So long as someone remembers to add an off switch, otherwise we'd end up with a reflective moon
Stone


Stone wrote:There was some NASA prototype ages ago that was a little robot that trundled along the lunar surface, gobbling regolith in one end and spitting neatly-laid (though pretty inefficient) solar cells out the back, via a solar collector/fractional distillation process in the middle to get the silicon out. Even at half a percent efficiency, just being able to leave something to autonomously create a massive solar farm would produce oodles of power and be dead convenient.
So long as someone remembers to add an off switch, otherwise we'd end up with a reflective moon
Stone

Taking off isn't the worrying bit, it's getting backF-ZeroOne wrote:Slightly worrying news from the Russian space programme; very worrying news if you're about to take-off in a Soyuz:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/22 ... zors-edge/

Ooh, thanks, WW, despite my addiction to teh whole space thing, I hadn't clocked on what must have happened to the ones left behind after Columbia. Just ordered!WiteWulf wrote:Soyuz capsules have always been a bit hairy, I understand. I'm reading 'Too Far From Home' a the moment, a book about the three astronauts who got stuck on ISS after Columbia went down, and there's as much background on the Russian space programme as the American and it's all a bit of an eye-opener. If you've read 'For All Mankind', too, the contrast is sometimes startling.

It's a very informative and interesting book but my only real criticism is that the writing style is a little, ahm, florid...very American...it's their Myth Busters to our Horizon, if you will.Zoot wrote:Ooh, thanks, WW, despite my addiction to teh whole space thing, I hadn't clocked on what must have happened to the ones left behind after Columbia. Just ordered!WiteWulf wrote:Soyuz capsules have always been a bit hairy, I understand. I'm reading 'Too Far From Home' a the moment, a book about the three astronauts who got stuck on ISS after Columbia went down, and there's as much background on the Russian space programme as the American and it's all a bit of an eye-opener. If you've read 'For All Mankind', too, the contrast is sometimes startling.
Well, thats sort of what I'm getting at - if you're about to be flung into a near-complete vacuum on top of a tremendously complicated metal tube full of some of the most explosive fuel ever used in humankinds endeavours, you don't really want to have to worry about the landing as well, do you?Zoot wrote:Taking off isn't the worrying bit, it's getting backF-ZeroOne wrote:Slightly worrying news from the Russian space programme; very worrying news if you're about to take-off in a Soyuz:
http://www.universetoday.com/2008/04/22 ... zors-edge/

Heh...there are quite a few Mir and Salyut horror stories in Too Far From Home, tooF-ZeroOne wrote:
Those interested in near-space disasters may also want to read "Dragonfly", which is about the Mir space station.

It is*. That's why the UK doesn't contribute towards funding it (because UK Govt. policy is not to fund manned space-flight). Which is why what little money the UK taxpayer does spend on space is spent very efficiently on space technology. Which is why the UK space industry continues to punch well above its weight. Which is (probably) why a Brit is in charge of making ATV work.axel000 wrote:Its a shame none of the presidential candidates running for office appear to really have a vision for reengerizing the NASA mission. The constellation class vehicles are underfunded and needed in 2010, not 2016/18 whenever they actually enter operational use.
This isn't an argument to push manned spaceflight ahead of robotics\; probes are just as important, i'm arguing that NASA as a whole is underfunded when you consider the scientific and engineering advances and opportunities that come about from a healthy space industry.
Now that the global economy is in a recession (to be confirmed soon enough) budgets are going to be under even more pressure...and we are going to be reliant on soyuz even longer than originally planned for ISS duties. Now, if the ESA could get their new cargo vehicle man rated.....
That's exactly what SpaceX has planned. Using Nasa money to get started. http://www.spacex.com/dragon.phpaxel000 wrote:Alternatively, this incident also opens a small window for a private firm such as Virgin Galactic or SpaceX to bring a orbit-capable craft to market.
SC have more pressing problems at the moment. Routine ballistic travel to/from the other side of the planet sort of needs some serious head-scratching over global energy supplies to be fruitful first, as it's staggeringly inefficient.axel000 wrote: Unlikely but rarely do opportunities like this present themselves. If I was an engineer at Scaled Composites I'd be designing an orbit capable craft right now - there is a definate need for another one for ISS duties, and this could also lead to a civilian hypersonic transport vehicle for ballistic travel (say London to Beijing in 1 hr).

I spent Tuesday with Burt Rutan's son, Jeff. Don't sweat it - the window ain't getting missed.axel000 wrote:Alternatively, this incident also opens a small window for a private firm such as Virgin Galactic or SpaceX to bring a orbit-capable craft to market. Unlikely but rarely do opportunities like this present themselves. If I was an engineer at Scaled Composites I'd be designing an orbit capable craft right now - there is a definate need for another one for ISS duties, and this could also lead to a civilian hypersonic transport vehicle for ballistic travel (say London to Beijing in 1 hr).


I hope that's true. I don't have any faith in the capacity of small scale private enterprise being enough for this, but I wish all serious attempts at achieving orbit well.Bog wrote:
Don't sweat it - the window ain't getting missed.