Page 55 of 55 - Previous page

Where Should Space Exploration Go From Here? is a Slashdot article that gets as much wrong as it possibly could. When Slashdot first became popular I was afraid it would attract the most mindless among us and I turned out to be right. Regardless of what the title of the article was, they still insist on turning the topic to favorite types of vehicles. Never once attempting to determine what they actually wanted to do up there.

---

Comments

Charles Krauthammer's response to the Easterbrook article at least starts to have the correct discussion. He's for “flying higher” and moving beyond LEO. His semi-point is that high risk for the mundane (low gravity research and ISS-truck) isn't worth it, but risk during fantastic journeys is. I just hope he would include private space in there because governments just don't seem to do fantastic journeys very well.

---

Comments

While I'm sure Rand would disagree with the premise of the question, a thread on aRocket called “Shuttle 2.0” has elicited a comment from John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace on just what we should do to replace the shuttle.

From: John Carmack
Subject: Re: [AR] Shuttle 2.0
To: AROCKET


At 09:26 PM 2/3/2003 -0600, you wrote:


Aaron Smith wrote:


Whaddy'all think?



Continue to operate the remaining orbiters.
Accelerate development of a replacement, IMO a 2 stage with flyback
booster.
Develop a 'Shuttle-C', launched unmanned. (4 SRB's, SSME module under
tank that recovers, cargo pod on top of tank. Payload capacity would
exceed 100 MT.)


Tom


Make a tiny little RLV that can carry either a single person, or about
300lb of supplies.  Fly it to ISS every day.  Daily launches would
completely change the way space flight operations are done -- things
wouldn't need to be planned out down to the last degree, because you could
always send another part up tomorrow, or even send up the appropriate
expert the situation demanded.  A "storm shelter" instead of a CRV is also
a lot more credible if you know that you could shuffle everyone down in
fairly short order.

Let them figure out how to break experiments into 300lb chunks if
necessary.  It would be worth it.  New modules and such could still go up
on ELVs.

A 300lb payload RLV is only a 15 ton (fueled) vehicle, and I just can't see
it being a budget-buster to develop.  Give us about five more years, and
I'll quote you a price. :-)

John Carmack
www.armadilloaerospace.com

---

Comments

The nice folks on the various sci.space.* groups have come up with an FAQ for the Columbia accident that will be continually updated.

---

Comments

Keith Cowing of NASAWatch/SpaceRef.com has a three part interview with NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3

---

Comments

p.

_San Jose, CA (ROL Newswire) – _  

Rouse-Tech of San Jose, California has developed a carbon dioxide recovery deployment mechanism for rocketry applications. CD3 is a linear pyrotechnic release mechanism for piercing stock, off-the-shelf CO2 cartridges and using the expanding gas to perform parachute deployment. p. The cold gas takes the place of a .25 to 10 gram Black Powder charge and eliminates the scorching, burning, and dangers of BP in recovery systems. CD3, for Carbon Dioxide Deployment Device (patent pending) is the result of numerous observations at the launch site of failed high altitude flights. So very often these high flyers would return dramatically with their electric matches partially burned and BP charge missing, but without parachute deployment. A year of research using fixtures capable of simulating near space vacuum, consultation with engineers and scientists, and hundreds of tests determined that current methods of deployment were lacking. The fact that matches and powder charges both needed to be within a contained system in order to work properly was well known to aerospace engineers but largely ignored by the hobby rocket community. The natural outgrowth of this experimentation was the utilization of this contained system to do work and open a CO2 cartridge which would provide the necessary deployment gasses.

p. Once the system was perfected Rouse-Tech came to the conclusion that the system designed for high altitude recoveries was perfect for altitudes generally seen by the hobby rocket community. Since the smokeless, Pyrodex, or Black Powder charge utilized by the unit was minimal it was determined that the interior of airframes would not get fouled by combustion byproducts. The heat usually encountered using a black powder charge was also not present resulting in nylon and kevlar bridles remaining undamaged. Most importantly, the need for Kevlar shields and/or cellulose wadding was eliminated.

p. The CD3 is exclusively distributed by Aerocon Systems and all units are in stock and ready for immediate delivery.

p. For more info: www.aeroconsystems.com.

---

Comments