Article

2003-12-08 Home Front

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Atrus 2003-12-08 1:38:43 PM|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Marvin the Martian will be...(huff, huff)...quite peeved...

Posted by mojo 2003-12-8 2:01:37 PM|| 2003-12-8 2:01:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#2 Have enough years passed that Vaughan Meador's The First Family may be disinterred? There's a bit in the faux-JFK press conference:

Q: Sir, when will we send a man to the moon?
A: As soon as Senator ~~Dean~~ Goldwater wants to go.

Posted by Glenn (not Reynolds) 2003-12-8 2:04:45 PM|| 2003-12-8 2:04:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 It was just a couple of weeks ago that I again mourned the passing of Vaughn Meador forgotten these many years. He could have been a star, his grandchildren could have been rich, but such was not to be, cruel fate in the person of Rich Little intervened in his life skit.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-8 2:22:28 PM|| 2003-12-8 2:22:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 anybody think this has anything to do with China and weapons in space ?

Posted by eyeyeye 2003-12-8 2:46:49 PM|| 2003-12-8 2:46:49 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 They are throwing us a bone to distact us when they mothball the shuttle fleet. I have heard all the arguments for and against the shuttles. I still cannot believe they cannot just improve the current shuttles the way other aircraft have been. Nasa's need to always build a new/radical design instead of just improving on the current is why we end up with these fragile/dangerous craft. Therefore it seems the shuttle's will be retired and we will return to capsules, and talk about a moon mission will be the reason why.

If I was in-charge we would be still building shuttle airframes with a couple of them setup as test mules. I would have then used the test mules to designed newer/modern systems to replace the boosters and tank (along with the older system in the shuttle). This would help bring the cost of the shuttles down, the same way jet transport costs came down. The space station would only exist as a emergency repair dock for the shuttle and as a possible launch point for moon/mars systems. I remember saying when Challenger broke up that it was bull that they couldn't repair the thing in space. What was bull is that they never gave the crew the chance. If your not, then don't send people up and lets just fall back on a un-manned program.

Posted by Patrick 2003-12-8 4:31:45 PM|| 2003-12-8 4:31:45 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 Patrick, I think you mean Columbia? (since the Challenger never made it to space during its launch). As far as the shuttle goes, it was an iterim idea of a reusable vehicle, it was never designed to be a permanent vehicle. I really wish these days we have never cancelled the old dynasoar project or a whole host of other ideas. NASA keeps trying for an elegant solution to launching stuff into space, well elegant doesn't always work till you got the infrastructure in place, I say we need brute force and for that we need BDBs (Big Dumb Boosters) and vehicles that are more designed for function rather than style.

As far as Bush's probable speech, I highly doubt he's going to give any substance to the "man on the moon" plan, probably just all hot air and fluff saying that we should go and we should focus our studies there. But no real money (not that I'd trust NASA with anymore money anyway)

Posted by Val 2003-12-8 5:35:36 PM|| 2003-12-8 5:35:36 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 Yea, my bad. I just gives me a weird feeling to see what appears steps backwards. Can you see astronauts talking to the old timers who say things like "I can remember the days when we "FLEW" back from space and landed like an airplane instead of falling from space like a rock in a capsule like you new guys. Or "I remeber when you could fly from New York to Paris in 3 hours on the concord instead of 15 hours.
The shuttle was version 1.0. Just like the boeing 707 was improved, I believe the basic design of the shuttle is good and its safety and cost could be improved with modern systems. Shortcuts were taken with the original design that should have been fixed over the years. The Russian Buran has some interesting alternatives for example in the booster area (advantages of being built just a few years later than our shuttle). Remember, the shuttle can do one thing nothing else can and that is return things from space (that is large things). I just find it hard to go backwards from the shuttle back to capsule.

Posted by Patrick 2003-12-8 6:01:56 PM|| 2003-12-8 6:01:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 The Russian Buran has some interesting alternatives for example in the booster area (advantages of being built just a few years later than our shuttle).

An interesting knock-off, with good electronics, price per pound launch was only 2 times the shuttle. Of course they never did put humans in it.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-8 6:47:32 PM|| 2003-12-8 6:47:32 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 Yo! We need a long term Chinee Lunar Future! Put me down for no Chineese landing in the next 144 months.

Posted by Shipman 2003-12-8 6:49:05 PM|| 2003-12-8 6:49:05 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 Patrick, it's (as usual) more complicated than that. The shuttle designe was *very* heavily influenced by a military requirement that was ultimately dropped (ability to launch, release a satellite, and land back at the launch point within one orbit). That required big wings (to give it the ability to fly nearly 1000 miles horizontally during re-entry) that represent a liability for most other purposes.

Although the final design isn't set, a reusable capsule has a lot of advantages for crew transport -- particularly in abort situations. Since it's at the top of the launcher, a launch escape system becomes practical. Capsule re-entry is also well-understood now, and accurate landings are possible using steerable parachutes. Just because it's a capsule doesn't mean it's "crummy-old technology".

A capsule also lets us take advantage of the new launchers that were built for the Air Force (Titan IV & Atlas V). With a little extra work, either of these ought to be usable as a manned booster, and be a lot cheaper to operate. Large cargo launches also ought to be practical using automatic docking systems like the ones used on ISS today.

The shuttle is an amazing machine, but operates with very little margin for error. Even if things don't smack into the wing, it's a complicated beasty to keep runing properly -- and small problems can turn into very, very bad ones extremely quickly.

Posted by snellenr 2003-12-8 7:01:42 PM|| 2003-12-8 7:01:42 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 The Buran idea was good, but it meant throwing away the engines with each launch. The shuttle was expensive enough as it was (10x the projected cost per flight) and I do not think much of that cost overrun had much to do with the engines. So the turn around costs would have been even greater. Of course you would then have a bit more flexibility because the external fuel tank with engines is basically a Saturn Rocket that could have a payload bay attached to take a lot of stuff into orbit. Anyway, it's likely that the Orbital Space Plane will probably be along these lines before they are complete.

The fact that the US has depended upon the shuttle has really hurt private industry attempts at near Earth orbit. NASA procurment is not really cost-effective and favors a few very large defense contractors. They should use seed money to promote technology rather than funding everything 180% and then killing it when it doesn't work out.

NASA should not be in the truck driving business which is what the shuttle is. Bringing things up and down, up and down. They should be going to the moon or Mars, not monopolizing space access with a system that has a worse safety record than the Soyuz, and is more expensive per launch than the Proton rocket and has a far smaller payload.

NASA should hire others to get their stuff out of orbit so that they can aim a bit higher. We could go to Mars in a decade or less if we use the Proton rocket for example. Add another decade if we have to build and plan our own heavy-lift rocket in addition to the Mars ship, habitat, and rover. Also that instantly makes it an international mission without the headaches normally associated with international missions.

Posted by ruprecht 2003-12-8 9:09:05 PM|| 2003-12-8 9:09:05 PM|| Front Page Top

07:16 B
00:51 Lucky
00:25 alaskasoldier
00:01 Glenn (not Reynolds)
23:35 Gasse Katze
23:25 Bomb-a-rama
22:06 B
22:03 Korora
21:51 Jarhead
21:41 Super Hose
21:37 Super Hose
21:21 (lowercase) matt
21:11 Super Hose
21:11 (lowercase) matt
21:09 ruprecht
20:54 ruprecht
20:48 Secret Master
20:46 ruprecht
20:42 ruprecht
20:40 ruprecht
20:14 Alaska Paul
20:11 doc8404
19:13 Shipman
19:05 Shipman
Merry-Go-Blog