Katrina Delays Shuttle

guildsolutions writes "The scoop on MSNBC has it that NASA will not fly again until next fall. With NASA's reluctance to get back into space, and Hubble dying, We just wonder when private industry will put NASA out of the game."

Comments

Re:yeah...

[toddbu]

Because private industry did such a great job of evacuating the city of New Orleans before hurricane Katrina.

Ok, I'm really confused. You really think that it was the private sector's job to evacuate New Orleans? How did you come to this conclusion?

A Better Question Is:

[aluminumcube]

... what DOESN'T delay the shuttle? And for those of you who keep fighting the privitization of space with such arguments as "Who would put up telescopes and run pure science research?" The answer to that is NASA- instead of inefficiently and ineffectively blowing billions of tax dollars keeping the wheeles of their wussified, red tape, burocracy running, they could just bid out the launch of their projects to the lowest bidder in the private sector. Ohh.. and while I am venting.. what happened to NASA's hardcore pilots? The kind in the movie "The Right Stuff" and "From the Earth to the Moon?" The people they trot out now to fly the shuttle all look like Volvo drivers.

Re:A Better Question Is:

[bit trollent]

Fighting the privatization of space?? Are you high? Is there an private orbital spacecraft somewhere that I'm not aware about? I would absolutely love to see regular private orbital flights to space. If I had the money I would be among the first in line to buy a ticket.

The problem is that people are advocating that private industry take over something (manned orbital flight) that it still hasn't even done once yet. You can pontificate on the virtues of privatizing our manned space missions till your head turns blue, but it won't make companies invest the monumental sums of money in to a field which may have limited rewards.

I personally admire Burt Rutan. I think he has done great things with a relatively small amount of money, and is persuing wonderful dreams. That said, so far he has basically flown a rocket plane really high. Also, where do you think he got his start in aerospace? NASA!

You can laugh all you want about NASA's beaurocracy and everything else, but the things you suggest, having companies build their spacecraft have been implemented a long time ago. The Space Shuttle which you deride as an inefficient waste is maintained by a private company. Where is you mirical of privatization now?

You pontificate on NASA but are ignorant about things which are known by anyone with a more than passing familiarity of its practices. I think it is time you shut the hell up.

Your crack about the space shuttle pilots not looking like they do in the movies is particularly gauling. You want to know about the right stuff? Try gliding a massive and unwieldy spacecraft to a landing so soft that the astronauts in the orbiter have been unable to actually feel the moment the craft touches down. When was the last time you didn't notice a 737 touch down?

Go back to your movies.

Re:yeah...

[composer777]

Why wouldn't it be their job to transport people? They do own the public transporation, don't they? Are you saying we should hand over all control of public transportation to the government? If so, then you are making my point for me.

Look at it this way, if you hand over all control of transportation to private industry, then shouldn't it be their responsibility to transport people efficiently? Isn't this a valid test of the free market? If it isn't, then what is a valid test? The airline industry has been begging for government to lift regulations, and they've gotten what they want, so shouldn't they step up to the plate and take some of the blame? And why is it that these corporations become invisible when they close up shop and leave a bunch of poor people stranded? Why haven't they accepted ANY blame?

Depends on what is considered "private industry"

[jd]

I see the amateur jet industry and the amateur rocket industry, combined with the computer-power and mathematical skills of the Open Source software world, as a contender for getting stuff into Low Earth Orbit.

According to the ARLA researchers, all you need is a gas cannon to fire a ramjet at the required 400 MPH, the ramjet then carries a rocket to the upper atmosphere and a starting velocity of Mach 5. It should be relatively simple to build a rocket that can start from there and reach LEO.

(Not trivial, but certainly within the capacity of a joint project by amateurs licensed to wield larger rocket motors.)

Ramjet designs are on the Internet - all it would really take is for someone to build one from light enough (but strong enough) material. If you use a liquid hydrogen fuel, rather than normal aviation fuel, you can get ramjets up to about mach 7 or 8.

There are three benefits of this design - ramjets are much more stable than rockets, so easier to build reliably. As this part would not need to leave the atmosphere, it may also be reusable. The second benefit is that ramjets are vastly more fuel efficient than rockets, making it cheaper for amateurs to launch such systems on a limited budget. The third benefit is that jets are more controllable, so a less sophisticated guidance system is needed.

The first stage could probably be replaced with a rail gun/linear motor, as all you need is an initial velocity. The direction is unimportant to the ramjet. An "Air Turbo Ramject", which can handle both subsonic AND supersonic speeds effectively might even eliminate the need for that initial kickstart stage.

Is this a viable possibility? Maybe. Jets work well up to about 30 miles. The "GoFast" rocket, on May 17, 1994, reached an altitude of 74 miles from the ground. Rockets do better in thinner atmospheres, as there is less air resistance and the air isn't needed for anything. It would also be starting off at Mach 6, not from a standstill. So, the combined altitude of 104 miles is definitely a major underestimate of what could be done by amateurs TODAY, no further work needed.

LEO starts at around 125 miles. If we're just adding altitudes directly, we'd be 21 miles short. But we aren't adding them directly, because we've the initial velocity for the rocket and the reduced air resistance. I don't know if these are enough to add 21 miles to the vertical range, but I imagine it would be damn close.

Can we make this a little more definite? Yes. Ramjets work extremely well in a thick atmosphere, but NASA engineers pioneered in the 50s a technique of adding supplemental oxygen to boost the altitude they'll work at. This is why a lot of US spy-planes can operate at the 50 mile range (and so get all those astronaut wings).

So if we revamp the ramjet to use hydrogen fuel, supplemented with oxygen to maintain pressure at high altitudes, we should be able to shift the point of launching the rocket to 50 miles. Furthermore, hydrogen fuel gives you better output on a ramjet, so our starting speed will move from Mach 6 to perhaps Mach 8.

Again, just adding altitudes, we have a combined total now of 124 miles. This is more workable. The initial speed, plus the lower air resistance, only needs to add one mile before we're in LEO. That would seem plausible enough.

At this point, a rocket like GoFaster isn't going to carry communications satellites into space. On the other hand, amateurs - especially amateurs who are open-sourcing their methods and techniques - who reach LEO are going to kick up an unbelievable stink in the space industry. They are going to be seen the same way Linux is seen by Microsoft - an annoying buzz that won't go away, can't be kept away and keeps getting bigger and louder.

All it would take is the sorts of investments comparable to those being put into Virgin Galactic going to amateur rocketry and distributed computing systems for the number-crunching, and