A sample text widget
Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis
euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.
Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan.
Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem,
suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.
|
RSC Energiya has unveiled a mockup of their proposed Kliper (or Clipper, in this article) partially-reusable spacecraft:
The Clipper spacecraft will replace the disposable Soyuz which is currently used to man the International Space Station.
Energia specialists said that if sufficient finances are allocated for the Clipper program, the spacecraft could be launched in five to seven years. They also said that the price of the Russian shuttle would be approximately ten times less than U.S. analogues.
Hmm…meaning Shuttle, or CEV?
The main difference of the Clipper from U.S. space shuttles and the Russian shuttle Buran is that it is made of two parts and only the piloted compartment is actually of multiple use. The hardware compartment will be disposable, just like present Russian spaceships. One Clipper spacecraft will be capable of 25 space missions.
Judging from some of the images floating around, it appears that the windward heatshield may be among the disposable items, as well.
Would it be pedantic to point out that there are more (and more significant) differences between the Kliper/Clipper and the Shuttle than those described?
The experts also pointed at another advantage of the new spacecraft ? high precision landing will allow it to land on Russian airfields and not in Kazakhstan like Soyuz landing modules.
Note that this is in keeping with their new ability to fly uprated Soyuz launchers from Plesetsk.
NASA is tentatively sorta kinda considering the possibility of China maybe somehow taking part in the VSE…maybe…sorta…
NASA admits China to exploration discussions
Long shunned as a player in U.S-led international space ventures, China has been admitted to talks with NASA about helping to accomplish President Bush’s goals for exploring the moon and Mars.
With the blessing of the U.S. State Department, a Chinese delegate this week joined representatives from Russia, Japan, Canada and other foreign powers for a NASA-sponsored workshop on the unfolding space initiative.
China’s involvement in the three-day workshop that ended Thursday was a small but highly visible breakthrough in relations with a potential to improve global security as well as advance space exploration, participants and outside experts said.
But they cautioned against reading too much into the session, which drew representatives from 30 countries. More talks are planned for early next year.
“This indicates a very cautious, small first step,” said Joan Johnson-Freese, a national security specialist at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., who monitors Chinese developments. “The fact we did invite and China did send someone is very good news, but I would not jump to the conclusion there will be a partnership.”
But, don’t read too much into all of this, because, you know, they’re just, like, talking about it. Sorta hypothetical-like. Maybe.
[via Carl Carlsson]
Some have criticized the Vision for Space Exploration as having been crafted behind closed doors, without input and guidance from the public, academia, and international partners.
Europe, on the other hand, is taking a very different — and characteristically European — approach in the formulation of a new collective space policy:
The European space council is set to meet in Brussels for the first time on Thursday this week. Ministers who sit on the EU’s competitiveness council will attend the meeting along with ministerial officials from the European Space Agency (ESA).
The meeting is being touted as the first step towards a co-ordinated European space policy, and the announcement from ESA gives an insight into just how much bureaucratic wrangling goes into a project this size.
In brief: the Space Council sessions were first proposed in a Framework Agreement, which was adopted in 2003, and came into force in May this year. This agreement sets out how the EU will develop a coordinated, pan-European space policy. An outline of how the policy might look already exists – it is the result of three years of effort between ESA and the EU, defining objectives and identifying priorities. The final document is expected to be approved at a space council session towards the end of 2005.
The ESA says that an exchange of views will be at the core of the agenda, along with the almost inevitable progress report. The outcome of the meeting will be made public late on Thursday evening.
I can hardly wait for the European space policy counterpart to the VSE to be published…it will be the culmination of a grand generational undertaking, not unlike the return to the Moon itself.
Looks like someone famous (with an alien connection) will be among the first Virgin Galactic customers.
India is also planning a reusable launch vehicle demonstrator: Govt. nod for ISRO’S RLV technology demonstrator
Giving a boost to the Indian Space Research Organisation’s (ISRO) ambitious programme to idigenously develop Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV), the Centre recently gave clearance for a technology demonstrator, ISRO Chairman G Madhavan Nair said.
…Mr Nair said the detailed design work for the technology demonstrator had already started.
The RLV technology demonstrator, expected to be ready within three to four years, would be the first step for ISRO to ultimately build its own RLVs, which could bring down the cost of launching satellites by as much as 60 per cent.
The Indian Space Research Organisation would have to work on a number of cutting edge technologies, including those related to hyper-sonic speeds and thermal protection, to perfect the technology demonstrator, Mr Nair said.
Having several botched U.S. RLV programs to learn from should make it somewhat easier, though, eh?
They’re at least thinking along those lines: India debates space flight as lunar project proceeds
India’s space agency is ready to send a man into space within seven years if the government gives the nod, while preparations have already begun for the launching of an unmanned lunar mission, a top official said Sunday…
Nair said “a lot of debate” had to take place in India before a final decision is made on a manned space flight.
“The benefits and the costs involved have to be examined,” he said. “Various facilities and equipment such as a space capsule for human habitation, shielding, control and safety features have to be built. A large amount of funding is required.”
More on the same theme: IAF, ISRO discuss plans for manned space mission
Mark Whittington points out a survey conducted by Dittmar Associates, a Houston-area business and IT consulting firm, on public attitudes towards space exploration. The survey is listed at $950 a pop, so I haven’t read the actual content, but their summary of results teaser includes some interesting information:
- Endorsement of the space program in general is very strong, with 69% of Americans voicing their support.
Given the nearly 50-50 partisan split, this indicates a decent level of bipartisan support. Of course, the devil in the details here is the distribution of that 69%…if the bulk of the support is on the Democratic side, for example, it is likely to mean less in a Republican-controlled government. Then there is the matter of how “the space program” is defined…if the surveys have been conducted in the past two months, could some of this support actually be a by-product of the successful SpaceShipOne flights, which have nothing to do with what would typically be considered “the space program”, i.e.:NASA?
- Interest and excitement about the Vision for Space Exploration is strong for near-term aspects of the plan (65% of Americans responded positively) and for returning to the Moon. This is not true for plans to send humans to Mars, which is seen as involving much more risk (18% of Americans responded positively).
Mark and Rand consider this to be bad news for humans-to-Mars, but it may not be as simple as that. Much of the attention the VSE has received has been on the near-term aspects for which the survey sees public support — these aspects, including a new crewed vehicle and a return to the Moon, are better defined and have, in some form, been done before. Which is to say, the general public is more comfortable with and confident in those VSE goals which they already know to be achievable. The description of manned Mars missions as “involving much more risk” points in this direction: it seems risky, perhaps too risky for 82% of those surveyed, because it is something which hasn’t been done before.
As what Rand might term a “Barsoomophile” (the blog’s name sorta gives it away, eh?), I don’t find this in the least bit surprising nor disappointing — nor is strong public support for humans-to-Mars required at the moment. We need to go to the Moon first for a variety of reasons, and the survey shows support for that element of the VSE. If the lack of similar support for Mars really is rooted in the perceived risk, that perception will surely change (or be amenable to change) by the time we are ready to undertake such missions, having demonstrated hardware, new (civil and private) space infrastructure, and fresh experience operating in distant, harsh planetary environments to work with.
- Out of 5 options, Americans ranked ?International participation and cost-sharing? as their #1 choice for funding the Vision ? with certain conditions.
I sure would like to know what those “conditions” are.
- There are large and significant differences in the degree of enthusiasm about the plan on the basis of sex, ethnic groups, age, and other variables.
Ditto for these demographic differences.
- Americans understand and appreciate the benefits of the space program (?spin-offs?, science, and the impact of space-based technology developments to daily lives).
While the notion of spinoffs is seen by others with some distaste, I think it is only natural that the public appreciates “the space program” on the basis of how it benefits their daily lives — they are looking for (and apparently finding) a return on their “investment” in space exploration activities. It would be nice, yes, if people supported space activities for the “right” reasons espoused by different branches of the space advocacy community, such as a dramatic and inspirational expanding of the frontier, the spawning of a new branch of civilization, insurance against extinction events and other calamities, or simply as a vast new economic sphere to be developed for profit. And yes, there is the danger that the pursuit of spinoffs as the primary justification for space exploration (rather than space exploration resulting in spinoffs as a side effect, as the term implies) pushes “the space program” in unhelpful directions. But this expectation of a return is not an inherently bad thing, and is what all the visionary goals ultimately boil down to anyway.
- Americans believe that much more can be done to promote NASA and its goals.
One wonders what NASA goals were specified for the respondents. The agency could certainly do more to promote the goals contained within the VSE. I’m not sure about promoting NASA is necessarily a positive, however, as it sounds uncomfortably like promoting the myth that space is/should be the sole province of NASA — it all depends on what NASA is being promoted as and promoted for.
Modernized version of Soyuz rocket launched
The rocket has taken the first step in modernizing the Soyuz vehicle, which has been in service since the 1960s. The Soyuz 2-1a configuration flown today featured a digital control system that enhances the guidance during ascent to reach more precise orbits and that will allow the vehicle to fly with a larger four-meter diameter nose cone payload fairing.
The Soyuz 2-1b rocket is slated for its inaugural launch in mid-2006 featuring a more powerful third stage engine package to improve the vehicle’s performance and increase the cargo-lifting capacity.
The modernized rocket is being prepared for launches starting in 2007 from the European Space Agency complex in Kourou, French Guiana. European and Russian space teams are building the commercial Soyuz pad at the base where Ariane rockets are flown.
I don’t have the numbers, but I’d imagine that launching the new version from the higher-inclination Plesetsk amounts to a break-even compared to the previous version launching from Baikonur — the real payback is likely to come from the near-equatorial commercial launches from Kourou and the reduced dependence on the good graces of Kazakhstan.
(Translation: “Not your father’s Soyuz”.)
More details are emerging concerning Robert Bigelow’s new space prize: Rules Set for $50 Million ‘America’s Space Prize’
Anyone who wants to follow in the shoes of Burt Rutan and win the next big space prize will have to build a spacecraft capable of taking a crew of no fewer than five people to an altitude of 400 kilometers and complete two orbits of the Earth at that altitude. Then they have to repeat that accomplishment within 60 days.
While the first flight must demonstrate only the ability to carry five crew members, the winner will have to take at least five people up on the second flight.
And one more thing. They have to do it by Jan. 10, 2010.
More rules are listed in the article (see extended entry, below), but this is the one I find the most intriguing: that date is smack in the middle of the interval between the first “boilerplate” flight of CEV in 2008, and its first manned flights in 2011. It may or may not be Bigelow’s intention to upstage/obviate Constellation, but if America’s Space Prize is awarded that will be the likely eventual outcome. In this context, it is worth remembering that Constellation is not intended to be a reusable vehicle, while a prize winner will be — one more factor favoring the prize contestants. On the other hand, Constellation is intended as a suite of vehicles for LEO, lunar, and Mars missions, so building a better LEO-capable vehicle may not kill off the NASA effort altogether or not immediately.
Constellation or no Constellation, Mr. Bigelow clearly believes LEO is finally ripe for the private-sector plucking:
Given the re-election of U.S. President George W. Bush, his space vision for exploration of the Moon, Mars and beyond, Bigelow said, means that NASA is abandoning low Earth orbit.
“That?s important because the private sector has never had any turf of its own in space, except for satellites. What this does is open up the door for opportunities of all different kinds for the private sector.”
Lest one object that $50M is a paltry return on what will likely be a much larger investment, Mr. Bigelow promises an even bigger follow-on “prize”:
In addition to the $50 million prize, Bigelow said his company also is prepared to offer $200 million in conditional purchase agreements for six flights of a selected vehicle. “It could be somebody who doesn?t win, who comes in late, but we like their architecture better than the winner?s architecture,” Bigelow said.
In addition, $800 million in options contracts for 24 flights will be available over a period of about four to 4.5 years, Bigelow said.
Continue reading The Next Step
U.S. deploys satellite jamming system
The ground-based jammer uses electromagnetic radio frequency energy to knock out transmissions on a temporary and reversible basis, without frying components, the command said.
“A reversible effect ensures that during the time of need, the adversary’s space-based capability to threaten our forces is diminished,” said Capt. Angie Blair, a spokeswoman. “Following the time of need, the space-based capabilities used by the adversary can return to its original state.”
Why destroy enemy assets and make a mess of Earth orbit, when you can simply stun them?
The Air Force Space Command, in its e-mailed replies, said the system was built from off-the-shelf commercial equipment, and made up an antenna, transmitters and receivers that can be loaded into a trailer and moved from place to place.
Three such systems had been delivered since late last year, the command said. The program’s budget for fiscal 2005 totaled $6.2 million, according to the Congressional Research Service.
This is the amazing part — not that a ground station can zap a satellite out of commission temporarily, but that it was done so cheaply. Which is in turn a bit unsettling — if creating such a capability doesn’t require billions of dollars and a significant specialized industrial base, it ought to be much easier to undertake than a clandestine nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons program.
|
|