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."
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:great (Score:5, Insightful)
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: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.
Re:Outside the box creativity (Score:1, Insightful)
"In picking Lockheed Martin for Orion, described by NASA's chief as "Apollo on steroids," NASA bypassed Apollo throwbacks Northrop Grumman of Los Angeles and its chief subcontractor Boeing of Chicago."
So NASA wants something that looks like Apollo and works like Apollo, but excluded the companies who built Apollo. It really makes quite a lot of sense - if you're on steroids.
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:great (Score:5, Insightful)
So really...why do we need to go there?
Because we can.Re:Umm, why? (Score:0, Insightful)
Why should we go to the moon? Because it's there....Because as human beings we are inherently curious. Last I counted, we had only been to the moon (manned) 6 times. 6 TIMES in the history of Mankind. Can you possibly believe that we've discovered everything there is to know about the moon?
Robotic research is a great and relatively inexpensive way to explore. But there's no substitue for putting a real, flesh and bone being on the surface of another heavenly body.
As for the people that cry "whaa whaa...we should fix our problems here before going to space!" (I speak of both political and other issues)...maybe if we could get man to unite behind the exploration of the stars, we wouldn't have so many problems.
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: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.
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 who has a history of building manned spacecraft.
I realize that all of these companies will have a piece of this, let's hope they can dig up some of the older engineers who knew how to design these capsules without reinventing the wheel again.
Cheers,
TFG
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:great (Score:3, Insightful)
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:Gravity indeed (Score:3, Insightful)
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 this is a physical limitation, rather than an engineering one (damn pesky thermodynamic laws). You need a cool place to dump excess heat into. Where the hell are you going to put a heat sink on Venus?
Pressure is the second problem. Even if you were to build a shelter underground, the space contained within would still be the same pressure as the outside air (about 90 times that of Earth IIRC). If we depressurized it to Earth standard, then we'd be up against the problems associated with the oudside pressure bearing down on the shelter, which would crush it.
On Earth the only environment with a similar pressure is about 1 kilometer below the surface of the ocean. Have you seen what kind of engineering specifications are required for a craft that goes that deep and only carries a few people? Try and imagine building a base to survive that same pressure, plus the heat and corrosiveness of the Venusian atmosphere. Now remember that we're talking about a base that's going to be there for years, whereas the deep ocean submersibles go down for hours, and that the base is going to house some large number of personel, while submersibles carry typically no more than two or three.
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: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 significant drag (i.e. no aerobraking) then it's also too thin to cause much of a side-wind problem.
Re:Technology Love you long time (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 thousand litres of fuel? Ok, maybe that's not practical except iconically. But is there any way we could use ground-based thrust to augment the fuel weight vs delta V penalty at takeoff in any practical way?