Competition to Build the Space Shuttle's Successor 345
Neil Halelamien writes "The competition for the prime contract to build the Crew Exploration Vehicle, the successor to the Space Shuttle, is ramping up. Currently, 11 different companies are creating preliminary designs for systems and vehicles which could be useful in implementing NASA's Vision for Space Exploration. By the end of the year, NASA will select two teams to independently develop and build a CEV design. The two teams will launch competing unmanned prototypes in 2008, at which point NASA will award a final winning contract. Aerospace giants Boeing and Northrop Grumman have formed one team. Another "all-star" team, announced a couple of days ago, is headed by Lockheed Martin. A third team in the running is underdog t/Space, a company with a free enterprise approach to space exploration, which includes notable figures from the commercial spaceflight arena, such as Burt Rutan and Gary Hudson. There is concern that a NASA budget boost to help pay for the exploration program could draw some opposition, as most other government programs are anticipating budget cuts."
Re:Where's the money going? (Score:5, Informative)
I guess the other side of the coin is the German's saying Mars by 2009. *shrug* I guess when you have nothing substantial in your space program in the past, you've got nothing to lose with ridiculous goals for the future?
Uh, Wernher von Braun [wikipedia.org] ring any bells?
From Wikipedia: "In the United States, he is regarded as a hero of the space program."
Re:Isn't having a goal more important than a vehic (Score:4, Informative)
I thought the Wikipedia article above was very clear on what the CEV is supposed to be able to do. It mentions it's likely it'll follow the module-and-capsule approach, and is supposed to be capable of getting to LEO while also taking part in the assembly of lunar expeditions while in orbit (and, presumably Mars too, since that's a listed goal as well). Reusability is apparently desirable, but not essential to win the contract.
I've always thought the linear aerospike (Score:2, Informative)
Re:lack of funds (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:5, Informative)
but didn't make any attempt to get to orbital velocity, which is what takes most of the fuel, and imposes most of the mass restrictions. Boosting a set of wings and an undercarriage up to orbital velocity just so you can slow them down again and then land on a runway consumes an insane amount of fuel for too little purpose. Until we find a lauch fuel significantly more energy dense than LH2 and LO2 then the dry mass cost of wings and wheels will always be too high.
The Scaled Composites people are involved in one of the bids and they are not proposing a space plane.
The Rutan plan (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Having the wrong goal is worse than no goal (Score:3, Informative)
I completely agree that our goal should be to establish a permanent off-world presence. We honestly have no idea how much we would learn from being out exploring, but most of the advances of our race have come from exploring the unknown and taking risks.
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:4, Informative)
That might not be a huge chunk of the $300 billion, but during time of war I'd say that's definately more than "excluding" the DoD.
Re:Benefits (Score:5, Informative)
Build really big solar energy collectors, put them into space, and beam the energy to Earth with microwaves.
Or just use a giant collector mirror and convert to electricity on Earth - such a design could also be used as orbital beam-weapon.
Inspiration. People need something to look up to. They need heroes. Currently, movie- rock- and sports stars are fulfulling this role, and of course this leads to a culture completely obsessed with entertainment - it's not the only reason for this problem, but it is a contributing factor.
It's a bit like politicians starting wars to drown their problems under the flood of patriotism, but channeled with a positive goal, rather than negative.
Re:lack of funds (Score:3, Informative)
Re:One space vehicle, hold the politics (Score:2, Informative)
You are right about the location, your full of shit otherwise. http://www.ae.utexas.edu/~lehmanj/ethics/srb.htm
Political Compromises in the Contract The nature of the political connections between the Space Program and prominent figures of the state of Utah has long been debated. Utah Senators Jake Garn and Frank Moss have been active supporters of the Space Program, particularly when it benefits Utah-based industries. There is nothing wrong with this; Representatives of Congress are expected to be interested in furthering the activities of their constituents. The real cloud of suspicion hung over former Morton Thiokol employees who worked for NASA at the time of the contract award, and the head of NASA itself, Dr. James Fletcher [4]. Dr. Fletcher served as the President of the University of Utah from 1964 through 1971. His connections with the state and its industries were numerous and far reaching, but he denied that these connections had any influence on his decision to award the SRB contract to Morton Thiokol. However, many people who observed the contract award process remained unconvinced. Fletcher's inability to provide solid reasons for the selection of Morton Thiokol over Aerojet did nothing to ease the controversy surrounding the decision; his reasons were vague and referred to minor points in the advisory committee's study. NASA's refusal to discuss whether former Morton Thiokol employees had been part of the advisory committee simply fueled speculation of wrong-doing. Whether Morton Thiokol used political influence to secure the SRB contract has never been determined, but lack of clear answers caused many to conclude that the contract may have been awarded improperly[1].p/)
Re:Benefits (Score:2, Informative)
Count out the "all-stars" (Score:3, Informative)
Look more towards the underdogs in this fight.
GJC
Re:Funding diverted to Vietnam (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:3, Informative)
Of the $55 billion in cuts, they then redirect $25 billion to the Army (mostly for Iraq-type support stuff, I think).
So it's $30 billion in cuts, which is still a decent amount. But I dunno how much of that will survive, since $18billion of that affects LockMart, and I have never ever seen political operators smoother than they. I'm not sure that Georgia's Congressional delegation will allow F-22 to be cut, and I'm sure some other (or the same) delegation will feel the same way about the C-130J, and the Virginia attack subs, and retiring the Kennedy carrier, etc.
Those things employ a *lot* of people, and no wants to have to deal with that. Dunno. I think the Kennedy will go despite any objections from Florida (where its based), but that leaves the 4 remaining carriers based on the east coast all at Norfolk, so they'll try to steal one of those, but Warner (Virginia senator) is head of the Senate Armed Services Committee (I'm pretty sure), so how that could happen... Plus the Norfolk carries are all nuclear, whereas the Kennedy is not, so there'd have to be a lot of infrastructure changes to handle a nuke in Florida.
Interesting times.
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:2, Informative)
I knew one of the chief engineers for the hydraulic system on the shuttle (he also worked on the Atlas and Saturn programs) and this is what he said about electric actuators: "The problem with electric actuators is that in order to get the same force/mass ratio of hydraulics, the rotor has to be turning so fast (i.e. a high gear reduction ratio) that rotational inertia results in slower response than possible with hydraulics."
Re:Common sense prevails at last! (Score:3, Informative)