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."
Because you don't build something as complex as a shuttle, and have a new model every other year. Having said that, they have gone through a lot of rebuilds. How much of the original electronics is still in it? Not a lot. And your old 310 didn't get nearly the inspections the shuttles have.
I drive a 1974 Jeep. Runs like a champ, never have had a problem with it not starting on cue, and the only real problems with it are its gas guzzling nature, and it's exceptionally small fuel tank for that use.
That being said, the Space Transport System program has been a wild success, and the space shuttle is just as reliable as my jeep. The problem is where the shuttle is located on its launch vehichle, and how that launch vehicle is put together. Foam falls off the tank because they use foam to insulate the thing, where a little more cost could use electric warmers. SRBs blow up because their rubber seals aren't constructed properly. But the shuttle is still fine.
I think now, as we should have been doing years ago, we should be investigating Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles. The current orbiters would make great museum pieces (imagine being able to go inside a shuttle in a museum), and could drive up the resources used to build alternatives. The SRBs have proven themselves to be lean, mean, heavy lifting machines, and as they are so reusable, we should go on reusing them.
As for the European Union building a new shuttle, good for them. They've been needing shuttle-like versatility. Perhaps it'll help spark a renewal in space technologies, along with the privatization of space technology, here in America. Competition is great until it stagnates, and we've proven that one time and again in our time honored tradition here in America.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
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.
Answered my own question!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran
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.
I believe you're wrong and here is why;
Your premise is that people won't be going to orbit and that, lacking a Shuttle, they won't have the facilities. They will go to orbit and they can have better facilities when they arrive.
Separate the people from the cargo:
1.) Launch your 100+ ton satellite garage(s) into orbit on large, risky, unmanned launchers. If it blows up it might make the news.
2.) Maneuver the garage into position. Simple orbital mechanics performed from terra firma by hundreds of people every day.
3.) Launch a crew on a small, reliable, inexpensive rocket. Rutan may eventually do this for millions, as opposed to hundreds of millions.
4.) Link up your capsule with your garage and go fix your satellite. We've been docking things with other things is space for decades and no one has yet been killed doing it.
5.) Undock your capsule and use your undamaged, expendable, ablative heat shield to glide back to a runway. Leave the garage in orbit because we'll need it again soon.
Any auto mechanic could have devised this. I've yet to meet one that hauled his tools between home and shop every night. How is the Orbiter better than this?
Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old