Somebody explain Nasa's Orion to me please...
So, after 30 years of Space Shuttle, it turns out it's not that great, and we're back to little capsules on rockets? Viva la 50's?
Just what the heck is going on? What's the progress with the X-Plane stuff (also, been around for decades)...?
Why is the Space Station in such low orbit? Is it going to be useful at all?
I thought the Space Station was so that they can prepare and build spacecraft/modules to then go to the Moon and Mars?
How the hell are we (USA, China, Russia, whatever) going to land humans on Mars by 2020? In 10 years time could there be a semi-permanent Mars human colony?
Finally, why do we need to land on the Moon *AGAIN*? Is there anything there worth landing on again at this stage, when Mars is clearly a major goal? I don't buy the "Oh, it will be a good test of our technology, experience etc. etc." -- if they really landed on the Moon you've learnt and developed the technology, F**K the Moon, go to MARS direct, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS*
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/quotes
Just what the heck is going on? What's the progress with the X-Plane stuff (also, been around for decades)...?
Why is the Space Station in such low orbit? Is it going to be useful at all?
I thought the Space Station was so that they can prepare and build spacecraft/modules to then go to the Moon and Mars?
How the hell are we (USA, China, Russia, whatever) going to land humans on Mars by 2020? In 10 years time could there be a semi-permanent Mars human colony?
Finally, why do we need to land on the Moon *AGAIN*? Is there anything there worth landing on again at this stage, when Mars is clearly a major goal? I don't buy the "Oh, it will be a good test of our technology, experience etc. etc." -- if they really landed on the Moon you've learnt and developed the technology, F**K the Moon, go to MARS direct, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS*
*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/quotes
Comments
So, after 30 years of Space Shuttle, it turns out it's not that great, and we're back to little capsules on rockets? Viva la 50's?
Just what the heck is going on? What's the progress with the X-Plane stuff (also, been around for decades)...?
The Space Shuttle still costs more then an Arian 5 Rocket to launch. The technologies in the shuttle are now obsolete. A crew escape system needs to be developed for the whole flight and the cost to re-design and integrate such a system with the 30-year-old Shuttle would begin to approach that of designing a whole new vehicle from the bottom up (with a crew escape system).
I can't speak much to the X-Plane other than to say they do test flights of the engines every year. I guess you could say that the design time is much longer.
How the hell are we (USA, China, Russia, whatever) going to land humans on Mars by 2020? In 10 years time could there be a semi-permanent Mars human colony?
Honestly, it probably won't happen by 2020 IMO.
Finally, why do we need to land on the Moon *AGAIN*? Is there anything there worth landing on again at this stage, when Mars is clearly a major goal? I don't buy the "Oh, it will be a good test of our technology, experience etc. etc." -- if they really landed on the Moon you've learnt and developed the technology, F**K the Moon, go to MARS direct, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS*
We need to return to the moon for several reasons. The moon is much closer for rescue opportunities and re-supply missions. Therefore it is also cheaper. And, just think what it would be like to look through your telescope and see lights or perhaps a small developed area on the moon. Another reason is that communist China is fast becoming a space rival and is planning to go to the moon in the future. By developing a moon base now, we can ensure that there will be a presence of democratic values on the moon and perhaps beyond. And that in turn will pave the way for the first Apple Store on the moon!
So, after 30 years of Space Shuttle, it turns out it's not that great, and we're back to little capsules on rockets? Viva la 50's?*http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100802/quotes
The space shuttle was a horrible mistake and doomed the US space program. After the success of the Apollo program and the Russian ceding the space race to the US, funding dried up. NASA needed something new and sexy and was able to sell the shuttle program.
So we ended up with a vehicle that was only capable to going around in circles in low orbit. Clearly what was needed for a viable space program, one where you could actually go somewhere, was to continue to develop and refine the big dumb rocket concept of Apollo.
[QUOTE=nvidia2008;1359377
Why is the Space Station in such low orbit? Is it going to be useful at all?[/QUOTE]
Because the space shuttle can't go any higher.
So, after 30 years of Space Shuttle, it turns out it's not that great, and we're back to little capsules on rockets? Viva la 50's?
The Space Shuttle is a terrible design for a spacecraft. A horrible waste of mass. They were smoking something strong at NASA when they decided that launching a glider into vacuum was a good idea.
Wings and control surfaces are worthless to a spacecraft. Aerodynamic shape is worthless. Worse, it's all mass that could be used for fuel and payload.
Von Braun and his crew in the 50s were right about spacecraft design. The only advantage the Shuttle has over a capsule is that it can bring satellites back down from orbit, a capability that NASA has used maybe twice. Capsules are also a lot safer than the Shuttle.
Why is the Space Station in such low orbit? Is it going to be useful at all?
I thought the Space Station was so that they can prepare and build spacecraft/modules to then go to the Moon and Mars?
The station is in a low orbit because the Shuttle can't go any higher. The station's purpose isn't terribly ambitious, it's just a multinational laboratory in orbit. Or it will be, if they ever finish it.
How the hell are we (USA, China, Russia, whatever) going to land humans on Mars by 2020? In 10 years time could there be a semi-permanent Mars human colony?
The only way to do it is to spend a boatload more money on NASA than we do now. I don't think it's going to happen.
Finally, why do we need to land on the Moon *AGAIN*? Is there anything there worth landing on again at this stage, when Mars is clearly a major goal? I don't buy the "Oh, it will be a good test of our technology, experience etc. etc." -- if they really landed on the Moon you've learnt and developed the technology, F**K the Moon, go to MARS direct, do not pass GO, do not collect $200, GET YOUR ASS TO MARS
The moon has the benefit of being a lot closer. Seven day round-trip vs 18 month round-trip is just a lot easier and less expensive.
The space shuttle was a horrible mistake and doomed the US space program.
Obvious today. Not so obvious in the 70s.
From X20 (Dyna-Soar) to the Shuttle to Space Ship Two I think that the jury is still out regarding whether the concept of reusable spacecraft is a "horrible" one. Given the limitations in technology in the 70s I think the Shuttle is pretty impressive to have lasted this long.
Ariane has some nice cost advantages to any US launcher especially for GTOs with the possible exception of Sealaunch which isn't really a US launcher (Zenit).
Costs against the shuttle and other US launchers (Atlas, Delta, EELV and Sealaunch/Zenit):
1) not equatorial launch. Kourou is a significantly better launch site than the cape. Less so for Christmas island (Sealaunch but again, Zenit is a russian launcher). This is a 15-20% payload advantage.
2) USAF requires 2 launch sites (Cape and Vandenberg) = double infrastructure costs (EELV & Shuttle)
3) US launchers typically prioritize government vs commercial loads
and finally
4) Arianespace doesn't really have to make a profit. Their primary goal is to keep their manifest full and provide Europe access to space. Lockheed and Boeing has to return a profit on Atlas and Sealaunch. Arianespace "recapitalized" in 2005-2006 writing off hundreds of millions in losses and getting the same kind of infrastructure package as the US EELV contractors.
Comparing shuttle launch costs to Ariane launch costs is difficult because you can't compare Ariane pricing to shuttle without figuring out how much subsidizing is going on. As for Atlas and Delta, there was no way for Lockheed or Boeing to consistently sell at a loss to keep up with Ariane.
The Space Shuttle is a terrible design for a spacecraft.
Unless you intend it to take off and land.
A horrible waste of mass. They were smoking something strong at NASA when they decided that launching a glider into vacuum was a good idea.
Wings and control surfaces are worthless to a spacecraft. Aerodynamic shape is worthless. Worse, it's all mass that could be used for fuel and payload.
Yes, the shuttle designers at NASA were so stupid as to not realize that there's no air in space...
Von Braun and his crew in the 50s were right about spacecraft design.
One-way spacecraft design. This is kinda like going up Mt Everest without needing to come back down. Mmm...yes, the design parameters are simpler.
The only advantage the Shuttle has over a capsule is that it can bring satellites back down from orbit, a capability that NASA has used maybe twice. Capsules are also a lot safer than the Shuttle.
There's no inherent safety in a capsule vs glider. I'd rather go via shuttle than soyuz. Both were statistically equal the last time I was in a discussion about this (2007ish).
I could redo the numbers but don't right now but "a lot safer" is clearly wrong.
The station is in a low orbit because the Shuttle can't go any higher. The station's purpose isn't terribly ambitious, it's just a multinational laboratory in orbit. Or it will be, if they ever finish it.
Just trying to maintain constant human presence in space is ambitious. Geez. Traveling to space ain't like dusting crops, boy!
Traveling to space ain't like dusting crops, boy!
That said, thanks to Sci-Fi and the car, airplane, personal computer and Internet revolution, people expect space travel to be just as easy. Fuel the bird, download your software upgrades, throw in the latest MarsNavigator9800GT graphics card and IntelSpaceCore 128-bit CPU upgrade, and Boom! Mars, here we come, baby...
Colonisation? Easy. Just run a Survivor-style reality TV show, Survivor:Mars. Except if you are voted out of the tribe, basically they shove you out the airlock and well, you die. Puts a damper on the "reunion" episodes, but, meh...
In the meantime, if the engineers run into problems figuring out trajectories and stuff, or if the colonists start running out of food, heck, just fire up that iMac and Google it. All of Earth's (and Mars') problems can be solved by Google and Wikipedia, right? There's them smart people on the Intarwebs and stuff. With Google MarsMaps, colonists can find their nearest water deposits. Sure, there aren't any Starbucks, but water will do for now.
Also, why all the complicated radio "Houston, this, Houston that..." and all those stupid beeps and boops? Just install MSN chat on NASA ground control computers. They have SMS in space, as well, right? Give the astronauts some nice space-enabled cell phones, so they can send quick texts for help and advice: "i r dying pls send more oxygens k thxbye"... And Facebook can be used to remotely diagnose any medical problems. "Hey, Dr. Rani here... Checked out the cool pics. Looks fun! So writing on your Wall here... BTW yeah I forgot to say, you need to drink less of your own urine this month".
It may sound like I'm joking but I guaran-fracking-tee you a lot of the American public probably thinks this way. Either the above or that aliens (one of which is probably named Klaatu) are purposely holding back our space travel capacity for our own good.
Except for the reusability perhaps, but this whole reusability concept has come back, IMHO, to bite NASA in the ass. Reusability comes at such a big time and financial cost.
Unless you intend it to take off and land.
Yes, the shuttle designers at NASA were so stupid as to not realize that there's no air in space...
One-way spacecraft design. This is kinda like going up Mt Everest without needing to come back down. Mmm...yes, the design parameters are simpler.
There's no inherent safety in a capsule vs glider. I'd rather go via shuttle than soyuz. Both were statistically equal the last time I was in a discussion about this (2007ish).
I could redo the numbers but don't right now but "a lot safer" is clearly wrong.
Just trying to maintain constant human presence in space is ambitious. Geez. Traveling to space ain't like dusting crops, boy!
Given capsule vs. shuttle is let's say more or less just as risky, then glider landing (which is the big, big thing about shuttle) does not offer much advantages.
Lets just say that capsule landings on ground are more "rigorous" than gliding a brick to a soft landing. There was one landing that nearly rolled off a cliff. Can't recall which but it was a tad off course.
Statistically, both has killed as many astro/cosmonauts as the other.
Given that, the shuttle has an assload better creature comforts and bigger windows. It's a no contest which to ride into space.
Except for the reusability perhaps, but this whole reusability concept has come back, IMHO, to bite NASA in the ass. Reusability comes at such a big time and financial cost.
Yep. But they didn't know that back then. The projected costs of SSME and orbiter refurbs was lower than what it turned out to be. COULD we make it work better today? You betcha. Could we make it cheaper than a disposable vehicle using the same advances? Meh.
If Spaceship 2 and 3 work out then I'm sure that folks will claim that reusable spacecraft are obviously the better option.
There's no inherent safety in a capsule vs glider. I'd rather go via shuttle than soyuz. Both were statistically equal the last time I was in a discussion about this (2007ish).
I could redo the numbers but don't right now but "a lot safer" is clearly wrong.
Are you kidding? The Shuttle doesn't have a launch escape system of any kind (and don't tell me that pole the astronauts are supposed to slide out on is an escape system. That's a joke). The Shuttle's abort options are extremely limited and no one is sure if the Shuttle would actually survive any of them.
The capsule LES, meanwhile, has actually worked in practice. It saved the crew of Soyuz T-10A when their booster exploded on the pad. The Shuttle has no options for that scenario.
A capsule can enter the atmosphere at a steeper angle and with much less control than the Shuttle- if necessary, no control at all, just ballistics. Its heat shield is more robust than the Shuttle's tiles and isn't subject to strikes by errant chunks of foam. Yes, re-enter the atmosphere, it's a two-way trip.
I recall now that classic joke -- NASA spent years/$$$ developing a pen that could write upside down and in zero G. What did the Russians do? Nothing. They used pencils.
Alas, I never made it out to Moscow to hear any of the Russian jokes...
If Spaceship 2 and 3 work out then I'm sure that folks will claim that reusable spacecraft are obviously the better option.
What Burt Rutan is doing is great, but he's able to do it cheaply because he isn't going to orbit. His Spaceships need only a fraction of the energy of an orbital craft- which translates to a lot less fuel mass and a lot less engine power.
He's basically replicating the X-15 program, only with passengers. That's awesome. That's where NASA really started. But it's only a start.
Are you kidding? The Shuttle doesn't have a launch escape system of any kind (and don't tell me that pole the astronauts are supposed to slide out on is an escape system. That's a joke). The Shuttle's abort options are extremely limited and no one is sure if the Shuttle would actually survive any of them.
Nope the Shuttle doesn't have a LES. Of course, a LES has been successfully used once thus far in history.
Bottom line is that Soyuz has killed as many folks as the Shuttle...about a 2% loss of crew rate. Arguably a US capsule would be safer but frankly, build a capsule that seats 7-8 crew and you're looking at one hefty capsule and LES...
TMA-11 had folks come back home on a ballistic reentry. Must have been fun. They don't pack small arms and survival gear on the shuttle last I heard. Leonov ended up 1000 miles off course in the middle of the woods and since then I think that gear is carried.
Oh, and by the way, the Shuttle has returned a bit of hardware from ISS that Soyuz never could. And can carry modules up which Soyuz/Progress cannot. There is a SLIGHT difference in internal volume.
But yes, it is a two way flight for Soyuz.
But I think you know I meant the rest of the spacecraft.
What Burt Rutan is doing is great, but he's able to do it cheaply because he isn't going to orbit. His Spaceships need only a fraction of the energy of an orbital craft- which translates to a lot less fuel mass and a lot less engine power.
He's basically replicating the X-15 program, only with passengers. That's awesome. That's where NASA really started. But it's only a start.
SS2 is sub-orbital.
SS3 is intended to orbit...maybe.
Obvious today. Not so obvious in the 70s.
...
Regarding whether the shuttle was a horrible idea in the 70s or not, maybe not but maybe yes. IMO NASA could find only one positive for the shuttle over the big dumb rocket approach-- you could actually get money from Congress for the shuttle which you couldn't do for rockets. If NASA would have had their choice complete with funding, do you really think they would have chosen the shuttle approach? Let's see, how long were they out of manned space flight transitioning to the shuttle, 5 years?
Regarding whether the shuttle was a horrible idea in the 70s or not, maybe not but maybe yes. IMO NASA could find only one positive for the shuttle over the big dumb rocket approach-- you could actually get money from Congress for the shuttle which you couldn't do for rockets. If NASA would have had their choice complete with funding, do you really think they would have chosen the shuttle approach? Let's see, how long were they out of manned space flight transitioning to the shuttle, 5 years?
Well...there was no real military application for landing on the moon so yeah.
That X20 concept of controlled reentry was always a capability the AF wanted even if they had no clue how it could vaguely be useful. In the shuttle NASA got manned space, the AF got a capability it wanted even if there was no real use for it.
The real shame was the death of Skylab even with all it's troubles.