You are not logged in.
The only problem with the retiring of the shuttle for 2010 and having the CEV operational for manned flight is that it is not expected to be man rated until 2014.
Are we all willing to have so many years with no space flights just look at how we are after only almost 2 years.
Since there is expected to be a fly off between two competitors, I assume Boeing and Lockheed for the CEV starting some time near or before 2008. Personally I would buy the first to get a complete man rated unit by the 2008 date.
I Know that was under the assumption that no shuttle flights in 2003 for the most part and in 2004 with none until 2005 mid year should show an account surplus under shuttle refurbishment between flights category. At about a billion per flight with perhaps 8 missed flights.
Net balance Nasa Shuttle accounts of approximate 7 billion at least after upgrades to two shuttles.
So we will have a great big pile of SRBs and External tanks with no where to go if the shuttle is grounded forever. Due to contracts rather than purchase as you go from the given manufacturer. Everything should have stopped and only the necessary design rework for the external tank foam shedding should have been active.
As for closing and laying off those that work on External tanks and SRBs. When production levels drop it is normal practice to reduce the levels of full time staff.
Which recently means in the electronic manufacturing field is to fire all the temps or shared leased agency employees followed by permanent staff. Also contracts are usually curtailed or severely lowered and or cancelled even if a fine is levied.
There is usually only a temporary loss of skills or talent and temps are usually screened for the job search for the required skills needed.
The CAIB certification if used beyond 2010 was not spelled out for the set of requirements that would indicate a pass. With all the work that has been done one could claim each time it is re certified to fly.
I think though that everybody is hedging around whether the countries of the world want to be independent and isolative, or that some would want to have a unified world. Free from fear...
This may be just one more reason not to end involvement in the ISS and to either extend the useful life of the shuttle or of some SDV, due in part to the larger lift capability and for continualed changes to the ISS that could be made in some foreseeable future by any of the partner nations.
When one looks at cost of an Item it will always boil down to Material versus labor. Labor is almost always the higher of the two.
So to drive cost down first you must lessen the amount of labor required to construct the rocket. Then it comes down to automation of build and changes to use cheaper material.
Even if we ever get the shuttle going again we can only launch from the cape, but we can land in a few other places. Then we need to wait for refurb in between launches leaving only the next closed from refurb to fly.
Seems like the russians and the ESA do have a leg up on the US.
For One quicker launches between rockets no waiting for refurb, Launch capability from multiple sites and a much lower cost per rocket as compared to simular expendables from the big two some of Boeing and Lockheed.
Shuttle C cargo only, could be done very cheaply from a design stand point but from a continous launch of multiple units very costly. Cargo pod plus engines, External tank are expendable only the srb's would be recovered.
SDV manned version would mean the expense of design for the CEV capsule and to orbit stage engines. The capsule could be placed at the top of the external tank with orbit stage and main engines could be a pod on the side of the tank or directly beneath the tank.
Capsule could be some what reusable depending on design or just the inside electronics could be place into a new shell each time for re-use.
NASA Selects Future Mission Concepts For Study
http://www.nasa.gov/home....ts.html
NASA selects astronomy mission proposals for study
http://www.spacetoday.net/getsummary.php?id=2489
One of the nine proposals, the Hubble Origins Probe, would use two instruments, the Wide Field Camera 3 and the Cosmic Origins Spectrograph, originally planned for use on the Hubble Space Telescope.
I wondered just how long the russian were going to put up with Nasa and non payment for soyuz utilized to keep the ISS going. Not that much longer according to the AP. Russia Wants Payment for Space Trips
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....station
I wondered just how long the russian were going to put up with Nasa and non payment for soyuz utilized to keep the ISS going. Not that much longer according to the AP. Russia Wants Payment for Space Trips
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm....station
Well If you plan for a large volume of space movement between the earth and moon then you can create it. Firstly the movement of NASA personnel, construction personnel, mining personnel, scientific personnel, and business activities including space tourism could be created to reduce the overall costs to ferry personnel from the earth to the moon that would provide a lower cost base.
So under the catagory elite you have specialists from NASA personel, scientist and the rich Space tourist.
From the working class you have mining and construction.
Until we can get more from this second group of more common people into space nothing will change.
Well one approach to high rising cost of Rockets from the big guy's is to tell them that we wish to have a price break. I'M sure they will laugh but if one is not given start shopping else where for what is needed. Even funding an upstart company for there designing of what is needed and or giving them working designs to which they would like to purchase for less would spear on competition in the industry.
I know, I'M way out there...
In the equation is not the Mass changing also as fuel is burned?
This has been the best resource that I have found to date on alternative fuel sources.
Andy a projectconstellation space explorer wrote an excellent response to the Hercules Exploration System (SDV) which would use the Ariane 5 derivative for a CEV launch vehicle.
But much like the fact of not being able to pay for the seats on a Rusian soyuz can we purchase said equipment from the Europeans.
My other thought is of launch sites both here and over seas that are capable of launching rockets in that how many are there that would be favorable for use if launch activity were to step up.
Also Robert that would also put the other cancelled projects of the OSP, SLI, the x-38 and other series as viable options for use with the Ariane launcher for the CEV as a Near term solution.
Especially any fully assemble units is a plus.
For andy's response:
Part Two of a three part series on CEV design & launch concepts:
Written by Kevin Waldroup expands on the ideas for Shuttle-C and discusses the possibilities of variants and space station applications using the external tank and other components of the existing shuttle infrastructure.
Kevin's article can be found on this same page also.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news...._system
This link will get you lots of other alternatives.
http://www.space-rockets.com/wspc.html
Left side bar on web page:
Earth To Orbit
PSAN-I Ammonium Nitrate & Propellants
SHARP Spaceplane
Small Launch Vehicle
Sounding Rockets
Liquid Oxygen Monopropellants
Earth - Lunar Corridor
Lunar Soil Propellant (LSP)
Shuttle Excursion Module (SEM) ™
Shuttle Landing Module (SLM) ™
Lunar Bases & Lunar Concrete
Mars
Mars Rocket Engines
Mars Jet Engines
Here is concept art for the lander from Boeing
http://www.projectconstellation.us/article....alb=sec
Inflatable habitat for an initial lunar surface base, using a derivative Resource Module to land on the lunar surface and providing power and cooling to the Crew.
Frequency is the inverse of time.
So light has limits of min and max for the equation based on energy form that is released.
I agree with you Mad grad student, Why are we waiting and sending so many probes to explore Mars between now and the year 2040 ' ish before Man can go.
I think Fear of the unknown of bacteria, microscopic organisms, of radiation sickness due to poor rocket shielding techniques, length of journey physical and emotional strain are just some of the over concerns that some would have.
Next would be cost to not only develop the rockets but the needed equipment to stay.
Then finally when enough of Mars has been populated is a fear of self governing movement by those there.
On Mars we will still need to have motorized vehicles to travel the surface and that still requires fuels research.
Also solar power is less effective on Mars than on earth for the same size cell panels.
Nuclear may be a possibility but how will one construct such reactors from Mars Materials with no mining or smelting operations.
With only one or two flights a year there will be very little infrastucture building no automation of build or supply and very little will change with regards to space flight being of less cost than it is at this time. Space will still remain out of reach for the average space explorer.
There must be more flights to drive pricing down....
Here is a resource on scramjet
http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/v … type=ALERT
Here is a resource on scramjet
http://www.tipmagazine.com/tip/INPHFA/v … type=ALERT
I know that follow up experiments from the airforce were to try and use jet fuels in the scram jet engine.
Also would not a modulated system of kerosene and lox with scram jet technology be of benefit at lift off if one starts with lox and then switches over to mixing in the compressed air after launch and then to finally just scram intake air.
Radiation like in x-rays, Gamma ...
Like in lethal...