You are not logged in.
You might be able to find out the type of sail info on this site.
http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~diedrich/solarsails/
or on this one
http://www.solarsails.info/
Well depending on If it is feasible to do, Bring up Hubble 2 and a de orbit booster stage in a shuttle and be done with the whole issue of repair. Send Hubble to it's demise or leave it for spare parts once the booster is attached.
The cost of a Hubble robotic mission looks to be to high in cost and can only grow with the passing day that more devices become inoperative on Hubble.
Here is an article that details the cost of the Robotic mission.
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda … 358626.htm
"The agency chief said the mission would cost roughly about $1 billion to $1.6 billion. But he warned that it was almost impossible to estimate the cost until a plan was developed."
I like the last one on the VSE will be fully funded. I would add that a CEV be designed post haste.
But the first one of Bush will win, by the narrowest of margines.
Some would say he stole this current term though hanging chads, turning away voters and by other means a steal to the right to be in office.
As to the other positions on war on any front here or abroad, I would hope that someday we will all learn how to live together in peace as Earthlings someday wanting to become Martians in the not to far off distant future.
Smile on my face....
There has also been several announcements of methane, ammonia and of other items that would tend to prove that a thin atmosphere is possible.
These are all great probes launched every two years to Mars but until we can get real funding for man to go it will only be just pictures to go ahhh, ouu and lots of other awe vocalizations.
The real pleasure is in being able to not only see it but to touch it as well.
So does anyone know why the Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope, scheduled to be launched sometime in 2011 is taking some many years to develope?
I know that there is talk of Hubble 2 also in the works using existing upgrade resources intended for the Hubble but what would that time line for launch be?
The light may be green but the cash is in the red before we can even start?
Peter I need to borrow from you in order to pay pal just will not work when it comes to space.
So what effect will the most recent failure of xprize contestants have with the outcome of those that win?
from the astonotes:Aug. 9, 2004 Catch a falling rocket
complete with video and pictures of it
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3217961/
No matter what type of propellant or the design of the shape takes it still boils down to funding and of the complete rocket plus launch ect.. cost to operate it.
We must keep costs down in the design phase, construction and in its normal use or we will fail.
No matter what type of propellant or the design of the shape takes it still boils down to funding and of the complete rocket plus launch ect.. cost to operate it.
We must keep costs down in the design phase, construction and in its normal use or we will fail.
Cutting back on the ISS is being influenced by these as well as other problems in addition. For one getting the shuttle or some other vehicle designed and rated for manned use.
I knew I had seen another solar sail project called cosmos 1.
http://www.planetary.org/solarsail/index2.html
Even Nasa was into the game on solar sails.
http://solarsail.jpl.nasa.gov/
more history
http://www.space.com/busines....06.html
I did not however find proof of launch or of results with regards to cosmos 1. So they may indeed be the first to do so.
For reference what did the president want from his vision?
Well this is where we started in January of this year with articles of the vision leaked to the press.
Space Plan Envisions Apollo As Model Versatile Craft Is Key to Bush Program
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2....nd=true
Nasa returns to Apollo in quest for the perfect craft
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/interna....00.html
Whitehouse announcement
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/space/
http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/toc.html
http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/renewed_spirit.html
http://www.projectconstellation.us/arti … o-cev.html
And many more links followed by the commission Hearing and there final report handed out after a slight delay in June.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news … sions.html
Where are we now? Well after a little hedging on the direction of change, a little restructuring internally and a lot of haggling over the Budget not being passed by congress for the vision. We are still stuck in LEO with no way to get there and looks like Nasa is reverting back to its old self.
Where will we be in the near future? Well with continued under funding of Nasa projects, I forsee that more Items will be cancelled before they can be stated, Less will be done with the ISS and that we will be stuck in LEO for a lot longer than we all want to be after hearing the vision announcement earlier this year.
Hi GraemeSkinner,
Hubble has no ability to boost its orbit, that is why the Robotic mission is to attach a deorbit stage. Here is a couple of articles that detail the cost of the Robotic mission.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 5953-9102r
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centreda … 358626.htm
"The agency chief said the mission would cost roughly about $1 billion to $1.6 billion. But he warned that it was almost impossible to estimate the cost until a plan was developed."
How about solar energy cost?
Every highway has section that could have over head collectors that track the sun. These if wide enough and properly spaced could also act as solar blinds to reduce car accidents on the east- west aligned roads. Store the energy during the day and use it during the night for highway lighting or for other reasons.
Doing something more than experiments would be a must. How about turning garbage into solar cells, fuels and maybe actually build something from scratch rather than bringing it up aboard a shuttle or some other rocket. Just bring up the raw materials or some processed ones to use for building. How about a solar furnace for smelting or blending of alloys.
There is alot more we could be doing in space than we are.
So with a delta wing or up swept-ed outer wing edges what kind of thermal tiling or RCC panel problems could we have?
All for use as a taxi to the ISS, sounds ok on paper but what would the cost be for development and per flight use?
So why are we doing this experiment with ION engines at the rediculus rate of 270 days. Lets go for the booster stage and get there in a reasonable amount of time.
Here is the link to the http://www.xprize.org/ web site, it has gone though a web page make over.
Listed teams http://www.xprize.org/teams/teams.php
This is one of the teams that has balloon lift that comes to mind.
http://www.xprize.org/teams/canadian_davinci.php
Interesting version of the space elevator.
Does anybody know much about the full scale mock up unit concept that sits at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in this 1989 according to this photo link?
http://www.space.com/php....0image.
Maybe this could be made functional.
Basically if you look at what the x-prize is. It is a one event sports contest, so the only way to get more companies involved would be to keep it open to competition each year and to introduce the next event for the next stage of the competition.
1 space boundary 100Km soon to be won
2 orbital flight 1 or more revolutions at any distance
3 orbital flight for days maybe weeks
4 Iss trip
Of course each would have a changing prize amount for completion.
Those were all great Ideas comstar03 but all requiring changes in funding levels for Nasa.
Nasa Tv web cast channel link page also schedule of broadcast is also on the page. http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html
With the science channel on cable and all the Discovery channels plus the Public tv PBS stations Nasa would only need to send a free feed to any broadcaster that would want it.
I would recommend that it be sent to schools as part of the science programs.
Yes that was one of the recomendations by the board to have a second shuttle ready when the first went into space. But Nasa's definition of ready is not the same as ours. If you have been following the shuttle logs for return to flight. You will notice that there are almost months between the two shuttles that could fly come this early 2005 launch date. The third is a much longer way off nearly a year.
Also there is a flaw in that nasa sees this as another big expense in that readying a rescue shuttle only to unload it and to reprep it for the next mission. If they had a second launch pad they could off load that expense by just leaving it ready all the time. But that would only leave 2 vehicles for use then meaning more missions for each before the 2010 date of retirement. I guess the solution is to build more but that goes against operating cost which needs to be much lower.
Another though is that the second shuttle could also become damaged in the rescue attempt. Now where does that leave us with regards to completing the ISS, Not in a very good spot with our partners.
We need two things design to take the place of the shuttle, on is for the Heavy lift rocket which we need designed like as of yesterday and a more modest crew transportation vehicle design to take over flights to the ISS.
I would force this one back onto the Lockheed and Boeing to deliver something for there own rockets that fit the bill and or some SDV combo which ever would be best.
Great concept for private companies to buy Russian launch sites and to upgrade. Would not be a probable if you were using 30 to 40 year old rocket technology. Aside from the location and less regulation hopefully not much else would be gained though.
I vote for Space bonds, Lotteries for a journey to LEO and any other thoughts but Nasa can do none of these because it is a government agency only the private industry could get away with these.
So an ION tug with a time of 270 days; I am assuming that the tug is unmanned other wise we need to develope radiation shielding.
Why has space cost not come done? Simply Nasa does not care. It can just simply ask for more money in the following years and so on. To gets the increases to keep becoming bigger and more full of pork.
Having a single outpost in the ISS is not sufficient to aid in driving cost per flight down.
Do we have just one satellite in orbit, no we have lots in all sorts of inclinations. Each costing some what less than the other of the same type I believe.
If you wanted to convert a shuttle into a tourist plane you could get lots of seats in the cargo bay and yes the price per seat would be low in comparison to the usual crew costs. The problem would be with the resort at that point and on supplies as well.
