Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Shuttle launch...two minutes.
Sanfam
I like clocks.
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/[/url]
Comments
May the foam be with all of us.....always.
Sounds like the launch went off without a hitch.
I really wish there was more being said about the next gen delievery system. Regardless of the safety record, the shuttle system is on its last legs, I would hate to see a 20 year gap between manned vehicles to kill off what little space bound momentum humanity has.
Jake
What is needed is a replacement for the aging shuttle fleet, a way to get into space safer and cheaper.
Build that, and the rest will follow.
Really, barring advances in nanotube technology that would make a space elevator possible (ignoring any and all political disputes about such a project), I think the easiest way to jump start the space effort around the world would be to demonstrate some way to profit from it that the average citizen can understand.
If we can start mining raw materials from the moon, it becomes far easier to build in space on a larger scale. A lunar elevator could be built with current materials, or a linear accelerator gun method could be used to loft materials for far lower cost than chemical rockets from the Earth.
Why should you care about a probe to Jupiter? Will you ever go to Jupiter for a vacation? Sounds silly, but most people will think like that. Show them orbiting solar arrays beaming power to microwave collectors on the surface, and you have just provided a real world benefit. If you can build it without spending thousands of dollars a pound to boost it to orbit, the public might actually be willing to fund it.
Just think. The "Bill Gates International Space Elevator...... Powered by Linux."
I'm not sure if space exploration really needs Bill Gates or his money to get things going. Well, ok, granted, one of the guys behind Spaceship One is an Ex-Microsoft billionaire... ;)
[URL=http://www.virgingalactic.com/en/]Virgin Galactic[/URL] is a company of extraordinary gentlemen that may leave a mark on human history. They have already gotten the ball rolling and at least on some fronts things are progressing. On their website they mention the planned construction of a spaceport in New Mexico.
While I'm not certain that this private endeavour will get NASA (and the other international space agencies for that matter) off their asses, it will at least show them another way of getting things done and who knows maybe get some much needed momentum back.
I mean seriously, the space program can't hinge on insulation foam breaking off during lift-off?! It's just unbelievable what is going on at the Cape right now.
Enough already.
[B]Critics have complained about the shuttle program for years[/B][/QUOTE]
Critics have complained about everything for years.
[B]Critics have complained about everything for years. [/B][/QUOTE]
Well, that's what they do. :D I apologize for the use of that canned expression...
There is a huge difference between a ballistic arc that happens to rise above the atmosphere and an orbital vehicle. The amount of energy that has to be dissipated on re-entry is far greater from orbit than the Virgin craft will need to deal with. Even if it had enough thrust to reach orbit, it would burn up on the way down.
The civilian space sector will only take off when there is a demonstrable profit, probably greater than tourism could provide. Some kind of industrial applications- imagine the potential wealth gained by mining a metal rich asteroid with ion-engined robotic ships. Whatever form it takes, it will only become significant when the private sector feels the need to orbit and de-orbit significant payloads.
On another subject, NASA was forced by the EPA to change the foam composition on the external tank to the current, much more brittle type. It used to not be a problem.
The shuttle has performed admirably to keep thousands and thousands of people working, but the pace of space exploration has been reduced to a crawl.
Virgin Galactic is a first step in opening up space to a greater public over time. America wasn't discovered or settled because of scientific needs or curiosity alone. There indeed needs to be an economic force and tourism alone won't cut it. Spaceship One was just a start, the whole concept of mid-air launches into space isn't exactly new. GPS satellites have been launched from airplanes using ballistic missiles for years. No insulation foam problems there. ;) Funny how the EPA has no problems with the toxic cloud that forms on every shuttle launch, the stuff that comes out of the SRB's isn't exactly healthy.
[B]The way I see it, NASA is going to be forced to return to less costly solutions. I mean, the Russians can get people and equipment into space without a space shuttle. Their space program isn't pretty and it may be old-fashionned, and despite all their problems they've had, they have found ways to keep going.[/b][/quote]
The Russian space program isn't capable of lifting the sorts of loads the space shuttle can launch (thankfully, the ESA is close to having a heavy--launch rocket that can compete). Nor is it capable of a less--stressful reentry than ballistic, like the space shuttle can. You can't bring back delicate equipment and materials easily with a ballistic reentry because it's so rough. For example, the shuttle would have had no trouble bringing the Genesis mission's capsule back to Earth had the mission's budget been big enough. Since it wasn't, it was necessary to plan a mid--air capture of the descending capsule because even a standard parachute landing would have been too violent for the mission contents. Imagine trying to do that on a regular basis versus having a decent controlled reentry system without such a high cost. If only the shuttle program hadn't been hampered by so many stupid decisions and so much bureaucry, so that it could have been done properly and cost so much less...
[quote][b]No insulation foam problems there.[/B][/QUOTE]
There would be no insulation foam problems with the shuttle if it was launched as a vertical stack, the sensible way.
[B]There would be no insulation foam problems with the shuttle if it was launched as a vertical stack, the sensible way. [/B][/QUOTE]
:D
Though it still used the tile system, it was a far superior craft with a much lower cost of operation and higher relaunch rate due to its liquid-fueled (and completely independent) reusable booster network.
[B]Vertical stack would be all fine and dandy, but take a look at a fantastic spine-mount system: The Soviet Buran orbiter. In essence, it was designed with some of the shuttle's major weaknesses in mind and offered a far cheaper and more reliable method of getting to orbit and back with a fragile payload, really only sacrificing high capacity orbital manuvering engines for a larlger payload bay.
Though it still used the tile system, it was a far superior craft with a much lower cost of operation and higher relaunch rate due to its liquid-fueled (and completely independent) reusable booster network. [/B][/QUOTE]
The Buran was a better design, yes. In particular, its thermal protection system was less fragile, the Energia booster was entirely reusable (although that system was never finished, as I recall) and the shuttle had a much smaller turn around time. But it didn't have the ability to change its orbit, which is an important part of the shuttle's flexibility.
[B]The Buran was a better design, yes. In particular, its thermal protection system was less fragile, the Energia booster was entirely reusable (although that system was never finished, as I recall) and the shuttle had a much smaller turn around time. But it didn't have the ability to change its orbit, which is an important part of the shuttle's flexibility. [/B][/QUOTE]
Though an interesting thing I'm reading seems to indicate that it was quite possible the Buran series could have been *expanded* with orbital manuvering engines. hmm. Stupid soviet economic collapse. ;)