CubeSats are the "cheap access to space" needed for research and technology risk reduction that's been needed since the dawn of the space age.. and it didn't require some magical new propulsion method or even new economies of scale in launchers, just good standards and a very big customer, the Airforce academy.
For those of you who find the article a little light on details, here's the scientific paper:
This preliminary work is now being flight tested.. and, if all goes well, it'll soon be commercially available. When's soon? 3 to 5 years. That's what CubeSats give you, a reduction in lab-to-market from 10 years or longer to 6.
Did you actually read the report? It's dishonest to act like you have when its pretty clear you haven't.
Oh, and it's The Flexible Path To Mars.. I know everyone is so freakin' lazy that they can't even write 9 more letters but they really do add something don't ya think?
NASA has made no such choice, and Falcon 9/Dragon have been built to all published NASA man-rating standards. The problem is, NASA is perfectly willing to publish more standards later if they see fit. Ya know how developing software with incomplete specifications is hard? Try rockets.
I read what you wrote.. and as much as I appreciate your use of the British language translation methodology, I still disagree with the basic premise. You're seeing this from the perspective of intelligent people who may not know some technical legal jargon. I'm seeing it from the perspective of people who don't know the meaning of the word "methodology", "premise", "perspective" and all those other more-than-3-syllable words that big city lawyers use, not because they are legal jargon, but because they are educated. The idea that average folks serving on a jury should feel comfortable asking the judge the meaning of every word they don't understand is pleasant, but I don't think they're going to be.. and that means they will go with whichever lawyer is slicker.
First year in high school I was bullied, struck back, and then was labeled as a hot head. Every other hot head considered me one of them and assumed the only way to solve disagreements with me was with violence. It took a while to shake that.
Just a reminder that fighting back has its own consequences.
NASA isn't out of the exploration business. In fact, once crew launch to LEO is something you can buy off the shelf, NASA can focus its budget on doing beyond LEO exploration. The plan for that exploration is called The Flexible Path To Mars. It calls for development of the technologies needed to get there and demonstration missions to interesting intermediate destinations.
The people saying Obama has canceled human exploration of space are equating Constellation with human exploration for political gain.
Which guys in particular? Copenhagen Suborbitals have already built 3 different hybrids.. this upcoming one will be their biggest yet. You can tell which ones are doing real rocket work because they ask questions like "so, err, how close should I let these spectators get?" And then get upset when you suggest they not allow spectators at their rocket tests.
That's what they do, yes. NASA still has to pony up the cash in advance though.. and that's a really tough sell. The alternative is worse though: trying to find the funds once the prize has been claimed, why pay for work that's already been done?
Dude, people have been saying that for millennia. In terms of space travel, they've been saying it since Sputnik. It's an extraordinary claim, what's your extraordinary evidence?
Part of that prize system is the requirement that the money be put into escrow until it is claimed. That's the hardest part to convince NASA of, please pay now for something that someone may never claim, and then we'll give it back ok?
Leaving aside your stupidity (or should I say gullibility) what you've just presented here is the old "spaceflight will be easier in the future so why bother now?" argument. It's true that there may be new technologies available tomorrow, or next week, or next decade, but the majority of evidence suggests that chemical rockets remain the only known technology to produce high enough thrust to get out of planetary gravity wells, and to perform short duration missions beyond LEO. It's lovely to think that maybe we're on the verge of some breakthrough that will render chemical rockets unnecessary, but even the greatest optimists of alternate propulsion techniques are unwilling to claim that. Even if we develop cheap, reliable, compact and light fusion reactors tomorrow, to get high thrust you still need a rocket nozzle with a high temperature propellant flowing through it, and most likely that propellant will be even higher temperature than in chemical rockets (otherwise, what's the advantage?) and that's likely to involve an even more complex design. Even if the design isn't more complex, it is necessarily more *new* and that means most likely less mature than needed for a human rated booster.
The future of spaceflight only gets easier than today if we fly today.
i await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space, i look forward to the jamaican space ageny's first man on the moon, all the way on down to vanuatu
I await the day when you stop smoking crack and start using punctuation.
NASA has been banned from throwing money at a Mars mission for decades now. The only person throwing serious money at a manned Mars mission right now is Elon Musk. He might not have enough money to do it, but he's the only one trying. When asked why he says because there's profits to be made..
I'm not sure I understand your objection. NASA would still be free to do big projects (horribly), they'd just have to buy the first ride from commercial providers.. which is really the way it should be. NASA shouldn't do anything that can be bought off-the-shelf and, if it currently cant buy something off-the-shelf, it should be doing the work to ensure that it soon will be able to do so. No commercial company has ever launched a person to orbit. Suborbital was only done 5 years ago. How freakin' disgraceful is that?
Ya know those fighter planes they make in the US, Russia and France.. ya know what all three countries have in common? Yeah.. aerospace research, how about that.
Slashdot Mirror
CubeSats are the "cheap access to space" needed for research and technology risk reduction that's been needed since the dawn of the space age.. and it didn't require some magical new propulsion method or even new economies of scale in launchers, just good standards and a very big customer, the Airforce academy.
For those of you who find the article a little light on details, here's the scientific paper:
http://sgc.engin.umich.edu/erps/IEPC_2007/PAPERS/IEPC-2007-145.pdf
This preliminary work is now being flight tested.. and, if all goes well, it'll soon be commercially available. When's soon? 3 to 5 years. That's what CubeSats give you, a reduction in lab-to-market from 10 years or longer to 6.
Did you actually read the report? It's dishonest to act like you have when its pretty clear you haven't.
Oh, and it's The Flexible Path To Mars.. I know everyone is so freakin' lazy that they can't even write 9 more letters but they really do add something don't ya think?
NASA has made no such choice, and Falcon 9/Dragon have been built to all published NASA man-rating standards. The problem is, NASA is perfectly willing to publish more standards later if they see fit. Ya know how developing software with incomplete specifications is hard? Try rockets.
The airforce? No... SpaceX keeps delaying the launch. The airforce happily provides them with slot after slot, in 3 month increments.
As much as I'm a big fan of SpaceX, they seem to be perpetually 3 months away from launch. Hopefully, this time, it's for real.
I read what you wrote.. and as much as I appreciate your use of the British language translation methodology, I still disagree with the basic premise. You're seeing this from the perspective of intelligent people who may not know some technical legal jargon. I'm seeing it from the perspective of people who don't know the meaning of the word "methodology", "premise", "perspective" and all those other more-than-3-syllable words that big city lawyers use, not because they are legal jargon, but because they are educated. The idea that average folks serving on a jury should feel comfortable asking the judge the meaning of every word they don't understand is pleasant, but I don't think they're going to be.. and that means they will go with whichever lawyer is slicker.
Looking shit up in a dictionary can be a very bad thing.
Yeah, you might make an informed decision instead of an emotional one.
You're confusing cause and effect.
Childhood experiences have a way of shaping a person.
First year in high school I was bullied, struck back, and then was labeled as a hot head. Every other hot head considered me one of them and assumed the only way to solve disagreements with me was with violence. It took a while to shake that.
Just a reminder that fighting back has its own consequences.
NASA isn't out of the exploration business. In fact, once crew launch to LEO is something you can buy off the shelf, NASA can focus its budget on doing beyond LEO exploration. The plan for that exploration is called The Flexible Path To Mars. It calls for development of the technologies needed to get there and demonstration missions to interesting intermediate destinations.
The people saying Obama has canceled human exploration of space are equating Constellation with human exploration for political gain.
Maybe with $30M they could look in that direction.. but I expect they'll just be doing more "don't fall down" research.
Which guys in particular? Copenhagen Suborbitals have already built 3 different hybrids.. this upcoming one will be their biggest yet. You can tell which ones are doing real rocket work because they ask questions like "so, err, how close should I let these spectators get?" And then get upset when you suggest they not allow spectators at their rocket tests.
Hi Charles, how ya doin'? :)
Ya know, it seems to be a common occurrence to find space projects with horrid web sites. Consider:
http://www.copenhagensuborbitals.com/
http://www.interorbital.com/
Both real groups doing real hardware right now, with websites that look like scams.
That's what they do, yes. NASA still has to pony up the cash in advance though.. and that's a really tough sell. The alternative is worse though: trying to find the funds once the prize has been claimed, why pay for work that's already been done?
Dude, people have been saying that for millennia. In terms of space travel, they've been saying it since Sputnik. It's an extraordinary claim, what's your extraordinary evidence?
Yeah, why would private companies be interested in making cars? Outside selling cars, and renting them, there's no profit to be made in making cars.
Ya, I have no idea what you're trying to say here.
Part of that prize system is the requirement that the money be put into escrow until it is claimed. That's the hardest part to convince NASA of, please pay now for something that someone may never claim, and then we'll give it back ok?
Leaving aside your stupidity (or should I say gullibility) what you've just presented here is the old "spaceflight will be easier in the future so why bother now?" argument. It's true that there may be new technologies available tomorrow, or next week, or next decade, but the majority of evidence suggests that chemical rockets remain the only known technology to produce high enough thrust to get out of planetary gravity wells, and to perform short duration missions beyond LEO. It's lovely to think that maybe we're on the verge of some breakthrough that will render chemical rockets unnecessary, but even the greatest optimists of alternate propulsion techniques are unwilling to claim that. Even if we develop cheap, reliable, compact and light fusion reactors tomorrow, to get high thrust you still need a rocket nozzle with a high temperature propellant flowing through it, and most likely that propellant will be even higher temperature than in chemical rockets (otherwise, what's the advantage?) and that's likely to involve an even more complex design. Even if the design isn't more complex, it is necessarily more *new* and that means most likely less mature than needed for a human rated booster.
The future of spaceflight only gets easier than today if we fly today.
i await the peruvian national space program launching a man into space, i look forward to the jamaican space ageny's first man on the moon, all the way on down to vanuatu
I await the day when you stop smoking crack and start using punctuation.
NASA has been banned from throwing money at a Mars mission for decades now. The only person throwing serious money at a manned Mars mission right now is Elon Musk. He might not have enough money to do it, but he's the only one trying. When asked why he says because there's profits to be made..
Umm.. it's NASA's job to help them.. as it (and the NACA before it) has been helping aviation for the last 85 years.
I'm not sure I understand your objection. NASA would still be free to do big projects (horribly), they'd just have to buy the first ride from commercial providers.. which is really the way it should be. NASA shouldn't do anything that can be bought off-the-shelf and, if it currently cant buy something off-the-shelf, it should be doing the work to ensure that it soon will be able to do so. No commercial company has ever launched a person to orbit. Suborbital was only done 5 years ago. How freakin' disgraceful is that?
Ya know those fighter planes they make in the US, Russia and France.. ya know what all three countries have in common? Yeah.. aerospace research, how about that.
So, basically, you think the law should convict people for what they are, not for what they do. How, ummm.. Victorian of you.
And no, I didn't rtfa.
It's as simple as this: he pleaded guilty.