You are not logged in.
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.
Ya but not quite the same animal,
"JWST is a large, infrared-optimized space telescope. It will have an 18-segment, 6.5-meter primary mirror and will reside in an L2 Lissajous orbit. JWST is scheduled for launch in 2011."
Both are here on this site Space Telescope Science Institute
http://www.stsci.edu/resources/
Well here's another NASA flip flop on the issue of the
NASA Extends TRMM Operations Through 2004 Hurricane Season
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2004/au … M_ops.html
Last month NASA announced that it and JAXA had agreed to end the mission and deorbit the spacecraft in a controlled reentry in the next year.
It was only last month adn now they have found some money to continue using it. Daaa...
Just wait and they will change there mind again.
Here is some more wiggle from Nasa on the ciab recommendations for future shuttle flights.
Shuttle backups likely for 2 launches
NASA wants proof fixes work
Only problem with the train track conducting electricity from solar cells is the fact that Mars is made of Iron... which conducts electricity granted not as good as copper or gold or other metals. One would need to insulate the tracks from the planet to make it work.
I think you will like this article also on telescopes then.
"Universities plan to build largest telescope
Scientists say device will produce better images than Hubble"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5613702/
Also would not the extrasolar planets atmospheric compositions be best studied for a space telescope rather than an Earth based one.
Part of this deals with the possibility of Hubble 2 utilizing the built equipment from the 5th Hubble cancelled repair mission.
One could probably only take posession of the Nasa built modules only. Which means a lot of shared resources are needed from the other partners.
So any purchase would have to keep in mind lots of upgrade to make it a worth while purchase. Such that you would not need to pay the partners for those services.
So back to the question of home rule or representation from afar.
I guess the question comes back to support for those that are there. If no support from Earth and they feel like they are ignored. Then probably they will ignore Earth rule as well and feel that they can do it for themselves.
This was a UN treaty during the Apollo era or was it a collective super power one?
A UN treaty though has a error in that non member can chose to ignore all such items. In fact members can sort do that if it can present its side to get waivers from punishment from the others.
So for the same 1 billion as a shuttle flight we could get a new scope with deorbit stage, hopefully better gyro's with all the upgrade gear that was to be used and even utilizing the museum held backup mirror we could be back up there looking at the stars again. Probably in the same amount of time as it would take to get the orbotic mission, which could be a failure since untested before Hubble would come down. Sounds more probable to do than the Hubble rescue at this point. But that also sets a standard of continual replacement for all probes which do cost alot rather than repair if they were nearer to the station. If other stations were in orbit the safe haven would also be a mute point also.
The price tag for space is an important item but not the only one. You also must have multiple providers for competition but also more destinations to offer for those willing to fork over the cash for being a tourist.
Do not forget that there are at least two other teams equaly as close to doing test launches.
Also winning the prise will probably be the end even if the teams are successful with the multiple turn around times.
There just does not seem to be a profit to generate the interest level required for any of the teams to start booking tourist flights just yet.
There are other teams that are more interested in getting more tourist activity than to winning the prise also very close to doing flights as well.
If one of these companies or groups were to design an appropriate CEV capsule for Nasa purchase to be used on SDV, Atlas And On Delta's. Now that would be a great feat or coup for that company or group.
Here is the UPI link for the same article Analysis: Costs could sink Hubble rescue title but with other details.
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=200 … 5953-9102r
The backup shuttle was due to the CAIB recommendations for future shuttle flights.
Now if we were not locked into the shuttle and had another manned rocket configuration to fly. This would be a non issue of repair or to let it drop into the ocean with out a deorbit booster. But since some are crying chicken little on the deobit possibility not being stable at end of life and also due to the lack of another telescope to takes its place of the same capabilities it has become a can of worms.
You two both blow me away with the numbers but did I see only a one way trip for this rocket and lander to the moon or did I miss something about the lander.
