Slashdot Mirror
NASA's New Shuttle
j0ugh writes "NASA releases plans for a new spacecraft (Audio stream contains the meat) that would replace the space shuttle. The vehicle is part of a system that will be capable of putting astronauts on the moon by 2018, laying the groundwork for space travel to Mars. NASA says the new system is designed to be 10 times safer than the space shuttle"
How do you classify something as 10x safer than something else? Do they expect 10x less people to die, 10x less frequent explosive disasters, or are the events themselves 10x less dangerous, meaning astronauts could survive?
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
So NASA's going to be using the latest in 1970's tech? Woo Hoo!
Best Slashdot Co
The point is that at this rate, with exceptions such as the Hubble, it's cheaper to deorbit a broken sat and send up another one ( 200kg of stuff to send upstairs) than to send up a shuttle to service it (20 tons of stuff to send upstairs).
Most of the cost of an earth-orbiting sat is ultimately the launch vehicle.
If the last system had one fatal failure in 57 flights, then the new one is supposed to have one in ~570 flights. If you want to convert that to percentages you'll end up with an exponential curve requiring an endless number of flights before a fatal failure, which is not achieveable. That's not exactly rocket science :-)
Well, that's only like, 20 times more dangerous than a car. Pretty good considering you're basically riding a bomb to orbit.
The funding of the space program continues to be less and less each year (adjusted for inflation). Even those in NASA recognize it depends on the "will of Congress" to fund such an effort at a time when we are spending $180 Billion a year in Iraq, $200 billion on Katrina, Billions upon billions for Homeland Security and we still have other natural disasters to face (Rita is on her way now).
Further, we do not have the motivation that existed in the 60s, when Russia beat the US into space. It was not just American pride, it was a deterrent, to both sides, to show they had the technology to be a leader in the world. Unless we see China, or India on the moon, it is unlikely to be of such importance that NASA would be funded for it. Even if we do see them, the question may be "So what? We were they ~40 years ago."
Talking about precursors, or the technology we would derive from such an effort, will be lost on the "yes, but we have "X" that needs to be paid for first." I wish it were otherwise, but I just do not get the feeling we have the 60s excitement around space. People look at the technology and fail to see it was possible because it was necessary to fulfill the mission. They are thankful for the derivatives, but many believe another Steve Jobs could create the same in IPOD like fashion.
Any comments on the following analyses? Transterrestrial Musings
Space Access Update #112
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
This is all quite unnecessary. The private sector is already chomping at the bit to invest in manned space. Griffin says $100M over 13 years is going to be spent within the existing NASA budget for this initiative but if that $100M were simply available as incentives, be they prizes, tax credits for manned space transport and habitation, there would be an explosion of alternatives in a highly competitive environment that would yeild results in a short time.
Seastead this.
So, what exactly is the point of going to the moon, staying a week and then coming back? There must be one but I don't know it. America gave up for lack of interest last time 30 years ago, so why is that not going to happen this time? What's different?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Well, what does the shuttle really do?
1. Capable of bringing a shitload of material into orbit. Yup, this can do that two.
2. Repair craft in orbit. How often have we used that capability? At max 5 times, and I think I'm being generous...
3. Building the ISS. Well, the ISS have a pretty capable arm and gantry system. Once things are boosted up to it and attached, it can build itself.
The shuttle has served us well, but I see it as a first step and it has outlived its usefulness. What we should do is scour the shuttle for all of it's great ideas, carry them forward and leave the bad ideas behind.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
>Note to all the Rutan freaks out there: if you can do this was less than $60 billion, feel free to try.
Feh. After seeing what that dude managed with $30M, I'm guessing *he* could do it for $6B (with half the crew made of up paying passengers - "Mr Gates, please stop hogging the windows. These are *mine*.").
>Even better, volunteer to be a test pilot...
Damn skippy.
Nasa method: train about 10 years for grand total of 164 hours in orbit, if program isn't shut down for a couple of years due to freezer burn.
Rutan method: train for a few months, take off on Saturday morning, fly again after dinner.
Ooh! Ooh! 'What is choice number two?', Alex!
And my car looks just like the car my parents drove in the '60s. Four tires, stearing wheel, combustion engine...
It will happen in 2016 if the chinese look like they can do it by 2017.
Oddly, the captcha is 'likely' - had Slashdot become a new Magic 8-Ball ?
I'm glad to see NASA finally realizing the Shuttle isn't what it was supposed to be and going back to something that works.
They're being smart, too. Much of the billions spent on shuttle technology is being used where it makes sense (lots of experience now with large solid rockets and LOX/LH propellants). "Old-fashioned" technology is used where IT makes sense (reuseable capsule design).
The Shuttle had wings because the Air Force wanted a craft that could launch, deploy a payload, and land near its launch site one orbit later. That's not easily done with ballistic trajectories, so you either need fuel or wings. Wings are lighter.
That requirement was essentially dropped long before the Shuttle actually flew, but its legacy meant a VERY large area covered by very fragile tiles that are a maintenance nightmare.
One day, we'll develop some crazy material that can handle re-entry heat without ungodly amounts of maintenance. It'll be tough, and allow us to finally treat winged spacecraft more like airplanes. That's not now.
This is exactly what they needed to do to keep themselves relevant and useful. With the money they're using to encourage and procure private research, and their fantastic recent successes in robotic probes, I'm really, really proud of NASA right now.
Sure, they're a big stupid bureaucracy, but at least they're lumbering in a reasonable direction now.
The HLV is five (!) SSMEs fueled by a large ET directly above. The cargo area is inlined above this, with a protective shell and nav rocket. Two SRBs are attached to the side of the rocket.
I wonder if it would be possible to come up with an EHLV rev ("Extra Heavy"...) with four SRBs strapped on instead of 2. That would give an extra 6.6Million pounds of thrust.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
As far as I can tell, the SSME has to be the most complicated rocket engine ever designed. Using the older and simplier J-2S should significantly reduce costs and improve reliability.
I'd agree. The SSME has the design constraint of operating from sea level pressure to vacuum. Thus it runs at a very high pressure, which complicates things. Rocket motors designed to operate at altitude can be made simpler and more reliable.
If its not on the first stage it doesn't need to be a SSME, and it probably shouldn't be.
What a shame, and a huge waste of my taxpayer dollars. And this is the best they can do, rehash ancient technology, and put a new sticker on it? Bullshit!
I'd like to see more useful methods of leaving this atmosphere, and hauling thigns into space, like construction materials, and small factories, stored foods, etc. Going to the moon is nice and all -- in the 1920's! We've been there, done that, and there are more important things at stake.
Who makes these decisions, and who allows them the authority? It certainly wasn't me...
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
If you're looking for drama, go join a theatre company. It's not ethical to waste astronaut's lives solely for our entertainment.
But it's great for NASA bureaucrats. They can just idle along, issuing press releases, running their "centers", and promoting their "education" programs, without actually building anything flyable. And they get to blame Congress for not providing more money.
You can see this already. NASA just converted their home page to Flash.
The next people on the moon will be Chinese. They have such a strong manufacturing economy that it won't be a stretch to build a big booster. The "China price" on a booster should be low. Maybe the US will buy some.
Do you think taht by 2018 CmdrTaco will know the difference between "to" and "too"?
"from the stuff-to-listen-too dept"
Scientists predict that Taco's spelling will be 10 times more accurate, with sufficient funding from Congress.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Capturing the publics imagination is another thing that robots do well. I'll bet Spirit and Opportunity have much better name recognition than any of the ISS crew, or the crew of the most recent Shuttle mission. They got huge media coverage.
Without humans in the mix, what does that leave us with?
So basically, NASA should have humans doing exploration so it doesn't hurt our self-esteem? Honestly, I do think there is some value to having humans in space, the same way there is value in having humans climb tall, cold mountains for no reason. But there's a finite amount I'm willing to have my government pay for that, when there are cheaper, better ways to advance science and society.
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK 1962
We didn't go to moon to find out what the moon is made of we went to the moon to find out what we are made of!!! Ever since we went to the moon it became the benchmark or our planet, "If we can get to the moon why can't we ...."
I am really scared about our lack of ambition I know our best years are ahead of us but let's hope we have the guts to get there.
"A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
Sure, this whole CEV and heavy lift rocket for large payloads thing makes sense... 25 years ago.
The only really innovative space ideas are what people like scaled composites are doing (spaceship one and soon two).
Nasa should be doing what only they could do: nuclear (because I dont think any independant company is going to be allowed to do it). A nuclear rocket would be completely reusable, more reliable, safer (especialy on re-entry), and probably cheaper.
Sadly, all the anti-nuclear idiots would probably never let it happen. They can barely contain themselves when we launch a little tiny space probe with a little tiny nuculear engine on it..
Scratch the subject up there.. make it, "People suck"..
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
Actually, the shuttle system is one hell of a heavy lifter. What is the weight of that thing - 50 tons?
Oh well, what the hell...
The best reason for going into space now is scientific, and making it more dangerous and expensive than it need be jeopardizes the whole program. Gotta use our brains, not our balls.
Could someone explain to me why thousands of my hard-earned dollars should be spent so that a couple guys I'll never meet can walk on the moon for a week?
This is a serious question. NASA claims that returning to the moon will cost $108 billion. I personally paid 8.5 ppb of the federal government's tax revenues last year (a bit over $15,000, in case you're wondering). Let's do some math: Suppose this moon-doggle ends up costing $200 billion (that's being very generous -- usually NASA manned missions cost 4-6 times their initial estimate). My part of that bill will be $1,700.
Any NASA folks around? What am I getting for my $1,700? Because honestly, I'd rather drop it in my wife's IRA, or save it for my daughter's college education. At what point did it become ok to seize another person's hard-earned money at gunpoint and blow it on something you think might be "fun"?
Dear President Bush: Stop being such a socialist and get with the conservative program. Shut down NASA, please.