u have to put up with. it may not be as capable as NASA's space shuttle in that it's quite small and could carry limited payload, but actually, its probably a good bet that satellites payload will continue to shrink.. I suspect its primary use will be as a stepping stone to manned space missions..

      I like to think of it as something akin to the X project - only more serious and professional. I should be a versatiile craft at just 7 metres ( whats that - about 10 feet in your language). It seems to look pretty sleek and should not be rigged with big cimbersome computer tech. like the shuttle thanks to great advances in (primarily) American semiconductor technology ...

    9. Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by cft_128 · · Score: 1
      The shuttle that I read about in the article was about 7 meters but was a 1/6 size prototype which works out to about 42 meter full size vehicle, 4.25 meters longer than the US shuttle.

      I was not aware that the EU didn't have political BS...

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  5. not that impresive by mirror_dude · · Score: 4, Interesting

    They flew the dam thing up in a helicopter and it managed to navigate its way back using GPS.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, the only new thing they did was add the word "space" in front of allready existing technology (not that I have anything against that, marketing is very important for success); but I dont think this really deserves front page slashdot treatment.
    Then again I could be completely of base.

    --
    Note to Mods: When I post mirrors, it's a best guess. I don't know for certain whether or not the site will go down!
    1. Re:not that impresive by Lispy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, this in a very early state. I can remember that EADS has been planning on a reentry vehicle for years so this will turn into a shuttle sometime, it's a really big company and the project is funded by european governments. This test might not look too spectacular in itself but it shows that they are finally making reallife tests of their concept and probably they were just testing a small part of the shuttles tech. Most of the stuff you need for a shuttle can be tried and approved on the ground I assume. But the landing system should need some testflights and this is what you were seeing.

    2. Re:not that impresive by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct me if I'm wrong, the only new thing they did was add the word "space" in front of allready existing technology (not that I have anything against that, marketing is very important for success); but I dont think this really deserves front page slashdot treatment.

      The thing they did that was new was to meet a milestone in the quest to have the first reusable space vehicle of the twenty-first century.

      How cool is that?

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:not that impresive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They were there to test something out, not only did it work, it worked very well.

      Thats the news.

      It's not a "man landing on the moon" sorta thing, and neither was it built up to be.

      In orther words:

      Shut the fuck up, idiot.

    4. Re:not that impresive by Unregistered · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think the impressive thing is that it is beginning to actually take form. While not a technological feat, it means that the project at least has a chance now.

    5. Re:not that impresive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... but I dont think this really deserves front page slashdot treatment.

      Yes, but the fact that europe is developing a space shuttle & that their test was sucessfull is.

      I for one was not aware that they were, as was the guy a few posts back.

    6. Re:not that impresive by sander · · Score: 1

      URKH! Why the heck is this rated as 'Informative'!???

      So - read the original article. This was a drop test of a 1/6 scale model of a reusable space vehicle under development. If you know utterly nothing about why drop tests of scaled - and later full scale - vehicle models and vehciles are done, then sure, you could come up with a response you just did. But in such a case - why the **** did you bother to write it? To show your total ignorance?

  6. Why not just call up Rutan? by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From the article:

    "... but project managers concede a full-size version won't be ready for more than a decade."


    Considering they're already 20 years behind our shuttle,
    why copy from our old tech? Personally, I'd think they'd be better to look at Burt Rutans X-prize project and asking themselves if their old school Arian/Shuttle vehicle approach is really the right way to go, especially if it's going to be a 30 year old solution by the time it launches (if ever).

    Seems to me the ESA is missing a great opportunity to innovate and relying on "tried and proven" rather than pushing the envelope of space exploration.

    1. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Considering it's claimed to be "affordable" it doesn't sound like copying from old US tech. The US space shuttle costs half a billion dollars per launch...

    2. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by XryanX · · Score: 1

      I agree that this doesn't seem like a viable long-term solution. The article didn't go into much specifics, but it seems like a waste if they are indeed just modifying the existing technology. After the Columbia accident, everyone seemed to agree that the shuttle was outdated and needed to be replace with newer technology. One can only hope that the ESA's prototype is going to be a change from the traditional shuttle.

    3. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the US Space Shuttle was supposed to be affordable too, but never lived up to that promise. I doubt this one will either.

    4. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Rakishi · · Score: 1

      You can blame the Air Force for part of that problem. As long as the people making it aim for it to be affordable and aren't given insane objectives by an outside agency it's possible. Also keep in mind that technology has advanced in the last few decades.

    5. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, so far this shuttle costs $0 to launch...

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    6. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by xcomm · · Score: 1

      >>Considering they're already 20 years behind our shuttle, why copy from our old tech?

      Well - all this kind of technology is in some ways copied from the V1/V2 WWII (70 years old) cruise missiles in some way.
      The US technology is mainly founded on this (Werner von Braun).
      As well as is the Russian aviation technology is in other ways.

      So it's nice to see the technology back developing in Europe this time for the good mean.

      BTW:
      The best of all shuttle till now is the Russian Buran. It is a shame they are beathen not to use it to get aid from us western powers.

    7. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Ironsides · · Score: 3, Informative

      Considering they're already 20 years behind our shuttle

      And considering our shuttle was obsolete before the Enterprise even had it's test landing, that will mean this thing will be obsolete by 40 years or more when it launches in 11 to 16 years.

      Why can't they just work on a 100% completely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Verticle Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)? It could land anywhere that is flat enough and take off again if it still had sufficient fuel. No need for long specialized runways that are longer and more costly than an airport. Hell, with the right setup, you could land it in the Sahara desert. Or even a helicopter pad, assuming the asphalt doesn't melt too much.

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    8. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by w42w42 · · Score: 1

      Have you ever heard a contractor or purchasing government ever claim something was not affordable? I think the parent poster had an interesting idea though - if a private company thinks it can produce and use a albeit smaller spacecraft profitably, they probably have some ideas worth looking at.

    9. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1

      The fact that the US Shuttle is obsolete doesn't mean that the concept of a reentry vehicle that lands like an airplane is obsolete. Hopefully the EADS engineers will learn from both the successes (contrary to popular myth, the Shuttle does do some things right) and failures of the Shuttle and Buran programs, and produce such a vehicle that lives up to the promise of the idea.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    10. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by MrEd · · Score: 3, Funny
      Why can't they just work on a 100% completely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Verticle Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)?


      Only if it has a pony. I want a pony.

      --

      Wah!

    11. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The big question is, why stick with the winged vehicle? Even on a scaled-down crew-only vehicle, the extra cost of maintaining wings and lofting their weight doesn't really seem to come back.

    12. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I noticed it had really small wings though, so the extra weight isn't quite as bad as usual. It's almost more like some minimal control fins so that you can land neatly on a runway for easier reusability. I bet though with such small stumps it's landing speed will be really high, thus needing a long landingstrip.

      Quickshot

    13. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by geoswan · · Score: 1
      ...the Shuttle does do some things right, and failures of the Shuttle and Buran programs...

      Buran had interesting improvements over the American shuttle.

      If any builds further winged re-entry vehicles I will be interested in seeing whether it borrows more features from the American shuttle or from Buran.

    14. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you use the word 'our'? Do you work for NASA?

    15. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The phoenix craft described in the links is purely a technological test vehicle which seems very similar to the helicopter dropped version of the X-40A. It is just designed to show the landing capabilities of the system.

      The full scale vehicle called hopper, is a reusable sub-orbital first stage and is not intended to be man rated, its purpose is purely to reduce the costs of launching an unmanned payload. It is not necessary to have the multiple abort options a manned vehicle would need.

      It is an interesting design, as the hopper will be sub orbital there is no need for the fragile thermal protection the space shuttle has, a much more robust system can be used. However, it will need a 4km long rail to launch from. The hopper will land at various Atlantic islands depending on the mission. Interestingly it is an EADS project only; there is currently no involvement by ESA. The go ahead really depends on weather the launch market is buoyant enough to support the number of launches required to recoup the initial investment.

      More on the politics behind the hopper can be found here: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRHeft04/FR H0401/FR0401f.htm

      The picture shows some typical flight plans of the hopper. The vehicle has three Vulcan engines with the 7.5 tonne payload on top. The payload is separated from the hopper by pushing it out the back of the payload bay, an expendable upper stage then takes the satellite on to its final orbit.

      Picture here: http://www.eads.net/xml/content/OF00000000400004/0 /56/540560.jpg

    16. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by NOLAChief · · Score: 5, Informative
      Why can't they just work on a 100% completely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Verticle Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)?

      My boss used to work on Lockheed's end of the X-33 development process. He told me that SSTO is pretty much a pipe dream at this point because of difficulties in maintaining such large fuel tanks for launch and reentry. Any fuel tank will have several hundred pounds of residual propellant that have to be dealt with. The propellant will cyclically boil and condense inside the tank during orbits, inducing thermal stresses on the tank as well as constantly varying its pressure; same with any residual heat from reentry. Maintaining control over such issues is difficult. Extra insulation, for example, creates a weight penalty that could be more usefully put toward payload.

      I see a lot of people on here complaining that the shuttle is inefficient because it takes up extra equipment (in the form of flight control surfaces) that it doesn't need for the majority of the flight. The same logic follows with fuel tanks for a SSTO scheme. This is why anymore, most follow-on vehicle schemes require at least two stages to reach orbit.

    17. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Long-EZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Burt already said that the X-Prize design from Scaled Composites would not be a good choice for an orbital vehicle. The design doesn't adapt well to high velocity reentry. The SpaceShipOne is optimized for the X-Prize suborbital mission with low velocity reentry.

      However, I think it would be a GREAT idea to call Scaled Composites and ask Burt to design and build a reusable spacecraft with orbital capabilities. Scaled's reputation is unmatched in the aerospace industry. You want it, they build it. It's almost always a matter of faster, better, cheaper - pick any two. Scaled Composites has managed to consistently deliver all three at the same time.

      From the zoomed out view, the US shuttle design is not a bad concept. However, in many areas, NASA's design-by-commitee approach engineered them into corners. They did a great job of surmounting the resulting nearly insurmountable technical problems. Of course, they spent enormous amounts of money and time overcoming problems that a simpler and more clever design would have avoided.

      In aviation, simpler is usually lighter which allows more payload. More importantly, the reduced complexity results in less stuff to break and a design that's easier to fully test, so it's safer and more reliable.

      I respect the hard working people at NASA, and they deserve credit for their accomplishments. But having a government bureaucracy running a space program is invariably the most expensive path to space. The shuttle cost about a billion dollars for each launch. That's WAY too much. And their "smaller-faster-cheaper" unmanned program in the 1990s resulted in a high failure rate that was regarded as a poor return on the investment. They're now back to fewer unmanned missions with more attention to detail on each. So far, the results seem very good, but it's not cheap.

      It's past time for entrepreneurial access to space, both manned and unmanned. The X-Prize is an excellent first step. It'll be exciting to see the commercial space industry grow, just as our grandparents saw the aviation industry grow in the period from 1930 to 1970. If we projected the commercialization of space onto the commercial aviation timeline, we're around 1926.

      Scaled will win the X-Prize this year, probably this summer. Stay tuned. This is going to be very cool.

      --
      >> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
    18. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      Why can't they just work on a 100% completely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Verticle Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)?

      Am I missing something? Why would you even want a verticle landing? That's such a waste of resources. It's much easyer to bleed kinetic energy through flight then to work against it 100%.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    19. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by tftp · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Buran is not used because nobody wants it today. Buran was a prototype, and it did its job, the technology was evaluated and seen as too expensive. Rockets are cheaper, and they do the job just fine. However, the technology and materials that went into Buran are still there, available for the next project.

    20. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by xcomm · · Score: 1

      As I hear it all over Buran is not used as it would cut a good part from the bussines of the US and Europe in moving expensive satellites into orbit. So it is bussiness only why it is not used as long as Russia is relying on economic aid from the west.

      You may not like the dirty truth but it's all about beating a competitor out of the bussines.

    21. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by tftp · · Score: 4, Insightful
      There are only a couple of problems with this theory:

      1. Buran was never completed in design, and even if it were, it would be too expensive to just launch satellites.
      2. The Buran program was killed by Andropov / Chernenko / Gorbachev, leaders of the old USSR.
      3. Russian rockets were and are a competition in satellite launch business.
      4. Russia is not relying on economic aid from the West for many years now.

      In other words, a competitor would LOVE to force Russia to abandon its dirt cheap rockets and launch everything on Buran. The costs would definitely drive Russia out of satellite business.

    22. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Am I missing something? Why would you even want a verticle landing? That's such a waste of resources. It's much easyer to bleed kinetic energy through flight then to work against it 100%.


      Indeed... and that's what SSTO/VTOL is doing. Most of the kinetic energy is spun off to the atmosphere as shock wave, heating/ionization and turbulence, and way more efficiently than a streamlined vehicle could do. Only the final touchdown requires a rocket burn.

    23. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it's landing speed

      "its".
      No apostrophe.

    24. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      How about making all the fuel tanks disposable, just like the big hydrogen tank on the current shuttle is? Yeah, that means building a new tank, but building a new feul tank for each launch should (in theory) be a heck of a lot cheaper than making a new vehicle for each launch.

      Yeah, it's a big problem that the vehicle contains deadweight that isn't needed after liftoff. (Likftoff requires big bulky equipment, but orbital maneuvering and the de-orbit burn only need a small fraction of that kind of power.). I used to think that the solution lays in designing the launch facility so that it provides most of the liftoff power itself - that it flings the craft ballisticly into the air. The hard part of this is that you need to accellerate up to a large velocity and thus you need to do it over a long distance so as not to pull too many "Gees" getting up to speed. That is going to mean the launch facility has to be gigantic, but if it truly makes the craft reusable, then maybe the expense of it is worth it.

      But, now I not longer believe that is a real solution for a number of reasons: 1 - To fling an object to orbit, you have to make it go fast enough to compensate for air friction, so it's even still going at orbital velocity even after it pushes through the atmosphere. Wheres with a rocket, it does't reach its top speed until it's already climbed quite a ways up into the thinner air. So with a projectile method, the point in the flight where the vehicle is going the fastest is right at the moment of release, right at the thickest part of the atmosphere. This means the launch facility is going to have to use some type of frictionless gun (a magnetic one, perhaps). Otherwise the friction invovlved with an object going that fast in contact with the launching gun will be impossible to engineer a solution for. It's just going to be too damaging, and ruin the idea of the launch facility being cheaply reusable.

      2 - The second problem, of course, is that during the first portion of the flight through the atmosphere, the vehicle will be going even faster that it does when it's in re-entry, so it will experience air-friction even worse than that of re-entry. And that means even more heat protection is needed, and it has to survive TWO burns without servicing in-between, one going up and one coming back down later. When the thing leaves the launch gun, it would look like a flaming fireball.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    25. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Consider the terminal velocity (from air friction) of a falling ball. That's only about 300 miles per hour. Consider the speed of the space shuttle when it's in its relatively low orbit, that's about 17,000 miles per hour.

      So even without designing an areodynamic smooth body to fly nicely, even a simple sphere could use the atmosphere's friction to bleed off everything but the last one 1/5333 of its speed.

      After that, the difference between using rockets or using wings doesn't matter as much. The first 99.98 % of the effort to slow down the craft is happening from the re-entry friction in both cases.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    26. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by mpe · · Score: 1

      And considering our shuttle was obsolete before the Enterprise even had it's test landing, that will mean this thing will be obsolete by 40 years or more when it launches in 11 to 16 years.

      What eventually got built dosn't much resemble Von Braun's original plans anyway.

      Why can't they just work on a 100% completely reusable Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) Verticle Takeoff and Landing (VTOL)? It could land anywhere that is flat enough and take off again if it still had sufficient fuel.

      It would need a lot of fuel, both to get up there and to slow down on the way back down.

    27. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by sander · · Score: 1

      This is not a derivative of or related to Hermes.

    28. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by sander · · Score: 1

      Because utterly nobody in the Real World (tm) cares one bit whetever something is SSTO or not. It is a completely useless concept.

    29. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by misterpies · · Score: 1


      >>Considering they're already 20 years behind our shuttle, why copy from our old tech?

      I would say RTFA but in this case the article was shite to start with. If you check out New Scientist's much fuller version, you'll see that the full-sized version will be an unmanned vehicule launched on a sled from a 4-km long track, which will be either magnetic or steam-propelled. That's pretty different from Shuttle technology: acceleration is done on the launch track and powered from the ground using non-explosive, non-polluting propellants. So it needs no booster rockets and very little fuel carried on board, meaning

      * much higher payload-to-launch weight, so much more economic. No wasting energycarrying booster rockets and fuel half way into orbit.

      * nothing to explode during launch if things go wrong

      * environmentally benign fuels

      * no humans on board so less need to keep temperatures down during landing, so less heat shielding problems.

      So the only thing it's got in common with the shuttle is a glide back to base. Read more at http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns999 94975 (I'm too lazy to make it a link).

      --
      The author of this post asserts his moral rights.
    30. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      After that, the difference between using rockets or using wings doesn't matter as much

      I would think it would matter quite a bit. Rockets cost alot of money, wings don't (besides the original construction).

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    31. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      SSTO is a really stupid idea really. A dual stage to orbit concept with two resuable parts, like one vechicle that flys up to 80k feet and releases an orbiter, is much cheaper to develop and to depoly. Even the shuttle isn't 100% reusable, the fuel tank is dropped and burns up. Not only would be much cheaper to develop, but should also reduce the price per pound to launch stuff up into space.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    32. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      But we're talking about a craft that already has to have rockets on it anyway, for the launch. So it's not a matter of "compare the cost of adding rockets to the cost of adding wings". It's "compare the cost of adding nothing to the cost of adding wings".

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    33. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Of course your adding something. Rockets use fuel, you can't burn the same fuel twice. Wings, on the other hand, don't need fuel.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    34. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by grmoc · · Score: 1

      You can use the rockets to get you up there, whereas the wings are a liability only on the way up.

      Wings cost money on an orbital vehicle, and considering you have to have a bigger rocket in order to get the wings up there, it could end up costing more..

    35. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      But if you take away the wings you need another rocket for the vert. landing. The cost of an entirely new burn is going be orders of magnitude larger then the cost of the fuel it would take because of the added weight of the wings.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    36. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by grmoc · · Score: 1

      Not if you use the same rocket, of course.

      The real issue is:
      Would the weight of the fuel needed for a final touchdown burn be greather than than of the wings (and all the structural support you need for such things, because you need lateral ridgidity).

      If the answer is yes, you'd have to lug more fuel, then wings are a win, but frankly I'd be suprised if that was the case.

      I would imagine that a retro-burn and a parachute would work better than wings (and today, you can steer the parachutes too). The only real problem with parachutes are
      1) Tangling
      (But generally, this doesn't seem to be a big problem)
      2) Low speed.

      Parachutes don't deal all that well with high speed airflow!

    37. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Yes, you do add a little fuel, but as a percentage of the whole, it's not much. It takes a hell of a lot more fuel to go from zero to 17,000 MPH against gravity than it does to go from 300 MPH to zero against gravity. Compare that to the added cost of pushing a body designed for lift through the air on a launch, instead of pushing one designed for straight minimal bullet-like movement with no pull in a relative "up" direction. The lifting design will have more drag and thus increase the amount of fuel needed for liftoff. (or the wings will be something to be deployed later, meaning now you have to add the mass for a mechanical wing deployment system.)

      One kind of "wing" that might work well, however, is the simple parachute wing. It is very light, and can be deployed later. The problem with this is reliability. If you launch the rocket into space, you know the rocket engines are working or the craft wouldn't even be in orbit. If you pack a parachute, you introduce an untested factor into the system that can't be tested until it's needed, (and if you test it, you have to repack it and thus ruin the integrety of that test, as far as testing the packing goes.)

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    38. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1
      It takes a hell of a lot more fuel to go from zero to 17,000 MPH against gravity than it does to go from 300 MPH to zero against gravity. I disagree with the implication that landing a rocket vertically would be an insignifigant amount of fuel. The majority of resistance is in the 0-300mph section of the flight when air resistance and gravity are at their max. You're trying to re-burn the hardest part of the trip up. The amount of extra fuel you would have to carry would not be an insignifigant amount.

      Wing's will add some resistance, but anything that flies is, as a rule, designed to be aerodynamic. I think the added resistance would be negligable.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    39. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Parachutes are dangerous. They're extrodinarily unreliable. Wings are much, much, safer. In addition I'm abselutely certain the added fuel would weigh more, but weight isn't really the issue. It's cost. Rocket fuel is very expensive to produce. Wings must be paid for once, and then all that is needed is maintenance.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    40. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Wings work by differing the airspeed across the top and bottom surfaces, so the air moves faster across the top than across the bottom. That tends to stir up the air and leave vorteces behind. That adds a very signifigant resistance.

      And you ignore that the air-resistance, while an impedement to accessleration is a helpful boon to decelleration, so that fact alone means that the 300-0 MPH part of the trip at the end takes less fuel than the 0-300 MPH part of the trip at the start.

      As far as the difference in gravity goes, the pull at ground level and in orbit are not that signifigantly different when the orbit is only 100 miles high.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    41. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      When was the last time you saw a a vehicle capable of landing on rocket power alone?? If you've seen it at all it was more then likely an isolated test or whatnot. The reason for that is because it's impractical. To try and do it on a small scale is hard, but to try and do it with something that weighs like 230k pounds! This entire discussion was started over cost effectiveness. You cannot beat the cost effectiveness of a one time instal vs. something that needs to be constantly refuled.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    42. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Wings are not a one-time install when you subject them to the stresses of a re-entry.

      Besides, if you want to use the air to slow the craft, parachutes are good enough. At least they (like fuel) are designed to be quickly replaced on the cheap. Wings are only useful for flying fast, in an atmosphere, laterally to the ground. That's not what you're trying to do in a return from space. My argument isn't so much that rockets are great, but that wings are a bad choice for a space vehicle where you are ONLY using the wings for the purpose of slowing the craft down for landing and nothing else. (Now, if you want to discuss a spaceplane design, where you FLY the vehicle up high using normal airplane techniques, and then launch it into space from there, then that makes sense because now you are using the wings for more than just the landing - you are using them to help provide some of the initial launch velocity and altitude.) But the Rutan model doesn't launch the entire aircraft into space, it seperates off the space capsule from the launch airplane, and the launch airplane stays in the air. So it could have been lighter if the capsule was not winged. Using the wings on the launch vehicle makes perfect sense, but that's because the launch vehicle is only trying to go through the atmosphere as fast as a normal airplane goes. It's not trying to survive at orbital re-entry speeds. The capsule could have used just plain parachutes for the return.

      The key problem with wings is that they are a large surface area that is exposed to burning on re-entry. The smaller the entry profile, the less surface has to be protected with heat sheilding. Heat sheilding is a high-damage item that needs to be checked and often replaced.

      Using a parachute solves that problem by hiding the "wing" inside the capsule during the burning, and only deploying it afterward when its slow enough to be safe.

      I suspect the Rutan winged design wasn't picked for cost, but for peace of mind. A glider you fly feels a lot less dangerous than burning a rocket or deploying a chute.

      If your argument is that wings are cheaper, I'd disagree (with the caveat that if "wing" could include fabric deployed afterward, like a parawing, that could be very cheap.). But there are other reasons for using them that can make a lot of sense - like the fact that Rutan has oodles of experience with them and trusts them more. Safety trumps expense.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    43. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Parachutes aren't controllable. By your arguments yes they are less expensive, but I was refering to options that allow to to control your landing site. I suppose a parachute could be designed that was stearable, but as parachutes are already somewhat dangerous that's not a mechanism I would want to complicate. That leaves either rockets or wings. Between the two a winged reentry is going to be less expensive. Both systems are going to need matenance, both need heat shielding (granted the wings require more), but rockets require fuel and rocket fuel ain't cheap. I believe rockets would be more expensive to operate when compared to wings. I don't think we have the technology to develop a large sized craft that can accomplish a controlled landing via rockets. Taking off via a rocket is alot easyer, just point up and ignite the fucker. The shuttles wings serve as steering. But a decent would require some sort of pitch stabilization system as well as the ability to control the thrust of the rockets. I have yet to see a craft that can do this on a small scale, let alone on a scale the the shuttle is in. All those mechanism are going to add to the install cost of the rocket as well.

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    44. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that a lot of the things you are advocating are not advantages of wings. They are advantages of a areolift of some sort. A lifting body would do it too, and it would be less fragile to make it survive re-entry. The problem with the Rutan craft is that those are some spindly sticking-out-skinny surfaces there. That's what makes me believe that they will require replacement. Do you still think wings would be cheaper than rocket fuel if you had to replace the wings every few flights? The best flight model for re-entry is something which is compact and dense, not something with spindly bits sticking out. I do not believe in the ability of that craft, as pictured, to survive more than the couple of re-entries needed to win the X-prize. As a craft engineered to win the X-prize it works. As a prelude to an actual usable commercial craft it doesn't. A craft that's only re-usable 10 or so times isn't going to be more cost effective than using the current technology of cheap one-shot disposable rockets. But that's following the 'letter of the law' and not the spirit of the law, so to speak. A successful model that uses air to glide, and is reusable enough to be cost effective isn't going to have spindly wings sticking out of it. A lifting-body might work, though, with perhaps very short, very stubby wings. The Rutan model isn't that, though.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    45. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      And on another note, on wings vs parachutes: When de-orbiting, the fact that you can glide the plane only affects your landing zone a little bit. You still have to get the de-orbit burn to bring you down on a path that gets you right on target to glide in to your landing airstrip. And a parachute can be made controllable like a wing. While it's true that you lose the ability to be as precise as with a glider, it's also true you no longer NEED to be as precise since you don't need to land on a narrow landing airstrip. Just getting it so it doesn't land on some pissed off person's private property is enough.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    46. Re:Why not just call up Rutan? by The+Flying+Guy · · Score: 1

      Actually Burt Rutan has already flown a test re-entry verhicle (well, high drop from a plane) that used a lifting body design combined with a steerable parafoil, it came down to a relativly clean touch down in the desert all according to plan (well, the verhicle isn't meant for precision navigation as it is an escape verhicle, but it still went down nice horizontally and without self-destructing)

  7. Space Shuttle Prototype? by BJZQ8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I dunno if this is so much as a prototype as a test bed or demonstrator...I mean, if it was a prototype it would be something near the real thing...and this certainly isn't anywhere near their final product. Good that somebody's aiming high though...

  8. I am of Borg by NanoGator · · Score: 1

    "...of a German designed prototype of the European space shuttle, Phoenix"

    Ooo neat! How long before warp drive is tested?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:I am of Borg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Warp drive test flights will start in 2063 in August

  9. What is that flag by jini · · Score: 1

    Get that flag off it now..... what is with the red and white stripes I thought that it was EU?

    1. Re:What is that flag by k98sven · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's the flag of Bremen, a city in north Germany.
      (nice place, actually)

      8 stripes,red and white, with checkers on the short end closest to the pole.

      Some Lower-Saxony patriot probably stuck it on there.

    2. Re:What is that flag by raap · · Score: 1

      Probably not. Bremen is home of EADS and does NOT belong to lower saxony. It is a state on its own, just surrounded by lower saxony territory.

    3. Re:What is that flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Get that flag off it now..... what is with the red and white stripes I thought that it was EU?



      No offence, but did you really think EU is one country? Local history is important for most people in here, this kind of regional flags are important to many. Don't worry in Mars it shall be EU flag :).


    4. Re:What is that flag by k98sven · · Score: 1

      Sorry 'bout that.
      Guess I should've payed more attention to geography and less to other things when I was there. :-)

    5. Re:What is that flag by raap · · Score: 1

      Offtopic: Did you watch soccer? Bremen just won the German Championship (Deutscher Meister) this weekend!!!

    6. Re:What is that flag by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      ESA!=EU..

      About ESA:
      "ESA is an independent European agency and does not form part of the European Union (EU). Some countries that belong to the EU are not members of ESA and vice versa. "

  10. Big deal. by RayBender · · Score: 0, Troll
    Can someone please explain to me why this is an achievement? As I understand it they dropped a scaled-down glider from a helicopter and managed to have it land itself. BFD. The Russian Buran flew and landed (from orbit) autonomously back in the '80s. Now Europe comes along with a glider and we're supposed to be impressed?

    Talk to me when they get the thing back from an orbital flight.

    --
    Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    1. Re:Big deal. by RayBender · · Score: 1
      Talk to me when they get the thing back from an orbital flight.

      Talk to me when Nasa gets a shuttle back from an orbital flight (in one piece).

      They've gotten over a hundred back, as far as I recall.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    2. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why must there always be these kinds of arguments? "USA is better" "No, Europe is better" "No, Russia is better" etc.

      Why can't we all be happy about the achievements of one another?
      Why can't we all mourn each other's losses, and celebrate each other's successes?

      Sure, there is competition in scientific exploration, but there is also peaceful cooperation, as it should be. I'm happy that Europe is trying to develop a new shuttle, and that USA is initiating the new vision of exploration, and that Japan, China and India are aiming for the moon and that Canada is aiming for Mars, and that Russia, once part of our greatest potential enemy during the cold war, is now working together with us on ISS. The ISS, a myriad of past enemies in cold and hot wars, now coming together to build something together, in peace. There is something very beautiful about that.

    3. Re:Big deal. by Ironsides · · Score: 1

      They've gotten over a hundred back, as far as I recall.

      I could have sworn we only had five to begin with. Columbia, Discovery, Challenger, Atlantis, Endeavour and (if you count it) the Prototype Enterprise. Seeing as how we only had five to begin with (now three, unfortunataley) how could be have gotten over a hundred back?

      --
      Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
    4. Re:Big deal. by RayBender · · Score: 2, Funny
      They've gotten over a hundred back, as far as I recall.

      I could have sworn we only had five to begin with. Columbia, Discovery, Challenger, Atlantis, Endeavour and (if you count it) the Prototype Enterprise. Seeing as how we only had five to begin with (now three, unfortunataley) how could be have gotten over a hundred back?

      Becuase they each flew more than once is why.

      --
      Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
    5. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nobody is this stupid.

      On second thought..

      I stand corrected. You are this stupid

    6. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why must there always be these kinds of arguments? "USA is better" "No, Europe is better" "No, Russia is better" etc. Why can't we all be happy about the achievements of one another? Why can't we all mourn each other's losses, and celebrate each other's successes?

      You know what, you are absolutely right. So in the interest of international harmony and cooperation let me be the first to say that your gay little space glider is very nice.

    7. Re:Big deal. by Urkki · · Score: 1
      • They've gotten over a hundred back, as far as I recall.

      Yeah, the last one is what counts ;-)

      So hurry up and get the remaining shuttles flying again, they're needed for now at least!
  11. Holy... by pagaman · · Score: 2, Funny

    Holy f**k, we have a space shuttle (well ok program).

    When the fluff did that happen :)

    Tomorrow I'll be waking up & finding out we are on Mars!

    1. Re:Holy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are on mars there is like to robots and who knows how many satalites. oh yeah and in like 60 days we will have stuff orbiting saturn

    2. Re:Holy... by Sygiinu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, ESA has a roadmap and a program already in place for the manned exploration of mars - and did long before it was announced NASA might be going. I applied to a well known UK university to work on the program for my PhD.

      You can find out about the Aurora project here.

    3. Re:Holy... by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to the roadmap, ESA wants to land on the moon in 2024 and on mars around 2030. If they're going to pull that off we have to manage manned spaceflight at all, first. I hope the Phoenix will be part of that.

    4. Re:Holy... by twiddlingbits · · Score: 1

      A PhD in what? Political Science? English (Creative Writing)? The technology exits for a Mars Mission. Even if we are talking ion drives and small nuclear reactors for engines/power a lot of this research has been done by NASA and is sitting on a shelf. Now if you can figure out something like "suspended animation" or a way to prevent bone density loss on the 6+ month trip (each way) that would be quite some PhD research. Or finding out a way to cheaply extract minerals or make Mars have an atmosphere. I'm a proponent of space flight but I can't really see much reason to GO to Mars..it's not like we can do much once we are there. And the moon would be easier to colonize.

    5. Re:Holy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a way to prevent bone density loss

      Go at 1G accel, turn around mid way and decelerate. Easy with an Orion or nuclear rocket of some sort. Not a popular option if you take off from earth!

    6. Re:Holy... by tftp · · Score: 1
      Now if you can figure out something like "suspended animation" or a way to prevent bone density loss on the 6+ month trip (each way)

      It is not a challenge. First of all, humans can stay in zero-G for at least a year if they follow the exercise program. Also, it is trivial to spin the spacecraft.

      Or finding out a way to cheaply extract minerals

      I am sure there are many chemists with just the right knowledge. We already know what type of minerals are there.

      make Mars have an atmosphere

      Aside from use of alien technology, bioengineering is the way to do it. First you need to check if there is native life, because you won't get a chance later. Then you engineer some bacteria that love UV, cold, consume CO2 and exhale O2. Then you release them. Within a very short period of time (bacteria multiply faster than rabbits) you will get what you want. Then you can go there in person.

      What may be more difficult, though, is to add some magnetic field to the planet, and to increase its mass. Both are needed to deflect solar wind and to retain a denser atmosphere. At this point my best idea is to just bury a gravity generator at the center of the planet, since anything else would be too damaging. A piece of neutronium will be a good option.

    7. Re:Holy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "According to the roadmap, ESA wants to land on the moon in 2024"

      They're using GPS technology to follow a roadmap?

      Thanks, I'll be here all night.

  12. Ugh @ the photo by NanoGator · · Score: 4, Funny

    Anybody see the photo of that thing? Check out the needle on the front of it. Does it land like a lawn dart?

    --
    "Derp de derp."
    1. Re:Ugh @ the photo by MercenarySG · · Score: 1

      that needle resembles a in air refueling rod, though something like that makes no sense on a space shuttle (at least, being extended, it'd burn up and or mess around with the shuttle as its descending, making it harder to keep on target)

      --
      ----- Doublethink ... you know it makes snese.
    2. Re:Ugh @ the photo by NeuroManson · · Score: 2, Informative

      Take a looksee at good 'ol Enterprise sometime. That glider demonstration featured a needlenose as well.

      Presumably it was for measuring air speeds, etc, or at least gave the test pilot a reference point for lining up the runway (since the nose drops off a touch from the cockpit windows, you need a solid reference point to guide yourself in by).

      --
      Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    3. Re:Ugh @ the photo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or at least gave the test pilot a reference point for lining up the runway

      You just have to realise the truth. There is no pilot!

    4. Re:Ugh @ the photo by rv8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yup, that would definitely be a boom for the air data system and angle of attack and sideslip probes. It is a very standard thing to see on flight test vehicles. You need to get that stuff well away from the rest of the aircraft so they are not affected by the flow field around the vehicle. After a bunch of flight testing you figure out how the flow field affects the accuracy of the production air data and angle of attack probes, which are mounted on the vehicle itself. So the production vehicle doesn't need the nose boom. But it is needed until they have enough data to calibrate the production probes.

      Clear as mud?

      --
      Kevin Horton
  13. Eurofighter by SuperGillies · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Call me a sceptic but...
    The Phoenix will probably never happen.
    Remember the Eurofighter plane that was supposed to be the most advanced plane ever but is now...how shall I put this...kind of old?
    By the time the phoenix gets near to completion it will be cancelled due to lack of interest and funding.

    --
    sig not found. please replace sig.
    1. Re:Eurofighter by Ga_101 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Take a look at other mud piles before you start throwing mud at the EU. unlike a certain modern american figher aircraft (F22), the Eurofighter is actualy being built and is not about to get axed any time soon.

      And to my knowledge, it is arguably the most advanced plane in production.

    2. Re:Eurofighter by Richard_at_work · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also the Eurofighter is the first multirole combat aircraft designed with Supercruise in mind, although the F22 had it back ported on when they upgraded the engine specification, and will be the first aircraft in active duty with it. Its also the first fighter aircraft to be able to use the targeting computer of its wingman aircraft to select, paint and shoot at targets. It may be several years overdue, but they kept tacking on extras like the project was never going to end.

    3. Re:Eurofighter by Phelan · · Score: 5, Informative

      They cancelled the F22? Man, somebody needs to tell the people at the AFB near my house since they are eagerly awaiting the first shipment to replace some of their F-15's

      --
      "Nimis exaltatus rex sedet in vertice - caveat ruinam!"
    4. Re:Eurofighter by SuperGillies · · Score: 0

      My point was not that that the eurofighter is old hat but that if it had been finished within a reasonable amount of time it could have been so much more impressive. The fact is, the eurofighter became a bit of a joke because of how long it took to produce and I feel the phoenix could well do the same.

      Someone really needs to start developing things a lot more quickly if any progress is to be made.

      --
      sig not found. please replace sig.
    5. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe me, the F15 is good enough to shoot down anything. I don't know why we're pissing away money on a plane to face an adversary that doesn't exist.

    6. Re:Eurofighter by matthewr84 · · Score: 1

      Great, now all that's required for the next 10-15 years is an actual need for the thing. I only wish the F-22 were being cancelled, the money should be going to help with the real dangers out there, like dirt cheap RPG's.

    7. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't waste your breath. The original comment was probably written by an American. Americans believe they're most advanced in everything, and nothing will make them change their mind. Just humour them and nod politely when they talk about being the most advanced nation in the world, or, as it happens often, they think they are the world.

    8. Re:Eurofighter by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      "The first test flight of the Raptor occurred on September 7, 1997. The first production F/A-22 was delivered to the Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, on January 14, 2003."

    9. Re:Eurofighter by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 2, Informative

      "unlike a certain modern american figher aircraft (F22), the Eurofighter is actualy being built and is not about to get axed any time soon."

      "The first test flight of the Raptor occurred on September 7, 1997. The first production F/A-22 was delivered to the Nellis Air Force Base, Nevada, on January 14, 2003."

      So, it appears that the F-22 has been in production for over a year.

      Moreover, Britin's DERA conducted a study using simulators which found the F/A-22 Raptor to be twice as effective at shooting down Sukhoi Su-35's as the Typhoon.

    10. Re:Eurofighter by Mad+Marlin · · Score: 1

      For the wars we are likely to fight over the next 10-20 years, we don't really need the F22. All that any of the potential enemies have for them to go against are aging Russian MiG's, and F22's are expensive. The money would be better spent on some other system, better suited for the target. That is assuming that something weird doesn't happen, like China actually getting its act together and turn in to USSR II: Return of the Pinkos (coming to a theater near you).

    11. Re:Eurofighter by citanon · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the last I heard, many of the EF2000's "capabilities" are still only paper specs. The first generation model Eurofighter is air to air only. Who knows when the air to ground version will come out (though all of their publicity material already say the EF2000 is a multirole fighter).

      Furthermore, the plane is horribly overbudget and over a decade late. Oh well, I guess that's what happens when you have bureaucrats and politicians from several different country bungling a project that those from a single country are perfectly capable of bungling all on their own. ;-)

    12. Re:Eurofighter by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      F-22 is more capable that Typhoon is (even the EuroFighter-guys acknowledge that), but F-22 is also alot more expensive. Comparing price to the capabilities, you get more bang for the buck with the Typhoon.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    13. Re:Eurofighter by 10Ghz · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Moreover, Britin's DERA conducted a study using simulators which found the F/A-22 Raptor to be twice as effective at shooting down Sukhoi Su-35's as the Typhoon.


      it better be, considering that the F-22 is over twice times as expensive as the Eurofighter is (62 million euros vs. 152 million dollars). And the typhoon can be used in other roles besides airsuperiority. Of course F-22 can be used in other roles as well, but not as well as the Typhoon, which has been designed as multirole-fighter from the start.

      So, for less money you get a multirole-fighter that is also the second-best air-superiority-fighter in the world. Not bad at all. Of course you could build the ultimate air-superiority fighter no matter what's the cost. And that's what USA is doing with F-22. Sure it's a kick-ass plane, but at what cost?
      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    14. Re:Eurofighter by L-ViS · · Score: 1
      "Its also the first fighter aircraft to be able to use the targeting computer of its wingman aircraft to select, paint and shoot at targets."
      This is also a feature of the JAS-39, is it not?

      L-ViS
    15. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure there are people in the Pentagon preparing (hoping?) for the possibility to use the F22 against the Eurofighter.

    16. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cost of Typhoon: approx 70 mill USD
      Cost of F/A 22: approx 150 mill USD

      UK DERA study of performance vs Sukhoi SU-35:
      F/A 22 : 10.1:1
      Typhoon: 4.5:1

      So you do get (roughly) what you pay for.

    17. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, without getting into a "My plane is better than your plane" flame-fest...

      Yes, the JAS-39 has in-flight information sharing. Using active missiles (such as AMRAAM or Meteor) this allows silent wepaons release. To the best of my knowledge the F/A-18E can do this as well. And the JA-37 Viggen has been able to share information between wingmen since the 1970's although they have not been able to do the "painting" while someoe else fires because Viggen does not have active missiles, only semi-active like Skyflash. If the JAS-39 can do "buddy-painting" I don't know.

      And now, before this whole thing turns into a volcany of flames, I'm outta here! /J

    18. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pork-barrelling my friend, good old fashion pork-barrelling.

    19. Re:Eurofighter by sql*kitten · · Score: 1

      And it *is* the most advanced fighter flying today, with a flight and fire control system that simply kicks the bottoms of every other comparable aircraft.

      Who cares about comparable aircraft? What about enemy aircraft?

      Why is the EU squandering hundreds of billions of EUR of its taxpayer's money on fighter jets when the Taliban/al Queda/etc doesn't even have an airforce??

      In short, it doesn't matter how theoretically good the Typhoon is. It's still a colossal waste of money.

    20. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      actually the eurofighter is 90% as capable as the F-22.
      those are old figures. check the latest classified DERA reports.

    21. Re:Eurofighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is assuming that something weird doesn't happen, like China actually getting its act together and turn in to USSR II: Return of the Pinkos (coming to a theater near you).

      Oh, you bet they will. . .in 25-50 years. By then the F22 will be as cutting edge as a SPAD.

  14. what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    and i thought the first all european space program was the russian space program....

    1. Re:what?? by hobbsbutcher · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else think it's humorous that it's an "all-European" mission and the ultimate launch site is in South America?

      --
      Jonathan B.
    2. Re:what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly, French Guyana is a French departement like any other. Most of the remaining European colonies outside Europe are self-governing and have chosen to stay outside the EU, but French Guyana functions fully as a part of the French government hierarchy and is thus also a part of the EU. Any EU citizen can freely live there and use their hard-earned Euros... in South America.

  15. Hate to be a grammar nazi, but... by NeuroManson · · Score: 5, Informative

    "moving the first all European mission into space one step closer."

    Should read as "All European manned mission".

    The ESA's been doing space missions for what, over 10 years now? Satellites, probes, etc.

    --
    Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
    1. Re:Hate to be a grammar nazi, but... by Sygiinu · · Score: 3, Informative

      The ESA's been doing space missions for what, over 10 years now?

      Very true. The ESA was formed in 1975/1976, so it is almost 30 years old.

      Before the formation, the member states had various space programs of their own, and there were already various technology sharing programs - before ESA there was ESRO (European Space Research Organization), which was formed in 1964, as per an agreement in 1962.

    2. Re:Hate to be a grammar nazi, but... by ghack · · Score: 1

      Not only is the grammar bad...but since when was the Soviet Union/Russian Federation NOT part of Europe. Hell, in the cold war days the MAJORITY of eastern europe was part of the Soviet Union...
      There have been PLENTY of all european manned missions to space...

    3. Re:Hate to be a grammar nazi, but... by DunbarTheInept · · Score: 1

      If you want to get pedantic, two can play that game. The Russian vehicles were assembled to the east of the Ural mountains. That means Asia was involved. So, no they were not "all european" missions.

      --

      Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.

    4. Re:Hate to be a grammar nazi, but... by alleycat0 · · Score: 1

      if you want to get *really* picky, note that there should be a hyphen inserted; viz: "all-European"

      --
      I am not a number - I am a free man!
  16. Re:Phoenix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope the European shuttle won't be renamed FireFox.

    Renaming it FireFox would be like them begging for Clint Eastwood to steal it.

  17. Re:how do you guys get first post? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Do you keep reloading Slashdot every 5 seconds and wait for stories?

    They probably do. A more important question to answer is how can you filter out only FP, GNAA, Goatse, and various crap flooding trolls without filtering out mildly offtopic or politically incorrect ideas. It's a task passed onto the individual reader who wants to take in as much as possible by reading the -1 threshold.

  18. Weird... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    As far as I know, there has only been one shuttle project, named Hermes, but that has been abandonned at least 10 years ago.
    Wonder where that comes from.

  19. Space Shuttle Prototype Lands Safely In Sweden by Gallowsgod · · Score: 4, Funny

    From the article:
    The next step likely will be to drop the prototype from higher altitudes, with the help of a high-altitude balloon

    And the next step after that should be to send one of those Opportunity rovers to explore the surface of Sweden and see if they can find any water

    --

    The belief in a biblical god is an ignorant one
    1. Re:Space Shuttle Prototype Lands Safely In Sweden by zpok · · Score: 1

      "And the next step after that should be to send one of those Opportunity rovers to explore the surface of Sweden and see if they can find any water "

      Finding water in the Vodka Belt? You must be joking!
      And anyway, when you find water, good luck finding a Swede who wants to drink that stuff!

      Disclaimer: have several wonderful Swedish friends, and the conclusion of any get-together is "I'm not as think you drunk I am". Wonderful, how they hold their liquor.

      --
      I think, therefore I am...I think.
  20. Re:europe eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hahahaha.... You're only like the 10th idiot with that stupid remark! Oh, the ignorance...

  21. Excuse me but... by Malicious · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is it really a good idea to name your new Space Shuttle after a Mythical Bird which is well know for bursting into flame?

    --
    01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    1. Re:Excuse me but... by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1

      The name isn't that bad. The bird always got reborn from his ashes. Let's hope that if one of these shuttles ever has a serieus accident, they follow the birds example and build a new one instead a burrowing the project.

    2. Re:Excuse me but... by Gallowsgod · · Score: 5, Informative

      Totally offtopic, but when it comes to mythology I just can't help it.

      The phoenix bird did not burst into flames. It was a bird which was considered immortal. As its end approached, it set fire to its nest, was consumed by the flames and was reborn from the ashes.

      There are Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Egyptian, and Native American versions of the phoenix bird

      --

      The belief in a biblical god is an ignorant one
    3. Re:Excuse me but... by Nonillion · · Score: 1

      But what about the Phoenix BIOS people, I'm sure they're going to be pissed ;)

      --
      "I bow to no man" - Riddick
    4. Re:Excuse me but... by ShavenYak · · Score: 1

      The Native American version has had a car and an e-mail program named for it, BTW.

      --

      Hey kids, there's only 5 days left 'til Yak Shaving Day!
    5. Re:Excuse me but... by cft_128 · · Score: 1

      The Native American version has had a car and an e-mail program named for it, BTW. Don't forget the city... it seemed like it was burning up when I went there last year.

      --

      Underloved Movies and Pub Quiz: donotquestionme.org

  22. Re:europe eh? by nzkbuk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There aren't enough stripes on the flag.
    The american flag has 13 stripes (one for every state in the origional union) with red at the top and bottom.

    It might be some company flag

  23. Re:Whether it lands in Sweden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    lame... improve your first posting skills, or i'll kill a puppy.

  24. Re:europe eh? by Sique · · Score: 4, Informative

    It is still the flag of Bremen, a city and state in the north of Germany, where probably the EADS facility is located which built the prototype.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  25. Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    OK guys now this is getting funny... Since the last attempt in the 80's by the Russians there was no success, neither by Russians nor by Americans to replace the ancient Space Shuttle, still it was used since last year (remember that little 'incident' that happened at that time?). Now the ESA comes up with an alternative to that old scrap metal which is furthermore compatible to the next-generation Ariane-5 and everything I read up to now were negative comments? Start thinking optimistic! Maybe this really is the first step to the next generation of manned space flights, as the Phoenix need much less resources to be taken into orbit as everything before! Only very few tons of things can be transported with one flight into space because even rocket + shuttle alone are much to heavy... so what's the point in being conservative? Trust german engineers, maybe they know what they're doing, without their rockets even the NASA would probably still simulate their Apollo-Missions on earth instead of having a nice little flag up there ^^

    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Yeah what's up with the negative comments? Why is it so negative that Europe tries to achieve manned space flight? The negative comments are, and will be, of these kinds:

      * "Been there, done that, why should you copycat USA?"
      * "ESA tried before with Hermes but couldn't pull it off"
      * "Damn cheeseeating surrender monkeys/eurotrash"
      * Why do this? We have the American space shuttle and the Russian Souyz..."

      etc, etc, etc. I ask the same question: Why the negativity? I thought most geeks were pro- space exploration. As it turns out, they're pro-whining.

    2. Re:Interesting... by sander · · Score: 1

      Not that differnt from any other slashdot thread where over 90% of teh posters have no information (never mind expertise) on the topic at hand.

  26. Grammar Nazi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You aren't being a grammar Nazi at all. If you were being a grammar Nazi, you would be correcting syntax. However, you are correcting semantics.

  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Informative

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Re:europe eh? by nzkbuk · · Score: 1

    Looks like my post didn't attach to the correct parent. I didn't know who's flag it was, but I knew it wasn't the USA one that had been stated.

  29. this story is linked from google homepage by jacquesm · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    no kidding, sci/tech section !

  30. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There are still countries in the EU with good relations to the USA. Seems like your intense attempts at alienating the entire world hasn't worked to 100% yet. But who cares about facts, right? Also, why do you think we're trying to be like the US, just by trying to achieve manned space flight? As I recall, the Soviet Union were the first once to accomplish this. Were you trying to be like them? By your creative logic, apparently. Why not be happy about more space agencies trying to develop shuttles? Why are you so angry? It makes absolutely no sense. It's not like we're a threat or anything (unlike some people, we don't aim to be a threat.)

  31. A step backwards? by eingram · · Score: 1

    Unless this thing can leave Earth orbit, what's the point? I don't wanna turn 33 and hear about the newest space technology that will now allow us to fly circles around the Earth.

    1. Re:A step backwards? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ESA has plans to develop technologies for landing on the moon as well. I think independent access to space, even if it's LEO, is a good first step. We don't want to be too dependant on fickle superpowers.

  32. Re:bah by bbc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Don't worry, us Europeans will probably never master beginning a sentence with lower-case letters. That's an intellectual achievement that you folks will still be able to be proud of a hundred years from now.

  33. JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    The Swedish fighter aircraft JAS 39 Gripen is currently the world's most advanced system. It's the world's first fourth-generation swing-role fighter and is operational in a number of countries also within Nato.

  34. Troll? Flamebait? WTF! by JessLeah · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    What are the mods smoking? How is my parent post a troll, or flamebait?

    1. Re:Troll? Flamebait? WTF! by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 1, Insightful

      What are the mods smoking? How is my parent post a troll, or flamebait?

      I was wondering that myself. My best guess is that they read the first sentence and assumed it was anti-European trash-talking -- you know, the stereotypical (and unfortunately, all too common) Ugly American "Europe can't do anything right U5 0wNz0Rz j00 if it wasn't for us you'd all be speaking German" crap that any /. story about any technological advance outside the US always seems to bring out -- and didn't bother to read the rest of the post carefully.

      Next time I have mod points I'll mod you up. ;)

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    2. Re:Troll? Flamebait? WTF! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Chances are you were just unlucky enough to encounter someone with fresh mod points and a chip on their shoulder.

  35. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    While I think that the F22 might reach and possibly go beyond the capabilities of the JAS 39 Gripen, it's still damn impressing that the small country of Sweden is one of the few countries that develops their own fighter aircrafts... and does it so well.

  36. Re:Then you were mistaken... by CyberDruid · · Score: 1

    Since Russia is not entirely located in Europe, but also in Asia, the Russian space program was euro-asian.

    --

    Opinions stated are mine and do not reflect those of the Illuminati

  37. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My spelling and grammar aren't as impressive .

  38. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    all this is, is the european union trying to say "hey look america! we can be like you too!"

    Yeah, it does remind me of the USA space program which so clearly said "hey look Russia! we can be like you too!"

  39. Re:bah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    And don't forget the classic among people over there: Writing "should of" and "would of" even though it makes no sense at all. How about "would've" and "should've"? (Considering English isn't even my native language, while it is theirs, it's a bit embarassing.) ;)

  40. Camelot... by supton · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...it's only a model.

    One-sixth scale.

  41. Bad name Re:Quick NASA needs more funding by Forge · · Score: 1

    It has to burn before it can rise from the ashes.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
  42. Nice team photo link here... by pwroberts · · Score: 3, Funny

    But when the hell did Bill Gates get a job at ESA? :-)

    1. Re:Nice team photo link here... by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      The question is the answer.

      He's just a moment away from giving the camera the finger.

      Next?

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
  43. Pictures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We all like pictures right?
    http://www.ssc.se/esrange/pressreleases/pi ctures/p hoenix04.shtml

  44. affordable by dpilot · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As much as everyone likes to dis the US shuttle as being expensive, it's the most affordable reusable VTHL SSTO vehicle in the world. Obviously it's also the ONLY such vehicle, but IMHO that's a bad side-effect of Star Trek and Star Wars, where we begin to think the task of getting into orbit is *easy* and any unfettered entrepreneur could do it, and it's obviously NASA's jealousy stopping them through regulatory means.

    Ain't so. Getting into orbit is HARD. From a kinetic energy standpoint, it's 25X harder than the X-Prize, which probably will finally get awarded this year. That 25X is over an order of magnitude, and by the time you take compounding difficulties, it's probably more like 2 orders of magnitude harder than the X-Prize.

    After all, this IS rocket science.

    --
    The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    1. Re:affordable by Jim+Starx · · Score: 1

      Are you saying it's better to do things the hard way?

      --
      The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
    2. Re:affordable by astro-g · · Score: 1

      dont you mean the only "reusable VTHL SSTO vehicle in the world", or should that be in service,

      no, wait a second.......

    3. Re:affordable by dpilot · · Score: 2

      No. I'm saying that getting to orbit is HARD. There is no easy way. I'm sure that there are ways easier than the Shuttle, and it's easy to arm-chair quarterback the job NASA has done.

      But at the end of the day, not many people have access to orbit, and IMHO few of us really appreciate the difficulty of the task.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:affordable by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      it's the most affordable reusable VTHL SSTO vehicle in the world.
      Well, apart from not being SSTO that is.

      Just what do you think the SRB's are? Do they enter orbit? Does the ET?

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    5. Re:affordable by ColaMan · · Score: 1

      I'd take issue with reusable there, a pretty large proportion of the shuttle is burnt up or replaced after flights

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
    6. Re:affordable by mpe · · Score: 1

      As much as everyone likes to dis the US shuttle as being expensive, it's the most affordable reusable VTHL SSTO vehicle in the world.

      The "reusable" bit is rather questionable. Given that the shuttle orbiter needs what amounts to a complete strip down and rebuild after every flight. Originally NASA claimed that each orbiter would require only a two week service between missions. There is also the "bottleneck" of having only one facility for various parts of the pre-launch assembly, thus having more than one orbiter dosn't help much with time to get things ready.

    7. Re:affordable by dpilot · · Score: 1

      You and others have pointed out 'defects' in my arguments of both reusable and SSTO. I won't argue with any of those.

      My whole point was that we armchair space explorers have watched too many Galileo shuttles and X-Wings take off from planetary surfaces and go to Warp, and we have too little understanding of how truly HARD getting into orbit really is. As difficult and maintenance-intensive as it is for the Shuttle to do this, it really DOES do it. (IMHO both shuttle accidents were largely administrative, 'It happened before and didn't kill us,' in nature.) When you count the number of manned vehicle designs that have achieved orbit, I'm not sure, but I don't think you even need to use your toes, too.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    8. Re:affordable by Col.+Blackwolf · · Score: 1

      Getting into orbit isn't all that hard. It's getting into the orbit you want and then staying alive on the way down that's the hard part. The biggest problem with the shuttle (besides the beauracratic bloat in NASA) is that it's over 30 years old. The plans were officially laid down in 1971. And from the reports I've been able to find, that design was supposed to be replaced after 20 years. But instead, because of all the politicking that went on, construction was delayed, and totally unrealistic demands were made, such as a Zero % casualty rate, a laudable, but practical impossibility, as has unfortunately been proven (In comparison, the accepted casualty rate among test pilots, which is quite a bit safer, is still ~3%). As a result, the shuttle didn't even fly for the first half of it's projected life. And all the while, the cost just kept rising. And when it came time to replace it with a more technologically advanced design, politics again interfered and the project was canceled. "We've already sunk so much $$ into the shuttle, and now you want us to spend more money to replace it? I don't think so." And so it went. The shuttle's service life was extended way beyond where it should have been(kinda like Mir's), pretty well all of NASA's research into a replacement has been canned, along with most of the funding for the ISS, and we [i]still[/i] don't have a cost effective method of putting people and large payloads into orbit. So now it's 2004, and what do we have? A space station that will never be finished because NASA had to scrap the construction of critical components. A fleet of ancient manned launch craft that are stuck on the ground and may never fly again with no replacement of any kind. And no method of launching the size of payloads required for getting back to the moon, let alone Mars. The way I see it, if Rutan can get his craft up and back safely, and the ESA can get their ship (which even if it uses technology from the late 90s is 30 years more advanced than the shuttle) operational, then power to them. The United States has lost it's dominance on manned spaceflight, and I don't know if the gov't is will to spend the dough to get it back. And I'll be keeping my eye on China. They've got the same rocket tech the US had at the end of the 60's, and the will and money to use it. My money says they reach the moon by 2012.

    9. Re:affordable by Col.+Blackwolf · · Score: 1

      Appologies for the lack of paragraphs. First time posting, and apparently I need to add the paragraph tags.

      My bad....

    10. Re:affordable by tmortn · · Score: 1

      actually the ET does reach orbit.. it is just never made regular. Not so on the SRB's though... deffiantly not an SSTO

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
    11. Re:affordable by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1
      actually the ET does reach orbit.. it is just never made regular.
      Ah, an orbit that intersects the ground.

      Hey, my 6 year old kid can launch things into that orbit! :-)

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    12. Re:affordable by tmortn · · Score: 1

      lol... da.. but I doubt your 6 year old gets things to escape velocity. Shuttle has the capacity to take the ET into a regularized orbit Though it would cut down on payload.... but many would argue the ET could be a very very worthwhile payload in and of itself.

      --
      I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
  45. What, no windows? by thelizman · · Score: 1

    We figured this out in the 60's.

    1. Re:What, no windows? by arose · · Score: 1

      Must... Not... Make... BSOD... Joke... XP... Users... Will... Flame...

      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
  46. Well, as long as you asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "How cool is that?"

    Not very cool or impressive at all. Let me get this straight. They took a little tiny plane, dropped it from a helecopter and it managed to land itself.

    This is supposed to be the prototype for a much larger vehicle that will clearly have to be much different as the aluminum skin will melt faster than a college coed's panties at a frat party.

  47. There's no real argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    USA is actually best.

    Except for our stupid president. He's an embarassment. But we have two rovers driving around on mars, we invented the internet, we landed men on mars, we discovered the polio virus... the list goes on and on.

    That said, Europeans are bright, likeable, ambitious, and terric all around. We're just a little better.

    1. Re:There's no real argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (I am the one you replied to.)
      Absolutely, you're right, when it comes to science and technology, you are the leader in many of the areas of it. All the things you mention are great improvements, dicoveries and inventions, and we should all be happy that they are there, and insteaed focus on trying to make things even better instead of arguing endlessly. Anyway, have a jolly good day!

  48. excuse me? by jpellino · · Score: 3, Funny
    from wikipedia:

    Begun in Germany and currently under development in Europe by EADS the Phoenix will be, together with the Ariane 5, the European vehicle for space conquest."

    Space conquest? Germany?

    Erm, hello?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:excuse me? by shadowbearer · · Score: 1

      I for one welcome our UberOverLords.

      *ducks*

      SB

      --
      It's old. The more humans I meet, the more I like my cats. At least they are honest.
    2. Re:excuse me? by LittleBigLui · · Score: 1

      Space conquest? Germany?

      Vee are zee Borg. Yu will be asssimilated. Yu heff no chance tu survi... SCHEISSE!

      --
      Free as in mason.
    3. Re:excuse me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's über, american pigdog!

  49. From *REALLY* High Up by zx75 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The primary aim of the test was to assess the glider potential of the craft. The final version of the vehicle must be able to glide from an altitude of 80000000000000 miles.

    Is it just me, or does 80 trillion miles seem to be a bit far to be termed 'gliding'. As well, when you're that far away I don't believe you're talking about 'altitude' any longer either. I mean, Pluto is only 3.6 Billion miles away, I guess gliding from a distance of 20,000 times further than pluto for a landing on earth's surface isn't too much to ask.

    --
    This is not a sig.
  50. Is there a justification proposed? by jesterzog · · Score: 3, Insightful

    One of the more contriversial aspects of the US space shuttle is if there's really a proper justification for the manned spaceflight that it provides. (Very expensive, arguably most of what it does could be done without people, etc.)

    I guess one of the differences is that NASA already has a lot of sunk costs in it's space shuttle programme. Whether it makes economic sense or not, part of the reason that NASA maintains it's manned space programme is probably because it already has one and doesn't want to lose it.

    The ESA doesn't have one at the moment, which (to me) makes it very interesting that they're trying to start one. Is there a big economic justification that the ESA has for putting people in space?

    Or alternatively, is it for the same contriversial and possibly political reasons that the US keeps people there? I'm not trying to imply that it's good or bad to have people in space, but I'm curious if it for some reason makes a lot of economic sense for the ESA to have a manned space programme moreso than NASA.

    Can anyone comment?

    1. Re:Is there a justification proposed? by Silburn_Luke · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Phoenix is one of the upstream projects for the Aurora programme, which is ESAs manned space exploration effort and envisages manned Moon landings in the late '20s and a Mars mission in the '30s.

      Clearly if human missions to the Moon and Mars are part of the roadmap 25 years down the line, ESA needs to be working on the orbital stepping stones now and Phoenix is one of those. Its still very early days however and there are no guarantees that the final system will look anything like what was tested in Sweden last week - at the moment various concepts and technologies are being put through their paces, but the final design won't be finalised for three of four years yet.

      Personally I'm a little concerned that they seem to be creating a replica of Shuttle - the dimensions of full-scale Phoenix seem awfully close to Shuttle, so presumably this is intended to be a man-rated launcher that can also lift heavy cargo - but ESA is also looking at other concepts such as Hopper, so perhaps they're working towards a more modular fleet of vehicles that can be configured according to mission requirements rather than being stuck with a one-size-fits-all hybrid monster like Shuttle.

      Regards
      Luke

      --
      #include witty_one_liner.h
    2. Re:Is there a justification proposed? by anno1602 · · Score: 1

      Phoenix is one of the upstream projects for the Aurora programme, which is ESAs manned space exploration effort and envisages manned Moon landings in the late '20s and a Mars mission in the '30s.

      What? We're going send humans to Mars? And here I thought ESA had retained its scientific common sense. Oh well...

    3. Re:Is there a justification proposed? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative
      Erm, no. Phoenix is a demonstrator vehicle for technologies to be used in Hopper. Hopper AFAIK is supposed to be rail launched from Kourou and is a near-SSTO. It will use a 2nd stage to place satellites at their final orbit. Then it lands on a conventional airstrip, for e.g., at Ascension Island. It is supposed to be fully automatic and unmanned AFAIK.

      This is being done by a division of EADS and is funded by sources from the German government. The concept is very similar to that of the Sanger Silverbird from WW2 IMO. I mean, it is rail launched HTHL and the vehicle is meant to skip in the atmosphere. Hence the name Hopper I guess. The Germans have been fascinated with similar winged RLVs for quite some time.

      Anyway, the French are working on their own RLV as well. The designs I have seen are of a VTHL TSTO, some are biamese, others not quite, but both stages are supposed to fly back to an airstrip. Design work on reusable engines is being done now between the French and the Russians. Search for information about Volga rocket engine.

      Things are still in a state of flux. Depending on how the respective demonstrator vehicles prove themselves, political will and financial resources, either the Hopper, some other TSTO RLV or even a simpler TSTO VTVL with a reusable 1st stage could win. Or several of these. Or the whole thing could go sour, the experimental vehicles are abject failures for e.g., and an Ariane 5 derived expendable could be *the* vehicle selected for 2020.

      Time will tell.

    4. Re:Is there a justification proposed? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative
  51. Wouldnt it be cheaper and simpler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it would be a lot cheaper if the EU space agency to buy NASA space shuttle design or just buy a couple space shuttle directly from Boeing or who ever the manufacturer. Why re-inventing the wheel? Is the EU spacecraft has all the bugs workout?

    1. Re:Wouldnt it be cheaper and simpler by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're aiming to build something safe and modern, buying from a backward country like US is not an option.

  52. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, yes. JAS Gripen. Or the "manned missile", whichever tickles your fancy. Most memorable bit about that particular fighter seem to be its spectacular failure modes, esp above Stockholm.

  53. Space technology invented in Europe by acb · · Score: 1

    Both the US and Soviet space programmes were bootstrapped on rocket science captured from Nazi Germany after WW2. German rocket scientist Wernher von Braun became one of the pioneers of the US space programme.

    One could say that rocketry was a pan-European endeavour, having been developed in Germany and tested in England.

  54. Place your bets, gentlemen! by Guppy06 · · Score: 2, Funny
    Which will happen first?
    1. ESA shuttle will enter service
    2. US shuttle will be retired
    3. Flying cars (driven by pigs, no doubt)
    1. Re:Place your bets, gentlemen! by aristotle-dude · · Score: 1

      3. Flying cars already exist http://www.moller.com/ Haven't you ordered yours yet? :-)

      --
      Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
    2. Re:Place your bets, gentlemen! by Walkiry · · Score: 1

      4. ???
      5. Profit!

      --
      ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  55. ITS NOT MANNED... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and never will be. And its sub-orbital = cheep

    The Hopper, as the full sized vehicle will be called, can be seen as a replacement for the first stage only. Its sub orbital - so no expensive and fragile heatshield and the engines already exist. Plus as its unmanned there is no need for so many abort and safety systems.

    The whole point is that this system doesn't have to develope new technology, isn't manned and is completely reuseable (for a geosysncronus orbit your going to throw away the kick motor anyway)all of which makes it cheep.

    Its purpose is to capture more market share for Ariane not to compete with the shuttle.

  56. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by linhux · · Score: 1

    AFAIK, Gripen has a better track record than most fighters. However, irony had it that when it, for once, failed, it was near large crowds of people. Not very good PR. :-P

  57. Shuttle...just wondering? by stoicio · · Score: 1

    Hasn't the idea of a space plane type shuttle been proven/assessed as an inefficient way to handle payloads compared to just a rocket and a capsule
    style re-entry module?

    Just wondering...

  58. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "While I think that the F22 might reach and possibly go beyond the capabilities of the JAS 39 Gripen"

    Yes, particularly because it has been shipping since January 2003.

  59. Stripe son the america flag ???! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    America flag has thenth of stripe for every country it destroys with hegemonising wankitude !

    Burger swilling scran-oriented chubi feends beware !

    Day of judgement will overtake you !

    We don't hate democracy we just hate YOU ! It is folly to pretend othwise. You are educated yet BUSH treats you like Imbecile !

  60. More info by starbuzz · · Score: 3, Informative
    An AP press release at Space.com has some more info on this, plus a medium-sized shiny CGI model.

    It also gives the size and range in a more universally palpable fashion:

    The EADS Phoenix, a prototype of the future European Shuttle, will be carried to an altitude of 2,400 meters (7,900 feet) by a heavy-duty helicopter and then dropped so it can glide to earth for a landing. ...

    The ship is just under seven meters (23 feet) long, weighs 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) and has a wingspan of 3.9 meters (13 feet). It's one-sixth the size of the actual planned vehicle.

    The test range has been the site of European Space Agency tests because of its remote location and its vast uninhabited areas.

    The area has two restricted air spaces, Esrange and Vidsel, each measuring approximately 5,000 square kilometers (6,000 square yards *), available for the tests.

    When combined with a temporary air corridor, test vehicles can fly as far as 350 kilometers (217 miles) over land.

    * Well, that should be 6000 million sq. ft, but they probably should've said 2000 square miles.

  61. Re: OK by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Building From Scratch Is Better Than Buying With Secret Trapdoor.

    open4free © (c)

  62. But wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is that red striped flag in the May 8th picture an American flag? What's that doing there?

    1. Re:But wait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Count the stripes. Do you see room for 13 stripes?

      Doesn't the US flag have 7 red stripes? So wouldn't the bottom stripe be a red one? Isn't it white in this photo?

      So, you tell me, do you think it could be a US flag?

  63. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry to break the bad news to you, it is not the plane it is the pilot that counts.

    Chuck Yeager shot down a german ww2 jet using a prop driven aircraft.

  64. Because Burtan doesn't know how. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't understand how this post was modded "insightful". For example:

    > "Considering they're already 20 years behind our
    > shuttle, why copy from our old tech?"

    They're copying from the Shuttle in the same way BMW is copying from Ford's Model T: similar function implies similar form.

    > "Personally, I'd think they'd be better to look
    > at Burt Rutans X-prize project"

    Burt Rutan doesn't think that would be better; he's stated that his X-Prize design is a bad design for an orbital vehicle: that's because it's _not an orbital vehicle_. Regardless of what the peanut gallery might fantasize.

    The ESA's shuttle may or may not be a good vehicle, but it'll be a "30 year old solution" in the same way a 2005 BMW is a "100 year old solution" - i.e., no way.

    If you think building on what we've learned is the wrong way to advance engineering, feel free to try convincing Ford to scrap all their car designs and go back to the drawing board. Just make sure there's some windmills nearby to tilt at so you don't feel at a total loss when they throw you out.

  65. Never heard of it... and I'm European by christophe · · Score: 1

    Nothing about this on French radio this morning or yesterday night.
    It's a shame to have to surf on American sites to discover that the space program of my continent is not stalled or limited to Ariane and a few probes to Mars.

    --
    Christophe (Don't hesitate to point out my spelling and grammar mistakes, I want to learn - Thanks).
  66. Stupid Colonials, overgrown egos and, oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    I find it absolutely hilarious how anything and everything is always reduced to a "us vs. them" deal by americans.

    You'd think that ONE pair of airplanes dumped in your faces would be sufficient to point out that this insular mindset makes America rather unloved by the rest of humanity. Get over it, you're humans, just like the rest of us. (only slightly heavier and less adept at mastering your own language.)

    1. Re:Stupid Colonials, overgrown egos and, oh my! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So here I am taking time out of my busy schedule to let you and maybe a few other people know that it makes perfect sense that Europe doesn't want me to shelter initially unpopular truths from suppression, enabling them to ultimately win out through competition in the marketplace of ideas. Let's start with my claim that I don't care what others say about it. It's still blinkered, antihumanist, and it intends to control what we do and how we do it. You may find it amusing or even titillating to read about Europe's catch-phrases, but they're not amusing to me. They're deeply troubling. No one is more deranged than Europe. More than that, if you think that a knowledge of correct diction, even if unused, evinces a superiority that covers cowardice or stupidity, then you're suffering from very serious nearsightedness. You're focusing too much on what it wants you to see and failing to observe many other things of much greater importance. I assume that Europe is unaware of its obligation not to lead an active disinformation campaign, as this unawareness would be consistent with its prior displays of ignorance. You don't have to say anything specifically about Europe for it to start attacking you. All you have to do is dare to imply that we should reveal some shocking facts about its convictions.

      Europe claims that the Universe belongs to it by right. Predictably, it cites no hard data for that claim. This is because no such data exist. What diabolic thing is Europe going to do next? Confuse the catastrophic power of state fascism with the repression of an authoritarian government in our minds? Flush all my hopes and dreams down the toilet? Preach a propaganda of hate? In any case, I apologize for giving Europe these ideas, but its grievances are merely a stalking horse. They mask Europe's secret intention to slander those who are most systematically undervalued, underpaid, underemployed, underfinanced, underinsured, underrated, and otherwise underserved and undermined as undeserving and underclass.

      With this in mind, I must shape a world of dignity and harmony, a world of justice, solidarity, liberty, and prosperity. As stated earlier, I recently received some mail in which the writer stated, "I can't count the number of times I've wanted to think outside the box." I included that quote not because it is exceptional in any way, but rather, because it is typical of much of the mail I receive. I included it to show you that I'm not the only one who thinks that Europe will do everything in its power to deny citizens the ability to draw their own conclusions about the potential for violence that it may be generating. No wonder corruption is endemic to our society; there is still hope for our society, real hope -- not the false sense of hope that comes from the mouths of the most footling loonies I've ever seen, but the hope that makes you eager to point out the glaring contradiction between its idealized view of exhibitionism and reality. Europe has, at times, called me "ornery" or "sinful". Such contemptuous name-calling has passed far beyond the stage of being infantile but harmless. It has the capacity to instill a general ennui.

      We should not concern ourselves with Europe's putative virtue or vice. Rather, we should concern ourselves with our own welfare and the fact that most people want to be nice; they want to be polite; they don't want to give offense. And because of this inherent politeness, they step aside and let Europe infiltrate and then dominate and control the mass media. Considering that under the label of "lackluster" are those who, like Europe, leave a generation of people planted in the mud of a stingy, mindless world, to begin a new life in the shadows of authoritarianism, I find it almost laughable how it remains oblivious to the fact that it wants us to think of it as a do-gooder. Keep in mind, though, that Europe wants to "do good" with other people's money and often with other people's lives. If it really wanted to be a do-gooder, it could start by admitting that I once had a nightmare i

  67. Oh I thought you knew! by Phattypants · · Score: 1

    Thought you knew!
    The ESA is developing the Intergalactique Conquistador class battle cruiser!!!
    No place in the galaxy will be safe from Le Crux de Hegemonique European!

    Now where are the keys to my Precursor vessel?

  68. The point is being mssed here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Check out: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/europe_phoeni x_020621.html

    Quote:

    As a miniature RLV, Phoenix is to prove out technologies needed for Europe's HOPPER - a much larger autonomous space transportation system.

    HOPPER would be launched horizontally on a skid sled running on miles of track. Plans call for HOPPER to be launched from the European Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana.

    The unpiloted HOPPER is designed to carry payloads up to 7.5 tons, deploying spacecraft affixed to an upper stage booster from its tail at over 80 miles (130 kilometers) altitude. The RLV then automatically returns to Earth.

    According to Astrium, should the European Space Agency decide to pursue the HOPPER concept, the vehicle could be ready for use by the year 2015.

  69. Re:Isn't that the Nazi symbol on the tail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That thing is pretty pathetic, and clearly cannot withstand entry.

    Wow, they sure made a big mistake not hiring you for this project! All those millions to waste, just because they contracted people of inferior intelligence to you..

  70. Interesting use of reference points by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    "on a test runway north of Stockholm".
    Yeah, 770 MILES north of Stockholm :-)

  71. Re:Isn't that the Nazi symbol on the tail? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, considering that the Nazi scientists were considerably involved in the US (and Soviet) rocket program (eg. Werner von Braun), you might have a point...

  72. Space Shuttle is by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

    Based on 1970s technology and is almost stone age

    --
    Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
    1. Re:Space Shuttle is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Linux? :)

    2. Re:Space Shuttle is by GnarlyNome · · Score: 1

      No more like Win$ux

      --
      Diplomacy is the art of saying "Nice doggie" until you can find a rock. Will Rogers
  73. Phoenix real purpose and ESA plans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First to say, Phoenix is a UNMANNED spacecraft. So ist is not a shuttle replacement.

    Second: The ESA is developing different reusable vehicle designs. The goal is to find an idea and a concept which is cheaper than a one way carrier like ariane 4,5,vega

    The idea is to test different designes. The phoenix is just one of them. They will select one or if everything goes wrong none of the prototype designs in 2010-2012.

    The ESA is well known for their good work. But they are not that good in making an event out of it. :-) So I hope they will select an promising and interesting concept in the next 6-8 years.

  74. same currently being done in ISRO by hutkey · · Score: 1

    as i posted earlier, ISRO is currently working on the same kind of space-craft.

  75. Quite simple - wrong approach by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 1

    Seems the slashdotters think a rocket-launch is the wrong approach. They might or might not be onto something.

    How about having a huge, high-flying airplane carry the space shuttle as far up into the atmosphere as possible, and have the space shuttle do the rest for itself with its built-in propulsion?

    --

    Stop the brainwash

  76. Re:bah by dddno · · Score: 1

    I chose your post for a reply, because though cheapest flamebait, it shows so neatly that you're no better than the Europeans when it comes to stupid stereotyping.

    Let's begin by saying that virtually all you stated is downright bogus.

    all this is, is the european union trying to say "hey look america! we can be like you too!"

    No. All this is, is you showing off an incredibly narrow, US-centric view and naive extrapolation from your own motives. Try and find any European who seriously thinks like that. Believe it or not, we occasionally do things without looking overseas what the US did.

    in all honesty, it is, they unite together to make their economy like the US', they try to make copyright laws like the US, and now they're trying to make us feel less superior by making a space program that will prolly never reach orbit.

    Uniting economies is downright necessary in a world of global markets (and YES, there are others beside the US, and no small ones too!) and a natural process atop. Why this is anywhere 'like the US' remains your mystery. Copyright laws, well you certainly didn't bother to look at facts and details, probably because it would exceed your capacity. The biggest stunt however is this 'trying to make us feel less superior'. That is very ridiculous. Stupid EU, how dare we make even small technological steps? Can't we see how poor USA will feel slightly less superior! We really have to drop that at once. Would you feel OK if we deliberately went back to stone age, hm?

    honestly, as much as europe hates the US, they sure like to become like us in a lot of ways.

    Yeah, we all hate you 24/7. European life is all about hating the US.

  77. *First* all-European mission!? by johannesg · · Score: 1
    Excuse me, but we have been going into space, without the Americans or Russians holding our hands, for a long time now.



    Maybe the poster meant "first manned all-European mission"?

  78. Re:how do you guys get first post? Ninnle does it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One feature of Ninnle Linux is the ability to load and reload Slashdot every few seconds so that a first post is easy to get!

  79. Congratulations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Congratulations Europe! Best of luck! Be careful of letting French guys on board, they may surrender the space craft to someone.

  80. Slashdot articles often linked from Google News by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's nothing special.

  81. parent is troll and flamebait by shiftless · · Score: 1

    mod parent down

    1. Re:parent is troll and flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck off.

  82. Tail Key by MonkeyCookie · · Score: 1

    The key shown on the tail of the shuttle is also a symbol that has been associated with the city of Bremen since the Middle Ages.

  83. Another 10-15 years? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1
    What fascinates me about all this (Euro-shuttle, replacement American shuttle, Chinese efforts, etc.) is how long these things are taking.

    Once upon a time, the USA managed to get to the moon in less than a decade. Less than 30 years from the flight of the first large liquid-fueled rocket, that was.

    So why have we reached the point where a new vehicle takes in excess of a decade to develop? Are we (not just the US, everyone) getting too timid to take a chance on something that isn't a sure thing?

    If so, that's just sad....

    --

    "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    1. Re:Another 10-15 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe because ESA/NASA/Russians doesn't like to have MORE deads? Better wait and make more security advances than launching kamikazes

  84. Re:JAS 39 Gripen is the world's most advanced figh by cortana · · Score: 1

    The German jets were so experimental that they could barely stay in the air in the first place. They didn't require a crop duster buzzing around to help them crash. :)