Entries Tagged 'Spaceflight' ↓

Today in space news: SPACE.com — NASA’s Mission to Service Hubble in 2008 Will Cost $900 Million

To me this begs the question: Why risk humans (and the fragile shuttle) to repair the ailing satellite, when for probably the same amount ($900 million) they could just launch one or more new Hubble-class satellites? The big thing about Hubble is that it is serviceable, but what if it wasn’t? Wouldn’t that make it cheaper?

It just seems to me that it would be smarter, faster, and cheaper to take that money and launch a couple of new replacements.

But this is NASA we’re talking about. Logic doesn’t seem to have a place in their planning when it comes to topics like the shuttle, the ISS, or the Hubble. *sigh*

From this article on MSNBC:Space crew weathers a scare during re-entry

When describing to reporters the air leak in his space capsule (for those of you who don’t follow space much, that is a very very very bad thing to have happen) Cosmonaut Sergey Krikalev said:

“In principle this was an anomalous situation of medium complexity. … In fact, it was a fairly serious situation.”

Yikes, in my book any time air is leaking out of my sapceship while it is in space and I am sitting it it, it is an extremely serious situation.

I saw this article about the next “tourist” who is scheduled to visit the international space station. Apparently he wants to do something a little different: Japanese whiz aims for space — in cartoon uniform

As dorky as it might sound right now, that might look pretty cool when they are doing their walk to the launch pad. Two cosmonauts and a guy gressed up like a Gundam pilot.

Of course it would be even cooler if he could actually dress up like the Gundam itself…

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | NASA formally unveils lunar exploration architecture

For years I’ve wondered why NASA didn’t have a separate cargo launch capability. Especially for the Apollo missions, it just seems to me like it would have been easier to launch the lander and booster rockets first, then launch the crew module and have them link up in orbit. It seems doing things this way would have let them use smaller rockets (instead of the Saturn V).

At any rate I’m glad to see that NASA is intending to go this route. I think taking the “simple but works” route for designing the spacecraft is the right move. The shuttle is nice and all, but it has shown itself to be very expensive and delicate.

Speaking of which I’m curious to see how the reuse of shuttle technologies goes. While I think the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are a pretty solid design, I’m wondering about the decision to reuse the Shuttle Main Engines (SME). I haven’t done any research on this, but I seem to recall that the reason a lot of the launches in the past have been scrubbed was due to glitches in the SMEs (or their associated turbopumps, etc.).

Also I’m curious about the flight dynamics of the new setup using the SRB as its main booster. I recall those generate a ton of thrust, and they can’t be throttled (i.e. once it starts, there is no stopping it, you have to let it burn out). Remember, those SRBs were designed to be used in pairs to help move a very heavy shuttle and its fuel tank off the ground and get them to supersonic speeds. Using just one SRB with a greatly reduced in weight spacecraft could lead to a very wild ride.

I imagine if the simulations show that they are too powerful (causing too many G’s on the crew) they can take out a segment or two to alter their flight profile.

Overall I’m hoping that this is a return of the NASA of old, when solid, simple engineering and a desire to explore and learn where the guiding principals.