You are not logged in.
The external tank has value in that is also refined material from which to do experiments on as well as to utilize for construction or for destructive purposes. Also the remaining Fuel is of value since when combined it is water. Lets not waste what cost so much to get from the Earths gravity well to LEO.
The problem with using manned flight for repair and of other activites by the commercial industry. Always will come back to the question of How much do you think it is worth or do you feel it is worth doing for the money and could I save money by doing it a different way.
The industry of heavy lift capability is under the same gun. Of what was the developement cost, how many launches will it take to recouple the investment knowing how much we can expect a customer to pay.
Sometime starting small means you either stay small or that the rate of grow is over a very long time. Much to long due to rising of inflation and costs to recouple a profit means you eventually go out of business.
I think there are more problems than the misunderstanding of the astronauts role in space and of colonist in general.
The desire to explore to venture into the unknown has little to do with science but is the way though which science can be explored.
We want to go because it is there.
Thanks Clark: on the UPI exclusives from spacedaily and UPI Press. Both articles quote in the form of questions the requirements for Moon and Mars with broad opening statements of the type of crafts to expect.
I find it odd that the spacedaily page shows the Kistler rocket, are they not aware of the contract being cancelled.
The fly off was discussed by many of us months ago. If in the process of the fly off if it should happen to be made a man rated event. I would not be against the 2008 as the target date.
The second wave of flights could be more complex with elements for the flight actually being assembled at the L-1 point. This only makes sense if there is a station there to construct the elements into something otherwise it is probably not worth doing.
By years end differing studies will also determine if the CEV and the lunar lander will be separate spacecraft, or if they can be combined into a single ship much like the apollo program.
Some more info From Nasa Watch
Also a few months back there were simular anouncements for other BAA items but do not have the links right now.
29 July 2004: Pre-Proposal Conference for the Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement
Pre-Proposal Conference for the Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement Live Streaming Webcast http://realserver1.jpl.nasa.gov:8080/ra … er/hq07.rm
Pre-Proposal Conference Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement presentation (PowerPoint)
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/hrt_ind … july04.ppt
Pre-Proposal Conference Human and Robotic Technology Broad Agency Announcement presentation slide addition (PowerPoint)
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/interna … pation.ppt
Broad Agency Announcement - Research and Development Opportunities in Human and Robotic Technology (Word)
http://www.exploration.nasa.gov/baa_hrt.doc
I am really not sure which post to put this under for Project Prometheus since I know very little about nuclear powered rockets.
Advanced Electric-Propulsion Technologies R&D Teams Selected
Being four or five times more powerfull than needed for the load factor at launch. Would that not mean then that the external tank could be brought to orbit rather than throwing it away with fuel remaining still in it. Could then be adapted to the role of boosting the ISS orbit.
As others have noted the SDV was never intended to be man rated but only as a cargo ferry. This is a great first step in reducing ISS transportation costs of construction and of resupply as needed. But this does not resolve the need for a crew transport only the number of forced trips by the shuttle for this purpose. I feel that a capsule mounted on top of the External tank with a small menuevering booster would be a good place for the CEV man rating to happen. This would further off load the shuttle need for being the main crew transport.
Now here is an article of interest for mining of in-situ materials to make rocket fuel on the moon. The same could be true of mars as well.
NASA Grant To Tap Lunar Resources
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-04zf.html
Kerry is putting together a space policy as indicated on the http://www.spacepolitics.com/ web site.
To answer that question here is a link for A full-scale mock up of a Shuttle C concept sits at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in this 1989 image.
http://www.space.com/php....0image.
An artist's concept from the early 1980s shows a Shuttle-C cargo element in Earth orbit carrying the Galileo probe to Jupiter.
http://www.space.com/php....upiter.
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm
Shuttle-B: Flexible Use of NASA's Space Transportation System
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzs.html
Many more sites are still to be found some dating back to the early 80's.
Personally I like the build full scale mock unit from 1989.
I do not know if others are interested but there are a series of articles being presented by guess writers on the Project Constellation site about the CEV.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/
The second part of this series is about shuttle derivatives.
I do not know if others are interested but there are a series of articles being presented by guess writers on the Project Constellation site about the CEV.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/
The next question would be since re-entry does take a toll on one's heat shield is the capsule to be reusable. This choice may be weighed against what type of landing is preferred; Parachute to splash down, Parachute to crash landing or parachute with some glide path on final approach.
Well we only have so many planets that would even be considered hospitable though teraforming. Mars would be the easier of the two; Venus being the other.
The problem with any CEV design is the need for the crew capsule to be developed first with the correct structure to support lower stages of interface from its control panels.
Any of the existing rockets could be modified to support this new capsule which would include clean slate designs, Shuttle Derived Vehicles and or any other derivatives of Atlas or Delta.
The next questions are for crew size, length of use and space accommodations inside for easy of movement.
So even if you can find all of these museum pieces best case and reverse engineer all the given parameters for the design as a first pass. Using this info for the real enhanced design of these would be the way to go.
Those that do not understand the significant of those from Hubble would say the same. But I still would go to any of them just to feel or smell the reality of having been there.
Who cares about Van Allen. In just a few years or less his voice will not matter. For he will be no more, most likely.
Onto the serious debate of robotic versus manned flight funding and at what level of each. It is more important to not waste funds on what is not needed. Unless there is a question that Man can only answer robotic is the way to go. But if settlement is the ultimate goal then the sooner that man takes risk the better informed he will be.
No need for anti anything. We just need to find a different way to fund Nasa activity for the long term.
Ya a space race would aid in generating the much needed fire to fuel the funding issue. Who wants to be second anyway.
But if the private side is to do anything for investing the big bucks in space. They will need a direct pay back. Which IMO is property rights.
Not counting which planets to visit, features within probes that will be sent in the future or how many to be sent.
One could say using a Delta or Atlas derivative is also the way to go but much like the shuttle derivatives is it economical since neither is a man rated vehicle to start with. Only the shuttle hardware is at this point.
In either case the question is where is the cash for developement going to come from under a squashed budget?What is the timeline to manned flight?
Enough said about the rocket lets talk about the most important place on the rocket which houses the crew. Now depending on the launch format(winged or capsule) and the return re-entry landing style everything else is about size of crew, duration of use and easy of use to inside space demensioning.
Everthing else that is needed is an add on module and or boosters for each stage.
Now lets not forget the reason why we are in this situation in the first place.
Foam that sheds on launch from the external tank that could and does strike the orbitor. Not fixed as of yet but being worked on for return to flight.
No escape abort of launch if severly damaged since unit did not have real time broadcast of data though it had recorded the damaging strike. Note this is one of the fixes for return to flight with leading edge sensors.
If a strike does make a hole no means for repair was possible while in orbit. Last I checked they where still working on hole size variety of patch capability.
This also introduced the need for safe haven retreat or secondary shuttle rescue launch if unrepairable.
Now with those things said some of these things could be difficult even under a clean slate design to resolve.
Just trying to re-steer the conversation back to the proper link.
No need to rush to pick the best landing site. We have lots of time(2035 ish) to land probes every two years until we get it right.
One could say using a Delta or Atlas derivative is also the way to go but much like the shuttle derivatives is it economical since neither is a man rated vehicle to start with. Only the shuttle hardware is at this point.
In either case the question is where is the cash for development going to come from under a squashed budget?What is the timeline to manned flight?
Enough said about the rocket lets talk about the most important place on the rocket which houses the crew. Now depending on the launch format(winged or capsule) and the return re-entry landing style everything else is about size of crew, duration of use and easy of use to inside space demensioning.
Everything else that is needed is an add on module and or boosters for each stage.
Now lets not forget the reason why we are in this situation in the first place.
Foam that sheds on launch from the external tank that could and does strike the orbitor. Not fixed as of yet but being worked on for return to flight.
No escape abort of launch if severely damaged since unit did not have real time broadcast of data though it had recorded the damaging strike. Note this is one of the fixes for return to flight with leading edge sensors.
If a strike does make a hole no means for repair was possible while in orbit. Last I checked they where still working on hole size variety of patch capability.
This also introduced the need for safe haven retreat or secondary shuttle rescue launch if unrepairable.
Now with those things said some of these things could be difficult even under a clean slate design to resolve.
