How "modern terms" you have in mind though? Seems you might not include Saturn V as modern / after all it was a tech somewhat preceeding discussed period? If so, and if you think more of the Shuttle...yes, it nominally has impressive launch capacity, but it wastes most of it. Not so with Soviet solution, Energia.
Also don't forget first, by far, rovers, first automatic sample return missions, a whole series of succesfull space stations and uninterrupted human spaceflight (even when working on their shuttle)
And you not correct about commercial aspect - Arianespace is 30 years old after all, holding half of the market.
And how does that research goes now? Why new startups are generally not focusing on such approach?
Look, it depends on many things which we don't have yet. Current material science must progress further, for starters (and remember where it was 50 years ago...). If we had waited for all that pieces to come into place, we would still not reach orbit.
Or...we could have simply used a tech that was basically ready (ICBMs)
Can't you consider that the theorists (yeah, without much practical experience yet...) were simply wrong? (besides, portraying "spaceplanes" as the future wasn't nearly as universal as you make it to be; those from Werner von Braum, for example, were envisioned on the assumption that Mars has considerably denser atmoshpere)
I think that's actually one of the things Russia would want to do alone at some point, not relying on other space power. Or eventually with an extensive, program-wise cooperation; not simple swapping of seats.
Variant of Soyuz, a craft operation of which they perfected greatly over the decades, was a moon command module, after all (it did carry and safely return "crew" (turtles...) around the Moon before Apollo 8 did so)
The example you used at the end would work the other way around, I think. Hauling, say, 100 tons of cargo requires 5 Shuttle launches...or one launch of a rocket comparable to the Shuttle (but without its dead weight and need to keep crew comfortable). Alternativelly, basically the same number of launches of Shuttle and much smaller & cheaper rockets which have its cargo capacity anyway.
If we would really revv up the manufacturing in space (with the plan of bringing the stuff down to Earth), it will be probably still much more efficient to build large reentry vehicles "around the cargo".
Aren't you forgetting how many Progress spacecrafts performed rendezvous autonomously? Lately also Japanese cargo transport and ATV. Whether the module will be left permanently or not doesn't change the viability of the automatic rendezvous itself.
The approach is proven, and very clearly preffered for the future.
But for most practical things the additional Shuttle capacities can be used, it still needs to performs rendezvous...so why do you have such a problem with this manouver?
Don't forget that, while launching 20-something t, Shuttle wastes almost 100 in the process.
the shuttle payload bay is BIG and can accommodate payloads too large for any other currently flying vehicle
What? I'll fix that: "the shuttle payload bay is OF UNCHANGEABLE SIZE, determining ad hoc the maximum size of payload". What, you haven't noticed that expendable rockets have payload shrouds of differeing size, depending on the requirement? And go check which rocket will launch the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, named after early NASA administrator, and which will be quite a big payload. Hint: not an American one
You can still encounter such speeds often, when using mobile access (3G not everywhere, overloaded network, EDGE not attaining it's max speed too, and so on)
Yeah, it's a bit frustrating...though, luckily, there are ways to make it much more smooth; such as Opera Turbo with disabled plugins.
If all those capabilities were hardly used, perhaps it's a sign they aren't nearly such a good idea...
And simultaneous launch isn't nearly as required as you think it is (just because NASA bets on it with Constellation?...). Remember, some core modules of ISS docked together automatically; ISS was also unmanned for quite some time. The equipment can wait a bit. Once it's properly assembled, tested and...ready - you launch the crew for the journey.
Oh, and with Shuttle you waste helluva lot of time & launch capacity. Around 100 tonnes per launch...wasted.
Shuttle was needed to build ISS because large part of components were designed with the Shuttle in mind.
But you forget that core ISS components were launched by Proton. You forget how many vehicles now dock with the ISS automatically - the same way two first modules docked together, the same way it can be still done.
Hm, since you mentioned "first in space" separatelly, I assume it means not a satellite or man, but a first man made object present in there at all (on a suborbital trajectory, before we were able to put it into orbit)
"Normal" launchers also can do multiple satellites in one shot. Plus I'm not sure you can sum costs up like that...after all, that crew is there as part of a satelltie or module launch also. And core pieces of ISS were launched by Proton rocket.
You don't really need insulation from "cold" and vacuum - human skin is already great for those; it's almost impenetrable to gasses, and "cold" isn't the same kind of problem as in the atmoshpere (because there's no direct heat exchange) - after all, vacuum is a pretty good heat insulator (thermos...), so you have to worry mostly about overheating...and skin has great mechanism to deal with that (+ the suit being bright so it won't get too hot in sunlight). Radiation...well, shield for that can be a loose, external (even separate) layer.
The only major thing human skin lacks is mechanical rigidity; it expands in a vacuum, causing internal pressure of the body to drop. Well, suits from above links combat that expansion by providing mechanical pressure required.
Slashdot Mirror
But Opera Turbo also does "text/html/image compression"; those are its main benefits actually... (you could always turn flash off in Opera)
To be pedantic - while in orbit, you're falling all the time.
Well, if only Energia didn't die...
And that's why it makes sense to use engine optimised for vacuum from around that point.
How "modern terms" you have in mind though? Seems you might not include Saturn V as modern / after all it was a tech somewhat preceeding discussed period? If so, and if you think more of the Shuttle...yes, it nominally has impressive launch capacity, but it wastes most of it. Not so with Soviet solution, Energia.
Also don't forget first, by far, rovers, first automatic sample return missions, a whole series of succesfull space stations and uninterrupted human spaceflight (even when working on their shuttle)
And you not correct about commercial aspect - Arianespace is 30 years old after all, holding half of the market.
And how does that research goes now? Why new startups are generally not focusing on such approach?
Look, it depends on many things which we don't have yet. Current material science must progress further, for starters (and remember where it was 50 years ago...). If we had waited for all that pieces to come into place, we would still not reach orbit.
Or...we could have simply used a tech that was basically ready (ICBMs)
Can't you consider that the theorists (yeah, without much practical experience yet...) were simply wrong? (besides, portraying "spaceplanes" as the future wasn't nearly as universal as you make it to be; those from Werner von Braum, for example, were envisioned on the assumption that Mars has considerably denser atmoshpere)
Concorde wasn't American, you know... (in fact, few policy decisions in the US made it much less appealing)
I think that's actually one of the things Russia would want to do alone at some point, not relying on other space power. Or eventually with an extensive, program-wise cooperation; not simple swapping of seats.
Variant of Soyuz, a craft operation of which they perfected greatly over the decades, was a moon command module, after all (it did carry and safely return "crew" (turtles...) around the Moon before Apollo 8 did so)
Well, they did provide core modules of ISS and kept it alive when Shuttle fleet wasn't available...
The example you used at the end would work the other way around, I think. Hauling, say, 100 tons of cargo requires 5 Shuttle launches...or one launch of a rocket comparable to the Shuttle (but without its dead weight and need to keep crew comfortable). Alternativelly, basically the same number of launches of Shuttle and much smaller & cheaper rockets which have its cargo capacity anyway.
If we would really revv up the manufacturing in space (with the plan of bringing the stuff down to Earth), it will be probably still much more efficient to build large reentry vehicles "around the cargo".
Aren't you forgetting how many Progress spacecrafts performed rendezvous autonomously? Lately also Japanese cargo transport and ATV. Whether the module will be left permanently or not doesn't change the viability of the automatic rendezvous itself.
The approach is proven, and very clearly preffered for the future.
But for most practical things the additional Shuttle capacities can be used, it still needs to performs rendezvous...so why do you have such a problem with this manouver?
Don't forget that, while launching 20-something t, Shuttle wastes almost 100 in the process.
the shuttle payload bay is BIG and can accommodate payloads too large for any other currently flying vehicle
What? I'll fix that: "the shuttle payload bay is OF UNCHANGEABLE SIZE, determining ad hoc the maximum size of payload".
What, you haven't noticed that expendable rockets have payload shrouds of differeing size, depending on the requirement?
And go check which rocket will launch the upcoming James Webb Space Telescope, named after early NASA administrator, and which will be quite a big payload. Hint: not an American one
You can still encounter such speeds often, when using mobile access (3G not everywhere, overloaded network, EDGE not attaining it's max speed too, and so on)
Yeah, it's a bit frustrating...though, luckily, there are ways to make it much more smooth; such as Opera Turbo with disabled plugins.
If all those capabilities were hardly used, perhaps it's a sign they aren't nearly such a good idea...
And simultaneous launch isn't nearly as required as you think it is (just because NASA bets on it with Constellation?...). Remember, some core modules of ISS docked together automatically; ISS was also unmanned for quite some time.
The equipment can wait a bit. Once it's properly assembled, tested and...ready - you launch the crew for the journey.
Oh, and with Shuttle you waste helluva lot of time & launch capacity. Around 100 tonnes per launch...wasted.
Shuttle was needed to build ISS because large part of components were designed with the Shuttle in mind.
But you forget that core ISS components were launched by Proton. You forget how many vehicles now dock with the ISS automatically - the same way two first modules docked together, the same way it can be still done.
Hm, since you mentioned "first in space" separatelly, I assume it means not a satellite or man, but a first man made object present in there at all (on a suborbital trajectory, before we were able to put it into orbit)
That honor goes to...Nazi Germany, actually.
Your manned space program was in a sort of dead end for many years now...eventually it comes time to cut the waste.
The shuttle can actually seat 10 in rescue configuration but never has, thankfully.
I'm really not sure if you should be thankfull for that. There was one case when a rescue mission could have saved the crew...
"Normal" launchers also can do multiple satellites in one shot. Plus I'm not sure you can sum costs up like that...after all, that crew is there as part of a satelltie or module launch also. And core pieces of ISS were launched by Proton rocket.
What relevance does it has? You think the same kind of thing doesn't apply to Soyuz? (there are basically unmanned variants of it after all...)
Number of computer users is certainly noticeably different from the number of computers in use.
What, no mention of Liam Neeson?
There you go...
http://mvl.mit.edu/EVA/biosuit/index.html (check the gallery)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_activity_suit
You don't really need insulation from "cold" and vacuum - human skin is already great for those; it's almost impenetrable to gasses, and "cold" isn't the same kind of problem as in the atmoshpere (because there's no direct heat exchange) - after all, vacuum is a pretty good heat insulator (thermos...), so you have to worry mostly about overheating...and skin has great mechanism to deal with that (+ the suit being bright so it won't get too hot in sunlight). Radiation...well, shield for that can be a loose, external (even separate) layer.
The only major thing human skin lacks is mechanical rigidity; it expands in a vacuum, causing internal pressure of the body to drop. Well, suits from above links combat that expansion by providing mechanical pressure required.