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."
At a certain point it becomes counter-productive. Just tell me which one to click on to get the article.
No doubt the underdog will come up with a far cheaper design that would save Nasa millions, however how many congresional panels will the underdogs be able to control to win this ?
"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.
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?
Good question, they'll have to jump hurdles in order to get over the clear "favorite" that is NASA. Realistically though, if they aren't given the opportunity, I think they'll still make an attempt on their level.
Hardware components for sale!!!
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!
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.
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.
If a small unknown company can successfully make a useable, safe, reliable CEV, I highly doubt they would want to "sell" it to our government. They would just use it themselves and make billions in the process. If, however, a small unknown company successfully makes a somewhat useable, not all that safe, piece of junk, then yes, they would jump all the hurdles they can to sell it to the idiots currently defiling the once proud position of public servant.
"I don't need drugs to enjoy this, just to enhance it" - Otto
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.
Cheap only accounts for one small criterion in the selection. I would imagine that experience would be of far greater importance. Not that the underdog shouldn't win, or doesn't have any experience, but if you were hiring someone to manage a critical huge project for your company would you hire somebody with 20 years experience doing this type of work or a new kid out of school who built a toy model of what you need for a science fair?
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".
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
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.
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.
Depends. Did he win the competition, including safety benchmarks?
I don't read AC A human right
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.
For now at least. Until they merge into Boeheed.
#include "humorous_pop_culture_reference.h"
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 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
It's been a while since my grade school science class but I believe that the more important aspect of location is it's distance from the poles (or proximity to the equator). Most space launched items use the earth's rotation to offer additional "thrust" into space.
t m#q62Someone who has more credentials than me agrees.
http://www-spof.gsfc.nasa.gov/stargaze/StarFAQ3.h
In Soviet Russia, asses suck this joke.
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
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.
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 shant repeat what the sibling poster posted ( although I believe that that is true... ). I
Another consideration is that when using the Florida launch sites, the rockets go out over the Atlantic ocean. There are fewer people and things to destroy "downrange" this way, in case of failure.
emt 377 emt 4
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.
Instead of rooting for the underdog, I'm going to root for a company that can actually get it done.
Would you trust your heart surgery to someone whose only experience was fixing a damaged blood vessel on a mouse (but charged less!), or would you take the surgeon who has conducted hundreds of real heart surgeries on people (but charges more)?
Rutan has not done any *real* spacework. Every design choice he made was for simplicity over scalability. An epoxy skin (can't scale due to increased heat to dissipate, and scalable methods are not only far harder to do, but completely different construction methods). A low ISP/high tank mass engine (can't scale due to the inherent low ISP and high tank mass; real scalable engines are far more complex beasts - even the relatively simple Russian kerosene engines make SS1's engine look like a McDonalds happy meal prize). Etc.
Why? Because he didn't have the budget nor, especially, the experience in working with more advanced methods.
Now we want this person - the equivalent of our example "mouse repair surgeon" - to be performing "heart surgery" on the entire US manned space program? I'm rooting for the "overdog", thank you. I want a craft that works.
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
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.
You have a very valid concern. My concern is that if you give it to the big boys it won't get done. Not because they can't do it, but because they run so far over budget that the project is simply killed. Why do I think they will run over budget? Defense budget is about to get squeezed hard, which means projects will be cut, which means engineers will be laid-off and managers (with the higher overhead) will be shuffled into "live" programs. This will be a live program. Managers with experience in areas such as tactical communcations will now be added to bloat the command structure of teams dealing with flight control (hey control, communication they're almost the same thing) and since they are managers and completely out of their element they will feel the need to piss on something to mark their territory. Schedule slip, budget slip, next step cancellation. On top of that add the almost criminal tendency of business development drones to over promise capability and "under promise" cost and schedule and you have a recipe for complete failure. I know I sound pessemistic; however, after 5 years as a software engineer working for one of the big boys and now one of the smaller def. contractors I prefer to think of myself as a realist. My proposal, let the underdog be the Prime and sub out the component systems to the contractors (defence and otherwise, US and otherwise) who are the best in that particular field. This endevor should not be used as corporate welfare to keep otherwise unemployable managers employed.
There is no reset button in life; however, there are bonus levels.
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
OK, but what space "craft that works" can you point to from outfits like Lockheed or Boeing for the past 20 years? We spent quite a bit on X-plane development that never produced results.
Rutan's a piker, but there must be some mid-sized players out there, capable with real projects, who might become the next Lockheed and actually deliver results for a decade or two.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Bah, too cynical. It might be Raytheon or Northrop Grumman after all. ;)
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Yep, it's no accident that our two big space centers are on the south end of the east coast and the south end of the eastern gulf coast. The combination of lattitude and launching over the sea is where the payoff is.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Lockheed:
Many, many satellites and satellite systems (including propulsion for stationkeeping), including Hubble
Many rocket engines, both for spacecraft and weaponry
Various ballistic missiles (and anti-ballistic missiles)
A few large-scale rocket boosters
The Athena series of rockets (private)
The Atlas series of rockets
The L-1011 used with the Pegasus rocket
Tons and tons of experience with craft interacting with the atmosphere and advanced materials work (these are the people who brought us aircraft like the Blackbird)
A whole lot more that I don't have time to dig up; I've probably missed a half dozen rockets.
Boeing:
Lots of satellites
Lots of missiles and rocket engines
Taurus rocket (contracted to Orbital)
The Delta series of rockets
All sorts of advanced materials and components.
I spent even less time looking up Boeing craft than Lockheed, so I'm probably missing a lot more. They get more astronautix hits than Lockheed - I've probably missed a dozen or so
Summary: If you don't know something, don't assume that your guess is right. Look it up.
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
Summary: If you don't know something, don't assume that your guess is right. Look it up.
:) Some people understand how hard rocket science is, and are still critical of the current players. But you missed my point (or maybe I was unclear): how much of that is new technology, invented within the last 20 years. The Blackbird was a long time ago.
You seem to like to assume people are idiots Rei, or at least that anyone critical of the space program is an idiot.
The Delta IV and IV-heavy were good engineering, and Lockheed presumably has some neat military stuff I can't find out about, but all I see are engineering refinements of 60's tech.
Now, I like the idea of using refined 60's tech to make a robust modern rocket, but I wouldn't want one of these guys to be the general contractor. The various space-plane research efforts of the past 20 years have all been disappointments. It's time to give someone else a chance to be a visionary.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
America's Space Prize is a competition.
Seastead this.
You asked for craft that works. I delievered. You now accept that they do have craft that works in the past 20 years - lots of them. Right? I rest my case.
Delta IV-heavy is a great craft. Its cost per kilogram is amazing for a rocket built in a first-world nation. The atlas series shouldn't underestimated either. In short, Boeing and Lockheed *have* been doing good work in the past 20 years. You have no right to pretend that they haven't (not that Delta and Atlas have been their only projects - far from it).
Most of these companies' work is military. They've designed more rockets than you can shake a stick at in the past 20 years.
I only mentioned blackbird to show what their materials and engine tech was like decades ago. In 20 years, we'll get declassified as to what sort of materials and engine tech they're using now. These companies do excellent materials engineering work that a small startup couldn't even dream of because they don't have the infrastructure.
How much is "new tech", "invented in the last 20 years"? The vast majority of their core rocket series. The engines used by both the Delta and Atlas rocket series' didn't even exist back then.
Perhaps you mean on a more fundamental level - say, the component level? Mostly new there. The alloys, coatings and other materials used many engine parts didn't even exist back then. Just the other day I was reading about a cheap nozzle throat that Lockheed patented made of a ceramic that has shown almost zero erosion - a critial step in lowering engine maintainence. They just cast it and fit it - a whole lot easier than carbon-carbon.
Just because you see a column of flame belching out of the back of an engine doesn't mean that what's "under the hood" is at all the same. Modern engines far outperform their 1960s counterparts. Modern propellant tanks (which more and more are based on lightweight alloys, such as lithium-aluminum) also far outperform their 1960s counterparts.
I mean, seriously, what do you want - nuclear powered rockets? What will it take for you to call something new?
Freeze Ray. Tell your friends.
administrator of NASA will announce his retirement
2 51.shtml?tid=160&tid=103&tid=14&tid=219
Don't you read Slashdot?
http://science.slashdot.org/science/04/12/12/2328
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
"Pulls another?" You, Sir, are at best stupid. The fact that we hadn't had such a disaster up until that point, given the number of missions run, is quite a feat! Let me spell it out for you: WE'RE TAKING TONS OF STEEL, METAL, PLASTIC, AND OTHER MATERIALS, STRAPPING IT TO A HIGHLY EXPLOSIVE CAPSULE, FILLING IT WITH HUMANS AND SHOOTING IT INTO SPACE! Get it? SHOOTING IT INTO SPACE! ...INTO SPACE!...not over to Japan, not from New York to L.A.....INTO SPACE! And we've done this at least A HUNDRED TIMES! ......A HUNDRED! ....INTO SPACE! This isn't you on your skate board doing rim-spins in an empty swimming pool. This is LAUNCHING HUMANS INTO SPACE! Now go rest and be glad heartbeats and breathing are involuntary impulses.
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.
I think we're talking past each other. The big names do fine engineering work - stipulated. I'm just pointing out that recent attempts at revolutionary designs have been disappointing. None of the spaceplane approaches have worked out, for example, and most of the recent improvements have been basically "better parts that fit in the same place in the same machine".
Great incremental refinement, but I wouldn't turn to these guys for a new vision of how to get to space, as they have a long history of expensive boondoggles when asked for a new vision. That's not really surprising, given where the likely returns on investment would be.
I'm hoping there's a mid-sized player out there, someone who could bet the company on something as radical as a spaceplane or nuclear rocket (sigh, if only) and actually carry it off, becoming the next Boeing or Lockheed. I'm not sure who's in the huge gap between the big established players and the rich hobbyists, however; maybe there just isn't anyone.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
All true - so why don't we launch from the top of moana loa volcano in Hawaii?
I guess even rocket guys have to draw the line at destroying those beautiful mountains...
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
Maybe we should *make* a mountain!
Invade some South American countries, so that we are *very* close to the equator, make a nice big mountain right there, with launch facilities on the top, lots of access roads, aircraft landing facilities, etc, etc. We'll pick someplace that isnt too good looking for the site.
emt 377 emt 4
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.
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?
Yeah...I was a bit outside with that one. But hey, it was more for him...the slow one. :)
By the time the Saturn V was 1 mile in the air, it was also moving at a very high speed. Simply starting from a high altitude doesn't give you much of an advantage. Climbing to orbital altitude is far easier than reaching orbit.
In addition, the fuel is one of the cheapest parts of a launch. Using a carrier plane makes things far more mechanically and bureaucratically complex, puts additional stresses on the vehicle that a pure vertical launch vehicle wouldn't need to withstand, and limits you to what an aircraft can lift, all in the name of saving a small amount (relative to the total amount required) of fuel which would almost certainly be cheaper than all the overhead of launching from a flying aircraft or a mountaintop.
And as others mentioned, you can get a bigger boost simply by moving toward the equator. An equatorial launch platform positioned at sea would provide security as well, from bad weather (very rare on the equator, especially compared to coastal Florida) or deliberate interference.
We don't need "something as radical as a spaceplane or nuclear rocket" We need a system to safely and cheeply move people into space. Just make a shuttle 10% of it's old size and we will save a TUN of money. The whole idea that your shuttle system should take up cargo is a huge waste. Just dock in space with whatever you want them to work with and you can use rockets which are a lot cheeper to move stuff into orbit than any space plane.