Lockheed Martin unveils Space Shuttle replacement

Vegan Bob writes "Lockheed Martin released its proposal for the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) in a recent Popular Mechanics article. NASA will choose this vehicle scematic or opt for the yet-released Northrop Grumman design in 2008. The CEV will replace the Space Shuttle program, and will eventually go to the moon (between 2015 and 2020)."

Comments

One or two questions related to these articles:

[Skyshadow]

Wait, what?

Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions? Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow? What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule if it's not necessarily reusable?

How does it possibly make sense to use the same vehicle for LEO missions as for moon and Mars missions? What happened to the important ideas behind Mars Direct or Semi-Direct (aka, having a seperate hab module that you can leave for future missions and making your fuel on Mars instead of hauling it with)? Does this signal that NASA is planning for Mars as just a set of "footprints and flagpoles" missions? Why are they planning a fly-by of Mars at all when the most dangerous part of a well-planned mission would be the part in transit rather than the part on the planet?

And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?

In short: Just what, exactly, is going on here?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[October_30th]

Just what, exactly, is going on here?

Lipservice and political grandstanding? I don't think there will be political will to carry out even a "footprint and flagpoles" Mars mission in the near future.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Anonymous Coward]

requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow? What's the advantage to using this thing over just a regular capsule if it's not necessarily reusable?

You seem to be forgetting that the vehicle will be on top of the stack, not bolted to the side.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[sTalking_Goat]

Nothing about this impresses me. The design being the biggest disapointment. Maybe its time to take bids from some of the new areospace startups instead of handing it off to old entrenched Boeing. Those dinosaurs look at space and all they see is nails, so of course they'd want to build the same old hammers.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[AKAImBatman]

Is it just me, or does that design look a lot like the Big Gemini? I was amazed at how similar the designs looked, and then I saw this line:

The CEV is not designed to glide upon re-entry like the shuttle; rather, it will be equipped with parachutes and airbags to set down on land or water. Interchangeable computer systems will increase adaptability between modules.

I'm thinking it *is* a Big Gemini. In which case...

Way to go Lockheed! Reusing proven technology rocks! (Maybe they actually listened to my comments on reusing the design? ... Nah.)

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Joe the Lesser]

No, you see, this time we're going to the moon for real!

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[macpeep]

The benefit of a lifting body (or winged vehicle) is that you have more cross-track navigation control. Also, the g-loads on people inside the craft are much lower that way, which is good when they are coming back from a two year trip to Mars in zero gravity (or very low gravity while on Mars). Even for a long trip to the moon, it will be very helpful.

Orbital rendezvous is good for a number of things. It allows you to have modularity so you can assembler larger crafts, add special modules later on that you haven't even thought of now (as more advanced technology becomes available 10 years down the road), use it to dock with the International Space Station, use it to dock with possible rescue crafts, etc.

This is a vehicle for carrying people. It's not the full set of technologies needed to get to and land on Mars.

And it's taking 15 years because there's no Soviet Union that's making everyone piss in their pants in fear.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[JhohannaVH]

RTFA man.... and all you other commenters. Not only does it use a thermal shield instead of tiles, there IS a backup Carbon-Carbon shield.

Also, this is not the final design, this is the one that Lockheed submitted for consideration in the competition. Final one to be chosen in 2008 with manned flights by 2014.

I think that it's 'taking us so long to go go the moon' because the moon is most assuredly dead. It seems that the focus of everything is looking for life, which is great. Either that, or long-term bases on Luna, which is also great. If it's the latter, well, damn skippy it should take more than 15 years!!!! We've never tried to exist on another solar body, let alone one without supportive water or atmosphere.

So, in answer to your question, this design is a stop gap measure to longer-term and better technically advanced systems to further our goal of living, flourishing and colonizing space and other bodies.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[stlhawkeye]

And perhaps most of all, why is it going to take us fifteen years to get back to the moon when we got there from scratch in less than ten the first time around? Heck, what's our goal in going back to the moon in the first place instead of concentrating on the much-more-promising Mars? Did we miss something the last time around?

We didn't go to the moon for science and exploration, we went there to give the Reds a big fat middle finger.

Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.

Third, the Apollo project cost over $25 billion. In modern dollars, that's aover $100 billion. And believe or not, government spending was more efficient back then. Environmental impact studies weren't necessary, the cost of doing business was lower, the bidding process was simpler and cheaper. NASA's entire budget for this year is under $17 billion.

You can't just reproduce the Saturn V and fly it. The Saturn V was too big for the launch facilities and it had to be assembled with its own tower and hauled out to the launch site.

The Apollo program was also cut short. We'd made our point: America can reach the moon, and the Soviets can't. Neener neener neener. The last three moon missions were cancelled due to budget cuts.

So why will it takes 15 years to get back there? Because none of our current technology is appropriate for the task, the old technology is not only unavailable (there's no more Saturn V's left that could fly) but updating it to modern standards and safety requirements (not to mention refocusing the moon landing to a science mission more than thumbing our nose at the Eastern Bloc) would probably cost as much or more than just starting from scratch.

What's going on: I have no idea, but I honestly don't think they'll even hit the moon in 15 years unless some thing major changes about how NASA or the government does business.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[StarKruzr]

Right, because Apollo didn't work at all.

We didn't use it to get to the moon, and certainly didn't use it to rendezvous with Skylab or the Russians. It didn't prove itself to be a fabulously versatile spacecraft at all; nope, not one iota.

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

No. Carbon-carbon is not ceramic. And backed-up doesn't mean that it's a double layer.

Carbon-carbon is the material that forms the leading edge of the wings, which failed from impact damage on Columbia. By backed-up I presume they mean that the material will be structurally supported underneath, probably by a continuous backing layer. The leading edge of the space shuttle wings were not structurally supported underneath. The interior of the carbon-carbon pieces on the shuttle wings is hollow.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[AKAImBatman]

Orbital rendezvous is good for a number of things. It allows you to have modularity so you can assembler larger crafts, add special modules later on that you haven't even thought of now (as more advanced technology becomes available 10 years down the road), use it to dock with the International Space Station, use it to dock with possible rescue crafts, etc.

I think the big point of it will be to either:

a) Dock with new engines for the trip from LEO to the moon

b) Dock with a specialized moon courier to transfer the passengers.

Isn't it intersting, one of the primary goals of the Gemini program was to develop space docking technology? Then they design a much larger version just before the end of the program. Now we're getting a craft 50 years later that looks like the Big Gemini design but with a new body. Coincidence?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[big-giant-head]

I think this is more a return to sanity, than a great evolution in space craft. After all the basic tech hasn't changed all that much.

The shuttle was too big and expensive and had to be basically rebuilt after every mission.

What nasa needs is a reliable, relativly cheap modular space craft(s) that can be bolted to gether for different missions. Orbit, Moon Mars .... really all the CEV is a way for folks to get to and from orbit. the lunar and Mars space craft will undoubtly be assembled in orbit from modules, and carry along a CEV docked on the side to the astronauts can return to earth after it's over.

So it probably will be nothing impressive, the big thing will be reliablility and operational costs ( or less of them).

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Something else I forgot. The carbon-carbon they are proposing won't be made from tiles. They can construct it as a single piece heat shield. The original shuttle designs also called for a seamless thermal protection system, but they went to a tiled design when it became apparent that they couldn't fabricate it in larger pieces. The nightmare of maintaining so many fragile and unique tiles on the shuttle wasn't their first choice. Materials and fabrication methods have advanced a lot in 30 years, so I'm sure that they will avoid unique and fragile ceramic tiles at all cost.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Ironically, in the nations of the former Soviet Union, they also use the excuse that development is slower now because there's no Soviet Union that's making everyone piss their pants in fear.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[dslbrian]

Has it occurred to anyone that maybe there was NOTHING WRONG with the capsule design in the first place, and that the only reason the Shuttle has wings is so that the Air Force could have warm fuzzies about it?

Mabye people like shuttles because they don't leave a trail of trash from here to the moon. Or mabye because less material resources are expended in recycling something that you know already works. Or perhaps because they don't smash into the ground like a meteor if the parachutes fail.

The various shuttles have flown a LOT more than the Saturn V ever has, so I would venture to say there is nothing wrong with a shuttle design. Perhaps one should try focusing on the real problem with NASA, which is the bureaucracy.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[nizo]

Actually I think they see huge piles of $$$ too, which isn't a good basis for new designs.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[dabigpaybackski]

Mars gravity is 38% of Earth's, not an insignificant difference. Explorers visiting the place for the first time will find walking around a bit disorienting, at first, but probably a lot of fun as well.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Infinityis]

Or if there's a follow-up to the X-prize...

The Y-Prize: For the first manned commercial moon landing.

That should be followed up by the Z-prize, which either colonizes the moon continuously for a minimum period of time, or the first manned commercial Mars landing.

Then we move into the Greek letters...

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[homer_ca]

This doesn't sound innovative or cost effective. The shuttle's black nosecone is already a giant carbon-carbon piece, and it's horribly expensive to produce. The closest thing we have to mass produced carbon-carbon parts are brake rotors for aircraft and race cars. On the low end they run about $2500 each.

How hard is it to make a replaceable ablative heat shield anyway?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[fredrik70]

um, what's so much beter with the shuttle? How ineffective do you think it is to bring all that heavy metal and tiles that build up those wings up into LEO jsut to and then down again, such a waste of energy. A capsule is all we need for space, wings are of no use and risk becoming a hazard when reentering, a lifting body might be cool though

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[rben]

We'll never get there with Bush's plan. Be patient and I'll explain why I think so.

The current administration is spending money at a rate that should make everyone in the country want to start burying cash in jam jars. The price of oil is rising and will continue to rise. Our current leadership, in both parties, forgets that oil will eventually run out and that unless we find alternative ways to fuel our vehicles, we'll pay the price in rampant inflation. Our SUV culture is already using more gasoline than can be refined. The rising cost of oil is causing inflation, which is logical since transportation is a significant cost for almost any business. The Fed is raising interest rates to try to slow inflation, but that won't work, because this isn't some emotional reaction, it's tied to an actual fundemental force in the economy, rising fuel prices. The rising interest rates are having an effect though, they are putting the brakes on what little economic recovery we were having.

If we keep doing stupid things like this, we're going to wind up in very bad shape and we'll drag the whole world's economy down with us. At that point, very few people will understand why it's so important to continue a manned space program. There will be tremendous pressure on Congress to rein in spending on everything but domestic spending.

What we should be doing is working hard to find economical energy replacements. We should also be aggressively funding space exploration, devleoping the technologies that private companies could use to exploit space. There are resources available in space that could make a difference to every person on this planet. A single large iron-nickel asteroid has enough iron to replace the iron production of the whole planet for five years.

The Moon has large amounts of Helium-three, an isotope of Helium that may be key to producing fusion power. That isotope is extraordinarily rare on Earth. China is already planning to set up a base on the Moon to mine the isotope. A sensible idea since they have little in the way of oil and coal will contribute to the green house warming problems we already face.

Using the resources from the Moon and Near Earth Asteroids, NEAs, we could easily build our capability to explore the rest of the solar system. It seems likely that there is water on the Moon near the north pole. Once we got a base set up on the north rim of Peary Crater and started mining Helium-three, I doubt we'd need to put any more money into the effort. I expect it would be funding itself and paying a hefty return.

We need to stop listening to sweet sounding platitudes from our elected officials and demanding that if they propose lofty goals that they then govern in a manner that will make it possible for us to reach them. That isn't happening now.

My primary hope for our chances of exploiting space no longer rests in our government at all. It rests in the hands of individual like Burt Rutan, Ms. Ansari, and Sir Richard Branson, business people and dreamers who, like me, grew up dreaming that we'd already be in space by now.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Darth Yoshi]

That should be followed up by the Z-prize, which either colonizes the moon continuously for a minimum period of time, or the first manned commercial Mars landing.

Jerry Pournelle is way ahead of you.

"I can solve the space access problem with a few sentences.

"Be it enacted by the Congress of the United States:

"The Treasurer of the United States is directed to pay to the first American owned company (if corporate at least 60% of the shares must be held by American citizens) the following sums for the following accomplishments. No monies shall be paid until the goals specified are accomplished and certified by suitable experts from the National Science Foundation or the National Academy of Science:

"1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

"2. The sum of $5 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a space station which has been continuously in orbit with at least 5 Americans aboard for a period of not less than three years and one day. The crew need not be the same persons for the entire time, but at no time shall the station be unoccupied.

"3. The sum of $12 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a Lunar base in which no fewer than 31 Americans have continuously resided for a period of not less than four years and one day.

"4. The sum of $10 billion to be paid for construction and maintenance of a solar power satellite system which delivers at least 800 megaWatts of electric power to a receiving station or stations in the United States for a period of at least two years and one day.

"5. The payments made shall be exempt from all US taxes.

"That would do it. Not one cent to be paid until the goals are accomplished. Not a bit of risk, and if it can't be done for those sums, well, no harm done to the treasury.

"Henry Vanderbilt points out that having a prize, say $1 billion, for the second firm to achieve point (1) above will get more into the competition, and produce better results. I agree.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Flendon]

Maybe its time to take bids from some of the new areospace startups instead of handing it off to old entrenched Boeing.

From TFA: Another announced team is t/Space, a consortium including such groups as Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites, Elon Musk's SpaceX, and Red Whittaker[1] (http://www.redteamracing.org/) of the Carnegie Mellon Robotics Institute. Some news reports in mid-March 2005, stemming from an interview with New Scientist have reported that t/Space intends to withdraw from the competition, citing a high paperwork burden; however, no announcement of a withdrawal has yet been made by t/Space.

However, as of May 3, it seems that only Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman did submit a bid.

Looks like the startups tried but said, screw it your bureaucracy sucks. We will just do it ourselves again.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. You have to remember that a mission to Mars is a much bigger undertaking than a lunar mission. Even considering advances in technology since the 1960s, you're still looking at a multi-decade effort just to get the first human there. And in order to succeed at all, such a mission needs significant financial, and therefore political support for a couple of decades.

It was one thing to race to the moon in the 60s when the US was all caught up in beating the Soviet Union. It's quite another to sustain a much bigger mission when there is no real political impetus to do it, and power will likely change parties several times between now and 2030. Much as I want mankind to ascend to the next level in space exploration, I just don't see much happening in the relatively near future of our lifetimes. Most people are much more concerned with what's happening on our own planet (and perhaps rightfully so?), making the prospect of properly funding this mission difficult if not impossible.

What we really need to reignite the space program is another Soviet Union to compete with. All this new terrorist crap may well threaten us more than the USSR ever did, but we'll never compete with them to get to Mars!

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[cmowire]

Helium-3 and, most probably, fusion power in general, is a red herring. It makes for a good excuse to get up to the moon to do things that ought to be done, but it's not our answer.

We don't need fusion any time soon to solve our energy problem.

The problem with fusion is that plasma dynamics are not as easy as we thought they were going to be in the seventies. We have yet to break even. And even the types of fusion that are supposed to be low-temperature and not produce neutrons still produce a lot of neutron radiation. It'll just get worse if we scale it up to power-generation levels.

We can solve our power problem right now, with fission power. The problem isn't that we don't know how to do a proper fuel cycle with reprocessing, stimulated rapid decay with a neutron bombarder, breeder reactors, etc. The problem is, people have been spending money that could be spent on progressivel better and more efficent reactors and an economy based on this... on generally stupid stuff that hasn't shown to be any better of an idea than old fision power.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[georgewilliamherbert]

The various shuttles have flown a LOT more than the Saturn V ever has, so I would venture to say there is nothing wrong with a shuttle design.

I do not know of any aerospace engineer who believes that the Shuttle is not a greatly flawed design.

I also don't know of any engineer who thinks that the Apollo CSM was greatly flawed, though we had a couple of accidents with it (Apollo 1 pad fire, Apollo 13 flight).

There's nothing inherent about reusable vehicles that makes them all bad designs. Shuttle, however, is not a good reusable design. In retrospect, it was not good enough.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Moofie]

What's NASA's budget? $17 billion/year? That's peanuts.

How much tax revenue does the US get from businesses that wouldn't exist without comm satellites?

Historically, exploration has been the number one long-term economic driver. It's not very expensive, and the potential (and hard to anticipate) benefits are big.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Rei]

If you read TFA, you have a wild imagination to see some of the things in there that you claimed were in there. But to answer your questions specifically:

Why add an orbital rendezvous requirement to all missions?

We don't use the Shuttle for all missions, and the Russians don't use Soyuz for all missions. If we don't need humans or a rendezvou, we use Delta and Atlas rockets. You build to the mission, and this is built to the mission.

Why use a shape like this which, I presume, requires the use of failure-prone ceramic tiles for reentry protection

It says no such thing. In fact, from a reentry standpoint, this craft looks like what the shuttle was *supposed* to be, but wasn't because of budget constraints. It uses a titanium frame - this allows it to run hot on reentry, which means that heat dissipation issues aren't as serious, and damage isn't as threatening. A side advantage is you'll get a far better payload ratio.

With a titanium frame, you generally only need to protect your leading edges, and they're using RCC, which is the best material out there in the present-day for such extremes (and isn't tiles). It's expensive, but it's a one-time production run, barring damage.

Titanium frames also fatigue a *lot* less. In short, you get a safer, much lower maintainence, and longer lifespan craft. The only downside is higher initial cost.

instead of a tried-and-proven heat sheild

RCC is a tried and true heat shield. If you mean "ablatives", don't delude yourself into thinking that they're cheap, either - this will be far cheaper than ablatives when amortized over a few flights. Ablatives are costly and tricky to apply properly (just like other spray-on things, such as foam insulation) - and are very difficult to use around moving parts.

when you're planning to use parachutes to land the thing anyhow?

Parachutes don't slow you from orbital velocity. You might have noticed, if you had read, that it has wings. Do you know why? It's not to meet Buck Rogers Stylistic Guidelines(tm) - wings let you skim the atmosphere longer on reentry, burning off your heat slower. Then, on this craft, a drogue chute will fire, followed by the main chute. It's the best of both worlds - the wings can be smaller and optimized for hypersonic flight only, while they still give you a gentler reentry profile.

it's not necessarily reusable?

What cave are you living in that you didn't learn that the CEV was to be a reusable vehicle? The *launch vehicle* isn't expendible - it will probably be a modified Atlas or Delta, which are very good launch systems. Sure, I'd love to see a fully reusable booster that doesn't cost a fortune (which, by all means, should be possible), but one thing at a time.

Overall, this is a great looking craft, and it will benefit greatly from all of the research that went on from the Shuttle program (and there was a *lot* - cost-reduction and safety-enhancing research was a good portion of the Shuttle's budget). My only real question is that its hypersonic drag profile looks a bit odd. Namely, there's no visible pinch as the wings widen (drag at hypersonic velocities is largely proportional to the maximum cross sectional area, so you typically pinch the fuselage as the wings eat up more cross section). I guess I'd also like to know why they chose ethanol biprop propulsion over, say, kerosene or LOX/propane. Still, great basic design principles on this craft.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Nerull]

Erm, the foam on the shuttle is to keep ice from forming on the ET. (if you watch many cryogenic rockets during liftoff, you can see large chunks of ice falling off the rocket, and those that aren't white (like Soyuz) have a visible layer of ice on them) It has nothing to do with the heat shield, aside from falling off and hitting it (ice would be more dangerous though, i'd imagine). Of course, the CEV will be sitting on top of the launcher, well out of the way of any falling ice or foam.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Rei]

Then Jerry Pournelle is an idiot.

Orbital Sciences Corp would get 2 billion dollars just for strapping a heat shield to one of their Pegasus rockets instead of a payload - congrats we just wasted 1/3 of a CEV's development cost to accomplish nothing. Or did you not already know that private companies, using private funds, have already launched orbital rockets? It's not a very profitable business - that's why there aren't too many companies doing it.

Number 3 would never be done without subsidy. The costs are way off. I can do a breakdown if you'd like on what construction and supply costs would be during that period.

Number 4 makes no sense - why offer a prize for a *specific* clean power technology? The numbers are also way off on this one. Here, do the math: 1,367 W/m^2 (optimal), 35% conversion efficiency (very good), 5% beaming efficiency (far better than currently available). 800MW = 334 million square meters. Assuming 0.1 kg per square meter (light for high efficiency cells), that's 34 million kilograms (ignoring support eq., such as heliostats, orbit correction, transmission, etc). At a launch price of 7,000$/kg (cheap), that's 233 billion dollars.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Moofie]

You could slice it that way, I concede. I wasn't counting the deaths in the on-the-ground pre-mission test, but I see where you're coming from.

However, Shuttle is not a good space launch system. The "Better Faster Cheaper" mantra didn't actually accomplish any of those goals, and Shuttle certainly didn't.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Kiryat Malachi]

"1. The sum of $2 billion to be paid for construction of 3 operational spacecraft which have achieved low earth orbit, returned to earth, and flown to orbit again three times in a period of three weeks.

Wake me up when a Pegasus comes back to earth and goes back up once, much less twice. In three weeks. And hey, if they can do it in such a fashion that people can survive the up and down, then we *have* a CEV already, and wouldn't it be nice to know that?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[georgewilliamherbert]

I say: Why do you need in atmosphere cross range? The vehicle starts of in space and has the ablity to change its velocity through it's reaction control system if you want to land in a specific spot then wait untill the right moment to fire the de-orbit thrusters. There is no need for atmopheric cross range if you make your changes in orbit before firing the de-orbit thrusters.

You need some lift in the reentry vehicle or else it's a pure ballistic reentry; lift is used to stay higher up for longer. If you can't stay high up, you slow down excessively fast (10+ Gs) and that tends to make the crew unhappy (or dead).

Once you have some lift, you have some crossrange that comes with that. It's coupled together.

You can get lift in capsules. The hypersonic lift to drag ratio of an Apollo capsule was about 0.25, just from flying the reentry tilted a bit. Wings get you better L/D ratios (up to better than 1.0).

Crossrange is also used to land away from the ground track of the orbit. Which is necessary given how narrow the ground track is on usual orbits.

You can get crossrange by changing your orbital plane a bit a quarter orbit before reentry, using rockets. That's not the usual way, but if you work out the numbers, it takes about as much weight as wings do to get you extreme crossrange.

Fuel is cheaper than wings...

In summary: Crossrange good, wings not necessary.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Moofie]

I wouldn't argue for a moment that Shuttle was anything other than horrible cost-plus budget gerrymandering.

However, manned space flight is literally the only important thing that humans can do.

Another $100 billion more for the poor, and there will still be poor. Another $100 billion for space exploration, and we've got another planet to explore and colonize.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[alienw]

that would help competitive PRIVATE INDUSTRY get into space to do all that exploring.

Yeah, because private companies can make money from pixie dust and love to spend it on projects with zero ROI. Or are you suggesting we give private companies taxpayer money?

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[dafoomie]

Here's an interesting factoid: The Space Shuttle Enterprise was slated to be called "Constitution". Which would have made the Space Shuttles "Constitution-class". Just like the USS Enterprise NCC-1701!
It was actually going to be named after Richard Nixon, which is ironic because most of the shuttle's drawbacks are his fault. NASA wanted something completely different, Nixon made it cost less in the short term and a ton more in the long term, and wouldn't fund it at all unless it could be used for military applications as well. And all the while, he comes off as a big space guy.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[Canth7]

Those 3 deaths on the Apollo missions happened on the ground, due to a hatch design problem. There probably isn't enough data to extrapolate which is more deadly to a precise degree, but it seems logical that the more complicated shuttle would be the less safe vehicle.

Re:One or two questions related to these articles:

[HuguesT]

You are doing statistics on 3 events, essentially your margin of error is so huge that you can't infer any conclusion.

Both were risky endeavours ; however the parent's point is not completely moot. Apollo 1 was a new design and caused the death of 3 people on the ground. The rest of the missions went OK, even Apollo 13 who had massive systems failures, but enough redundancy built-in to make it back safely. Moreover you are not counting the Apollo predecessors which were somewhat similar in design, but simpler, and which didn't suffer any casualty.

In contrast, the SS exploded twice unexpectedly in the middle of the program. Apparently the SS is a complex system with design flaws no one really knows how to fix.

At any rate the SS is far deadlier than it was designed to be.

Couple LocMart Links

[stoolpigeon]

A few links right to locmart:

Main CEV Page Has the graphics shown in the other articles, etc.

Couple Page PDF Early on stuff about CEV

Interesting.... This page doesn't say much but what it does say is this, "The Space Exploration Vision Center is now open in Washington D.C. This facility showcases the latest developments in space exploration, concepts and technologies for NASA's Crew Exploration Vehicle program, including a full-scale cockpit simulator. Government tours and meetings are available five days a week." I want on one of those tours.

Re:But...

[PenguinBoyDave]

No. The new shuttle replacement will go back to an older, more stable system: Commodore 64

curious...

[wcitech]

are there any obvious oppurtunities for advancement here? There are going to be billions in production costs, so we can -=go to the moon=- in 2015-2020. I'm going to be a little more than upset if we spend this much money to accomplish something that will have happene already almost 70 years prior. Can we at least shoot to that red one next door?

Re:curious...

[stinkyfingers]

// begin conspiracy

Maybe we have to get to the moon to put footprints and flag up before some other country finds out the truth. We can always *make* more money.

// end conspiracy

Sa y hello to the new kid, same as the old kid

[Watersharer]

Since the early days of the space program, lives have been wasted and money shoveled down the gaping maw of the 'status-quo' machine.

We should/could have been out there by now. There are overwhelming reasons, political and economic, to get this freaking horse to run already.

So now they give us a 'new and improved' assbox that has limited mission goals, is incapable of leaving orbit, and cant get itself to space. Whats new in that?

Shields!

[Lugor]

3 Micro-Meteoroid and Orbital Debris protection shield

One step closer to Ionized Hullplates, then real Shields!!

Before everyone goes crazy

[TheKidWho]

This is a lifting body, it does NOT have wings like the shuttle's. Where the "wings" are on the LM CEV,LOX/Fuel Cells/and other avionics equipment is stored there.

Also, this is NOT the CEV that is going to be going to Mars. The Mars mission isn't until past 2020 and when that happens, the CEV will have been updated quite a bit.

So now, lets have a Capsule vs Lifting body debate!

Re:Before everyone goes crazy

[kabloie]

It's not the spacecraft that's landing on the moon either. I don't know if the submitter recognizes the difference between cruising the strip around the moon and parking this CEV there, but there is going to be a lot more hardware involved than this doodad.

Where's the CRV?

[wiredlogic]

Now if we can get a Crew Return Vehicle turned back back on we have a chance of fully populating the ISS. It would be a nice bonus if such a vehicle was a striped down (toilet-less, stowable) CEV that could use the same launch system.

Re:Where's the CRV?

[wiredlogic]

The CRV was designed to be a Soyuz replacement and needs to be able to stay attached to the ISS for months at a time. This requires a vehicle that is designed for extended stays in space. CRV systems need better radiation hardening and need added reliability for sitting in low power, cold storage until the vehicle is needed. The shuttle can't do this since if is only designed for ~2 week missons and all critical systems are kept running all the time. As it is, the Soyuz escape craft docked to ISS have to be replaced periodically during long missions because they have a limited service life (I think the batteries die out).

Not again!

[Baldrson]

Oh God, not again!

Hasn't the space shuttle program done enough damage to the pioneering heritage of the US already?

First, NASA delivers a space transportation system with a cost per lb to leo that is an order of magnitude higher than it promised.

Then, NASA stomps out private investment in launch service companies because it would dilute the monopoly value of the bad technology NASA produced.

Then when grassroots space enthusiasts try to get NASA to stop stomping out privately financed space transportation companies, and passed legislation requiring NASA to follow the Reagan policy of purchasing commercial launch services whenever possible, NASA thumbs its nose at the taxpayers most interested in space and launches the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite via the Shuttle.

Then when grassroots space enthusiasts, totally fed up with NASA's lawlessness and detemination to destroy the pioneering spirit of the US, start offering their own launch technology prizes, NASA waits until one of them embarrasses it before providing even lip-service to the prize award concept.

Finally, a private entrepreneur is offering $50 million of his own money as an incentive for other private investors to create a de facto replacement for the Space Shuttle* and NASA responds by trying to pump taxpayer money into the same good old boy network that has so effectively destroyed hope among pioneering peoples that they can embark on a new age of exploration to escape the burgeoning bureaucracies that proclaim themselves the hope of mankind while destroying its spirit.

Kill NASA before it kills the human spirit.

*An exploding myth.

Re:Not again!

[Joe the Lesser]

Indeed, when all is lost and humanity buckles under it's own weight, and we listlissly go through the motions of our meaningless lives, the blame will lie on NASA.

Re:Not again!

[Androk]

the delta clipper http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/x-33/dc- xa.htm would have been a great replacement for the shuttle. It took a ground crew of 6 and demonstrated quick turn-aroud launches (on the 1/3 scale prototype). McDonnall Douglas made many successful test launches, Nasa crashed it the first time, and the project was cancelled. Androk

I can see it all now...

[StuffJustHappens]

I haven't RTFA (hey, this is Slashdot!), but based on my observations of the shuttle landings - ie: like a 'regular' passenger plane, I can see how this all pans out:

1. Moonbase 1 is built with a modern, high-tech arrivals terminal for the new craft.

2. First craft arrives and personnel enter the arrivals lounge.

3. Crew awaits baggage only to discover it's been sent to Mars.

LockMart?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they win the contract, I hope they have their budget firmly in place before they build anything.

They are notorious for delivering under spec'ed products many millions above budget.

Re:LockMart?

[bleckywelcky]

While it might be easy to bash LM, this is common among the entire Aerospace industry. Especially the big system integrators (LM, Boeing, NG, ATK, OS, etc). Because, as a system integrator, if 1 sub-contractor increases their cost by 1%, not only do you have to increase your cost my 1%, but then you have to increase it by another 1% to cover the additional costs of handling and reviewing the sub-contractor's extra 1%.

IE a sub-contractor decides that a series of bolts were not up to specifications, so they have to spend money on the re-design of the bolts, re-testing of the bolts, and re-manufacturing of the bolts. They pass this increased cost onto the system integrator.

Then the system integrator has to spend money to review they new bolt design, the new testing procedures, and the new manufacturing processes. And on top of that, they have to spend additional money to ensure that the new bolt design works with the rest of the current system design, add to that all the increased overhead involved with this new design, and you double the original cost increase.

So if the sub-contractors modify their cost by 15%, the total cost will probably increase by another 15%. And then if the system integrator makes their own modifications that result in their own 15% increase, that ends up being a 45% increase - while only 15% is truly the system integrator's responsibility and the other 30% is a result of the sub-contractors modifications.

So at least 1/3 (the original 15%) of your blame should be on the sub-contractors, perhaps up to 2/3 (the original 15% and the extra 15% system cost).

Well

[StarKruzr]

I don't understand the orbital rendezvous thing either. If I was to guess, I'd say I think it might make the vehicle as a whole more flexible in terms of fuel and cargo space requirements.

The craft does not appear to use ceramic tiles. They mention a carbon-carbon heat shield. Also, it would appear to be reusable. Capsules are limited in terms of maneuverability - this design appears to have some control over its descent into the atmosphere.

And it makes sense to use the same craft for LEO as well as Moon and Mars for the same reason it makes sense to use the orbital rendezvous requirement - modularity.

This craft is clearly intended to be a general-purpose "mission operations and habitat" spacecraft.

I actually really like this design - it reminds me of the equally sensible Russian Kliper design.

As for the lunar timeline, I expect this time around we will be establishing something closer to a permanent presence on the Moon.

Watch for international squabbles over Lunar resources like He-III to start cropping up.

old design, made new again?

[mbancsu]

this design isn't new!? these are images from shuttle prototype designs that were made back in 1991. Maybe the technology is finally available, hence the release of this material/info to the public/media?

Bring back the Saturn rockets!

[__aaclcg7560]

Why don't we just re-use an updated version of the Saturn rocket and capsule design if we're going back to the moon? It won't have the sex appeal of a new sports space shuttle but it would work.

Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets!

[dabigpaybackski]

Why don't we just re-use an updated version of the Saturn rocket and capsule design if we're going back to the moon? It won't have the sex appeal of a new sports space shuttle but it would work.

Well, as I recall, someone on a previous thread said that all of the Saturn V blueprints were destroyed as part of the deal that lead to the creation of the original Space Shuttle (doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?) But, as the guy above me suggests, an updated Saturn V-scale rocket is the form-factor for their notion of nuclear-powered lift vehicle and boy, is it a doozy.

Two obstacles stand in the way of this glorious technology:

One, the aerospace oligopoly, who stand to lose money from the retirement of costly, inefficient, and dangerous chemical rockets.

Two, an uninformed public who instinctively fears anything nuclear. Environmental groups will go ballistic when a nuclear launch vehicle is announced. Watch for an ugly, ugly fight when this happens. And it will happen. Nuclear space launch is indispensible.

Re:Bring back the Saturn rockets!

[pjt48108]

I think we are more likely to see a Soyuz launch from Kennedy than we are a 'new' Saturn V. I have many reasons for saying this, but basic economics pretty much underscores them all.

Now, I am no rocket scientist, physicist, engineer or whatnot. I am just a very curious person with a penchant for sites like astronautix.com (BTW, I recommend a visit there to all and sundry). But that is beside the point...

First, the Soyuz line is still in production. But I can dream, too, so let's assume the Saturn concept is an option...

Could we launch a Saturn? Well...

Second, American space launch infrastructure has been down-graded from the Saturn days. What wasn't downgraded (or cross-graded, or otherwise euphemistically condensed and compacted) was left to rot-in-place. It was more cost effective to let it rot and rust--after all, we had the shuttle, and everything rebuilt to its associated scales.

Therefore, any sort of similar shift to "ramp-up" to Saturn V levels would carry multiplier costs, what with the need to chop out the walls again at the Vehicle Assembly Building, upgrade or newly-design and construct Saturn-rated launch platforms and support structures, yada yada yada. This paints a very unfortunate situation. Bleak, I must confess, as I am a Saturn baby, born in 1968. Ah, the days of the TRUE boosters--I get sentimental for Skylab, sometimes...

Finally, current capability trumps the theoretical capability of as-yet unrealized systems, ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, if you are a bean-counter (and there are a few out there, I understand.... Bean-counters, I mean). Soyuz beats US Brand 'X' launcher with what I feel is an INHERENT advantage to them: they are (in my opinion) overbuilt in order to compensate for launching, historically, from facilities further from the equator. It isn't a big shocker, then, to read that Russian rockets will soon actually be launching from South American bases, where this translates into larger load capabilities, or higher orbits, being closer to the equator.

So, it would seem easier and more cost-effective, in my fantasy/opinion, to recycle current American facilities for Soyuz launch business: in the end, Soyuz is a well-proven product with a good number more launches on its resume, and an arguable launch advantage, to anything in current production inside or outside of Shuttle-Land, USA.

So, sorry. As much as I'd like to see more Saturns launch, I think it is more likely I'll get a chance to see a Soyuz launch without ever leaving the USA. ...Of course, I still argue that Micro$oft will soon dump everything and pull a Steve Jobs (again), by gutting Windows in favor of some *nix. And I also voted for Kerry. So take it all with a grain of salt, I guess. ;)

Too many technical details!

[Locke2005]

The most anticipated--if least glamorous--advancements will include a means to generate power for long-duration stays in space and a diagnostic safety system to troubleshoot problems.
Wow, that's way to complicated... could you please explain that in layman's terms?

Re:Too many technical details!

[t_allardyce]

A backup hampster wheel and a colour instruction manual with space to write notes.

Size Matters

[AviLazar]

So they say it could be used for longer missions - but is it big enough. From the diagram it looks like the crew has a place to sit. For any missions, especially long term, the crew really needs a place to move around.

Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[pair-a-noyd]

This thing looks like it can't carry much of a payload.

What about schoolbus sized satellites?

This looks like a simple space taxi, not a space truck...

Waste of money..

I think we need to go back to basics and use the simple rockets to lift huge payloads, like the Russian Energia.

The Russians space program is pretty basic and could be very effective..

First step is to keep meddling politicians out of it all...

Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[Manhigh]

Its not the space shuttle, nor is it intended to be.

The space shuttle can launch 20ish tons to LEO. But what if youre just going to the space station for a crew transfer? Its about as economical as taking a semi-truck down to the drugstore instead of a 4-cylinder coupe.

We dont always needs huge payloads. The other interesting idea with this concept is that this vehicle is being designed to be launch from current launch vehicles. Given the current budgetary situation, doing more with less is vital.

Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[twostar]

You should NOT launch space equipment on manned launch vehicles. The safety requirements drive the cost through the roof. There is no argument for launching satellites on the same vehicle as people, all that ends up happening is you drive the costs of both up.

It's much cheaper to launch equipment on Expendable Launch Vehicles (ELVs) and people on a small system designed to get just people up. In orbit rendezvous is easy for us now and this way you don't have to launch wasted mass in the form of quadruple safety redundancy.

Re:Everyone is missing the obvious here.

[Thu25245]

Why on earth (or in space) would you want a manned spacecraft like this to carry a payload? If you try to build a manned craft that can carry "schoolbus sized satellites" you'll end up with something like the space shuttle, only even more expensive and even less reliable.

This is a "space compact car" to carry humans up. The shuttle is a "space SUV" that is horribly inefficient as a cargo platform or a people-mover. "Space trucks" should be (and are) unmanned.

The CEV is a step back

[Bruha]

If the device cannot land like a plane it has no hopes of recovering anything from space.

Still has to survive re-entry so losing the ability to land like a plane is a great loss. While it makes it possible to land anywhere I dont believe our money is best put to use in this fashion.

Re:The CEV is a step back

[Richard_at_work]

How many times has the Shuttle been used to return large payloads from space - from what I can tell, never! It was sold on that idea (stealing enemy sats) but never used.

Re:The CEV is a step back

[AKAImBatman]

If the device cannot land like a plane it has no hopes of recovering anything from space.

The Big Gemini (upon which this design appears to be based) used a parawing. This gave it the best of both parachute and landing gear systems. i.e. Slow rate of descent and horizontal flight path.

Parawing Video
Big Gemini

Holy crap -- that's MY LEGO set!

[IronChefMorimoto]

I swear to God that photo on the Popular Mechanics website and Wikipedia article looks like a damned LEGO set.

At least NASA won't have to put much engineering into future spacesuits, what with the limited arm/leg mobility of LEGO peeps.

IronChefMorimoto

who cares??

[eestar]

why do we care?? I mean seriously why do i care what we are going to do in space? Why are we geeks and why do all geeks have interests in the same geeky stuff? Lets make slashdot cool together. Lets talk about American Idol... I cant, do it. I like space more than pretty pop singers. whats wrong with us??

Re:who cares??

[drxenos]

I don't feel there is anything wrong with us. It's the rest of the world. I LOVE being a geek.

X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!?

[jzarling]

What about the X-33 and the VentureStar? Couldn't we just restart that program? The design is already worked out and the protoype of the X-33 was well on it way to completion.

Re:Titanium?!

[ciroknight]

I think there are plenty SR-71's out there that are no longer in service which could commit a few tonnes of raw titanium to the project.

Secondly, who the fuck cares? Wouldn't it be cheaper to use carbon fiber composites and stronger steal alloys where needed. Sure it'll be heavier, but it's definitely a lot more cost effective. Unless NASA has the power to make the government turn over a few decommissioned SR's to them.

Re:Uh, cargo space?

[AKAImBatman]

That's because shipping cargo on the Space Shuttle was a dumb idea. Humans have very special needs (e.g. safety, atmosphere, low G tolerance, etc.) that cargo doesn't usually have. As a result, it's usually more cost effective to split manned missions and cargo missions into two seperate craft.

With that in mind, we've already got the cargo craft in the form of the Delta, Atlas, and Titan rockets. Now all we need is a human capable craft that doesn't haul 80 metric tons of (mostly) useless material into orbit.

For the Nth time

[Ars-Fartsica]

How many times have we seen "shuttle replacements"??? And Popular Mechanics/Science has just turned into military industrial porn. Do even 1% of their "artist renderings" of nuclear fighter aircraft or nanotube-hulled destroyers or hypersonic submarines (yes, all improbable/impossible, that is my point) ever make it even into the clay mockup phase?

Re:Uh, cargo space?

[Richard_at_work]

Thats the whole point, the cargo is sent up seperately, maybe in a mission pod designed to be a cargo launcher. This way, if anything goes wrong, you jetison the CEV and leave the cargo to be destroyed. On missions that dont have heavy payloads like satillites, you arent carrying all that weight of a largely empty cargo bay up. The shuttle couldnt really be reconfigured to save weight, the CEV will be.

The real history of the Delta Clipper

[Baldrson]

Truax's Sea Dragon would have been a better replacement.

My experience with Truax was to get him to cross the street (literally) and meet with Ron Packard -- the congressman who sponsored the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990. The LSPA was signed into law. I testified before Congress on follow-up legislation for commercial incentives. While in Washington DC, I met with Dana Rohrabacher and told him of Truax's desire to do a trans-Pacific rocket-delivery system for over-night "FedEx" type services based on a scaled down version of the Sea Dragon -- and indicated the commercial incentives legislation could clear the way for private funding by removing the threat of government competition. Rohrabacher then initiated the DC-X program within his district, which was government funded. I happened to be present at a meeting between a group of investors and a private launch service company (intending on commercializing the MX-missile's production lines for launch services) the day the DC-X funding was announced. The investors decided not to bother competing with the government's deep pockets and terminated the meeting upon hearing the announcement. The potential of DC-X to create new "FedEx-like" services across the Pacific was mentioned in the press.

Don't go to the moon, blow it up

[Is0m0rph]

Like Arnold Schwarzenegger was saying on Howard Stern a couple weeks ago. The moon is not good for anything. The tides are a nuisance, most crime is committed during a full moon, female cycles follow the moon, no need for moonlight when we have fire and electricity. He said if he can't get government backing to blow up the moon he would go up there using his own money and blow it up himself.

Duct tape?

[loconet]

Is it just me or does this image of the model look like the Propultion Stage is being held together by duct tape? I mean, I know duct tape can achieve some unbelievable things but this might be pushing it just a bit no?

Space taxi makes sense

[jabber01]

The problem with a jack-of-all-trades vehive is that it is a master of none. We can already get heavy payloads up into space with more conventional rockets, like the Energia you mention. What we need is a way to effectively get people up there too. It seems that this is the primary goal of this CEV. The payload will get there one way, and the crew another. Then, they don't have to bring the truck back home empty all the time.

A reusable crew vehicle beats a capsule any day, no?

And what sense is there in using a payload lifting rocket to throw a crew into orbit? Now THAT is a waste of money.

Re:X-33!?!? VentureStar!?!?

[CompressedAir]

The relevant phrase here is: "Don't throw good money after bad."

The X-33 is an example of how NOT to design a good spacecraft. If your design relies on not one, but several totally unproven systems (the main two being a composite fuel tank and Aerospike engines) it should not surprise you when it doesn't pan out.

My personal jury is still out on this Lockheed design, but remember: just because it has a lifting body does not mean it has anythin design-wise in common with the Shuttle.

Better than the Shuttle

[JJ]

Because the costs of getting into space hasn't changed much, this is really just a reusable capsule which will be launched on a disposable rocket. The other components will be launched on seperate disposable rockets (or one day, built in space.) It's more efficent than the shuttle, much cheaper and safer. Splashdowns used to be my most favorite part of the space mission and it looks like we'll be having them again. Probably not nationally televised though.

Re:If we can put a man on the moon....

[Short Circuit]

We can. This site does it, constantly.

This would work well with space elevators

[WillAffleckUW]

The SEV is put into orbit - once.

The space elevators bring up the fuel mass (split by solar cells in orbit), the solar cells, and the supplies, which are then transferred from the space elevator orbital end to the space station (or the spacecraft going to Mars to find Oil).

But what will they do with the military space shuttle?

NASA has always been a separate civilian agency:

[McSpew]

Further, NASA was a part of the United States Air Force at the time, not a separate entity with its own (very limited ) budget.

Erm, what?!?

NASA has always been a separate, civilian agency. It grew out of the old National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), itself a civilian organization.

The Air Force did have its own space program during the late 1950s and early 1960s (around the same time as the creation of NASA), which centered around the X-20 Dyna-Soar and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory. The USAF even built an astronaut school at Edwards Air Force Base, and Chuck Yeager was the commandant. However, that whole program lost steam in the mid 1960s and was abandoned by 1969. This led the USAF to send its best remaining astronaut pilots to NASA, and convert the school into a test pilot school.

Even so, many of the most famous astronauts from the Apollo days were not USAF pilots. Neil Armstrong was a civilian (he worked for NACA in the X-15 program), and Buzz Aldrin, Jim Lovell and Alan Shepard were US Navy pilots.

The difference between then and now, in terms of budgets is this: First, the entire nation was deathly afraid of the Red Menace and national pride was on the line (nobody wanted go to sleep by the light of a Commie moon); Second, a very charismatic US President had staked his legacy on the US getting to the moon before the end of the 1960s (this at a time when the US had only put one man in space, and briefly, at that) before being assassinated and leaving the entire nation in shock.

Congress voted big dollars to the space program because it helped fight the blasted Commies, and because Lyndon Johnson, among others, helped spread the pork to important states (California, Texas, Missouri, New York, Florida, etc.). It also helped the nation pay its final respects to JFK. By the early 1970s, however, Americans began to question the investment in the space program, regularly saying things such as, "I don't think it makes sense to spend so much money to send people to the moon when we have so many problems here on Earth that we need to deal with first, such as hunger, pollution, disease, poverty, etc."

You made some valid points in the rest of your piece, but your glaring fallacy about NASA's status kind of undermines your credibility, don'tcha think?

Modern Safety Requirements?

[reality-bytes]

Do modern safety requirements = Shuttle?

One glaring safety issue that I can see is that the Shuttle lacks the crew-saving 'abort modes' that Saturn V and even Gemini / Mecury had ie: The Launch Escape Tower.

If anything had gone wrong ie: vehicle exploded on pad / during initial climb, the Launch Escape System would drag the capsule clear of the rocket and then land using the normal parachute system.

The Shuttle has very limited launch abort modes and very optimistic ideas about how the crew could leave the vehicle. Ultimately, if the Shuttle's main tank burnt fast / exploded on the pad, that would be curtains for the crew. As Challenger demonstrated, the Shuttle is vulnerable during ascent too where a catastrophic failure of the SRBs would destroy the entire vehicle and crew.

If you search around, you can find the NASA descriptions of both Shuttle and Saturn V abort modes and just in the way they read, you can see that the Saturn V escape system was a *serious* concept whereas the Shuttle abort modes are no more than lip-service to any significant malfunction.

Although the NASA launch escape systems were never tested on an exploding rocket, the Russian space program did demonstrate on a couple of occasions that the escape towers (I think on N1 boosters) worked. This is the same launch escape system used on manned Soyuz flights to this day.

If someone told me I had to ride in a rocket to LEO tommorow, I would choose a Soyuz flight over a Shuttle flight purely for the ammount of 'options' provided throughout the flight.

Re:Titanium?!

[TopSpin]

Thats some really expensive material.

The element itself is rather common; over .5% of the mass of the Earth is titanium. The high cost is due to the chemically intensive refining process. Due to incremental improvements titanium prices are relatively low and stable. Titanium has only been available in commercial quantity for about 60 years. Our ability to produce it has improved rapidly.

As such, it is no longer thought of as an exotic SR-71 class material by engineers. The A380 is 9% titanium by weight; that's just under 30 short tons of titanium per aircraft.

New processes are being developed that should help drive the cost of processing ores down substantially. There also happens to be large titanium content in moon rocks.

Re:Holy shit. That's genius.

[Moofie]

Even sadder that the reason it won't happen, is because the plan was endorsed by Newt Gingrich.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[Catbeller]

"The terror threat is real"

Please, everyone, stop a moment and think about this .

Who is "terror", and have they been threatening us? Utterly unexamined assumption.

We got hit by a few dozen nutters a few years ago, and now we are under a "terror threat".

Firstly, a threat is a statement of intent -- a SPECIFIC statement -- that someone is coming to hurt or kill you.

Secondly, what the hell is "terror"? Bush has slapped the label on so many disparate factions and actions so as to make the term meaningless. Someone shoots at someone in the Phillipines? Terror. Someone kidnaps someone for ransom? A terrorist act. We invade a country, kill tens of thousands and mutilate far more -- those who shoot back are branded "terrorists" of the same stripe who blow up trains in Spain. Teacher's unions have been labelled terrorists by a Congresscritter.

The word "terrorist" is a simple cognate coined and maintained as a substitute for the old Red/Communist/Russian/Soviet monolithic "they" that we were told was intent on killing or subverting us for over fifty years. It turned out that the original threat estimate for the Soviets were based on "information" offered up by ex-Nazis in the same manner information is "offered" by people in Guantanamo. The prisoners tell the torturer what they want to hear: The Soviets are mighty and mad; Al Queda has cells EVERYWHERE and is planning to kill again soon, please, not the electrodes again...

Terrorism. What is shock and awe, but terror? What is slaugtering your way into a country, but terror? What was what we did, invading and killing to capture Noriega, but terror? Terror is an emotion, not a tactic. It is felt by us, not inflicted on us. We've become flaming cowards, afraid of everything and everyone, condoning torture and kidnap and murder of "terrorists", which is nothing but an label slapped onto any damned one that Bush wants to eliminate. The Partiot Act has created a dictator who has declared that human rights and treaties don't apply to "terrorists", as Bushie said just yesterday. Since "terror" is defined as "anything that makes us uneasy or afraid", and a "terrorist" can be declared secretly by the Bush team, Bush has declared "war" on no particular person, has no timetable for the "war" to be ended, has no definition of the terms of its ending.

By ceding this terminology to Bush's whim, we've created an uncheckable police state that recognizes no national boundaries and strips human rights, in holes in the ground, from people snatched from their homes in the middle of the night.

The most telling point to be made is that when Bush's Justice Department takes the few cases it has made to the court system, they have convicted NO ONE on the evidence; on the contrary, they have consistently lost every case they have had to make.

Terror? Threat? The terror is the fear instilled in you by national hysteria fed by a pack of radicals intent on a revolution in our way of life and law. The threat is pathetic; a few dozen wackos who barely have had enough juice to make video tapes. They got lucky once, and they got what they wanted: an America attacking the oil rich countries, just as they predicted. We've made far, far more enemies killing -- quite illegally -- the Iraqis than we had before 9/11. We've made the nonexistent enemy a reality by our own terror and yes, racism and confusion, and by an elect few, greedy for power and riches beyond count.

Exposed Insulation (Was Re: Duct tape?)

[whitis]

What concerns me in that picture is what looks like exposed superinsulation material with no aluminum shell covering it around the propulsion stage. Seems rather susceptible to ice damage. Now that insulation is probably covering a tank that is strong but if you lose the insulation your fuel could boil off rather quickly. And if you can afford to have less fuel, you wouldn't be carrying it in the first place. And what about all the wires and plumbing on the outside of the tank that are not as strong as the tank itself.

Also, from what I can see from other pictures, it looks like the crew module is lacking an airlock. It would appear you have to use the entire back half of the crew module as an airlock. Or, in airline terms, the cockpit would remain pressurized while the passenger compartment would be depressurized. There does appear to be a full airlock between the two halves of the crew module. Also, it looks like the rear hatch is used to couple with the mission module which means that you can't even use back half of the crew module as an airlock when you have a mission module - the mission module itself needs to be used as an airlock if you wan't to go EVA. Or else you need to depressurize the cockpit when you want to step outside to fix something. Personallly, I would like to be able to step outside to fix something without wasting that much oxegen or having everyone have to change compartments or put their helmets on everytime I came back in for a different size wrench :-)

Re:The difference is...

[LiquidCoooled]

Heres a really good run down of the kliper.

Looks like the nose cone section of the shuttle without any wings or tail

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

What the hell nonsense are you spouting?

Are you asserting that there are no people who wish to kill Americans and other Westerners simply because they are not radicalized Islamists? If not, then you are merely arguing, ineptly, about the scale of the threat, not its reality.

I fear, like the people you claim are nonexistent, you have allowed your own irrational and unsupportable beliefs to cloud your rational mind.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[RobinH]

He seems to be saying that the actual terror events that have happened over the last few years (the ones that Americans actually care about) are being used by people to manipulate Americans into being afraid of more than the "real" threat, whatever that is. Using the label "terror" loosely, you can now subtly compare anything you think threatens the government, even civil disobedience, to al qaeda. It's not that big of a stretch.

That doesn't mean there aren't real terrorist organizations out there - obviously there are. But when's the last time you heard about the hunt for Osama? Did we find him in Iraq yet, with all the other rebels^H^H^H^H^H^H^H terrorists who keep car bombing the U.S. troops?

It's not about Mars anymore...

[d474]

It's about Space Based Weapons systems. Read it for yourself from our friends down at the CFR (Council on Foregin Relations).

Here's a sample:

"And I am here to tell you that there is not going to be any other nation on Earth that's going to accept the U.S. developing something they see as the death star. It's not going to happen. And people are going to find ways to target it and it's going to create a huge problem. I don't think the United States would find it very comforting if China were to develop a death star, a 24/7 on-orbit weapon that could strike at targets on the ground anywhere in 90 minutes."

Enjoy.

better late than never

[maxpublic]

and will eventually go to the moon (between 2015 and 2020).

Whereupon they'll be given a warm welcome by Mike Melville and the crew of Tycho Station, who'll present them with their very own "Welcome to the Moon, Inc." wings.

Max

So they admit it!!

[JohnPM]

From NASA's published schedule:

2015 - 2020 - First moon landing by astronauts in lunar spacecraft.


So they finally admit it never happened in the 1960s!

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

I have no way of knowing what he's saying except by reading his words.

A government's cynical use of a real threat doesn't remove that threat from reality. The poster and others like him would have us believe that terror simply does not exist.

No one ever expected to find Osama in Iraq. Regimes like Saddam's -- which are immune to internal overthrow -- are precisely the kind of environment that fosters and nourishes radical fundamentalist terror. As much as I disagree with Bush on almost everything, he did argue that his intent was to bring democracy to the Arab Middle East in order to eliminate the cultures that breed terrorism. He's right about that. Other than Iraq, no current Arab regime is democratic; therefore, no current Arab regime is legitimate. I'd rather have seen the UN given the authority and the troops to eliminate Saddam, but there you go.

Finally, pay more attention: Car bombs Iraq typically target Iraqis. Not "other Iraqis" because most of the people doing the killing are non-Iraqis who have entered that country for the express purpose of spreading terror.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

Don't I remember a little something about ethnic cleansing in your part of the world a few years ago?

Your anecdote about your uncle in Syria is irrelevant. I've lived -- not visited -- the Arab Middle East, more than a decade ago. I was greeted with warmth and hospitality everywhere. Yet, terror existed. Movie theaters were bombed for showing Bollywood films. Westerners and Westernized locals were frequent targets of attack in the central business areas of cities. Fathers murdered their daughters for speaking with the wrong boys.

Note, too, that no one has said Syria is ""full of radicalized Islamists". Syria has been governed for decades by regimes that support finance and direct terror. Its citizens could all be pacifist monks and Syria would still be on the wrong side.

It's been my experience that statements like yours are really disguised condemnations of democracy. Like many mistaken Arabs, you won't be satisfied until the U.S. stops supporting democracy and the spread of democracy and joins with fat and happy Europeans who happily suck up to tyrants and miscreants for oil. It seems many of you would trade the misery of the Arab world for your own warm beds.

The U.S. was attacked on 9/11 because there are people in the world who believe that the Western way of life, including yours, is evil. They believe they have a duty to kill all Westerners. They must be eliminated. No, almost all Arabs are nothing like that. Yes, placating existing Arab regimes (all illegitimate because they are undemocratic) will do nothing to eliminate them. The terrorists exist because those Arab regimes exists, not because the U.S. exists.

Frankly, having survived living under the yoke of Communist thugs, I'd think a Croatian would know better. Sadly, your remarks are just further evidence of the cynical and corrupted world view typical of so many Europeans these days. Remember, we're still cleaning up the mess Europe created in the 20th century. All those corrupt Arab regimes nurturing death, repression, ignorance and terror? Your fault. All those bogus illogically bordered African countries wallowing in misery and death? Your fault. All those billions who slaved, and still suffer, under Communism? Your fault.

Re:USSR Threat Worse Than Terror

[reallocate]

The freedom of the people counts for everything; the freedom of the state counts for nothing. Sovereignity cannot be used as a shield for tyranny. It is immoral to allow dictatorships and totalitarian regimes to exist simply because they control sovereign states. It is immoral to excuse the tyranny of your own state simply because that state is free and soverign. Nazi Germany was sovereign. So were fascist Italy and Japan. So was the USSR. Would you have excused their crimes? Africa and the Middle East are afflicted with peope who, justifiably, take pride in the soverignity of their nations. But they have also been suckered into trading their personal freedom for the freedom of the state. Of what value is my state's soverignty if my state oppresses me?

I'm asserting that many Europeans and European governments argue that understanding and accommodating the radical demands of terrorists and placating the regimes that produce and nourish them is the way to go. In other words, be nice to them so we can maintain our lifestyle. Unfortunately, being nice to people who want you dead doesn't work. Ask the Dutch.

It seems that you, at least, would prefer that Saddam eould have been let to oppress and kill Iraqis so long as your country could by his oil. Precisely my point. (BTW, no one has consfiscated any Iraqi oilfields and no one has slain "half" their people.)

I presume you weren't attacked on 9/11 because, frankly, no one cares. If a Croatian city was the center of world commerce with giant symbolic buildings, perhaps you would have been attacked.

But, if you can't understand that the 9/11 attacks were an attack on the Western way of life, not just on a single country, then you are guilty of the same medieval provincialism that fuels European bigotry and division.

Did I say all Arabs are terrorists? Far from it. Terror is a form of behavior. The IRA are terrorists, but that doesn't make all the Irish terrorists. ETA are terrorists, but not all Basques are terrorists.

I don't recall that the U.S. is friendly to Belarus and the DPRK. Are you suggesting that if the U.S. failed to invade every undemocratic nation it should have stayed out of Iraq? No logical connection exists there.

Communism allowed no freedom to vote the regime out of power. Sounds like you are willing to trade creature comforts for your own freedom. Exactly what's wrong with Europe.

Europe's mess: Imperialism and exploited colonies across the globe; World War One; World War Two; fascism; Nazism; the Holecaust; Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, Milosevich; Soviet tyranny, death camps, and the Cold War. Or, don't they teach those things in European schools anymore?

Israel, a European creation in a region ruined by European imperialism, is democratic. It deserves support. The Arab regimes that attack it are tyrannies that deserve no support. Simple as that.

The current maps of the Middle East and Africa exist because they were drawn by ignorant, racist, European colonialists. Those borders and those nations have little or no relatioship with the demographic realities of the continent. Europe deliberately refused to prepare is Arab and African dependencies for democracy. After WW2, when Europe could no longer get away with, or afford, to exploit and repress these regions, it simply packed up and left. This meant that corrupt and incompetent European rulers were replaced by corrupt and incompetent local rulers. (I lived in southern Africa for a few years prior to Mandela's release. The South Africans who opposed apartheid, rather logically, said they were still colonized, but their masters lived in Pretoria and Cape Town.)

>>"..most natives still live in their tribes..."

Nice bit of ignorant racism.

Russia, last I looked, is European. I know that bothers the rest of Europe, bt, then, they still can't admit that Turkey is also part of the continent. (All those Muslims probably hs something to do with it, eh?)

Yes, Communism did replace the czars. Pity. Look what it got us.