Lockheed Martin Wins Contract to Build Mars Lander 258
Lord_Slepnir writes "Lockheed Martin has won a contract to build the Orion crew exploration vehicle that will eventually take humans to the moon and then on to Mars. This vehicle will hopefully also replace the aging space shuttle fleet. According to NASA the vehicle will have manned missions by 2014 and moon missions by no later by 2020."
great (Score:5, Funny)
Great, the US will finally make it to the moon.
Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:great (Score:5, Informative)
1. To land human on Mars, the current landing vehicles for MER and MSL are too small. We need to deliver at least 200t-300t's of payload.
2. The atmosphere on Mars is too thin to use aero-braking, i.e. can't land like space shuttle on earth.
3. The Mars gravity is too great to have moon-like landing, i.e. reverse propulsion.
I don't mean to sound too pessimistic, but with today's technology, chance of successful human mission is very small. We need a technology breakthrough in order to land something that big on Mars. Two possibilities:
1. Parachute that can stand hyper-sonic speed wind. Or,
2. Learn how to fly rockets backwards with sidewinds potentially 5x-10x stronger than that of Hurricane Katrina.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We do NOT need to send 300 tons to Mars! (Score:5, Interesting)
1. CO2 (from atmosphere) + 4 H2 (from Earth) -> CH4 (rocket fuel) + 2 H20
2. 2 H20 (from 1) -> 2 H2 (feed back into 1) + O2 (oxygen for rocket fuel)
You fly to Mars with just enough fuel to get you there, create your own fuel from the Martian atmosphere, and fly back. To make things less risky, we send the first one unmanned, so there's a return vehicle on the surface of Mars all fueled up when humans arrive.
The 300 tons is only if you insist on bringing the fuel for your return journey along with you.
This is clearly described in The Case for Mars by Robert Zubrin. Surprised more people haven't read that.
Mod parent up! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is - Zubrin's cleverness and and ability at analysis is matched by his overconfidence in the products thereof. He has a strong tendency to treat his ideas as if they were simple solutions with no real development needed, ready for deployment fairly easily - when the truth is that they are anything but. His Nuclear Salt Water Rocket [wikipedia.org] for example has never been modeled, and only examined on the theoretical level at the grossest of scales. Yet he, and his disciples, treat it as if it were mature technology ready for use with only a few tweaks. The same is true of his scheme for producing fuel in situ on Mars. No developmental work has been done, and very little basic research - yet he argues it convincingly enough that many people assume (as does the poster you are replying to) that its a 'done deal'.
The Case for Mars *is* a feel good read - but that's about all it is. It's much close to fiction than reality. The 'truck driver' schemes keep coming up - because they are (in the main) something that can be accomplished by working within the bounds of existing or near term technologies (the GP vastly overstates the case), while Zubrin's are almost completely undeveloped and are at or beyond the bleeding edge.
Re:We do NOT need to send 300 tons to Mars! (Score:5, Informative)
This process has never been tested beyond the laboratory workbench. There are a large number of very significant hurdles to getting such a system operational on the Martian surface. Among them - insulation; Mars has enough atmosphere that MLI won't work, and this means large, bulky and difficult to handle tanks for receiving the output product. Another is filtering the input feed (to get rid of the atmospheric dust), as well as keeping the filters themselves clean. Etc... Etc... No obvious showstoppers I admit, but some very definite steep hurdles.
Many people have read The Case For Mars - many of those have gradually come to understand how much of that book is smokescreens, handwaving, and wishful thinking. Robert Zubrin has a very bad habit of assuming that coming up with clever schemes means that implementation is a simple straightforward thing - even when they represent quantum leaps over existing technologies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We do NOT need to send 300 tons to Mars! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:We do NOT need to send 300 tons to Mars! (Score:4, Informative)
Much less than the amount of CH4 the astronauts produce along the way.
Back of envelope calculation
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It..... it... it's a start
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If I recall correctly, the probes sent there used aero-braking, parachutes, and, for pathfinder, big airbags.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Other have replied: with in-situ resource utilization, a lot can be saved on payload.
Do you mean aerobraking (which is quite possible, probes have done it) or horizontal landing (for which the atmosphere is indeed too thin, but a parachute can be used after aerobrakin
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But there _is_ an atmosphere, it just means that aero-braking will take a lot longer (ok, so even if you have to do a few orbits at a very low altitude (25Km or something?), does that really matter?)
2. Learn how to fly rockets backwards with sidewinds potentially 5x-10x stronger than that of Hurricane Katrina.
Seems contradictory with the above statement - if the atmosphere is too thin to pose any significa
Re: (Score:2)
Dante would do it. (Score:4, Funny)
Well, you're going to have to let a German scientist hack your foot off. Then, while you're unconscious, he and his friends can have their way with you. All for the flying car.
Hyperdrive: Space Colonization Requires Human Time (Score:4, Funny)
The only way out of this dilemma is to look for phenomenon that goes beyond our current understanding of physics. One possibility [newscientistspace.com] is the new model (of physics) developed by Burkhard Heim. He postulated additional dimensions beyond the 4 known ones: 3 spatial dimensions plus time. Using these additional dimensions, he rewrote general relativity in a quantum framework.
From this model, Heim developed a theory that enabled physicists to accurately calculate the masses of the fundamental particles. Unfortunately, this theory is the only part (of his work) that has been peer-reviewed in a journal.
Is the rest of his theory true? If it is true, it would have incredible ramifications. It means that we can build a hyperdrive to power a spacecraft to mars in about 3 hours. The hyperdrive would shove the spacecraft into a strange place which is outside of our standard universe of 4 dimensions; in that strange place, the speed of light is much faster than that in our universe. The hyperdrive would then push the spacecraft along one of those additional dimensions (beyond the basic 4 dimensions), powering the spacecraft towards Mars along that other worldly dimension.
The American military thinks that Heim's model is valid and is actually attempting to build a prototype of the hyperdrive.
Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
So really...why do we need to go there?
Because we can.Re:great (Score:5, Insightful)
Opta ardua pennis astra sequi.
"There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?
We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
It is a far better use of our energy than immolating each other while arguing about god.
Sign me up. I'll dig ditches for the launch pad if that's what it takes for me to be involved.
Re:great (Score:5, Interesting)
Want fuel? Dip-scoop the outer surface of Jupiter for enough "fossil fuel" to last us forever. Send one per year; might take 10 years to get the first balloon full back, but after then you'd have one per year -- a tank of arbitrary size, full of burnable, polymer-able methane.
Unless you really believe in voluntary population control, sustainable ecosystems and the Tooth Fairy to keep us alive as a planetary population, in which case I can't help you.
Their descendents became you. I wonder what went wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am thankful that it looks like NASA is serious, and is reciving funding that it needs and has an aggressive schedule to meet the EOL deadline for the shullte program.
Place a curse on the RIAA and MPAA [i-curse.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't bet one it. Given Lockheed Martin's track record [slashdot.org], they will be attacked by aliens without even them knowing:
Coverup (Score:2)
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Hate to burst your bubble... (Score:2)
I was simply trying to make a joke. My attempt of tying in the old Uranus joke with the losers of the bid was at least partially successful as shown by my #3 Funny moderation.
Technology Love you long time (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course yes, there is a whole different social reason to go there and whatever, and times have changed..
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:5, Informative)
2. The relative budget is much, much smaller - 18B vs 135B (in 2006 dollars).
3. Space technology has not advanced as quickly as most people think it did or assume that it should. New structural alloys tend to only offer marginal improvements or cost reductions, and chemical fuels are already pretty stressed. Those being the dominant elements in rocket performance, plus the low number of new systems developed each year to the point of testing, plus political/economic pressure leading to frequent abandoning of projects mid-development or the use of craft that justly should be considered prototypes as workhorses, cause only slow downward price trends.
Does answer your questions?
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:5, Informative)
1. Greater concerns for safty
2. Goal isn't just to land on the moon, but create a system where moon landing, and moon bases are commonplace.
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:4, Interesting)
After all, we are still flying the same 747 aircraft that we had in 1970, our spacecraft shouldn't be much different either.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We already had some impressive carbon materials in the 60s, like carbon-carbon. They're cheaper now, but not that much cheaper. The problem is fabrication: y
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How much of the fuel load of an orbital booster is spent getting the rocket the first ten feet off the ground? The first hundred? Could some bloody big spring (or compressed air actuators of some sort) underneath the launch pad compensate for even a few
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:5, Insightful)
Lockheed Martin is a company with no human scruples, and is responsible for the wrecks out patrolling the US coast now with inferior designs. I'm sure most Slashdotters saw the Lockheed Martin contractor turned Whistleblower concerning YouTube videos condemning the company and Homeland Insecurity's blind eye to his list of ship problems.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Technology Love you long time (Score:5, Insightful)
Look how much time and effort goes into just a Mars probe. How many of them have actually made it? Now, add in life support and a return vehicle and you have a pretty daunting task ahead of you.
Agreed (Score:3, Interesting)
In a world where you can run
Re: (Score:2)
Gravity indeed (Score:2)
The problem as I see it isn't so much the cost of getting there then getting back. That just needs propulsion, and we humans have been blowing things up for a long time, and getting better at it daily. The problem is gravity, or rather the lack of it.
I mean, food, we can deal with that, algae pods fed by raw elements floating around. Air, water, no problems, what we can't pull from a comet and launch to the destination of our choice, we can recycle to the Nth degree. Energy, the sun is blazing with the s
Re: (Score:2)
Mars has .38 of earths gravity, so instead of 3 months to significant bone deterioration, you have about a year. Thats not long, considering you have basically 0 gravity on the trips out and back, which themselves could take months. Long term colonies on mars are not an option without some sort of gravity adjusting device. Or maybe changes to the human physique, but I think we can do a bit better than that. Ironically, Venus, with 91% of earth's gravity, has the best chance of being colonised, since we can
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Yeah - we can - maybe - sometime after 3000AD when our craft don't melt.
I don't believe that demineralisation of bones is a straight line graph with 1G at one end and Zero G at the other. The rate at which bones lose strength must be proportional to the forces exerted upon them. In a space station, those forces remain essentially zero - except for the limited times when you are on the exercycle.
On a planetary surface (Mars), you'll be affected by gravity
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Doesn't work.
Lets say you want to build a shelter underground on Venus. You'll want it to be close to the temperature and pressure on earth, right? We're assuming that people are going to live here.
Well, temperature is the first problem. The rocks may not melt, but that doesn't mean they somehow stop conducting heat. Every single form of cooling technology we have just moves heat around instead of getting rid of it, and moreover t
Getting TO Mars is easy... (Score:2)
It's getting them back that is hard/expensive.
That's why I don't think we should even be worried about getting them back.
Just start sending people, and worry about getting them back later - if ever. I mean, you'd have no shortage of people willing to leave Earth now, without any guarantee of ever getting back.
By the time you figured out how to get people back form Mars, it'd have a population of a couple of thousand people, and most probably be a self
Re: (Score:2)
It might work in an ideal world, but I think the odds of people maintaining civility are rather small. At best the first settlers would be setting themselves up as rulers over those coming later, and at worst, it would be temporary insanity before death.
Outside the box creativity (Score:4, Funny)
Extra points were awarded to Lockheed for their proposal to use vacuum tubes.
Watch the movie "Stranded" (Score:2)
If you've watched the movie Stranded- you'd recognize the Orion. Perhaps the design idea has been kicking around NASA and the producers knew abot it, but...well...they're identical in proportions and appearance.
Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) (Score:2)
Too bad it's not. I mean, if it was, it would never make it off the ground anyway with all the nuclear fear in the world, bu
Re: (Score:2)
Radiation (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I heard, there were no practical ways to deal with radiation in space.
Does this mean NASA doesn't consider radiation to be a problem, or think it has a workable solution? Is so, what is it? And isn't it irresponsible to begin contracting if they don't have a solution?
Re: (Score:2)
Does this mean NASA doesn't consider radiation to be a problem, or think it has a workable solution? Is so, what is it? And isn't it irresponsible to begin contracting if they don't have a solution?
Well, remember that the Orion capsule is intended to be the primary transport to low earth orbit and the moon, not Mars. Orion is part of a long term Mars plan, but it would likely be only the ship the crew would use for launch and return, the long haul Mars transport craft would be something else.
In fact, the M
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think step #1 ought to be to develop a way to carry huge quantities of mass into orbit. Once you're able to do that, everything else becomes easy. Without that, everything is difficult or impossible. Space Elevator, anyone?
Fantastically Dangerous (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Te long of the short is, we just do
Re: (Score:2)
You must have last heard back in the 50's or so.
The solution has been known for decades - provide
Re: (Score:2)
Last I heard, there were no practical ways to deal with radiation in space.
This post is misleading and somewhat inaccurate. Radiation is a bit of a problem in interplanetary space such as between the Earth and Mars, but it is nowhere near the killer show-stopping problem it is made out to be. The Case for Mars
Who the hell proofs CNN articles...? (Score:2)
c'mon,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see the problem; Griffin actually said it. Google should get many references; searching only on NASA-affiliated Web sites, see e.g.:
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/multimedia/index.cfm?MMCat egory=Video [nasa.gov]
http://www-lib.ksc.nasa.gov/lib/archives/chronolog ies/2005CHRONO.PDF [nasa.gov]
Lockheed Martin (Score:2)
Umm, why? (Score:3, Insightful)
Considering that GW Bush's "vision" of human space exploration of the moon is crowding out much more productive and waaaay less expensive robotic exploration and even basic research at home, I'm even less convinced this is the right way forward. We could also consider the source, but we wouldn't want to get distracted by other failed visionary projects (such as democratizing the middle east by attacking Iraq) when evaluating a plan on its merits.
Certainly, human exploration is much more flashy and is the only type of exploration that captures the imagination of the average population. But what can we possibly learn from doing yet another moon mission? If you're looking to explore the universe, more systems like Hubble will do fine. If you're looking to explore the solar system, robotic probes go farther for a lot less. If you're looking for a microgravity environment, the ISS will do fine. If you're looking for a launch platform to Mars, the ISS or - for that matter - any old orbit around earth is much closer to home (read inexpensive).
Perhaps I'm missing. If so, I'd be happy to hear about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Robotic exploration could be done at a fraction of the cost of human exploration. Keeping people alive and returning them to earth is a very difficult proposition.
Of course, it doesn't quite have the romance. My attitude, however, is screw the romance - we could achieve far more, far faster, and at far less cost with robots.
Human settlement, of course, requires humans. But we're a long way from that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Umm, why? (Score:5, Insightful)
If NASA went totally robotic, yes they may learn things, but public interest and their budget to do such missions would shrink as a few nerdy folks in the bowls of mission control would actually care.
Case in point: the current mars rovers that are STILL going around Mars. Spirit and Oppertunity have been wildly sucessful way beyond their initial expectation, yet when was the last time you heard a news report about how well the mission as gone? The arguement goes, the less the public sees pretty pictures (like from hubble) or having people fly the missions, the less the public cares. The less the public cares, the more funds go else where to other things and missions continue to scale back.
Frankly, NASA's $15B budget is meager considering they are one of the few outfits that spends money on Basic Research. Basic research is what yields new technologys that help keep the economy going and improves daily life. It's thinks like that that yielded us many of the devices we use every day. I'm not going to go into them all, but you can read other posts about it.
Here is my arguement.
Fact: If humanity is going to survive, we have to get off this rock.
Also, given the times, sending people to the moon and mars is something that could be used to rally people together. Let's face it, there is a lot of bad things on the horizon. Militant Islam is going to be a problem until enough brave men stand up instead of doing nothing. (I'm sorry, but there are some things going on now that rhymes, as Mark Twain would say, with what happened in the 1930's.) Also you have new global economic battlelines being drawn between the US, EU, and China. With all that going on, reaching for the stars is something, if sold to the people, could turn things around.
Then there is this: if not us, who? The Chinese? Frankly the Chinese would be the type to land on the moon and start mining for resources and say: "Screw the moon treaty, what are you going to do about it?" The Europeans? So far they've had no interest in doing so... If the US gets back to the moon and keeps the mentality of using it for exploration and scientific purpose, it continues a presenant that is hard to break politically.
Re: (Score:2)
That's exactly what happened with the manned Apollo missions. That's what will happen with the Orion project in it's present form.
Comparing costs (Score:3, Interesting)
Most of the rest of the world would say this of the current United States attitude. A better attitude would be to launch a cooperative project with other space agencies, as NASA has been doing in the past.
If NASA went totally robotic, yes they may learn things, but public interest and their budget to do such missions would shrink as a few nerdy folks
Robots are a poor substitute for people (Score:2)
Robotic systems are good for finding what you expect; to find what you *DON'T* expect usually takes human judgment. Lofting one planetologist on a one way flight to Mars with some lab equipment and a small set of hand tools recognizable to a geologist or rock hound on Earth would probably yield more data than all of the robotic Mars probes we have, or could ever, get to Mars.
Just like the information we got from the moon by sending people to putter around there, and t
Re: (Score:2)
On Earth, that's very true. In space, people are a poor substitute for robots. People require pressurized cabins, oxygen, water, food, exercise, entertainment, and so on... and worst of all, they aren't considered expendable, so every mission has to be a round trip (you personally may disagree with that, but it's the political reality nevertheless). That means that including humans as part of the equipment drives up the cost by three or four orders of magnitude. Su
Re: (Score:2)
We're already 5 years late in discovering The Monolith.
Only 3.25 more years until Jupiter ignites!
(at least we're already working with the Russians...)
Title is wrong: Contract not for "Mars Lander" (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, all this is rather confusing. I follow space news more closely than most, and I often get confused myself. Fortunately, Wikipedia's article on Project Constellation [wikipedia.org] (the overall architecture) has a nice overview of what all the pieces are and how they fit together.
That said, I really wish that NASA would spend this money on the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems [space.com] program instead, accomplishing the same objectives in a more cost-effective manner. With COTS, companies only get paid if they succeed. NASA will instead be spending $3.9 billion (assuming there aren't cost overruns) just to get a capsule, while giving a total of $500 million (split between 2 companies) to COTS in order to get both rockets and capsules. To top it off, the COTS vehicles are scheduled to be completed years before the Lockheed Martin capsule is ready.
The Space Frontier Foundation has an interesting whitepaper [space-frontier.org] arguing for why COTS should get they money instead of the Orion program.
Re:Title is wrong: Contract not for "Mars Lander" (Score:4, Interesting)
You are articulating many of the misconceptions about COTS that have been brought up recently in the space news. First off, it is completely unfair to compare COTS with CEV. CEV is being designed to support lunar and Mars missions. The delta-V, life support, habitable volume and TPS requirements are not even comparable to those for the COTS missions. Also, the $500M is only for a demonstration of cargo transportation capability - the crew transportation demonstration will not commence until one of the particpants has demonstrated pressurized cargo deliver and return and will be funded seperately
Second, COTS was underfunded on purpose. NASA wants out of the space transportation buisness and instead wants to be able to allocate its resources toward exploration while paying commercial providers for cheap, safe, reliable access to LEO. The problem is that there is no provider for such services. The goals of COTS is to facilitate the creation of a market for commercial space transportation and to then call upon these services to meet our ISS crew and cargo requirements. Completely funding one of these ventures would be "buisness as usual" - just with a different upstart partner. By only partially funding them, NASA is effectively forcing them to have a strong financing plan. Investors and venture capitalists will only put their dollars into companies with strong buisness plans - presumably ones that:
In the early part of the last century, the postal service played a similiar role in creating the aviation infrastructure necessary to eventually support a commercial air transportation service market.
Bravo! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's CEV block 2. Block 1 is aimed at the ISS; according to the whitepaper that the parent post cites, NASA's approach of developing the two as being based on the same vehicle is leading to a false sense of urgency and poor design decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
Lockheed Martin huh? (Score:2)
While I agree competition is a good thing... (Score:2, Insightful)
"NASA decided to do something different and go with a company that has not been in manned space before, sort of spreading the wealth and making sure they've got two contractors that know the manned space business"
I don't know about you, but doesn't this scream cost overruns?
If I am going to the moon, I would like to have a company wh
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You are pretty much stuck on this rock then - because there isn't such a company in existence today. *Nobody* has any current experience in designing manned spacecraft. Even the Russians limit themselves to modest modification to their existing craft - it will be very interesting to see how Kliper plays out (assuming it ever gets built).
Horsefeathers!!!! (Score:2)
NASA and space exploration is all about money, worse yet, NASA is just another beaurocratic organization of the federal government.
However, if some idiot says "lets go to the moon, so then we can get to Mars" then NASA will agree just to get the possible money to go do the job.
Why good god do we need to go land on an interim planet (um... dwarf planet? moon? gotta go see if the moon qualifies as a moon anymore, ever since
Why build a whole new system? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Hmm Lockheed Martin eh? (Score:2)
I like how Lockheed Martin convinced the Canadian government to let them collect our 2006 Census data too. Makes me feel that my personal info is well cared for...
It's not just the title that's incorrect... (Score:4, Informative)
Before taking the submitters/editors to task - you yourself should get your facts straight. This contract is for the Orion CEV - analogous to the Apollo CSM. It won't land on either the Moon or Mars - it's an orbiter.
Re: (Score:2)
Ion drives not great for manned flights (Score:2)
It would take months and months of circling the earth to get to escape velocity and headed to Mars. You'd need to store supplies for those months, and provide additional costly shielding to protect against flares and background radiation.
Then you have to do another big velocity change on the other side. Lots of time getting into a low circular orbit you can deploy a lander from.
In this case, a chemical rocket might actually be a better choice!
Even bett
Re: (Score:2)
I got that from some old dusty documentary, but a search on google [google.com] came up with this youtube [youtube.com] video.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it because it doesn't have wings? (You don't need wings in space)
Is it because it doesn't carry cargo? (Carrying both crew and cargo on the same vehicle generally isn't a good idea)
That said, I'm rather perplexed by why it would cost $3.9 billion for NASA/Lockheed to develop a capsule when a company like SpaceX is developing their Dragon capsule [wikipedia.org] for about a tenth of that cost.
Re:Reality: A Step Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
Instead of using a capsule for reentry and orbital transit, what do you think NASA should be doing instead? And what is it that other countries are doing which puts them in the lead?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Reality: A Step Backwards (Score:4, Insightful)
And there are ways that it's inferior. It can't return a large cargo to earth. It can't support major missions on it's own (like Columbia's last mission, where it carried a pressurized science module with over 100 experiments). It can't serve as nearly as effective work platform (think Hubble repair), lacking an airlock and that cool robotic arm. It will only look pretty darn awesome instead of freaking, amazingly awesome when taking off and landing. Etc.
The point that I really want to make with this post is that we are still number 1, although I wish we had needed to work twice as hard to maintain the lead we have over anybody else. Instead Russia, the historic embarrasser of riches, is hanging onto the success of their Soyuz design and doing almost nothing else. Off the top of my head I can't think of a mission not related to the ISS in years, aside from commercial launches. China is talking big, but at this point has launched 3 people on two manned missions and has an unmanned lunar mission in the works. Europe as a whole is looking good, with several major ISS modules to their credit, the Mars and Venus Express probes plus a few smaller missions like SMART-1, and a healthy commercial market, but no real ambitions for growth. Japan has stayed on the down low, catching headlines for the ill-fated but ambitious missions to an asteroid and Mars, but backing away from their original intent to contribute a laboratory module to the ISS. Only the EU and Russia have together proposed a new manned spacecraft, the Klipper, but have not yet committed any real money to it.
In the meantime, the US has continued to carry the bulk of the ISS (although as much due to our own desire to as to any other partner's avoidance of it). The shuttle has successfully returned to flight. Its replacement is well underway. Unless I'm forgetting something, with Hubble, Chandra, SOHO, and Spitzer we're the only nation managing major space-based observatories. We have probes on their way to Mercury (Messenger) and Pluto (New Horizons), a fantastic probe returning tons of data on Saturn (Cassini), and three orbiters around Mars. Then there's those indominatable rovers, which have been operating for over 10 times as long as their design goal and are soon to be joined by the Phoenix Polar Lander, followed by the impressive Mars Surface Laboratory in 2009. Don't forget Deep Impact or Stardust either, the former of which looked inside one comet, while the latter collected samples from another. As far as the moon goes, the Lunar Reconnaisance Orbiter will launch in 2008 with follow-ons to be designed based on research over the next five years.
And the private side of things looks good, too. The Boeing and Lockheed's Delta and Atlas lines are maintaining a reasonable market share. Investors are excited about Virgin Galactic and Scaled Composites. Orbital Sciences in holding up the small end of orbital things, with SpaceX coming up fast behind. Speaking of SpaceX, they're looking quite sharp with the Dragon capsule and Falcon IX well under development for the COTS program (and Orbital Sciences is subcontracting for the other COTS winner).
I think the progress is frustratingly small, but it's there, and it's certainly not backwards.
Re: (Score:2)
For example, the Shuttle can host people in orbit for up to two weeks (actually, I understand it's now up to a month). The ISS can host people in orbit indefinitely. Unmanned rockets can deliver supplies to the ISS cheaper than the Shuttle. This capsule will be able to deliver crewpeople to the ISS cheaper than the Shuttle.
I'm not sure how they'll handle "service missions" with these things (launch a space telescope and hope the gyros
Re: (Score:2)
We won't be launching space telescopes into orbit anymore. We'll be installing them on the dark side of the Moon. So servicing will be much easier on the Moon.
Lesson in bad design (Score:3, Funny)
Perhaps the spectacular carnage of Challenger and Columbia will help them understand the danger of bad design.
Re: (Score:2)
Six landings, from 1969 to 1972. That's not much, especially if one wants to set up a base there, and eventually colonies.
Mars isn't much better for living. More hydrogen available there, and it may be cheaper to go there in terms of delta-V if you use aerobraking on arrival. But it takes much longer, you can't phone home in real time, and the sky isn't as good as the Moon's