Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

European Shuttle Program Update 207

Posted by timothy from the going-up dept.
Rolo Tomasi writes "ESA's reusable launch vehicle demonstrator, Phoenix, was recently wind tunnel tested to determine its low speed aerodynamics. A free flight for Phoenix is planned for early summer 2004. In case you haven't heard of it yet, here's an article from last year, describing the Phoenix/HOPPER concept. Here's another page at ESA, but it seems to be available only in German. What's interesting is the first sentence of the DLR press release, stating that (my translation) 'Europe's future and competitiveness in space substantially depend on an autonomous access to space and 'on a drastic decrease in the transport costs of getting there.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

European Shuttle Program Update More

European Shuttle Program Update

Comments Filter:

  • Bad choice for a name? (Score:3, Funny)

    by nordicfrost ( 118437 ) * on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:20AM (#6782387)
    I mean Phoenix was a bird of fire, maybe ESA should name it after something that does not soar across the sky in fire?
    • And isn't it the name of a database or something?

    • Good choice for a name? (Score:4, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:29AM (#6782418)
      They are hoping if it does crash and burst into flames that it will just rise from the ashes reborn. Phoenix technology would have saved the NASA space program billions.

    • Re:Bad choice for a name? (Score:5, Funny)

      by NanoGator ( 522640 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:06AM (#6782512) Homepage Journal
      "I mean Phoenix was a bird of fire, maybe ESA should name it after something that does not soar across the sky in fire? "

      Well they'd already rejected the name Icarus.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Yeah, but perhaps Phoenix would be a good name for Brazilian space project [google.com].
    • Space transporter of the future

      11 March 2003
      more?Der new one way in the universe? Space transporter of the next generation? if the topic of an high-informative exhibition of the German research council under co-operation of the European space travel organization is ESA, which on Thursday, which 13 March, 18,00 o'clock, open and by 26 April in Munich will have to be visited.

      Central problem of space travel are the transport costs for a kilogram of pay load into space. For one-way rocket systems they are to
    • Phoenix only incinerates itself every 500/1000 years. This is a tolerable lifetime for a space vehicle, imho.

      Short intro about the phoenix bird in German [www.cevi.ch] and English [shades-of-night.com]

  • Anybody with a decent translation or more info? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Mickut ( 31426 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:23AM (#6782400)
    The wings look really small, so is that a lifting body shuttle?
    • Does it really need wings?

      I assume it gets into space by brute force, not aerodynamic lift. Re-entry isnt any more challenging - it's basically a steep glide.

      • Re:Anybody with a decent translation or more info? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mickut ( 31426 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @05:23AM (#6782669)
        That's sort of like saying, who needs a parachute, you'll go down even in what's basically a steep glide if you jump off a plane without one.

        I wouldn't want to be aboard a shuttle or any other space/aircraft (Parachuting capsules, VTOLs and helicopters excluded) that lands at a steep angle on the ground. Not to mention the relatively high speeds involved with a steep decline. I've already had my share of bumpy landings on regular jetliners.

        So some kind of mechanism for contolling the descent and velocity would be nice.
        • The sad thing is that Adding wings to a space vehicle add so much weight and resistance that payload capacity his slaughtered. Truly the answer is to return to capsule style vehicles (mercury, gemini & appollo). The problem is that the air force has a big influence in keeping the program a "flight" (ie: wings) oreiented.

  • stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Audent ( 35893 ) <audent&ilovebiscuits,com> on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:32AM (#6782426) Homepage
    NASA (and now the ESA) appears to be completely sold on the idea that for a spacecraft to be reusable it has to fly in the atmosphere. Like, with wings. What's wrong with plummeting in an uncontrolled fashion like a capsule? The end result is usually the same and yet you haven't had to build in all those fancy pants expensive avionics. The Shuttle is something of a brick to fly, or so I read, and really, wouldn't the crew be that much safer with one giant heatshield for re-entry like the old Apollos and Geminis rather than the multitudinal tile system that seems to shed like an old labrador?

    Also, reusable and cheap seem to be mutually exclusive. The Shuttles are supposed to be reusable but they basically rebuild them completely every time they fly. That's no way to build a regular service to orbit... why not go with cheaper throw-away capsules that don't need piloting in the same way the Shuttle does? More room for the scientists/techs/tourists/reporters!

    • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:50AM (#6782469)
      Actually, one design I saw was for a winged main booster. The idea behind it was when it detaches from the shuttle it could glide back down to earth.

      But yes, the Space Shuttle wasn't exactly what the space program needed for the long term, it was just the cheap sucker that passed congress. Don't get me wrong, it served it's purpose.

      But as far as going back to a capsule, well you could but I think part of our experimentation is attempting to actually create a vehicel that at some point could do a moonshot, land, launch, return, and refuel and get back underway in a short time. And yes, we do need a fleet of more traditional rockets, not so much because they are cheeper to build, but that whole issue of getting into higher orbits that the present shuttle just can't do.

      Landing has one key advantage vs splashdown in the fact that even with the flying brick shuttle you have some control as to where you land and how you land. If you screw up a splashdown and hit.. for example... land, you are pretty much screwed.

      • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Informative)

        by krenshala ( 178676 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:34AM (#6782574) Homepage
        Landing has one key advantage vs splashdown in the fact that even with the flying brick shuttle you have some control as to where you land and how you land. If you screw up a splashdown and hit.. for example... land, you are pretty much screwed.


        I think you are forgetting the fact that the USSR/Russians have been landing capsules in the stepes this whole time. In fact, I seem to remember reading that they thought the US was very odd for intentionally landing at sea. ;)

        [and yes, i agree with you about the shuttle and control over landing point.]
        • I seem to remember reading that they thought the US was very odd for intentionally landing at sea. ;)
          The US landed at sea for a few good reasons.
          1. It was less likley to land on someone or something if it came down at sea. The USSR has lots of empty land and not very good access to the sea. The use has some empty land and very good access to the sea.
          2. In an emergencey being abile to land in water gives you a lot more choices. The earth is what 2/3 or 3/4ths water. Most of which you could land on. You would

      • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by kirinyaga ( 652081 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:41AM (#6782590) Homepage
        Actually, capsules are much safer than "space planes". Russians recently suffered a generalized computer failure on reentry and landed without any problem, far away from the expected landing spot. Oh, and you don't need to "splashdown" in water, it can be done on the ground too. Also, you don't need all that dead weight : wings and all the control and surfaces needed for the reentry. That's several additional tons you need to throw on orbit, tons you cannot put in the payload. So, if you take the shuttle motors and reservoir (you don't even need those expensive refillable boosters any more, but you can take them too), then replace the shuttle body by a (reusable) capsule, you have a much much cheaper (and efficient) reusable vehicle. And it is also safer. And it is able to lift an heavier payload on a higher orbit. And ... why the hell did they add those wings already ? I guess it is an image problem. They want a "spaceship" ...
        • The reason NASA wanted a plane body for their next space craft was pretty deep actually. I remember reading back in the day about how NASA wanted to implement an aircraft that could "fly" into space using a rebreathing Scramjet engine, and booster pods. They thought originally that by now they'd be able to build one light enough to fly into space and return, but this was not the case.

          What we do have though, is a great aerodynamics experiment as well. For all intents and purposes, the Space Shuttle was t
      • Figure it this way, except for the men and women we put up there most of what goes up stays up.

        Shuttles are pie in the sky, looks good in movies, and works in novels type of technology that easier for the public to understand.

        They are also a fraudulent waste of money. Buck Rogers looking tech may sell, but it doesn't get the job done efficiently.

        Big Dumb Boosters are the best route.

    • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:52AM (#6782474)
      Heat tiles are the cutting edge of technology... for 30 years ago. Modern metal alloys exist that are structurally strong, yet can also withstand the temperatures of re-entry directly without having ceramic tiles. My guess about the different approaches:

      * Ceramic tiles = obsolete.
      * Heat shield = more weight to carry up with you = inefficient for payload and fuel.
      * Parachutes = explosives / mechanisms to release the chute are needed.

      Wings & landing gear may be the safest option given that if the landing gear fails - you can still slide along the dirt and live. If you remember capsules sinking and astronauts nearly drowning on a regular basis with splashdowns, an airport landing is looking more and more desirable.

      • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ender81b ( 520454 ) <wdinger@ g m a il.com> on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:55AM (#6782619) Homepage Journal
        What metal could withstand 1,650 C? I am seriously curious here because nothing that I know of can even come close to withstanding that much heat for that long of time.

        I remember reading a book about turojet (fan?) engines and how the blades, even made using fancy techniques such as single mold crystal or something like that, cannot withstand the heat inside a modern military jet engine and must use a series of complicated air ducts to vent fresh air over the metal. If they can't make a material to withstand the heat of an aircraft engine why would they be able to make a material to wisthand 10's of minutes of 1000+ C heat?
        • What metal could withstand 1,650 C?

          Tungsten could. It has a melting point of 3300C.
          On the other hand it is the heaviest stable(not radioactive) metal. Most probably not ideal for space usage, where every kg counts.

        • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          What metal could withstand 1,650 C?

          Here is the melting point of few metals:

          Scandium 1814 K (2805.8F), Titanium 1941 K (3034.4F), Vanadium 2183 K (3470F), Chromium 2180 K (3464.6F), Zirconium 2128 K (3371F), Niobium 2750 K (4490.6F), Molybdenum 2896 K (4753.4F), Technetium 2430 K (3914.6F), Ruthenium 2607 K (4233.2F), Rhodium 2237 K (3567.2F), Hafnium 2506 K (4051.4F), Tantalum 3290 K (5462.6F), Tungsten 3695 K (6191.6F), Rhenium 3459 K (5766.8F), Osmium 3306 K (5491.4F), Iridium 2719 K (4434.8F), Plati
          • Looks like you've fallen victim to a problem similar to one that bit NASA in the rear recently. The temperature 1650C is 1923K and 3002F- so if the ESA/NASA made a heat shield out of Scandium, the shuttle would be screwed.
          • Perhaps, but these are the melting points.

            Usually, metals are ductile at half their fusion points.

            For example, at 1000K Titanium start to deform. Like rubber.

            Also, fusion is not the only problem. Corrosion (in a wider sense chemic stability) is also a factor.
          • I am not a metalurgist. Nor do I play one on TV. But I did do a little reading and little playing around when I was a teenager.

            I can assure you, from practical experience, that the melting point is not as significant as you imply. The physical properties of metals change as significant heat is applied.

            I am sure most of us have seen a blacksmith make a wrougth-iron horseshoe, or reasonable equivalent. They heat the work-place up in their forge, until it is red-hot - which is still several hundred deg

          • In spite of me being a metallurgical engineer, don't consider this to be a professional recommendation.

            Titanium is extremely difficult to work with-- just ask the Australians [agdconsulting.ca] who were lining high temperature autoclaves with them. Titanium is brittle and burns at high temp and high O2 overpressures (think Sodium fires). Welding it is an art and must be done under an inert atmosphere making it very succeptible to something known as 'human error'. Zirconium is in the same family as Titanium and likely su

        • Has more to do with maintenance. Metal when heated and subjected to stress gets fatigued. Its one thing to have that on a tile that you swap out - its something altogether difference to have an issue with the entire wing structure.

        • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Informative)

          by cybercuzco ( 100904 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @12:48PM (#6785649) Homepage Journal
          Well, first let me say IAAAE (I am an Aerospace Engineer) I work with hypersonic vechicles, so I know a thing or three about high temperature materials. As far as I know, there is no metal or metallic alloy that can withstand 1650C without yielding. According to NASA TPSX [nasa.gov] Inconel, the best commonly used alloy has a single use temperature limit of about 1030K, or 757C. It melts at ~1400C On the other hand, there have been significant advances in ceramics in the last 30 years. Current experimental ceramics can withstand temps up to 5000K. To demonstrate how important this is consider this: The temperature on the surface of the vehicle is directly proportional to the radius of curvature at that point. I.e a pointy vehicle has a hotter nose than a blunt one, which is why reentry capsule have a very blunt leading edge. Heres the kicker, the radius of the nose at a given temperature increases or decreases proportional to T^8. In other words if you double the amount of heat that your surface can take, you can decrease that radius of curvature by 256 times. So if your old heat tiles could withstand 1500K and you needed a nose radius of 10m to prevent damage, now if youve got a material that can take 3000K, your new nose radius can be ~4cm. Think MIT dome vs Baseball.

          • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

            by John Carmack ( 101025 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @08:39PM (#6790245)
            >Inconel, the best commonly used alloy has a single use temperature limit of about 1030K, or 757C. It melts at ~1400C

            The refractory metals are better, but less commonly used. Columbium/niobium is reasonable to form. Molybdenum and alloys like TZM take a bit more heat, but have a potentially annoing ductile to brittle transition point for systems that will cold soak. The state of the art is irridium coated rhenium, which doesn't melt until 2466 C / 4471 F.

            We fabricated a TZM chamber a while ago at fairly high expense, but still burned through it after an extended length run:

            burned TZM [armadilloaerospace.com]

            This experience has convinced me that active cooling methods, like transpiration cooling, are probably a good idea for high reusability reentry vehicles.

            John Carmack

            • Whew! you know its hot when your engine is glowing brighter than your exhaust! Yeah, active cooling will do the trick, but the problem is of course lots of pipes, a tank and a heavy pump that needs power. Transpiration cooling is worse because youre losing your working fluid as you go. This isnt as big a problem for reentry vehicles (except for the added expense). Im working on a steady state hypersonic cruise vehicle so I need something that will work for more than 15 minutes. High temp ceramics look
            • What was wrong with the method that Boeing Rocketdyne were using for their aerospike engine? They were running their cold propellant fluid (hydrogen?) through the edge of the combustion chamber and circulating it back to the top just prior to burning. This seems a great idea, since you can cool the walls and get faster ignition from the fuel at the same time.

              Last time I checked you were using a cold liquid propellant. Does Armadillo have fabrication difficulties with such a design?

              -OzJuggler.

      • One important property of ceramics / ablative heat shield is that they are very good heat insulators. The hull of 100% superduper Tungsten shuttle might survive the re-entry but everything inside would melt.

    • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by hughk ( 248126 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:52AM (#6782475) Journal
      You forget that one of the main problems with the Shuttle's reentry profile is that it is too long. The shuttle was designed with single orbit capability in mind, so that USAF could go up, take some photos and come down as quickly as possible for them to be processed (remember this was pre-CCD) However, they needed the ability to ensure that they could land in the continental US so a long reentry was selected.

      An alternative is to design for steeper/shorter reentry and to use multiple orbits to ensure correct positioning so that the landing could take place somewhere reasonable. This is what NASA wanted but it was nixxed by the USAF as they needed to be able to fly all the way down.

      The ESA could select something more like the original NASA flight profile and thus make something reusable, for less money. Purely ballistic reentry vehicles are fine, but they don't scale up so easily.

      • This sounds interesting, but could you go into a bit more detail? I am not sure I understand what you are saying.

        How does a multiple orbit re-entry make for a shorter, steeper re-entry? How would the design of such a shuttle differ from the ones that were built?

        • Originally, there were to be two parallel projects, one military for the USAF and the other civil for NASA. The cost of doing both projects was seen to be much too large so the requirements were merged.

          The USAF/NRO needed reconnaisance capability that comes between the U2 or SR71 spy planes and spy satellites. The spy planes were vulnerable and spy satellites take too long to get into position. Also they have a limited 'retasking' capability because of the fuel that is needed for orbit changes. Also, old

    • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:4, Informative)

      by schnuf ( 103708 ) * on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:18AM (#6782538) Homepage
      If you read the acticles on the ESA shuttle you would know that it doesn't leave the atmosphere itself, so the problems of re-entry don't apply. Oh, and it is unmanned and autonomous.

    • Re:stop making space planes, dammit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Rolo Tomasi ( 538414 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:22AM (#6782545) Homepage Journal
      Well, the whole point in doing all this is to create a system that is cheaper than today's methods of transportation. Capsules would be kinda pointless, because Hopper is unmanned. Its purpose is to transport cargo from the earth to LEO, MEO or GEO. Space plane type vehicles can also carry more cargo compared to single-shot rockets like the Ariane.

      Reusable spacecraft are actually much cheaper to use, just not the way the Shuttle does it. The Hopper doesn't have any of that tile nonsense. From the third link (my translation): "Upon reentry of the compact Hopper, the reentry angle into the atmosphere is optimized in such a way that the resulting heat from friction is significantly lower than on the US Shuttle. Thus the delicate and expensive tiles can be replaced with a cheap and maintenance friendly heat protection system."

    • What's wrong with plummeting in an uncontrolled fashion like a capsule? The end result is usually the same

      What, you mean like... BCHHHHHHHHHHH!

  • Carmack!!! (Score:4, Funny)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:35AM (#6782433) Journal
    Where is John Carmack to explain this to us when we need him? Why have you left us, Carmack?
    WHY??? ::weeps over keyboard::

  • NASA gets lots of grief but... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Omega1045 ( 584264 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @03:45AM (#6782460)
    With all the grief NASA gets, one should note how much this proto looks like the shuttle. It is nice to know that a bunch of smart US geeks built something cool back in the 1970s that is the model for today's new designs. Hopefully this one's systems are much less complex. Now why can't we (US) get off our arses and start developing a serious replacement for the shittle (spelling intentional). Now that Al gore is not doing anything, perhaps he can invent something new for us. I mean, really, he invented the internet some years ago. Isn't it time he got cracking on some new stuff for us?

    • Re:NASA gets lots of grief but... (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Hey, you guys already got the fantastic super duper laser shield coming. Should be costing enough tax dollars already I should think.

      -- don't be afraid of the void my friend, is it not merely the logical next step?
  • Space just is not a very friendly environment for men. Machines are much more suitable and they don't require a return ticket. Instead of focussing on building machines to put people in space and take them, ESA should concentrate on developing robots to do the work and research.

    Support a lawyer free internet top level domain
    Sign [douweosinga.com] the .ianal top level domain petition.

  • Man in space is a political decision....... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:11AM (#6782522)

    not a pratical/scientific one [msn.com]. In a sense, by putting a man in space a government is saying "look at what our technical infrastructure can do." Nothing more.

    This was the original reason behind the apollo program and winning the space race. Once NASA accomplished this, NASA was left with the difficult job of justifying itself, and arguably the reason why they have not had a sense of direction.

    Many will not like this post with responses like;

    1) We need to send a man to mars --
    This would take a huge amount of money by anyone's standards. Once there, what does he do?? Plant another flag and take soil samples?? A robot could do this much cheaper. Before spending all that money on a mars mission maybe Dubya should give that prescription drug beneffit to the seniors that he promised.

    2) We need man in space to mine exotic minerals from asteroids --
    The fact is that it will always be economically cheaper to find those minerals on earth, no matter what. It would be cheaper to send a man to the bottom of the ocean to mine it there if need be. But why send a man to do a dangerous job when a robot can do it cheaper and more efficiently in the first place??

    3) We need man in space to establish the new frontier where people can go to live --
    Again, it will always be cheaper to find places on earth for people to live than to shuttle them (and all the supplies they need) to outer space. Right now it's taking 1.5 billion dollars to maintain a couple people on the international space station. If this was meant to be, how much is it going to cost to shuttle a 100 million of their fellow Americans to orbit?? To say that it will be cheaper in the future is to ignore the obvious. NASA isn't asking for less money to do their job, they're asking for more money. As it is, there is no way for them to replace the aging shuttles that like to blow up every few years. Maybe it will be cheaper in the (very) distant future, but in the history of the space program the cost has never gone down to send a few people to orbit. Maybe they could use atomic rockets. We can only imagine the fun when something goes wrong there, not to mention all the radiation spewed into the enviroment. Fusion power remains a dream occasionally energized by lasers in buildings the size of small cities for a blink of an eye.

    I bet all that money that would be spent on new and improved space planes to replace the shuttles could buy vast tracts of homes built by Habitat for Humanity [habitat.org] for people to live in. Maybe thay could take a few dollars that they were going to spend on new spacesuits and spend it on saving the enviroment we have [greenpeace.org].

    Everybody has lots of ways to conquer the laws of physics to get man into space. But nobody has a way to conquer the laws of economics.

    • Yes, it's apparent that this ship is not manned. But the same rule applies -- what ever can be done in space, there will always be a cheaper more viable alternative on earth.

      This is a knee jerk rant with all the stories of china/india other countries sending men to space.
    • We need man in space because it's cool.

      We've been writing books about it, making movies about it, saying we're going to grow up to do it, dreaming about it for so long now that turning around and saying we're not going to do it is impossible.

      Logic doesn't come into it. It's an over powering human desire to explore, discover and just generally do cool shit.

      That's my take anyway.

      • Logic doesn't come into it. It's an over powering human desire to explore, discover and just generally do cool shit.

        Maybe when you see a homeless person sleeping on the street, you could think of a way that some of that cool shit could help find him a place to sleep.

        • Don't be naive. Cutting spending on space programs won't magically funnel more money into social programs.

          Social spending is heavily weighted by the left or right leaning of the ruling party, and has little connection to the size of space exploration budgets.

          Anyway, if you're American, then you'd be more likely to see the space program funding being shifted into the military budget.
    • from previous post :

      "Maybe it (manned space flights)will be cheaper in the (very) distant future"

      How do you think it'll get cheaper, if it aint done now?

      I think that people on board manned space flights should be considered as a part of the experiment. You simply cannot simulate the environment of the flight to Mars on the surface of Earth.

      Technological advances are only possible after enough research is done. In this case, IMHO, people onboard are part of the research - no way getting around it.

      One

      • Re:Man in space is a political decision....... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by eclectro ( 227083 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @05:27AM (#6782678)
        One aspect is always that for media coverage it's not sexy enough to shoot couple of bots to orbit. Audience (excluding /. readers) wants to see people

        Yes, you have single-handedly discovered NASA's great dilemma, the secret that they keep locked in a deep underground vault somewhere.

        You have uncovered the secret of secrets grasshopper.

        If they stopped sending men to orbit, they won't have any of those PR stunts like a press conference with the astronauts or a live call in with students from an elementary school somewhere.

        No sexy PR means no funding from congress. Forget that the money might have been spent on a probe to detect gravity waves and thus discover the fundamental nature of the universe. That just is not sexy enough. Plus, they might as well dissolve NASA and turn it over to another governmental agency that might do more with less.

        Yup, NASA means a man in space, all else be da***d.

        • No sexy PR means no funding from congress. Forget that the money might have been spent on a probe to detect gravity waves and thus discover the fundamental nature of the universe.

          It's true that PR eats part of the funding but even if they would use 90% of the funding for PR stunts and total BS and only 10% for 'real' science, still the share that goes for real science is much larger than the funding it would otherwise get.
        • Sending people into space isn't cool anymore.

          You need robots to be cool these days!
          Big bouncy balloon landers and squirmy snake robots. Maybe something spiderlike or a whole bunch of tumbleweed style bots rolling around.

          If you're sending a man up he better have some bad-ass exoskeleton if he's gonna be cool.
      • during the apollo mission technology was created for that single purpose of getting man on the moon, yet it was usable on great number of other things than space travel as well.

        it goes the other way too, in 20 years from now you can create much more sophisticated pieces of metal for much cheaper than you can now, and have much more processing power for simulating stress on the hull, among other things that will be cheaper(to produce) than now at higher quality.

        what i mean to say is that you don't have to
    • > Maybe thay could take a few dollars that they were
      > going to spend on new spacesuits and spend it on
      > saving the enviroment we have.

      Five minutes after the environment is saved,
      a big asteroid hits earth, leaving nothing but
      ruins for aliens to discover.

    • Off course the descission to send men into space is a political decission, as long as the only ones capabel of doing it is various goverments around the globe. The day the technologys has filtered down to where corps can do it, it'll be an echonomical decission, and I guess you'll oppose that as well.

      We need to send a man to mars - No, we don't need to send a man anywhere. For that matter, we don't need to send robots either, or look in telescopes or even look up. No one is forcing our hands. But if we (

  • Not the answer. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ratfynk ( 456467 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:15AM (#6782531) Journal
    Anti grave is not the answer either. The applied use of directed magnetic fields is interesting again though. The research into this stopped in the 1960s when the distance calculations to reach escape velocity on a field launch ramp was calculated at roughly 30 miles of ramp. The problem was that air density at the ramp hight of 13,000 feet was still too dense to take the velocity achieved without supper heating the payload! Seems to me in the Andes there are places the ramp hieghts could reach 20,000+ feet adjacent to the Altiplano but the ramp construction contraints were considered too great. Well we have much better mag lev and supperconductor tech now and we also have much better high altitude construction techniques. The only reason this tech is not been brought forward is the tech would need to be applied somewhere other than in the US! It would require real international co-operation and would in the long run be so much cheaper than rockets. Houston and the Johnson would go out of business. Fuel payloads could be launched also and staged late burning correcting vessels could also be devised. Get your mind away from rockets for just one second. Yes they are important for getting around once you gain escape velocity but they are a stupid and dangerous way to achieve it!
    • Wow.. I connot believe I posted that last knight. I must have had food and death on my mind! Maybe I will try to use Old English instead. I have the mind of a flax wench, and the wit of an Elephant pizzle!

  • www.highliftsystems.com (Score:5, Informative)

    by fleppir ( 563959 ) <arnic@ h i . is> on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:16AM (#6782535) Homepage Journal
    If ESA intends to get cheap access to space they should be looking at cheaper alternatives than a reusable space-shuttle. Even if the NASA model is made more economical, it's only going to be a fraction of the savings compared to looking at other alternatives [highliftsystems.com]

    • Re:www.highliftsystems.com (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The decision to go for a "traditional" design is probably sound, given that you'll want something that you "know" will work and be affordable.

      The Space Elevator is an intresting concept, but it is a long-term, high-risk project. For starters the materials that would be used don't even exist yet. Developing and building a Space Elevator would cost a huge amount of money, probably much more than any single country or space agency could afford by itself.

      Another aspect with a space elevator is that you put al
      • You obviously haven't read the "Common misconceptions" on ISR's website.

        Here's a few you just made that are worth pointing out:
        1. Materials not only exist, but are under mass production. Go google for nanotubes.
        2. Actually, it's a giveaway. A 10-40B$ expenditure spread across 15 years? Or across many nations like the I$$? The war in Iraq costs a billion a week. Many skyscrapers, tunnels, bridges, and other architectural endeavors have cost much much more.
        And considering that by making space accessible for
        • Don't you need carbon nanotubes to be longer than 4 mm [globaltechnoscan.com] to get to space. I'm no expert, but if we could use 4 mm to get to space now, I'd be forever bumping my head on the moon.
    • I agree absolutely.

      This is just a sideshow, winged shuttle technology will never make space access cheap enough to make a difference. Plus it only gets you into LEO anyway, and there are already plenty of ways to get payloads into LEO.

      Space elevator is the way to go.

  • I seriously hope ... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 25, 2003 @04:44AM (#6782599)
    that the DLR [tfl.gov.uk] are NOT involved in the ESA space flight programme!

  • Space Travel (Score:2, Funny)

    by rf0 ( 159958 )
    We don't need shuttles just a very big catapult

    Rus

  • First stage (Score:5, Informative)

    by Rxke ( 644923 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @05:20AM (#6782663) Homepage
    This thing is only a sophisticated first stage, an unmanned plane-like vehicule that boosts sats with additional stages to 130 km. After that it returns to earth. Above 130km there's a lot less atmospheric drag, so this makes sense. They plan to have it fling in 2015, but the guys from X-Prize are doing essentially the same thing...

  • Cheaper flights with Ryan-air? (Score:4, Funny)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @05:33AM (#6782691) Journal
    Simple solution, get Ryan-air to do it!
    Then we will get:

    Moon - from 15.00 return
    Mars - from 25.00 return
    Sun - from 35.00 (one way)
    etc..

    Spaceport taxes not included.
    Of course if you want to travel at
    a time *you* want the cost is:

    Moon - from 2.5 billion return
    etc..

  • The solution.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adeyadey ( 678765 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @05:43AM (#6782706) Journal
    Its an old point, but worth repeating:-
    I dont believe NASA/ESA will ever deliver
    really cheap space transport - they are
    good at some things, but they are just
    not the right people to do it..
    The X-Prize has yielded a whole raft of
    promising new vehicles, all for a measley
    $10 million. (remember the the shuttle is
    $600 million per launch)

    Just set up "competitions" for certain
    objectives and let entreprenuers figure
    out the rest..

    • Ummm... (Score:2)

      by tgd ( 2822 )
      Man, yet another case of /. moderators not thinking...

      Anyway, not to be picky, but just because the X-prize is $10m doesn't mean the vehicles are costing $10m.

      I'd hazard a guess that not a single one of them will have cost even remotely close to that, when all is said and done. Thats less than the cost of a good business jet which can take advantage of the economies of scale. When you add the cost of the vehicles that fail to those that succeed, the cost of development for a successful private sub-orbital

  • Breaking news: Phoenix renamed (Score:3, Funny)

    by schlpbch ( 197942 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @06:27AM (#6782788) Homepage
    to ESAFirebird because of copyright infringement.

    (Next logical step these days: a joke including SCO)

  • Don't Hold Your Breath (Score:4, Funny)

    by N8F8 ( 4562 ) on Monday August 25, 2003 @06:35AM (#6782802)
    Is this thing going to launch before or after they launch their GPS replacement system? Or finish the ISS?
    Besides, shuttles just are soooo 80's.
  • however, when are they going to fix the problems with long term space flight? we can have the greatest space ship ever designed, however, unless the issues faced, aka, bone density deterioration due to weightless environment and the ability to haul a large amount of supply of food etc.

    Ulimately if there is ever to be a future in space travel and space "exploration", the dogma between the European Space Agency, Russian Space Agency and NASA have to be put to one side, pull all the collective resources toget

    • Re:Its all very nice, (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Urkki ( 668283 )
      Common goal... Yeah. And communism is such a nice idea on paper too.

      We people need competition to bring out the ambition in us. It keeps us going, pushing to the limits. This applies both in individual level (my rocket engine will be the best, even if I have to work 80h a week), and at society level (our boys can get to the Moon first, never mind the cost).

      Co-operation is essential of course, but competition implies duplication to a certian degree, and trying to elimiate that will just get less done f
  • Can't it be confused with the obscure databse package from Down under? How come the suppporters of the package are not asking the European Space Agency to change the name of the prototype which is not confusing. Afterall, it surely can cause some confusion if someoen says,"Oh Man! Pheonix is blazingly fast." So should we start voting on a new name if ESA agrees?

  • Why do they want to build another space shuttle, albeit an improved one? It would make more sense to pursue another way to get up there.

    This article claims a space elevator could be had for as little as $10 B: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology /space_elevator_020327-1.html

  • Probably posting this too late to get a reply... but...

    Does anyone have a guess as to how feasible it would be to build a new shuttle, but make it unmanned? In other words, simplify it by stripping out all the human-support gear, yet still keep all the research that went into aerodynamics and construction. I would imagine that this would remain significantly cheaper than a complete redesign.

Slashdot Top Deals

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Close