The thread for space cadets!

This is just for PlutonianEmpire:

Spoiler :
0



Sierra Nevada strikes deal to put space plane in orbit in 2016

Sierra Nevada Corp. has made a deal to put its Dream Chaser space plane into orbit for the first time in 2016 for an autonomous test run — and send test pilots to the International Space Station a year later if all goes well.

The deal with United Launch Alliance reserves an Atlas 5 rocket for liftoff from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station on Nov. 1, 2016, said Mark Sirangelo, corporate vice president and head of Sierra Nevada Space Systems.

Sierra Nevada is "thrilled to be the first company to confirm a launch date for our country's return to orbital human spaceflight," Sirangelo said during a Thursday news conference at NASA's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.


Space taxis under development
NASA is providing more than a billion dollars to three companies — Sierra Nevada, SpaceX and the Boeing Co. — to develop space taxis for transporting astronauts to and from the space station, starting as early as 2017. The commercial arrangement is meant to fill a gap created by the retirement of the space shuttles in 2011. Currently, NASA has to buy rides from the Russians at a cost of more than $70 million per seat.


By September, NASA is expected to decide which companies will get more money to finish work on their space taxis and demonstrate them in orbit.

Sirangelo said Sierra Nevada's reservation for the Atlas 5 launch wasn't contingent on winning more money from NASA. "We have made a commitment to the launch," Sirangelo told NBC News. However, he declined to discuss the financial details. Michael Gass, ULA's president and CEO, characterized the arrangement as a reservation for launch.

Mini-shuttle being tested
The Dream Chaser is a reusable mini-shuttle, based on a NASA concept that was drawn up in the 1980s. It's designed to be launched into orbit on an Atlas 5 and glide down from orbit to a runway landing. The craft could carry cargo or up to seven passengers.


A prototype plane had its first free-flying glide test last October, and even though it skidded off the runway at Edwards Air Force Base in California, NASA and Sierra Nevada determined that the plane met all of its required milestones. Another autonomous test flight is planned this year. Atmospheric flight tests with actual crews would begin next year, said Steve Lindsey, a former NASA astronaut who is now Sierra Nevada's program manager for the Dream Chaser.

"We have a lot more testing to go," Lindsey said.


Where and when
Sirangelo said the Dream Chaser would undergo processing before and after the 2016 flight at Kennedy Space Center's Operations and Checkout facility, also known as the O&C. During the autonomous flight, the space plane would make several orbits but not attempt a rendezvous with the space station, Lindsey said. The test would end with a landing at Edwards Air Force Base.


The schedule calls for having two test pilots aboard the Dream Chaser for the follow-up launch in 2017. That mission would rendezvous with the space station, and head for a landing at Kennedy Space Center's Shuttle Landing Facility. If Sierra Nevada wins NASA's nod for orbital transport, the Dream Chaser would continue with launches and landings from Florida.

Sierra Nevada is also working with the European Space Agency and the German Aerospace Center to advance development of the Dream Chaser and look into whether its technologies can be applied to missions other than trips to and from the International Space Station.
Cool video:

Link to video.
So this is pretty exciting; essentially, Sierra Nevada Corporation has decided to book flight(s) prior to NASA funding them. In other words, even if they lose the competition to provide manned flights to the ISS, they are still going to fly the Dream Chaser. I guess that means they will be looking to sell their services to other corporations - Bigelow Aerospace, perhaps?






Hello, Newton: Virgin Galactic unveils its 'other' rocket engine
2D11402700-140122-coslog-newton.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

MOJAVE, Calif. — Even as Virgin Galactic is testing the hybrid rocket motor that powers its SpaceShipTwo suborbital space plane, it's developing a different rocket engine for orbital flights. Now the company is taking the wraps off that kerosene-fueled powerhouse, known as the Newton.

Two types of Newton engines have been designed for use on Virgin Galactic's two-stage LauncherOne rocket, which is destined to carry satellites into orbit from the WhiteKnightTwo carrier airplane starting as early as 2016. Future generations of the Newton could conceivably send rocket planes from, say, New York to London in 45 minutes.

The prototypes already have gone through dozens of rounds of firings at Virgin Galactic's rocket test stands in an isolated area of the Mojave Air and Space Port, said Robyn Ringuette, the company's director of liquid propulsion.

The NewtonOne, an upper-stage engine designed to provide 3,500 pounds of thrust, has been run for its projected full mission duration of five minutes, Ringuette told NBC News during a tour of the test site. The NewtonTwo, which would serve as LauncherOne's first-stage engine, has been hot-fired for just a few seconds at a time so far. When it's ready for prime time, Virgin Galactic expects it to blast away for about two and a half minutes, with 47,500 pounds of thrust.

Will Pomerantz, Virgin Galactic's vice president for special projects, said the company was told to budget a year for building one engine test stand in Mojave. But in just six months, two test stands were built. "It's one of the few projects that I know of that's ahead of schedule," he joked.

Ringuette said components for an upgraded NewtonThree engine are already undergoing testing.

2D11401708-140122-coslog-rocket.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

Image: Newton engines
John Makely / NBC News
Propulsion engineer Robyn Ringuette shows off models of the NewtonTwo and NewtonOne engines at a Virgin Galactic production facility in Mojave, Calif.

The 'other' rocket
Until now, Virgin Galactic has said little about the Newton project. Instead, attention has been focused on the hybrid propulsion system for SpaceShipTwo, which came in for its third rocket-powered test flight on Jan. 10.


SpaceShipTwo's rocket motor is built by Sierra Nevada Corp. It's a scaled-up version of the motor that Sierra Nevada's SpaceDev subsidiary provided for SpaceShipTwo's predecessor, SpaceShipOne, when that plane rocketed to space three times in 2004. Both versions are powered by a non-toxic solid fuel and nitrous oxide.

"We and our contractors at Scaled Composites and Sierra Nevada are continuing to develop ways to improve the motor design by making them easier to manufacture and install, or by further improving their handling characteristics and performance," Pomerantz said in an email.

The hybrid rocket motor is designed to send SpaceShipTwo and its passengers on an up-and-down jaunt past the 100-kilometer (62-mile) mark. So far, more than 650 passengers have signed up for that trip, paying as much as $250,000 a ticket. Commercial service could begin as early as this year.

In contrast, the Newton engines use RP-1 kerosene and supercooled liquid oxygen as propellants. Virgin Galactic says those engines will be powerful enough to send payloads weighing up to 500 pounds (225 kilograms) into low Earth orbit on LauncherOne, at a cost of less than $10 million. At least four companies already have signed up for satellite launches: Skybox Imaging, GeoOptics, Spaceflight Inc. and Planetary Resources.

Virgin Galactic's CEO, George Whitesides, said in a news release that he was proud of the propulsion team's progress.

"Combined with parallel progress made by the company in advanced tank and avionics technology, we are now well on our way to providing customers with the lowest-cost opportunity for small satellite manufacturers and operators to buy a dedicated ride to space," Whitesides said.


2D11401357-140122-coslog-testsite.blocks_desktop_large.jpg

Image: Rocket test site
Virgin Galactic
An aerial photograph shows Virgin Galactic's rocket test site on the grounds of the Mojave Air and Space Port in California.

Starting small
Pomerantz said there are currently no plans to use the Newtons on SpaceShipTwo. But when it's time to think about point-to-point suborbital space travel on SpaceShipThree, more powerful versions of the Newton propulsion system could well be part of those plans.


"Those kind of future vehicles — the SpaceShipThrees and SpaceShipFours, et cetera — are going to require more advanced propulsion than what we need for SpaceShipTwo," Pomerantz said. "The liquid rocket engines we’re testing now will help us get into service quickly with a great product in the form of LauncherOne, while also helping us get smarter and more capable so that we are ready to power those future vehicles when the time comes."

Other commercial ventures on the rise — including Blue Origin, SpaceX and XCOR Aerospace — have in-house rocket engine development programs as well. Another Mojave space venture, Stratolaunch Systems, is working on an air-launch system that's much more powerful than Virgin Galactic's. So why does the world need yet another rocket engine?

Pomerantz explained that LauncherOne is going after the small-satellite market, which Virgin Galactic believes will be the sweet spot for launch services.

"We noticed that the rockets keep getting bigger and bigger, and more expensive — while in parallel, satellites are getting smaller and cheaper," Pomerantz said.

This is also a cool development. Since Virgin Galactic was founded, they have talked about expanding into orbital capabilities. Obviously, they haven't yet started suborbital services, so I guess it's to be expected they haven't done much on the orbital front. In fact, though they said they wanted to do orbital work, I don't recall ever hearing anything about VG orbital projects. This article shows they have in fact been working on it, which is awesome. Even if they only provide small-vehicle launch services, it would still be a big deal as the launch market sorely needs a dedicated (and cheap) platform for launching small satellites like CubeSats.
 
@ plutonium: you have a favorite star? What about it makes it your favorite?
You know this?

That's exactly what that star is, and it's only 35 light years away; so its relative proximity to Earth is what triggered it to become my favorite star. :)

This is just for PlutonianEmpire:

Spoiler :
0
Link doesn't work. :dunno:
 
Here PE, sorry for the bad link:

Spoiler :
attachment.php


Spoiler :
I was watching an interview with him online and paused it to do something. When I came back I saw I had accidentally paused it at the funniest possible moment and the expression on his face made me think you would like it.
 
Dream chaser looks like a Hyundai Veloster :lol:

Seriously, though, that was a pretty cool video. This is a really exciting time to be watching the industry.
 
Good read! Thanks dutchfire. :)

NASA puts out the call for commercial lunar landers


CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — NASA plans to provide free technical expertise, equipment, facilities and software to help selected companies develop lunar landers as part of a new program called Lunar Catalyst.

"The intent of this initiative is to stimulate and help commercialization," Jason Crusan, who oversees NASA's advanced exploration programs, said during a conference call with prospective bidders on Monday.


Development of commercial lunar landers would join a growing list of space transportation services that have attracted interest from U.S. companies, including the Boeing Co and Alliant Techsystems Inc.

NASA already has turned over cargo deliveries to the International Space Station to SpaceX and Orbital Sciences Corp. The companies hold NASA cargo resupply contracts worth a combined $3.5 billion.

NASA wants a balanced approach in which its contributions will help accelerate the development of industry projects, Crusan said during a follow-on conference call with reporters. "If a team came in and wanted everything from NASA and (wanted) us to build the landing service for them, that's not really much of a partnership," he said.

The space agency also is looking to buy rides commercially for its astronauts. At least three firms, SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada Corp., are in the running for NASA funding to help get their spaceships ready for test flights by the end of 2017.

Companies interested in Lunar Catalyst have until March 17 to submit business plans and proposals to NASA, which could decide to purchase hardware or services at a future date, Crusan said. ("Catalyst" is meant to stand for "Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown.")

As an example, Crusan cited a mission that's under development to mine water on the moon. NASA intends to partner with Canada and other countries to produce a rover and a lander for the mission. But If those plans fall through, NASA could look to buy the equipment from, or partner with, U.S. companies, Crusan said.

NASA already has contracts to buy lunar science and technical data from several teams competing in the $30 million Google X Prize competition to land and operate a privately owned vehicle on the moon before the end of 2015.

Copyright 2014 Thomson Reuters.

This is pretty exciting news given how successful NASA's other commercial-leverage programs have been. If this leads to a private moon program the way COTS has created new commercial launch services it would be a huge win for the space industry.


Related note: the name of this program is Catalyst, which is an acronym for 'Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown'. Anywho, it's a cool name, as is the name of a demonstration lander NASA developed called Morpheus. So um, why the hell is NASA's biggest, boldest project, the 130 metric ton super-heavy launcher, still called 'SLS' (Space Launch System)? A name like that feels like a placeholder and gives me the impression they are worried that project won't succeed.

So folks, it's time to give this rocket a new name:
images


Any suggestions?
 
Good read! Thanks dutchfire. :)

NASA puts out the call for commercial lunar landers




This is pretty exciting news given how successful NASA's other commercial-leverage programs have been. If this leads to a private moon program the way COTS has created new commercial launch services it would be a huge win for the space industry.


Related note: the name of this program is Catalyst, which is an acronym for 'Cargo Transportation and Landing by Soft Touchdown'. Anywho, it's a cool name, as is the name of a demonstration lander NASA developed called Morpheus. So um, why the hell is NASA's biggest, boldest project, the 130 metric ton super-heavy launcher, still called 'SLS' (Space Launch System)? A name like that feels like a placeholder and gives me the impression they are worried that project won't succeed.

So folks, it's time to give this rocket a new name:
images


Any suggestions?

What's wrong with SLS? :confused: It's a stylish acronym and it's even more creative than Space Shuttle :lol:
 
Operation Moon Wiener 1.0 :mischief:
MEGA PHALUS 5000
What's wrong with SLS? :confused: It's a stylish acronym and it's even more creative than Space Shuttle :lol:

I don't find it stylish at all, it's pedestrian, obvious and unimaginative. It's also indicative of the unnecessary fetish for ACRONYMS* that NASA has developed as of late. Before this, they went with cool names such as Juno, Saturn V, Atlas and Titan II (the latter two coming by way of the USAF) and now everything is just an acronym. I don't mind it so much when the acronym is both 'cool' and related to the project (see the Catalyst acronym from earlier post) but other times it's just...ugh. See: CCDev, COTS, SLS, etc...

Color me odd but I feel NASA would be better served visa-vis their image with the public if they picked more inspired, 'cooler' sounding names for their projects - the flagship ones such as the SLS in particular.

As for the Space Shuttle - I don't hate it, nor do I find it uncreative. It may seem uncreative now, 30 years after the fact, but you have to remember that before the Space Shuttle came along, there was no such thing as a space shuttle. The STS (the official acronym for the shuttle) literally invented the category and the name "Space Shuttle" proved so effective it was co-opted to describe all other 'space shuttle' type of projects, much like 'googling' has become synonymous with 'online searching'.

*Acronyms Can't Replace Ominous Names You Might Select
 
This came from another thread but fits better here methinks.
Ah, McDonnell Douglas. Used to be headquartered here. They made great planes- the Skyhawk, F-4 Phantom II, F-15, F/A-18 Hornet, the Super Hornet, and so on. Boeing just can't make good fighters.

Well they make a very good selection of up-rated fighters that started as McDonnell aircrafts. By this point they've changed enough that it would be fair to call them 'Boeing' fighters. But you're right, they aren't known for their original traditional fighter lines and lost the last big fighter procurement program we're ever going to see (their entrant was the X-32). I lived near Seattle when they lost that contract and it was a huge upset for the state.

However, they are just as good at making drones as Lockheed or anyone else and since drones will almost certainly take over the fighter business in the medium-term, I'd say they are positioned quite well.
 
Not Yutu! China's lunar rover runs into mechanical trouble
There's a warning that I can't republish the material so I won't. But I assume I can still link to it.

Anywho, the article talks about problems with China's lunar rover. It also mentions public enthusiasm for the project. However, I recently saw a BBC analysis piece that talked about how the general public in China doesn't give a rats-ass about the whole thing.
 


From the article:

A Nasa spacecraft in orbit around the Red Planet has spied a fresh impact crater on the Martian surface.
The hole is about 30m (100ft) in diameter and surrounded by a blast zone of debris punched out of the ground by the meteorite impact.
The explosion that generated this crater tossed out debris as far as 15km (9.3 mi).
...
These studies indicate that impacts producing holes at least 3.9m (12.8ft) in diameter occur at a rate exceeding 200 per year across the planet.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26067927
 


From the article:

A Nasa spacecraft in orbit around the Red Planet has spied a fresh impact crater on the Martian surface.
The hole is about 30m (100ft) in diameter and surrounded by a blast zone of debris punched out of the ground by the meteorite impact.
The explosion that generated this crater tossed out debris as far as 15km (9.3 mi).
...
These studies indicate that impacts producing holes at least 3.9m (12.8ft) in diameter occur at a rate exceeding 200 per year across the planet.


Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-26067927

So I guess Mars isn't such a good option for colonization then?
 
What's the energy involved with a crater 4m in diameter? Is this something that a meter of rock is sufficient to shield from?

200/year doesn't sound like too much to worry about from the standpoint of potential colonization.
 
Exactly. You've got a much bigger chance of being blown up by the US Air Force if you're staying on Earth :lol: Plus there are hundreds of other natural disasters here on Earth which are simply not a danger on Mars.

I assume that if you wanted to be really super-safe, some kind of a missile interceptor system could be devised to protect a large colony. Otherwise, Mars is a big planet, the chance of getting hit is very small.
 
If you are going to live permanently on mars meteorites are a very secondary risk compared to radiation for instance. To shield people of cosmic rays colonies should be built several meters under rocky ground, probably deep enough to get protection from small meteorites like that one.
 
If you are going to live permanently on mars meteorites are a very secondary risk compared to radiation for instance. To shield people of cosmic rays colonies should be built several meters under rocky ground, probably deep enough to get protection from small meteorites like that one.

That's a bit exaggerated. Putting some soil between you and the surface is a good idea, but the amount needed to protect against such impact would be much, much bigger. You'd basically need to build deep, reinforced bunkers, which isn't really proportional to the magnitude of the threat.
 
Back
Top Bottom