NASA G2

[TSJ]

Work and illness conspired to keep me out of the loop. What was the last word on the underbelly gouge?

Shot

 

No space repair needed. Go ahead and land.

[beans4]

As a non-engineer/non-scientist, I was surprised NASA passed on the opportunity to try out one of their repair techniques in a non-critical situation. A skeptic might wonder if the goop and patch kits developed are more for the benefit of Congress and the public, and less as serious attempts to provide in-space repair capability.

[Josh]

As a non-engineer/non-scientist, I was surprised NASA passed on the opportunity to try out one of their repair techniques in a non-critical situation. A skeptic might wonder if the goop and patch kits developed are more for the benefit of Congress and the public, and less as serious attempts to provide in-space repair capability.

 

It may also be the case that they didn't want to complicate the situation once they determined the orbiter could make it down safely. If it ain't fatally broken don't break it school of thought. Going EVA to patch heat tiles has to be more complicated than patching dry wall with spackal.

[Guest aevans]

It may also be the case that they didn't want to complicate the situation once they determined the orbiter could make it down safely. If it ain't fatally broken don't break it school of thought. Going EVA to patch heat tiles has to be more complicated than patching dry wall with spackal.

 

They wanted to avoid an EVA. EVAs are inherrently dangerous (1) and EVAing on the underside of the orbiter ran the risk of damaging more tiles.

 

 

1. I don't recall the source, but it has been reported that NASA has calculated that there is a pretty good chance that at least one astronaut will die as a consequence of the EVAs necessary to complete the ISS.

[Josh]

1. I don't recall the source, but it has been reported that NASA has calculated that there is a pretty good chance that at least one astronaut will die as a consequence of the EVAs necessary to complete the ISS.

 

Which is unique in that all deaths to date AFAIK are due to spacecraft failures. 3 in Apollo and...what, now like 11 on SS? Though the amount of EVA associated with the complete construction of that rather useless piece of orbitting infrastructure probably pushes the statistics to the limit.

 

Did Mecury or Gemini have any fatalities.

[Guest aevans]

Which is unique in that all deaths to date AFAIK are due to spacecraft failures. 3 in Apollo and...what, now like 11 on SS?

 

In flight? Four aboard Soyuz (all prior to 1972), 14 aboard STS. The Apollo 1 fire was a ground incident (but the resulting safety standdown probably eliminated a lot of potential causes for in-flight problems).

 

Though the amount of EVA associated with the complete construction of that rather useless piece of orbitting infrastructure probably pushes the statistics to the limit.

That is basically what the reports say. The risks are everything from life support failure to suit integrity failure.

 

Did Mecury or Gemini have any fatalities.

 

Nope.

Edited August 22, 2007 by aevans

[TSJ]

Some astronauts died in flight training accidents.

 

The X-15 program which was a space program also had some fatalities.

 

I don't think the Russians have fully divulged either. Just my thoughts.

 

Mysterious cosmonaut deaths.

 

http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/s...8/19881023.html

Edited August 22, 2007 by TSJ

[Guest aevans]

Some astronauts died in flight training accidents.

 

Some other aviators who weren't astronauts died in flight training accidents. Some other aviators died in combat. Some died in car accidents. The only astronauts that died in flight training that didn't die in conventional a/c (travelling from pace to place or just getting in their flight hours) were the Appollo 1 crew -- and they didn't die in flight.

 

The X-15 program which was a space program also had some fatalities.

The X-15 program was advertised as a space program. In reality it was pretty much just another flight test program, extending the envelope of previous X programs.

 

I don't think the Russians have fully divulged either. Just my thoughts.

 

Mysterious cosmonaut deaths.

 

http://www.chron.com/content/interactive/s...8/19881023.html

 

Preposterous conspiracy theories aside, do you anything to back that up?

[SCFalken]

Company sees future in space

 

Journey passes through North Las Vegas facility

 

By KEITH ROGERS

REVIEW-JOURNAL

They're building it in hope that space travelers will come.

 

Work is under way at Bigelow Aerospace's North Las Vegas production facility on Sundancer, the company's first human habitable spacecraft, company officials said Tuesday.

 

The inflatable module, now in "bits and pieces," will be big enough to hold three people, complete with life-support systems and a docking port, where private astronauts and paying space travelers will arrive on transportation spacecraft while Sundancer orbits some 200 miles above Earth, they said.

 

"We're basically creating the destination. Transportation is going to be up to the rest of the industry," Bigelow Aerospace spokesman Chris Reed said.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Most Popular Stories

 

Porter ties U.S. withdrawal from Iraq to $9 gasoline

DISCIPLINE COMMISSION: Staff: Judge slept on job

POLITICAL NOTEBOOK: Former madam is 'big fan of Hillary'

NORM: Book vows to tell buried secrets

Four shot after brawl on the Strip

WORKPLACE FATALITIES: Boyd to pay fine

MySpace judgment: Guilty

Thunderstorms rattle valley

JOINT VENTURE: Arena plan unveiled

'LAS VEGAS DODGED A BULLET': Chlorine-hauling tanker rolls free

 

 

 

 

 

 

No date has been set for a launch, but program managers said their target is mid-2010.

 

The company's president and founder, Robert T. Bigelow, made a special announcement late Monday, saying he is accelerating the Sundancer project because of rising costs in Russia, where both his Genesis I and Genesis II inflatable modules were launched on July 12, 2006, and June 28, respectively.

 

As a result, he said, the company will forgo launching next-generation Galaxy modules, citing the success of its Genesis crafts.

 

"Price hikes have been most acute in Russia due to a number of factors including inflation, previously artificially low launch costs and the failing value of the U.S. dollar," Bigelow said in a statement.

 

"The dramatic rise in launch costs has forced us to rethink our strategy with Galaxy," he said. The company still plans to build Galaxy, but its systems will be validated on land without putting it in orbit.

 

"We have decided to expedite our schedule yet again, and are now planning to move ahead directly with Bigelow Aerospace's first human habitable spacecraft, the Sundancer," Bigelow's announcement reads.

 

"By eliminating the launch of Galaxy, we believe that BA (Bigelow Aerospace) can move more expeditiously to our next step by focusing exclusively on the challenging and exciting task presented by the Sundancer program," he said.

 

So far, Bigelow's space modules have carried personal mementoes and insects that survived the launches of the twin 14-foot-long, Kevlar-layered Genesis spacecraft.

 

Genesis II was launched with a "Biobox" experiment containing live red harvester ants from Nevada, giant hissing cockroaches from Madagascar and South African flat rock scorpions.

 

But Bigelow said a human spaceflight program "is the reason that I and others began this effort in the first place."

 

The Genesis modules are expected to orbit for 13 years each before surrendering to Earth's gravitational pull and burning up while re-entering the atmosphere.

 

Program managers said Sundancer, on the other hand, is being designed to stay in orbit for 10, 20 or 30 years by using a propulsion system that can maneuver the module, which will be more than 28 feet long and 20 feet in diameter and have 15 times more interior capacity than the Genesis modules.

 

"We have to do significant facilities enhancement and tooling enhancement just to handle the scale," said Eric Haakonstad, deputy program manager for the Sundancer project.

 

He said Sundancer will have more electronics and expanded communications capabilities. Once built and launched, it will orbit several months for an unmanned component evaluation.

 

Jay Ingham, program manager for docking and propulsion operations, said the first visitors to Sundancer will be Bigelow Aerospace astronauts who "will unpack it and make it more comfortable to live on board."

 

Among the most challenging aspects of the Sundancer program is developing life-support systems, Ingham said.

 

More than 90 percent of the oxygen on board will be recycled, he said. Engineers are exploring different ways of generating oxygen by extracting it from carbon dioxide or using an electrical process to release oxygen atoms from water.

 

Another hurdle to clear is building a more sophisticated avionics to handle communications and navigation.

 

"We're building a lot of prototypes," Ingham said.

 

He noted that Sundancer's external makeup will be similar to the Genesis modules, but the "orbital debris shield will be made of higher strength stuff than Genesis."

 

Because of the size of Sundancer, launching will require a substantially larger missile.

 

"Several options are open," he said. "There are a couple existing (U.S.) rockets and Russian rockets as well."

 

Haakonstad said Sundancer is being designed to link up with other modules to form a complex of orbiting habitats.

 

Bigelow, owner of the Budget Suites of America hotel chain, has committed $500 million toward building a commercial space station by 2015.

http://www.lvrj.com/news/9169327.html

 

 

Bigelow Aerospace has a very cool video of the Earth, viewed from the Genesis II during a complete orbit:

 

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

 

 

Falken

[SCFalken]

Google posts a $30,000,000 X-Prize for a successful lunar lander.

 

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

 

COMPETITION GUIDELINES: To win the Google Lunar X PRIZE, a team must successfully land a privately funded craft on the lunar surface and survive long enough to complete the mission goals of roaming about the lunar surface for at least 500 meters and sending a defined data package, called a “Mooncast”, back to Earth.

 

PRIZES: The total purse of the Google Lunar X PRIZE is $30 million (USD).

• GRAND PRIZE: A $20 million Grand Prize will be awarded to the team that can soft land a craft on the Moon that roams for at least 500 meters and transmits a Mooncast back to Earth. The Grand Prize is $20M until December 31st 2012; thereafter it will drop to $15M until December 31st 2014 at which point the competition will be terminated unless extended by Google and the X PRIZE Foundation

• SECOND PRIZE: A $5 million Second Prize will be offered as well, providing an extra incentive for teams to continue to compete, and increasing the possibility that multiple teams will succeed. Second place will be available until December 31st 2014 at which point the competition will be terminated unless extended by Google and the X PRIZE Foundation

• BONUSES: An additional $5 million in bonus prizes can be won by successfully completing additional mission tasks such as roving longer distances (> 5,000 meters), imaging man made artifacts (e.g. Apollo hardware), discovering water ice, and/or surviving through a frigid lunar night (approximately 14.5 Earth days). The competing lunar spacecraft will be equipped with high-definition video and still cameras, and will send images and data to Earth, which the public will be able to view on the Google Lunar X PRIZE website.

 

Wish we could get Congress to offer similar (but larger) prizes for manned spaceflight accomplishments.

 

Falken

Edited September 14, 2007 by SCFalken

[Jim Martin]

Google posts a $30,000,000 X-Prize for a successful lunar lander.

 

http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/

Wish we could get Congress to offer similar (but larger) prizes for manned spaceflight accomplishments.

 

Falken

 

 

I believe Pournelle suggested the same.

 

Hell, Congress did it to build the Transcontinental Railroad. Offer a cash prize, and let Free Enterprise figure out the details. Better than another government-run goatrope.

[Guest aevans]

I believe Pournelle suggested the same.

 

Hell, Congress did it to build the Transcontinental Railroad. Offer a cash prize, and let Free Enterprise figure out the details. Better than another government-run goatrope.

 

Not quite. Congress provided per-mile land grants and subsidies. And let's not forget how that scheme led to Credit Mobilier.

[SCFalken]

"In a historic event, Japan today launched its second lunar probe. The mission is nicknamed Kaguya after a fairy-tale princess from Japanese myth. The news media is calling it the 'latest move in a new race with China, India and the United States' to explore the moon (don't forget Google). From the article: 'The rocket carrying the three-metric ton orbiter took off into blue skies, leaving a huge trail of vapor over the tiny island of Tanegashima, about 1,000 km (620 miles) south of Tokyo, at 10:31 a.m. (9:31 p.m. EDT) as it headed out over the Pacific Ocean. The mission consists of a main orbiter and two baby satellites equipped with 14 observation instruments designed to examine surface terrain, gravity and other features for clues on the origin and evolution of the moon. China has plans to launch an orbiter later this year, with unmanned rover lander mission scheduled for 2010. India and the US also have orbiter missions scheduled for next year.'"

 

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/07091..._launchday.html

 

Interesting. They've been fairly quiet about this one.

 

Well, Luna will need good Hibachi/Sushi joints, or I won't be going.

 

Falken

Edited September 14, 2007 by SCFalken

[Guest aevans]

Well, Luna will need good Hibachi/Sushi joints, or I won't be going.

 

Naaah -- just a good yakisoba shop in the basement.

 

(If you've been to Li'l Tokyo in Los Angeles, you know the kind I'm talking about.)

Edited September 14, 2007 by aevans

[Josh]

OT....I'm kinda confused...are these probes really *not* redundant with each other? 40 years after landing on the moon several different nations still feel the need to orbit it and land stuff on it to learn more about the composition? What data is being collected that is truly new?

[Guest aevans]

OT....I'm kinda confused...are these probes really *not* redundant with each other? 40 years after landing on the moon several different nations still feel the need to orbit it and land stuff on it to learn more about the composition? What data is being collected that is truly new?

 

Well, the general argument has to do with looking in different places at least potentially turning up different stuff. More likely in any individual case there's a lot of institutional coup counting going on.

[SCFalken]

NASA Administrator Michael Griffin says he believes China will return to the moon with human explorers before the U.S. accomplishes that goal with its Constellation Program, as the economic competition fueled by spaceflight activities intensifies.

 

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...p;channel=space

 

"Senator, we cannot afford a Moon Gap!"

 

 

Falken

[Guest aevans]

"Senator, we cannot afford a Moon Gap!"

 

That was the fundamental motivation the first time around.

[SCFalken]

That was the fundamental motivation the first time around.

 

The Classics never die.

 

Nixon just defunds them.

 

 

Falken

[Guest aevans]

The Classics never die.

 

Nixon just defunds them.

Falken

 

Yep.

 

The first Orion that takes off with a lunar lander will be a real Blast From The Past.

[SCFalken]

Yep.

 

The first Orion that takes off with a lunar lander will be a real Blast From The Past.

 

 

Well, they are being shipped seperately (LSAM goes up with the EDS on the Ares V), this time. So something's new.

 

Falken

[TSJ]

More LEO fun:

 

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/publications...%2009062007.pdf

 

 

United Launch Alliance wants to replace shuttle activities with Atlas V and Dream Chaser by 2010. Says its doable.

 

Just can't seem toget rid of those space planes can we?

 

Cape Canaveral AFB will once again be a manned launch center. Can you dig it?

 

NASA's old launch command building has been gutted and is now used for storage at Canaveral. Looks like they may have to refurbish it? My step dad (passed away) who worked for years at Canaveral as a telemetry tech would have been delighted, bless his heart. He retired from Canaveral in '82.

Edited September 21, 2007 by TSJ

[Guest aevans]

United Launch Alliance wants to replace shuttle activities with Atlas V and Dream Chaser by 2010. Says its doable.

 

Just can't seem toget rid of those space planes can we?

 

Actually, they said they had done feasibility studies with a target IOC of 2011 and had determined that risks were manageable and that all technical tasks could be accomplished. That it's doable I have no problem believing. But in four years? In that time you would have to take the spaceplane from drawing board to flight hardware (or at least a flyable boilerplate for man-rating the LV in the proposed configuration), fly LV man-rating missions, train crews, train launch and mission staffs, etc.

 

As for spaceplanes, they achieve a degree of reentry and landing freedom not achievable with pure ballistic or semi-lifting conical RVs, but it comes at the cost of building in the structure for two-axis load bearing, plus larger than optimum thermal protection systems. This significantly reduces usable payload. The only way to overcome this for any given payload mass is to use a more powerful LV -- which they appear to be doing by specifying Atlas V, but that increases costs. TANSTAAFL.

[SCFalken]

What kind of TPS is on the orbital configuration of the Dream Chaser (has any fabrication work actually started on this, or is it still just .pdf files?).

 

I'm not against having a spaceplane orbiter in addition to the Constellation systems, but it would have to be way, way cheaper per launch (and per kg to orbit) than the STS.

A flyback booster would be a good start (provided that actually gives you a truly reusable booster, and not one that has to be remanufactured from the frame out). The Soviets believed they could do it, back in 1990 (Energia-2), but to my knowledge no one has actually tested the theory.

 

Falken

Edited September 21, 2007 by SCFalken

[Guest aevans]

I'm not against having a spaceplane orbiter in addition to the Constellation systems, but it would have to be way, way cheaper per launch (and per kg to orbit) than the STS.

 

It should be -- with Dream Chaser you're basically talking about a Dyna-Soar on steroids, riding as a payload on top of a proven expendable LV. As a crew and small cargo vehicle it makes some sense, if they can get the structural mass devoted to lift and yaw axis load bearing down to a manageable level.