NASA Engineers Work On Alternative Moon Rocket 340
Gibson writes "A team of 57 engineers at NASA's Marshall Spaceflight center feel that the Ares rocket is not the best solution for launching the new CEV. They are currently working on their own time developing an alternative launch system known as Jupiter. The 131 page proposal, along with other information, is available on the project website. Proponents of the project say that it is 'simpler, safer, and sooner' than the Ares project, predicting the ability for a return to the moon in 2017, two years before the current goal. Ares management has so far dismissed the proposal as a 'napkin drawing.'"
Yes, because we all know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
That a "napkin drawing" by engineers never amount to anything.
Re:Yes, because we all know.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Yes, because we all know.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
For God's sake, Don't Spill Your Coffee!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Duh ... That's what page numbers are for! ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, if Kurt Vonnegut could do it while writing a NOVEL, why can't engineers do it for a proposal?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
All I can think of is, in the TV show "Big Bang" was Sheldon's embarrassment when his sister says he's a "rocket scientist or something."
LOL. literal "Rocket Science" isn't figurative "rocket science."
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't the guy who invented ethernet sketch out his idea on the back of a napkin back in the day?
Re:Yes, because we all know.... (Score:4, Funny)
It sure almost worked for Richard Pryor -- he damn near killed Superman with a computer drawn on the back of napkins.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I have no idea, and frankly the movie was awful so I am certain I'll never watch it again to find out.
Really far more interesting at this point is how I got moderated Insightful instead of Funny or maybe a stretch to say Interesting.
Sometimes I just don't get this place ...
Re:Yes, because we all know.... (Score:5, Funny)
There's at least one notable example where a napkin drawing caused a stonhenge monument to be in danger of being crushed by a dwarf.
"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Insightful)
How can anyone whose project is in the design stage, scoff at another that is in the conceptual stage? Neither of them EXIST yet!
Where is Ares? Oh, it's in AUTOCAD! Well, that makes ALL the difference!
Meanwhile, their brilliant project isn't expected to get anyone to the moon before, what, twenty years?
Sheesh.
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Interesting)
While I'm sure that it would cost less to have one vehicle instead of two, I disagree with their safety and "simpler" claim.
I'm no rocket scientist (though I am an engineer), but a simple look at the NASA plan shows that the crew vehicle is much simpler than this Jupiter plan. The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
Do I have this right? Seems to me that NASA's solution for the crew vehicle is simpler (and thus probably safer). Especially considering that there's never been a booster failure, has there? Though Challenger was arguably a booster failure, would it have been catastrophic without the center fuel tank explosion?
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Insightful)
A better question would be: would a center fuel tank explosion cause a catastrophic loss of the crew module if the module were at the top of the stack, rather than at the side (especially if the crew module has abort rocket that can pull it away from the stack)?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Interestingly enough - it was survivable. The astronauts (at least some of them) were alive until impact. The shuttle just didn't have very good "final redundancy" measures - because such things would greatly effect the payload capability.
Challenger crew probably survived initial event (Score:4, Informative)
The data recovered after the crash suggest the crew were killed by impact with the water. I don't believe it's known how badly (if at all) the crew were injured by the orbiter's breakup. Several of the suits' emergency air supplies had been activated, however, which tends to support the idea that at least some crew members were still functional after the cabin lost pressure due to hull breach. The guys at NASA who studied the crash didn't think the forces on the cabin would have hurt anyone strapped in, but the altitude was sufficient to knock people out from lack of oxygen.
This is dredged up from memory, so it may have been superseded by now. I was working for Morton-Thiokol when it happened, and it was not a fun time for myself or my cow-orkers.
Re:Challenger crew probably survived initial event (Score:4, Informative)
So, while the Ares I may not turn into a giant fireball, A side leak would likely still mean a loss of the rocket. The crew module would have a much higher chance of survival, though.
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:4, Funny)
Simple, as in "leverages existing systems" (Score:5, Informative)
I *am* a rocket scientist, BTW. I read the Jupiter concept doc a few months ago, and I find it reasonably persuasive. The thing that makes the Jupiter concept "simpler" is that it reuses existing designs (specifically, main engine systems and fuel tanks) that have already been fully developed and put into use, rather than designing new ones that employ untested techniques.
What makes a design safer isn't necessarily lowest component count; in the space business, proven designs count for a LOT in risk mitigation. Consider the Russian Proton rocket: not modern, not the most efficient, but a very reliable system that gets its job done at low cost (assuming that the recent Soyuz QA problems don't mean that their whole production infrastructure has gone rotten from lack of funds). Incremental changes are almost always faster, better, and cheaper than radical design departures (at least until the radical tech is fully worked out, which takes time).
Indeed, a big part of the argument here is that Ares junks an existing manufacturing infrastructure THAT WORKS, just like NASA did after the Apollo program. Jupiter, on the other hand, maintains the current Shuttle-related tech base and builds on it. Having a functional tech infrastructure to build on, with suppliers who've been designing and delivering product based on the same design for many years, is an immense advantage in terms of cost, lead time, and reliability. Folks who've made the same system dozens of times make fewer mistakes than those building something brand-new with no comparable predecessor product.
Re:Simple, as in "leverages existing systems" (Score:5, Interesting)
in the space business, proven designs count for a LOT in risk mitigation.
Very true, which is why the Shuttle continues to fly with 1970's-era technology controlling most of it.
However, I would posit the following: the Shuttle program dumped most of Apollo in the trash bin and started with something new. I'm of the opinion that what we ended up with was not an improvement over Apollo. The Shuttle is more expensive, more finicky, less reliable, and arguably much more dangerous than Apollo ever was. So, while we have a large body of knowledge centered around Shuttle systems, the systems themselves may not be worth prolonging through to Ares. Hence the justification for breaking with the (Shuttle) past with Ares.
The Shuttle was a great experiment, but ultimately we learned it was something we shouldn't have built. Everything it's done in the last quarter century could've been done better, faster, and cheaper with Apollo-era tech (with incremental improvements as you alluded to earlier) just as the Russians have proven with their launch systems.
No human has been out of low Earth orbit in roughly thirty years. The last three that did, did so on top of a Saturn V. The Shuttle has had us going in circles (literally) since then. The ISS prolongs that boondoggle. Why do we need an ISS? To give the Shuttle some place to go! Why do we need a Shuttle? To build the ISS! What fantastic circular logic. What a horrific waste.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
> The ISS prolongs that boondoggle.
IMHO the ISS is valuable as an engineering experiment. Yes, we're having a really tough time making the thing run, so what makes people think that we can make some different space station run better? The ISS is barely above the tin-cans-bolted-together stage, so we're a LOOOOONG way away from Von Braun's wheels.
There is a rough maximum size we can launch from Earth, so if we want to do more, at some point we're going to have to be doing some serious construction in sp
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
While I'll agree that in the context of expanding humanity's abilities in space, the shuttle didn't live up to the hype, I don't think it's fair to say that the only thing we learned from it was that it was a bad idea. The shuttle is made up of a bunch of very well engineered components, they're just all stuck together into an overall package that isn't that useful. Sure, the next generation of spacecraft doesn't need wings. But that doesn't mean that technology developed for the shuttle's engines isn't bet
Re:Simple, as in "leverages existing systems" (Score:5, Informative)
Incremental changes are almost always faster, better, and cheaper than radical design departures (at least until the radical tech is fully worked out, which takes time).
As an engineer, I agree with that statement. I wish to add that the team knows, and has addressed the current failure modes of the technology they are planning to use by relocating the payload to the top of the craft.
I will also point an error in the grandparent's post.
The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
They are planning to use the RS-68 [wikipedia.org] engine, which is considered superior to the space shuttle main engines. These engines are currently in use on the Delta IV. The engine NASA is planning is yet to be developed, but based on the J-2 [wikipedia.org] from the Saturn V.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Looking at the Jupiter design and the Ares V, they look to the untrained eye to be very similar. I see a shuttle liquid oxygen tank on both designs, SRBs on both, aft skirt thrust modules on both, and similiar configurations for the upper command modules and payload.
The Jupiter uses some delta engines. The Ares doesn't.
Asided from that what are the major differences? More importantly, why should we feel one of these projects offers a great advantage? The Jupiter paper talks as if NASA is heading down a bad
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The problem being that Jupiter/DIRECT is just as proven as Ares - that is to say, not at all. While it reuses a few components unmodified, the large remaining balance of reused components are modified (sometime considerably) which takes it right out of 'proven' category.
Re:Simple, as in "leverages existing systems" (Score:4, Informative)
For starters, there is thrust oscillation [aviationweek.com]. In theory, that is an issue for the Shuttle, Ares V, and DIRECT (what is called "Jupiter" in this story), but these other vehicles have much more mass relative to the sold rocket motors' (or SRM) thrust and two unsynchonized solid rocket motors. This issue won't even be properly tested until the first 5-segment Ares launches some time around 2013.
Second, the Ares I and V use a new 5 or 5.5 segment variant of the SRM and a new rocket engine under design called the J-2X. DIRECT uses the 4 segment SRM just like the one used on the Shuttle and the well tested RS-68 motor.
Finally, using DIRECT, there are no mass issues with the CEV. But Ares I can barely lift the CEV. Already signficant redundancy has been stripped from the lunar version of the CEV and they apparently still have a too heavy heat shield. That means that the choice to use the Ares I is at the expense of adding risk to lunar missions which are already much higher risk than launching people into space is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm no rocket scientist (though I am an engineer), but a simple look at the NASA plan shows that the crew vehicle is much simpler than this Jupiter plan. The Jupiter are looking to use 2 shuttle boosters and the center fuel tank with shuttle engines mounted on it to put a crew into space, while NASA is using only one booster and one engine for the 2nd stage.
Jupiter has three times the payload capacity. Jupiter uses the normal 4-segment SRBs, while Ares uses a brand new five segment SRBs. The 5-segment SRB
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Informative)
Guess I'd beg to differ, having seen metal cut for Ares I-X. Just do a google image search and see for yourself.
And by the way, the Ares side of things is, to the best of my knowledge, on schedule to launch in 2009. If you have facts to differ, please let me know. The one thing that will probably delay them is the upcoming Hubble mission - until they vacate pad 39B, the appropriate pad modifications can't be made, so it's a day-for-day slip as the Hubble mission slips.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait a minute.
Earlier in this discussion, we have people concerned about the flight dynamics, controllability, number of SRB's, etc. The Ares I-X will test these things, won't it?
Maybe I'm wrong, but to me this does not seem to be a boondoggle or publicity stunt. It's a reasonable stepping stone in the project.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You've listed the ways it is not Ares I, now list the ways it is not Shuttle. You will find the list is much longer. Yes, only four segments on FS plus a dummy stage but it's not a stock SRB. The upper stage is a mass accurate dummy, but is instrumented for re-entry. The CLV is testing an abort scenario.
It's not a complete PR scenario
It's like driving out a F
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:5, Interesting)
Design phase means they have requirements. Most likely detailed requirements...with detailed interface specifications between thousands of systems. Design of a system like Ares is not just industrial engineering. There are most likely a myriad of electrical, computer, and software systems being designed in parallel. Most likely thousands of items in fact.
Of course, the real issue is most likely that people have a vested personal interest in the current direction...and perhaps congressional support for tasks being performed (or that will be performed) in their districts.
Of course, I am just guessing. I don't build rockets...but I do work on software systems that have 5-10 million LOC...and there is a heck of a lot of work that is performed before coding starts...so I wouldn't assume that they don't have much invested in Ares yet just because they are not yet building...unless they are performing extreme agile spiral rocket building. ;)
Of course, good ideas should not be dismissed...and given the size of this contingent, their proposal almost certainly warrants further investigation. Napkin drawing? Some of the most creative ideas in the world started in this fashion...and 57 engineers with a 100+ page white paper and a website is one hell of a napkin. Of course, it's almost certainly orders of magnitude less mature than the Ares design, but I think that the idea at least warrants a DAR.
What happened the last time that NASA ignored a bunch of their engineers? I think they had plenty of time to reconsider while they were picking up Shuttle parts all over the western US.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Easy statements first:
It depends on congressional funding. Current plans are between 2018 and 2020, but first operations of the rocket for ISS and LEO operations should be about 2015. NASA can't really get cracking on this until the shuttle retires in 2010, which will free up about $3 billion/year in funding...unless congres wants to dole out some extra right now.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Eleven years, actually (till 2019). It will take longer in practice, I'm sure, but you should check your figures before posting.
He wasn't quoting a figure, he was asking a question. But don't let that stop you from answering his question in a condescending and arrogant manner.
Re:"A Napkin Drawing?" (Score:4, Insightful)
Napkin Drawing (Score:5, Funny)
The 131 page proposal
That's a hell of a lot of napkins...
Re: (Score:2)
This is why we glorify the mental prowess of "rocket scientists". They consider a 131 page proposal with this level of detail to be the equivalent of a napkin drawing.
Frankly, Ares management is probably right, but that's not the reason this idea won't fly, as it were. The real reason, depending on your level of cynicism, is that either (a) it has arrived too late or (b) it doesn't justify enough spending.
Re:Napkin Drawing (Score:4, Informative)
This is why we glorify the mental prowess of "rocket scientists". They consider a 131 page proposal with this level of detail to be the equivalent of a napkin drawing.
In the world of government and military systems, 131 pages is just enough to cover the information declarations, the acronym list, and the table of contents. Page 131 probably says "Pages 131-542 TBD".
Re:Napkin Drawing (Score:5, Funny)
>> The 131 page proposal
> That's a hell of a lot of napkins...
Hardly. That's like two visits to Taco Bell.
Re:Napkin Drawing (Score:4, Funny)
Are you counting the used toilet sheets after going to taco bell as well?
$35 Billion (Score:4, Funny)
From the project website:
$35 Billion in savings? How much is that in napkins?
Re: (Score:2)
> $35 Billion in savings? How much is that in napkins?
It's governmental napkins. The study cost $34.9 billion and $.1 billion for Halliburton making them.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I need this figure in LOC's or it's useless to me.
Does it come with a funky robot? (Score:3, Funny)
After reading the summary the only thing that went through my head was memories of Matt Le Blanc, and the urge to cry: "Danger, Will Robinson!"
I could probably do with a rest...
A bit disingenuous (Score:2, Interesting)
I love it... (Score:5, Funny)
Engineers vs management (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the old engineers vs management debate on who gets to make the decision. Seeing as both cost and speed are on the engineer's side I don't see why management would be against.
oh wait I know
Because it will make them look like they have been wasting time and money and they would rather waste even more money while looking like they are not.
Re:Engineers vs management (Score:5, Insightful)
It was engineers who did the ground work for Ares - it's not like management created the booster out of thin air and in secrecy and isolation.
I often wonder how today's space fans would have reacted back in the 1960's - when the Saturn (V) initially ended up nearly a third larger than the Nova booster that was supposedly sufficient for a lunar landing mission... and then required a 20% performance increase on top of that in order to be barely able to conduct the mission.
Everything is cheap and fast and easy - on paper. When you start getting off the page and bending real metal, they usually turn out not be fast, cheap, or easy.
Re:Engineers vs management (Score:5, Interesting)
Uh, no, actually that's exactly what happened. Griffin and Horowitz (the PHB's) came up with their Ares plan many years ago, did a 60 day "study" that came back with the recommendation to follow their plan, and ordered the MSFC engineers to build their designs, rather than the engineers' long standing plans to develop more conventional and cost-effective derivatives of the Shuttle (NLS/Magnum) or EELV.
Back in the '60s, the NASA PHB's were at least smart enough to see that John Houbolt had come up with a solution to fix their performance gap. Today, the PHB's are too busy doing political spin to promote their preferred solution and hide the 7mT performance shortfall, the 6 year spaceflight gap, and the $1.4 billion to $2 billion per launch total cost.
Thats one heckuva' job Mikey.
If not public, then...? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
To conduct both projects in parallel would require building a couple more launch pads as the current shuttle/Jupiter-compatible ones will have to be changed for the Ares rockets.
Why so little tech recycling currently? (Score:2)
Can anyone explain why so little technology is recycled from current and previous generation spacecraft in designing the new generation craft.
It makes sense to use as much shuttle technology and durable facilities in constructing the next heavy lifting vehicle as the Jupiter people are proposing, so why wasn't that a goal from the start? The proven technology is well tested, and is well known by the folks who work on it, so why is there such a desire to change it?
Also, why are the scaled composites tier 1b
Re: (Score:2)
>Can anyone explain why so little technology is recycled from current and previous generation spacecraft in designing the new generation craft.
Shuttles and priors are 70ies tech, they can't read the tapes anymore.
Re:Why so little tech recycling currently? (Score:5, Informative)
You should check the designs before you criticize them. Ares I uses an extended solid rocket booster (upgraded from the Shuttle) and a J-2X engine (upgraded from the Saturn V second and third stages). Ares V uses extended SRBs and RS-68 engines (from the Delta IV).
The Shuttle main engines (SSMEs) were considered instead of the J-2X and/or the RS-68, but the cost was too high. The SSME is a high performance engine, but it is an expensive engine. Also, one concern for using it for the Ares I is that the liquid engine is the second stage engine, which will be started in-flight and at high altitude. The SSME has never been tried like that (nor was it designed for that), while the J-2 was used that way in the Saturn.
As for Scaled Composites Tier 1b, it is a sub-orbital vehicle (good for nothing but tourists and hype). IIRC Tier 2 may be an orbital vehicle, but that is a long way off as well, since Scaled is working on Tier 1b (Ares is much further along in development).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Meanwhile, who does have the capabilities to put people into space right now? The Russians, on well-engineered, cheap-to-produce ballistic missile-style vehicles. And while NASA flounders around redesigning 30 year old shuttle derived technology, and watching their launch date slip out for years, if not decades, we will be dependent on the venerable Soyuz keep Americans in space.
That's one thing that has puzzled me. Why not use soyuz capsules to ferry people to and from orbit where they can meet up with a semipermanent vehicle which remains in orbit and is resupplied by cargo launch vehicles?
Supplying durable commodity goods to orbit, moving around while in orbit, ferrying humans to orbit, and returning them from orbit seem as though they would have vastly different needs as far as vehicles are concerned. Combining the crew to orbit and reentry vehicles makes sense because for ev
LOL... Shuttle Workers Want to Keep Jobs (Score:2)
Read about the argument for this chumpy:
# Delete all risks associated with a second new launch vehicle
# Delete all costs associated with a second new launch vehicle
# Optimum use of the existing NASA & contractor experience
# Enable multiple upgrade paths
Basically, "hey, we're NASA, we're too stupid to design a new rocket, and let's just use the shuttle that, um, we already have."
I thought the whole point of Constellation was that the shuttle sucks. If the engineers had gotten the shuttle off the ground
Never underestimate a motivated engineer (Score:5, Interesting)
After all, it not rocket surgery.
Re:Never underestimate a motivated engineer (Score:4, Funny)
After all, it not rocket surgery.
So easy, even a caveman could do it?
We Already Have a Moon Rocket (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, actually we don't. The tooling's been long-since destroyed, and there are no blueprints for many of the parts because they were farmed out to contractors, let alone information on things like what precise alloys to use for said parts, and other methods of manufacture.
There are a couple Saturn Vs left, yes, but they were left out to the elements for many years and may have been scavenged for parts.
Re: (Score:2)
i higly doubt that that is the case - i have seen alot of the work that was done on the Saturn V - there is no doubt in my mind that if they wanted to build another they would know exactly what to make and how to make it and how to put it together.
Re:We Already Have a Moon Rocket (Score:5, Informative)
No, actually we don't. The tooling's been long-since destroyed, and there are no blueprints for many of the parts because they were farmed out to contractors, let alone information on things like what precise alloys to use for said parts, and other methods of manufacture.
You are wrong. The blueprints for everything, down to the last nut and bolt, are on file at MSFC. Source. [space.com]
There are a couple Saturn Vs left, yes, but they were left out to the elements for many years and may have been scavenged for parts.
You are wrong. There are three, but none of them is "one" rocket. The one at the Johnson space center, made up of three flight-rated stages from different rockets, was left out for 20+ years but has been restored to pristine (though obviously not flight-worthy) condition. The one at MSFC is all static test stages and has been similarly restored. The one at KSC is two flight stages and one test stage, and has been kept in perfect (but again, obviously not flight-worthy) condition since the day it was rolled in. NONE of the rockets were ever "scavenged" for parts--they're all property of the Smithsonian and are maintained in trust as artifacts by NASA.
Recreating a Saturn V isn't impossible because we don't have the plans--it's impossible because the blueprints call for standard parts and items that don't exist any more (like a left-handed widget with widget gauge #12, which was used by, say, Boeing in 1960, but not any more).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You going to find a "mom and pop engineering company" to duplicate IBM's work and make another Instrument Unit [wikipedia.org] to fly it? Manufacture two tons of 1960s-vintage analog computers and gyroscopes? Rebuild equipment designed to determine the rocket's launch azimuth based on star sightings, not GPS like we'd use today? What about all the other analog and early digital equipment that's integral to the design? It's not just a giant fuel tank and some engines--it's a launch vehicle. It's got a flight manual [nasa.gov], an
Re: (Score:2)
Re:We Already Have a Moon Rocket (Score:5, Funny)
How something was designed is not as important as why it was designed that way.
You're one of those people who COMMENT THEIR CODE, aren't you! :-)
Hope this project isn't lost. (Score:2)
Some of our best innovations come from engineers that are driven to do something different. It usually doesn't come from a corporate cog. I just hope this Jupiter isn't lost in the space between NASA directors ears.
It is a better system than Aries (Score:2, Redundant)
If you look at the overviews of their ideas, you can tell right away that this launch system would have several advantages over Aries. It does not require a modification of the boosters, which is one of the more significant design challenges that Aries, especially the crew lift system, is facing. Additionally they don't call for a significantly different vehicle to lift the crew. While they do propose a few different systems for lifting cargo vs lifting cargo and people, the base vehicle engineering is t
Re: (Score:2)
One more.... (Score:5, Insightful)
After getting most prized "first post" position, I have one more...
I would trust a set of napkin drawings from dedicated engineers more than I'd trust a polished proposal from a committee of military contractors and NASA administrators.
Think of it this way, the latter said the O rings were safe, the former tried to warn everyone of the danger.
I don't get it... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The SRB's have a good track record. Only one failure in 100+ launches. Cause of the failure identified and fixed so it should not be factored into reliability calculations. Unless some new system is significantly cheaper in the long run,then stick with the SRB's for a heavy lift vehicle. Remember they are recovered after launch and reused. The steel cylinders (about 1/2" thick walls) are taken apart and refilled with propellant and reassembled. All the infrastructure to do this is already in place.
Whe
Alternatives (Score:2)
Not going to happen (Score:4, Insightful)
The US can't afford a manned space program any more. The Iraq war has cost $3 trillion, we're headed into a recession, and it's going to take years to unwind the housing bubble. The next administration is going to have to focus on digging out of the hole left by the Bush administration.
And, face it, sending a few more people to the Moon on chemical rockets doesn't really get us anywhere. Been there, done that, know what the Lunar surface is like.
If fusion power ever works, space is worth revisiting, but with chemical rockets, we hit the limits a long time ago.
Re:Not going to happen - Check it (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But China can?
The most recent figures I saw put that at $1 trillion, not 3, but either way, that's a blip on the radar. Hell, the first space race took place DURING the height of the Vietnam war, which was far more expensive and difficult in every sense of the word. The trip was also occurring with brand-new technology, no knowledge of the challenges faced, etc., etc. This time around it's going to be much cheaper, and
The question is... (Score:2)
All TFA says is:
I also want to know if the skid they plan to use to maintain Hubble is reusable, or does it burn up on reentry?
Deja Moon (Score:5, Interesting)
Wasn't the Apollo system shaped by a similar event? As I remember it, the original plan was to travel and land directly on the moon. However, a handfull of engineers felt that the launching rocket could be simpler and smaller if there was an orbital undock/docking stage. The problem was that orbital rendezvous docking was untried and required technology that didn't exist yet. The docking group eventually won out after heated discussion.
In the end, everyone was happy except Michael Collins, who had to wait in orbit while his buddies danced on the moon for the first time. (Although perhaps felt safer being that this was all new stuff.)
Pointless Exercise (Score:4, Insightful)
The cold reality is that we're probably not going to send a manned mission to the moon. The cost of robotic probes drops by the day, at the same time their capabilities increase. By the time we're ready to send up more astronauts, we'll be able to send up probes that can stay longer and perform more tasks than a human in a rubber suit who has to live in a little tin can. This whole moon-shot thing was basically a PR stunt by the Bush administration - McCaine or Obama will probably kill it, as it's wasteful and frivolous.
Humans will only return when it's time to construct something permanent there, like a telescope or automated mining equipment. (Even then, it would probably be cheaper to send unmanned probes to small asteroids, directing them to fall in the middle of the desert for harvesting.
The realities of space exploration have changed - going just to go isn't a useful aim anymore, unless you're paying on your own hyper-rich dime for a vacation to orbit.
You know (Score:3, Insightful)
One person with 50 years more experience than all of you still isn't nearly as smart as 57 of you that came to the same conclusion!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Flying into space in any kind of rocket is dangerous
True, but in your quest to belittle the original poster, you fail to address his (completely legitimate) concerns:
1.) SRBs can't easily be throttled
2.) SRBs can't be shut down in flight
Even had the Challenger crew known about the O-ring breach that was burning holes in the external tank, there'd have been exactly dick they could have done about it short of trying to blow the orbiter off the stack and hoping it remained controllable. Liquid fueled rocke
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It is all of those things, but (Score:4, Insightful)
The falling ice problem is addressed by putting the cargo above the boosters. The O-ring has already been addressed. So the new proposal seems even safer than the shuttle. I fail to see how solid fuel rockets are inherently more dangerous than liquid fuel ones.
Solid fuel rockets can't stop, and they have to be carefully made so there isn't any open pockets of no fuel or they explode. But if you carefully make them (Nasa has) and engineer the launch system to take into account the thing won't turn off (Nasa has), it is a great system. Liquid Fuel can be throttled or turned off, but requires a very complex (read point of failure possibility) pump system to work properly. That has its drawbacks as well. In summary Liquid Fuel and Solid Fuel have different strengths and weaknesses, and when the vehicle is engineered to handle them, it shouldn't exclude either from being used the human passengers.
Danger, danger...Will Robinson! (Score:2)
Worked for "Lost In Space"
Re: (Score:2)
There are other small lifters. (Score:2)
But there are other small lifters, if launching something the size of the shuttle is wasteful. Some aren't even Russian!
Of course launching something the size of the shuttle is the only current option, isn't it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The concept of using the Moon as a launching pad to go further into space is almost completely broken from the start. What fuel source for launching rockets is present on the moon to take advantage of? None really, so it becomes an excercise of launching from earth, using more fuel to slow it down and land it on the moon, and then yet more fuel to have it take off again.
Explain why this is a good plan again?
Re: (Score:2)
That makes absolutely no sense. Where are you going to get fuel on the Moon? There is none there. You'd have to bring it all from Earth. So why bring stuff up from Earth, and then down to the Moon, only to have to bring it up from
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why exactly would the powers that be use NASA to launch orbital weapons when the Air Force already has a larger total launch capacity than NASA?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Ares team said their design will work if they re-optimize the RS-68 and the J-2 engines.
NASA management chose the Ares over the DIRECT.
The DIRECT team reworked their design to require no engine optimizations. This resulted in DIRECT 2.0
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Rutan 1 (low earth orbit vehicle on a shoe string budget)
He has not put a vehicle into orbit. He launched a flimsy rocketplane into a little parabola with only about 1% of the energy required to reach orbit. Nor will his next design achieve orbit.
Get back to me when you get your basic facts straight.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How many School Teachers, Pilots, and Scientists has NASA lost in the last 20 years again?
Fourteen, after having achieved several man-years in orbit
How many has Rutan lost?
Three, after having achieved about 5 man-minutes in a parabola
Look, NASA has been stupid, bloated and has wasted hundreds of $billions of our money on the ISS and shuttle, which both should have been scrapped a decade ago. However, that doesn't mean that Rutan has done anything useful either. Compared to *real* space activities, he is just puttering around. By the time he builds anything that could safely get humans in and out of orbit (which woul