Slashdot Mirror


Lockheed Martin Tests New Spacecraft Prototype

Hmmzis writes to tell us that Lockheed Martin is using Spaceport America to test a new prototype spacecraft. The prototype is only about one-fifth the size of the projected production model which promises to deliver satellites into orbit at a cheaper cost. "It looks a bit like the space shuttle and would fly to space and return the same way. But even the big version would not carry people, just satellites. The goal is to get to orbit faster and cheaper thanks to an automated reusable spacecraft run by its own computers and just a handful of people for a launch crew."

93 comments

  1. Prior Art? by stoolpigeon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I could swear I saw an Estes sticker on the side of that rocket.

    --
    It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
    1. Re:Prior Art? by Rei · · Score: 1

      On a serious note, anyone think this might be Blackswift we're seeing? Of course, Blackswift, AFAIK, wasn't supposed to be orbital. I'm noticing that it looks awfully similar to parts of their Space Launch Initiative proposal. Long, fat fuselage, so it's probably burning hydrogen, whatever it is.

      Anyone know what exactly we're looking at here?

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    2. Re:Prior Art? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it does looks kind of like a 3-stage rocket plane. Maybe the bottom works as first stage, then the second stage with the payload on top.

  2. Before you ask... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

    Yes, there really is a Truth or Consequences, New Mexico, home of Spaceport America. It used to be called by the less-than-distinctive moniker "Hot Springs". When the town changed its name as a promotional stunt for a popular radio game show in 1950, they liked the new name so much they kept it. New Mexico rocks.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
    1. Re:Before you ask... by eln · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, the only real things T or C had going for it were Elephant Butte lake and the hot springs. These days, the lake level is constantly being lowered to provide more water to points south, and hardly anyone even knows that the hot springs exist. In addition, much of the tourism related to the lake is now mostly going through the relatively new town of Elephant Butte, so T or C misses out on a lot of that now too.

      The T or C names gives the place notoriety from afar, but it makes it harder to draw attention to the hot springs, and very few people will travel out there just because it has a funny name, so in my opinion it actually hurts tourism.

      I don't know if you've ever been to T or C, but if you didn't know the hot springs were there, you'd likely turn around and leave as soon as possible. It's very economically depressed and very run-down looking with very little to offer other than the usual chain motels and gas stations clustered around the Interstate.

      Hopefully, private space ventures will take off and this spaceport will provide some much-needed economic stimulus to the area and an influx of highly educated people with good salaries. I'd say at this point it's about 50-50 whether this thing turns into a major industry in the area or becomes another taxpayer-funded boondoggle.

    2. Re:Before you ask... by sleigher · · Score: 1

      This may be true but I know that almost every type of firework was available in N.M. and that alone makes it a desireable location..... I still have 1k bottle rockets left!

      --
      All points of time and space are connected.
    3. Re:Before you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked at the white sands test facility for six years (a years ago), I would have to say that most of the people that will benefit from the space port are going to be from 'points south' (as you put it). No matter what, Las Cruces and El Paso will see a positive economic impact, because of the missile range and test facility people having more job options, but I doubt any of those people will end up moving to TorC. (I wouldn't).

    4. Re:Before you ask... by eln · · Score: 1

      From what I hear, T or C's economy these days is mostly based on the meth trade, so I don't blame you.

    5. Re:Before you ask... by timeOday · · Score: 1

      T or C is no worse or different than a lot of places in NM, which is to say, not very well off. IMO there are many places here that a lot of Americans would be surprised to see in the US at all. (Sort of how I imagine the Ozarks). But then, a fair number of the people here are on reservations they consider to be sovereign. The islands of non-poverty subsist largely on the federal defense budget, since it's an ideal place for hiding away from prying eyes and setting off explosions.

    6. Re:Before you ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      New Mexico rocks. Is that a verb or a noun? (Cerebrally speaking)

    7. Re:Before you ask... by sporkme · · Score: 1
  3. Automated by calebt3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The goal is to get to orbit faster and cheaper thanks to an automated reusable spacecraft run by its own computers and just a handful of people for a launch crew. Of course automated systems would be better for launching satellites.
    There is no need for: Retaining an atmosphere
    Heating/Cooling
    Recyling water (or even bringing water in the first place)
    Food
    Multiple/redundant backups for life support
    Radiation shielding (at least not as much)
    Fuel to hoist it all up.
    1. Re:Automated by vrmlguy · · Score: 2, Informative
      Most importantly, no need to worry about the spacecraft blowing up.
      http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002A_&page_name=Chapter3

      3.9 Crew and Passenger Survival

      3.9.1 The space system shall provide the crew and passengers with the capability for emergency egress to a safe haven during prelaunch activities ((Requirement 34469).).

      3.9.2 The space system shall provide emergency egress, safe haven, and rescue post touchdown ((Requirement 34470).).

      3.9.3 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the ascent and on-orbit profile (from hatch closure until atmosphere entry interface) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34471).):

      Abort.
      Escape by retaining the crew and passengers encapsulated in a portion of the vehicle that can reenter without crew or passenger fatality or permanent disability.
      Escape by removing the crew and passengers from the vehicle.

      3.9.4 The program shall ensure that ascent survival modes can be successfully accomplished during any ascent failure mode including, but not limited to, complete loss of thrust, complete loss of control, and catastrophic booster failure at any point during ascent ((Requirement 34473).).

      3.9.5 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the descent profile (from entry interface through landing) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34474).):

      Design features that increase tolerance to loss of critical functions such that landing can still be accomplished.
      Escape.

      3.9.6 The program shall ensure that the descent survival modes can be successfully accomplished for loss of critical functions including, but not limited to, loss of active attitude control and loss of primary power ((Requirement 34476).). And a bit later:

      3.12 Flight Termination

      3.12.1 Flight termination shall include features that allow sufficient time for abort or escape prior to activation of the destruct system ((Requirement 34505).). These things can really add to the cost of a vehicle.
      --
      Nothing for 6-digit uids?
    2. Re:Automated by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think the reusable spacecraft is a dubious idea, at least having the final stage be reusable. The weight added to be able to survive reentry and land is still significant. Even if you don't have a passenger compartment, there's still the weight of the wings, as well as the weight of all the thermal protection materials to protect the entire spacecraft. Then there's the structure needed to handle that extra weight, and the extra fuel needed to lift that extra weight.

    3. Re:Automated by holywarrior21c · · Score: 2, Informative

      There is no need for: Retaining an atmosphere Heating/Cooling Recyling water (or even bringing water in the first place) I get your point but few things are necessary on unmanned ships. Many equipments require proper heating and cooling. water is excellent source of coolant and also used in heating. In this process water is often recycled so it doesn't have to carry more unecessarilly.
    4. Re:Automated by Marsala · · Score: 1

      They might be looking at trying to retrieve stuff from orbit in addition to delivery of new satellites. Kind of like NASA's C-shuttle program or something.

      Of course, in the finest tradition of /. I have failed to RTFA before posting, so... :)

    5. Re:Automated by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I did open the article and skim it, but didn't fully read it. There are times when returning satellites might be useful, but I think it's only been done a few times, the last time I counted, twice. The one time I remember is bringing back LDEF, they wanted to see how different things withstood long term exposure to space, and examine them in detail.

    6. Re:Automated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> I get your point but few things are necessary on unmanned ships. Many equipments require proper heating and cooling. water is excellent source of coolant and also used in heating. In this process water is often recycled so it doesn't have to carry more unecessarilly.

      He means recycling water in terms of reusing waste as drinking water. Water for cooling *is* recycled, but not used up. It simply cycles through, and through, and through. Not nearly as much is lost in a closed liquid cooling system as is lost via respiration loss by living passengers. And don't forget systemic absorption; if someone is dehydrated, less comes out than is taken in, to compensate.

    7. Re:Automated by jfengel · · Score: 1

      Especially since they all add weight, and more weight means more fuel. And more fuel means even more fuel, because some of the fuel goes to lifting the rest of the fuel to the point where it's needed.

    8. Re:Automated by Kogun · · Score: 1

      Don't make the mistake of only looking at the vehicle itself. Any launch vehicle is part of a larger system and the entire cost of the system is what must be considered. The primary goal is to reduce the cost per pound to orbit. The material considerations you cite for the craft are insignificant compared to the labor cost for a factory full of workers to create throwaway vehicles for twenty years. Likewise, the extraordinary labor costs for preparing a shuttle (STS) for another launch is why it is a financial failure. There's nothing more dubious about the idea of a reusable spacecraft than the idea of a reusable airplane or automobile.

  4. Take a look at this! by StefanJ · · Score: 3, Informative

    From the 1971 Centuri Engineering catalog, their concept Space Shuttle model.

    1. Re:Take a look at this! by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yea I was thinking the exact same thing. That is a Centuri Space Shuttle...
      Wonder if it is meant to be a joke.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    2. Re:Take a look at this! by Provocateur · · Score: 2, Funny

      It must be a joke. I mean /. with 3 rocket stories in one day? 'Lockheed tests new rocket' 'Fedora 9 cleared for launch' and 'IBM pilot program for internal Mac use'

      This is too much, even for an armchair rocket scientist. (Hey Stephen Hawking is a wheelchair physicist, so we could be on the same level.)

      --
      WARNING: Smartphones have side effects--most of them undocumented.
    3. Re:Take a look at this! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Given that the Centauri design is ripped straight from various NASA studies of potential Shuttle designs (http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch8.htm#333), I'm not too surprised to see it make an appearance once again now that the current shuttle concept is appearing to have been a wrong path. Why waste all the work that was don in the late 60s/early 70s on a fully reuseable 2 stage design?

    4. Re:Take a look at this! by tallywacker · · Score: 1

      This article is NOT about "Blackswift". Blackswift is a low hypersonic turbo-ramjet concept utilizing the FALCON program's HTV-3 vehicle. Turbo ramjet technology has been around since the SR-71's creation. It was deemed that this technology was a quicker and easier way of achieving low hypersonic flight than scramjet technology which is still in it's infancy.

  5. Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The idea of reusable space craft just makes more sense. Its nice to see that just because the Shuttle, which was an experimental system eventually treated and run like a production system, had problems, doesn't prove that the concept isn't valid. .o.

    1. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by call-me-kenneth · · Score: 1

      The idea of reusable space craft just makes more sense. Maybe it will make sense one day when materials science is up to the job, and building and flying novel engine and aeroshell stacks straight off the simulator is down pat, but for now straight stacks with the payload at the top is the hands-down winner on all counts that matter except "how cool it looks" (which, admittedly, has a non-zero value.) However ask the families of those who've lost their lives on the Shuttle where through accidents that wouldn't have happened on a conventional launcher/lander whether the eye-candy's worth the cost or not. And as for the dollar costs... don't even go there.
    2. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by Rei · · Score: 1

      What manned stack with a statistically significant number of manned launches are you thinking of that has a better safety track record than the shuttle? Soyuz's record is about the same. Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too). And there have been a number of manned Soyuz close calls, too.

      Sadly, a ~2% rate of total loss isn't a bad number when it comes to manned spaceflight.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    3. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by call-me-kenneth · · Score: 1

      No-one's lost their life on a Soyuz vehicle since 1971, and they're still flying today. They should have a sign up outside Baikonur... "Safety is #1! [ 37 ] years since a fatal accident". And of course NASA are switching back to a traditional geometry for Ares / CEV, the Shuttle replacement. Oh and goodness, me, ESA just launched a pressurised, man-rated vehicle which is now part of the ISS on an Ariane 5. Goodness, that ATV sure is a neat looking bit of kit; stick a small thruster on the back and you've got something that could spend a few years slowly chugging out to Mars with tens of tons of payload, rather than half a ton making the journey in six months. I don't think a manned Mars mission will ever happen, but I guarantee you the people are doodling sample return and manned orbital missions in cafes all round Darmstadt...

    4. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by Rei · · Score: 1

      No-one's lost their life on a Soyuz vehicle since 1971, and they're still flying today.

      Did you not read what I just wrote? "Sure, they haven't had any manned Soyuz losses recently, but that's demonstrably just luck; unmanned Soyuz keep blowing up (and killing ground crew, too)".

      They should have a sign up outside Baikonur... "Safety is #1! [ 37 ] years since a fatal accident".

      Try 5 1/2 years. Yes, he was on the ground and was killed by falling debris from an exploding Soyuz, but it was still an *exploding Soyuz*. Had there been people on it, they'd have been dead, too.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    5. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Soyuz_T-10-1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_T-10-1 blew up on the launch pad. The crew survived due to the Launch Escape System.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    6. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by Rei · · Score: 1

      They only escaped two seconds before the rocket blew up. It was a miracle that they survived. The crew was badly injured and wasn't able to fly so they couldn't complete their mission. Another launch escape occurred on 18a. They got a *21g acceleration*, recovered, hit the ground, and almost rolled off a cliff (which would have almost certainly been fatal, as the craft had already used its retrorockets). The mission commander was so badly injured that he was never able to fly again.

      Soyuz is not the miraculously safe rocket that most people like to pretend it is.

      --
      I'll BUILD someone to replace you. Some kind of gamma-powered monster, with a heart as black as coal!
    7. Re:Space Plane People 1, Rocket People 0. by dryeo · · Score: 1

      Soyuz is not the miraculously safe rocket that most people like to pretend it is.

      Isn't safe rocket an oxymoron? My point was that having the rocket blow up does not automatically mean a death sentence for the crew. I think it is still amazing that the crew survived both T-10-1 and 18a. 18a was blasting pretty well straight down when the escape system kicked in.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  6. Spaceport, my arse by call-me-kenneth · · Score: 0, Troll
    "Spaceport America"... puh-lease. They're doing atmospheric tests on a 1/5 scale model flying with either solid rockets or most likely small conventional turbines, validating aerodynamics of a aerospace equivalent of a concept car. And that vehicle ladies and gentlemen is an AIRcraft, and that big ol patch of concrete is an AIRport.

    This post brought to you courtesy of Grumpy Friday [tm]. Bah! Humbug!!

    1. Re:Spaceport, my arse by iso-cop · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There is a lot more than you think going on a Spaceport America. It hosted the 2006 X-Prize Cup as a start. Even though it is still under construction, UP Aerospace and Virgin Galactic have made their home at these facilities and launched a number of suborbital flights as milestones toward viable commercial space transport. Other interesting ideas like the Rocket Racing League are springing up, which are not orbital, but interesting nonetheless. In case you are wondering, I am a New Mexico resident but have no affiliation whatsoever to any of these endeavors.

    2. Re:Spaceport, my arse by call-me-kenneth · · Score: 1

      Right, but my point (which I must have expressed in too trollish a manner) was that vehicles that move in the air are called aircraft. Once they've launched something into orbit, then they can call themselves a spaceport. Otherwise it's like the sign on Del Trotter's van "New York Paris Tokyo Peckham"...

    3. Re:Spaceport, my arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Spaceport" implies that they go to space, not to orbit. If you want a name which requires going to orbit, whine about people who call it an "orbitport". This spaceport has sent things into space, so it would seem to completely deserve the name.

  7. On the dole by dj245 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "On April 22 Sierra County residents will vote on a quarter-cent sales tax to help pay for the spaceport. Neighboring Dona Ana County has already approved a similar tax, and Otero County has yet to schedule a vote."

    I think this should be the story here. Why should state taxpayers dumping money in Lockheed's pockets? I have never seen a subsidy or bounty (as they were called long ago) that did more good than harm.

    Yeah I know, its America and that the way things work now. But that doesn't mean these actions shouldn't provoke outcry.

    --
    Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
    1. Re:On the dole by eln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The spaceport is intended to be a complex from which various companies can launch and test spacecraft, not Lockheed Martin specifically. So, it's sort of like taxpayers funding an airport, which is certainly not unprecedented. The difference, of course, is it's funding a location from which to operate an industry that may not take off (pardon the pun) for decades, if ever. So, there is a definite risk.

      However, having spent a lot of time in Las Cruces, which is less than an hour south, I can tell you that the spaceport has brought a lot more interest to science education in the area, so it has provided at least some short term benefit.

    2. Re:On the dole by sporkme · · Score: 1

      On the surface, the sales tax increase is local government deciding to help citizens along in spurring economic development in their immediate vicinity, so that they might reap the benefits of jobs and peripheral economic development to come. Good news, right?

      In reality, it is just a tax hike. While some money might make it in some ambiguous way to the project, you will quickly see your government hollow out the concept and replace it with "IOU's" which will never be repaid.

      READ: You just got hosed. No matter what you name a tax increase, it is just a tax increase--especially in the case of a local sales tax. Nobody will follow this; the the memory of constituencies is very short. If they had imposed a property or income tax, it would have been a bit more believable. Then there would have been something to grumble about, and to sunset.

      I have nothing but good feelings for the spaceport, but viewing from afar I feel that locals got screwed on this one. The likelihood of its repeal *ever* is very small.

  8. How about the reverse trip by pembo13 · · Score: 1

    ie. to start removing trash from orbit around us. It isn't as if the trash is providing significant shielding to us.

    --
    "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    1. Re:How about the reverse trip by Digi-John · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if German schoolkids are to be believed, that damn space junk will bump the Apophis asteroid into a more dangerous orbit! Curses!

      --
      Klingon programs don't timeshare, they battle for supremacy.
    2. Re:How about the reverse trip by calebt3 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it would take extensive maneuvering to get near and catch a simple bolt. Then you have more extensive maneuvering to get the nut a hundred feet away. Rinse and Repeat.

    3. Re:How about the reverse trip by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the reason to not do it is because it is difficult and expensive?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    4. Re:How about the reverse trip by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      So you're saying the reason to not do it is because it is difficult and expensive?

      Difficult and expensive enough that the cost would be more than the expected benefit, yes.

    5. Re:How about the reverse trip by calebt3 · · Score: 1

      Obscenely so. It would end up costing thousands (if not millions) to get to that bolt.

    6. Re:How about the reverse trip by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      I guess, as long as a wayward piece of junk doesn't fall on some prized property of (America|Russia). If it takes out some villager in Africa?

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    7. Re:How about the reverse trip by Z34107 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I guess, as long as a wayward piece of junk doesn't fall on some prized property of (America|Russia). If it takes out some villager in Africa?

      You think any piece of junk is going to survive re-entry?

      A few pieces must; how often do you think it happens?

      Suppose that by some miracle, a piece of space junk survives falling several miles through the atmosphere. Does water cover most of our planet, or does Africa cover most of our planet?

      Such inflammatory language over a problem that doesn't exist. If I say I still don't think it's worth the effort, will you accuse me of bigotry?

      --
      DATABASE WOW WOW
    8. Re:How about the reverse trip by MTgeekMAN · · Score: 1

      Giant electromagnets on giant fishing poles attached to my giant robot arm!

    9. Re:How about the reverse trip by scarpa · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The junk is far more likely to damage new or existing satellites than any African villager.

  9. For the same reason I pay a sales tax surcharge by gelfling · · Score: 1

    For the RBC Center stadium in Raleigh, NC which is owned and operated by NC State for the benefit of NC State and any and all public and private venues operated there.

  10. It won't get cheap enough until... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

    ...we switch from chemical rockets to nuclear ones. Chemical reactions just don't have the power-per-mass ratio that nuclear ones do.

    --
    PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    1. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      Without a doubt we would be much further ahead with space explorations, dare I say colonization of the solar system. But then we would have to deal with the "potential" fallout of radioactive material if there was any kind of crash, explosion, whatever. Sometimes I think we like to frighten ourselves for the heck of it

    2. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      It would be pure st00pid to build a nuclear ground to orbit to ground space plane. Without sufficient shielding anything electronic aboard would have its circuits destroyed. With sufficient shielding it'd never get off the ground.

      In any case, a nuclear propulsion design was considered for a cruise missile platform for nuclear warhead delivery. The "Flying Crowbar" http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html was probably one of the all time worst designs for a weapon or a flying device. Even those parts not intended to be part of the weapons package were extremely deadly weapons as a by product of normal operation.

      A NERVA type design for nuclear propulsion could be built and operated in orbit, possibly, though getting the fissionables up there would face much resistance. But something that'll fly in atmosphere going up or coming down? A break up at high altitude and Mach speeds (the mostly likely time it'd have problems other than launch) and it'd spread radioactive debris over a large area. The Challenger was spread over 480 square miles.

      No, a nuclear design for this kind of flight profile should never happen. H2/O2, or possibly some of the newly developed (somewhat) stabilized boron propellants would do the job. A zero stage of dropped jet engines to get it up to > 50k ft. would make those propellants much more capable of doing the job.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    3. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      It would be pure st00pid to build a nuclear ground to orbit to ground space plane. Without sufficient shielding anything electronic aboard would have its circuits destroyed. With sufficient shielding it'd never get off the ground.

      Forgive me, but that's spoken like someone who hasn't done the math. Go read the actual, y'know, article I linked to.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    4. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      Chemical rockets need to be basically thin balloons full of fuel. Nuclear rockets have ISP to spare, and can be much tougher. Even then, a big nuclear rocket would need about 10 lbs of nucleotides; old nuclear tests put something like three orders of magnitude more into the atmosphere and didn't kill anybody. Read the article.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    5. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by ZonkerWilliam · · Score: 1

      I did. I then read about Cosmos 954 . I was referring more to the fact that we have had multiple launches with radioactive fuel on-board and very little fallout from them, such as Cosmos 954 that littered radioactive fuel across 124,000 square miles of land, and yet no fatalities. Nuclear would open up the solar system if we were just not so timid.

    6. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by Dr.+Manhattan · · Score: 1

      Ah, I misunderstood the tone there. My apologies.

      --
      PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
    7. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by confused+one · · Score: 1

      I regret to inform you that this isn't likely to happen for at least 50 years. The plans for the first manned Mars missions don't currently include nuclear power; although the VASIMR propulsion guys are basically saying that if you provide them with a nuclear power plant for their engine, they can cut Earth to Mars transport time to under 3 months. (That's using current technology). The VX-200 200kW engine is supposed to be test fired this year. I'd consider this to be one of the more exciting options since it's real, works, and is scalable.

    8. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      It would be pure st00pid to build a nuclear ground to orbit to ground space plane. Without sufficient shielding anything electronic aboard would have its circuits destroyed. With sufficient shielding it'd never get off the ground.


      Forgive me, but that's spoken like someone who hasn't done the math. Go read the actual, y'know, article I linked to.

      I've been doing my own propulsion, aerodynamics and flight profile math for years; I have a high powered rocketry license, and design and build my own.

      I've read TFA. It doesn't do much math either. It just quotes someone else's figures, badly. I'm not going to bother checking up on all of them because I'm confident the writer has done the same with those that he's done with a few of the details given -- selective reproduction without checking them himself and showing that. As I will show, the author is almost certainly unable to do so.

      If the design were as safe as stated, it should show the math that supports that, not just make the assertion and say someone else calculated it. If it did show that math it could be picked apart. Most important would be the calculations of specific impulse and the pressure required to reach it vs. the containment stated as making it safe as well as making the propulsion system robust enough to launch and land.

      One case of math being "done" is the assertion "I mentioned that the exhaust of this nuclear spaceship shoots out at a whopping fast 30 kilometers per second. If you add this 30 kilometers per second to the 8.5 kilometers per second the whole rocket is moving while in orbit...". This shows the compete inability of the author to grasp the necessary concepts. You do not add orbital velocity and exhaust velocity to arrive at a new orbital or other trajectory velocity. You use Isp to calculate exhaust velocity (not by itself relevant) as well as delta V (relevant, requiring among other details vehicle and exhaust mass).

      More problematic in TFA is the use of invalid and egregious comparisons attempting to justify the "safety" of the design by providing historical figures on deaths by various means, as if killing fewer with radiation sickness, cancer, etc. is acceptable just because more died from other things. That's not just wrong, it's sick.

      If I want background details I don't go to some guy's blog, but rather to a site that the NASA historical office themselves recommend to others for this purpose: http://www.astronautix.com/ . Go there and look up the relevant launch vehicle family, NERVA. Every design was canceled in either the study phase or during development. The references provided tell why, and the reasons apply to the design here. The article stated as the primary reference (in NuclearSpace) is 404. Details in other material presented on the site shows this supposed pro-something outfit to have the same selective attention problem. For instance they say that NERVA design and development ended in 1973. DARPA's 'Timberwind' NERVA project was closed during development (not just design) in 1992. The fact that they (at least at one time) published TFA containing problems such as the velocity error noted above indicates they too are as qualified as the blog's author, ie. not very. I would ask that anyone making appeal to "the math" would themselves check it, as appealing to authorities that aren't leaves one open to guilt by voluntary association. I'll give NuclearSpace the benefit of the doubt and assume TFA is 404 because they caught the errors they originally let slip past.

      If the design were built and it failed, making comparisons with automobile deaths would be useless. Making comparisons with Chernobyl would provide details, if not in scale, then at least in specific problems likely to occur.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    9. Re:It won't get cheap enough until... by nasor · · Score: 1

      I have never seen a serious design for a closed-cycle gas core nuclear rocket engine that has a thrust/weight ratio greater than one. All that specific impulse is useless if it can't get off the ground. In the essay you link to, the author seems to simply assume that it's possible to build a nuclear lightbulb engine with 1.2 million lb of thrust that masses 60 ton. If you have any sort of reference to a source that indicates this is possible, I would be very interested to see it. But this seems badly out of line with what most experts believe is possible.

  11. Resemblences by sabre86 · · Score: 1

    It reminds me less of the Shuttle and more of the X-34 and the X-37 family.

    I am excited about the operational model, though. The large number of people involved in most launch vehicle operations is a huge fixed cost that pretty negates the advantage of launching smaller payloads on smaller, cheaper rockets. Sounds like it has a lot of promise. I wonder if they're thinking about an air launched version as well, Pegasus style. If the rocket is no larger than a Space Ship Two, then it could maybe use a White Knight carrier aircraft to improve the economies of scale and further reduce costs or maybe just increase orbited payloads by launching higher and with a velocity. If you're going to have wings for reentry, you might as well take advantage of them for launch, too, assuming the structural penalty isn't too high.

    --sabre86

  12. I knew I've seen it by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    In fact I think I built one years past. Probably the Centauri kit noted above.

    The bird in TFA is probably not the one L-M will build (if they do). They have many other better designs for winged and/or lifting body spacecraft.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
    1. Re:I knew I've seen it by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

      Update: The design is presently available as a "retro" kit from a kit manufacturer that specializes in such things, Semroc. http://rocketdungeon.blogspot.com/2008/04/lockmart-model-spaceplane-flown-at.html

      Good to know L-M didn't need to put a lot of money into design development. They probably did, but they didn't need to.

      --
      "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  13. Re:In Others News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's good to hear.

  14. Time mag's man of the year should be by WindBourne · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Elon musk. The reason is that he has single handley been responsible for changing MAJOR companies. He starts tesla and suddenly Chevy has no choice but to do the volt. Before some of the naysayers spring up, google for tesla and volt and interview. You will find that the man at GM behind the volt fully credits Musk as pushing alive the volt when the CEO had actually killed the program (and it was at the right time).
    Likewise, spacex is the company who was pushing out rockets that will take only a handful of ppl to run it. L-Mart has NO incentive to do this. For proof, simply read entering space by zubrin who was told by top executives that they would never willingly walk away from their rockets; far too much money. But check falcon1 costing only 7 million against ULA's smallest costing something like 90 million and even orbital small pegasus with smaller payload costing 30 million. ULA/LMart has no choice but to do something similar. No doubt this will be expanded for man. Why? becuase of bigelow.

    Finally, Musk is making solar PV cost about half the money by changing how installs occur.

    All in all, this import shows exactly WHY we need ppl like him.

    Thank you elon.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    1. Re:Time mag's man of the year should be by DerekLyons · · Score: 2, Informative

      Likewise, spacex is the company who was pushing out rockets that will take only a handful of ppl to run it

      They may be 'pushing them out', but they sure as heck aren't flying them. Two (much delayed) launches to date - two failures. No announced date for the third launch.
       
       

      L-Mart has NO incentive to do this.

      Other than NASA's COTS initiative, which involves not only SpaceX but OSC and a half a dozen others. Said COTS initiative just a _big_ boost as NASA announced today that they will not be asking Congress for money to purchase Progress launches, but instead wishes to apply the money to commercial/COTS programs. Then there is Bigelow on the horizon, and Virgin Aerospace too... Then there is EADS and a couple of Russian companies pushing low cost access too. Then there is Northrup Grumman who just bought out Scaled Composites... LockMart has a lot of reasons to do this, and SpaceX is just one of them.
       
       

      For proof, simply read entering space by zubrin who was told by top executives that they would never willingly walk away from their rockets; far too much money.

       
      Need I point out that Entering Space is nearly a decade old? The aerospace industry has changed radically in that time, especially in the last five years. (And anyone whose spent any time around the space industry knows Zubrin says many thing. Some of them even have a passing resemblance to reality.)
    2. Re:Time mag's man of the year should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FYI, LockMart didn't get money for COTS-1, which is the development funding, but they are still elegible to offer services for COTS-2, which is the provision of launch services, if they want to do so. They already have a functional rocket, which while much more expensive than SpaceX is claiming, gives them less to invest in to be able to offer a bid.

      I believe Boeing and LockMart were both involved in COTS-1 proposals after Rocketplane Kistler got the boot, but neither of them got it. It just means they have to front all the development money instead of part of it if they want in on the action.

    3. Re:Time mag's man of the year should be by O2H2 · · Score: 1
      Trust me as a designer at ULA we have EVERY motivation to reduce costs and improve performance. We do this on a daily basis. But costs are not driven primarily by design. They are driven by rate. If you order a dozen of anything complicated it will cost a fortune. Order one that has to do exotic stuff like accelerate 20 metric tons to 30 km/sec and it is very expensive. Even more dominating is the cost in extremely talented people to support such exotic machines. Look up how much Ferrari or McLaren spend in a year to field two F1 racing cars. The technology investment and risks are similar but there is a far larger payoff for F1 racing.

      Elon has yet to succeed and more importantly his cost model has yet to be validated. I am sure he expects that with first flight or after even the first handful of flights he can shed people and run on automatic. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every last sensor, valve, actuator and pyro device requires care and feeding from birth to death. They are subjected to brutal environments that make the most extreme earth-bound environments trivial. While subject to these conditions they must perform flawlessly. Even small deviations in performance must be treated as serious indications of potential future failure. There is a discipline here that is mandated by almost no other activity on the planet. That costs money.

      We all hope Elon succeeds. He is a great motivator. WIth tenacity and a lot more money he will succeed. His rockets will not cost $7M- nowhere close.

      The concept of the flyback booster is a very old one. It has not come to fruition because the traditional solutions of wings etc are simply not economically viable with existing materials. They transform a super-powerful booster into a feeble one and the physics wars against you. This is NOT to say that there are not viable solutions to make this concept a reality. But they will look different than the sci-fi approach. They have to be super-light, very cheap and ultra-reliable. They have to fit within a compact hypersonic vehicle. Reusing the stuff you save has to be like falling off a log- if you even touch it much the savings will vanish. That is the challenge.

      The ARCTUS vehicle proposed for NASA's ISS service (it lost) by ULA and Spacehab embodied a highly efficient recovery concept at its most basic. If you are interested I'm sure a little googling will be informative.

      Meanwhile stop making a company like ULA into some sort of demonic barrier to human space exploration. It is comprised of thousands of dedicated and supremely talented folks many of whom share your desire to get into space in a big way. We have the privilege of confronting these technical challenges head on. We take that very seriously. Industries and governments count on us to supply a critical need. This is not a casual hobby.

      We welcome fellow warriors to confront these same tough challenges- yes it is a real battle with a very nasty bit of nature. Nearly everyone who joins the fray gets their ass handed to them more than once. But the joy of the battle can't be beat.

    4. Re:Time mag's man of the year should be by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      Meanwhile stop making a company like ULA into some sort of demonic barrier to human space exploration. It is comprised of thousands of dedicated and supremely talented folks many of whom share your desire to get into space in a big way. We have the privilege of confronting these technical challenges head on. We take that very seriously. Industries and governments count on us to supply a critical need. This is not a casual hobby.
      First, just so that you know, I have worked on NASA projects (ground control for MGS; though I have wondered if it was used; MSS most likely put in their own) and actually live in highlands ranch (and know a few of the engineers up on the hill). Second, I am not demonizing ULA (or Boeing/L-mart). The problem is that business ppl (those that control) of l-mart and Boeing has had NO incentives to build low costs rockets (more for L-mart which has a smaller commercial footprint). The reason is that they make a LOT more money on gov. CONTRACTS. Even ELV was a gov. contract. This is one of the dangers being the heart of the industrial/gov. contract. ULA was created by the feds to "lower" costs. But did it? Not really. And your prices have not come down a great deal. What will lower the price as, you pointed out, is launch rate. l-mart and the large space companies have done little to encourage that. OTH, x-price, musk and bigelow are the ones building that industry. Musk is one lowering costs to space, while Bigelow is providing the reasons for a high launch rate. Interestingly, Bigelow is just ahead of the curve. I believe that within another 5 years, the world will have its own strong reason to launch.

      So, the real question is, with all the profits that L-mart and Boeing have from launches AND the multiple decades at it, how has the rocket changed? The answer is very little. It has become a refinement of what we had by late 60's. But all the launch systems have required large amounts of ground staff. I will grant you that Musk is building on the work that you, USSR, and Germany did. In the common phrase, he stands on the shoulder of giants. But l-mart paid for little of that work. The feds did. In the end, what incentives has l-mart had to LOWER the costs? Damn little. But now, they are trying to lower their costs, due to real competition on the horizon. IOW, they are borrowing ideas from Musk by moving towards heavy automation. And in about another 2-4 years, they may have to re-think things again as they examine the launch costs of Scaled's (as will spacex). After all, if they are successful, they will almost certainly have the lowest costs esp. for humans. The one nice thing for ULA is that l-mart and boeing has lots of experience at supersonic, high altitude vehicles, which could lower costs further than Scaled's.

      More important, what work has l-mart/boeing done to help create the demand for launches? Other than pushing congressmen, relatively little. They have had little incentives to do so. That is about to change. I am guessing that with the commercial world heading for space, L-mart might finally re-consider investing a bit of their money into creating even greater demand. In particular, I would be very surprised if ULA did not decide to get in on Google's x-prize. They have experience in getting to the moon already. This is their opportunity to not just do it again, but to help create a new much larger market. I am not certain, but I do not think that ULA is prohibited from going there. Create a small company with engineers and business ppl from ULA and go for it. That would pay handsomely for ULA if a sudden "gold rush" was created.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    5. Re:Time mag's man of the year should be by O2H2 · · Score: 1
      A few corrections to your assessment. Let us focus on Atlas. The Atlas you see today is hugely changed from the Atlas of 1980 or even 1995. During the design of the Atlas III and V we reduced the cost to LEO by 50%. That is a non-trivial effort. Yes we still burn kerosene and LO2 and LH2. That is unchanged. The techniques we use are much more refined and systems are much more elegant. I realize you would not have visibility into this but it is a fact. We commonly now have performance excesses that are the size of our previous total performance.

      Elon did not pioneer automation. We did. We make our entire Atlas tankage with 5 guys in a few days. The entire factory was set up to manufacture 20-30 shipsets of boosters per year. The Delta factory in Decatur is state of the art and could crank out 30 Delta IV's per year. Do the math and see what your spans are allowed to be. Elon did not develop his tank stirwelding- we did. Boeing and LM engineers did most of the heavy lifting to bring that technology into rate production.

      Boeing and LM spent nearly 3 billion dollars of their own money on the EELV program betting that commercial launch was about to explode. That is many times what everyone else has spent. The entire industry imploded and left them with huge capacity and few customers. ULA is the end result of Boeing and LM trying to stem losses and recover at least some of their investment. There is little prospect of them ever recovering much of it much less with a return.

      The key problem is that there is little business case to justify spending hundreds of millions of dollars in further investment. We have to work as true penny-pinching engineers: someone who can do for a dime what any damn fool can do for a dollar. Elon can spend whatever he chooses since it is not a business but a hobby that he is running. He has no intent of returning a profit much less a return on prior investment. That is not a business.

      We are supporting all the possible customers with our own money in the hopes they will become real. We have to be judicious since there are a lot of pie in the sky schemes out there. Remember Teledesic? Iridium? if Bigelow can get hundreds of billionaires or countries to want to go to space then all power to him.

      One key aspect that is rarely talked about is how our customer imposes costs on us. As the owners of spacecraft that cost most of a billion dollars I suppose I can understand their caution. Recognize that these are not men who are convinced by arm waving. They demand costly tests and analyses on seemingly trivial stuff. Hardware that has flown for years can be found to have low margins and require complete redesign. This picky customer imposes work that costs tens of millions per launch. A task that Elon is scarcely aware of. Add in nuclear RTG's and you are facing more paper. This unromantic stuff ends up costing MOST of the launch costs. The metal is almost an afterthought.

      I hope this is educational. The world of space launch is full of tough business and technical decisions. If it was so easy as everyone desires there would be a lot more money making rocket builders out there. As it is, all of them are subsidized by one mechanism or other.

  15. Too little, too late... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

    NASA should have just bought the Buran after the fall of the Soviet Union (I imagine the price would be Alaska level) and only use crews for complex missions, satellites should be sent without the need of astronauts. Oh well...

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Too little, too late... by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      NASA should have just bought the Buran after the fall of the Soviet Union (I imagine the price would be Alaska level) and only use crews for complex missions, satellites should be sent without the need of astronauts.

      The crew that makes spaceflight so costly isn't the one flying on it, but the one on the ground that builds and maintains the craft. As far as I know, Buran wouldn't have been much cheaper in that regard.

    2. Re:Too little, too late... by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Have you missed the fact that there have been fatal accidents and the Space Shuttle has been grounded for extended periods due to that?
      I wasn't talking about saving cost, but about saving lives. If I remember correctly, the Buran even had ejection seats!
      Of course, Astronauts are not as cheap as you think, as their cost is not their salary, but the entire training and support system for them. Also, you could have a stripped-down Buran-style shuttle that has no life support (thus less weight) just for unmanned missions, next to the regular one(s).

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
  16. Re:In Others News... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, they ain't gonna kill themselves. Well, at least most of them.

  17. Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Just to be annoyingly pedantic, you really can't "fly into space". Flying involves air and a lifting surface. Ergo, you can't fly into space.

    During its ascent to orbit, the Shuttle's wings are useless, just so much dead weight. They only come into play during reentry for a few short moments following reentry on approach to the landing site.

    Putting wings on an LEO spacecraft serves the purpose of trying to make the thing reusable. But, the complexity and cost of the Shuttle, along with un-likelihood that any similar craft can ever approach honest operational status, might induce us to consider other approaches to reusability.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly by trout007 · · Score: 1

      The Shuttles wings provide lift during most of the re-entry. One of the reasons for such large winds was when it was in the planning stage the Air Force wanted to do a once around spy mission. They would put a big telescope in the payload bay and launch south from Vandenburg. Then after one orbit they would land at Edwards. To do this they needed to fly (hypersonic glide) to get the 1000 mile cross range capability. So the shuttles wind provide lift all during reentry not just a few short moments on approach. Still you are right. It's a LOT of weight to carry around. In the 60's NASA had an orbital X-15ish spaceplane in the works. It would use the same stubby wings and instead of a hypersonic glide it would re-enter with the bottom of the plane forward like a capsule. And only after it was past that stage of heating was over it would then rotate around and land like the X-15. It would only have about a 100 mile cross-range.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    2. Re:Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly by iamlucky13 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      For the record, this isn't a winged spacecraft. It's a winged first stage. The article didn't catch on to it, but if you look up info on the Ares-Falcon proposal the Air Force has been mulling around for years, you'll see this is probably the same project. Weight is much less of a premium (still somewhat, however) on the first stage, because it spends less of the flight attached. Generally the first stage only contributes less 25% of the delta-V, meaning it only contributes 1/16 of final kinetic energy of the payload. So the weight of the wings doesn't hurt much.

      Additionally, a first stage doesn't need a real thermal protection system. It's one less element to lift and greatly simplifies reuse. Those pointy wings on the Lockheed demonstrator would be terrible from a heat-flow standpoint anyway.

      The tradeoff of weight allows controlled flyback, which makes recovery of the first stage far simpler than fishing it out of the water and cleaning it (surviving that requires parachutes and flotation provisions anyway, which although lighter than wings, are still a mass penalty). Getting a structurally intact first stage is a lot simpler than a structurally intact orbiter.

      So Lockheed actually is persuing an alternative approach to reusability here.

      By the way, SpaceX claims they plan to recover, refurbish, and reuse the first stage of both their Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, and the second stage of the Falcon 9. I'm honestly not sure how they intend to do the second stage, but the first stage parachutes to the ocean and is picked up by a recovery ship. Their one attempt at doing it so far failed.

    3. Re:Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly by reallocate · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, at least one of the original notions of a Shuttle design included a winged first stage. One version, I believe, was crewed, with the intention that the crew would fly it back to base for reuse.

      It's worth remembering that reusability is a means to an end -- lower costs -- and not an end in itself. The Shuttle has been unable to fly with enough frequency to reach that end. In hindsight, I suspect a persuasive case could be made that rather a lot of money would have been saved if we'd flown those missions using proven technology from the 1960's, i.e., the Saturn series.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  18. So, by your definition by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    when building an 8 lane highway and until it is open, it should be called a gravel road? Do not get me wrong. The highway is not a highway UNTIL it is open(i.e. born). But it is still a highway in progress, and generally most of us will call it either highway, or an under development highway.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  19. That's a real Beaut! by zazenation · · Score: 1

    "Elephant Butte"?
    That's only one letter away from a massive onslaught of crude dick and fart jokes. I'll wager those signs going into town are defaced regularly.

    1. Re:That's a real Beaut! by sporkme · · Score: 1

      I clearly recall that in elementary school, the closing "e" in "Elephant Butte" was painstakingly fingernail-scratched off of every wall map in every classroom. This joke is older than both of us combined. It is one of those fell-off-my-dinosaur deals.

  20. ...and would fly to space and return the same way. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Come on guys, this isn't rocket science. Oh, wait.

  21. That may come to be by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    There are some who are claiming that uranium may be on the moon in the same way that he3 is; via asteroids. In particular, some of the light flashes are now thought to be the decay products of uranium (radon). That means that if we find it there, then we will see a surge in nuclear rockets. I guess that is a case of let the good times flow.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  22. New Mexico rocks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, it does.

    On the other hand if I needed a place to drop a 2000 gallon container of liquid hydrogen and a 1000 gallon container of liquid oxygen on to a concrete slab while some of each was on fire I couldn't think of a better place to do it. Except maybe DesMoines, Iowa.

  23. Recovery Mass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Note that fuel is the cheapest part of the spacecraft.

    Can you stand to waste a 40% or more fuel to carry extra mass so you don't have to rebuild the whole thing every time?

    The shuttle isn't expensive because it has the extra weight of wings and thermal protection. It is expensive because refurbishing is so costly.

  24. Somebody by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make a rocket science joke, oh please, oh please. It would be so good, so good, make a rocket - wait... bah...

  25. Multi-use Single Flight System by FurtiveGlancer · · Score: 1

    What we really need is an automated system that can take off, launch a few satellites, gather some dead or nearly dead TOCO birds and burn them all up by exploding on re-entry. One flight, multiple missions, cleaner orbits. No need for durability beyond one launch. Let the atmoshpere reclaim the elements we took from the ground. Now that's recycling.

    --
    Invenio via vel creo
  26. Connect de dots? by Rockin'Robert · · Score: 0

    So.
    Branson has Virgin Media telecommunications and a trainset.
    Carlyle Group offered to buy Virgin Media.
    Branson refused.
    Then the UK gov't cancelled his Virgin Trains franchise.
    Branson's Spaceport America converts trains into spacecraft with Lockheed Martin.
    Profit?