The asians are the ones buying the planes right now... For every American plane in the air right now, there's one sitting on the tarmack that can be stripped for parts.
Look at the bright side: With 42 Volt power systems, you're that much closes to being able to build an EMP device into your car, with which you could effectively Nuke the neighbor's stereo...
It would only eliminate the use of a nuclear propulsion system, in Earth orbit, which uses nuclear explosions for thrust.
In explanation, some early designs suggested that you could build a big shield and explode a bomb behind it. The force created against the shield would push you forward... This isn't a design taken seriously by anyone any more.
I really wish the environmentlists would do some research before jumping up and down, waving their arms, and screaming.
First, the amount of radioactive material we're talking about is miniscule compared to what's here on the ground anyway (and I'm talking natural sources).
Second, Nasa shields the hell out of any reactor it launches. It's designed to survive an explosion and re-entry intact . They blow them up and fire projectiles at the shields to prove they're safe.
I live in Hampton Roads, Virginia. I live within 50 miles of: Two commercial nuclear reactors (which provide the area with electricity); Northrup Grumman Newport News Shipyard where they build, test, and refuel the reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines (I think they have 3-4 there under construction now...); Norfolk Navy base (the largest U.S. Navy base on the East Coast) with countless nuclear powered ships docked there (not to mention the nuclear weapons of which "We don't keep nuclear weapons on board" yeah right...; Oh, and Thomas Jefferson Nuclear Accelerator Facility (A Department of Energy research lab)
I'm not glowing. There isn't a higher cancer rate in the area. My son doesn't have two heads or three arms. I'm not scared!
You're right. It's not necessary for some of the extreme-o-philes (not really spelling that correctly I'm sure; but, I just woke up)...
It makes it easier for us to assume life is probably there and would easily justify a return trip for more detailed analysis if we find water in liquid form.
Not to mention, having water there is the only way that it will ever be possible for us to pay Jupiter a visit...
I'm not trying to make a reference to a fictional movie; or, suggest that a simple ballistic re-entry isn't simpler. It's just not an efficient long term solution that allows you to do things like, bring back the Hubble.
The de-orbit and braking are dynamically the most dangerous portion of the flight. More so than launch (but most people don't realize this). Once you've reached the bulk of the atmosphere (around 45k ft) you are in a glider -- granted it's a falling brick of a glider; but, it glides. You could (theoretically) then land the thing at any large airport down-range. What's important to remember is that you only get ONE shot.
The reason they land at Kennedy, Edwards, or White Sands all the time is for convenience -- it's where their equipment is. IN AN EMERGENCY, the shuttle could be dropped into any larger military or commercial airport (wouldn't that be a sight!)
By the way, there is an emergency plan to bail out -- reach surviveable altitude and non-hypersonic speeds, blow the hatch, put on their parachutes (while still wearing their flight suits), and jump. The suit should protect them until they fall into breathable altitude. This is what they would have had to do; had the shuttle made it into the atmosphere, without breaking up, but with severe wing damage.
Oh, and also, the Soyuz is dynamically piloted into the atmosphere -- it "glides" by skimming along on it's heat shield, using retro rockets for steering. Ballistic re-entry is not an option, except in extreme emergencies; and, you tend to pull near lethal G's.
This is only a "goal" which they don't really expect to meet. It gives everyone something to shoot for.
Nasa admits a more realistic date will be in April sometime. The problem is that if they miss the December 18 launch date, orbital dynamics will prevent them from launching for a few months if they intend to catch up to and dock with the ISS. (something about alignment of the ISS and Sun would cause heating problems on the shuttle -- I'll find the article if anyone really cares)
Re-entry without wings is ballistic and (nearly)uncontrollable. Wings give them options on return that they wouldn't have had. At worst, wings give them the option to glide and provide a window (albeit small) in which to bail out if things go terribly wrong and prevent landing. Provided, of course, the wings didn't burn off...
Yeah, this was a serious FUBAR and Nasa screwed up. Let's move forward, not backward
Slashdot Mirror
The asians are the ones buying the planes right now... For every American plane in the air right now, there's one sitting on the tarmack that can be stripped for parts.
BTW, the RFID tags are in the tires for inventory tracking purposes It was probably the first application.
Look, this nut was doing 100+ in a residential neighborhood. He got what he deserved.
Not that anyone knows how to violate the laws of physics...
In explanation, some early designs suggested that you could build a big shield and explode a bomb behind it. The force created against the shield would push you forward... This isn't a design taken seriously by anyone any more.
$6M is probably only for the design phase. $600M is more realistic for a mission cost.
First, the amount of radioactive material we're talking about is miniscule compared to what's here on the ground anyway (and I'm talking natural sources).
Second, Nasa shields the hell out of any reactor it launches. It's designed to survive an explosion and re-entry intact . They blow them up and fire projectiles at the shields to prove they're safe.
I live in Hampton Roads, Virginia. I live within 50 miles of: Two commercial nuclear reactors (which provide the area with electricity); Northrup Grumman Newport News Shipyard where they build, test, and refuel the reactors in aircraft carriers and submarines (I think they have 3-4 there under construction now...); Norfolk Navy base (the largest U.S. Navy base on the East Coast) with countless nuclear powered ships docked there (not to mention the nuclear weapons of which "We don't keep nuclear weapons on board" yeah right...; Oh, and Thomas Jefferson Nuclear Accelerator Facility (A Department of Energy research lab)
I'm not glowing. There isn't a higher cancer rate in the area. My son doesn't have two heads or three arms. I'm not scared!
Um, the radiation flux on Io pretty much excludes the possibility of spending any time there; and, of any life (without a damn thick skin
Not to mention, having water there is the only way that it will ever be possible for us to pay Jupiter a visit...
Oh wait, Nasa already thought of that...
Ya'll forgetting about power on the trip there?
You want to see a space program that works, then it has to have nuclear aspects.
Besides, our reactors are designed to survive a re-entry without breaking open.
Ya'll do realize how cold it is in space, don't ya?
The foam is frozen because of the -420 degee liquid hydrogen behind it...
The de-orbit and braking are dynamically the most dangerous portion of the flight. More so than launch (but most people don't realize this). Once you've reached the bulk of the atmosphere (around 45k ft) you are in a glider -- granted it's a falling brick of a glider; but, it glides. You could (theoretically) then land the thing at any large airport down-range. What's important to remember is that you only get ONE shot.
The reason they land at Kennedy, Edwards, or White Sands all the time is for convenience -- it's where their equipment is. IN AN EMERGENCY, the shuttle could be dropped into any larger military or commercial airport (wouldn't that be a sight!)
By the way, there is an emergency plan to bail out -- reach surviveable altitude and non-hypersonic speeds, blow the hatch, put on their parachutes (while still wearing their flight suits), and jump. The suit should protect them until they fall into breathable altitude. This is what they would have had to do; had the shuttle made it into the atmosphere, without breaking up, but with severe wing damage.
Oh, and also, the Soyuz is dynamically piloted into the atmosphere -- it "glides" by skimming along on it's heat shield, using retro rockets for steering. Ballistic re-entry is not an option, except in extreme emergencies; and, you tend to pull near lethal G's.
Bad plan... Bad, Bad plan.
Honestly, that's what is was designed to do... All the rest is "fluff" added to make it look better.
Instead, I'm feeling all kinds of pain
Nasa admits a more realistic date will be in April sometime. The problem is that if they miss the December 18 launch date, orbital dynamics will prevent them from launching for a few months if they intend to catch up to and dock with the ISS. (something about alignment of the ISS and Sun would cause heating problems on the shuttle -- I'll find the article if anyone really cares)
Yeah, this was a serious FUBAR and Nasa screwed up. Let's move forward, not backward