Slashdot Mirror
Europe to Join Russia Building Next Space Shuttle
An anonymous reader writes "Development agreement takes shape during the Paris Air Show
It's all but official--Russia and Europe will soon embark on a cooperative effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle. Speaking at the Paris Air Show, in Le Bourget, France, in June, Russian space officials confirmed earlier reports from Moscow that their partners at the European Space Agency would join the Russian effort to build a new reusable orbiter, dubbed Kliper."
How many of you drive old cars, trucks, vans, or SUV's that say they are a joy to drive and run like the day they were brand new? No one would say that. Why NASA is using a shuttle that is 20 years old is beyond me. When I was 16 my parents gave me the old family '81 Datsun 310. I was grateful and even a bit excited to have it. I even thought I was "the man" because I had a car and most of my friends didn't, but it was a 13 year old car by the time I got it and had plenty of quirks. It had more than 300K miles on it when I got it. It ran pretty well and didn't cause me any major malfunctions, (Other than a clutch) but as soon as I could afford it I got a newer car! The car made it a year or two for my brother before giving up. I think it finally died in '97 with well over 400K miles on it. Those Damn shuttles have TONS more miles on them than that stupid car. Plus they are in a tad more hostile condition than the local freeways and roads. It baffles me that they are still willing to send astronauts up in them? Beyond that, I'm just as perplexed by the fact that there are astronauts blinded by the "I'm going to be in a text book one day" mentality that they are willing to ride up in the damn thing! Just plain stupidity if you asked me. It's time to produce something new with new seals, gaskets, and gap filler, and maybe a satelite dish. (Weather shouldn't affect their picture up there being so close to the satelites themselves.) If they plan on putting a man on Mars they've got a long way to go with those shitty shuttles they're still nursing along.
/. on at this moment? I mean c'mon, be honest with yourself!
I mean, how many of you would really rather be sitting at say a 20 year old computer right now versus the one you're on reading
I know those guys up north built the space arm and some drilling equipment that will be sent to mars in the near future, seems like those guys have a knack for tiny/specialised space projects.. hope they get a contract or two. Unfortunately they may be too politically tied in & stuck with our our crumbling space program :-(
Why? Because the USA seems to think it's penis will be considered too small if some other countries do something better than we can. This will give the budget-makers incentive to make sure that NASA gets on the ball and develops a shuttle replacement quicker. We can't let other countries do anything better than we can, it's just not allowed.
Anonymous Coward: "This is slashdot. Accuracy is second class citizen here, unlike King Bias."
MAKS is a Russian airshow, not a defense program. It ends this sunday. For the third year in a row (I think), it features U.S. military aircraft as well.
The Paris, Farnborough and MAKS international airshows are premier events (the Paris and Farnborough international airshows are held on alternating years) for aerospace enthusiasts. It's fascinating to see such a blend of mega-corporations, politics and military might intertwined at extravagant affairs. Last year at Farnborough, Boeing and Airbus officials were at each other's necks.
My memory could be (no, certainly is) shot these days, but I seem to remember the USSR launching an unmanned craft that looked almost identical to the space shuttle. I think they abandonded the entire program.
Anyone care to elaborate?
Although government funded/designed/managed/operated space project have a place, I argue that the future is in private hands. What will make space cheap is competition and mass production. In that regard, I, personally, have more faith in Scaled Composites or Blue Origin than in hand-wringing risk-averse bureaucratic organizations. As much as I love NASA, it's high cost structure breeds risk aversion and that risk aversion breeds higher costs in a very vicious cycle. Moreover, the constant political pressure to cut costs perversely raises the per-unit cost of space travel. Unless we can break that cycle, space will only become more and more expensive and launches less and less frequent.
One key is mass production -- amortizing all that costly engineering over a greater number of vehicles. Current commercial ventures may only be suborbital today, but competition to reach orbit and provide tourist services will probably lead to the development of ever more capable private launch systems.
Uless we can drammatically reduce the cost of access to space,
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
I know this is slightly OT, but years and years ago there was a sci-fi book that has always stuck with me. The book was about a guy who was essentially the first EMT in space. But, the really interesting part was the simple space-station technology. basically, they stuck a really simple box-car sized tube on the top of a booster and shot it up there. The astronauts came back in some kind of capsule (lifting body?, reusable?) but left the big tube (sort of like a tank) up there. These tanks had basic standard life support systems and standard airlocks on each end and on two sides. Each launch put a new one up there, they'd strap 'em together and eventually they had a space station. Need more solar power? send one up with a bunch of panels inside it. Deploy them over the surface of existing modules already in orbit. Need more computers? life-support? water treatment? whatever, just send another one up with the gear crammed in and depoy it as needed throughout the standardized compartments. neat concept. love to see it. prolly never happen. ho hum.
man, I feel like mold.
GDP? As in a perentage of what people make? So all we will have to do is raise our taxes to pay this debt, hm? That will go over real well with the voters on election day.
Looking at the government's debt as a percentage of GDP isn't realistic, because a government surviving longer than two years (the term of the House) with that kind of mentality isn't realistic. There's a history in this country of people being tarred and feathered for being accused of having that kind of "The people exist to be taxed" mentality and, in fact, it's why we have a country separate from the UK to begin with.
Look at the debt as a percentage of the national budget (considerably lower than the GDP). You can consider a possible modest increase in the size of that budget, but nothing that wouldn't survive a popular election.
I mean, really, if you're gonna jack up the national taxes to that level, where will the states get their money? Do you really want to see them call for a new constitutional convention?
Now, back on topic, I thought it interesting that one of the bonuses for Russia here was the fact that they could launch from closer to the equator. I feel like I should know this, but I don't:
Can someone explain to me why that is so vital? I mean, why can't they launch straight up in the air and assume a tilted orbit? Why does it make such a difference when they launch closer to the equator?
I feel like the answer should be obvious to me, but it isn't. What am I overlooking?
Okay, never mind. I just looked it up. It really amazes me that the Earth's spin makes that much of a difference.
I cried real tears when Li Mu Bai died.