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! --
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?
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.
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.
Actually, it's the "red tape" that makes the smaller contractors certain to lose. You need a small army of people just to manage the blizzard of forms and documents required, let alone do the real work of researching and developing a vehicle. And don't think that NASA's going to let them get away with a bunch of FEAs and flight sims, they're genna have to build and crush a few airframes to get real data. Parent's not entirely wrong, though, a smaller company won't have to share the overhead of managing other divisions and projects as well as pay the salaries of people who have been since wings were made of fabric....
Where am I to go, now that I've gone too far?
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".
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.
The space plane concept wasn't bad, and it still isnt. One of the main problems with it though was because of constant budget cuts to the program NASA had to keep on taking out certain features of the shuttle which eventually made it what it is now. Some of the original concepts for the spaceshuttle were truly fascinating and much more effecient then the current shuttle.
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.
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.
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
Build really big solar energy collectors, put them into space, and beam the energy to Earth with microwaves.
Or just use a giant collector mirror and convert to electricity on Earth - such a design could also be used as orbital beam-weapon.
Inspiration. People need something to look up to. They need heroes. Currently, movie- rock- and sports stars are fulfulling this role, and of course this leads to a culture completely obsessed with entertainment - it's not the only reason for this problem, but it is a contributing factor.
It's a bit like politicians starting wars to drown their problems under the flood of patriotism, but channeled with a positive goal, rather than negative.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
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.
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.
You are right about the location, your full of shit otherwise. http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lehmanj/ethics/srb.htm
Political Compromises in the Contract The nature of the political connections between the Space Program and prominent figures of the state of Utah has long been debated. Utah Senators Jake Garn and Frank Moss have been active supporters of the Space Program, particularly when it benefits Utah-based industries. There is nothing wrong with this; Representatives of Congress are expected to be interested in furthering the activities of their constituents. The real cloud of suspicion hung over former Morton Thiokol employees who worked for NASA at the time of the contract award, and the head of NASA itself, Dr. James Fletcher [4]. Dr. Fletcher served as the President of the University of Utah from 1964 through 1971. His connections with the state and its industries were numerous and far reaching, but he denied that these connections had any influence on his decision to award the SRB contract to Morton Thiokol. However, many people who observed the contract award process remained unconvinced. Fletcher's inability to provide solid reasons for the selection of Morton Thiokol over Aerojet did nothing to ease the controversy surrounding the decision; his reasons were vague and referred to minor points in the advisory committee's study. NASA's refusal to discuss whether former Morton Thiokol employees had been part of the advisory committee simply fueled speculation of wrong-doing. Whether Morton Thiokol used political influence to secure the SRB contract has never been determined, but lack of clear answers caused many to conclude that the contract may have been awarded improperly[1].p/)
Crushing my karma one post at a time.
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.
- infrared body temperature masurement
- Left Ventricular Assist Device (heart pump)
- The LORAD Stereo Guide Breast Biopsy System
- Tempur
- Tang
- Medical imaging technologies using digital imaging and processing techniques, such as MRI and CAT scans.
- Smoke detectors were first used in NASA's Skylab orbiting space station in 1973
- bar codes
- Lifeshear, a pyrotechnic-based cutting tool
- Cordless appliances were first used by Apollo astronauts to drill into the moon's surface and collect rock and soil samples
- Excimer laser technology.
Nasa spinoffs has moreDyslexics have more fnu.
We should go into space and explore simply because it is there.
Where has our Manifest Destiny gone these days? We all would rather watch American Idol than ponder the real stars. What a shame.
--- witty signature
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
You forget that there was this little investment going on in Vietnam at the time.
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.
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.
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.
"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.