Some inspiring news for a change: the 21st century space race goes on
invite response
2011 Apr 5, 9:28am 2,008 views 17 comments
Comments 1 - 17 of 17 Search these comments
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 5, 3:51pm
Crazy! I had no idea that there was going to be a private-sector space station. I am pretty out of touch on this stuff anymore. Good on them.
BTW I still remember not long ago when SpaceShipOne made its first commercial space flight. It was really awesome to see an innovative and well designed machine win the X-prize. There was a great photo published from the first flight that I still have not managed to find since... it was a rear-facing image of the craft during ascent that showed the curvature of the earth as the space-plane left earth. Real engineering, real results.
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 9:07am
Well somebody had to get them MTV-streaming satellites up there back in the 80's!
Vicente
2011 Apr 7, 9:16am
I'm always baffled by these presumption that NASA "gets in the way" of commercial launch vehicles. They provide much support for them and a customer. I had friends who worked for United Space Alliance among other companies. NASA does not actually have as much of a role in the building of vehicles as you would think. The Mercury capsule was made by McDonnell.
Nothing much new here to me, except some work is now shopped to small operations instead of the usual suspects Martin etc.
Know some people at Scaled Composites. Their work is impressive. I've been a Burt Rutan fan since the 80's with the Long-EZ. A suborbital joyride is however a FAR cry in terms of power and technology from a manned orbital vehicle. Spaceship One possessed a unique approach to re-entry but it's suitable only for suborbital. If you are expecting to buy a ticket to ride into orbit you should probably buy that for your kids not for yourself. And it would be best if you were a finance executive or other billionaire so you could afford to send them on a honymoon jaunt to LEO.
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 9:44am
I’m always baffled by these presumption that NASA “gets in the way†of commercial launch vehicles. They provide much support for them and a customer. I had friends who worked for United Space Alliance among other companies. NASA does not actually have as much of a role in the building of vehicles as you would think. The Mercury capsule was made by McDonnell.
I can buy that. I guess I'm mostly just more nostalgic for spaceflight from these days:
than these:
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 9:45am
Spaceship One possessed a unique approach to re-entry but it’s suitable only for suborbital.
Hmm... could it be modified for more extensive orbital operations perhaps?
Vicente
2011 Apr 7, 10:02am
Not really. That shuttlecock thing is a one-trick pony for low speeds. Dispense with parachutes and active control systems and RCS.
I looked it up just now, the shuttlecock idea was first described by NACA in 1958. Scaled Composites applied it brilliantly.
But orbital re-entry is a tough problem for which shuttlecock is not suited.
It rated mention on this page:
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 10:05am
Works good for low speed. In orbital re-entry speeds a flat plate would kill you dead.
Interesting... I thought that the space shuttle worked in a similar fashion and had a non-powered landing.
Vicente
2011 Apr 7, 10:15am
SpaceShip One re-enters belly-first at Mach 2-3 and needs no heat shield.
Space Shuttle reenters nose first at Mach 25, and although it's at high angle of attack, the effective shape is more akin to a blunt cone.
Talking about space stuff reminds me of a kickass video than encapsulates the Mars Rover delivery nicely:
justme
2011 Apr 7, 12:08pm
Elon Musk is two-faced moron. He is so dense that he probably doesn't even see the raging irony of backing such companies as Tesla and Space-X at the same time.
On one hand, he is pushing Tesla, which is supposed to save us all energy with his (very expensive) electric cars.
On the other, he is planning to blow untold amounts of energy on launching 10-12 Space-X rockets per year.
Has anyone calculated how that balances out? My feeling is at the rate the Tesla sells he will blow more energy on his stupid space exploration than he will save by higher car efficiency.
Why is it always the biggest and most profound idiots that gets hailed as heroes? The mind boggles.
And, yeah, NASA is a cold war relic that should be shut down. All the engineers should be directed to work on energy technologies. Let's call it the NEA, the National Energy Agency. Then it would be good for something.
Vicente
2011 Apr 7, 2:06pm
Excuse me but NASA called the shots on what was built, how it was built and everything right down to the last screw and bolt.
This is the exact monkey I was referring to amongst other, regulatory hassles when I meant ‘NASA getting out of the way’ as being a good thing.
NASA was/could be again good at trying new & exploratory stuff that the private sector wouldn’t do. It should do that.
But doing what was invented and figured out 40 years ago while the private sector can take over and do it better and cheaper, no.
Well it's not as much nuts & bolts as you think. Here we need it to do this and meet these specs and provide us blueprints. How is this different than any other government procurement from a Hummer to a B2 bomber?
I'm trying to think of any private entities landing kickass rovers on Mars. Oh wait, I can't. But that must be because NASA is preventing them?
Even the Planetary Society found they could buy launches on old Russian sub missiles to get their solar sail experiment in orbit. It's not at all difficult to get into space if you can scrape up the money, there simply aren't the "regulatory hassles" that you seem to imagine.
I admire their spunk, but let's face it the market may go nowhere. Just like two decades ago microsatellites did. And then Iridium sat-phones, because the actual market just never matched up to the hype. Yeah Iridium was full of big dreams too but then ended in bankruptcy and would be space junk if not for US gov't stepping in.
I read about your BA space stations. 10 of them? Really? There's a certain amount of salesmanship and subsidies to get experiments on ISS as it is. I have this unshakeable image of a space-plane filled with billionaire tourists roasting on live video. Hmmm, two birds one stone.... Will they be twittering on their blackberries? Ground Control to Major Tom.....
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 3:24pm
SpaceShip One re-enters belly-first at Mach 2-3 and needs no heat shield.
Space Shuttle reenters nose first at Mach 25, and although it’s at high angle of attack, the effective shape is more akin to a blunt cone.
Make sense now, thanks for the Wiki link. I had no idea that there was no heat shield on the Rutan spacecraft. Guess that sleek, sexy design comes at a cost. Seems like the weak point of the shuttlecock design would be the inability to increase drag when air particles are VERY thin (i.e. in orbit in the outer-outer-outer atmosphere), before building up too much velocity for safe re-entry. From that article:
The velocity attained by SpaceShipOne prior to reentry is much lower than that of an orbital spacecraft, and most engineers (including Rutan) do not consider the shuttlecock reentry technique viable for return from orbit.
Still, maybe there could be a hybrid shuttlecock/shielded craft that could do it. After all, not considered viable is not the same as completely impossible...
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 3:47pm
Excuse me but NASA called the shots on what was built, how it was built and everything right down to the last screw and bolt.
This is the exact monkey I was referring to amongst other, regulatory hassles when I meant ‘NASA getting out of the way’ as being a good thing.
NASA was/could be again good at trying new & exploratory stuff that the private sector wouldn’t do. It should do that.
But doing what was invented and figured out 40 years ago while the private sector can take over and do it better and cheaper, no.
Don't forget though that NASA, much like many other governmental science agencies, has for some time suffered from the chronic affliction of 'Dipshit-itus'. Symptoms include an accumulation of fecal particles known as 'administratons' that cling to, and drain the life from, healthy, innovative scientists, programmers, and engineers until nothing remains in the system but a politically motivated, policy-mandated FECES.
My point being that it is really fucking tragic is that all the amazing engineering and get-it-fucking-done attitude of 60's NASA is LONG GONE. But I don't think the rank-and-file are really the ones to blame here.
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 7, 3:55pm
On one hand, he is pushing Tesla, which is supposed to save us all energy with his (very expensive) electric cars.
Publicity stunt. Green schlongs for the poorly endowed, eco-minded penis-enviers. But it could, in part, help to fund...
On the other, he is planning to blow untold amounts of energy on launching 10-12 Space-X rockets per year.
What he *actually* wants to burn his money on. SERIOUS phallus time.
Vicente
2011 Apr 8, 1:28am
My point being that it is really fucking tragic is that all the amazing engineering and get-it-fucking-done attitude of 60’s NASA is LONG GONE.
I don't think it is.
Watch the NOVA episode about the Mars Rovers:
http://www.hulu.com/watch/23355/nova-mars-dead-or-alive
They put Rovers on Mars for less than what Viking cost. There is plenty of FIRST-RATE work going on today, just a lot of of it is in deep stuff like ion engines or unmanned craft. Much as I hate to say it I think the near-future of real space exploration is robotics.
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 8, 1:47am
They put Rovers on Mars for a fraction of what Viking cost. There is plenty of FIRST-RATE work going on today, just a lot of of it is in deep stuff like ion engines or unmanned craft.
Don't forget that technology is vastly improved since the 60's and 70's (due, in part I'm sure to ground breaking NASA research done during the space race), so costs should be much less. And I think it could be argued that the real motivation for NASA to do all of the high impact/low cost mars rover missions ($820 million for Spirit and Opportunity; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Exploration_Rover) was that it could no longer get the big bucks for cadillac missions like Cassini - $2.6 billion from the US alone ( http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/faq/FAQMission/#q10).
I can believe that there are still plenty of good engineers at NASA, but I guess it is hard for me to compare the agency that successfully sent spacecraft to the moon in an era of vaccum tube computers and slide rules to the relatively hollowed out shell it is in our modern times.
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 8, 1:49am
Much as I hate to say it I think the near-future of real space exploration is robotics.
Unfortunately, I think you're right about this one. That is, until we are all assimilated by the internet and become robots ourselves. To the future!
terriDeaner
2011 Apr 12, 6:41am
Nope, never said that was the case (about the rank and file). NASA is in the business of spreading the contracting wealth to almost every congressional district way, way more than it is in the business of operating routine space launches more efficiently and cheaply, that is all.
I see. I think I misunderstood this exchange:
Vicente says
NASA does not actually have as much of a role in the building of vehicles as you would think. The Mercury capsule was made by McDonnell.
Excuse me but NASA called the shots on what was built, how it was built and everything right down to the last screw and bolt.
Anyhow, the parking spaces for the retired space shuttles have been announced:
NASA Chooses Space Shuttles’ Retirement Homes
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/13/science/space/13shuttle.html
For all those folks who hoped we'd be living on the moon or mars by now:
SpaceX Says New Rocket Will Challenge Boeing, Lockheed
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-05/spacex-says-new-rocket-will-challenge-boeing-lockheed-in-space.html
Space Exploration Technologies Inc. plans to challenge Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) and Boeing Co. (BA) with a new rocket called the Falcon Heavy, second in size only to the Apollo-era Saturn V, the chief operating officer said.[...]
Each launch of the Falcon Heavy is expected to cost between $80 million and $125 million, a fraction of the cost of the Delta IV, Musk said. The new rocket’s cost per pound to orbit is estimated at about $1,000, a record low, he said.
and
SpaceX is a privately held company. It may consider an initial public offering of shares toward the end of next year, Musk said.
NASA has awarded the company a $1.6 billion contract to deliver cargo to the International Space Station using the Falcon 9 rocket and the company’s Dragon spacecraft, over a dozen launches scheduled to begin late summer or early fall, Harris said.
so long space shuttle!