Slashdot Mirror
Competition to Build the Space Shuttle's Successor
Neil Halelamien writes "The competition for the prime contract to build the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the successor to the Space Shuttle, is ramping up. Currently, 11 different companies are creating preliminary designs for systems and vehicles which could be useful in implementing NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. By the end of the year, NASA will select two teams to independently develop and build a CEV design. The two teams will launch competing unmanned prototypes in 2008, at which point NASA will award a final winning contract. Aerospace giants Boeing and Northrop Grumman have formed one team. Another "all-star" team, announced a couple of days ago, is headed by Lockheed Martin. A third team in the running is underdog t/Space, a company with a free enterprise approach to space exploration, which includes notable figures from the commercial spaceflight arena, such as Burt Rutan and Gary Hudson. There is concern that a NASA budget boost to help pay for the exploration program could draw some opposition, as most other government programs are anticipating budget cuts."
Here's rooting for the underdog. I think in an area of this magnitude it's good to see that there is something out there worth rooting for, rather than pretending that they can "rescue" people in case (for example) NASA pulls another "blow up on re-entry". Which I think is total bullshit.
Hardware components for sale!!!
At a certain point it becomes counter-productive. Just tell me which one to click on to get the article.
"However, it is likely that the CEV will follow the module and capsule design principles used in the Apollo, Gemini, Soyuz and Shenzhou systems, instead of the reusable spaceplane design principle used in the space shuttle system"
Hoo-ray for NASA! There's hope for them yet.
The administrator of NASA will announce his retirement 1 week after the winning team is selected, and he will coincidentally be given a job as the CEO of Boeing or Lockheed a month later.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
After ShuttleOne went up for backing as little as $20 million, is it just me or is NASA throwing around too much money to make this happen? I'd like to see someone else make the new crew vehicle and sell it back to NASA. I guess the other side of the coin is the German's saying Mars by 2009. *shrug* I guess when you have nothing substantial in your space program in the past, you've got nothing to lose with ridiculous goals for the future?
Ubuntu, the way linux should be.
Try Ubuntu FREE! --
I can see the underdog putting up a good fight as most government contractors are bogged down under "red tape" that causes prices to sky rocket. If they run lean on overhead BS they have a shot. Well, as long as the product is good from more aspects than functionality (reliable, maintainable, safe)
Evolution or ID?
Is NASA putting the cart before the horse here? Don't we need a coherent goal to shoot for before designing a vehicle? The goal as stated on NASA's site is:
"The fundamental goal of this vision is to advance U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests through a robust space exploration program."
Could they be any more vague? Whatever happened to the days of "land a man on the moon and return him safely to the Earth." You know, goals that people actually knew what the heck you were talking about?
I'm a big tall mofo.
A replacement for the Shuttle is needed, but is NASA working on our heavy-lift capabilities? It seems to me that there is still a need for a Saturn V-type rocket to put the big stuff into orbit. After all, while orbital assembly may seem cool, it doesn't seem very cost-effective yet.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
This does show a fundamental lack of decision making going on in many branches of government leadership. No one wants to put forth a goal and be the leader who didn't make it. So, they don't make a goal so that way they just keep the status quo as long as they can and hope the next guy deals with it. No one or agency wants to look bad so to them it's safer to not do anything at all.
Evolution or ID?
But seriously, anything that features Scaled Compoites ought to be way ahead of the competition in terms of cost, and superior design. Although I have to admit their earth-to-low-earth-orbit vehicle will never be as sexy looking as Space Ship 1 - the nicest looking craft man ghas ever built in my view
The primes (Lockheed, Boeing) know only how to burn money and koff koff manage customer relationships koff koff. I should know, I watched them do it on the X33 up close & personal. We should select Rutan as our stand in for old man Harriman. (obRAH reference) -- OPh
For example, they self-orient on reentry, they don't have expensive and heavy control surfaces or landing gear, and from their position on the top of the rocket they can use escape systems like those in the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs.
About the only thing they can't do is bring things back down from orbit. But, really, if we want a real future in space the biggest issue is getting things up there.
You have two hands and one brain, so always code twice as much as you think!
hey hey... simmer down!
Michael Sims is gone!
Could they be any more vague? Whatever happened to the days of "land a man on the moon and return him safely to the Earth." You know, goals that people actually knew what the heck you were talking about?
I thought the Wikipedia article above was very clear on what the CEV is supposed to be able to do. It mentions it's likely it'll follow the module-and-capsule approach, and is supposed to be capable of getting to LEO while also taking part in the assembly of lunar expeditions while in orbit (and, presumably Mars too, since that's a listed goal as well). Reusability is apparently desirable, but not essential to win the contract.
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
...would be a good choice for engine on the next gen space shuttle. Here's a brief introduction.
Boeing and Lockheed?
The CEV is intended to only partially replace the space shuttle. It will provide crew transport from Earth to LEO as the shuttle does. However, it will not be a cargo transport and assembly platform as the space shuttle is.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
Umm... I dunno, but I doubt scaled composites has the resources to design a successor to the spaceshuttle. Especially one that is going to have to have as many roles as the CEV.
This reminds me of when they were first planning the space shuttle (when it was riding on the back of a 747 for initial testing). It's too bad NASA couldn't bring itself to dump the space plane concept earlier so that we're not waiting another 30 years for a viable replacement.
Considering that President Bush was the first President since his father to mention any sort of NASA initiative (and NASA funding was cut during the Clinton admin.), maybe you need to re-think your small-minded, uninformed comment.
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
Actually, please come back, Hicks of middle America. Bill, that is. Your country needs you...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
What I've never understood: what are the benefits of space exploration? Sure it gives information about space, but what's the use?
Is there anything they discovered that improved the qauality of life, in return for the zillions of dolars?
If Microsoft was mass, stupidity would be gravity.
It's been reported that monkeys and dogs have declined to test this round of space vehicles, seeing as there is no ice cream in space.
I can only hope that NASA is allowed to make the final decision on this spacecraft, and is not forced to make concessions to every government department under the sun like happened with the shuttle.
It should look state of the art with straight-lines, a red stripe down the side... Here are some preliminary designs for NASA: :(
Image Here
Now if we could only get Majel Barrett to do the voice-over for the computer
For a good overview of the Rutan proposal, check this pdf at their website. It's a heckuva read...they advocate building a real frontier which ultimately generates tax revenues. They want to use flotillas of vehicles for redundancy, and keep it simple...eg., to land on the moon, just burn more fuel and land the whole vehicle, instead of just a separate lander. Less development time, less to go wrong, and for the first 20 to 40 flights it's cheaper that way. They also ding NASA for micromanaging...they say engineers should question everything, and you can't do that if you have to justify every deviation from the written plan to NASA's managers.
The total NASA budget ( $15+ Billion ) is a very small sub 1% fraction of US Gummint spending. Unfortunately it is in the discretionary category and lumped in with some agencies that often have a rancorous debate attached to their estimates. If other gummint agencies' budgets had been constrained the way NASA has been for the last 15 years or so, we probably wouldn't have a deficit, War On Terror notwithstanding.
The only reason is that the economy has fallen apart and he is looking to pork barrel his way out... War, Nasa-- it's like the 80's all over again.
The politicians will f*ck this up like everything else. Remember the booster rockets for the shuttle had to be made in California? And they were too long to ship, so they had to be built in sections rather than in one piece? Then the gasket between the sections failed and caused the first shuttle accident? Because some politician had to be sure his state got a slice of the pie. And here we go again.
Crushing my karma one post at a time.
Why not build a small powerful space tug boat instead of a truck. Large payloads could be launched into space unmanned. Then the tug could pull them over and attach them to the ISS and leave them there, or drop them over the ocean when done if need be. The ISS gets completed faster and we have a small reusable space plane that could be used more efficiently and more frequently and it wouldn't need crew quarters or sleeping quarters it would use the ISS as a base station. It could be fitted with a smaller crew and quarters for higher missions such as to the Hubble if it is still there or whatever. We don't have to keep dragging tons of equipment back and forth to orbit. Part of the danger of the shuttle is its size so keep the reusable part smaller and safer. We could even build an unmanned parachuting return vehicle for bringing large equipment back down.
You can legislate morally you can't legislate morality
Unfortunately, neither the new Bush space initiatives, nor a new spaceship design will fix all the things that are wrong with the federal space program. Key among these problems is the lack of clear leadership and good management on NASA's Board of Directors, a.k.a. the US Congress.
Congress has never been able to give NASA a set of clear goals, and then provided it with the long-term funding to meet those goals. This has forced NASA into sort of bureaucratic survival mode, lurching along from fiscal year to fiscal year, trying to keep moving the ball forward without a long-term roadmap to follow.
"the economy has fallen apart"...by what measure? Or is this just a hit and run that we are supposed to accept without question?
Don't be a looter...and yes, I know that it's spelled with an "A" instead of an "E".
I just wanted to mention that Orbital has joined the "all star" team with Lockheed on the CEV.
FINALLY! This will be some exciting times in the aerospace community. I don't hold hope for Burt Rutan to be able to top Northup Grumman/Boeing or Lockheed Martins team but I sure as heck hope that the follwing things are considered:
1. Modern, yet tested hardware for the flight computers and a way to upgrade them easily should they be needed. I still like the idea of multiple redundant computers and a voting structure that the shuttle uses for it's flight computers.
2. Reuseablity is nice, but can be expensive as the shuttle has pointed out. If we do go reusable, I hope we find some new heat shielding that is less fragile.
3. Ejection seets for the crew or a crew module rescue system of some sort.
4. Sensor the HECK out of it. Put little cameras in the superstructure and have one monitor cycle through them on both launch and landing. If teh crew sees something the least bit suspicious, they can initiate a emergency eject.
5. Make it FAST to launch another incase there's damage to one crew module. Maybe make it so that we launch 2 at the same time with both being capable of holding the whole crew in a emergency landing situation. You could even make sure one is always on orbit and is in good shape(docked at ISS or whatever).
6. Make it REPAIRABLE in space either via ISS assistance or a small repair kit heald on board.
I could go on, but this is the opportunity to make a funcitonal system that is much safer then the shuttle. Consider that the shuttle's design is almost 30-40 years old and BOTH planes and cars are MUCH safer today then ones designed that long ago.
Gorkman
What does your rant have to do with anything?
I suppose the economy of the world is Bushes fault also?
Between March 2000 and the 2000 election I lost $150,000 in my 401K. I'm nicely up now about $200,000 since the 2000 election. The last quarter alone was up $59,000.
I'd say the economy is doing pretty good AND getting better.
You, too, could be a big hero, once you've learned to count backwards to zero...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Not NASA as such, but their supplier Boeing is working on scaling up the Delta 4 vehicle by clustering several rockets. (http://www.spaceflightnow.com/delta/d4h.html/.) A cluster of 3 rockets was tested in December, with 6 or 7 rockets it should be able to launch a CEV into orbit.
What makes YOU think they can't get a new rocket into orbit? Did the NY Times tell you that? Whatever your source, stop reading it. They are full of it. NASA still leads the world in science. In fact the ONLY space bound photo's of the recent Tsunami are from NASA. Who made it to Saturn recently? NASA. There is an ass that has a head in it, however it isn't NASA (i.e. check your own head, that brown stuff doesn't seem to be hair on you).
They will all be happy On The MOON!!! :)
...and he grinned, like a fox eating shit out of a wire brush.
The american economy is a mess. To the point that America is borrowing money from China in order to trade with them. Where Wal*Mart accounts for 8% of the national debt. The unemployment rate is 5.4%, The american dollar is losing value because of the weak economy, to the point that it's dangering the Canadian economy. America has been cutting its interest rates to spur growth, and avoid deflation. I have no vested interest in American politics, but America is in a recession- wake up.
Funding was dropped as result of a Republican controlled Congress. Not Democratic administration. That was back when Republicans championed themselves as fiscally responsible.
I like the freedom-1 approach better (pioneered in the 1960's). Use a conventional plane to raise the payload up into the edge of space and start from there. They can do it. Beats the hell out of what they are doing now.
China and russia have working and tested CEV:s already (think of it! space modules from USA, Russia and China have standard mutually compatiple docking mecanism already). If all earthlings work together we have moonlander in no time.
This should be done as commercial manner as possible (just business) One big main contractor (Boeing), modular desing and that could be done.
But of course this would be free competition and capitalism. Not good.
Dyslexics have more fnu.
What I'd rather see here:
a series of smaller prizes that required the winner to disclose their technology(as effectively Open Source). The reason for smaller prizes is that is would make the financial entry ticket less-which would mean more competitors. Basically you break the project down-and the end result is a working launch system--but even if you get it wrong, you've still disclosed a lot of decent technology that can be used by other folks.
Unbelievably, NASA waited until the engines had passed all of their tests and until *nearly all* of the core components of the X35 were assembled on the factory floor before they canned the whole project. And now, 4 years later, it sounds like they're going to start over from scratch.
On days like this, I'm glad I don't have to pay US taxes!
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
I admit I love human exploration, but after the Mars Rovers have had such success, I wonder if it's cheaper to consider researching that more.
Leave Human exploration to harder goals (Mars). But for experiments in orbit, repair missions, etc. Why not consider robotics?
The Mars rovers have done a very impressive job. I'd bet if NASA put the effort into robotics that it did into the Moon Launch effort.... they would be 10000X better.
They can also work more, don't suffer from fatigue, don't need life support systems, etc.
I'd like to see the human/robot space exporation roles change. Save humans for stuff like going to Mars, or the Moon, or other places where the goal is to get a person there. But lets use Robots for the most dangerious stuff, and situations where a Robot can easily do the job.
IMHO a shuttle should be looking at Earth --> Mars.
Hey, mod parent up! That was funny! (You know, becuase /.ers don't actually read the articles - get it?)
I think it would be cool if the link(s) to the actual article were a different color or style than the other links, that way it would be clear at a glance which link is the main article and which are supplementary.
You people that continue to tout SpaceShipOne over NASA are either seriosly ignorant or mildly retarded. What they did was wonderful, but it was done by NASA 50 years ago.
This will be a real test, apples to apples... not "wow look how cheap Scaled Composites can produce 50 year old technology! OMFG NASA got 0wn3d!"
You got that 2009 figure most likely from Archimedes which is not manned.
So that's the The Terrible Secret of Space! Now I finally know why those robots are so messed up.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
So, umm, does Netcraft confirm it?
Think you are mistaken. The X-35 is Lockheeds prototype for the Joint Strike Fighter.
Maybe you are refering to the X-30 National Aerospace Plane(NASP). OK you are mistaken there too. About the only part of that was built was a prototype Hydrogen fuel tank built by Lockheed. An old timer told them that using composites for it would never work, they didn't listen. As soon as they started testing it the layers in the tank started separating and it basicly fell part. Then the program was killed. They should have listened to the old timer.
As for the engines the closest thing they've gotten to the engines were the recent SCRAMJET tests NASA did. They are tiny scale models, being brought up to the narrow speed envelope where they actually work by a Pegasus booster, and only burned for a very short interval. The NASP design isn't even close to being feasible and may never be. You have to overcome the hurdle of find air breathing engines that work across a huge range of Mach numbers, or have multiple engines and rockets. IT has the same problem as the shuttle, huge amounts of dead weight that are being hauled into orbit and back again. Really the ONLY thing it gains is it not carrying oxygen on board since its getting it out of the atmosphere as long as its in the atmosphere.
All in all I would say this was mostly another NASA/Lockheed/Boeing fantasy. Not sure Lockheed or Boeing even believed in it they just wanted to suck as much money out of NASA's veins as they could before it got killed. They all created so many, promo films, and 3D models of it that they flew around on computers they actually kidded themselves in to thinking it would work.
@de_machina
First of all, I think that China will probably beat the US in terms of manned space exploration. They will go back to the moon before the US even finishes their new space vehicles. This is sad because China apparently understand economics better than current US leaders do. It might seem that the Apollo program was just a big expensive government program but the truth is that all the expensive science generated far more money that it spent. Science is good for the economy for it provides people with technology that lifts the economy and increases growth in the country. As complicated as going to the Moon and Mars and expensive as it seems might be, it is good for the economy. All the new technologies generate new industries which will further the economic growth. Our leaders in the US have forgotten that by limiting science funding and cancelling things like the particle accelerator in Texas. Second and most important, it is too expensive to think of old ways to get out of this planet. The best and most efficient way is to build the SPACE ELEVATOR. Fund nanotechnologies to get the cable for the elevator built. It is estimated that it would cost $100 a pound at the beginning to lift things into orbit using the elevator and maybe even go down to $1 a pound as more elevators are built. Science fiction but so was landing on the moon before Apollo 11.
All companies like Boeing, Lockheed, Raytheon, etc. really do is figure out how expensive and over costly can they make the project so that the result we be this huge iron beast which is neither practical nor fully reusable, as there has to be a "sustainable revenue stream".
Look more towards the underdogs in this fight.
GJC
Gregory Casamento
## Chief Maintainer for GNUstep
From the GP's description I would say the X-33 is what it was refering to.
n u1.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/me
I never liked the shuttle design much, far better were Gerry's "Eagles" from Space: 1999.
That was classic intercourse!
Not having a dig, but it is a touch ironic that whilst explaining how straight forward everything is, you used two acronyms :)
As for listening to old timers, sometimes it is a good idea to listen to experience, and sometimes it is better to avoid those who are stuck in a certain mode of thinking that may have been obsoleted by advances in knowledge.
You forget that there was this little investment going on in Vietnam at the time.
That would be a very expensive failure for second place. Something like that could bankrupt a smaller company. http://buttnakedbroadcasting.blogspot.com/
Havoc Video
Not having a dig, but it is a touch ironic that whilst explaining how straight forward everything is, you used two acronyms :)
:)
Sorry, I was in a rush because I had a meeting to go to, so didn't have time to type it in full
LEO - Low Earth Orbit
CEV - Crew Exploration Vehicle
You can accomplish anything you set your mind to. The impossible just takes a little longer.
http://www.irconnect.com/noc/press/pages/news_rele ases.mhtml?d=71298
And of course, I'm a little biased since I work for NGC.
I know it gets harder and harder to come up with original names, but come on, at least make it a little accurate. Crew Exploration Vehicle sounds like an anal probe.
I think you underestimate just how much I just dont care.
I feel like the 80/20 rule applies here. If we look at what the shuttle really does (and did in two examples) it was to put satellites in orbit. This can easily be done with robotics and the like. It also ferries people to the ISS (for what reason I have no idea). This ranks up there with "space tourism". As far as going to Mars, this is a "fame and glory" exercise (a la JFK) and is trying to solve a completely different problem. I feel that the one size fits all isint the way to go and also since there really isint anything too commercially viable to justify spending the loot for Mars. The focus should be what the mission really is for. Satellites. The profit that can drive a serious program. My 2c
People who talk about space programmes (at least at Slashdot) seem to fall into two sets of camps.
:)
1) Send rockets into space with a space capsule (reusable or not, we really don't care).
2) Use a reusable space plane.
Now the people in the first camp will argue about efficiency, and cost, and reliability. They've got a million reasons, much like those that advocate only sending robotic space probes into space, and forget manned space flight.
Because I don't agree with them, and also to bring a smile to my face, I like to believe they like this idea because rockets resemble a big penis (something they may be lacking themselves), and that the "capsule" at the end is like the ejaculation of sperm into space. But again this is just my personal opinion.
What the people in the first camp DO lack is efficiency of the imagination. Thats for sure. They see a short term solution which forestalls a long term one.
The people in the second group, are more visionairy, and understand that in order to make space really accessible and interesting to humanity, you need something thats more like a space plane. Something that does not need to be manufactured for each flight and transported to a certain location (rocket). Something that can be turned around maintenance wise within 24-48 hours, and is preferably SSTO. Its no coincidence that Scaled Composites space ship that won the X-Prize was a space plane. And its no coincidence that Richard Branson signed up with Scaled Composits right away to start Virgin Galactic -- a service to take people up into outer space for around $250,000 a flight. It matches all of these qualifications, and more than just some metallic cylendar sitting on a launch pad, it captures the imagination.
Also with a rocket you lack the pushing of technology forward. Building something that does SSTO and goes from Tokyo to New York in an hour, will require serious advances. And these advances could have (and probably would have) a huge impact in other areas. With a rocket, you just use refined 50s and 60s technology. In fact, if you consider that most rocket designs are still based on the V2, this would in fact be 40s technology. Sure reliable and cheap. Save it for Arianne Space. But for NASA, who's initial setup was to push the envelope as it were in space and space related technologies, its a bit disappointing to take a BACKWARDS step.
Anyways here's a neat little page that talks about past and future launch vehciles. Notice that there aren't alot of rockets.
I am very optimistic about this endeavor. Is anyone else going to be disappointed with a vehicle that is not a standard takeoff and landing vehicle (instead of a multiple rocket/stage, shuttle like vehicle)? It would seem to be the next logical step. Apollo was rocket launched and uncontrolled descent. The shuttle was multi-stage rocket launch, but a controlled, gliding descent, re-usable vehicle. The next logical step, to me, woud be a vehicle that is more aircraft like, losing the rocket launch all together. Is the technology there? Will it be in 10 years?
Just a thought........Argh. The laws of science be a harsh mistress.
I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but capsules are designed specifically to bring things down from space. Is it rather that they don't have the payload that a Shuttle has? For some things, you might be able to get away with spray painting some ablative coating on the material and decelerating it into the atmosphere.
(Begin simulated "Average Slashdotter" post:)
He's Rutan - he can do anything! Using his faerie elf-magic, he and his team of mystical gnomes, working in their fortress of solitude, made the miraculous SPACE SHIP ONE, a craft that truly embarassed NASA because it got to orbit for only a couple thousand dollars, when NASA said it took billions. They're so embarrassed that they're not saying anything!
It's always great fun to imagine what could be, but until the money for this actually shows up, there's little point in getting excited.
This is, after all, the administration which just cut Hubble loose. Remember?
When I heard about the DC-X approach to reusable spacecraft reentry and landing, my reaction was "that is so Buck Rogers" meaning that I didn't think that landing on rocket thrust made sense.
But the Soyuz lands tail first on rocket thrust (it has braking rockets for the final ground contact to supplement the parachute), and that has advantages over wings and wheels.
So saying Buck Rogers should mean a solution without wings and wheels.
Spoken like a true Nasa zealot. It took the guys at Scaled composites to show you that they could build a cheap light, ingenious low-earth-orbit vehicle and launch it cheaply from its mother plane.
Spoken like yet another noob who has no clue what he's talking about.
SpaceShip One was NOT an ingenious low-earth-orbit vehicle. It was not a LEO vehicle at all.
Usually at this early phase of a program the requirements are not too specific, because the funding office is looking for new ideas and approaches to their problem. They want the contractors to present them with a number of solutions from which they can say we like this approach or not. Or this solution is a bit too expensive for us and so forth. As as an engineer in the field I can say this can be somewhat frustrating at times, but it's just part of a process. Further details are eventually provided as the program advances.
I would consider choosing the underdog, but it would depend on whether the major players had long histories of going over budget, missing deadlines and failing to deliver the products. Since both Boeing and Lockheed Martin have these sorts of histories then it seems like the underdog is looking mighty competitive. You might save a bundle and actually end up with something that flies, unlike the billions that we dumped into the other recent rocket programs (X-33, X-34, etc). The recent successes of the private spaceflight have shown that the underdogs are at least capable of making hardware that works for a fraction of what the government can do it for. If the first flight of Space-X's Falcon goes well then there would seem to be very little reason for not choosing the underdog.
Isn't this what the Lockheed Martin was doing with the X-33 and the VentureStar.
How about getting that project back on track. I don't want to see my taxes pay for more design studies. Put funding back in to the Venture Star X-33 program.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
We developed an entire space program in a decade, but it's going to take 10 years for us to fund and create a friggin CAPSULE? The booster is already developed and needs little to be man-rated. The cost should be minimal.
I used to be a big fan of NASA, but over the years, I have come to believe they are actually impeding, not accelerating the cause of manned spaceflight. Rutan has built a sub-orbital vessle for about 22 million total. He is working on an orbital, reusable version that will probably cost him 100-150 million to develop, and he'll have it done by 2010. How on EARTH can NASA actually look the oublic in the face and say that working with the best contractors available, it will cost them 7 billion dollars to make the same, and they won't have it done till 2014? How many kids considering careers as astronauts will give up and do something else because their window will be closed with this long lapse in maned spaceflight?
Letters to my congresspersons and all that, but as usual, I doubt greatly if anything will be done. Boeing will recieve a new piece of pork to chew on, NASA will be able to continue it's "exploration" oof LEO (all they do) while I still pay for it all with my taxes. I wish Rutan would have a public offering. At least Scaled Composites ALWAYS get's results!
"Curiosity killed the cat, but for a while I was a suspect."- Steven Wright
Thanks Macross! I thought I was the only one that immediately thought of Macross Plus after reading the article.
OR another way to get objects into space would be a huge coil gun, the coilgun or railgun designs proposed, article in the ieee transaction on magnetics vol 39 no 1 january 2003
...you know they will.
America's Space Prize is a competition.
Seastead this.
So, NASA decided that there's nothing left for them to do as far as providing transport for the construction and staffing of Earth-orbital infrastructure -- the X-Prize folk are going to take over and do it as a business? Good news, but commercialization is going to take some time.
I suppose, as long as it takes to create a new space vehicle, there'll be time for the businessmen to get their act together, but what I saw just seemed to completely ignore all the uses of space travel other than going-to-look-at-alien-rocks and it kinda left me wondering what the plan is for all that other stuff.
That doesn't stop NASA from basically pulling each shuttle apart and putting it back together after every mission.
Tsukasa: All I really want, is to be left alone...
The unemployment rate is 5.4%, The american dollar is losing value because of the weak economy, to the point that it's dangering the Canadian economy. America has been cutting its interest rates to spur growth, and avoid deflation. I have no vested interest in American politics, but America is in a recession- wake up.
I think you've been reading too many Paul Krugman articles. I'll address your points specifically:
the unemployment rate is 5.4%
I am assuming you are making the assertion this is a doom and gloom number. However, historical facts eliminate this assertion.
Notice how the peak is two years gone, and all of 2004 has been a downward slope since then.
The american dollar is losing value because of the weak economy,
I think you should provide evidence of this weak economy. I've written on slashdot several times about this before, but I'll say it again. Economics is not a zero sum game. People are currently calling the dollar "weak". This means that people trading with US companies get MORE goods for their money than they would with buying from other countries. This causes people to buy MORE American goods, infact European businesses were scared about the holiday shopping season because so many were buying American goods rather than European ones.
America has been cutting its interest rates to spur growth, and avoid deflation.
Growth like the productivity of American non-farm workers that is skyrocketting.
Growth like Real GDP(inflation adjusted) has been on the rise for 4 years and is currently it's highest since 1999.
but America is in a recession- wake up.
ah yes, but I digress... we are in a recession. I'll just sweep the numbers under the table, those can't possibly mean anything.
I know it's popular to be "down on/with America" these days. But the least you could do is actually take a position that has some facts to support it.
- "Never let a computer tell me shit." - DelTron Zero
Are they hell 'far better'! Before you kids with your fancy schmancy satellites we got things like "maybe it will rain tomorrow", now we get "OMFG! Global Climate Change! We are all doomed because of that evil Bush and his Nazi Republican party!".
'far better' my ass!
They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
Disclaimer: INAE (I'm not an economist, but I do work for a trading firm).
Actually, the fed has been raising interest rates (as a matter of fact, another rise today to 2.5).
In pure GDP terms, the US is still the king of the world. But there are several underlying problems with the economy (not a recession, but foundation problems) that are showing up in part in the currency value.
Americans, for example, seem to be allergic to saving. 2/3 of the economy is consumer spending, the current accounts deficit is huge, and a huge part of that consumption is being bankrolled by foreign capital. This is, obviously, unsustainable, particularly with the weakening dollar. And with that kind of comsumption, the US will be hard pressed to get a trading surplus, even with the weaker currency.
Another problem caused by the falling dollar is that it's starting rumbles about it being dropped as the world's reserve currency. The yuan isn't exactly the problem, either, because although China buys butt loads of treasuries to keep the yuan low, the fact of the matter is that it probably wouldn't rise by that much even if unpegged. China only makes about 15% of value added profit on its exports, because it also needs to import a huge amount of capital and raw materials in order to produce the goods it ships. What this purchasing of treasuries is actually doing is keeping the prices of the bonds elevated, so it's easier for the US to issue more debt, and with the current decline of the dollar, that debt becomes cheaper and cheaper to pay, which also stimulates more bond issuance. God, the jump in the number treasury auctions last year was enormous!
The US isn't in a recession, not by a long shot. Again, in pure GDP growth, it's still the prize cow of the world economy. But if the US keeps spending itself like it is, it's only a matter of time before it loses its leadership position. For now, the saving grace of the American economy is that the country is still the best place in the world for investing, due mostly to the huge amounts of money flowing through the country, the very flexible financial markets, and the ease of doing business here. But with the weakening dollar and the deficit, that's becoming less and less so, and the US risks losing that edge at some point. The current situation is an unstable equilibrium that will be settled eventually, one way or another, IMHO.
Was dissapointed to see most of the proposals were hastily put together and didn't feature anything new. They were all apollo command modules. It's not clear if any of these companies are taking seriously this crew exploration vehicle.
The lack of creativity is reminiscent of all business in certain countries. There's an attitude that creativity can be bought from somewhere else and if no-one from elsewhere wants to sell creativity then just keep living with 40 year old technology.
1. Improvements in our understanding of physics
2. Improvements in our ability to understand our own planet and its processes
3. Satelites, satelites: TV accross the globe, instant access via phone, satelite phones, DirecTV, huricane warning systems
How many of the zillions were for these things I mention. Compare that to the little spent on outer space exploration (Mars probes,etc).
The biggest waste in space is sending people there. Where ever people have been involved it has thusfar been wasteful in the sense of bringing little tangible benefit.
Considering that President Bush is only the second President since his father, this isn't much of an accomplishment.
Just because you sold your soul to the devil that needn't make you a teetotaler. --The Devil and Daniel Webster
so if NASA really wants a replacement for
/.ers hear about
the SST (shuttle), they need to open up
the competition quite a bit more.
Freightliner is one of the preeminent
long haul truck manufacturers in the USA.
I don't have the statistics, but a ballpark
guestimate would be that Freightliner has
transported goods the equivalent of a trip
from Earth to the Moon 100 times, without
having even one truck fall out of the sky
and burn up.
I don't know how far along Freightliner is
with their diesel/ion drive, but I would
trust it more than some microwave-powered
painted solar sail. Of course, the "Space
Elevator" projects might someday become a viable
alternative, if only Westinghouse got involved.
The only way any serious money will go to new
space transort technologies under the current
regime is if some of the "old-time" corporations
can feed at the government tit. The major
defense contractors wanted money for robotic
development, and hence the "robotic" servicing
mission to the HST (Hubble Space Telescope)
was born. Coincidentally,
new robotic warrior drones that will be making
their way into the Iraqi conflict. Maybe not
such a big coincidence, heh?
Anyone else tired of these ill-informed Bush worshippers popping up out of the woodwork to revise history every time someone dares to utter their lord and savior's name?