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