Posted on 09/07/2003 8:23:14 AM PDT by mikegi
NASA has seen the future, and it is the space capsule. Seven months after the Columbia debacle the agency is giving serious consideration to bringing back a new version of the Apollo capsule, the expendable spacecraft that served the U.S. space program during its glory days in the 1960s through the mid-1970s. Supporters say they are not retreating into the past so much as waking up, at last, to the dangers of attempting spaceflight with winged shuttles, a notion given ample support by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report released last week. Boosters on Capital Hill, in the aerospace industry and even inside the astronaut corps point out the capsule has is a more versatile design: it is modular and can be outfitted to the specific needs of any mission. And unlike the shuttle, it can venture beyond low Earth orbit, which means the U.S. could once again send astronauts to the moon.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at time.com ...
Pure BS. I have helped to recode onboard computers to work around inflight failures for unmanned satellites/spacecraft. You would be surprised just how robust and configurable our spacecraft are.
What you do is send up lots of robotic explorers
Who pays for the cost of launch and the cost of controlling them?
Manned exploration is still the best way to go for the long term.
And for our $50 billion we could GUARANTEE no astronauts would be killed in space.
Only down side is you're gonna make the environazis angry with all that smoke.
Yep, they can often be fixed from ground. But the question implied something else, didn't it?--that only hands with fingers could do a job. Thanks for stating that that's not always the case.
And if it can't be fixed, it can be abandoned, because the whole problem doesn't have to crash to a halt while we anguish and grieve over dead celebrities. If the wouldbe Buzz Lightyears and their little cult followers could get out of the way, maybe the engineers could get a chance to take us to Mars. The jpl, swri and others would finally get their chance to show us Mars at eye level...
re: Who pays for the cost of launch and the cost of controlling them?)))
Two right now--we seem to be handling that expense. But I'd love to see an armada land, form a grid.
At least Columbus brought back gold.
Government controlled manned spaceflight has turned into just another federal make work program.
Important to note that the crew of Apollo 1 was killed on the ground, during a practice launch. They never left the ground.
For those not familiar with the Apollo 1 accident click this link.
The big problem with that is communications. I know. Ever try to command a spacecraft when the reply does not get back to you for 9 hours at the speed of light? Also how many 70 meter dish antennas do you propose we build? VLBI might work, but would require MANY antennas and ground stations.
Capsules probably are safer, but not without considerable risks. Considering the sclerotic state of NASA, I wouldn't count on them to launch capsules safely either.
Nasa robotics gave to the biomed industry. It's just possible that the biomeds have something to give back. It is just dropdead wonderful what robotics are starting to add to surgical outcomes.
Agreed! However, there is a matter of physics that constrain our designs.
Who pays for the cost of launch and the cost of controlling them?
Manned exploration is still the best way to go for the long term.
I fully agree that we have to have people in the loop. I also like the idea of lots of relatively cheap mini-probes instead of the mega probes that were sent out in the "golden age" of Voyager and the like. That was always my hope for the space station. That the astronauts would be doing final assembly and configs, or building up from on hand parts, small, simple, sensors to be deployed for further study. Put a good tether system up (above, relative to the space station) and I believe you could even launch these things cheaply beyond earth orbit. That only works with folks on orbit.
Of course my real hope is that someone will pull off a surprise and mount a private, money making, venture, such as snagging a platinum asteroid. Enlightened self interest. Always the best motivator.
One of my fondest memories was a long talk over beers with a co-worker in the IT group at my company who had worked (in normal IT, not on the program) at Grumman's Long Island facility where they built the LEM during the Apollo program. The story about all of them, even the janitors, showing up in the middle of the night looking to do whatever they could to bring Apollo 13 home was awesome. When he retired he left me all of his souveniers from those days, including the signed posters from the engieering team (plus some astronauts signatures).
My best chance to see Mars is through a system of hotshot cameras.
Hey, didn't I see that on ebay?
Nothing an astronaut can tell scientist that a rover cannot.
Nothing sex can accomplish that artificial insemination cannot.
SSTO sounds really awesome at first. But I am skeptical of their possibility, at least in the way it was presented by venturestar. Delta-V is an important measure of a rocket's performance. By plugging in numbers from this link, to this link, it can be deduced that x-33 is a flop in theory. You should find that x-33 is lacking over 1000 seconds of Isp to even be possible. Sadly, no chemical engine exists (theoretical or actual) that could do what nasa wanted x-33 to do. The only known way to acomplish SSTO with large payloads is with a thermal atomic engine like NERVA (but better and more powerful of course).
BTW, x-33's engines were rated at 450 Isp.. quite nominal for a LOX LOH engine.
And they are going to call it "Soyuz."
WOW! :-) That is so cool!
Yes and no. :-)
I would love to see "Star Trek" for real, however, when we design a system, it has to stay within the realm of physics and funding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
