Slashdot Log In
Lockheed Martin Tests New Spacecraft Prototype
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Fri Apr 18, 2008 02:20 PM
from the everything-done-by-remote-control-in-the-future dept.
from the everything-done-by-remote-control-in-the-future dept.
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."
Related Stories
[+]
Hardware: Lockheed Signs with EEStor to Use New Ultracapacitor 50 comments
Over a year ago, we discussed a start-up company, EEStor, that was making incredible claims about their new power source. Later, EEStor made waves with its bold predictions and secretive policies. Now, Lockheed Martin has decided to give EEStor a chance. The two companies signed a deal this week to use the new energy storage units in Lockheed's products. The folks at GM-Volt interviewed a Lockheed representative about the deal. The representative had this to say regarding EEStor:
"We've visited their facility. We were very impressed. They are taking an approach that lends itself to a very quick ramp-up in production. We've seen a lot of their testing and efforts to measure the purity of the powders that they use, and the chemistry. Well be working with them very closely this year to develop prototypes in certain pursuits."
Submission: Lockheed Martin tests new spacecraft prototype by Anonymous Coward
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Prior Art? (Score:5, Funny)
Take a look at this! (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Wonder if it is meant to be a joke.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This is too much, even for an armchair rocket scientist. (Hey Stephen Hawking is a wheelchair physicist, so we could be on the same level.)
Re: (Score:2)
Anyone know what exactly we're looking at here?
Before you ask... (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
The T or C names gives the place notoriety from afar, but it makes it harder to dra
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Automated (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://nodis3.gsfc.nasa.gov/displayDir.cfm?Internal_ID=N_PR_8705_002A_&page_name=Chapter3 [nasa.gov]
3.9 Crew and Passenger Survival
3.9.1 The space system shall provide the crew and passengers with the capability for emergency egress to a safe haven during prelaunch activities ((Requirement 34469).).
3.9.2 The space system shall provide emergency egress, safe haven, and rescue post touchdown ((Requirement 34470).).
3.9.3 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the ascent and on-orbit profile (from hatch closure until atmosphere entry interface) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34471).):
Abort.
Escape by retaining the crew and passengers encapsulated in a portion of the vehicle that can reenter without crew or passenger fatality or permanent disability.
Escape by removing the crew and passengers from the vehicle.
3.9.4 The program shall ensure that ascent survival modes can be successfully accomplished during any ascent failure mode including, but not limited to, complete loss of thrust, complete loss of control, and catastrophic booster failure at any point during ascent ((Requirement 34473).).
3.9.5 The space system shall provide crew and passenger survival modes throughout the descent profile (from entry interface through landing) in the following order of precedence ((Requirement 34474).):
Design features that increase tolerance to loss of critical functions such that landing can still be accomplished.
Escape.
3.9.6 The program shall ensure that the descent survival modes can be successfully accomplished for loss of critical functions including, but not limited to, loss of active attitude control and loss of primary power ((Requirement 34476).).
And a bit later:
3.12 Flight Termination
3.12.1 Flight termination shall include features that allow sufficient time for abort or escape prior to activation of the destruct system ((Requirement 34505).).
These things can really add to the cost of a vehicle.
Re:Automated (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, in the finest tradition of
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
On the dole (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
For the same reason I pay a sales tax surcharge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
However, having spent a lot of time in Las Cruces, which is less than an hour south, I can tell you that
Re: (Score:2)
In reality, it is just a tax hike. While some money might make it in some ambiguous way to the project, you will quickly see your government hollow out the concept and replace it with "IOU's" which will never be repaid.
READ: You just got hosed.
How about the reverse trip (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Difficult and expensive enough that the cost would be more than the expected benefit, yes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I guess, as long as a wayward piece of junk doesn't fall on some prized property of (America|Russia). If it takes out some villager in Africa?
You think any piece of junk is going to survive re-entry?
A few pieces must; how often do you think it happens?
Suppose that by some miracle, a piece of space junk survives falling several miles through the atmosphere. Does water cover most of our planet, or does Africa cover most of our planet?
Such inflammatory language over a problem that doesn't exist. If
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It won't get cheap enough until... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In any case, a nuclear propulsion design was considered for a cruise missile platform for nuclear warhead delivery. The "Flying Crowbar" http://www.merkle.com/pluto/pluto.html [merkle.com] was probably one of the all time worst designs for a weapon or a flying device. Even those parts not inten
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me, but that's spoken like someone who hasn't done the math. Go read the actual, y'know, article I linked to.
That may come to be (Score:2)
I knew I've seen it (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Good to know L-M didn't need to put a lot of money into design development. They probably did, but they didn't need to.
Time mag's man of the year should be (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They may be 'pushing them out', but they sure as heck aren't flying them. Two (much delayed) launches to date - two failures. No announced date for the third launch.
Other than NASA's COTS initiative, which involves not only SpaceX but OSC and a half a dozen others. Said COTS initiative just a _big_ boost as NASA announced today that they will not b
Too little, too late... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The crew that makes spaceflight so costly isn't the one flying on it, but the one on the ground that builds and maintains the craft. As far as I know, Buran wouldn't have been much cheaper in that regard.
Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly (Score:2)
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 a
Re:Winged Spacecraft Are a Waste of Time, Mostly (Score:4, Interesting)
Additionally, a first stage doesn't need a real thermal protection system. It's one less element to lift and greatly simplifies reuse. Those pointy wings on the Lockheed demonstrator would be terrible from a heat-flow standpoint anyway.
The tradeoff of weight allows controlled flyback, which makes recovery of the first stage far simpler than fishing it out of the water and cleaning it (surviving that requires parachutes and flotation provisions anyway, which although lighter than wings, are still a mass penalty). Getting a structurally intact first stage is a lot simpler than a structurally intact orbiter.
So Lockheed actually is persuing an alternative approach to reusability here.
By the way, SpaceX claims they plan to recover, refurbish, and reuse the first stage of both their Falcon 1 and Falcon 9 rockets, and the second stage of the Falcon 9. I'm honestly not sure how they intend to do the second stage, but the first stage parachutes to the ocean and is picked up by a recovery ship. Their one attempt at doing it so far failed.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
It's worth remembering that reusability is a means to an end -- lower costs -- and not an end in itself. The Shuttle has been unable to fly with enough frequency to reach that end. In hindsight, I suspect a persuasive case could be made that rather a lot of money would have been saved if we'd flown t
Re: (Score:2)
The idea of reusable space craft just makes more sense.
Maybe it will make sense one day when materials science is up to the job, and building and flying novel engine and aeroshell stacks straight off the simulator is down pat, but for now straight stacks with the payload at the top is the hands-down winner on all counts that matter except "how cool it looks" (which, admittedly, has a non-zero value.) However ask the families of those who've lost their lives on the Shuttle where through accidents that wouldn't have happened on a conventional launcher/lander whe
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, a ~2% rate of total loss isn't a bad number when it comes to manned spaceflight.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 [spacetoday.net]. Yes, he was on the ground and was killed by falling debris from an exploding Soyuz, but it was still an *exploding
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So, by your definition (Score:2)