NASA's Orion Moon Craft Unveiled

Too bad it's not a real Orion by Dr.+Manhattan · 2011-03-22 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

--
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!

Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 06:13 · Score: 2, Funny

So a concept that got killed in the early 60s is more real than a current project that is actually in testing? Can we get a "get off my lawn" while you are at it?
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Dr.+Manhattan · 2011-03-22 06:20 · Score: 2

So a concept that got killed in the early 60s is more real than a current project that is actually in testing? Can we get a "get off my lawn" while you are at it?
Okay. Get off my lawn.

--
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by MozeeToby · 2011-03-22 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program. If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly. Even the simplest nuclear rockets would have been almost an order of magnitude more effective than chemical rockets, and the preliminary tests were 100% successful. The fact that no one has even broached the subject since says a lot about the public's fears of anything nuclear.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Loadmaster · 2011-03-22 06:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Project Orion will never be revived. However, use of nuclear power may still live in VASIMR technology. The prototype is supposed to go up this year but we'll see. If it works as planned it's a game changer for in-space travel. Unlike most revolutionary technology companies Ad Astra is actually helmed by an ex-astronaut with an actual Ph.D. VASIMR technology comes from Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz's MIT thesis.
It is a huge year for SpaceX, Ad Astra, and spaceflight in general this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/ad_astra_nasa_vf200_announcement/
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-22 06:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's an interesting link about many of the nuclear propulsion systems over the years: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040112/nuclear.shtml
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by lysdexia · 2011-03-22 06:52 · Score: 2

The Ad Astra Rocket Company, headed by Dr Franklin Chang Díaz. has already built an experimental prototype version of its Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR)
Did Robert A. Heinlein's ghost ghost write that article? :-)
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. Orion would NEVER be used to get into orbit. Setting off nuclear weapons in the atmosphere is big no no.
2. The US does not have a big enough stock of nuclear weapons to use Orion even in space. It would need to make more, and very cheaply.
As I said... it's just not going to work.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by MozeeToby · 2011-03-22 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
Perhaps it isn't a failure of the agency, they do, after all, get their funding and many of their mission statements from congress. But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by MozeeToby · 2011-03-22 08:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Energy density of H2: 39,000 Wh/kg (actually lower because this doesn't include an oxidizer.
Energy density of Fission of U-235: 25,000,000,000 (of course lower, because you need support machinery)
Pretty clear we aren't quite at the limits of our energy sources using today's launch technologies.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-22 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I agree with you, imagine if one nuclear powered rocket failed? If there had been nuclear derived shuttle and either Columbia or Challenger accident occurred? We are after all talking a minimum of 5GW reactors. It would have set back the space program years if not canceled it out right. Out of either type, chemical or nuclear chemical is still safer, thats why we still have them.
I do see more hope for a Scram-Jet type launcher, or electromagnetic launcher. Both are much better than either chemical or nuclear. Once we are in the vacuum of space there is plasma and engines much like VASIMER, or even nuclear thermal.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by camperdave · 2011-03-22 09:33 · Score: 2

ARES was killed because it was too expensive. It was supposed to be built using off the shelf shuttle parts, but wound up being a completely new rocket. It was so heavy that they would have needed to get new crawler transporters, rebuild the launch platforms and the crawler pathways leading to them. The rocket could barely fit inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. The chosen engines had nozzles that would have melted in the predicted thermal environment. It's costs were spiralling out of control. That's why it was killed. Not because they wanted nuclear engines for it.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Unkyjar · 2011-03-22 09:40 · Score: 2

Orion calls for specialized nuclear explosives to be developed, the weapons we currently have in stock are far too powerful for the use you want to apply them to.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Grishnakh · 2011-03-22 10:46 · Score: 2

What for? The rebels in the middle east just want to oust their own crappy leaders, they're not worried much about other countries, and certainly don't want to destroy their own cities. The rebels in Egypt and Tunisia did just fine, ousting their crappy leaders without much death and damage at all. The rebels in Libya are having a somewhat harder time unfortunately, but they're actually welcoming a limited amount of foreign intervention to keep Gaddafi's forces from slaughtering them.
The rebellions in the middle east (and northern Africa, more properly) have given me a renewed hope for humanity. Of course, Americans don't like it because they prefer having friendly dictators in power, and generally hate democratic governments, no matter how much lip service they give to the concept.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by sznupi · 2011-03-22 21:18 · Score: 2

Scram-Jet / etc. "spaceplanes", when you have serious effort at costs estimation (HOTOL, for example), turn out not really better than "dumb rocket" using comparably advanced materials science (which for the "spaceplane" is required to even make it barely possible)

Electromagnetic launcher / etc. - first, remember how such proposals talk about building a megastructure (often... dynamically suspended; do you see many normal (puny) buildings like that?).
Secondly, not assuming gargantuan fantasies, the projectile still will be largely... a "dumb rocket", essentially the same tech as now (but with complexity of highly dynamic launch system; vs. stationary launch platform + more first stages as boosters, for basically the same effect - like with Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V HLV, Falcon 9 Heavy, and to a most striking degree with Angara).
Third - Pegasus rocket is basically it. It's also one of the most expensive launchers around.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by rufty_tufty · 2011-03-22 22:59 · Score: 2

Let me paint a possible future scenario for you.
1) There is a limited nuclear exchange between two countries, let's say Pakistan and India as a modern day example.
2) While hundreds of thousands/Millions die in the attacks radiation casualties outside of the attack are limited to a few thousand.
3) Some bright spark decides casualties could have been fewer if they had not just airspace control, but also had assets in orbit.
4) After the public accept that there could be limited nuclear exchange, nuclear weapons come back on many military planning concepts. (after all they always like to prepare for the last war)
5) Military planning moves to the concept of large scale MAD in tandem with space based area denial platforms. Again I believe it is only a matter of time before defence against ICBMs becomes practical and this is best done from space.
6) Orion drive based ships are built in limited numbers by a few governments for "defence purposes" ostensibly with no plans to use them but to protect themselves against similar threats.
Some of those steps are a little shaky, but the problem with ground launched Orion is the fear of fallout from the bombs, but in the 60s the bomb testing that was done in the US was enough to launch dozens of orion ships and civilisation didn't end so there's no reason except fear (and the odd death or two, but who's counting ;-) to not launch.
Change the situation in scenario 1 for a full on nuclear exchange and I think once civilisation recovers several centuries later they will fear not the radiation but the bomb itself. Kind of like how people who aren't used to cameras think it will steal their soul, or medieval man would think everything about modern life was witchcraft, as soon as you're used to it you no longer fear it.
Oh and given there is an infinite amount of time I believe it is only a matter of time, probably less than we think before someone does go nuclear in a confrontation. So I don't think orion is impossible, I think it's inevitable.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -

Back to Apollo by U8MyData · 2011-03-22 06:09 · Score: 2

The Shuttle program was great for what it was and I am sad to see it go. However, I welcome the idea of an Apollo like program to inspire, distract, and encourage pushing the envelope again. I think the world needs some vision beyond what is terrestrial these days.

Re:Back to Apollo by U8MyData · 2011-03-22 06:58 · Score: 2

I have thought long and hard about that. It also goes along the line of why not utilize the previous designs for the shuttle and improve on it rather than making a whole new launch system? But, until we have some kind of vastly improved propulsion systems, the design focus was on a series of upgrades on the proven. Just my two cents anyway...
Re:Back to Apollo by vlm · 2011-03-22 07:01 · Score: 2

Yeah, but not a warmed over, super-sized Apollo capsule. Is that it for innovation out of NASA? Modernized 40 year old capsules?
You know, my brand new tower looks exactly the same as my 386 tower from 1993. Is that innovation? Modernized 18 year old computers?
(If you look real close the power supply type has changed, and I no longer have 3.5 or 5.25 floppys, in its place I have a front panel USB hub, and no turbo button / turbo LEDs, but this all requires close examination)

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Back to Apollo by 0123456 · 2011-03-22 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative

It also goes along the line of why not utilize the previous designs for the shuttle and improve on it rather than making a whole new launch system?
Because the shuttle is a flawed design created by committee to meet numerous contradictory requirements?
Re:Back to Apollo by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-22 07:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Capsules are an extremely capable form factor when talking about spacecraft. When something is orbiting a gravity well in a vacuum or near vacuum, the geometry of that thing has some very powerful effects on the design of the system in general. Capsule are nice in that they are symmetric about one axis. This makes controlling and pointing them very easy. If you take a geometry like that of the space shuttle, the control problems become much more difficult. Those large wings and that vertical stabilizer act as moment arms about your roll axis. Any forces that act upon those moment arms turn into large, asymmetrical torques (these forces can be due to atmospheric drag, radiation gradients, thermal gradients, micro-meteor impacts, etc.). Damping out the increase in angular momentum due to torques applied to such large moment arms requires more powerful, more massive, more power-hungry momentum exchange devices (like reaction wheels, CMG's whatever). Thus, such a clunky geometric design puts some heavy restrictions on your system design space.

Now, if you take a form factor like the capsule, you find that you don't have those giant moment arms (save for the solar arrays which, if designed properly, should go a long way in canceling out each other's torques). What's more, you have a nice aerodynamic shape that can reenter atmospheres much more elegantly than, say a brick with wings bolted on. All in all, the capsule is a beautifully elegant design that solves many of the difficult space-environment design problems through passive geometry, rather than through more active systems like large control mechanisms or expensive ceramic tiles.

Just because a design is 40 years old doesn't mean it's poor. The car is the same form factor that it was back when it was design in the early 1900's, but that's because there is a lot to be said for a 4-wheel base vehicle. That doesn't mean all cars are the same as the Model T though.

Finally, you should probably realize that The Orion was built and designed by Lockheed-Martin, not NASA.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Back to Apollo by Andy+Dodd · 2011-03-22 08:04 · Score: 2

In terms of actual track record - the Shuttle failed to deliver on many of its promises. Despite being a reusable vehicle, I believe it proved to be actually more expensive to operate than one-time-use launch vehicles. Part of that was due to conflicting requirements from multiple entities - the military wanted certain capabilities that greatly increased cost.
Meanwhile, the one-time use + capsule approach worked VERY well while it was in use, and has continued to work very well for Russia.
Go with what works, not what doesn't.
Modernizing a proven design is far less risky than a revolutionary one, and in many cases, basing your design on a proven one makes certification paperwork and testing MUCH easier. Certification and paperwork testing is a VERY large part of a program like this.
I believe, though, that the article is partially wrong. It says that Constellation was cancelled but Lockheed/NASA had plans for more than what Constellation required and hence continued on. I'm fairly certain this is wrong - what I recall from the days Constellation was in trouble (at that point good friends of mine were working on Orion) is that Constellation had very ambitious scope and goals for the Orion capsule, but after Orion went away there were still needs that Orion was well suited to fulfill, and hence it was able to continue in a significantly de-scoped form.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?

Choice quotes by srussia · 2011-03-22 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The spacecraft is an incredibly robust, technically advanced vehicle capable of safely transporting humans to asteroids, Lagrange Points and other deep space destinations that will put us on an affordable and sustainable path to Mars.”

Many of Orion's components can be re-used in subsequent flights, including some electronic systems, Bray said. The spaceship itself won't be reused because of the tremendous forces it endures on liftoff and re-entry, he said.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrats who pressed Obama to salvage the Orion project, said they were confident the spacecraft will fly, but neither discussed specifics in brief remarks at the dedication ceremony for the test building.

I think there's a type somewhere... seems more like the Onion Moon Craft.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Inelegant by h4rr4r · 2011-03-22 06:13 · Score: 2

The space shuttle is not elegant, unless you think camels are elegant. Design by committee does not anything elegant make.

Re:Baby puke green? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-22 06:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Most paints applied to spacecraft are chosen due to their thermal properties. Some paints will give higher reflective indexes, while others will absorb more energy, and still others are designed to let a certain amount of energy through the paint and into whatever surface it is covering. I don't know which paint, specifically, has the "baby puke green" color that you are referring to, but I would wager that the entire body of this spacecraft was coated in that paint specifically to control the thermal pathways through the spacecraft body.

It's worth noting that one of the most difficult and most important aspects of spacecraft design involve the energy management within the spacecraft. Spacecraft are subject to high levels of radiation, high and low temperature extremes, and house multiple boxes of electronics that cannot be cooled via typical convective methods as they are on the ground. Thus, to keep a spacecraft operating effectively, a full analysis must be done to take into account all energy (thermal or otherwise) sources in a spacecraft and redirect energy to appropriately sized energy sinks (radiators, heat-pies, etc.). This is one aspect of spacecraft design that many folks fail to take into account when discussing how simple it would be to build a spacecraft that does [insert theoretical task here].

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by Revotron · 2011-03-22 06:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?

The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."

That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.

But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.

Re:Why bother? by elrous0 · 2011-03-22 06:25 · Score: 2

NASA is dead under every President since Johnson.

FTFY.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Orion makes the shuttle look like child's play. by ModernGeek · 2011-03-22 06:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suggest that everybody read about Orion at the Lockheed Martin Website.

I highly recommend this video.

--
Sig: I stole this sig.

Re:Baby puke green? by Waffle+Iron · 2011-03-22 06:28 · Score: 2

Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?

I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?

Note that the picture shows the interior structure of the capsule, not the final external panels. I assume that it's probably a yellow-green zinc chromate coating that is commonly used to prevent corrosion on aluminum parts on aircraft and spacecraft.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by IndigoDarkwolf · 2011-03-22 06:39 · Score: 2

Obviously the dig against him is the part where they say that instead the President urged NASA to send astronauts to an asteroid first.

Re:Inelegant by Nyeerrmm · 2011-03-22 06:46 · Score: 2

A simple capsule that carries little in the way of extra weight is much more elegant in my mind. Those wings may look nice, but they are heavy and cause trouble.

And who's decided it isn't worth or time? I'm pretty sure NASA's budget is still strong despite the hatchet men in congress, exciting things are happening on many fronts, and we've got *multiple* manned vehicles currently in development and likely to see flight within 5 years. This is an exciting time for space exploration.

Re:Baby puke green? by VolciMaster · 2011-03-22 06:54 · Score: 2

Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?

I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?

Note that the picture shows the interior structure of the capsule, not the final external panels. I assume that it's probably a yellow-green zinc chromate coating that is commonly used to prevent corrosion on aluminum parts on aircraft and spacecraft.

Why bother coating the aluminum? Aluminum oxide does a pretty good job of preventing corrosion.

--
antipaucity

Re:Cancelling program a good decision? by jgtg32a · 2011-03-22 06:55 · Score: 2

It's how every gov project has worked for the last 60+ years.

misunderstanding by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2011-03-22 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Orion capsule is intended to be the baseline for both missions.

--
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Re:Inelegant by pedropolis · 2011-03-22 07:01 · Score: 2

President Obama never said space isn't worth out time (your generalization has to hit something), but at $500m per launch, the aging shuttle fleet wasn't cost effective. It never achieved the goal of becoming our affordable pick-up truck to space. Bush's replacement solution for the shuttle was to build the biggest rocket ever, and Texas sized boondoggle that was beset by engineering problems. It was already over-budget and behind schedule. In order to provide more money for proven exploratory solutions (rovers and space telescopes), Obama sought out companies trying to become the first corporations providing LEO solutions. His aim was to reduce the cost of getting to space through free market solutions (which Republicans ironically criticized). Why should we do all the heavy lifting? This way NASA can focus on doing more of the exciting space stuff (Hubble, Spirit, Opportunity, James Webb, Pluto Express) without the cost overruns associated with big lift rockets and an aging shuttle fleet. Obama has stated a goal of a manned mission to an asteroid. Space planes are great optics, and inspiring, but NASA has been moving towards faster/cheaper/better now for years and the aging fleet doesn't meet that standard.

Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 07:05 · Score: 2

Why bother coating the aluminum? Aluminum oxide does a pretty good job of preventing corrosion.

Not really. Exposure to salty, humid air (think naval aircraft or anything sitting on the pad at KSC), dissimilar metal contact, etc. will all cause corrosion. Plus, aluminum alloys are more susceptible to corrosion than pure aluminum (or alloy sheets with thin aluminum coatings). Stress concentrations can exacerbate corrosion.

Plus, corrosion spreads, and the more widely spread it is, the harder it is to repair.

Think about it for a minute. We've been building airplanes made of aluminum for decades. If we could leave the primer off and not have to worry about corrosion, do you think anyone would still be using it?

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.

Re:Baby puke green? by idontgno · 2011-03-22 07:12 · Score: 2

Zinc Chromate Green. Corrosion inhibition coating for aluminum. The heraldic color of the aerospace industry since the 1940s.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Re:Inelegant by gstoddart · 2011-03-22 07:14 · Score: 2

The space shuttle is not elegant, unless you think camels are elegant.

In terms of being highly adapted for the terrain they occupy, as well as the climate ... I'd call that somewhat elegant.

Now, cameltoe, that's a whole different story. Considered by some to be the most elegant design in nature. ;-)

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by 0123456 · 2011-03-22 07:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Fairly significant, actually. Kistler's original launcher design was an 'SSTO' which would have launched from a platform lifted to around 100,000 feet; they reckoned that made the difference between viable and non-viable for that design.

There are two main benefits: you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag, and you can use engines optimised for vacuum operation which are more efficient than engines optimised for sea-level operation.

It’s a lack of vision. by alexander_686 · 2011-03-22 07:24 · Score: 2

I will disagree – It’s a lack of vision. Blame it on our Presidents [and I do use plural] or our Congress – but it’s a vision thing.

Do we want to
Build a space station?
Go to Mars?
Go to the Moon?
Go to an asteroid?

All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these ½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?

And it’s nice that the private sector is doing what it can – but the private sector responses to supply and demand – and right now it’s the government and big science which is providing the loin’s share of demand. I am not trying to marginalize space tourisms or commercial satellites – but they don’t have the big bucks like government.

Re:It’s a lack of vision. by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-22 09:10 · Score: 2

All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these Â½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?
Clear voices and tunnel "vision" are great for showing off human ingenuity (and specifically American ingenuity in the Cold War), but aren't necessarily that great for making progress. Not to knock Apollo, but seriously, what a clear voice of "We shall do [insert phenomenal but specific achievement" gets us is 10-20 years of focus on a specific task that lets us touch the place we were talking about, plant a flag, then leave with a couple samples. Great, but not what I call visionary. It was a vision, back before we had ever done it. Now it's a vision of the past.
That's why I like the current vision: Develop technologies and capabilities -- along with allowing the private sector to take over getting to LEO, which there is demand for -- so that future "visions" won't necessarily take 10 years of focused development on a one-off project.
The best part is that, assuming current development of these technologies isn't stymied by Congress' demand for a pork-rocket, when the next President comes in and cancels all the "visionary" plans, the tech will still be around, already developed.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Calming effect by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-03-22 07:31 · Score: 2

My theory is that paints have to be made with equal quantities of each color. After consumers buy up the attractive colors, the ugly ones have to go somewhere. Might as well paint schools and government buildings with them. That must be why some military buildings I've seen are painted inside with the same awful yellow as my 3rd grade classroom.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.

Uhm, no by Aighearach · 2011-03-22 07:46 · Score: 2

They reused the name to help people forget that the other one ever happened.

Or rather, to help people forget that the other one, which didn't actually happen, was ever planned.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by divisionbyzero · 2011-03-22 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?

The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."

That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.

But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.

Um, you do realize that selective statement of fact is one of the best ways to manipulate people, right? But given your reaction maybe you don't.

The story could have also said that "President Obama chose to replace the Constellation program with one focused on fostering the development of the technology for accessing Low Earth Orbit in the private sector." But of course that would insinuate that our "Socialist" President actually believes in the ability of the private sector to innovate rather than handing out pork to the industries in various politicians home states. That of course would be counter to their narrative and so they didn't. Instead they give the impression the President gutted the space program. It's not about holding your nose high. It's about being able to read between the lines.

Re:Inelegant by CohibaVancouver · 2011-03-22 08:09 · Score: 2

The space shuttle is not elegant

It sure as hell is. Pics of the orbiter in space always impress the hell out of me....

To wit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Space_Shuttle_Discovery_(STS-114_'Return_to_Flight')_approaches_the_International_Space_Station.jpg

Re:NASA = 3D Realms by oni · 2011-03-22 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

I disagree. NASA hasn't bungled anything. The reason we don't have a replacement is that it takes more than 8 years and every president cancels the last guy's program. We wouldn't have made it to the moon if JFK hadn't been a hugely popular martyr. And even then, as soon as we set foot on the moon, they canceled Apollo. And every president since has canceled the last guy's program - except Carter. Carter, being a one-term president tried but failed to cancel the shuttle and that's the only reason we ever had it.

So Regan had the shuttle. Bush #1 supported a replacement but Clinton canceled it. Clinton supported a replacement (venturestar) but Bush #2 canceled it. Bush #2 supported a replacement (constellation) but Obama canceled it.

I don't see how any of this is NASA's fault.

Re:Baby puke green? by smelch · 2011-03-22 08:33 · Score: 2

Off topic, but the human eye has roughly twice as many green receptors as red or blue. The CCD in your digital camera is also laid out that way to get the correct vibrance. With a standard 1:1:1 ratio images would seem dull.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by Revotron · 2011-03-22 08:57 · Score: 2, Funny

I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.

There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".

Re:Baby puke green? by imsabbel · 2011-03-22 09:18 · Score: 2

Look up the old liverys of american airlines. Thats not silver paint, thats polished aluminium.
for example: http://s3.amazonaws.com/collectapedia_prod/images/62178/American_Airlines_990_Astrojet.jpg

Nowadays that does not fly anymore, as more and more composites are used, which are
a) not as sexy unpainted
and
b) non-conductive, so need a conductive paint layer to prevent damage in thunderstorms

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?

Re:Cancelling program a good decision? by Maritz · 2011-03-22 09:40 · Score: 2

The project was critically underfunded. Bush was funding it for appearances knowing he was leaving a problem for whoever took over after him. The net effect of the Obama administration is actually a slight rise in NASA's overall budget. It's a shame to see publicly funded manned space missions fall by the wayside though.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 11:27 · Score: 2

The bare metal scheme requires constant polishing. However, it's also in an easily-visible location without holes or corners to trap moisture like the inside of a structure would have. It's workable on the outside of an aircraft, but really not practical for the inside.

Look, I've built an airplane and work on airplanes for a living. I think I know what I'm talking about.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.

Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered by WindBourne · 2011-03-22 13:19 · Score: 2

The fact is, that while nuke itself is lightweight, the current means of generating high amounts of power/energy from it, is not. All of the large systems are thermal and require the ability to dump waste heat. In space, you have no easy way to dump, so it is radiated outwards. That requires a LONG HEAVY BOOM. With that weight, VASIMR is just not possible. Instead, it will be NERVA that will win the day. Interestingly, with a NERVA engine, you can still add a small generator to it and use that to power the ship.

However, if we can get a fusion engine going, then at some point, we will have a means of lightweight electricity generation via beta emissions (essentially an electron). We are a LONG ways away from that.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Slashdot Mirror

NASA's Orion Moon Craft Unveiled

52 of 179 comments (clear)