OK, let me get this straight. We have a creaky shuttle that keeps shedding parts like a ’62 VW microbus that hasn’t been serviced since Carter was in office. They have no money to do, well, much of anything, yet keep sending their shuttles up and down without problems and now will have a cheap, convenient way of transporting things back from space. Who won the space race?
I wanted to be an astronomer when I was five and started reading science fiction at age 8. I want the space program to continue and grow. But NASA’s bureaucracy…
[AP] Russia today test-launched a collapsible mini-spacecraft, which is designed to carry cargo and even passengers from the International Space Station to Earth, a Russian space design bureau said.
The Demonstrator spacecraft, which blasted off on a converted Volna ballistic missile from the Borisoglebsk nuclear submarine in the Barents Sea, began its descent toward the Kura test range on Russia’s Far East Kamchatka Peninsula on schedule, the Interfax news agency reported.
Searchers, however, have not yet found the spacecraft, according to a duty officer at the Lavochkin space design bureau, which worked on the project.
“At the moment there is no reason to say the device has been lost,” said a spokesman for Roskosmos, the Russian space agency. “Three days are officially allowed, from the moment of launch, for the search at the Kura test range, and even the first of these days is not yet over.”
When in use, the spacecraft is intended to be folded up and transported to the International Space Station on a Russian progress cargo ship, and will be used to bring payloads back to Earth, the ITAR-Tass news agency reported.
The braking parachute’s collapsible, cone-shaped body is made of light material that can withstand high temperatures and it can fly on a predictable trajectory without engines — making it a cheap alternative to the Soyuz spacecraft currently in use.
Quick Returns
Demonstrator could be used, for example, to carry the results of experiments performed at the orbiting station back to Earth, space officials say.
“A successful test of the device will make it possible to use it not only for the return of cargo, but also for the evacuation of the ISS crew, and for a soft landing on other planets,” ITAR-Tass quoted the Lavochkin Co. as saying.
The craft was built on contract by Lavochkin for the European Space Agency and the European Aeronautic Defense & Space Co. (EADS), Interfax said. EADS is based in France and Germany and owns 80 percent of European aircraft-maker Airbus.
Three previous launches failed, ITAR-Tass said, but this time the Demonstrator launched successfully.
“The unfolding and inflating system worked successfully in space, the craft’s heat protection worked in the dense layers of the atmosphere,” ITAR-Tass quoted the Russian space agency as saying.
The best solution I’ve heard is a two-craft approach.
One craft would be a personel-only vehicle designed for safety and reliability. Becuse of the relatively small payload, this would solve a number of issues. (Probably, it would re-enter the earth like the old Apollos.)
The second craft would be an un-manned cargo craft that could bring stuff to and from space. Because of the heavy payload, this would be the riskier vehicle.
Sure, it it blew-up, it would be expensive but there would be no loss of life.
Seems smart to me!
The two vehicle approach is precisely what NASA is going to develop as a replacement for the Shuttle.
However, as a great fan of the Space Shuttle, I think it’s unfortunate to throw these past 30 years of development out of the window and tout the replacement, an Apollo lookalike, as something new and inherently safer.
The problem with the Shuttle isn’t the shuttle itself, but NASA, it’s way of dealing with risk and it’s bureaucracy which, over the years, has grown increasingly dysfunctional. I recommend reading the return to flight final report, especially ‘Annex A, Individual Member Observations’, especially the observations by Dr. Dan L. Crippen, Dr. Charles C. Daniel, Dr. Amy K. Donahue, Col. Susan J. Helms, Ms. Susan Morrisey Livingstone, Dr. Rosemary O’Leary, and Mr. William Wegner, which are particularly critical and objective. You can find the full report at http://returntoflight.org/reports/final_report.html.
I think that if NASA fails to start thinking (and acting) more clearly, in the way presented by these observations, it will also fail with the CEV.
. NASA, and the USA, should invest in the Shuttle and build from that knowledge with more sophisticated vehicles, working alongside private enterprise where feasible, instead of knee-jerking every step of the way until finally seeking refuge in the past…