| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Home Front: Tech | |
| Redesign Is Seen for Next Craft, NASA Aides Say | |
| 2005-08-02 | |
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #15 He-3 isn't any easier to get fusion reactions from than normal tritium-deuterium reactions, it just tends to be the least polluting in the sense that its by-products are the shortest lived for half life and radiation emissions. (Hence the 1 trillion bucks assumes we ever get a workable fusion reaction going). If we ever get it to work you can bet we'll just use a tritium based reaction system unless we find a cheaper solution. |
| Posted by: Valentine 2005-08-02 19:43 |
| #14 The biggest problem is that the scientists and engineers at NASA are so utterly focused on "raw science", that they miss the big picture. For example, they sent two Mars rovers that were a success, so for a follow-up, they want to send a much bigger version of the same contraption. If they were left to do Mars research, they would still be sending modified rovers to Mars for 100 years. To do much the same basic research. They would be shocked if someone was to propose sending a totally different vehicle *not* with the purpose of re-discovery, but with the idea of scouting a location for a human landing. They cannot understand that if people go to Mars they have to be practical, and use Martian resources if at all possible. NASA would have them go in self-contained pods on a hundred short missions instead of actually thinking of building a permanent habitation out of Martian rock and dirt. If I was in charge of our space program, for every pure science mission, there would be another that in some way encouraged free enterprise space use. First, by modifying the ISS to become a space-produced goods manufacturing plant. It would get a heck of a lot more support if it not only paid for itself, but made a profit; which it could do with little or no restriction on its science missions. How quickly would we be on the Moon if corporations were paid to bring back H3? Give Exxon $500B, and we will get shiploads of H3 in five years, and save $3 Trillion in oil money. That sounds like a darn good investment. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2005-08-02 19:03 |
| #13 A better question, how much time and money was spent building the ISS with no real purpose in mind beyond a works program for our international friends. The Air Force had better ideas with space planes that were dumped when NASA took over. Some of those programs should be relooked at considering new technology. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-02 17:27 |
| #12 But keep the CB antenna, Good Buddy. NASA's shaggin' wagon. Yeah... -- On a serious note, how much time and money was spent to [try to] solve the problem of foam falling off during launch? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-08-02 15:54 |
| #11 I don't mind the shag carpeting but the wizard painted on the side and the waterbed in back really have to go. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-02 15:18 |
| #10 The shag carpeting will be in 'harvest gold', or possibly 'avocado'. |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-08-02 12:57 |
| #9 Future missions have been indefinitely suspended while NASA tries to solve the persistent shedding of foam from the external fuel tank at liftoff. The solution is simple: go back to WHAT WORKED BEFORE. Drop the political correctness, please. |
| Posted by: Bomb-a-rama 2005-08-02 12:53 |
| #8 What's the cost of delivering a pound of supplies or humans to the station today? What is the cost of putting a pound of satellite into geo-sync orbit? If you can answer those questions, then the issue isn't one of 'what the next shuttle or booster' should be, but rather who can do it cheaper and more reliable. Only need to keep lift capability for military cargo for security reasons. |
| Posted by: Angomoger Elmolusing5585 2005-08-02 12:11 |
| #7 We're long overdue for the commercialization of LEO deliveries. NASA could likely support 3-4 competing commercial ventures for less than the cost of building the next-gen LEO delivery ship in house. |
| Posted by: AzCat 2005-08-02 12:02 |
| #6 Maybe one that don't blow up quite so often, huh guys?... |
| Posted by: mojo 2005-08-02 11:45 |
| #5 Not only is an aircraft redesign needed, a redesigning of the staff is needed too. |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-08-02 10:41 |
| #4 using some parts from the current [Disco-era] shuttle program. Just not the burnt orange shag carpeting, right? |
| Posted by: eLarson 2005-08-02 10:26 |
| #3 Rand has a point but the redesign also stacks instead of configuring side-by-side which should eliminate the falling debris problems that have plagued the shuttle lately. I think the shuttles main weakness though was compromised design from the beginning and this should solve that. When the manned component becomes more expensive than buyin tickets on Virgin Space it can be shut down and the unmanned component will still have value. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-08-02 10:05 |
| #2 They say they want to build a system to overcome the shuttle's weaknesses, but they want to use the weakest part of the shuttle program to build the new one: segmented solid rocket boosters. (Rand Simberg has pointed this out too.) |
| Posted by: Phil Fraering 2005-08-02 01:32 |
| #1 Talk is cheap Congress appropriates $ |
| Posted by: BigEd 2005-08-02 01:13 |