Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Space Shuttle to re-launch in May 163

Posted by CmdrTaco from the i-can-see-my-house-from-here dept.
Goeland86 writes "CNN reports that NASA is on it's way to prepare for a shuttle launch in may. Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season, I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year altogether."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Space Shuttle to re-launch in May More

Space Shuttle to re-launch in May

Comments Filter:

  • Scrapping the Shuttle? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kazrath ( 822492 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:04AM (#10699321)
    I thought they were scrapping the shuttle? This might of been interesting if it was 20-30 years from now and they were taking their "restored 57 Chevy" out into space. Personally I am to the point where these shuttle flights are a big waste of money "if" they are not doing anything innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts.
    • The Shuttle is dead...Long live the Shuttle.

    • The Shuttles are Being Phased Out (Score:4, Informative)

      by Smoo_Master ( 713749 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:08AM (#10699363)
      From the Article:
      The shuttle program has 28 flights remaining on its books before the orbiters are scheduled to be mothballed toward the end of the decade. All are in support of the International Space Station, which remains under construction.
      The shuttles are back, but only temporarily. Work on their replacements is likely being done now.

      • Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out (Score:4, Informative)

        by pudknocker ( 516571 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:20AM (#10699455)
        Replacements for the shuttle won't be flying anytime soon. The X-33/VentureStar was canceled a couple of years ago. The X-38/Crew Return Vehicle/Space Taxi, which was being considered as a crew module atop an expendable rocket, was canceled even though development seemed to be proceeding well.

        And then there is the new CLCS (Command and Launch Checkout System) a replacement for the shuttle launch consoles and computers which was also canceled after 100's of millions of dollars.

        NASA should fund Burt Rutan (if he'd take the money), then something would get done.

        • NASA should fund Burt Rutan (if he'd take the money), then something would get done.

          I imagine Burt's position would be along the lines of: "If NASA would fund Burt Rutan then nothing would get done."

          The reason is that NASA runs on an incredibly high load of paperwork; you spend most of the money they give you just filling in their paperwork.

        • And Rutan has done what that would enable him to get to orbit or survive reentry?

          He competed for a prize for which the requirements were in the range of his experience. I.e., it enabled him to do what he always did, build small craft out of epoxy with normal control surfaces, et al. He didn't even build the rocket engine himself - SpaceDev deserves the credit for that one (although we can go into why SpaceDev doesn't have the qualifications either for the next rocket engine if you want...)

          I hate soundin
          • > And Rutan has done what that would enable him to get to orbit or survive reentry?

            Built a new man-rated vehicle capable of powered flight, which is more than you can say for NASA over the past 20 years.

            • Please explain how that answers my question. NASA doesn't fund the development of joyrides.

              • Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out (Score:4, Insightful)

                by Tackhead ( 54550 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @02:57PM (#10703063)
                > Please explain how that answers my question. NASA doesn't fund the development of joyrides.

                But neither does it fund the development of new manned space vehicles. It develops them until they get to a point at which they might threaten the entrenched Shuttle/ISS pork barrel, and then cancels the project.

                With shuttle retirement now a reality, maybe this time it'll be different, but I doubt it.

                Personally, I'd like to see NASA scrap the ISS and concentrate on unmanned space science, at which they're pretty damn good. Contract out the probe launches to commercial providers, which they're doing now. And have about $3B/year to use in either doing more science or in actually seeing a next-generation project through to completion.

                I don't want NASA to "fund joyrides". I want the joyriders to fund themselves. Once that happens, the joyriders will produce other joyriders, because people will be making money in space. The more meat you can put up in orbit, the more of the meat's money you make. The price drops, and someday the scientist-meat can afford to go too. (Much like the scientist-robots are flying commercial, rather than Shuttle, these days.)

                NASA's manned programme is a nest of perverse incentives: a space station that does no science, but requires the shuttle, and a shuttle that does no science, and requires a space station. They're both very good at "making money" (in the sense of burning through Congressional appropriations), but so long as the money keeps coming, NASA's manned programme has no incentive either to put meat into space or do science in space.

                So yeah, Burt's a hell of a long way from orbit. But because he's motivated by profit (which he doesn't get if he doesn't build SpaceShip Two/Three), and because NASA has no motivation to do anything other than preserve its current bureaucracy, I'd put even money on Burt getting to orbit before the next-generation Shuttle will. If you give me 3:1 odds, I'd even put money on Burt making at least one orbit before the next-generation Shuttle gets off the drawing board.

                • > It develops them until they get to a point at which they
                  > might threaten the entrenched Shuttle/ISS

                  No more insinuation without details. Name what you're referring to, or stop asserting.

                  > ... joyrides ... orbit ...

                  SS1 doesn't even remotely resemble getting to orbit. It is about as close to getting to orbit as someone with a snorkel is to exploring the Marianas trench.

                  > a space station that does no science

                  *sigh*. If you can't bother to educate yourself about the most basic facts of the I
    • Any more, the shuttle is a waste of time and money. The main problem is that NASA has all their eggs in one basket. Where is the funding for development of the next generation shuttle? Let's take what we learned and improve upon it, rather than trying to keep this aging program going.
      • I don't see those options as being mutually exclusive. Temprarily continuing the space shuttle program while a new vehicle is being developed seems to be a good idea. Otherwise, NASA might succumb to pressure to rush the design, and the effects of that seem far more disasterous in my opinion.


      • The main problem is that NASA has all their eggs in one basket. Where is the funding for development of the next generation shuttle?

        I'm sure NASA is asking the exact same question. Where exactly IS their funding to develop next generation craft? Note the cancelation of even the X-38 project just two years before it completed flight testing.

        Also, keep in mind NASA doesn't get a pile of money to spend on anything it wants. It does get a sizeable budget (a fraction of the value of its budget during

    • I haven't seen anything "official," but someone's running a website for Project Constellation [projectconstellation.us] as a Shuttle successor.

      If we still need the heavy-lift and reboost capacity of the Shuttle, an unmanned version (it's highly automated through ascent, docking and re-entry anyhow) might be a worthwhile alternative if the landing can also be done remotely.

    • ""if" they are not doing anything innovative"

      I assure NASA's manned space program is doing nothing innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts. NASA has set like 10 different dates for the Shuttle's return to service. The don't deserve praise for setting another one they probably wont deliver on. When they announced this date they couched it in all the same rhetoric about how aggressive it was and all the excuses for why they may not make it. The key thing about NASA's manned program, the

      • Re:Scrapping the Shuttle? (Score:4, Informative)

        by Rei ( 128717 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @01:08PM (#10701420) Homepage
        > I assure NASA's manned space program nothing
        > innovative to help the next breed

        You assure wrong. NASA has done a *huge* amount of R&D in the last decade - in fact, they're the biggest space R&D spender in the world. They've developed dozens of kinds of ion/plasma propulsion systems (and are working on getting a better power/mass ratio). They've developed dozens of new fuels, lightweight alloys, and new structural materials. Heck, even without changing the shuttle's basic design, they've notably upped its payload even while adding in more safety features due to their advances. They've lowered the cost of shuttle maintinance (although its still very expensive, because - cue the "they don't do enough safety work!" people - they go so far as to dismantle the SSMEs each time for inspection, and SSMEs are very complex beasts). Just last month I was reading about a new method they developed for using CVD to deposit a liner on the engine nozzles so that there's no clear surface break for it to erode at.

        Here - here's a google search for NASA's site just for the word "novel" (it occurs a lot in publications):

        http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-88 59 -1&q=site%3Anasa.gov+novel&btnG=Search

        Note the 9,980 results for this search alone. NASA does a *TON* of research, on all aspects of space.

        > they get paid pretty much the same whether the
        > do anything or not

        Apparently you've never heard of something called "budget cuts". Or "change of administrators", for that matter.

        > Burt Rutan

        Please excuse me while I go outside to laugh... ... back. :)

        Please tell me you were kidding in your suggestion that someone who built an unscalable craft out of epoxy and didn't even make his own engine has accomplished much of anything toward getting craft to orbit and back. Please address the issues of delta-V, reentry heating, and manufacturing of the materials involved.

        > "Black Sky" ... was deceptive concerning what was actually accomplished. SS1 is a manned sounding rocket. That's it. It didn't even go that much higher than the V2 did, for YHVH's sake (and had a lower payload even when you add in the ss1's weight of the pressurized cabin).
        • I'll grant you the do some good research especially if you get away from their manned space program. JPL does great work, they rock. I should reiterate I am slamming the nearly worthless "manned space program" only here, the shuttle and the ISS in particular. They are the ones that are wasting tons of money, bleeding the rest of NASA white, and not doing anything useful. Anyone in the rest of NASA my apologies if I though I was criticizing you, I wasn't.

          Yes many people at NASA do innovative research.
          • I find it kind of silly how you're criticizing NASA for failing when applying a new technology, and then comparing them to Rutan. Of course new technologies fail; that's what happens when you try new technology. Rutan, on the other hand, applied essentially no new technology. It was an epoxy craft made just like he makes his other craft, sent on a mission that something built like an aircraft can survive (unlike a real space mission), using rocket engines developed by someone else. His craft had about t
            • Its kind of goofy to compare safety records of the Shuttle to unmanned expendable launch vehicles. Like it or not the Shuttle was sold on and entirely dependent on a safety record much higher than the one that its achieved. When the shuttle fails 7 people die and you lose a now irreplaceable vehicle. Its really sick to come out after two catastrophic failures that have destroyed the program and say 2% is really a great safety record. We should be proud.

              "The shuttle is only about 35% more expensive than
              • We *should* be proud of 2% failure rate. Soyuz doesn't meet that record. Nothing does that has had a significant number of launches.

                No. The shuttle is a little over 13,000$/kg. Your Ariane numbers are correct. Its LEO payload is 24,400 kg. The cost varies, but its running average is between 300k and 350k$ per launch in modern dollars - *Including Overhead*. Shuttle launch costs are determined by comparing the shuttle's annual budget to the number of shuttle launches.

                > a couple thousand pounds o
        • "Black Sky" ... was deceptive concerning what was actually accomplished. SS1 is a manned sounding rocket. That's it. It didn't even go that much higher than the V2 did, for YHVH's sake (and had a lower payload even when you add in the ss1's weight of the pressurized cabin)."

          Forgot to answer this one. You work for NASA? I'm guessing so. I hate to point this out but SpaceShipOne currently surpasses NASA's current manned space program. NASA can't currently get a man off the ground.

          SpaceShipOne matched and
          • > I hate to point this out but SpaceShipOne
            > currently surpasses NASA's current manned
            > space program

            I'm sorry - when did NASA get into the joyride business? I must have missed that memo.

            > Rutan's group were successful in achieving
            > their goal ... of creating a joyride. Many other companies make pleasurecraft on schedule, too - could I interest you in a yacht?

            > Did they put someone in orbit, no

            Did they put anything in orbit? No. Did they accomplish anything useful beyond a joyride?
            • So you didn't answer the question. You do work for NASA don't you?

              Maybe you should spend a little less time being petty, vindictive, making excuses, denigrating people who are actually doing something useful, achieving their goals, etc. Maybe you should get off your duffs and try to do something useful with those billions of dollars us tax payers are wasting on your paycheck every years while you sit on the ground scratching your asses.

              Its more than a little silly on your part to slam Rutan's group beca
              • Perhaps you should take the time to answer a simple bloody question. And no, I don't work for NASA, nor any of their contractors.

                And perhaps you should stop with the outright lies:

                > NASA isn't doing anything they haven't been
                > doing for the past 10 years

                Did you completely ignore the link to 10,000 research papers that I provided which simply use the word "novel" in them? NASA does a *HUGE* amount of new research every year; just because you're ignorant isn't an excuse to make stuff up.

                > which
                • "Did you completely ignore the link to 10,000 research papers"

                  Uh, yea. Dont think those research papers are going to put men in space. You can try lighting them on fire and try. Research papers are stuff academics churn out to expand there rep, sometimes they are valuable, much of the time they are just a ticket to a convention and some partying.

                  I'm betting a small fraction of this total has anything to do with manned space flight. There is a percentage of them that have useful research which, when imp
                  • > Uh, yea. Dont think those research papers are going to > put men in space.

                    Those papers that you demean are research. They're what makes space travel cheaper and more reliable. Try reading them.

                    > Research papers are stuff academics churn out to
                    > expand there rep

                    Lets just look at the first one on the list, shall we?

                    "Novel Laser-Melt Process Created For High-Temperature Piezo Electric Material Development"

                    You'd hardly be one to argue that being able to move elements of a spacecraft is unim
              • Burt Rutan has done very interesting things over the years, but none of it (so far as I know) has met with large scale economic success.

                I think of the Beech Starship, which despite being right down the middle of Burt's canard/composite paradigm didn't sell and was cancelled. The performance simply wasn't the leap forward that people hoped for. I also couldn't help but notice White Knight isn't a canard (neither is the Global Flyer)...a decade ago Burt had a lot of people convinced canards were a quantum le

                • "Burt's a clever designer, but I'm not convinced he's particularly smart about economics or practicality."

                  So NASA is? Economical and practical aren't words I would ever associate with NASA at least since the end of the Apollo era. In the Apollo era there were definitely not economical but they were practical.

                  I kind of doubt Rutan is out to get rich. He is funding his hobby which appears to be tackling engineering challenges and doing things in cool new ways. He appears to have been quite successful in

  • I thought... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gandell ( 827178 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:04AM (#10699322)
    I was under the impression that NASA may be considering a move away from the Space Shuttle projects. Could this be one of the last missions, or are the rumors greatly exaggerated?

    • NASA is moving away from the Shuttle... but not for anouther 20-28 missions. There simply is not enough lift capability that can support the current design on the various ISS modules. They were built to fit in the Shuttle and not in another heavy lift booster. My guess is the net present value of the science + ecomonic gain will dip below 0 if the remaining components have to be redesigned. So we need to keep the Shuttle active for most of the remaining build out time of the ISS.

      Hey, on the bright side

  • ...is finish the research/testing and build the damned elevators. And put up a base on the Moon. And one on Mars.
    • They should build an escalator too. That way you could just stand and enjoy the ride, or if you're in a hurry walk fast; you can pick your own pace. The elevator would definitely be better for moving in and out, though.
    • The biggest problem we have with making a space elevator, is making a cable/ribbon capable of supporting the massive weight of the cable.

      For that, we need carbon nano-tubes [wikipedia.org]

      Once we can make carbon nanotubes of suffecient strength, length and quantity, then you will see the price per pound (the cost of getting 1 pound of matter into orbit) plummet. And that will open up space to many more viable uses.
    • I can just see it now: (from Red vs. Blue [redvsblue.com])

      Simmons: Seriously though, why are we out here? As far as I can tell it's just a box canyon in the middle of nowhere...no way in or out.

      Grif: uh huh...

      Simmons: The only reason that we set up a red base here is because they have a blue base over there. And the only reason they have a blue base over there is because we have a red base over here.

      Grif: Yeah, that's because we're fighting each other.

      Simmons: No, no, but I mean, even if we were to pull out today and
    • > ...is finish the research/testing and build the damned elevators.

      "elevators"?

      You misspelled "suspension bridges".

      Build me a suspension bridge out of carbon nanotubes, and I'll be first in line to invest in the space elevator. But not until then.

  • NASA has no choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ghoul ( 157158 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:08AM (#10699361)
    They may hate the shuttle but due to the short sightedness of the last few administrations they have no other viable space lift vehicle available. And they have contractual obligations on the International Space Station. The poor Russians (bankrupt as they are) are pulling more than their share and might get fed up soon if NASA doesnt start pulling its weight. After all the Russian part of the ISS is built independently. They can just close the doors and jettison all the US modules.
    • The poor Russian modules have been late and paid for with US tax dollars. Built independently? Perhaps. But seperating them now would be futile.

    • Re:NASA has no choice (Score:4, Interesting)

      by igny ( 716218 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @10:36AM (#10700117) Homepage Journal
      As usual in capitalist world, they put monetary equivalent for the obligations. A couple of years ago Russia was behind their obligations, which put them at ~$60-70mln in debt. Since they didn't have money to compensate, they used barter. Namely, Russian cosmonauts worked on American projects aboard ISS. I don't know exact figures, but they charged $500/hour or so. Russia have also been repaying their debt in the last months by supplying their Soyuzes. Their outstanding balance became officially $0 after that work they did to fix the break circuit in American segment of the ISS (I read somewhere that they charged 500 of work hours for that job).

      From then on NASA has been falling behind. Since Congress prohibited paying cash to Russia, they will use barter again. Now American taxpayers should expect astronauts to work on Russian projects.

    • One theory I heard often espoused is that its actually all JFK's fault. Basically, the idea is that the moon project resulted in NASA becoming over-obsessed with rocketry instead of developing space-plane technology, and as a result there wasn't the space-plane background ready to design the shuttle the way it really could've been done.

      The whole idea is obsurd until you think back to the incredible things they were doing with hypersonic jets back then - stuff that people are hard pressed to replicate now.

      • Re:NASA has no choice (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rikkards ( 98006 )
        I think the reason that the there has not been a successor to the SR-71 is due to the quality of optics on satellites. Plus the fact that something in orbit is more difficult to shoot down. Course this is an unedu-ma-cated observation and may be completely inaccurate.
      • Why bother with Mach 3.32 and all that cost, when you can orbit a U-2 over or near a hot zone? It's a lot cheaper, and with satellite data links you get real-time information. It's a good gap filler between satellites and UAVs.

  • Weather (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    They need to launch in May before hurricane season starts again.

  • We need a newer, cheaper alternative... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mOoZik ( 698544 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:10AM (#10699381) Homepage
    The shuttles are nearly thirty years old, from the beginning of development to today. Each launch costs taxpayers nearly 1/2 billion dollars [nasa.gov]. Isn't there a better alternative? Can't we use technology to our advantage to design inexpensive machines similar to the shuttle? In my mind, the shuttle is comparable to bulky American 70's cars, while what it is really needed is the German Smart Car. Pardon the analogy.

    • I agree. The problem is sex appeal though. The cheaper alternative is disposable rockets, but for NASA they have zero sex appeal.
    • China cloned the ancient Russian soyez design, with a few modernizations for its manned space program. Why give up something that works? Soyez has a very limited cargo capacity, but Russians used unmanned rockets for big cargo.

    • Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative... (Score:5, Informative)

      by LWATCDR ( 28044 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @10:42AM (#10700146) Homepage Journal
      The shuttle was a good idea. To get into space cheap you need a reusable space craft. Think how "cheap" your german smart car is if you have to replace it after every trip to the store.
      The Shuttle should have been an experiment. We should have been working on it's replacement the day it first flew. The improved shuttle should have flown in 1992 and another improved shuttle in 2002. The shuttle was GROSSLY under funded from day one. The Goverment traded lower development costs for higher operating costs. Here are some of the concepts that where turned down due to cost of development http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/p219.htm

      If you want to learn what the Shuttle might have been take a look at this
      http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch8.htm
      Ide aly there should have been two programs one low risk maybe expendable launch vehicle and one high technical risk shuttle that pushed the state of the art.
      We are not going to get anywhere with Big Dumb Boosters. But we are also not going to get anywhere with the goverment cheaping out on development at the cost of operation expence like it did with the Shuttle.
      • I'll agree that Big Dumb Boosters only have limited applications. However, engines like SSMEs may have gone too far in the other direction. Part of the reason the shuttle is so expensive to maintain is due to those incredibly complex engines. It's kind of sad that few people ever seem to go for a compromise option - what is so crazy about the idea of part high-tech, part low-tech engines?

        Thanks for posting the articles about earlier NASA designs so more people could see them; many people seem to think t
        • "Lowering the tech on your engines may cut your maintinance in half while costing you a few ISP;"
          I do not feel that lowering your tech really helps you with maintinance. Look at modern jet engines. They are incredbly complex yet as reliable as a stoneaxe. It is HOW you apply the technology. One idea would be for a reusable rocket engine require the engine contract include overhual and refurbishment. It would be a win win. Nasa gets a fixed cost and the engine manufacture gets an income stream. The SSMEs hav

    • The shuttles are nearly thirty years old, from the beginning of development to today. Each launch costs taxpayers nearly 1/2 billion dollars. Isn't there a better alternative? Can't we use technology to our advantage to design inexpensive machines similar to the shuttle?

      No, we can't use technology to our advantage, as technology isn't the problem.

      The problem with the Shuttle is the same chicken-and-egg problem that space acess has faced for decades; With a small market and low flight rates, prices per f

  • I believe the plan is (Score:4, Funny)

    by Timesprout ( 579035 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:10AM (#10699384)
    To tie a giant piece of string and a couple of ribbons to it and launch it like a kite in the next hurricane.

  • Ohhh...The hangover... (Score:3, Funny)

    by dnaboy ( 569188 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:13AM (#10699401)
    Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season, I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year altogether.

    Tell me about it. If I went through a space shuttle disaster, my liver would be pretty damaged from drinking hurricanes (or, more likely Jameson's on the Rocks) too.

  • What does it tell you about the state of NASA when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit, while it takes NASA two years? Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.

    Despite the fact that there are many extremely smart and talented people at NASA, it, like every bureaucracy, has become an entrenched special interest, more concerned with preserving its budget than in actually moving the cause of space flight

    • What does it tell you about the state of NASA when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit, while it takes NASA two years? Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.


      Rutan's ship didn't go into orbit, it simply went into space and just barely at that.

    • If I remember correctly, his ship never went into orbit and went about 1/7th the height. It also never gets to the shuttles 17,000+ mph speed and thus doesn't have to deal with all that heat slowing down. It also has a small fraction of the amount of fuel. I'd rather they take their time and avoid burning men because they decided they had to hurry.
    • Burt Rutan's ship has never been to orbit and never will go to orbit
      (unless someone builds an orbital vehicle large enough to carry
      SpaceShip One as dead weight to an orbital museum).

      The X Prize was about recreating the X-15 program, nothing more. Nobody
      with a clue would call 3 test flights (two of which experienced
      significant control problems) a step towards anything except more tests
      to better understand what happened. If they really cared about safety,
      they wouldn't have launched again after the 30 rolls
      • "The X Prize was about recreating the X-15 program, nothing more." But at a much lower cost in 2004 dollars than the massive 1950s program, due to advances in technology. Imagine a 21st century space shuttle.
        • There's a good reason that the X-15 cost more: The X-15 was more capable than SS1. Not only could it reach 100km altitude, it could also fly like an airplane at hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere. SS1 just pops up and then floats back down like a leaf. Getting up to Mach 6 in the atmosphere and controlling the flight without melting is probably by itself much harder than reaching the X-prize altitude.

    • Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years (Score:5, Informative)

      by angusr ( 718699 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:28AM (#10699527)
      when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit Bit of a fallacy here - Rutan is doing nothing even vaguely similar to the Shuttle (or even later Mercury flights).

      SpaceShipOne was nowhere near going into orbit. Orbit requires horizontal speed, not vertical height, and - more importantly - a way to safely bleed off that speed on re-entry without burning or breaking up.

      SpaceShipOne is not capable of going into orbit, and never will be - it has neither the power to reach the Mach 25+ speeds required for orbital velocity, nor the ability to withstand the heating required to lose those speeds on reentry.

      It's the equivalent of the early Mercury-Redstone flights from 1961(Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7) - short sub-orbital hops. The difference is that with a new booster (the Atlas) Mercury was capable of re-entry from orbital speeds.

      • It's the equivalent of the early Mercury-Redstone flights from 1961(Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7) - short sub-orbital hops. The difference is that with a new booster (the Atlas) Mercury was capable of re-entry from orbital speeds.

        SpaceShipOne has much more in common with the X-15 from the early 1960s. Both are reusable rocket planes launched from an airplane, both reach the edge of space (about 100km), and both land on a runway. Neil Armstrong actually got his astronaut wings aboard an X-15, not a Gemin
    • Burt Rutan got his ship back into space. He did not go into any kind of orbit. Orbit requires way more energy than spaceship one could ever produce.

    • The Engineers raised concerns but the system prevented them being voiced. Since then they have been very paranoid about any complaints and increased the level of checking.

      So yes the organisation needs streamlining, but the reason for the concerns are two complete disasters where they were warned on BOTH occasions.
    • Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.

      Other replies here have noted that S-S-1 didn't go into orbit, but it's worth emphasizing the difference between "touching space" and getting into orbit. If you do the sums, and work out just how hard it is to achieve 5 miles/sec when your propellant only leaves the nozzle at about 2 miles/sec, you'll see how staggering an achievement it is - a single stage craft would have to consi

  • New tech needed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by goneutt ( 694223 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:17AM (#10699432) Journal
    The shuttles are masterpeices of engineering.... circa 1980. Unfortunatly they invested $$$ in a short production run vehicle that seems to still serve the original purpose. If you were to start building one new replacement it would take a long time and cost big bucks.

    If they were to start off with a new design they could apply modern techniques/materials to create a lighter, stronger, more reliable system (i.e. a carbon monocot frame, carbon heat shield skin, computers that have more than 640k of ram, etc)

    After working out the kinks on paper they could build a few dozen (price per unit should go down with increased volume) and launch more regularly. But then again, I'm just smoking crack here, NASA will never see that kind of budget again. Unless we can convience the public that Bin Laden is camped out in his secret moonbase.
    • >Unless we can convience the public that Bin Laden is camped out in his secret moonbase.

      And what makes you think that this is impossible? You can convince the public of anything if you have enough time.

    • If they were to start off with a new design they could apply modern techniques/materials to create a lighter, stronger, more reliable system (i.e. a carbon monocot frame, carbon heat shield skin, computers that have more than 640k of ram, etc)

      Yeah, but they should probably re-think the mission requirements, too. The shuttle had too many mission requirements for one vehicle; it had to bring reasonably large crews (seven people) to orbit and back, deliver relatively large payloads to orbit, and, by the way

    • actually iirc the shuttle was meant to be a PROTOTYPE run. it was supposed to be a precursors for a whole range of reuseable machines that would be configured to do different tasks. (ie a space bus, a space rv, a space truck for people transport, research/repairs, load transport respectively)

      the shuttle was never meant to run for this long.

      suchetha

  • NASA bashing: Think it through. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Baumann ( 238242 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:17AM (#10699436)
    Okay peeps:
    1) Replacing the shuttle. yes we should. No we haven't. But we've got that great big investment up there called the ISS. Shall we just abandon it? Didn
    't think so.
    2) 'Disasters' - We've had two. Fewer than the Apollo program. They suck. Really they do. And they have been attributed to the 'make it work anyway' group. Who, I might add, are usually under $$$ pressure from those who are screaming for better "return on investment for the taxpayer". This is still, contrary to popular belief, exploration, and *THINGS WILL HAPPEN* - it is not airflight.

    3) 'We should develop -insert your favorite space technology here-', Some of those technologies do need testing in space now.

    4) 'what about spaceship-one' - what was the payload capacity? 200kilo? Roughly?

    yes, NASA has problems - but contrary to popular belief - we really need the shuttles flying, if only to develop the replacements!

    • Re:NASA bashing: Think it through. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:24AM (#10699491) Homepage Journal
      4) 'what about spaceship-one' - what was the payload capacity? 200kilo? Roughly?

      Not even that really. Space Ship One can't get to Orbit and wasn't designed to. The shuttle can. The best comparison for space ship one might be to the early Gemini capsules.
      • The best comparison for space ship one might be to the early Gemini capsules

        Except that SS1 can carry three people to the Gemini's two, and Gemini could reach orbit, and Gemini could stay up for extended periods (two weeks on Gemini VII), and....

        You perhaps meant early Mercury?

        • Except that the early Mercury capsules only carried one, and they flew much higher than SS1 and led directly to an orbital craft. SS1 is essentially a stretch X-15, which was supposed to lead to the Air Force's Dyna-Soar, which was cancelled in favor of a civilian space program.

    • Re:NASA bashing: Think it through. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jimhill ( 7277 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @10:45AM (#10700172) Homepage
      "[W]e've got that great big investment up there called the ISS. Shall we just abandon it? Didn't think so."

      Think again. If I take a thousand dollars in cash and throw it down a sewer drain I don't call it an "investment". The ISS has been so scaled down that even if completed its science value will be negligible. This is a pig in a poke, the countries that have pulled out have done so wisely, and only our pig-headed obstinance (or steadfast resolve, if you're on that side of the aisle) keeps us throwing billions at that turkey.

      "'Disasters' - We've had two. Fewer than the Apollo program. They suck. Really they do. And they have been attributed to the 'make it work anyway' group."

      I am admittedly not a space fanatic but I remember the Apollo 13 cockup -- which didn't kill anyone but really, really should have given the circumstances -- and the Apollo 1 fire, which killed three. 13 had a hardware fault, which is going to happen occasionally despite the best intentions and zero-defect policies. 1 suffered from a combination of poor engineering design (an inward-opening hatch? Oy) and the schedule-pushers whose successors killed the two shuttles.

      Both shuttle accidents could have been averted if the engineers had been listened to by the managers. The Columbia report revealed that NASA didn't learn a goddamned thing from the Challenger disaster and I bet a dollar to a doughnut the Endeavour report will reveal that NASA didn't learn a goddamned thing from the Columbia disaster. (Not to pick on Endeavour, the next killemall shuttle cockup could just as well be one of the other two.) NASA's management culture is not capable of changing.

      "[W]e really need the shuttles flying, if only to develop the replacements!"

      Why? Not being snarky, but why will the presence or absence of shuttle flights assist in the design, manufacture, and testing of a next-generation (yet equally superfluous) orbital vehicle? Obviously NASA will _use_ the shuttle, if only to justify its continuing existence, perhaps to fly parts up and let them undergo the shake, rattle, and roll of a launch, but what makes the shuttle a _necessary_ part of the design effort?

      I have made and continue to make a relatively unpopular statement. I'm not trolling or baiting or trying to be funny, but I feel strongly about this: De-orbit the ISS. Ground the shuttle fleet. Put all that money into the unmanned program and flood the solar system with rovers and parachuting probes and orbiting instrument platforms. They don't have to sleep a third of the time, they don't need air, or food, or water, or as much radiation shielding.

      We won't, though. The US as a whole has an enormous amount of national ego built into its status as a space-faring nation. It's like cities that don't feel "world class" without a professional sports franchise writ large. Never mind that we spend way too much, go nowhere, do little of value, and periodically kill everyone onboard.

      Perhaps things will change.

  • NASA's ability to recover (Score:5, Insightful)

    by colonist ( 781404 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:20AM (#10699459) Journal
    NASA has a good record of recovering after a tragedy.

    If you take the Apollo program as an example, the very first Apollo mission was a disaster with three astronauts killed. And yet after that, the Apollo missions were great successes (although Apollo 13 was a close call, of course).

    The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with a faulty mirror, but this was fixed and Hubble's become a great success, too.

    The shuttle program will probably go the same way.
    • Let's not forget the Challenger accident in the 80's...

      There is a pattern emerging with NASA's space program:

      1. Tragic accident occurs
      2. The government/committees/advisory boards institute new safety regulations and guidelines
      3. Everything goes great, guidelines are followed...for a while...
      4. Pressure to perform causes shortcuts to be made
      5. GOTO 1
    • . . . believe it or not, Apollo 11 was also a close call. They touched down with only a couple of seconds of fuel left, after trying to maneuver past a field of boulders.

  • Any other alternative is also a Libertarian horror (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @09:21AM (#10699463) Homepage Journal
    I mean all the pooh-poohing about how old it is and how slow they are to get it running and how in the hell can Burt Rutan build a time machine that in 3 days and all that shit.

    Well what's your "Jesus H. Christ this cost so much goddamn money that could be better used elsewhere" plan? How much should a very heavy reusable lifter cost and how complicated should it be?

    Rutan didn't orbit, didn't carry a payload, can't dock with anything and at 20 million dollars per 175 pound man launched costs what the Space Shuttle costs.
  • No year mention could be any year :-)

  • Damage? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by kzinti ( 9651 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @10:35AM (#10700114) Homepage Journal
    Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season...

    What damage? The VAB lost a number of sheet-metal panels. The tile fab shop lost a roof. Some other buildings sustained minor water damage. The OPF lost power once or twice. NO FLIGHT HARDWARE WAS DAMAGED. The schedule slip was due as much to the hurricane preparation exercises as to the repair activities. Schedule impact was measured in weeks, not months.

  • NASA is a huge waste of $. It accomplishes very little very slowly.

    The idea that it can be reformed in some way is complete fantasy.

    Think of its management processes as a code base that has been hacked by a lot of untalented people over 30 years.

    Abolition is the only possible reform.

    Lew

  • Meanwhile in Russia (Score:3, Informative)

    by bbc ( 126005 ) on Tuesday November 02, 2004 @01:36PM (#10701815)
    The Russians seem to have started building their Kliper [mosnews.com] lifting body [wikipedia.org] space craft.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Close