Slashdot Mirror
Euro-Russian Manned Space Vehicle Planned
drachton writes "BBC News reports that the 'European Space Agency (ESA) is proposing joining forces with Russia to develop a new vehicle for human spaceflight, the Clipper.' The head of the ESA permanent mission in Russia also told BBC that the Clipper 'is meant to service the space station and to go between Earth and an orbit around the Moon with six crew members.'"
Collection of random thoughts, aka A Brain Dump:
:-)
1. This news is older than the hills.
2. What's with the dates? The Clipper was supposed to be in service by 2010, not 2011. Originally this would have put it ahead of the CEV, but the latest projections have the CEV flying by 2008.
3. HOTOL, Skylon, Hermes; need I say more? Russia obviously wants the money for building, not the enigineering experience of the ESA.
4. "The Clipper would allow Russia and Europe to collaborate with the Americans on lunar exploration, allowing six astronauts to orbit the Moon and to act as a back-up rescue craft, if needed." I'd be happy if we collaborated, but I think it's a bit premature considering that Russia never landed anyone on the moon. Did they get close? Maybe. The details are a bit sketchy there. There certainly seems to be a coverup involved, but considering the number of "Moon Rockets" that Russia had blow up on the pad, I wouldn't have held my breath either way.
5. You'll note that Russia is looking at a winged vehicle. Lockheed proposed a lifting body for the CEV, but was turned down. I'm consoled, however, in that the CEV vehicle will be a small part of the future stack and very easy to replace. Even if the CEV flies capsules for the first couple of years, there's a strong liklihood that we'll go back to lifting bodies with reinforced carbon-carbon heat shielding. (For those of you who complain about carrying wings and landing gear into space, it really isn't that big of a deal. The problem with the Space Shuttle is that it's FREAKING HUGE so that it can carry satellite packages. Reduced to a more normal size for human cargo, its wings and gear wouldn't cost all that much in weight.)
6. "The Clipper also enhances the possibility of space tourism." I just love Russian zeal. Those guys are never worried about the, "Why not?" =)
7. "The development and operational side of the programme is expected to cost around 100m (£68m) euros a year." Am I the only one who thinks that price tag is a little low? Even if you expect Russia to take the brunt of the costs, you're still a billion or so Euros shy. According to this page, they are thinking of using the Zenit booster (now there's a hell of a ride) so I imagine that would help reduce the costs. Still...
Personally, I wish them the best of luck. If all goes well, maybe the ESA will build its own Clippers and begin flying them. Their recent Galileo system certainly suggests that Europe is finally looking to be technologically independent from the US.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
With a name like "Clipper"... it's gotta be good! :-P
(With apologies to Smuckers.)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"The Clipper is essentially a "people carrier" designed to transport astronauts, said Alan Thirkettle, head of the Esa's Human Spaceflight Development Department."
;)
Not to be confused with The Clippy (TM), which "is essentially a "people harasser" designed to deliver inane suggestions.
Original article here.
with russia involved with the rest of europe, now what's keeping them from researching a nuclear rocket?
It just seems like a great use of nuclear ability. I mean, space, nuclear reactions, the two just go so well together, like peanut butter and...and whatever else goes really well with peanut butter.
Is it still just public opinion about nuclear power? Because that's dumb.
This has nothing to do with relations. It has everything to do with the EU wanting to have access to it's own vehicles, and with Russia wanting an updated vehicle of it's own.
It's funny how we can't keep the political trolls out of even an article like this.
I would rather work with Japan anyways as it increases the likelyhood the spaceship would change into a giant robot once on the moon and include a direct link to some blue haired J-pop singer.
This kind of thing is really interesting. Without the Russian space program honestly the ISS project would be dead right now. The American space program has had far more money invested in it, and while arguably more success, the success per dollar ratio may not be as good as the Russians. The real kicker is that the Russian space program has been mostly funded by the West (US & Allies) during the past decade while it has been really taking off. One area that may explain the differences in success are management and design philosophies. By being forced to operate on stricter budgets the Russians have relied on simplier designs and technologies. In effect they never had the opportunity to let a project BLOAT out of control. It's a good thing that the Russian program is recieving this investment and that this vehicle is being developed. It's likely that it will happen, unlike the myriad of plans that have come from the NASA side of the world. One can only hope that the US private industry picks up the reins from their government and keeps the US competitive with the Russians in the future space industry.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
At first dividing up such a huge project between countries seems feasible: you can't build a high rise without variations trades assisting one another.
Then I realized we're talking about multiple governments trying to work together. I see many problems.
First, dividing up a non-profitable project is hard. You know major manufacturing will go to a printed contractor (some friend of the State). Good luck picking who it is.
Also, the political climate changes often. New boondoggles push old ones out. Its hard enough when one State needs to fund it. The amount of money spent here is just to fund a basic feasibility study!
I don't have faith in the EU lasting. I don't have faith in Russia's solvency. I don't have faith in this project.
I say wait it out. Offer a $100M prize for a cheap orbital launcher and companies will climb over each other to get there first.
I think we'll see more privatization now that consumer space travel is imminent. Bookmark this, in 10 years suborbital flight will be well under $25k per passenger.
AFAIK, Russia never developed Nuclear Propulsion. On the thermal side of the equation, the engineering costs of starting from scratch are likely too high for Russia to consider. On the pulse propulsion side, Russia never really worked out the "micro-nuke" problem, and the Orion nuke designs are still classified.
Add a healthy dose of Chernobyl fears and you've got a country that has no intention of pursuing nuclear propulsion.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
1. Russia already has it engineered. Plans are made, mockups are built. Some test pieces are already constructed.
... the ESA didn't do shit for Clipper (formerly Klipper when it was an exclusively Russian project) other than potentially help fund it.
2. The vehicle will be launch on top of a Russian launch vehicle.
3. The vehicle will be launched from a Russian facility.
Therefore...
4. All Russia is just looking for capital to build. They know the US can't give them money due to the non-proliferation act (with exception, possibly, for a few soyuz flights with the condition that they support Space Station).
My angle? I hate the fact that people keep trumpeteering that "The ESA is so much better than NASA" "The ESA this" "The ESA that"
-everphilski-
Wow. Someone completely missed it.
Russia needs venture capital. ESA can't come up with their own manned space program. They hook up. We'll see what happens in a few years.
-everphilski-
You're probably right in this case, but there are other space related issues where the US does seem to be alienating its allies. Do you remember their response to Galileo, the European version of the GPS satelites?
It's looking like there should be quite a bit of competition soon in human orbital spaceflight. Here are the
various competitors I can think of off-hand:
* USA: Shuttle-derived system, probably with a CEV capsule on top. There's several downsides to a shuttle-derived system, but it keeps the constituencies happy and should have enough government momentum to keep on going.
* Russia and Europe: Kliper's been searching around for financial support for a while, and it looks like they finally got at least -some- funding from Europe.
* China: various iterations of Shenzhou spacecraft
In the private sector:
* t/Space: The (Rutan-affiliated?) company just completed a parachute drop test and water landing of a full-scale model of their proposed CXV space capsule. It's uncertain if they'll get more funding from NASA, but their concept seems sound and may get private investment. Oh, and their web page has some really spiffy videos.
* SpaceX: They've already announced their intent to compete for Bigelow's
orbital prize, and their upcoming man-rated Falcon V will be large enough to carry a Gemini-style capsule.
Now what about destinations? Besides the ISS, we've got Robert Bigelow's inflatable space station modules, which should be up and operational by 2010, with several prototype launches before then. He's planning on selling these modules to various groups and countries, so hopefully we'll have several different space stations up there.
Between Shenzhou 8 and 9 China is planning on launching a small orbital laboratory, which Shenzhou 9 will be docking with. Various members of the Chinese space program have also been visiting Bigelow's facility, so perhaps we'll see them doing something with his modules.
The future should be interesting.
Well done is right. We should be welcoming this competition. It was the cold-war space race that got us to the moon before, and hopefully this competition from ESA/Russia will be enough to finally whip NASA back into shape. We had some fun experimenting with shuttles and space stations over the past couple of decades, but now it's time to jump-start the human exploration of space again.
The clipper design appears to be a shuttle-like space plane. Have there been any significant materials improvements that make a space plane built today more pratical and safer than the current shuttle deisgn?
If it's using the same type of heat resistant tiles that the shuttle uses, then it would seem to have the same inherent problem with fragile tiles.
The clipper design appears to be a shuttle-like space plane. Have there been any significant materials improvements that make a space plane built today more pratical and safer than the current shuttle deisgn?
Yeah, don't make it so damn big and complicated; don't tie the engines into the main craft; and DON'T use heat tiles when carbon-carbon shielding is available!
Does that answer your question?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I almost forgot: DON'T use a side mounted stack!
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Actually the USSR has pursued nuclear and nuclear-electricpropulsion. Their limited funding has all but ceased these efforts but a partnership with the EU may accellerate those projects. Of course the US will not be of any assistance as long as they continue to beat their chests regarding Iran. But as we've seen in recent days, practical matters can overcome congressional paranoia.
Can anybody tell me why they're not going to put a human crew in this thing until 2020? Almost half a century after the first manned flights it's going to take 15 years to develop this thing?
Or is there something else going on here I didn't spot?
Insert witty sig here.
Nuclear electric is a whole different thing, though. It's not really nuclear propulsion, but rather a small nuclear powerplant to drive electric propulsion. In other words, it's not really a new form of propulsion, but a natural evolution of an existing one.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Fear of Richard Feynman suing them for infringing on his patent?
This post cannot be rebroadcast without the express written constent of Major League Baseball.
On the other hand, the USSR pursued the nuclear-electric avenue extensively, while the US was working on its failed nuclear thermal programs. Both nations wanted ways to get heavy cargoes out into the solar system, but picked radically different approaches. It's no coincidence that US electric propulsion technology advanced greatly in the years following the collapse of the USSR. The Russians were working on Hall effect thrusters back in the 1960s - they were using them on spacecraft as far back as 1964 (Zond-2). We really missed the boat on that one.
;) The USSR at the time correctly saw that nuclear engineering wasn't yet advanced enough to make reliable enough nuclear thermal rockets without politically unaffordable amounts of investment and prolongued timelines, and pursued an ultimately invaluable, nearer-term propulsion method instead (electric, with the intent of nuclear electric).
I suspect that nuclear thermal will eventually become *the* way to launch payloads - however, it shows what can happen when you focus too intently on a single technology to revolutionize your access to space
... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
translation: The Russians want to boost their space program: The Europeans pay for it, then the Russians have a space program and the Europeans have, well, debt.
Sounds about right!
Then the Russians launch European satellites at a discount (they'll still need cash so it won't be free) and bill the US x3 to go rescue people/expensive equipment.
They might also "accidentally" bring an unofficial US spy satellite back down with them.
"Piter, too, is dead."
The Clipper functions very differently from the shuttle; it doesn't do a winged landing. The aerodynamic shape is a "lifting body". This helps it stay in the atmosphere longer during reentry (making it easier to take reentry heating) and provides for more manuverability before landing (to prevent things like breaking through a frozen lake or nearly rolling off a cliff. The slowing of its landing, however, is to be due to parachutes.
... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
Yet Another Space Vehicle. That is what they should name it. Well, it is.
The more organizations of any sort going into space, the happier I am. I hope it goes well.
Also, mount engines aligned with the center of mass to reduce vibration. And have an escape tower for launch. :)
:)
Lots of lessons from the Shuttle. Lots of lessons.
... in Siberia, where Putin killed a fish with a speargun. He later claimed it was killed by Ukrainian separatists.
Last I heard, they are going forward with Galileo, because they don't want to have to rely on our system. The GPS was designed as a US military application and is still managed with military primarily in mind. It would be every bit as foolish for the French or Germans to depend wholly on navigation system run by another army during a war (even if we're not in any way opposed to whatever they might be doing) as it would be for us to rely on them.
It doesn't really need any material improvements. The Clipper is at the top of the stack nothing can fall off and damage the heat protection system.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
excuse my ignorance on the subject, but the article seems to mentin "orbiting" the moon an awful lot, and only kind of go over lunar landing once or twice.
My limited understanding of space exploration is that while there's a lot of things to do in space like study how organisms get affected in a vacuum and under intense radioation, and how plants do in space and whatnot, it doesn't differ a lot from being "sort of" in space and in actual orbit around the moon. You're still kind of floating around, no?
While an Actual landing will enable us to pick up rocks and map the terrain and see if we can build stuff there or whatever.
....so what's the big deal about being in Moon's orbit and why not aim for landing instead?
"DON'T use heat tiles when carbon-carbon shielding is available!"
Umm the leading edge that failed was carbon-carbon. The tiles have never caused a shuttle fatality. Also carbon-carbon is not as light as the tiles.
Bringing back the engines was a good idea and will be used again if we ever get a SSTO craft which I hope we do someday.
Big and complicated are not problems if it is reliable. A 747 is big and complicated.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Russian? I fear the same as with this solar sail. Ship takes off, noone takes any pictures of it and suddenly it disappears. Someone in Russia is gonna get rich from this one too :)
DevBlogs
Regarding the rest I agree. Also, Kliper has an expendable service module.
The schedule strikes me as strange why is there a built in six year gap between soyuz phase out (2014) and first manned clipper flight (2020)
Plus why does it take the world until 2018 to get back to the moon, when it only took less than ten years last time? Some progress.
Hell, there were better materials around when the shuttle was originally designed. I'm sure the complete story is available somewhere -- oh look, here's part of it now.
Just junk food for thought...
Let's be clear, Clipper won't be of much use to rescue people actually on the Moon, since it won't have the capability to land on the lunar surface.
That said, there's orbiting the Moon and then there's obiting the Moon.
First, you can follow an elongated orbital path around Earth that just happens to get close enough to the Moon that it's gravity alters your path and swings you around the backside of the Moon and then towards Earth. That's the path followed by Apollo 8. The vehicle does not actually enter Lunar orbit.
Second, the vehicle uses internal rockets or thrusters to insert itself into a permanent Lunar orbit. Leaving orbit to return to Earth requires another application of thrust to accelerate out of orbit.
I suspect Clipper could handle the first variation, but not the second, making its rescue ability effectively nil.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The funny thing is, it's even almost all true and accurate.
+++ATH0
Nah, I suspect this will be the way to launch payloads. Russian tech as well!
Maybe we DID take the blue pill. You wouldn't remember anyway.
can't we just drop our own manned space vehicle plans and collaborate with Europe and the Russians on this thing? It's an elegant, simple design, gets the job done and is eminently reusable (what's with the "10-reuse capsule" thing?). It's even kinda pretty.
I'm sure the answer has something to do with feeding business to Boeing, Grumman, Lockheed, etc., but there's no reason those companies couldn't contribute to the development of a United Nations Space Administration (!) group-effort manned spacecraft.
And before you complain "look what happened with the ISS!", that was a MUCH larger-scope project with interests pulling on it from every direction. We basically all want the same thing here: a cheap, simple way of putting people into LEO, high earth orbit, LaGranges, and interplanetary space, depending on the booster technology.
I hate waste.
+++ATH0
Umm the leading edge that failed was carbon-carbon. The tiles have never caused a shuttle fatality.
:-/
Indeed. But that wasn't a failure on the part of the carbon-carbon shield. The fragility of the shield is highly overrated. i.e. You could walk up to it with a sledgehammer and you'd have a hard time getting through. The area of failure had experienced a variety of foam hits and had never failed before. That's why NASA didn't concern themselves with it.
The real problem was the use of a side mounted orbiter as opposed to an inline stack. The side mounting meant that any debris thrown about during launch (and there's plenty of that) would fall near the orbiter. In an inline configuration, you don't have that problem.
Also carbon-carbon is not as light as the tiles.
True, but the carbon-carbon requires almost no maintenece and makes a better heat shield.
Bringing back the engines was a good idea and will be used again if we ever get a SSTO craft which I hope we do someday.
If we ever get there again, I agree. The problem is that the Shuttle was NOT a SSTO craft, and as such the compromises made were the wrong ones.
Big and complicated are not problems if it is reliable. A 747 is big and complicated.
Allow me to rephrase: "The Shuttle was too big and complicated for its otherwise simple mission of bringing five people up and down."
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
If the nuclear material remains inside the rocket, the rocket cannot get a thrust to weight ratio of 1:1. The rocket itself begins to melt before the tempuratures required to produce that kind of pressure (and therefore thrust).
If the nuclear materal exits the rocket, the thrust can be much larger, but it spews radioactive waste all over the place. Great for getting from orbit to Mars, but not a great idea if you're trying to get into orbit.
The third issue is reentry. Think of the dedris path of Columbia. It covered probably 7-8 states. Imagine if there had been nuclear material in the shuttle... *shutter*
I'm not saying its not a good idea, but it needs a lot more research. Not using nuclear power to get into space has very little to do with popular opinino and everything to do with engineering problems.
2. The vehicle will be launch on top of a Russian launch vehicle.
Which vehicle? I doubt if a proton is reliable enough. Since this is larger and heavier than the Soyuz it does not seem that there is a rocket in the Russian inventory that can orbit it, much less send it to the moon.
an ill wind that blows no good
Treat me like a marketing stat, and I'll treat your movie like a series of ones and zeros
It might have something to do with Cold War treaties. There was one forbidding the nukes in spaces, right?
e aty/) or something? Because the Russians in Communist times wouldn't have been limited by popular opinion very much, right?
I can't remember the specific treaty, but it may explain why they waited so long. We backed out of the ABM treaty, so maybe they're taking a looser interpretation of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial_Test_Ban_Tr
AH! yes!...hmm, now I'm hungry.
You (and NASA) forgot the part about not using SRBs. Wonder if they could use hybrids and get similar performance...
"True, but the carbon-carbon requires almost no maintenance and makes a better heat shield."
Actually carbon-carbon has some scary failure modes that the tiles do not. Carbon-carbon must be shielded from oxygen at high temps. If not it will actuall burn. One of the nicknames for carbon-carbon is designer coal. One of the fears was that a pin hole had developed in the coating on the leading edge and that over time the carbon-carbon had eroded. Also the use of term better is questionable. The tiles did hold up to the heat that they where exposed too and are are lighter than carbon-carbon. The X-33 was going to use cermet tiles which may be a much better solution.
I do have to agree with on thing. The side stack does seem to have been a bad idea. But then I wish they had built the flyback booster desgin that they had originally worked on.
The Shuttle was cut and cut. The real problem is that congress made cuts that made the development cheaper but the per flight cost went up. Things like using SRBs.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
There's nothing wrong with the SRBs (other than a lack of control once ignited). And in a vertical stack, not even the O-Ring problem would have caused a loss of the craft. (A problem, which I may mention, didn't have to occur.) With an escape tower, the top part of the stack (where the humans are) could be saved even in the event the SRB is lost.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
C'mon, it won't be real space op until we get a selection of hardware to shop for.
I want my rented capsule weekend holiday moon orbit getaways, thanks very much, by the time i retire, which may well be in, oh, say, 100 years, if the good doctors get their gig on
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
So you expect that 450 million people will suddenly stop working? Or all die suddenly? The EU is not Europe, it's just a project we're working on. And why would we give up on 50 successfull years of peace? Even if we shut it down, there wouldn't be any changes - every nation would still continue to exist [and furthermore back the ESA].
No use collaborating the ESA. They're at a point where the U.S. was in about, say 1966.
They have no heavy lifting capability, they have no real experience with humans in space, they're not even a country, so there is no national will to get things done.
I'd collaborate with the Russians, because they're not a bunch of pussies like somebody else I could name (*COUGH*esa*COUGH*) and they've actually accomplished a lot of stuff in space.
So I guess the idea is, the plane is able to determine the general location, but once the parachutes are deployed, it sounds like the specific location is left up to the winds to determine.
Do you know if the parachutes are deployed out the back (so that the plane lands on its nose, which seems awkward), or at the nose (landing on its thrusters???), or at the top (aerodynamics issues, flipping end over end during deployment...)?
(I'm wondering if a normal radially-symmetric capsule with some small control surfaces added wouldn't be able to do much the same thing and cost less to develop.)
I agree. There was so much work done on this in the 60s that took us so close to being able to put people into space. We could have Carnival Cruise line class ships if we wanted. 2001: A Space Odyssey would not have been all that far off if we hadn't lost our nerva.
http://nuclearspace.com/
.. Blub falls right in the middle of the abstractness continuum. -- Paul Graham
Was mostly concerned about having a safe abort. Even if you got away with an escape tower you've still got a uncontrolled running monster outside that will probably pass you. At least with a liquid rocket you can kill the fuel pumps; any acceleration by the booster after that point will be roughly uniform in all directions.
I am just happy if we can get a useable stack going and can get back into space. After that point, we can redesign the CEV. Yeah, there will be some that will say that we need to stay with the current one (the new CEV, whatever it is). But I am guessing that once we have a more useable design (multiple parts that function more akin to a lego set) esp WRT to getting a heavy lifter, then we will tinker with each part. Perhaps the CEV will be judged to be harsh. Then offer up a Y-Prize.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Nuclear rockets are a insane concept and they will not work for affordable amounts of money. Also it would be far too dangerous to put so much uran or plutonium in orbit. Think about it. What will happen when one delivery fails and reenters earth atmosphere? Have you ever heard about the desaster in Tschernobyl. It radiated half Europe for years.
;-) => really big radiators
Also the pushes by nuclear explosions are short and strong, so you need either a great mass to be pushed so the persons will not be smashed, or you shall use a device without any people onboard.
A far better method is the use of ion-engines. They could savely delivered to orbit and they can produce a constant thrust (not much today but that could be increased)
Nuclear reactors are also no option.
1. they need cooling, which have to be radiated in space, because there are now rivers to heat up
2. if the transport of the urn fails, we all are in trouble.
There is no good use of nuclear propulsion in space. I'm sorry but that technology is not a problem solver, it produces more problems then neccessary.
cu
Reiner
I blogged this back at the end of 2004 when the Russians first rolled the Kliper mockup out. This recent BBC story does seem really weirdly timed. I figured something "new" must have happened but I can't seem to find anything. Someone had a press conference perhaps?
Al.The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
If they're really where we were in 1966, we should be jumping on the opportunity (unless that's not really what you meant).
+++ATH0
That's a terribly long development timeline given what we already know about the science and engineering. 15 years seems like a painfully long time given other space programs, potentially China, Japan, even India that this effort could work with down the road or compete with.
I wonder if the EU Countryes (most countryes in europe are part of ESA) are going to get to the moon sonner then the U.S. The main reasion for this is based on the assumsion that the space programs in Europe are picking up the pase and are actually going somewhere. Not being just a dream. The future is going to be intresting.
ESA Link: http://www.esa.int/esaCP/index.html
I thought the main reason for using lifting bodies to to have greater crosstrack.. i.e., you can have a landing sight further away from your orbit's groundtrack which means you don' t have to sit around in your orbit waiting for the groundtrack to go over your landing site.
1. Fewer reverse Gs.
The deceleration from a capsule landing should be in the same direction as the acceleration during launch.... but for a lifting body the directions are different... which, to me, implies more problems with reverse g's for lifting bodies.
2. Gentle touchdown. (Apparently, Cosmonauts often receive injuries when the capsule hits the ground.)
The X-38 lifting body used a parafoil for its (gentle) landing... I see no reason why you can't use a similar system for a capsule.
3. The ability to control the flight.
You do have the ability to control the flight with capsules (Apollo did this)
4. Aerobraking manuvers become possible.
You can use capsules for aerobraking maneuvers (they should be better than lifting bodies even because of the higher heat loads.)
and from the grandparent:
the main reason for having a winged vehicle is that is the only way to get a capability to bring significant mass down from orbit
this isn't true... you should be able to bring more payload mass down from orbit with a capsule of a given weight because of less structural mass and less TPS.
Again, I'm pretty sure that the only reason to use a lifting body for entry is for the greater crosstrack.
There are 10 types of people in this world, those who can count in binary and those who can't.
That's the job of the range officer. :-)
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
I meant they're where China was in 1966
No. Its trading money for astronaut seats (something ESA could never do... build a freaking capsule)
-everphilski-
No, it will not suddenly stop working. More likely, some of the new members will become gradually disillusioned and disappointed over the next 20 years.
When those nations joined, they were hopeful due to the rapid economic progress in Ireland. But the situation in Eastern Europe is rather different. They are decades behind in development, and the linguistic barriers are greater.
So although people hope to repeat the successes seen in the EU during the 1980s-1990s, it is not likely to go nearly as well.
Adding insult to injury, the biggest members of the EU often seem only to care for themselves. By carrying large deficits and public debt, they blatantly ignore the economic stability pact. They insist on setting their own independent foreign policies, but they always expect smaller countries to follow their lead. A few have even refused to adopt the Euro as their currency.
This is not to say the US is going to do any better. A growing number of people are waking up to the fact that the Southwestern US was illegally taken from Mexico. If religious and cultural divisions within the US continue to accelerate, and if Republicans continue to control the government into the next decade, there will surely be a eal seccession movement.
In retrospect, historians will see the breakup of the USSR as merely the beginning of a widespread trend in which people reject empire and return to communitarian principles.
(haha, just kidding. but there are people who seriously think like this.)
I remember, as a kid in the early '60s (late '50s?) the Russians photographed the back side of the moon. It was the first time in history, that anyone had seen what was there.
A well-read US 'Science' magazine "Popular Mechanics" (or was it "Popular Science?) later claimed it was all a big hoax, and the godless Rooskies had never photographed the far side of the moon.
Well, 5 or 10 years later the US sent photo missions around the moon and strangely found that their photos seemed to verify that the back of the moon looked just like the original USSR photos.
I don't know if there was ever any attempt to rename "Mare Moscovium" (excuse the spelling), or other features already named after great socialist scientists, as "Mare Washingtonium", or "Sea of Dulles", but it's too bad the Fox network wasn't around then....
.
- aqk
F U
He's dead, Jim.
m an
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feyn
I'm sure that's mighty reassuring to the poor dumb fucks in the spaceship.
No bucks, no Buck Rodgers. When the launch system is designed by Michael Brown, don't be surprised if the taxpayer says fuck it, let's just put a robot on Mars.
Seriously, even the Soviets weren't fucking stupid enough to use SRBs on manned launches. And if you know anything about history, you probably can figure out how much they figure a human life is worth. The fact that NASA was willing to do it makes me wonder if they're stupid or just plain fucking evil.
Seriously, even the Soviets weren't fucking stupid enough to use SRBs on manned launches.
Whoa, time out. What's you're big problem with SRB's? Other than the O-Ring failure (a failure that wouldn't have happened if we didn't use sectioned SRBs) the SRBs have been surprisingly reliable.
And it's not like the Shuttle was built without an understanding and experience with SRBs. The basic launch configuration had been well explored by the Titan IIIc before the Space Shuttle was mated to SRBs.
Optimally, the Space Shuttle would have been an SSTO and never have needed the SRBs. Unfortunately, that didn't happen, so we have the SRBs and they work. No other single engine has the raw thrust to weight ratio these suckers put out.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
What Russia is great at is designing capsules.
And that's why Klipper is basically a capsule with wings for more controllable and soft landing. And the soyuz's achievements AFAIK are incorporated as much as possible.
And yes, the article is a dupe (though it seems to reveal more details as in "seeking funding" -> "seems to find at least some funding"). Or maybe even a "trupe"...
But still, it's basically good that *technology* gets *publicity* on *slashdot*.
WYSIWIG, but what you see might not be what you need
Gee, thanks for copying word-for-word the comment I made the last time slashdot posted this story, and getting modded +5 for it. Seriously, I wouldn't mind at all if you had at least given me some sort of attribution.
Maybe Russian costs as a little low because they just.....are. Russians, unlike Americans and many Europeans, are willing to work for the common good of all and not just to enrich themselves through exhorbitant wages or deny cooperation for mutual societal benefit through criminal use of so called intellectual property statutes. The idea of using the misappropriated (hijacked) word 'piracy' to apply to a white collar act better known as plagiarism is to create and attach an undeserved notoriety to an activity that has for millenia been a mundane occurance, rarely punished unless particularly flagrant. We as a society through apathy and neglect have allowed a small group of determined gangsters to monopolize a small segment of our marketplace and inflate its importance artificially. The climate of fear and uncertainty that these evil people have created has the potential to stagnate all societies affected by this. The signs are already present. Innovation in this country has effectively stopped. We are giving up our lead in scientific and soon cultural affairs. Already the Russians and Europeans are starting to move ahead with innovative plans. Take a look at the Kliper, fellow Americans, and know that all the stuffed shirt lawyers and gangster capitalists and all the formaldehyde paneled 'courtrooms' in world will not stop this ship from becoming a leader in the new space exploration effort by the new world leaders in space. We are beginning to stew in our own juices. Remember how YOU voted against nuclear power and demonstrated against 'not in my backyard' and laughed and ignored lawsuits against Meijers Department stores by Wal-Mart for the 'homicidal genocidal piracy on the high seas with cannons blazing' act of using the 'stolen' 'business method' of using checkout lane lazy susans to hold merchandise bags on hangars!!! REMEMBER THAT THE NEXT TIME YOU PAY FOUR DOLLARS OR MORE FOR A GALLON OF GAS!