Based on a comment by Torque, this board is for NON-POLITICAL discussion of space missions... both manned and unmanned.

Thank you Earthling.

To start the rocket roaring, I am curious what people think of manned missions to other planets and/or their moons. I'm not sure of this, so what is the approximate flight time for a trip to Mars or other planets?

In many Hollywood movies, those long distant voyages usually have some type of crew friction- which ends up doing whatever...

Does NASA or other space agencies think that it is a scenario that needs addressing? While some alien with acid blood might not be the fricton, I would think that being with same people day after day after day aft... would get on one's nerves.

Does anyone know if this is something the human mind is capable of mastering?

Seeing as people have stayed underwater for 6 months in nuclear subs it shouldn't be that diferent, except that it would be less people and a smaller space.

A more interesting quetion is what about the other things that men and women do after spending a lot of time together? I saw a thing in some magazine where they asked some astronaut if he thought it has already happened. He pointed out how many humans have been in space (I don't remember but it was several hundred) and that several married couples (who met durrign NASA training) have gone up together so he figures that some of them must have found some alone time for such an unoffical experiment as 0 G sex.

Houston we have a problem!
Waaaaaaaaaa!

Speaking of that, has NASA ever formally studied procreation in zero G?

I think the BBC has made a 2-hr documentary - with computer animations and interviews with experts - about a manned mission to mars, which would take 2 years travel time, and all the associated problems: food (would have to be grown - but plants don't grow very well in 0 G) and water (would have to be recycled from you-know-what), radiation protection during solar flares, and how the crew would get along (which is why no longer rugged cowboy-type male individualists, but females who have a special talent for getting along are considered good astronauts - together with scientific degree, of course). Many of these problems would be new, although the cosmonauts in Mir and the astronauts in space lab have spent quite some time in orbit, they had close contact to earth, starting with delivery of food, water and mail and having video contact with families, and knew they could be relieved if problems would arise.

Also, a doctor on board would be needed, and surgery in 0 g will be problematic.

Assuming budgets allow for it, would a centrifuge (spinning section) of a spacecraft actually work to create a sense of gravity? I assume it would have to be fairly large, and I read somewhere that there would actually have to be a second centrifuge spinning the opposite direction as a counterbalance, or else the single one's spinning would cause the ship to "drift" off course after a while. (The ship in the film Red Planet did a nice job with this, but it suffered from Star Trek Next Gen dilemma: no surge protection to prevent consoles from exploding violently! )

On a different note... I have a book by one Kerry Mark Joels called The Mars One Crew Manual (Ballantine Books, 1985) that goes into great detail about a manned mission to Mars by 1996! Aside from the date, most of the tech stuff, flight times and crew considerations (health, eating, interaction, etc.) is actually really well done. It's a bit dry, since it's written as though it were an actual flight manual, but it nicely illustrates the miriad of things that need to be considered for such a flight.

A spinning section of the ship would work to create a sense of gravity, however, for humans to feel comfortable would require a large radius of rotation: you wouldn't want an appreciable difference in accleration between your feet and your head.

Right! I guess I should have made that point ("I assume it would have to be fairly large...") a little more clearly.

Sort of like being inside a tiltawhirl at the fair for 2 years could be a bad thing. Also a spinning section could make the roundevouz and docking of 0g sex a bit less problematic. Maybe NASA could talk to the Navy about long duration isolation since the Navy Boomer crews are as close to being in dep space isolation as you can get on earth or the folks at the South Polar lab. But what about the mission profiles when they get to MArs? What would be the best use of all that ime, landing and exploring, orbital exploration or setting up a colony? I know a colony would take a lot of work and time but it might give the world a sense of unity or purpose to try and set one up. Of course like that would happen anytime soon.

Maybe NASA could talk to the Navy about long duration isolation since the Navy Boomer crews are as close to being in dep space isolation as you can get on earth

IIRC, sub crews are all-male. Also, ISS and Mir crews spent a substantial amount of time in space.

how the crew would get along (which is why no longer rugged cowboy-type male individualists, but females who have a special talent for getting along are considered good astronauts - together with scientific degree, of course)

On what planet do females have a special talent for getting along?

As for gravity I remember a design for someting where the crew area would be tethered (sp) to part of the rocket that sent the whole thing into motion by a long cable and that would provide gravity.

Brian, I meant individual females which get along better than individual rugged males, just as there are individual males which are good at getting along and individual females which aren't good at getting along.

However, many psychological studies have shown (although the reasons are hotly debated) that females tend generally to concentrate on cooperation and smoothing of egos, while males generally try to establish a hierachry, which leads to more infighting, bruised egos and the like. (Just as many small-airplane accidents may be related to the difficulty males have in admitting that they have lost their way and delay asking for help, because they don't want to admit weakness.)

Also, studies have shown that mixed crews have less difficulty getting along than only-male or only-female crews.

ScottN,
As for the navy, in his book Sphere, Michael Chricton says that in deep-sea research stations (not subs), females are preferred because they are
- smaller on the average than the males, using less air etc.
- much more psychologically stress-resistant than the average male.

(which may be related to all the stress from the infighting as well as chemical and hormonal differences: first, a phenomen has to be observed, then theories as to what causes the phenomen can be launched, tested and modified or discarded. When dealing with "why are ...people this way?", the answer will most likely be a mix of several factors: genetics + education + socialisation + chemical factors + who knows what.)

I don't know if what Chrichton says is true, but so far I've regarded him as a writer who does his homework and researches diligently.

As for ISS and Mir spending a substantantial amount in space, I mentioned that, but said that a continous mission to mars, where no help from earth is possible and communication getting delayed every day is different (and more stressful) than missions directly above earth, when the space shuttle can go up with help, water, food in a couple of days.

constanze, I wasn't making any statement about the ability of males or females (btw, you sound like a FCP ), but a statement females serving on US Naval subs, in response to the OP's comment (which I quoted).

OP?Am I missing something here as it looked like you quoted from my message. but yah you are right as far as I know boomers are still all male which means that they should be able to deal with long term cabin fever syndrome pretty well. Which is kinda what the crew of a mars mission would experience. 2 years or so of being cooped up in the same ship with the same people all the time with a limited set of diversions and non-instant communications could be quite a bigger challenge than designing the ship hardware to get there.

I should think a crew would have to be both genders, obviously for the sake of the crew itself, but also for social reasons back home... how would it look sending the first manned mission to another planet, and only sending men? (Or only women, for that matter!) "Here goes humanity's first major exploration of another planet, but let's leave a representative half of humanity back on Earth." Not a good idea!

Speaking of Submarine isolation...

Those crews are in the military and thus they are liveing according to a "dictatorship." (rules and obediance style of command)

Would a long term manned space mission need the crew to have a military background? -In order to maintain the necessary structure aboard the craft.

Also, one of the reasons that sub crews are all male is because of the limited space aboard. ie beds and bathrooms

Not to mention the fact that the Navy doesn't want certain "activities" occuring between men and women aboard their ships, especially submarines.

Torque I am sure that a properly trained civilian crew would be able to stay motivated and all without a dictatorship if you will. Of course they would have to keep a reasonable chain of command and realize that there is a certain heirarchy NASA right now is a reasonable blend of civilian and military backgrounds that seems to be quite able to deal with emergencies and such without falling into chaos. And I wasnt sure but I thought that the Boomer's where big enough that they didnt have to hot bunk but still did have to share heads? And CR is right because on surface ships where women are allowed there is a good number of medical reassignments due to pregnancy. Which would be rather difficult on a mars mission.

Boomer crews (and even attack sub crews) don't have to hot rack (share beds with people on the other shift) but the big issue in the navy's eyes is that they don't have the room to have a seperate room (and bathroom/shower area) for the women. Surface ships have a bit more room, while on subs the racks (beds) are stacked 3 high in the room.

ScottN,

..btw, you sound like a FCP ),...

Could you please explain what that is?

R,

who are boomers?

...And CR is right because on surface ships where women are allowed there is a good number of medical reassignments due to pregnancy. Which would be rather difficult on a mars mission.

Ever heard of ctontraceptives? (For that matter, why does the Navy not issue them already, if they have a problem with the results? Is this related to some kind of attitude along the lines of "Our boys wouldn't do this, so they can't have done it, so every evidence to the contrary is to be ignored"?)

Brian,

... but the big issue in the navy's eyes is that they don't have the room to have a seperate room (and bathroom/shower area) for the women.

As long as the showers, bathrooms and toilets have doors which can be locked, why not work out a schedule like 0700-0720, women shower, 0720-0740 men shower? Or, if its locked, its occupied, and nobody is to take longer than 15 min.s?

(Its not as if woman need different constructed showers! And toilets to sit-down are useful for men, too. In a spaceshuttle, there is only one type of toilet anyway, due to gravity-less problems.)

FCP = Female Chauvinist Pig. Note that I'm not claiming that you *are* one, merely that your argument ("all women get along, men are all competitive b**tards") sounds like one.

"Boomers" is slang for "missile subs", the kind of submarines that can launch nuclear missiles (as opposed to "attack subs", which are standard-armed submarines).

Re: contraceptives... I think the point is that the Navy command doesn't want active crewmembers (those at sea on a mission) partaking in "active duty" of a sexual nature. I have an uncle who's ex-Navy (former submariner, no less), so if I get a chance, I'll see if he can shed some light on the actual terminology/rationale behind it.

ScottN,

I wasn't saying anything along "all females are... all males are...", I was talking about studies which show general trends. (And I was pointing out the trends, not drawing any conclusions as to the reasons for it.) This is for me standard scientific behaviour. (If I had drawn conclusions about all males and all females from the studies, or supposed that these differences can't be overcome with training and that therefore males are inferior ... that would be unscientific and might be sexist.)

And its not because I'm female that I came up with this argument: the male experts from NASA who were planning the mission and thinking about the possible problems (cited in the 2hr-BBC documentary) talked about the problem of tension in a small crew cramped together for 2 years without any way to be alone, go outside, watch a movie or relieve stress another way, so the NASA is thinking about what personality type is best suited for this, and how to detect it.
They've also set up experiments at the russian space training center, where a big capsule is mounted on the ground and is wired with cameras everywhere. The scientists and experts have put crews inside the capsule for longer periods of time and observed them to see how to spot tensions and how to relieve them before trouble ensues.

From constanze's latest post... The scientists and experts have put crews inside the capsule for longer periods of time and observed them to see how to spot tensions and how to relieve them before trouble ensues.
Geez, maybe the Russian scientists should observe where I work and let us know how to relieve all the tension before trouble ensues!

hehehe. I second that CR. But then again I see that most of my responses have been taken already. But AFAIk contraceptives are available on surface ships but depending on how, when and what all thigns happen and all that goes on things still wind up gettign together if we shall say. And sorry for using the slang like that I come from a very long line of military people in my family and am so used to it that I forget to translate for the rest of the world. Sometimes I do the samethign when i am referring to something at work while talking to someone outside my job industry.

Chances are, by the time a crew is put together to go to Mars, then any pecking order will have been sorted out and the alpha male and alpha female will have been established (and yes, there is such a thing as an alpha female).
The main problem would be providing an outlet for the crew if any tensions do arise, which could be solved with something like a gym (take it out on a punchbag) and keeping everyone occupied, with a minimum of awake downtime.

If I were designing the mission, I'd actually go for a much larger crew - say 100 people, with the intention of the majority of them starting a permenant scientific colony, and only a few bringing the ship back to earth - plenty of people to talk to on the way out, plenty of space to be alone in on and cool off if need be on the way back. This would require global cooperation and funding however.

The main problems with the length of journey are physiological - calcium loss from the bones, heart problems (all that calcium has to go somewhere, plus the lack of gravity does affect how hard it has to pump) and others, with the effect that a crew might get to Mars, but be unable to do anything should they land. A spin habitat may solve these problems, but without actually building one and putting people in it, we won't know whether it reproduces the effects of gravity, or merely simulates them.

Chris that last comment seems to imply you don't subscribe to the Equivalence Principle -- something which has been experimentally tested and confirmed to a great deal of accuracy. The force of gravity produces an acceleration, if another means is employed to produce the same acceleration you cannot tell the difference -- there is no measurement, no feeling, nothing that you can do that would distinguish the scenarios.

Yep, that's the foundation of General Relativity.

Not to mention I thought the Russians had shwon that calcium loss stabilizes after a certain time in space what with them having guys stay up there for a year straight and all you would think they would be experts on that.

The astronauts on the Space Station have reported that a series of strange noises are coming from somewhere inside or outside the station.

(Sounds like the movie trailer for "Saturn 3"..."SomeTHING is wrong on Saturn 3")

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4654619/?GT1=3256

Very interesting. Maybe Et is wanting to come in and use the phone?

It might be Jehovis Witnesses. They seem to be every where, even Hog Wollow, KY.

RE: ccabe:

See my posting in "Lines You'll Never Hear on Star Trek 40" on 4/3/04 at 9:01 PM

NSetzer, I did say may
Anyway, a spin habitat would be indistinquishable from planetary gravity to anyone in that habitat, but if you look on a quantum level, there may be more subtle effects which cannot be replicated by a spin habitat, and which could lead to physical problems on an extended mission.

Answer - shove one on the ISS, spin it up and let's find out

As for strange noises on ISS, it's probably the station expanding and contracting as it's heated by the sun and then cools once in shadow again.
It's probably one of those noises that you should only be worried about when you can't hear it anymore.

By the way, when I was in the Navy I was assigned to the U.S.S. Forrestal, the first aircraft carrier with four catapults ever built. (Yes, the Forrestal was still in use during the 1980s, and yes, my time with her included an overhaul period in Phila. Naval Shipyard). Point being that, the crew quarters had 3 "racks" (bunks, to you landlubbers!) between the deck and the "overhead" (ceiling); this, on the largest type of surface vessel!

SPACESHIPONE it lifting off tomorrow. Does anyone know the time? and/or if it is being broadcast via tv or cable or computer screen? I would like to see it.

Everyone does know what Spaceshipone is, don't they?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/06/18/ssone.flight.history/index.html

Just to fill anyone in.

Torque, 0630 PDT (1330 UTC). I commented on this over on PM.

scottn, what is pdt and what is 1330 utc??

0630 pacific daylight time which would be about 0930 eastern daylight, 0830 central daylight etc...

And I'm not sure what the initials utc stand for, but that time reference is to what most of refer to as Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) -- The UK's time zone, and the starting point for all standard time zones.

Since PDT is 7 hours behind GMT, 1330 or 1:30 pm GMT is the same as 630 or 6:30 am PDT

The times of various events, particularly astronomical and weather phenomena, are often given in "Universal Time" (abbreviated UT) which is sometimes referred to, now colloquially, as "Greenwich Mean Time" (abbreviated GMT). The two terms are often used loosely to refer to time kept on the Greenwich meridian (longitude zero), five hours ahead of Eastern Standard Time. Times given in UT are almost always given in terms of a 24-hour clock. Thus, 14:42 (often written simply 1442) is 2:42 p.m., and 21:17 (2117) is 9:17 p.m. Sometimes a Z is appended to a time to indicate UT, as in 0935Z.

Universal Time

UTC = Coordinated Universal Time. The US and the French couldn't agree on the abbreviation (they wanted TUC), so they compromised and split the difference at UTC.

UTC is also known a GMT, or as TomM mentioned Z (which is pronouned Zulu). So if someone refers to Zulu time, they're referring to GMT/UTC.

They did it!!!! W00T!!!!!!!

Props to the SpaceShipOne team at Scaled Composites, and to Mike Melville, the first private astronaut.

MAJOR KUDOS!

Sweet! I'm gonna start saving for my ticket. Yeah!

Sorry to put a downer on your enthuasism, guys....
But according to a news report today, SpaceShip 1 is not going anywhere very fast, due to problems with it's flight control system.
During yesterday's flight, the primary flight control system malfunctioned, & Mike Melville had to use the back-up system.
Scaled Composites, in their press release, stated that until the problem was fixed, Spaceship 1 was not going anywhere, until the cause of the system malfunction was understood, and rectified...
Needless to say, the other X-prize contestants still have a fighting chance....

Voyager 1 leaves the Solar System.

Next week, falls into vortex, encounters alien computers, comes back as V'ger!

I know that was Voyager 6, it was a joke.

Darnit! I remembered to do that joke on the other forum where I post, but Snick beat me to it here!

Anyway, it's good for Voyager 1 to finally get in the news: usually Voyager 2 hogs all the limelight.

Voyager 1 has left the galaxy!

According to a story in this week's Flight International NASA is seriously considering buying flights on Scaled Composite's
Spaceship Two when it reaches service sometime in 2007...
The reason stated, is that it could replace the existing modified Gulfstream II business jet used as a approach trainer, for Shuttle pilots...
In addition, it would provide Microgravity experience, for other crewmembers...
(Spaceship 2 will carry a total of 5 passengers & crew)

Not sure if this is the best place to put this, but...the old Space Race Rocket Tower has been taken down. Too bad. It was an historical monument.

Voyager 1 has left the galaxy!
To return as V'Ger someday? (Yes, I know in ST-TMP it was Voyager 6, but I couldn't resist.)

Discovery landed safely at around 0512PDT this morning. The twin booms were a rather ... surprising ... wake up call. In the past, when they've landed at Edwards, they landed during the day.

Re:The Shuttle
It seems that the Space Shuttle has 19 missions left before it is retired, according to Nasa's latest press statement...
The item stated, that the Shuttle will be "retired" on Sept 31, 2010, & the remaining 19 missions, will be used to complete the International Space Station & execute the final service of the Hubble Space Telescope

The proposed Crew Exploration Vehicle.

It will be based on tried-and-true Apollo capsule technology, but be larger. It will use a modified shuttle stack:

Cargo will be on an ET with main engines attached underneath and 2 SRB strapons, in a vertical mount configuration (not sidemount).

The manned version sits on top of a single SRB. It will have an Apollo-style escape tower in case of launch emergency. I believe the CEV capsule is designed to be reused after refurbishing.

Re:Last Comment
There are 3 proposed versions/variants of the CEV, Scott...
The First Variant CEV-A, will be the first
man-rated version, & will ferry people to the International Space Station starting sometime in 2010-2011.
(In Short, this is effectively the U.S'es replacement for Soyuz, & a possible
"Lifeboat" for the ISS, in case of emergencies...).
CEV-B This is intended to be the U.S'es version of Progress/Jules Verne, in that it will be a unmanned cargo carrier/station tug....
CEV-C This is intended to be the fully
man-rated Lunar Vehicle...
Incidentally, the lunar mission plans look very similar to that of the proposed Russian Zond/LK Missions of the late 60's....

They are calling each of the mission/equipment development varients spirals instead of flights like they did back in apollo.

Kinda reminds me of the old Dyna Soar project the Air Force had back in the late fifties early sixties. Or the old antipodal bomber theories of WWII and the fifties.

The Russions are working on their own version called Klipper which they plan on replacing the Souz with. They have not quite finalized if it will be a lifting body or a small winged spaceplane similar to the shuttle.

The Manned CEV is very reminiscent of the old "Big Gemini" project.

As I recall, they weren't called "flights", but were lettered missions (I believe that Apollo 11-14 were "I" missions, and 15-17 were "J" missions").

I think we're falling into the trap of sybolism-over-substance here. The 'tried-and-true Apollo capsule technology' is technology that nobody's done anything with in decades, which negates its reliability. I would prefer something like a newer and better Shuttle Orbiter, STACKED ON TOP OF a liquid-chemical first stage. The first stage could have a parachute system and flotation device, so it, as well as the orbiter, could be completely re-usable. That's the way they should have done the Shuttle in the first place. Is the Manned CEV re-usable? If not, then it's A Giant Step BACKWARD.

I don't think so. There's a heck of a lot of hypersonic/re-entry speed aerodynamics data relating to the blunt cone Apollo model. Whereas a lifting body has not really been subjected to that sort of scrutiny. And if we have a flying object, as opposed to a ballistic capsule, I'd definitely prefer a lifting body to a modified orbiter. That way, you don't have to carry the dead weight of the wings.

My understanding is that the Manned CEV is re-usable in the sense that they can discard the used heatshield, and refurbish the capsule. Of course the existing orbiter isn't truly reusable without a refurbish.

Yes the CEV is reusable after a refurbishment after each flight which will reduce its turnaround time.

But like Scott said the shuttle and the X15 and now spaceship one are the main data points for hypersonic flight with lifting or winged bodies. The Apollo, Gemeni, Mercury, Soyuz Chenzhow capsules all have provided miles of data about blunt cone object's flight characteristics. Even if some of that data is really old its still not totally invalidated because of its age.

It would be nice to have some sort of reusable craft that can take off like a regular plane kick in the boosters, orbit and then come back like a regular one. But thats probably goign to be quite a few years away.

MikeC IRC your idea is one they considered for the shuttle as well as dyna soar. (they was goign to put that on the tip of a titan missle) Another one they where considering was having a much larger shuttle like boosterplane (manned) carry the shuttle on its back. The boosterplane would take off like a rocket and reach near orbit but fall back and land like a regular plane at the cape. Sort of having the booster stack integrated into one big liquid fueled rocket plane. IRC cost alone killed that idea.

And I was trying to remember what they called the different equipment designs. The missions where I and J for duration and expermient types but the capsules themselves where Block 1 and 2 as well as Block 1 and 2 LEMs. I'm not sure where I came up with the terms flights for them.

And as I said, the current Orbiter is not really directly reusable, it needs major refurb after each mission, so there's no difference there.

A lot of technological restrictions that have kept a new space ship from being put together isn't so much the flow conditions as it is the materials conditions. The apollo missions used materials that were understood. Similar with the National AeroSpace Plane (NASP), they had much the specs on how it would be built, they had the mechanics of it figured it out... they just kind of neglected the materials aspect of it all when they pitched the idea to congress for funding. So a lot of the research (and money) was being used to develop the proper materials for such a craft. That is why we haven't seen what we expected to see in terms of a new ship out there.

Keep in mind also that the NASP program was killed during the Clinton administration, after Reagan got it started and George Bush the Elder kept it going; had the program continued, we'd probably be flying that better vehicle today. Not to be partisan, just stating the facts as I remember them. You tell me why they did what they did.
And I didn't mean that the data had gone away, I meant that nobody has any RECENT, HANDS-ON experience with Apollo technology (except for a very few museum curators).

The NASp was killed in 1993 during clinton's early term due to technology not being up to the vision of the idea.

The NASP showed great promise but with the requirements that it be man rated, carry a payload plus the limitations of scramjet, turbojet and ramjet technologies meant it started on a spiral of increasing weight reducing its performance which meant it had to be redesigned which meant it cost more which meant that congress was unwilling to continue to sink money into this white elephant which would probably never get off the ground either litterally or figuratively.

As for the originas of it. DARPA originated the specifications for the spaceplane as part of its prject copper canyon which ran from 1982 to 1985. In the 1986 state of the union speech reagon mentioned and support the idea of a new oriental express that could leave dulles and be in tokyo or orbit within two hours. As for why Bush the first continued it he continued many of reagon's projects as he didnt ahve any original ideas of his own.

Just a word of caution, let's not bring politics into this thread. Who created it and why it was continued posts are more for the political version of this thread.

Sorry I'll try. But sometimes the origins of a project are rather important. As DARPA and the military are quite tied up in the american space program.

I mean the shuttle was designed with military payloads in mind for the size of the cargo bay. Dyna Soar was a purely air force project. They thought they might need a manned aerospace interceptor/fighter to take the war to the ultimate high ground.

The NASP was an outgrowth of the hypersonic bomber/penetrator programs as well as a touch of the antipodal bombers.

But I'll try and not bring politics into it unless the mission tech or design specs require a discussion of the reasons a particular tech is involved.

A interesting story/article appeared in last week's Flight International.
Apparently, the Kazakh Airforce are considering converting some of their stored Cold War era Mig-31 Foxhound interceptors into microsatellite launchers....
The programme codenamed Ishim, would modify existing Mig-31's to carry a 10 ton solid fuel rocket underneath it as payload.
The modified Mig-31 would carry a 3 or 4 stage rocket up to 65,000 feet containing a payload, then release it, the rocket would then ignite, & carry it's payload into orbit.
The first modified Mig-31's would be ready to undergo initial testing sometime next year, according to the item, & several microsatellite manafacturers have already made enquires about launches....
(Ironically, a similar concept was proposed in the late 1980's, & 2 Foxhounds were modified, only for project funding to run out...).

James Van Allen dead at 91.

1. JAMES VAN ALLEN: THE FIRST AMERICAN SPACE HERO, DEAD AT 91.
Almost nothing was known about conditions beyond the ionosphere when the US launched Explorer I on 31 Jan 58. The Cold War was at its peak, and the Soviets seemed to own space. Sputnik I, launched 4 Oct 57, carried no instruments. Sputnik II, a month later, could only send back Geiger counter readings taken when it was in sight of the ground station. In June, however, at a conference in the USSR, James Van Allen, a physics professor at the University of Iowa, announced that Explorer I had discovered the first of the two "Van Allen radiation belts." Soviet space scientists were crushed; the "space age" was not a year old and already the U.S. had taken the lead in science. Two years ago I visited Prof Van Allen in his office at the U. Iowa. At 89 he was down to a 7-day work week. He showed me an op-ed he was sending to the NY Times in which he described human space flight as "obsolete" (WN 23 Jul 04) . I don't believe they used it. Van Allen said using people to explore space is "a terribly old fashioned idea."

James Van Allen at Wikipedia.

With all the nonsense in the news about Britney, Lindsay, and Brangelina, the story about Barbara Morgan finally making it into space after more than two decades was almost lost. She was aboard Space Shuttle Endeavour when it was launched yesterday, on a mission to the International Space Station. More here.

Glad to hear she finally got her chance to go into space.

Does anyone know how they're going to ship cargo up to the ISS after the shuttles are retired in 2010?

I assume by Progress.

And once Ares becomes operational, by Ares.

There is a new space hotel, for 4 million bucks4 three nights.Space shuttle is to standbye, just in case.Aol news.

Re: Cargo Shifting post 2010...
Alternatively, ESA's Jules Verne class Autonomous Transfer Vehicle (due to be launched sometime in 2008, due to the various problems with the Space Shuttle, causing the ATV's launch window to be "put back" as a result), & the proposed Japanese Automatic Cargo Vehicle could equally do the job...
As for NASA, are'nt they putting this out into "competitive bidding", from private subcontractors....?
Incedentally, NASA are considering using a ATV to de-orbit the ISS in 2018....

Incedentally, NASA are considering using a ATV to de-orbit the ISS in 2018....

What does this mean? Are they decomissioning the space station in 2018?

I hope that more space-based missions and technology are privatized. Market competition is the best way to speed technological development when there isn't a war going on (cold or otherwise).

Re: My last post
Unless NASA gets funding to keep the ISS operating, they'll have to de-orbit it, & at present NASA does'nt have anything to do it with...
(One possibility is that NASA will pay ESA for the use of the last Jules Verne ATV, which in part, was designed to keep the ISS in a safe orbit, in order to do so safely & in a controlled manner).
It was originally meant to be de-orbited in 2015, but the ISS will act as a "Safe Refuge" in the case of a emergency occouring with the proposed Orion missions....

Re:Guardian's last post
According to a news item in Flight International, NASA is to allow private indrustry experiments to run in the Destiny Lab module post 2010....
Basically, the NASA astronauts will run your experiment for you, but you have to arrange for transportation costs of the experiment to & from the station or it's disposal afterwards....

Re:"competitive tendering" proposals
According to a item in this week's Flight International, one of the companies that submitted their proposal for the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS for Short), is now considering legal action against NASA....
Reportedly, Rocketplane Kistler's K-1 proposal failed to obtain the private fiancial backing for it to proceed any further, & hence accordingly, NASA was due to terminate it's contract with Kistler....
(COTS was supposed to parially fund private efforts to demonstrate a ISS resupply system, & then to compete for the resupply contract).
However, a letter from Kistler, has been leaked to the media
The contents of said letter, heavily critisied NASA, & inferrs that Kistler will take legal action....
(The amount needed from the private sector, in order to further fiance K-1, & enable it to continue was reportedly, on the order of $500 Million dollars....).

Re: Private Indrustry Update
NASA has awarded it's COTS contract to Orbital Science Corporation, who will use their Taurus 2 launchers, due to first fly in 2010, to resupply the International Space Station.
The Taurus 2 will be launched from OSC's launch facility at Wallops Island, Virginia, approxmately every 2-3 Months, according to a article in the latest issue of Spaceflight magazine...

Penn & Teller had a cool episode of their Showtime program "Penn & Teller's: Bull S**t" about space exploration. When I heard that their BS episode was going to be called NASA I was worried that it would be those tired arguments that we shouldn't be exploring space. Instead they came out in favor of space exploration and talked about some of the private industries who are developing the new technology for the future of space exploration. They mentioned the COTS contest and, in what I thought was the coolest, Bigelow Aerospace. I had not heard of them but they have a program aimed at putting a space station into orbit by 2016. They already have 2 1/3 sized test modules orbiting the Earth and their entire program is budgeted at around the same price of 1 NASA space shuttle mission.

http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

Yeah, Bigelow is cool. They've got plans for an inflatable space hotel.

Other cool companies are

• Scaled Composites -- winners of the X Prize
• SpaceX -- headed by Elon Musk of eBay fame
• Armadillo Aerospace -- headed by John Carmack (Doom)
• Kistler Rocketplane

According to Flight International's website, SpaceX are now offering their Dragon capsule, to customers, as a potential cargo carrying spacecraft, presumeably to/from the International Space Station.
According to said news item, Dragon will be ready for launch sometime in 2010...

It looks like SpaceX has finally worked the bugs out of the Falcon 1 launcher. Last month (fourth time's the charm!) Falcon 1 successfully put a payload in orbit.

This is huge, because it was a complete private design -- no government funding whatsoever.

Endeavour landed at Edwards this afternoon, after a successful "Extreme Makeover, ISS Edition" flight. They repaired the jammed/gritty solar panel joint, installed new bedrooms, a new bathroom, a kitchenette, a fridge, and the now famous urine recycler.

Well done, guys.

Nice sonic booms (once again).

Italian team to send a SpiderBot swarm to the moon!

Someone alert Norman Osborne!

The European Space Agency, had a rather intresting conference recently, concerning their long term plans for space travel, over the next 20 years, according to Flight International...
One proposal mentioned, is to place a space station in LLO (Low Lunar Orbit), using modified existing parts, such as the Autonomous Transfer Vehicle, a Columbus-type module to carry supplies, & a module with 6 docking ports...
Another proposal using essentially the same components, is to construct a "Orbital Dockyard", in order to assemble spacecraft in Low Earth Orbit... This proposal would add a ISS Type Truss with robotic arms atteched, to the LLO Station.

Relive the Apollo 11 Mission.

Please take a moment to recall humanity's greatest achievement, 40 years ago today.

one person said the moon was a tv set in hollywood!, one small step for man, one giant leap for hollywood!

(at least that's what i read)

And Buzz Aldrin's response to hoax conspiracy theorists.

Nothing like getting your clock cleaned by an octogenarian.

That is, perhaps, the most awesome thing I've ever seen. :-)

ok, make that two people who said we landed on a hollywood set!

seriously, how about the Challenger, and the 3 Apollo 1 astronauts, etc.

What about them?

I think he means, how would they have died if there were no real rockets and we didn't actually take off in them?

No one ever said that the *rockets* were fake.

Also, Apollo 1 was on the pad for a test. So, again, nothing for the conspiracy types to complain about... all on earth.

The thing with conspiracy nuts is that there's lots of them with lots of contradicting theories. Some claim that the astronauts of the Apollo program never took off from Earth, others say that they stayed in low Earth orbit the whole time, others say that they orbited the moon the whole time but never landed. Crazier ones say that they were actually involved in some search and destroy or infiltration missions involving alien ships and bases on the moon.

Best part of conspiracy nut logic is that they will claim that they are right and any theories that contradict them are wrong, but they will happily all throw their lot in together when questioning the official story; saying "well look at how many alternate [***ahem***] theories are out there" even if they all contradict each other.

Female astronauts in the 60s.

Water found on the moon.

Oh my god. Someone found an amateur video of the Challenger disaster, 24 years after the fact.

It was recorded by retired optometrist Jack Moss on his Betamax camcorder. Moss never showed it to anyone, but before he died of cancer in December, told his pastor Marc Wessels, who's also the executive director of the Space Exploration Arhive, and who, after finding the tape, and an old Betamax player, watched four hours of gameshows and sitcoms before finding the three minute video.

The fact that the participants in this video are outside, away from any TV set, lends a particular eerieness to their subdued comments as they see the event unfold unexpectedly, and when one of them announces, after consulting a TV or radio, what really happened.

Forty one years ago today. Apollo 11 landed on the moon.

And a host of new conspiracy theories was launched.

Memorial time.

• 44 years ago yesterday was the Apollo 1 fire
• 25 years ago today was the Challenger explosion
• 8 years ago next Tuesday was the Columbia breakup

42 years today, humanity reached its greatest achievement, with the Apollo 11 lunar landing.

The space shuttle Atlantis touched down safely just before 6 a.m. (EDT) this morning, ending the 30-year shuttle program. More here.

How far we have fallen in such a short time.

R.I.P. a true national hero.

Neil Armstrong has died at the age of 82.

He conquered the heavens. And now heaven is his home.

Rest in peace, Neil. You've earned it. :-(

I was ten years old when he took that step. I remember watching the whole thing live, along with all of my family.

And now, instead of choosing to go to the moon and do the other things, "not because they are easy, but because they are hard", we sit back and point fingers at the other guy, and have no manned space program at all.

Farewell, Mr. Armstrong.

I was 14 when Neil Armstrong first walked on the moon. IIRC, Armstrong's first walk on the lunar surface was moved up about 4 hours (it was first set to take place at about 2 a.m. EDT) so people could watch it live on TV. I, my sister and my parents were glued to the TV for that most historic of occasions.
RIP, Mr. Armstrong.

And yet, even with all that, there were/are still people that believe the moon landing was faked, and filmed on a sound stage in Hollywood. There was even a "Did We Really Land On The Moon" documentary in the last decade.

The first I had heard of this "theory" was when Hyde on "That 70s Show" doubted that it ever happened, and he also believed that the US government actually did invent a car that ran on water, but then had it's developers killed and covered up all evidence of it ever existing. Some people will make up conspiracies about *anything*, it seems.

As for Neil Armstrong, was it him or John Glenn that guest-starred on "Fraiser" and revealed what the astronauts *really* saw "up there", but because of a technical problem, it wasn't heard on the air? I forget which one of them it was. I do know that it was pretty funny, though!

Actually, Adam, I've read that it was moved up 4 hours because Neil and Buzz were too hyped to take the scheduled rest period.

IMDB shows "Frasier" as one of John Glenn's credits.

---

quote:

Actually, Adam, I've read that it was moved up 4 hours because Neil and Buzz were too hyped to take the scheduled rest period.

---

Not ran (on water) but (ran on) water. That is, used water as a fuel source.

OK, gotcha. Sorry about the misunderstanding.

Then it wasn't the Amphicar, which must've been something else entirely, because the Amphicar, as its name indicates indeed ran (on water)--that is, it doubles as a boat.

Luigi, it was the conspiracy theory that "'They' invented a car that uses water for fuel, but the Oil Companies killed it."

But now we've gone far afield.

The same rumors were said about a 100-mpg carburetor. The oil companies supposedly bought up all rights to it, and bought its inventor's silence. Those rumors mostly surfaced during the fuel crises of '73-'74 and mid-'79. Now, carburetors are obsolete; fuel injection has been standard since the early 1990's.

The speech Nixon would have read to the world if Armstrong and Aldrin had been stranded on the moon.

Today is the 46th anniverary of the Apollo 1 fire.
Tomorrow is the 27th anniversary of the Challenger disaster.
Friday is the 10th anniversary of the Columbia breakup.

Please take a moment to remmeber the crews. And while you're at it, don't forget the crews of Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11.

Today is NASA's "Day of Remembrance for Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia.

Apollo 1: 27 Jan 1967
Challenger 28 Jan 1986
Columbia: 1 Feb 2003


And, while with silent, lifting mind I've trod
The high untrespassed sanctity of space,
- Put out my hand, and touched the face of God.

Shame that is seems all those brave astronauts died for nothing, now that the U.S. has thrown in the towel on space exploration.

Today is the 48th anniversary of the Apollo 1 tragedy.

RIP Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee.

Today is the 29th anniversary of the Challenger disaster.

RIP RIP Dick. Scobee, Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ron McNair, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe.

Wow, 19 years apart, almost to the day.

And then add 17 years and 4 days, and you have my next post.

I hate the popular obsession with Christa McAuliffe.

I only mentioned her because she was part of the crew. You'll note that I gave her no more and no less attention than any of the others (except for RIP )

Not you, Scott. I just hate the way that, from Day One after the explosion, it's been pretty much her story and it's almost as if she was the only one killed.

46 years ago today, Mankind reached its greatest achievement.

I remember being glued to the tv as it was happening. I was 10 years old.

Please allow me to get off of your lawn. I was 6 1/2.

And SpaceX does it!!! They successfully landed the first stage from an operational orbital mission.

Video of the landing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDXEJMvEl8o



Blue Origin (Jeff Bezos) also did it (before SpaceX), but it was a suborbital test flight.

Blue Origin has successfully re-launched and landed their suborbital rocket.

Please take a moment to remember the crews...

Today is the 49th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire.
RIP Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee.

Tomorrow is the 30th anniversary of the Challenger disaster. RIP Dick. Scobee, Michael Smith, Ellison Onizuka, Judith Resnik, Ron McNair, Gregory Jarvis, and Christa McAuliffe.

Monday is the 13th anniversary of the Columbia disaster. RIP Rick D. Husband, William C. McCool, Michael P. Anderson, Kalpana Chawla, David M. Brown, Laurel Clark, and Ilan Ramon.

Ramon was the first Israeli astronaut.

Let us also not forget Vladimir Komarov (Soyuz 1), or Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev, and Vladislav Volkov (Soyuz 11)

SpaceX has successfully landed the first stage of a Falcon 9 on their drone ship Of Course I Still Love You!!!!!

Props and Congratulations to SpaceX!!!!

47 years ago today, humans set foot on the Moon for the first time.

When will they ever do it again?

Trivia Question...

What unique distinction do Neil Armstrong and John Young share?

[answer in a few days]

Trivia Answer:

They are the only two men who have piloted four different types of spacecraft.

Armstrong:

• X-15
• Gemini
• Apollo CSM
• Apollo LM

• Gemini
• Apollo CSM
• Apollo LM
• STS (Space Shuttle)

RIP John Glenn, at 95. Godspeed, and may Perth turn on the lights to help your journey.

Today is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire.
Tomorrow is the 31st anniversary of the Challenger disaster.
Next Wednesday is the 14th anniversay of the Columbia disaster.

Please take a moment to remember their crews, as well as the crews of Soyuz 1 and Soyuz 11, and the other astronauts and cosmonauts lost to training accidents.

And with the SES-10 mission, SpaceX has successfully relaunched a rocket, and landed it again!

Well done!!!

RIP Dick Gordon, Pilot Gemini 11, Command Module Pilot Apollo 12.

Today is the fifteenth anniversary of the Columbia disaster.

Last Sunday was the 32nd anniversary of the Challenger breakup.

Last Saturday was the 51st anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire.

May their memories be for a blessing.

Ad astra per aspera.

Elon Musk has launched his own Tesla roadster into space, with an intended journey to orbit Mars (which the linked article says it already overshot). I saw a shot of the car floating in space, with a "driver" at the wheel no less, and thought it was a big put-on (even though April Fools Day is seven weeks away). But no, it's real. More here.

Today is the 50th anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, taking three heroes on what, so far, is mankind's greatest journey.

The first manned launch from the US since 2011 is scheduled for May 27, from historic^* Launch Complex 39A at Cape Canaveral.

Astronauts Douglas G. Hurley and Robert L. Behnken^** will fly the SpaceX Crew Dragon Demo 2 mission to the International Space Station.

* Apparently any reference to LC-39 requires a "historic".
** SCTV fans may now go crazy with "Great White North" references.

@Adam, regarding your Feb 7 2018...

Because it was a test flight, with no customer payload, SpaceX needed a ballast payload for the Falcon Heavy launch, so Elon put a dummy in his personal Tesla, dressed in a spacesuit, because why not? It was fun and it was cool.

And Bob and Doug are off on Crew Dragon Dm-2 aka Endeavor.

First manned orbital launch from the US in 10 years!

So the U.S. won't have to pay Tsar Vlad money to get into space anymore.

And let us take a moment to celebrate one of humanity's greatest achievements. Fifty one years ago today, at 4:17:40 PM EDT, the lunar module Eagle landed on the Sea of Tranquility. At 10:56 PM EDT, Neil Armstrong stepped onto the lunar surface.

On January 27, 1967, the crew of AS-204 (commonly known as Apollo 1) were conducting a test at Pad 34 when a fire broke out in the capsule. All three crew members died of asphyxiation.

Rest in peace, Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee.

Ad astra per aspera

Thirty-five years ago, on January 28th, 1986, the space shuttle, Challenger, exploded, 73 seconds into its flight, killing all seven crew members aboard.

Let's take a few moments to remember those brave astronauts:

Francis Scobee
Michael Smith
Ellison Onizuka
Judith Resnik
Ronald McNair
Gregory Jarvis
Christa McAuliffe*

They died doing what they believed in. They will never be forgotten.


*Natalie, please do NOT start on Christa McAuliffe, like you've done in the past when this was brought up. As you can see, I've honoured all of the Challenger crew here.

Fifty-five years ago today, during a pre-launch test, a fire broke out in the Apollo 1 capsule. The crew died from asphyxiation.

RIP to

Gus Grissom
Ed White II
Roger Chafee

Ad astra per aspera

People are wondering what will happen to the I.S.S. program, now that the U.S. and Russia are enemies once again.

I mean the U.S. threw away their space shuttles, because their good buddies, the Russians, were willing to give them lifts to the I.S.S. and back. Now Putin is making noise about terminating that service (I'm surprised he hasn't done so already).

Perhaps folks like Elon Musk are the future. Namely the space industry going private.

I think it depends. Rogozin (the head of Roskosmos) has Putin's hand so far up his back that it's ridiculous. From my friends in the industry, I believe that the rank and file, especially the cosmonauts, want to continue cooperating.

From my friends in the industry, I believe that the rank and file, especially the cosmonauts, want to continue cooperating.

They probably no more support that madman in the Kremlin than most of the Russian people do.

Too bad the scientists don't run things. We might be much better off.

Fifty-three years ago today, human beings first set foot upon another celestial body, uniting most of humankind for possibly the first and only time.

I was sort of able to watch it with my family, as it happened. It was late at night (10:56 pm EDT) and I just couldn't stay awake. My parents and I were watching it on our black and white TV in the living room, I fell asleep, and when Armstrong came out of the lunar module, they woke me up.
And my reaction?
"Okay. That's neat. Can I go to bed now?"
Stoopid, cranky, 8-year old me!!! That was history in the making, kid!

Well, Steve, if NASA had been more media savvy maybe they could have scheduled the moon landing for the 5:00 news.

;-)

I was alive at the time, but too young to care.

I watched it on Armed Forces Network in West Germany where my dad and us were stationed at the time. They actually had to take up a collection to pay for for the link-up. Don't know why, but we got it, thankfully.

"...maybe they could have scheduled the moon landing for the 5:00 news."

And those darn safety checks for Neil Armstrong! Just hold your breath, Commander, it's past my bedtime!"

The same sort of thing would happen 5 months later on New Year's Eve, when 1969 turned into 1970. Unfortunately, I slept through that event and wasn't woken up until 12:30 by the grownups.

Another event I was too young to care about.

"Houston, we have a problem."

That tag line has become famous since the 1995 movie, Apollo 13, came out.

The actual quote (from mission transcripts) is "Houston, we've had a problem".

Ron Howard changed it for dramatic purposes, and I have no problem with that.

Neither have I.

I mean that line is part of modern culture now.

And Artemis 1 is on its way! Launch time 16 November 1:45 AM EST

Orion is in orbit!

Up, up, and away!

This should have been done a LONG time ago!
Never would have thought there would be about 47 Star Trek movies and TV shows out there, and STILL we have NO human colonies on the Moon!

I guess I can see where Humanity's priorities actually lie!

SpaceX's "Starship" exploded shortly after liftoff from its Texas launchpad yesterday. More on that here.

SpaceX Tweet - a rapid unscheduled disassembly

For those who enjoy not speaking clearly. ;-)

Translation: It blew up.

That's fine. So did the first three Falcon 1 launches (not to mention about half of the first Atlas missiles*).

SpaceX's model is what is known in the software biz as "rapid prototyping". Build it, test it, if it blows up, figure out what went wrong. Lather, rinse, repeat.

Personally**, I suspect they need sound suppression at launch. The first Saturn V destroyed a lot of the launch pad due to acoustic energy. This led NASA to put a sound suppression system on the pads. That's why you saw a metric crapton of water being used at launch for both the Saturn V and the Shuttle. It wasn't for fire suppression, but to dampen the sound.

*After watching one of the failed Atlas launches, Alan Shepard was heard to remark, "I sure hope they fix that."

**Disclaimer. While I have worked on rockets in the past, it was avionics. I am not now, nor have I ever been an aerospace engineer.

Makes sense.

Anyone here a fan of the
James Webb Space Telescope

Anyone here NOT a fan of the
James Webb Space Tekescope

What's a Tekescope?

;-)

*Hides so far in deep space that even the James Webb Space Tekescope () can't locate him*

Unleash the Scpipt Supervisor!

A telescope can have fans?

Does it do conventions? Does it sign autographs?

From the New York Times;
"Two visitors from India — a lander named Vikram and a rover named Pragyan — landed in the southern polar region of the moon on Wednesday. The two robots, from a mission named Chandrayaan-3, make India the first country to ever reach this part of the lunar surface in one piece — and only the fourth country ever to land on the moon."
“We have achieved soft landing on the moon,” S. Somanath, the chairman of the Indian Space Research Organization, said after a roar ripped through the ISRO compound just past 6 p.m. local time. “India is on the moon.”
"The Chandrayaan-2 was reported to have cost about $46 million, and the Chandrayaan-3 is supposed to have been in a similar range."

I say good for them. It's about time someone else visited the Moon, and a new location that's never been visited.
Maybe India can start building my beloved Moonbase Alpha?

Good job, ISRO!

U.S. still remains the only country to send any humans there.