NASA Prepares Discovery for Launch

Oh finally! by ForestGrump · 2005-02-12 00:53 · Score: 3, Funny

They can finally service hubble, instead of letting it fall into the ocean.

Grump
no, i'm being sarcastic.

--
Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.

Re:Oh finally! by Keamos · 2005-02-12 01:05 · Score: 2, Insightful

The problem with servicing the Hubble is that Congress is fucking retarded--they'll get rid of Hubble, saving a tiny bit of money, and then 5 years down the road they'll build another one, for 100x the cost it would've been to just service the Hubble in the first place.
Re:Oh finally! by luvirini · 2005-02-12 01:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Nope, as NASA has become a bunch of scared old folks basically. Every mission they do has to follow a set of safety standards, among them the fact that the shuttle has to have the option of evacuating to the international space station. Hubble's orbit makes this impossible, thus no direct resque missions.
Re:Oh finally! by slashnutt · 2005-02-12 01:42 · Score: 1

Maybe the next Hubble would be built around servicing from a UAV (USV unmanned space vehicle) like device. The USV could have some really small rockets just big enough to dilver the fuel or whatever. The Hubble like device could have mechanisms to grab the other vheicle and ground crews could control the replacement actions or a the robot could do the servicing it's self.

You are right - building a robot serviceable device would probably cost a 100x but it might just be the right way to go?
Re:Oh finally! by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 01:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

You are laboring under the practical geek perspective. You definitely aren't seeing it from the congressional perspective. Their job is not to do as much science while spending as little money as possible. That would be practical. They're political. Their job is to spend as many tax dollars as possible, in their own districts. So, they make deals. I'll vote for your pork if you vote for my pork. Taxpayers vote for the biggest pork politicians, and the cycle repeats.
The only cure is to stop voting for more pork, and I don't see that happening. As a nation, we're far too short sighted and self interested.
So, if congress is the boss because it controls the purse strings, how do you think NASA will behave? Just like any employee, they quickly realize the boss's goal and agenda and make it their own. So, the people who manage NASA are not in the business of cost effective space exploration. In fact, quite the opposite. They're in the business of spending tax dollars in several congressional districts.
And that's why we need private space exploration and development, and we finally have it. Many companies now see the possibility and they have the vision and motivation to do what NASA couldn't.
It's sad that NASA did so much in the early years and then the political process ruined it late in the Apollo era. Despite some very bright scientists, engineers and astronauts, they just can't help being a government bureaucracy. Why? As usual, it has everything to do with the movement of little green pieces of paper. Lots of little green pieces of paper.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:Oh finally! by ngc.for.life · 2005-02-12 02:41 · Score: 1

If you were on one of these shuttles, I bet you would welcome safety standarts that keep your ass alive up there if something goes wrong.
Of course, you can always say that it's unlikely - Which helps you exactly nada if it does.
Re:Oh finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 03:17 · Score: 0

Unfortunantley the first mission is to bring supplies to the space station instead of doing something useful, like repairing hubble. We could have had multiple kick-ass replacement telescopes or other unmanned missions in already if we hadn't been so caught-up with the ISS. let's raise a petition to deorbit the ISS and start returning some real value for our money. Cargo supplies!!!! WTF!!!!!!!!!!
Re:Oh finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 04:45 · Score: 1, Insightful

If you were on one of these shuttles, I bet you would welcome safety standarts that keep your ass alive up there if something goes wrong.

I suspect most astronauts don't personally mind a 1% risk of death per mission. But if there's one more accident then the shuttle program will definitely be over. Congress would probably require NASA to be reorganized, and manned spaceflight put on the back burner.
Re:Oh finally! by Citizen+of+Earth · 2005-02-12 04:45 · Score: 1

It's always sad to watch a scientific organization becoming increasingly bureaucratic. It won't be NASA that puts a man on Mars.
Re:Oh finally! by endersdouble · 2005-02-12 06:19 · Score: 2, Interesting

....and private companies which have no interest in science at all, but instead are *officially* in pursuit of the bottom line, as compared to congress which at least in principle should want to do science the right way, will do that much more science? I'm not saying private spaceflight is evil; it's just that privitization isn't the solution to everything. Virigin Galactic or the like, frankly, doesn't give a shit what the universe looked like 14 billion years ago, and have even less reason than Congress to fund a telescope to find out.
Re:Oh finally! by node+3 · 2005-02-12 09:25 · Score: 1

You post is highly unbalanced. I don't know if that's what you meant to portray, but it is how it came across.

And that's why we need private space exploration and development, and we finally have it. Many companies now see the possibility and they have the vision and motivation to do what NASA couldn't.

We need both private and public space programs (insomuch as we "need" any space program). Private enterprise does things that are difficult to do under public programs and vice versa.

Your post also strongly implies that no good comes from "pork", and that it's impossible to do anything right under public projects. This is clearly and embarrassingly false.

I think a far more accurate generalization would be that private (specifically, capitalist) enterprise tends towards the most efficient ways of doing things, and public (specifically, democratic) is crucial for doing those things that private enterprise can't or won't do.

All enterprise tends to try to protect itself (for example, NASA wants to be the only way into space, and MS wants to be the only way you get onto the Internet), but despite your cynicism, people on both sides of the coin take actions against their own short-term interests for the betterment of all.
Re:Oh finally! by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 11:55 · Score: 2, Insightful

You're right in saying that the successful commercial ventures are not going to have lofty goals. They'll concentrate on the bottom line and compete to offer the best services at the best prices. Where science wins is on the cost end. A university astronomy department can build a satellite to study cosmic microwave background radiation and try to learn about the origin of the universe, but it does them no good if NASA only accepts one external science package a year to fill a payload. It's not likely that a university will get a 50 million dollar grant to pay for a commercial launch when they're competing with DoD spy satellites for low volume launch capabilities. But, when space is commercialized, launching your satellite might cost 50 thousand dollars in a commodity space launch market, and scientists can have a few bake sales and maybe get a small grant and fly their hardware.
Free markets work. It's only a problem when monopolies are allowed to squeeze everyone else out through unfair competition.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:Oh finally! by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 12:29 · Score: 1

Your post is highly unbalanced.
Hey, so's the author.
Your post also strongly implies that no good comes from "pork"
I think pork largely exists for its own reason, and any spinoffs or technological developments that occur are the result of determination at the bottom of the organizational structure, instead of any desire for science at the top of the org chart. Where the big decisions are made, in congress and among their cohorts at the upper echelon of NASA, I think the important part is how much money is spent, and which congressional districts get the pork diner with all the trimmings. What I was trying to convey is this. If you're trying to accomplish a scientific or technological goal, a bureaucracy is probably only slightly more effective than throwing suitcases full of money into rush hour traffic and hoping someone will magically develop your project for you. Bureaucracies are very inefficient. Free markets are very efficient. I'm not saying that no good comes from pork. I'm saying that relatively little good comes from pork when compared with much less money spent in the entrepreneurial market.
public (specifically, democratic) is crucial for doing those things that private enterprise can't or won't do.
I think the best way to accomplish our space related goals would be a very small public organization that set the goals and proided funding for science missions by awarding merit based competitive contracts, with all the work done in the private sector. Write the proposal and hold their feet to the fire. None of this ridiculous military bidding where it's common to have 1X and 2X cost overruns. You submitted a bid and got the contract, now deliver. We could spend the same amount on space exploration we are now and we'd get 10X the return on our investment. All I'm saying is, spend the pork wisely. At least get some good results as you prop up a local economy.
It costs NASA about $500 million to fly one mission on the shuttle, and that is only the direct operating cost. The development costs were enormous, and were paid twenty years ago. After twenty years, this should be a mature technology, but they've flown so few missions, a little over a hundred, that they're scrapping the program late in the test phase. Contrast this with SpaceShipOne. Scaled Composites spent about $30 million dollars to completely develop their space flight hardware and fly three missions into space. Granted, there is a lot of difference between a suborbital flight and the high earth orbit the shuttle can achieve, but it still seems like the Scaled Composites approach is orders of magnitude more cost effective than NASA. If NASA had to recreate their Redstone program, even after all their experience, $30 million would just about pay for their paper clips.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:Oh finally! by FleaPlus · 2005-02-12 13:19 · Score: 1

The problem with servicing the Hubble is that Congress is fucking retarded--they'll get rid of Hubble, saving a tiny bit of money, and then 5 years down the road they'll build another one, for 100x the cost it would've been to just service the Hubble in the first place.

The problem is a brand-new one actually costs less than a repair, and has greater capabilities:

http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/0 5/2210251
Re:Oh finally! by FleaPlus · 2005-02-12 13:22 · Score: 1

You're forgetting about folks in the private sector who wish to pursue space activities for philanthropic reasons, like Elon Musk's plans to put an experimental greenhouse on Mars.

Granted, he's decided to focus instead on reducing launch costs for the time being via SpaceX, but once those launch costs are reduced, I predict we'll see philanthropic space ventures like that appear much more often.
Re:Oh finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 13:54 · Score: 0

Look, what else are you gonna do with the trainloads of people universities graduate every year? They expect jobs in return for their student debt. So you have to create jobs.
Re:Oh finally! by mpthompson · 2005-02-12 14:20 · Score: 1

If NASA can robotically attach rocket to the Hubble to bring it down in controlled manner into the Ocean, couldn't it use the same rocket to simply boost the Hubble into an orbit more friendly to a shuttle service mission? The crew of the shuttle can then evacuate to the ISS if needed during the service mission.

Perhaps the orbit of the ISS is less desireable from scientific standpoint for the Hubble, but it's a whole lot better than a hunk of twisted metal below 10,000 feet of water.
Re:Oh finally! by chrome · 2005-02-12 15:24 · Score: 1

no, but they might fund telescopes to help them identify asteroids with high levels of rare raw materials that command a high price here on earth and would be worth sending space-bourne mining after.

They might also fund a telescope that could be leased out, profitably, to astronomers around the globe. Depending on the quality of the telescope, astronomers can find budget for telescope time.
Re:Oh finally! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 17:52 · Score: 0

do the servicing it's self

"itself". Jesus Christ.
Re:Oh finally! by Retric · 2005-02-14 11:44 · Score: 1

The problem with trying to get private enterprise to bring down the cost of entry into space is the huge upfront costs associated with building space ships. If you wanted to send a few million tons of stuff to geosynchronous orbit we might end up with a system that goes something like this.

Stage 1 standard jet to mach 1 - 3.
Stage 2 ramjet / scram jet to mach 15.
Stage 3 rocket to LEO / mach 22.
Stage 4 ION drive from LEO to geosynchronous orbit.

At which point the cost of getting to geosynchronous orbit would end up 1-10% of today's costs. BUT, nobody wants to send that much stuff into orbit. Which means there is no point in spending huge amounts of cash on R&D when you can just spend a few mill and get a rocket to send you to orbit and enough insurance to cover you incase of failure. Hell the space shuttle could easily send 20 people up on every trip (Minor change in the cargo hold would add space for that many people) but we just don't need to send vary many people into space at any one point in time.

I mean let's say you could send people into LEO for 3 days at 300k vs. 2 million per person do you really think all that many more people would go on the trip? And how many of those trips would it take to pay for 10billion in R&D.

I have been toying with the idea that you build a ION drive system that carries cargo back and forth from LEO to geosynchronous orbit for a while but I just don't see the need to move enough stuff up there to pay for that kind of R&D.
Re:Oh finally! by Long-EZ · 2005-02-14 14:52 · Score: 1

nobody wants to send that much stuff into orbit.

It's true that nobody wants to send that much stuff into orbit at the current rate of $35,000 per kilogram. That's the Ariane price (which may halve soon, now that their new heavy lift Ariane 5 has had it's first successful launch). The existing Ariane cost is about 11% of what the shuttle costs to operate ($54M vs. $500M).
The space launch market is currently soft. There isn't much demand, but not because there isn't much desire, they've simply priced themselves out of business for volume applications.
I don't think a large jet, followed by a scramjet, followed by a rocket, then ion drive to geostationary orbit is the answer. We need simpler solutions, not more stages, more complexity, and more stuff to go wrong. There is a basic equipment weight for each stage, so you end up carrying so much weight in different types of engines that there is little cargo capability remaining. Ion engines have a lot of promise for planetary missions. Add nuclear power and we could send probes to the nearest stars, although technology may impove enough that we pass them with faster ships in the near future.
I mean let's say you could send people into LEO for 3 days at 300k vs. 2 million per person do you really think all that many more people would go on the trip?

Oh hell yeah. Tito and Shuttleworth already paid Russia $20M each for a few days in orbit. There are a lot of people pre-signed for a sub-orbital flight on the successor to SS1 at about $200K each, and that would only be a few minutes of weightlessness and no orbiting. You could see most of southern California and some of the Pacific Ocean, which is a nice view, but not as nice as sitting in high orbit and watching the planet pass beneath you every 45 minutes. The tourist dollars are definitely there. That's what I meant by "volume applications", at least initially. Just as barnstorming paid the way in the early days of aviation, and we now have scheduled commercial service, air freight, and many other aviation industries, space tourism will pay the way until other space industries are born. After the short sub-orbital flights, there will be hotels in orbit. Zero g sex will pay for a lot of space development - heh heh. The potential for space development seems much greater to me than aviation.
It's a chicken and egg scenario. There are volume applications, but not at the current price. The numbers do work. With appropriate technology, the price can come WAY down to where it needs to be. Then, space flight will be a common event. But this would never happen if left to governments. Fortunately, it's no longer just the governments. The prices will come down, and I'm going to fulfill a lifelong dream and take a flight.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:Oh finally! by Retric · 2005-02-16 06:41 · Score: 1

Hmm, 2 basic ideas first is a multi stage craft worth it well mostly that's a design usage but adding a scram jet phase adds a lot of value... The other idea of the size of the market, well I am not saying you cant get 1000 people a year to spend 200k to get to orbit for a few days what I am saying is recouping your cost's for R&D to build something that can get people to orbit for 200K and still leave you with profit is going to happen.

Back to the first idea there are basically two problems with using rockets to get into orbit.
First off they need to take there own oxidizer which means the energy density of there fuel is really low. (4H + 2O > 2H2O) in both cases but in one your weight it 4 * 1 + 2 * 16 vs. 4 * 1 + 0 * 16.

The second problem is you lose 1G of acceleration most of the flight because your using your rocket to offset gravity vs. getting your lift from wings.

When you run the numbers your weight savings from not using oxidizer to mach 15 is huge. And can easily offset the weight of 2 sets of engines. Just running a few quick numbers if the ship's launch weight is 90% fuel it's spends a little under 1/2 that weight to get to mach 15(ignoring things like drag and the fact that you expend more energy fighting gravity at mach 0 than mach 15 you start getting savings from being close to orbital velocity) if you drop oxidizer from that you end up with a craft that cut's out 30% of its weight from lost oxidizer and lost fuel to accelerate that oxidizer (you lose some efficiency because you need to accelerate the oxidizer you do use to (from the air) to your speed and other factors.) And you gain some of that back from an extra engine but you also get to drop a lot of the craft's structural support's as it does not need to withstand the weight of that much fuel.

Ok sorry I started to ramble on there but you really need to run simulators to find out what the best design is and how much weight you really save it but I think it's easy to justify the value of a scram jet system. (Once we have one that works...)

As to ion drives that's more for cargo than anything else but from the numbers I have seen tossed around it makes sense to leave several ion drive craft in orbit and have each rocket bring the reaction mass for there drive systems and then go either solar or nuclear for fuel.
Anyway, this is more a guess than hard numbers but I am not trying to get you to spend any money so I am not going to spend the kind of time to build a convincing system. But, I am talking about a 3 stage to orbit craft which is not realy that complex vs existing sytems. That joins up with a final stage to move things around in orbit (Basicly a usefull space station.)
Re:Oh finally! by Long-EZ · 2005-02-16 07:24 · Score: 1

I agree with your statements about savings that more than offset some added mass, for example, not having to haul a lot of oxygen saves on the direct mass that needs to be accelerated, and saves again because the lowered mass requires less structure. This is all pointing in the direction I was trying to describe, where less is more.
What I'd argue against at this step is complexity. With the commercialization of space, we are starting over. The idea is not to develop a lot of great (and expensive) technology at first. The idea is to build simple and reliable (safe and easy to maintain) launch systems. As the cost comes down, the volume goes up, experience is gained, and incremental improvements can be made as the markets open up and the costs are justified. It's the "pay as you go" system of bootstrapping technology.
I do agree that a scramjet has a lot to offer, and, barring the space elevator, will be the best way to boost stuff into space. Rather than several separate systems, I think it'll turn out to be one versatile propulsion system. At low altitudes, air is dense, so there is plenty of oxygen to breathe and airspeeds will be low to reduce drag. A variable speed compressor stage can be used to gather the required air. At higher altitudes, the velocity increases and ram air can provide the needed compression (ramjet). At higher altitudes, onboard oxygen will be needed. But the same engine could provide thrust at all stages of the flight, with different induction systems. A computer would automatically change compressor speeds, deploy a ram air scoop, and provide supplementary or primary oxygen to keep the engine happy.
Once we have one that works...

Australia successfully tested a scramjet, and NASA has had two successful tests, with the second passing Mach 10, I believe. We're well along the way.
But first, we need cheap and safe access to space, and that's going to be simple, even if it does burn a bit more fuel in the process, like a single stage to orbit. A two stage system using an air launched rocket seems to offer the best combination of efficiency and existing technology.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.

BOFH? by jon855 · 2005-02-12 00:55 · Score: 0

I hate too much safety features, train them so they'll know what to do and of course make sure that the big o-ring's not cracked and no styrofoams gonna hit the wings or whatever that piece of white flying objects were before the explosions. I find it odd that NASA has all of the resources but they can't even keep their staff up to their par. It must be the BOFH who keeps doing this.

--
May /. rule the /.ing realm

Re:BOFH? by bogaboga · 2005-02-12 01:10 · Score: 1, Insightful

They (NASA) should emulate the Russians with simplicity. This reminds me of the US$10,000,000 dollar pen while the Russians simply used a pencil. As Americans, we over engineer, and in the process, waste resources. If one looks at the details of the vehicle the Russians are designing for Mars, there is simplicity at work with very complex issues to handle. In the process of over engineering, we add complexity and then brag about what our achievements are. I guess it is because of the one biggest evil in capitalism - MONEY. Somewhere somehow, a bureaucrat or his/her colleagues is getting money, not caring that much about the Union of States (USA).
I guess in the very near future, these Russians will suprise us with another space achievement at a cost we can not dream about...then we will worry about who might get hands on this technology.
Re:BOFH? by digitalchinky · 2005-02-12 01:18 · Score: 3, Interesting

Doesn't snopes or one of those other urban legend sites have something about that pen, fully privately funded by fisher, nothing at all to do with NASA. Price tag was 2 million as well.

The russians also use 'pens' by the way. Pencil dust and all.
Re:BOFH? by vidnet · 2005-02-12 01:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Which pen? This one?
Re:BOFH? by jon855 · 2005-02-12 01:21 · Score: 0

I totally agree with you on this. I perfer simple and robust not over worked ideas and etc, one example would be linux text mode and gui mode [just for comparsion purpose]... Text - displays what you need and where u are [ie, shell] GUI - displays more and consume more good'ol resources and it's just a waste. Although it's helpful, depending on your usage but for System Admins, it's all just a waste... I think the Russian are smart, and look at their success in the past few years, and yes I admit it might not as widely recgoinzed as the US, but the point is that it works. I'm sure the Russian're going to be the first one to set up an UAV base on Mars.

--
May /. rule the /.ing realm
Re:BOFH? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 01:21 · Score: 0

Um, yeah.

Acutally, no.

http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
Re:BOFH? by luvirini · 2005-02-12 01:21 · Score: 2, Insightful

Well the problem is, being a centralised bureucracy like NASA is, makes an organisation extremly everse to risk.
The number of people who died in pioneering flight are extremly many, compared to those dying of space flight.
Unfortunately to advance something you have to take risks, calculated ones, but risks nevertheless.
NASA as organisation is not currently capable of that.
Re:BOFH? by Animaether · 2005-02-12 01:25 · Score: 1

nokarma:
http://www.snopes.com/business/genius/spacepen.asp
Re:BOFH? by jon855 · 2005-02-12 01:27 · Score: 0

I bet they aren't capable of this because they're mostly gov't funded and they can't afford to have misshaps on a huge budget projects. Also I don't really see the benefits that NASA really have done with some of their missions but rather to waste some money anyways. Risk we have to take, I agree. NASA should improve their risk-taking system to something simpler I guess. [Not using overrated system / outdated]

--
May /. rule the /.ing realm
Re:BOFH? by luvirini · 2005-02-12 01:33 · Score: 1

Indeed, anyone working in a bureucracy will go up the steps of power if they are successfull in CYA, thus the types of people who get promoted are those averse to risk taking.
Re:BOFH? by dbIII · 2005-02-12 02:02 · Score: 3, Interesting

As Americans, we over engineer
I think you'll find the phrase is really "micromanage and change direction often". Also the basics are not looked at sometimes. After reading "Dragonfly" about american astronauts on Mir, it appears that the psychological testing which I always thought was the only non-fiction part of "I Dream of Jeanie" was also fiction. People that were not suited to the task of working in a closed environment as a team for months were sent into space without being tested to see whether they were suitable or not. One glaring example of the management problems at NASA some years back was that the people who knew about the fault that led to the challenger accident did not have a way to get that inforamation to the people at the top of the organisation without going through an outsider that had a Nobel prize (so had some serious credibility).
The pen story was a myth anyway - reality is far worse - components assembled at greater cost in different states for the purpose of political pork barrelling.
Re:BOFH? by legirons · 2005-02-12 04:03 · Score: 1

Thought for the day.

After the space race back in the 1960's, armchair scientists were faced with a major problem. Their party routine needed an anecdote that would somehow involve NASA and spending money. The joke-writers went to work. At a cost of 1.5 million hours, they developed the "Space Pen" story. Some of you may remember. It enjoyed minor success on some websites.

The engineers were faced with the same dilemma.

They posted a link to snopes
Re:BOFH? by LifesABeach · 2005-02-14 07:26 · Score: 1

I have a dream! I see a day when the users of space craft, and purchasers of space craft will walk hand in hand.

But I also think that dream will be realized in the mojave at Burt Rotan's place. Not at the Cape.

Sounds good, but expensive. by bigtallmofo · 2005-02-12 00:55 · Score: 4, Interesting

I'm glad the shuttle program is going back online but with the price of launching a Soyuz being about 1/25th the cost of a shuttle launch, I'm not sure how much we should depend on the shuttle.

--
I'm a big tall mofo.

Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by ZeroZen · 2005-02-12 01:08 · Score: 2, Insightful

I'm sure it doesn't matter. Domestic investment is VERY important to the americans, just look at the softwood lumber dispute, or maybe even this beef thing.

They'll spend whatever it takes, as they always have, to show up the competition. That's how it started, and innovation always comes from competition and need.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by jokumuu · 2005-02-12 01:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

The Real problem is that while the shuttle was being built (and fought over in budgets) NASA intentionally tried to stop all other forms of space flight to keep the shuttle program alive. The end result was the the shuttle had to fullfill so many missions that it became a "jack of all trades, master of none." So currently US does not have anything approachng Soyuz in capacity as alternative to the shuttle.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by Docrates · 2005-02-12 01:23 · Score: 4, Interesting

A Soyuz doesn't have the cargo capacity that the Shuttle has, which is why ISS construction has been halted and supplies are running tight.

The real question is if America should continue supporting the construction of the ISS. Circumstantially I think she should, even if the scientific and engineering profit from the program is limited.

--

There are two kinds of people in the world: Those with good memory.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by luvirini · 2005-02-12 01:29 · Score: 1

Yes, everything had to be built to be used in conjunction with the shuttle and then the total number of shuttle fights has been curtailed so much. This has really put many space programs in an impossible situation.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by demachina · 2005-02-12 03:27 · Score: 4, Informative

Here is the proposed Russian replacement for Soyuz called Kliper. Astronautix has a little more detail on it. They are planning to show a full size model at the Paris air show in June.

Its an interesting hybrid of lifting body and capsule, it will reenter like a lifting body but pop a parachute and land with a thud like Soyuz. I think its fairly similar to canceled X vehicle Burt Rutan was developing as the ISS lifeboat.

It will carry 6 people or 700 Kilo's of cargo. If you hang one of these on the ISS as the emergency vehicle you could raise the manning level to six people and actually do some research on it for a change. The cargo capacity also appears well suited to resupply the ISS, it can carry a lot more than Progress and Soyuz.

They hope to have it flying by 2010 which just happens to be about when the Shuttle stops flying. They need $10 billion roubles to finish it which sounds like a lot but the exchange rate is 28 roubles to the dollar so that is only $350 million dollars. By contrast NASA is wasting $500 billion on CEV this year alone and they wont get ANYTHING for it other than pretty computer generated images. Building CEV is going to cost at least 36 times as much as Kliper and is scheduled to be 4 years later for its first manned launch, 2010 versus 2014.

Sure looks to me like Russia is hoping to fill the void the Shuttle is going to leave in 2010 with Kliper and essentially take over the ISS if they get the funding to develop it. Whatever happens the Russians are going to be the ONLY people putting people in to LEO on a regular basis from 2010 to 2014, maybe the Chinese will launch a few people too. NASA ought to be ashamed, very ashamed, again.

Seems to me like the Europeans or Japanese should jump at helping with the funding for Kliper. Their investment in ISS has been largely destroyed by NASA's failures, most of their modules are sitting on the ground and they may never get the astronauts onboard the ISS needed to do their planned research. For $350 million they could save their ISS investment and in partnership with Russia develop their own manned space program free of the boat anchor that is NASA, Boeing, Lockheed.

Seems to me like the Chinese could partner with Kliper as well with their new found wealth and jump start their rather slow manned space effort, especially if they get technology sharing in return for cash.

P.S.

I submitted the Kliper article when it came out a few days ago and it was rejected. It is real news versus this fluff piece. Hate to break it to you the shuttle has been scheduled to launch in May for a while now, its not news. The breaking news will be if they manage to stay on schedule for a change.

--
@de_machina
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by willith · 2005-02-12 04:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

By contrast NASA is wasting $500 billion on CEV this year alone and they wont get ANYTHING for it other than pretty computer generated images. Building CEV is going to cost at least 36 times as much as Kliper and is scheduled to be 4 years later for its first manned launch, 2010 versus 2014.

That's because CEV's intended role, as a platform that can be used for interplanetary expeditions, is much broader than Kliper's intended role as a bus to ferry people and cargo to LEO. The competing CEV design teams have a lot more complicated problems to solve, like, how do we keep the crew from being fried by radiation while they're hanging somewhere in the spaces between worlds, and how do we engineer a complex, multi-role vehicle that can launch, go to Mars, send down a lander component to deliver people and cargo, lift back off and rendezvous, and then return those people and cargo to earth?

You're not just comparing apples to oranges; you're comparing apples to 747s.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by demachina · 2005-02-12 05:17 · Score: 3, Informative

If you read the article, and I should have mentioned it in my post, the Russians have plans to use Kliper to go to the moon too. I doubt there is really ANY difference in the mission requirements between Kliper and the first iteration of CEV.

I hate to break it to you, the only reason CEV is so vastly more expensive is because NASA, Boeing and Lockheed are in the loop and of course the wage rates are higher in the U.S. than the U.S.S.R., especially after Boeing and Lockheed slap on their overhead. I assure you NASA, Lockheed and Boeing are experts at wasting money, you need look no further than the Shuttle and the ISS to see that.

As best I understand it the CEV prototype launches in 2008 wont address ANYTHING involving manned flight, going to the moon or mars. Its going to be a tin can that isn't man rated launched on a more less existing booster, heavy lift versions of Atlas, Delta or Titan and will barely make it to LEO. Not sure the first launches in 2014 with men will do anything but LEO either. Somebody is going to have to build a major new heavy launcher to go back to the moon or do multiple launches (i.e. fuel and a space tug on one, and then the CEV on another).

Its very much open to doubt if the CEV in its first iterations will address going to the Moon or Mars at all in 2014 either though it remains to be seen what they propose. I think there is at least a chance they will have to develop landers on top of the CEV to go to the moon(and a better booster). I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from there. The Apollo strategy was the right one for a lot of reasons. To do the Moon right chances are a several vehicles will be required.

Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars. The requirements for going to LEO and the Moon are VASTLY different from those for going to Mars. If you use the same vehicle for all three its going to be either complete overkill for LEO and the Moon or woefully inadequate for Mars. The Mars vehicle is going to have to a completely different vehicle and boosters, its going to have to be way bigger or the crew will both run out of supplies and go bonkers trapped for that long in a tiny capsule.

I wouldn't be surprised if they try to do a shuttle with CEV, and do one size fits all for all three missions, but it will be the same disaster the Shuttle was, heavy and expensive, jack of all trades, master of none.

--
@de_machina
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by willith · 2005-02-12 06:10 · Score: 1

Its completely delusional to think CEV will be usable at all for going to Mars.

Incorrect. I don't know about LockMart's proposed designs, but Boeing's Constellation project (briefly described near the bottom of this page) will do just that:
Consisting of a crew exploration vehicle (CEV) and associated systems, CONSTELLATION will create capability for missions beyond Earth orbit.

There are even pretty pictures.

I'm skeptical that they are going to land the whole CEV on the moon and blast if off from there. The Apollo strategy was the right one for a lot of reasons. To do the Moon right chances are a several vehicles will be required.

You said it. Again, I don't know a thing about LockMart's proposal, but Boeing & co. are developing a set of spacecraft. No one's sure yet whether or not they plan to use EOR or LOR (or MOR, I suppose it would be) to do the shuffling around of craft, but you're right.

If you've not read it, check Wikipedia's page on the CEV. In its current state, the page is quite informative and has a lot of good links.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by PresidentKang · 2005-02-12 06:21 · Score: 1

Perhaps, but the only problem is that 14 or so other countries have signed on and have been funding (granted, not nearly to the same extent) the ISS. And with the exception of the Russians and the Canadians, none of their hardware that has been sitting in the Space Station Processing Facility at Kennedy Space Center has been installed yet.

The US has discussed not building any more of the ISS after "Core Complete" is done (being the last US module - Node 2), but I don't think that the International partners in the "International" Space Station will be too pleased if that happens.

Besides, most of the really good research won't be able to happen until the European and Japanese labs get up there anyway.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by FleaPlus · 2005-02-12 06:57 · Score: 1

I submitted the Kliper article when it came out a few days ago and it was rejected. It is real news versus this fluff piece.

Kliper is a pretty cool idea and all, but FYI there was an article on it a couple of months ago: http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/0 1/1633248&tid=160&tid=99&tid=1

Of course, it's quite possible your submission had new information not in that. Do you happen to still have your submission text around? You could post it here.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by demachina · 2005-02-12 06:58 · Score: 1

Thats nice and all but I wager they don't build anything past step 4 by 2014 which is what I'm comparing to Kliper for 1/36th the price.

The Boeing booster is going to end up being the current Titan IV heavy which isn't going to be good enough unless you do multiple launches.

You'll note the capsule is a pathetic little thing nearly identical to the one Apollo had 40 years ago. In fact the whole lunar plan is just a regurgitation of Apollo, excepting they are missing one key component the Saturn V. I think it would be cheaper and more likely to work if they just dust off the the Apollo plans if they are just going to DO Apollo again. That lander is amazingly similar to the LEM except its inflatible.

The shuttle derived cargo lifter would rock but chances are currently slim to none it will actually happen. Its amazing that Boeing wouldn't have settled on one or the other by now if they are going to launch one by 2008. Going with Titan Heavy versus a Shuttle derived heavy lifter are two COMPLETELY different programs, with the second one taking a LOT longer to develop though it would be a lot more capable in both mass and volume.

Note that getting out of LEO isn't scheduled before 2015-2020 and I'm guessing its going to be closer to the later than the former. My 36X times the cost of Kliper for CEV is going to get you a pathetic little capsule in LEO in 2014, less capability than Kliper most probably not more, certainly not 36X more.

There isn't ANYTHING substantive in that plan to go to Mars, other than the delusion that they are going to use that same dinky little Apollo module which isn't going to cut it. They have this inflatable habitat in there but I think they only inflate that on surface. Its pretty apparent that they aren't thinking about Mars at all in that Constellation plan. The business plan smacks of:

- Build Apollo ripoff, without Saturn V
- Go to Moon
- ???
- Send tiny Apollo capsule to Mars, propulsion system TBD, sometime around 2050.

If you want to actually put people on the surface of the Moon or Mars for an extended period you need to drop a real habitat, fairly large, and bury it to shield it. You're also going to need some serious power, either solar or nuclear. Note there are no solar panels on their lander and I know they are to chicken to go nuclear so that means they must be using fuel on board and that means they aren't staying any length of time.

Believe it or not you want to get the habitat to the surface and leave it there so making it inflatible and like a LEM is not a great idea. I thought the plan was to actually put a colony on the Moon and Mars with long duration stays, not send an inflatible LEM to the surface and come back a few days later, JUST LIKE APOLLO.

I assure you I can draw those same pretty pictures, and they will have about the same value, if not more, than those in the end, and I'm willing to do it for a mere $100 million dollars.

--
@de_machina
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by willith · 2005-02-12 07:38 · Score: 2, Interesting

You'll note the capsule is a pathetic little thing nearly identical to the one Apollo had 40 years ago. In fact the whole lunar plan is just a regurgitation of Apollo, excepting they are missing one key component the Saturn V

A capsule is an extraordinarily efficient way to design anything that you're going to be de-orbiting through earth's atmosphere. Heat spreads evenly over the heat shield, and it's self-righting. By comparison, the shuttle is a monstrously inefficient, draggy beast. For lofting crew and eventually returning through the atmosphere, capsules are where it's at.

They're re-using the design because it works, and because it's a thousand times easier than designing a wasteful space-plane.

I'll go ahead and out myself here--I work for, um, one of the companies we've been talking about, directly on the current shuttle and station contracts. If you don't see anything substantive in the pretty-pictures public web site, it's because the public web site is a sales pitch.

And multiple launches for multiple components is indeed the order of the day. Delta IV Heavy's launch in December cleared the way for it to be the Boeing team's prime mover, at least during Spiral One, but I wouldn't be suprised if something bigger comes to the table eventually. Nobody said we had to loft the whole freaking assembly in one go.

Believe it or not you want to get the habitat to the surface and leave it there so making it inflatible and like a LEM is not a great idea.

Baby steps, man. Baby steps. First we gotta go there, then we get out and walk around and come back, and then we gotta stay there. Besides, those habitat mods link up, like LEGO, or like those multi-robot Transformer uber-robots, except minus all the destruction and ch-ch-ch-ch-ch noises.

If you see elements of Apollo recycled in the new Moon/Mars plans, it's because those things worked. LOR works, and it works well. So, LOR is the way to go. By extension, MOR ought to work well, too. The LM design worked--you need four legs to support the weight of the craft when it lands, because three isn't enough and five is too many. That's why you've got a lander with a descent stage that looks like the LM.

If Kliper flies, great. I'm all for it--I'm all for anything that continues space exploration, even if it's not my employer doing it, because we must go. But right now, all Kliper's got are some engineering plans and a mock-up, and the mock-up isn't done yet. They're not planning for it to fly until 2010, which is two years after the completion of CEV's first spiral.

Whatever works, as long as it works.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by willith · 2005-02-12 07:41 · Score: 1

They're not planning for it to fly until 2010, which is two years after the completion of CEV's first spiral.

Ugh, I have misspoken. 2008 is not the completion date for Spiral 1; 2008 is the fly-off date for the competing prototypes. Still, it is the first launch date, so my point is the same.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by demachina · 2005-02-12 10:07 · Score: 1

"A capsule is an extraordinarily efficient way to design anything ..."

No argument its a good design approach excepting for the fact that its probably TINY inside. Conic capsules have severe size limitations which is probably why Kliper is using a different geometry, they seem to be tapping the benefits of the lifting body but without most of the weight penalties like landing gear.

Correct me if I'm wrong but the CEV plan appears to be to spend billions of dollars and 10 years to build a capsule not very different from the one we had 40 years ago and which the Russians already have, Soyuz.

The other point being you can't jam astronauts in one and send them on a multiyear mission to Mars which is what Boeing's plan seems to be doing. A Mars mission needs to be more like a small space station with room to exercise, room to get away from each other, lots of cargo space, tacked in front of a big propulsion system. Most sci fi designs for Mars put water tanks around at least part of the habitat for some shielding since you need lots of water anyway and you will need some serious shielding if there is a big solar storm.

"First we gotta go there, then we get out and walk around and come back"

Uh, we've already been there, walked around and came back. If you will recall after Apollo 12 everyone stopped caring and wondered what we were wasting all the money for. Apollo 13 regained excitement briefly and then everyone stopped caring again and when everyone stopped caring the money stopped flowing.

NASA runs a high danger of having huge excitement for the first return mission to the Moon and then everyone will say, uh we did that already, whats the point. Even putting a permanent presence on the moon isn't going to be any better unless you have a reason for people to be there, you have to have them doing something you can only do if you have people there, and that has real value. Harvesting fuel for a fusion reactor is the only reason I've seen and we dont have the fusion reactor. Maybe you could harvest moon dust for shielding and building big structures but that is kind of out there.

The only mission you can build a case for is putting a permanent colony on Mars as in people go there, have babies and don't come back. Mars has a enough resources to have a reasonable chance of becoming self sustaining, and then you have a whole new biosphere and that is something that matters. The Moon is dead and always will be, you will be stuck resupplying a colony there forever or more likely just stop going.

Problem is going to Mars is so far out in this grand plan its going to run out of money and die before it even starts.

Of course we've squandered 200 billion on Iraq so far and anything you do in space would be better than that insanity. I'd take a colony on the Moon over that any day, even if there is no point in putting a colony on the Moon.

"... in the new Moon/Mars plans, it's because those things worked."

It worked to the Moon, Mars is a completely different and MUCH harder challenge. What worked for a week long trip to the Moon ISN'T going to have much relevance going to Mars.

"But right now, all Kliper's got are some engineering plans and a mock-up, and the mock-up isn't done yet. They're not planning for it to fly until 2010, which is two years after the completion of CEV's first spiral."

Outside the boosters which the U.S., Russia and ESA all Boeing has is computer generated fantasy unless they are actually dusting off the blueprints for Apollo. Reusing those would be something since that is a tested design.

Russia is bending metal on a full scale mockup, hopefully one they can use for atmospheric tests though its not clear from the information out at the moment. From the Astronautix article they've apparently been doing substantial work on the concept throughout the 90's.

All in all comparing Russia's track record in recent years versus NASA, Lockheed and Boeing I'll bet on Russia ev

--
@de_machina
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by DerekLyons · 2005-02-12 14:03 · Score: 1

I'm glad the shuttle program is going back online but with the price of launching a Soyuz being about 1/25th the cost of a shuttle launch, I'm not sure how much we should depend on the shuttle.

Sure the Soyuz is cheaper. But you get what you pay for.

Soyuz carries fewer people, had no cargo space, is not re-configurable, cannot support spacewalks, has a quarter of the useful orbital lifetime...

And it's low price depends on continuing to fly a craft largely unchanged for decades, exploiting infrastructure that is starting to rot, and that depends on it's employees continuing to be happy with wages that make a Nike sweatshop look like Silicon Valley during the dot-boom. (Not to mention the continued political stability of the Russian Federation.)
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by JustinCredible · 2005-02-12 16:07 · Score: 1

According to wikipedia: "President Bush's budget request for Financial Year 2005 includes: "$428 million for Project Constellation ($6.6 billion over five years) to develop a new crew exploration vehicle." Budget for year 2005 has been confirmed by the Congress in November 2004." Where you got that 500 BILLION this year, I dunno. Their budget is barely 16 billion.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by tmortn · 2005-02-12 19:02 · Score: 1

Let me get this right.

We have on file specifications for a capsule design that was built and tested in what.. 5 years... THE FIRST TIME. with less capacity and less knowledge supposedly than we have now? Now it is going to take us 10 years to essentialy re-build it? This is bullshit. If NASA had commited to reviving the Apollo Command capsule after Columbia they probably could be launching one in May instead of the shuttle. There are already plans on the books for alternate arrangements of shuttle stack components. There is no reason you couldn't put a blister pack with the SSME's on the ET and stick a capsule and cargo stack on-top of the ET instead of the cone fairing used now. You could also make a smaller ET to use Kerosene and Lox and use two of the new Boeing engines just demonstrated on the Delta. All very well understood processes. Stick with the SRB's... not becasue they are necesarrily the best solution but because we can make them now and it obviates the need for creating a more complex staging system that would require new rockets.

You could go back to the little joe escape rocket system for the crew and you would have almost about 3/4ths of the capacity of the Saturn 5. No more foam issues, No huge heavy heatshield for uneeded return structure requiring brittle leading edge surface material inherrent in any winged design (baring a materials breakthrough to replace what is used now). Better crew survivability on launch. Back to a higher payload to structure weight ration instead of the current 3/1 THE WRONG WAY IE more weight in structure than payload.

The capsule design is efficient... and it Should NOT take 10 years to get one flying again. It didn't take 10 years when we built a lunar landing mission from SCRATCH in an era when Sliderules still were the most common calculating tool of a design engineer and the entire computational power of the command module was a fraction of what is available in many CALCULATORS today much less a desktop computer.

Increased knowledge and technical ability should translate into faster turn around times. Not Slower.

--
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Re:Sounds good, but expensive. by cosmo7 · 2005-02-14 03:48 · Score: 1

Soyuz supports spacewalks fine. Soyuz 4 featured a spacewalk, as well as the first transfer of cosmonauts between spacecraft, back in 1969. In fact, the original lunar Soyuz design required spacewalks as part of the mission profile, and the orbital module acts as an airlock, so spacewalks are more convenient than for Gemini or Apollo capsules.

Soyuz is also exceptionally reconfigurable. The orbital module can be - and has been - modified and replaced without affecting the other modules.

Soyuz is also an evolved spacecraft, with the current TMA considerably different to the original 7K-OK. Kliper is essentially an extended Soyuz with wings.

Best scientific quote ever by rbarreira · 2005-02-12 00:56 · Score: 5, Interesting

Several important matters remain unresolved, including what to use for in-flight repair of the thermal tiles, which protect the shuttle's nose and belly from temperatures of more than 2,300 degrees Fahrenheit upon reentry.

Five methods are being studied, including a giant caulking gun that dispenses pinkish-orange goo.

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F

Re:Best scientific quote ever by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 01:37 · Score: 0

5, Interesting

I found that funny but I guess I'm not thinking like a geek. :-(
Re:Best scientific quote ever by mattkime · 2005-02-12 01:59 · Score: 4, Funny

Five methods are being studied, including a giant caulking gun that dispenses pinkish-orange goo.

Who knew that Taco Bell hot sauce was so versatile?

--
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Re:Best scientific quote ever by rbarreira · 2005-02-12 02:24 · Score: 1

Well, I was also amazed at my own comment moderation :O eheh...

--

The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
Re:Best scientific quote ever by Cervantes · 2005-02-12 07:59 · Score: 1

Who knew that Taco Bell hot sauce was so versatile?
Anyone who's ever tried to eat it...

--
If I knew the wedgies I gave you back in 6th grade would have resulted in this . . . I might have taken a moments pause.
Re:Best scientific quote ever by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-23 08:51 · Score: 0

SHUT your MOUSTACHED COCK-GOBBLER, you FUCKING CANUCK!

Typo by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · 2005-02-12 01:06 · Score: 2, Funny

It's all converging on what looks like May 15 to start flying the shuttle again.

It's spelled frying.

--
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash

Re:Typo by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 01:08 · Score: 1, Funny

Dude, that was cold.

2001 by Taiq · 2005-02-12 01:10 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Additional generic "2001" reference!

--
I make mistakes. Don't we all?

Lazy reporting by novakreo · 2005-02-12 01:13 · Score: 2, Informative

launch fever has begun to rise at America's spaceport

There's just the one? The Ansari X Prize wasn't that long ago.

--
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

Re:Lazy reporting by jokumuu · 2005-02-12 01:17 · Score: 1

As far as NASA thinks, the other things are just toys and even worse.. Commercial.
Re:Lazy reporting by Zeinfeld · 2005-02-12 01:52 · Score: 1

There's just the one? The Ansari X Prize wasn't that long ago
Running a jetty into a pond and launching your piddly motorboad doth not a harbor make, still less a port.
Cape Canaveral does not engage in interplanetary trade, thus the moniker is a little overblown even in its case.

--
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/

70s technology by luvirini · 2005-02-12 01:15 · Score: 4, Insightful

The basic problem of the shuttle come from the fact that it is mostly 70s technology with some glueover.

Thus the materials are so much heavier than corresponding would be today an so on.

The Way NASA has been trying to keep this program alive by more clue is likely to end in further embarassments.

Too bad there is not enough focus to do great things, instead NASA has just become another CYA organisation.

Re:70s technology by jokumuu · 2005-02-12 01:25 · Score: 4, Insightful

Seems to me they lost track of their vision somewhere as organisation. I am not saying there are not dedicated people as such there, there are many, but the organisation itself has lost it's goals.
Re:70s technology by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 02:21 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find it to be amazing that 95% of NASA can be so talented, intelligent and motiated, and the organization can be so completely ruined and its effects minimalized by the 5% who are plugged into the funding and end up calling the shots based on the political process. When the entire organization exists to spend money, the science is often an unintended result, at least from the perspective of the people who are writing the checks and setting policy.
NASA is now too political to be anything but a festering mound of poot. I feel sorry for the many technical people who are trying to do good work in that environment. I couldn't do it. Hopefully, the best and the brightest will get a good job in the new commercial space ventures that are popping up and can finally have their dreams realized.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:70s technology by jacksonj04 · 2005-02-12 02:43 · Score: 1

Sadly, even using the shuttle as a blueprint for a '21st Century' version wouldn't work, because frankly the space shuttles are horribly designed. Oh sure, they do the job, but they are an inherently bad design for repeated use, for the simple reason the Air Force pilots wanted something which flew like a jet.

On the other hand, using it as a rough guide would probably be fine. You could lower the weight, lower the cost, increase the capacity, build in more redundancy, and reduce launch cost all at once.

Maybe even build a proper fleet of *specialised* spacecraft, one for lugging things into orbit, one for science missions, one for supply missions, one for carrying people? Once again, this has been thrown out in favour of a completely new design, which will once again be forced to do everything badly.

--
How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
Re:70s technology by Citizen+of+Earth · 2005-02-12 04:53 · Score: 1

I find it to be amazing that 95% of NASA can be so talented, intelligent and motiated, and the organization can be so completely ruined and its effects minimalized by the 5% who are plugged into the funding and end up calling the shots based on the political process.

This sounds like a viable explanation of Microsoft as well. Supposedly, there are lots of very talented people there, which seems at odds with their low-quality software.
Re:70s technology by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 11:38 · Score: 1

That's a really good analogy. But, while I can understand that bureaucracy has put NASA in the business of selling pork to congress instead of space exploration and development, I can't see what the financial incentive would be for Microsoft to sell such crappy high priced software. To me, it seems to epitomize the criticisms of US products. There is a lot of focus on fluff like the sodding talking paper clip, and no attention at all to the important stuff like stability and security. How does THAT make money for Microsoft? Maybe, when you're the monopoly, what customers want (or even need) just isn't that important? Just like it doesn't matter if a ride into space costs half a billion dollars if you're the only game in town. I think the sun is setting on both of these monopolies.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.

Removal of pressure sensors by owlstead · 2005-02-12 01:20 · Score: 1, Funny

including the removal of the foam from the external tank and pressure sensors on the wings that would detect an impact

Now why would they remove the pressure sensors on the wings? Does that make the shuttle any safer? I don't think so.

Re:Removal of pressure sensors by grumling · 2005-02-12 01:29 · Score: 1

I think you're being a little too gramatically correct for the article.
And shame on the moderator who scored you as "Insightful" instead of "Funny..."

--
"Well, good luck finding a judge that doesn't run a bestiality site."
Re:Removal of pressure sensors by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 10:55 · Score: 0

I think you may have just misread the sentence in the article. It said that "Since then, the foam has been removed from part of the external tank, temperature and motion sensors were installed in the wings to detect potentially dangerous impacts...".

Foam was removed. Sensors were installed, not removed.

Big Dumb Boosters by Peter777 · 2005-02-12 01:28 · Score: 5, Interesting

Anyone remember from 'The Moon is a Harsh Mistress', that Heinlein predicts rocket tech will have evolved into something far simpler that what we have today (or back then even)? His summary of space tech for the next couple of hundered years went something like:

1. Exceedingly basic and unreliable.

2. Exceedingly complex and expensive.

3. Basic, reliable and cheap.

I wonder when no.3 will arrive...http://www.wws.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/byte serv.prl/~ota/disk1/1989/8904/8904.PDF

Re:Big Dumb Boosters by jokumuu · 2005-02-12 01:35 · Score: 1

Well, the material technology is actually currently going forward at great speed, so getting to orbit with some reasonably simple rocket built of very good materials might not be that far off in the future.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by LWATCDR · 2005-02-12 02:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

I think Helnlein got this wrong. A better model would be Airliners.
1. Is correct.
2. is right.
3 Exceedingly complex, expensive, reliable, and efficient.

Modern jet airliners are not basic or cheap. But they are reliable and efficient. All this talk of going back to Big Dumb Boosters is like saying Lets stick with DC-3s they are so much cheaper and simpler than 777s.

--
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 02:29 · Score: 1

I'd say we're entering phase 3 now, as demonstrated by SpaceShipOne. It's simple, cheap, and reliable technology.
Yes, there is still a long way to go in the development of space with access to all, but we have the barnstorming age of aviation as a very applicable model. Now that free enterprise is involved, progress will be extremely rapid, especially given the fact that space development is an artificially stunted market. Ironically, our NASA mentality kept us from pursuing space. They did great things the first decade, and for the last three decades have been a major impediment to the natural commercial access to space.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by strelitsa · 2005-02-12 07:59 · Score: 1

A NASA mentality I never understood is their putting all of their heavy-lift eggs in the Shuttle basket.
It costs approximately 600 million US dollars to launch a fully-loaded Shuttle. Each Shuttle can haul approximately 28,800 kg into low earth orbit, while a Saturn V stack could lift 118,000 kg into the same LEO. And three out of the four pieces of a Saturn V already exist and are doing nothing but gathering pigeon crap at the Johnson and Kennedy space centers right now. The only remaining section that would need to be fabricated is an S-IU (Instrument Unit).
For the cost of four Shuttle launches (2.4 billion according to my calculator), it seems to me that you could launch one Saturn V with four times the carrying capacity of a Shuttle, and finish off the ISS in one launch. Did somebody lose the Saturn V plans or something?

--
No mod points, no meta-moderating/Firehose/all the other free work Slashdot wants me to do.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by Bitsy+Boffin · 2005-02-12 13:05 · Score: 1

I'd say we're entering phase 3 now, as demonstrated by SpaceShipOne. It's simple, cheap, and reliable technology.

And it has very little to actually getting to space. High altitude aircraft, yes, it was a good step (was, it won't be flown again), and it has some interesting design features, but it falls short of even LEO by a very long way, which is fine, it wasn't intended for getting anywhere close to orbit.

I think what is more interesting now is inflatable habitats, THEY are basic, cheap and reliable, or should be in the reasonably near future. Combine with space elevators (also basic, reliable and probably cheap in the reasonable future), and we have a really interesting platform.

--
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by Long-EZ · 2005-02-12 15:31 · Score: 1

The SS1 hardware was built specifically to win the Ansari X Prize. The X Prize was designed to kickstart private space development, mostly via the surprisingly lucrative space tourist market. SS1 has everything to do with getting to space. It can easily lift three adults past the 100 km altitude that defines the arbitrary beginning of space. Scaled Composites is at work developing the next generation version that flies a similar mission. It still isn't a low earth orbit, but it is a little higher, a few minutes longer in zero g space, and it carries more paying tourists to improve the profit margin.
Now, the important part. The custom avionics, ground control, and especially the hybrid engine are all reuseable for all types of space development, not just the suborbital tourist flights. Scale up the engine and fly up to an orbiting space hotel. Of course, reentry is a major issue and there are numerous problems to solve there, but material science has come a long way since the late 1970s when the shuttle was designed. I have no doubt that Scaled or a similar small and entrepreneurial company can devise a much less expensive and much safer reusable orbital vehicle than the shuttle.
Yes, the SS1 was only the first small step in the burgeoning realm of privately funded space flight, but it's essential to crawl before we walk and walk before we run. With entrepreneurs competing in this arena, and supporting technology well beyond that required to accomplish the task because NASA essentially worked to stifle privately funded space development for a couple of decades, we will see rapid progress. Within a decade, the private space programs will have surpassed the bureaucratic versions in every important aspect (except cost, of course). We are in a position that is almost identical to the barnstorming days of early aviation. Progress will be rapid.
The space elevator you mention is an interesting idea, but there are numerous major technical issues to be resolved. Who could afford a meter thick carbon fiber cable that is a few hundred kilometers long? And let's not even consider what a target that would be for terrorists.

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by Peter777 · 2005-02-12 20:46 · Score: 1

There is a rumour afoot that the plans were destroyed as part of the contract for the shuttle, but I wouldn't put money on it. This article, though, provides a summary of why the Saturn V wouldn't help either.

http://www.space.com/news/spacehistory/saturn_five _000313.html

If we'd kept with large rockets, we'd still have all the infrastructure in place, and the tech would have slowly and continually modernised, but since the shuttle killed them off, it's necessary to start over.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by cosmo7 · 2005-02-14 03:53 · Score: 1

There is a rumour afoot that the plans were destroyed as part of the contract for the shuttle

The Saturn V plans were destroyed by scribbling on them with a billion-dollar pen that would work in zero-gravity. By contrast, the Russians destroyed the plans for their moon rocket with a simple pencil.
Re:Big Dumb Boosters by Peter777 · 2005-02-14 21:27 · Score: 1

...though either of these theories may be apocryphal, or a least highly innacurate.

OT: Amusing contracted headline by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 01:42 · Score: 4, Funny

I opened this story in a new tab (in Firefox), and the title was contracted to "Slashdot | Nasa Prepares Disco...".

Re:OT: Amusing contracted headline by eomnimedia · 2005-02-12 03:46 · Score: 1

Yeah, here's hoping the music playing that day is "Staying Alive," not "Disco Inferno."

Godspeed Discovery.
Re:OT: Amusing contracted headline by sp3tt · 2005-02-12 04:18 · Score: 1

Another reason to use Firefox: it provides you with internal, top secret information from NASA. And there is nothing NASA can do about it!

Re:Too bad buddy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 01:43 · Score: 0

Yeah, can you believe he got modded flamebait? I mean WTF, fuck /. groupthink right? I mean don't people get that it's funny because he said they should start FRYING the shuttle again, instead of FLYING. Get it, HAHA. FRYING, because all the people on-board Discovery died. Get it, it's so funny because they didn't make it to space, they died, haha. Why would anyone ever mod this flamebait?

Reality check. You're a fucking moron and you need to pull your head out of your ass.

Babble bubble booble by art6217 · 2005-02-12 01:48 · Score: 1

Yeah dear babbler, "space shuttle" in Polish is sometimes called "prom kosmiczny" for some reason, so perhaps you received some ESP while writing your babbling.

Excitement?!?!!?!?! by Eminence · 2005-02-12 01:54 · Score: 1

Excitement? Gimme a break! So this old piece of junk is pushed out of its garage again. As exciting as a 1980 VW Beetle being pushed out of a garage four blocks away. Great for collectors, but not as exciting as something really NEW! Come on, people, when you will stop to get excited over leftovers from the past like the shuttles or new scans of images from Apollo missions 30 years ago?!

Re:Excitement?!?!!?!?! by kylegordon · 2005-02-12 03:21 · Score: 1

Because in our current sad state of affairs... it's all we've got :-/

Re:Too bad buddy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 02:03 · Score: 0

You're the moron mister: the original quote from TFA is from a NASA spokesperson, and their record in the shuttle-reliability department isn't exactly 100%. Therefore it is conceivably funny to put "frying" in his mouth instead of "flying", regardless of the loss of astronaut lives (which is indeed sad).

And more seriously... by art6217 · 2005-02-12 02:32 · Score: 2, Interesting

Taking into account the launching rocket, the whole setup is not fully reusable. And the shuttle is indeed very bulky. If they get rid once of the launching rocket or make it smaller, the reusable ships might possibly become a relatively cheap and comfortable way of traveling to the Earth orbit.

Finally by EaterOfDog · 2005-02-12 02:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

I am glad to see we are making some kind of effort to get our manned space program back online. These massive overreactions to shuttle crashes are a bit ridiculous. I realize some great folks died, but these people were pioneers, and the price of being a pioneer is sometimes your ass. I say we salute them and we get back out there any way we can.

--

Crushing my karma one post at a time.

The Rolling Stones by wowbagger · 2005-02-12 03:27 · Score: 1

Actually, that prediction was in The Rolling Stones, not The Moon Is A Harsh Mistress.

--
www.eFax.com are spammers

Re:The Rolling Stones by Peter777 · 2005-02-12 04:02 · Score: 1

Ah yes. I remeber now. It was the one with freeze-dried space-cat thingies.

CRV by amightywind · 2005-02-12 03:46 · Score: 1, Funny

I wish the shuttle crews well and I hope the return to flight is successful, but the transition to the Crew Exploration Vehicle is much more important for US space exploration Please NASA, no more meat comets.

--
an ill wind that blows no good

can the orbiter make it to the moon? by dizee · 2005-02-12 04:44 · Score: 2, Interesting

i was brimming with pride when i annouced to the other guys at work that nasa was prepping discovery for launch.

the new guy said, "what?"

"discovery. you know, the space shuttle?"
"where is it going? the moon?"
"uh, no. it's going to the same place it always goes. into orbit. it can't go to the moon!"
"why not? it's a rocket isn't it?"

a rocket. :/

more conversation continued, in which i exclaimed that the orbiter can't make it to the moon and back without shitloads of fuel. but then i began to question that, as i suppose it's possible to fit the cargo bay with additional fuel.

so, it begs the question, can the orbiter make it to the moon and back? what about landing on the moon? obviously without an atmosphere, the fact that it is winged makes it quite useless as a traditional aircraft.

comments from aerospace experts?

-mike

Re:can the orbiter make it to the moon? by Moschaef · 2005-02-12 05:15 · Score: 1, Interesting

Funny you asked. I toured the NASA facility at Michoud TWO DAYS ago where they build the main fuel tanks. The fuel used buy the shuttles main engines is liquified oxygen and liquified hydrogen. At full burn the main engines use over 1600 gallons a second. Although this sounds impressive, the overwhehlming majority of the thrust is provided by the solid fuel rockets strapped on either side. The shuttle's main engines are used primarily to keep the whole craft pointed in the right direction and nudge the vehicle into the appropiate orbit. So why not just strap a few more solid feul rockets onto the shuttle?? Simply not possible, but even if we thought we could figure it out, who's going to sit in that shuttle the first time it goes up, NOT ME!!
Re:can the orbiter make it to the moon? by dizee · 2005-02-12 05:46 · Score: 1

1600 gal/s

that's insane.

orbiter: 2250 tons
fully filled external tank: 830 tons
fully filled booster: 650 tons
percentage of thrust provided by boosters: 71

i think another issue with the boosters is safety. they can't be shut down after ignition. so they light, provide a shitton of trust, and then separate immediately. the exact definition of "booster".

so, you're looking at a combined weight of 2130 tons just for fuel, fuel housing, and associated feed assemblies. that sucks so much ass. imagine how much easier it would be if the fuel used weighed nothing. it's too bad that nothing we have provides as much thrust as chemical rockets.

-mike
Re:can the orbiter make it to the moon? by oojah · 2005-02-12 06:59 · Score: 2, Informative

Have a play with Orbiter using the shuttle if you're on Windows.

http://www.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/~martins/orbit/orbi t. html

You'll find it is not that easy to just get the thing into orbit at all. Going to the moon would be even worse.

The Orbiter manual notes that the shuttle relies on the loss of weight as the fuel burns to make it into orbit. If you have unlimited fuel (that is, it is always full), then you can't make it into orbit apparently.

Cheers,

Roger

--
Do you have any better hostages?
Re:can the orbiter make it to the moon? by jayrtfm · 2005-02-12 11:58 · Score: 1

Homer Hickam, ex-NASA and author best known for "October Sky" thinks so.
His book Back to the Moon has a senario where a shuttle goes into lunar orbit.
quote "All the events in this book could happen from an engineering standpoint. It is indeed feasible to outfit a shuttle to the moon "
Re:can the orbiter make it to the moon? by cheekyboy · 2005-02-12 13:21 · Score: 1

project orion - nuclear power

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

Who Cares ? by bushboy · 2005-02-12 04:51 · Score: 1

The shuttle is old news and old tech and expensive tech.

--
A slashdotting - you get the stick first and then the carrot !

Still highest tech though by bluGill · 2005-02-12 05:02 · Score: 1

True, but remember the Russians are mostly using Soyuz which is 1960's technology, so the Shuttle is still ahead from that standpoint.

That doesn't make the shuttle any good, though. Just high tech the doesn't solve the problems we need solved.

This is terrible by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 05:12 · Score: 0

As far as I can see- two down, three to go.

8 missions left by scotty777 · 2005-02-12 06:26 · Score: 3, Informative

Right now NASA has firm plans for eight missions to deliver space station structure. The ISS needs those truss sections and solar cell arrays to become fully functional. Those cargos are too big to fit under the payload shrouds of the other available launchers. I guess that a few modules may be lofted for ISS partners, but after that the shuttle has no mission.

NASA is a Joke by charles28c · 2005-02-12 06:48 · Score: 0

So the shuttle will fly again this year... Who cares? The United States space program is a joke. NASA has a perfectly good launch system (Liquid + solid boosters) that is going to get pissed away just like the Saturn 5 and every other successful system from the 60's and 70's. Instead, they will again burn through money to develop something new from scratch. Imagine if Goodyear designed a new tire each time a new car model came out.... give me a break. That's the point of standardization: to leverage what works and reduce costs for a derivative. What is wrong with leveraging the launcher and developing a new shuttle to strap onto it? Then as stage two upgrading, design more powerful solid boosters.... I bet within 5-7 years you could have a revamped shuttle program. NASA is nothing but pie-in-the-sky techno geeks managed by scared-shitless administrators. Pack up and go home. The first humans to return to the moon will be Chinese. If anyone makes it to Mars, it will be a privately designed, built, and financed ship - no NASA there either.

Unfortunately by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 06:49 · Score: 0

People have forgotten that when NASA started out. People dies. But that didn't delay the shuttle fleet. WE STILL HAD TO BEAT THE USSR. now the system is bogged down beurocratically, and the glory days of nasa are now a glimmer now the the commies are almost all gone. Accidents happen. But we should rebound and learn form them. NOT STAGNATE FOR TWO YEARS.

Re:Unfortunately by InfallibleLies · 2005-02-12 08:03 · Score: 1

What, is this a biggest penis contest?
We've gone to space, whoopty-doo. The only thing that's left to do up there is to bring regular old people up there as tourists, and make Mars habitable for when we ruin this planet. And that, we all know, is something that NASA will not be getting into anytime soon.

SPYWARE BEWARE !!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 07:05 · Score: 0

You bastard, your Astronautix link just spywared My box!

Why so two faced? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-02-12 08:33 · Score: 1

Every one screamed and cried when the shuttle blew up.

Billions spent to see the crews of 2 shuttles dead.

They were horrible national tradedies in the bold name of science and exploration.

Yet most people think its just wonderful to spend far more billions murdering 100,000's in Iraq based on a lie. The US found no WMD's and recently gave up the search, happily knowing that most of you now think it was over 'freedom' instead of the constant drone of WMD threats Bush drilled into you before the war.

Why so two faced? huh?

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

Re:Why so two faced? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 08:45 · Score: 0

More pushing of your lying meme. WMDs were one reason, not the only reason, that Iraq got Pwned. And Saddam already USED WMDs against his political enemies.
Get a clue about history, lying meme spreader.
Re:Why so two faced? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · 2005-02-12 09:53 · Score: 1

Stop changing history you dumbass bastard!

IT WAS ENTIRELY ABOUT WMD's until none were found!

they only reason! only only reason!

Dubyafuck convinced Britain to join based on lies that Iraq could launch WMD's on 45 minutes warning. 2 years later Dubyafuck didnt even have the courtesy to tell Britain that they were giving up on the search for WMD's, having found NONE.

The WMD's that Saddam USED TO HAVE, that he used against his own people were GIVEN to him by YOUR OWN damn government during the Reagan years! Your country wanted saddam to use them against Iran, but OOOPS! he used them on his own people! YOUR country should be bombed into dust over handing the WMD's to dictators around the world to kill their own people. Those deaths are your fault!

All traces of WMD's were destroyed in the first gulf war and in the subsequent 10 years of complete utter containment that rendered Saddam to be NO THREAT.

Meanwhile you are best friends with Pakistan, a NUCLEAR military dictatorship, and best friends with Libya, who's leader has way more money available to fund terrorism that Saddam ever had, and who has freely admitted to terrorist attacks that killed hundreds!

OPEN YOUR FUCKING EYES! YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! YOU MAKE ALL YOUR OWN ENEMIES!

So, how's that search going for the true cause of 911 going? you know, that Bin Laden guy that your government trained and funded to fight against the soviets, but oops, decided to bite you back?

--
George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"

The important question by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 09:39 · Score: 0

But the important question is.. does it run Linux?

Space Shuttle Tragedy ??? by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 09:42 · Score: 0

call it misadventure .. call it lack of awareness .. call it lack of attention to detail .. call it stupidity ..

but when you knowingly place your self in a position of extreme risk and you get killed it's no tragedy ..

the media and common hype language used these days .. over emphasizes the trivial and neglects the real tragedies ..

it's like the tsunami .. i can't think of a less sympathetic way to die than in a natural disaster .. ie. an act of "God " .. or an act of stupidity .. you were just in the wrong place at the wrong time .. oh well .. should not have stayed for that last cup of coffee .. should of taken your holiday some place else .. should not have gone for the glory .. the hype .. six .. eight weeks of continuous news coverage ..

mean while .. hundreds .. thousands .. tens of thousands of are people dying every day because of starvation .. ethnic cleansing .. lack of clean water .. and a multitude of other unnecessary .. avoidable and NOT form natural causes ..

all deaths that don't need to be happening and for which there are simple and available solutions ..

and hardly a passing sound byte or sidebar mention .. now and again ..

TRAGEDY .. ha !!!!

VR goggles by cheekyboy · 2005-02-12 10:43 · Score: 1

One sollution to being stuck in a tiny can for 6months.

1. vr goggles so that you can simulate a big space ship or landscapes to rest your mind.
2. bigass plasma screens on the walls to show screen savers add depth, and when working turn into touch screen status/control stuff, ala startrek
3. arent they working on inflateable space ships, so have all the rooms empty and expand out, and have all the screens/computers slim/thin in the walls, hey, if they can make laptops, then can make thin pcs for the space ships too, no need for 19in rackmount modules. If your doing a custom $1billion job, do it really well.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

F18s crash and they keep flying by cheekyboy · 2005-02-12 10:49 · Score: 1

how many training missions have crashe F18s or F111s or blackhawks, do we see every single plane grounded? no...

They keep flying the others because they know the chances are slim for another to crash, but they investigate the crash fast any way.

--
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.

1980 VW Beetle? by tekrat · 2005-02-12 15:27 · Score: 1

In the USA, the last year for the Beetle was '79.

If I was to see a 1980 VW Beetle pushed out of a garage here, I *would* be excited.

But then again, I like Beetles. ;)

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.

Re:Too bad buddy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 18:01 · Score: 0

I'll bet you don't like deadly tsunami jokes either.

Q: What did people say when they saw the deadly tsunami?
A: Look! Here comes a deadly tsunami!
Q: What did people say when they saw the deadly tsunami wearing sunglasses?
A: Nothing. They didn't recognize it.

Please Troll this guy by Anonymous Coward · 2005-02-12 22:27 · Score: 0

Calm down, please. This is totally off-topic, and I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to draw more attention than needs to be here.

BTW, not all weapons of mass-destruction are strictly nuclear, as this also covers chemical weapons. Try mixing bleach and ammonia some time in your backyard. It makes a very effective WMD... just don't do it in your bathroom by mistake (unless you want to win a Darwin award). WMDs aren't really that hard to make, but are usually more hassle to work with in a militarily effectively manner than more conventional arms, which is why they aren't used more often.

As far as Pakistan being a "friend" to the USA, I think you got that mistaken. Pakistan was simply given a choice, to support the USA in the war against Al-Queida or be the first target of an invasion by U.S. forces. They havn't really had too much freedom to tell the USA "No", as far as permitting U.S. soldiers to travel through their country on their way to Afghanistan. While Pakistan is prepared for a nuclear exchange against India, going head-to-head against the USA is something they are not prepared to do at the moment.

Al-Queida is a bunch of idiots that don't know how to really take advantage of the situations they create. The fact that they havn't been successful in a terrorist attack on mainland USA targets since Sept. 11th, 2001 goes to show just how inept they really are. While I think "security" reforms done by the Bush Administration are a little over the top, and need to be scaled back.

Also, going into Iraq was not just about WMDs. Saddam was just being an idiot in every since of the word when he thought he could go up against the USA... thinking George W. might just fold on the bluff. And besides, the USA was still in a state of war against Iraq due to the Gulf War. And yes, I supported the invasion of Iraq because Saddam deserved to be eliminated from power, for a very great many reasons, several of which were that he threatened the lives of my children directly.

As far as Osama bin Laden is concerned... if I see him I will cut his heart out, eat it raw, and send his head to the U.S. government. And dump the rest of his body in a pig stye for the pig to eat. This particularly because he has directly threatened me and my family, seeking to kill me simply because I am an American, and has killed my fellow citizens demonstrating his intention. Anbody who supports OBL deserves no less treatment, including national governments that assist in the Al Queida related efforts.

What about this would you change? by Retric · 2005-02-17 03:38 · Score: 1

Ok, I understand your perspective that we should avoid complexity and design systems that get better and cheaper over time. The point I disagree with is the idea that boot strapping teck is ever going to get you to a system that uses scramjets. Where I disagree is I think low risk complexity is OK. Which is why I think we should have a goal of "good" target for the mid term vs. avoiding spending a lot on R&D.

For now I want to see rockets take up all cargo and have the space shuttle dock with anything heavy it needs to work with. Shure, it's a little more complex that way but I feel we should avoid using the shuttle for anything other than moving people back and forth from space. But we can send a lot of people into space at one time with the shuttle and if there is no cargo we can take a lot of supplies so we can leave them up there for a long mission. Something like 3-5 weeks with some people taken from / left on the ISS. Goal: Keep manned space flight costs down to 1 - 2 billion a year. And use the cheep rockets for cargo reducing costs as low as possible. Thus giving us a good window to make something that's much better than the shuttle. OK fine we can build a smaller version of the shuttle that does cooler landings (can't take as much weight back from orbit but get's to avoid a lot of heat shielding that way.) and can't take much cargo to space but that's a lot of R&D and I don't see a huge cost savings to make it worth it. We might as well just send people up via RUSSA but I can see the value of a few extended shuttle missions per year.

But rockets only get so cheep. Which is why the next goal should be a cargo jet that can carry rockets or the next generation of the space shuttle on it back. Think of something that's close to a lifting wing but with a split tail that has 6 HUGE jets and can go to mach 3. Goal: we already have air planes that can take huge amounts of cargo at sub mach 1 speeds so we just need a system that can get to ram jet speeds and act as both a test bed for future development and a heavy duty work horse first stage to send stuff into space. Also R&D for this should be vary manageable my guess would be under 5 billion.

Next: we work on rocket systems that can launch from the back of this thing thus getting lower cost to orbit for intermediate loads at this point. At which point you build 4 or 5 of them as there cheaper than a shuttle to operate and should cost around 300mill or less to build. Goal: work out the bugs in this launch system while reducing cost's with out risking human lives.

After that build a scram jet system > rocket orbiter that can take small loads to orbit much cheaper than rockets can. But this is one-way and unmanned. Goal work out the bugs in this system with out risking human lives.

Ok finally make a ramjet / scramjet orbiter that can take 8 people to orbit for a 2 month stay and link up to ISS and then get back cheep. THIS IS NOT A CARGO SHIP and IT CAN"T TAKE MUCH WEIGHT BACK FROM ORBIT. Goal: a workhorse system for taking people to space cheaply for 30 years.

As a side note I think we should work on a remote controlled ION drive towing system for moving stuff out of LEO. It should never leave orbit and should be able to take 20+ loads from LEO to geosynchronous orbit over its lifetime. Goal: lower the cost of moving things to higher orbit and work out the bugs in ION drive systems for use in manned missions to the moon and beyond.

Ok at some point it might be worth it to make un unmanned cargo return ship that can take back all these scram jet engines we are sending to orbit but as they don't need to be fast it would be more like a parasol than a ship.

Now, I think that's a low risk path to space which may be somewhat complex is safe and should be fairly cheep. What about this would you change?

Re:What about this would you change? by Long-EZ · 2005-02-17 06:04 · Score: 1

The point I disagree with is the idea that boot strapping tech is ever going to get you to a system that uses scramjets.

The Australians built a nice scramjet. I'd bet they had a reasonably small budget, certainly less than NASA would spend, and maybe in line with what a well funded company would budget. Once there is a small revenue stream from volume space applications such as space tourism, biomedical (drug producing bacteria grow much better in microgravity), and industrial manufacturing in microgravity (perfect bearings, as an example), then a company will be very willing to develop scramjet technology. But that isn't really necessary. I'm not saying there is no place for large government agencies like NASA. They can still fulfill a vital role in developing new technology. But commercial ventures will be cheaper at actually going to space, and probably much cheaper at developing or at least commercializing technology.

I feel we should avoid using the shuttle for anything other than moving people back and forth from space

Well, there's a problem with that. The shuttle has almost lost its human-safe rating. So far, there is a 2% chance of death on shuttle missions. Prior to any real history, the NASA administrators "calculated" the safety factor by starting with the result they considered to be acceptable risk, one in 10,000. They worked backward from there, picking the series of probabilities that produced the desired result. In the absence of data, they made up data. After five missions, they considered it safe. They may have fooled congress, some of the general public and probably even themselves, but the engineers and astronauts had a much more realistic understanding. They would generally quote numbers more like one in 100 or one in 1000 when asked about the odds of catastrophic failure. We now know the real number is more like one in 50. The bogus one in 10,000 number kept many needed safety improvements off the design table. After the second loss of an orbiter and all crew, they have finally made the safety improvements that were always needed, including less flying debris at takeoff and the ability to inspect and repair heat shielding tiles in orbit. But there are still a lot of critical systems. The shuttle is simply too complex. It's the most complicated device ever built by humans. There are a lot of parts to malfunction. I'd guess that with the recent safety improvements, it's now more in line with the 1/100 to 1/1000 estimates that were being made earlier, but still nowhere near the desired 1/10,000 chances peviously quoted by NASA administrators. But I still wouldn't consider it an acceptable risk given what is possible. The reason the Hubble Space Telescope isn't being repaired is that the mission is considered unsafe because there is no space station lifeboat capability when servicing the high orbit HST using the shuttle. I think the shuttle would be better suited to a minimal crew and hauling heavy equipment to the ISS. I certainly don't think it's safe enough to press into service for hauling a lot of peaople. But a bigger consideration is that it's WAY to expensive for either mission. There are much safer and much less expensive technologies for launching humans or freight.

But rockets only get so cheap.

The limiting factor is fuel. With a two stage design, with a large plane carrying a rocket up to 50,000 feet, a lot of the energy is generated by consuming atmospheric oxygen and the speeds in the dense atmosphere are low so there is less drag and less need for heavy structure to sustain flight loads. This is a fairly energy efficient method to get to space. With all reusable hardware, the launch costs can approach fuel cost, assuming the hardware is used many times before retiring. This is a lot like the airline cost model. The fuel is MUCH cheaper than the current launch costs. Most of the money

--
>> My ultraviolent Linux switch video.

Slashdot Mirror

NASA Prepares Discovery for Launch

129 comments