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."

72 of 284 comments (clear)

  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 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. 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:)

  3. 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 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.

  4. 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 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
    3. 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!

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.

    8. 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.

  5. 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...

  6. 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.

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  10. 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 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!
    2. 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
  11. Re:All European? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    It's the flag of bremen.

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

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

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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.

  17. 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
  18. 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.

  19. 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 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
  20. 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

  21. 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.

  22. 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*
  23. 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 ^^

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

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  25. 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.)

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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?
  29. 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.

  30. 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!"

  31. 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.

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

    ...it's only a model.

    One-sixth scale.

  33. 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!"
  34. Nice team photo link here... by pwroberts · · Score: 3, Funny

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

  35. 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 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.
  36. 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."
  37. 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.
  38. 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 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.

    3. Re:Is there a justification proposed? by cheesybagel · · Score: 2, Informative
  39. 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.

  40. 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)
  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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.
  44. 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.)