I mean really, 1/5th the cost? How much does it cost to build a movie set in the desert anyway?

The plan, which is spearheaded by NASA shuttle program manager John Shannon, uses the space shuttle system (with the current versions of the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) and external tank (ET). It, however, replaces the orbiter with either an unmanned cargo container or the manned Orion space capsule mounted on the side of the ET just like the orbiter is attached today.




Thanks for the super-clever idea, Sparky.

If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

Why would you want to?

The object in leaving the surface of the Moon would be to put distance between the ship and the Moon's center of mass. Yes, there's horizontal velocity to consider but you want to get your periapsis set up as high as you can as soon as possible. The path of the eventual elliptical orbit for the spacecraft is more "up" than "across" from the surface.

And with no atmosphere, you're not getting any lifting force from wings.

I can see a lot of rocket scientists are going to chime in here.

I'll get mah popcorn.

Could be even cheaper is we just bum a few Soyuz capsules from the Russians and upgrade the heat shields for a moon mission reentry.

A few Russian rockets and some Delta IV rockets and you would have what you needed. The only thing left is the lander.

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

Not really. Keep in mind there are several options for air vehicle power, and all of them have specific airspeed operating ranges and/or are air-breathing. At the lowest end is the propeller, which can handle from 0 to just below sonic range. Next is air-breathing low or high bypass turbofans, which can do up to about mach 2.5, and worse, they need oxygen from an atmosphere. Next is ramjets, and above those, scramjets, which takes us to the hypersonic range of mach 10 or so, but both of those engines won't even work well until they're going really, really fast. And finally, rockets, which can produce continuous, massive thrust independent of airspeed or altitude because they carry both their fuel and their oxygen internally.

There is only one type of engine that can currently get us the speed required at the altitudes required to manage orbit, and that's the rocket. And other than JATO packs which have been occasionally used to assist aircraft taking off, a couple experimental designs and the Me-163/263 from WWII, we don't have rocket-powered conventional takeoff/landing aircraft because it's a really bad idea. Rocket engines don't throttle well and they for sure don't know how to produce the continuously variable very low levels of thrust required for a powered landing.

So if you want something to take off like an airplane, go to space, and land again like an airplane, you're going to need several engines, each with its own fuel, controls, electronics, all of which add lots of weight. Not to mention that you're adding a zillion more ways for your vehicle to fail with each set of engines that you add.

Basically, we need to stop trying to do what is absurd, which is getting to orbit from the surface of a planet using atmospheric thrust and aerodynamic control vehicles. We need to build an elevator, and just lift whatever we want to orbit where vehicles designed solely for space operations can carry that cargo to and fro.

We tie a very thin fishing line to the shuttle. When it gets to the moon, we start reeling in the line, gradually attaching heavier and heavier lines to it. Eventually, we can have a nice, heavy rope between the earth and the moon that the astronoauts can use to climb back and forth.

Or we can do two lines, and make a suspension bridge.

RobertBruce

If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon?

Two words: no atmosphere.

/Airplanes do not work so well in an absence of air.

oldebayer: We tie a very thin fishing line to the shuttle. When it gets to the moon, we start reeling in the line, gradually attaching heavier and heavier lines to it. Eventually, we can have a nice, heavy rope between the earth and the moon that the astronoauts can use to climb back and forth.

Or we can do two lines, and make a suspension bridge.

You may want to look at the Space Elevator concept. Similar, but not to the Moon. Just attached to a space station/captured asteroid about 36k miles up. Stays nice and stationary relative to a point on the ground if the station is positioned just right.

/Geosync FTW.

vossiewulf: We need to build an elevator, and just lift whatever we want to orbit where vehicles designed solely for space operations can carry that cargo to and fro.

Great! Except for the matter of torque, and the danger to every satellite below GSO altitude, and what a catastrophic failure would mean to anyone living within 22,000 miles of the anchor point...

oldebayer:
If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon?

Two words: no atmosphere.

/Airplanes do not work so well in an absence of air.

Even better. Put the shuttle craft into a low orbit...like 6ft...and have the landing astronauts hop off and roll. If they're whiny pussies about it, give them one of those inflatable impact suits like used on the Mars landers.

Pick them up like Navy Seals, snatched from the water.

Before anyone gets snarky about the safety record of the shuttle, note that this plan uses only the fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, not the orbiter itself. The jist of it is to use the existing shuttle launch platform except with the orion capsule or an unmanned cargo vehicle in place of the orbiter.

It's no longterm solution but it should be considered as a stopgap solution for the five or so years that we'll be without the shuttle.

can someone explain to me why, in 2009, we need to go to the moon again? When we did it the first time, there was a justifiable reason between showing our gigantic cocks to the world and a matter of national security in the space race.

Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker.

NeuroticRocker: Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker.

Because a trip to the Moon is about 110 hours away from Earth orbit, but the time of flight on a Hohmann transfer to Mars would be 259 days. So, we can test out all the Orion gear on a week-long Moon voyage in relative safety before we commit to a 17-month round trip to Mars.

I thought one of the big reasons for retiring the shuttle design was to eliminate the need to have foam hit the shuttle. Having an orbiter or cargo vessel attached like the configuration now still leads to the possibly of foam striking the vehicle.

NeuroticRocker: "can someone explain to me why, in 2009, we need to go to the moon again? When we did it the first time, there was a justifiable reason between showing our gigantic cocks to the world and a matter of national security in the space race.

Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker."

Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

Zamboro: Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

If there is even a tiny hydrogen leak, the Moon is going asplode!

TheOther: "If there is even a tiny hydrogen leak, the Moon is going asplode!"



/In all seriousness. we'd definitely bring liquid hydrogen along as it would add potable water and rocket fuel to the list of things we can make from the oxygen we refine from regolith.

Zamboro: Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

I'll take OTHER (new window) for the win, Alex, and it's the ONLY reason the nuke club is in a race to get to the moon - the ONLY reason.

Zamboro:
Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

Thank you for reminding me that I'm not getting enough calcium in my diet.

TheOther- If there is even a tiny hydrogen leak, the Moon is going asplode!

That's not what the parrot said.
Anyone else remember that short from back when Showtime needed an antenna?
Get off my lawn.

I dislike this idea, why? No way to insure crew safety. Stick the Constellation, its the best choice at the moment and we'll have our first test flight in August anyway. Delta Delta IV and Atlas V? Fark that, your talking about completely redesigning rockets and its easier to build an entire new rocket from scratch. The Falcon 9? No, Space X is a company that has barely done anything, certainly haven't proven that they can be a major player just yet. DIRECT? No, vaporware, the two launch system is safer and we're already got Ares-I ready to be tested in August.

So folks, lets stick to the game plan. Keep your eye on the ball.

acanuck: "I'll take OTHER (new window) for the win, Alex, and it's the ONLY reason the nuke club is in a race to get to the moon - the ONLY reason."

"Nuke club"? Got something against nuclear power, buddy? Fusion power is so far off that mining Helium 3 seems a poor reason to return to the moon, at least not one you can sell congress on in the present. An upcoming impact probe may reveal underground deposits of plutonium however, which would add to the list of necessary elements for human habitation that we won't have to bring with us.

I don't know why we're having so many space-related articles on Fark today, but I like it. Bring them on!

bbfreak: "I dislike this idea, why? No way to insure crew safety. Stick the Constellation, its the best choice at the moment and we'll have our first test flight in August anyway. Delta Delta IV and Atlas V? Fark that, your talking about completely redesigning rockets and its easier to build an entire new rocket from scratch. The Falcon 9? No, Space X is a company that has barely done anything, certainly haven't proven that they can be a major player just yet. DIRECT? No, vaporware, the two launch system is safer and we're already got Ares-I ready to be tested in August.

So folks, lets stick to the game plan. Keep your eye on the ball."

I agree. The vibration issues are to be expected given that this is the most powerful launch vehicle in history. The Ares V is pushing the upper limits on practical size for manned rockets, so some allowance for a rough ride ought to be made. From what I've read it's not a credible safety concern, it'll just be extremely unpleasant for those on board.

vossiewulf: RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

Not really. Keep in mind there are several options for air vehicle power, and all of them have specific airspeed operating ranges and/or are air-breathing. At the lowest end is the propeller, which can handle from 0 to just below sonic range. Next is air-breathing low or high bypass turbofans, which can do up to about mach 2.5, and worse, they need oxygen from an atmosphere. Next is ramjets, and above those, scramjets, which takes us to the hypersonic range of mach 10 or so, but both of those engines won't even work well until they're going really, really fast. And finally, rockets, which can produce continuous, massive thrust independent of airspeed or altitude because they carry both their fuel and their oxygen internally.

There is only one type of engine that can currently get us the speed required at the altitudes required to manage orbit, and that's the rocket. And other than JATO packs which have been occasionally used to assist aircraft taking off, a couple experimental designs and the Me-163/263 from WWII, we don't have rocket-powered conventional takeoff/landing aircraft because it's a really bad idea. Rocket engines don't throttle well and they for sure don't know how to produce the continuously variable very low levels of thrust required for a powered landing.

So if you want something to take off like an airplane, go to space, and land again like an airplane, you're going to need several engines, each with its own fuel, controls, electronics, all of which add lots of weight. Not to mention that you're adding a zillion more ways for your vehicle to fail with each set of engines that you add.

Basically, we need to stop trying to do what is absurd, which is getting to orbit from the surface of a planet using atmospheric thrust and aerodynamic control vehicles. We need to build an elevator, and just lift whatever we want to orbit where vehicles designed solely for space operations can carry that cargo to and fro.

Ah, the space elevator. Easier said then done, its all theoretical at the moment, from the actual building to the materials needed. Which is sort of a problem, not to mention it isn't something you can build quickly and people want results yesterday not several years down the road.

Crosshair: bum a few Soyuz capsules from the Russians and upgrade the heat shields for a moon mission reentry.

No upgrade needed. Soyuz was designed for the Soviet Lunar Program and its heat shield is enough to handle that reentry. Ablative heat shields are really wonderful things. I don't have a link handy, but there was a study done that found that the Apollo CMs could be used for reentry on a Mars mission - but (if memory serves) you'd be pulling 8Gs (instead of the average 4Gs that they pulled reentering on the moon missions).

Zamboro: Got something against nuclear power, buddy?

I am a huge fan of nuke power, BUT

It's for weapons, pinhead

The reason for this all-of-a-sudden scramble is that the Indians and Chinese are ahead of the US program's schedule to get there and return weapons-related He3, for those too lazy to read my prior link on what material we are going to mine.

Given the HUGE economic cost of going there to mine, you can bet (look at history) it is of MILITARY significance ONLY. You purists need to wake up and look at history.

Safety of astronauts is a calculated bet on their lives, just as deploying soldiers to steal others' resources is/was. If you are a pansy worrying about astronaut safety, you don't understand the game, or the thrill.

I'd go up there on a 50% bet....

Tofu: No upgrade needed. Soyuz was designed for the Soviet Lunar Program and its heat shield is enough to handle that reentry. Ablative heat shields are really wonderful things. I don't have a link handy, but there was a study done that found that the Apollo CMs could be used for reentry on a Mars mission - but (if memory serves) you'd be pulling 8Gs (instead of the average 4Gs that they pulled reentering on the moon missions).

It would depend also on what kind of Earth parking orbit you put the ship in for the return trip. Stepped delta-Vs on return could match a rendezvous with extra fuel/engines, and the ship could take a less steep course back for a landing.

ActionJoe: I thought one of the big reasons for retiring the shuttle design was to eliminate the need to have foam hit the shuttle. Having an orbiter or cargo vessel attached like the configuration now still leads to the possibly of foam striking the vehicle.

Foam strike damaging the wings and re entry heat shield doesn't really matter when what you're sending up doesn't have wings and the heat shield bit is a small bit at the top, a long way above the foam.

Biggest problem on a Mars trip is going to be Galactic Cosmic Rays. Nobody's come up with a good defense for GCRs -- NASA's fooling around with some hydrogen-rich fiberglass designs but there's really nothing hardened enough to keep interplanetary astronauts from being cooked in gamma rays for several years during the journey.

Zamboro: An upcoming impact probe may reveal underground deposits of plutonium

He3 lies under the Luna's surface - that impact probe is intended to assess potential mining site material concentration. I don't know where you are getting the plutonium fantasy from - do you have a link?

DarthBrooks: Biggest problem on a Mars trip is going to be Galactic Cosmic Rays

There isn't going to be a manned Mars Mission...Mars was a cover story by Bush & Co to get a lifter large enough to get heavy mining equipment out to Luna. He3 for fusion power generation (new window) is the secondary shell of deception. Don't forget, Donald Rumsfelt's corporation now runs the PRIVATELY OWNED Lawrence Livermore Labs (yup - they GAVE AWAY our national lab) where these He3 experiments will be conducted in the NIF

The cat's out of the bag (half the scientists are on H1Bs so what did they expect?) regarding He3 having high availability on the moon and its unique contribution to producing higher yield fusion weapons (new window), and the Chinese and Indians are kicking ass and taking names to get there FIRST.

This is why we need re-use lifters and to stop farking around on an entirely new platform - got to get there first and build tiny, high-yield nuclear bombs FIRST, possibly controlling access to Luna at some point, which will thrill you Star Wars fanboys.

Zamboro: NeuroticRocker: "can someone explain to me why, in 2009, we need to go to the moon again? When we did it the first time, there was a justifiable reason between showing our gigantic cocks to the world and a matter of national security in the space race.

Yes, yes. space exploration is important and working together in an international effort unites us. So why cant we just fark the moon and go beyond? It seems pointless to go there unless we are going to mine that farker."

Take a look at this and tell me what jumps out at you.

"i went into a pizza shop and the dude gave me the smallest farking slice possible. if the pizza was a pie chart for whats on the moon, he gave me the OTHER slice....id like THE OXYGEN!"

DarthBrooks:

It would depend also on what kind of Earth parking orbit you put the ship in for the return trip. Stepped delta-Vs on return could match a rendezvous with extra fuel/engines, and the ship could take a less steep course back for a landing.

We're talking about a Mars mission here?? I encourage you to download Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator and give that a try. Your extra fuel rockets have to be just ahead of the returning Mars mission, right when it reaches perigee. Then they have to perform their own ejection maneuver so as to match the velocity of the Mars mission. Now you've got two sets of spacecraft in the same vicinity, and near Earth, but here's the great part: they are both on hyperbolic trajectories. There is no free return option like with Apollo. So, the Mars mission rendezvouses with these extra fuel rockets, docks with them, then the whole stack slows down into LEO.

Oh, it's possible. I'm not telling you that isn't possible. I'd even go so far as to say it sounds like fun (and seriously, give it a shot in Orbiter). I'm just saying it's crazy. If anything at all goes wrong with your extra fuel ships - they can't launch on time because of a problem on the ground, they don't reach the right orbit, they miss their one and only opportunity to do the ejection burn, you have some problem docking, anything at all - you've now got people on a hyperbolic orbit with respect to Earth. Wave at them as they go by, because they aren't coming back!

I think it's cool that you knew enough to suggest it. I just think it's something that Heinlein would suggest - not something that mortal man would do.

Zamboro:

/In all seriousness. we'd definitely bring liquid hydrogen along as it would add potable water and rocket fuel to the list of things we can make from the oxygen we refine from regolith.

Even better send up big dumb unmanned tanks of methane or better still butane clathrate. Stable at -20C rather than -252C, no sloshing, no explosion risk, and you get carbon to use with as well.

acanuck: He3 having high availability on the moon and its unique contribution to producing higher yield fusion weapons

So, let me see if I've got this straight: regular nuclear weapons aren't armageddonny enough. I mean sure, we can already kill every man, woman, and child on this planet several times over, but only a quitter would stop there! So instead, we're going to spend gazillions of dollars sifting thousands of tons of regolith so that we can build more powerful nuclear bombs, which we'll never actually use.

Does that pretty much sum things up?

Tofu: We're talking about a Mars mission here?? I encourage you to download Orbiter Spaceflight Simulator and give that a try. Your extra fuel rockets have to be just ahead of the returning Mars mission, right when it reaches perigee. Then they have to perform their own ejection maneuver so as to match the velocity of the Mars mission. Now you've got two sets of spacecraft in the same vicinity, and near Earth, but here's the great part: they are both on hyperbolic trajectories. There is no free return option like with Apollo. So, the Mars mission rendezvouses with these extra fuel rockets, docks with them, then the whole stack slows down into LEO.

You're not getting the scenario -- the spacecraft carries enough fuel getting back to Earth's Sphere of Influence in order to break the hyperbolic path and bump it into an elliptical transfer orbit. The ship would be in about the same amount of danger as the previous arrival to Mars's SOI (as they're both hyperbolic courses).

In order to alter the elliptical transfer orbit at return to Earth's SOI, *that* would be where a refuel rendezvous would take place. The ship wouldn't be in a heliocentric orbit, so it's just a matter of rendezvousing a supply ship at some point on the Earth orbit.

acanuck: Mars was a cover story by Bush & Co...

You are getting a bit repetitive.

Not sure if I was clear in that last paragraph: the ship carries enough fuel from the Mars trip to brake into an elliptical transfer orbit around Earth, and then has a rendezvous (as target) with a fuel ferry (as interceptor) to drop out of the elliptical for landing is what I was trying to convey.

Tofu: I think it's cool that you knew enough to suggest it. I just think it's something that Heinlein would suggest - not something that mortal man would do.

Awesome words, I may quote them.

Yeah, it'll be cheaper to get to the moon, but you have to sign a 12-month contract for Mars and Venus travel and digital telephone, too. If all you want is moon travel, stick with your current plan.

DarthBrooks: the spacecraft carries enough fuel ...to break the hyperbolic path and bump it into an elliptical transfer orbit.

oh ok. I don't see where you said that the first time. But yeah, you could do that with a ballute or by passing close to the Moon probably.

But consider this, an elliptical orbit with apogee out near the orbit of the Moon isn't stable (even if the Moon isn't in a position to influence it). So for your plan, we're talking about an elliptical orbit that's well inside the orbit of the Moon. Well think about it, we've already built spacecraft that can fall all the way in from the moon and enter the atmosphere. Now you're in a position for an even easier reentry. So, if you had the fuel to get into that orbit, then I don't think you need any more fuel - just come on home.

Unless, you want to leave a booster in Earth orbit for the next mission - like if you had a big Nerva booster. Then, we use your plan and we park the (now empty) Nerva booster in LEO. Refuel it, dock another hab module/lander/whatever to it, and head off to Mars again.

And that would be the best thing ever.
I need a sock.

Tofu: Does that pretty much sum things up?

All I'm saying is that major nuclear powers (China, India, USA, Russia) are not spending a good chunk of their GDP, or risk going broke, to bring back material to make lighter bicycle pedals, or to fulfill some Buck Rogers fantasy/"curiosity"...historically, it's almost NEVER happened.

Somebody must think there's value in taking out an entire city with a backpack sized device deployed by one soldier. Or perhaps it's for a space-based X-ray pump for a DEW?

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

No air on the Moon, sparky. How you want those wings to work?
/Never mind the fuel problem

acanuck: (China, India, USA, Russia) are not spending a good chunk of their GDP, or risk going broke, to bring back material to make lighter bicycle pedals

A common misconception is that when someone says "we spent $X on space" that people think it means we either just burned the money or actually somehow spent it in space (like there's a Walmart on the moon or something).

In actuality, most of that money goes to pay scientists and engineers to design things, and even goes to a lot of blue-collar workers on assembly lines and so on. The rockets themselves are aluminum cans and rocket motors are glorified fuel pumps. You personally are only paying pennies per day for all of this, and most of what you're buying with your pennies is people.

And creating a market for engineers results in more engineers going to school, more kids taking an interest in science, and so on. Basically, a space program is like a big public works project. You're creating a lot of jobs and a lot of economic activity and helping the economy quite a bit. A lot of spin-off technologies come out of it too, you can google that if you're interested.

It actually is a pretty good investment, but the point is the journey, not so much the destination. In 100 years or so, we may find an asteroid on a collision course, and a rush to develop space infrastructure then is likely to fail. If it's already in place, we have a much better chance of survival. In 200 years or more, we may be able to live on the moon or Mars. We may be able to get every natural resource we need from space (consider for example, that one moderate-sized asteroid contains more iron, more nickel, more of a lot of metals than has ever been mined on Earth - image a future where Earth is a nature preserve, people live here and vacation here, but there are no mines, no factories, no power plants). So in the future, in the distant future, there may be a worthwile destination. But for now, the economic benefits are sufficient justification.

Just think, if we had developed follow-ons to the Saturn V instead of going with the shuttle, then right now (now that solar panel technology is improving exponentially) we might be able to loft entire power stations into orbit. But we can't, because we didn't. And in the future, we'll continue to miss opportunities like that unless commit to an ongoing program now.

Problems with these plans:

1) The proposals don't believe there will be any development costs or unforeseen problems... which is bullshiat. Rockets are not Legos. You don't mix and match bits and figure its just going to work because it looks right.
Little things like harmonics and thrust oscillation (troublemakers for Saturn and Ares respectively) tend to rear their ugly heads and cost you money.

2) The efficiency and reliability on the SSME's that they have a hardon for using just sucks. Lacking a star trek warp drive or some other solution, the best we can do for a start is to finally retire the things and go back to proper Von Braunian staging.

3) Most of the alternative ideas deliver less than a half to a third of what the Saturn did, or what Ares is set to do. Which means the final payload to reach the moon will be smaller still. Throwing a monkey wrench into the works for any mission beyond simply landing.

If we are going to the moon then we should go and accomplish everything we've been putting off for the last thirty years. Bases, rovers, science, the works.
If we are simply going to keep pace with the Chinese and then leaving for another half century, there is no point. Buy space on Arian to launch the handful of landers you need and get rid of NASA's in house rocket building. Devote the resources for these other projects towards finding a realistic solution around the problem of launch costs.

Half stepping just to save money and face will do neither in the long run.

way south: 1) The proposals don't believe there will be any development costs or unforeseen problems.

I have a strong suspicion that Boeing is blowing smoke up everyone's ass. Boeing is making estimates on work it hasn't done yet. Ares I is underway, the major problems are now actually visible, and they are giving essentially concrete development costs. I agree with you that it would be insane to cancel Ares I now. I love the Delta IV heavy, but I promise you, it'll end up costing just as much as Ares is. Everyone talks about vibration problems with Ares. Read up on the crossfeed problems with the D IV-H.

There will be unforeseen problems.

2) The efficiency and reliability on the SSME's that they have a hardon for using just sucks.

Apparently, there are a lot of powerful politicians with vested interests in building SSMEs. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we have to keep all the factories open and just throw the engines into a landfill somewhere becuase it turns out that's politically easier than replacing them altogether.

Zamboro: i63.photobucket.com

Calcium and magnesium, so it would make a good nutritional supplement? No? Got me then ;)

One of the reasons NASA's designing a new launch platform is to get the humans back on top of the rocket stack, where it's generally safer to launch them. The Shuttle does a pretty good job of getting big things into orbit, all things considered - but the risk has worked out to be higher.

Remember, the Shuttle is a '70s design (and with mainly '70s technology), and we had a different understanding of risks and issues back then. 25 years of operation has shown us that strapping a big fragile winged vehicle onto the side of a big foam-covered tank and two SRBs isn't an ideal design.

Constellation should ultimately be able to boost a lot more tonnage into orbit and provide a better platform for human spaceflight. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane.

ORBITER (new window)

Not a space shoot-em up game but a space flight simulator for rocket scientists and wannbe rocket scientists.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the new moon missions to try to eventually establish a permanent US/International presence?

If it was just "sending some dudes up there to poke around" I could see reusing our existing technology. But if they are going to attempt to build any new structures then we are most likely going to need a better launch vehicle in order to ferry materials (and return our astronauts in one piece).

Honestly, 36 billion seems like an astonishingly low price tag for a new space vehicle series. After all, back in the 80's it cost us twice as much money to develop the F-22 raptor program and even today getting a new one costs about 180 million per plane.

Personally I think we're getting it pretty cheap because people and companies want to work on a new space vehicle. It's basically advanced R&D on the governments dime. I run a company that is a defense contractor and I'll be the first to admit that government money for new programs amounts to about 70% of our research and development budget. Heck, we've been running a program for 2 years now sub contracted for General Atomics (who are contracted to the Air Force), that when we're done is going to provide us with a nice civvy version of the product we're developing.

So like yeah... I'm pretty keen on stuff like this. I don't particularly care for the government spending hojillions of dollars on buying copies of 20 or 30 year old technology, but I can certainly get behind them funding development of new technology.

eqtworld: jht: Constellation should ultimately be able to boost a lot more tonnage into orbit and provide a better platform for human spaceflight. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane.

We would have been better off building Saturn Vs in the 80s and 90s IMO

This, imagine what we could do know with our current technology-lighter metals, more powerful processors etc.

Tofu: acanuck: (China, India, USA, Russia) are not spending a good chunk of their GDP, or risk going broke, to bring back material to make lighter bicycle pedals

A common misconception is that when someone says "we spent $X on space" that people think it means we either just burned the money or actually somehow spent it in space (like there's a Walmart on the moon or something).

In actuality, most of that money goes to pay scientists and engineers to design things, and even goes to a lot of blue-collar workers on assembly lines and so on. The rockets themselves are aluminum cans and rocket motors are glorified fuel pumps. You personally are only paying pennies per day for all of this, and most of what you're buying with your pennies is people.

And creating a market for engineers results in more engineers going to school, more kids taking an interest in science, and so on. Basically, a space program is like a big public works project. You're creating a lot of jobs and a lot of economic activity and helping the economy quite a bit. A lot of spin-off technologies come out of it too, you can google that if you're interested.

It actually is a pretty good investment, but the point is the journey, not so much the destination. In 100 years or so, we may find an asteroid on a collision course, and a rush to develop space infrastructure then is likely to fail. If it's already in place, we have a much better chance of survival. In 200 years or more, we may be able to live on the moon or Mars. We may be able to get every natural resource we need from space (consider for example, that one moderate-sized asteroid contains more iron, more nickel, more of a lot of metals than has ever been mined on Earth - image a future where Earth is a nature preserve, people live here and vacation here, but there are no mines, no factories, no power plants). So in the future, in the distant future, there may be a worthwile destination. But for now, the economic benefits are sufficient justification.

Just think, if we had developed follow-ons to the Saturn V instead of going with the shuttle, then right now (now that solar panel technology is improving exponentially) we might be able to loft entire power stations into orbit. But we can't, because we didn't. And in the future, we'll continue to miss opportunities like that unless commit to an ongoing program now.

So tell me, why haven't they put you in charge of NASA's PR?

(and I mean that as a compliment!)

/here's hoping many more people share your vision

hasty ambush: eqtworld: jht: Constellation should ultimately be able to boost a lot more tonnage into orbit and provide a better platform for human spaceflight. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane.

We would have been better off building Saturn Vs in the 80s and 90s IMO

This, imagine what we could do know with our current technology-lighter metals, more powerful processors etc.

I think that was how they ended up at constellation.

With the factory tooling for Saturn dismantled and its engineers long since moved on to other jobs, it would have cost serious money to restart that program.
For similar price you could build new rockets that are even bigger.

If we don't want to pay the high price of doing business in space then there's no sense in going halfway. Go back and finish the work of the X-15 and X-33, bring the costs down to reasonable levels.

We need to think of what we want to have in forty years time.
An RLV airline to orbit or the worlds biggest moon/mars rocket are both outcomes we can be proud of.
A half thought abortion from the long shuttered shuttle program... not so much.

johnny_vegas: I mean really, 1/5th the cost? How much does it cost to build a movie set in the desert anyway?

Trolling?

eqtworld: TwistedFark: people and companies want to work on a new space vehicle. It's basically advanced R&D on the governments dime.



I love that picture, but it doesn't really make much sense in the context of my post, or even the part that you quoted.

Maybe something like this would make more sense...

I thought that one of the big safety drawbacks to the shuttle launch design was use of the SRBs. Once they're lit, they can't be shut down.

So, here we are, talking about keeping one of the most dangerous aspects of the shuttle launch platform intact for the foreseeable future in order to save some bucks? I wonder what prospective astronauts think about that.

I'm all for creative thinking and coming up with less expensive ways to push our space exploration agenda along, but I also think that we need to push forward with the technological aspects involved in updating our launch equipment and making it safer for human payloads. Using existing technology where practical makes sense, but at the same time we should also be eliminating as many of the known safety risks as our technology and resources will allow us to, especially given our loftier goals of interplanetary travel in the not-to-distant future.

/perhaps we should ask NK for help?
//they seem to have some serious rocket scientists over there these days

Why do we need to go back to the Moon? If there was some reason other than cold-war propaganda to go there in the first place, we'd still be going there.

Zamboro: Before anyone gets snarky about the safety record of the shuttle, note that this plan uses only the fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, not the orbiter itself. The jist of it is to use the existing shuttle launch platform except with the orion capsule or an unmanned cargo vehicle in place of the orbiter.

It's no longterm solution but it should be considered as a stopgap solution for the five or so years that we'll be without the shuttle.

Just remember the two fatal faults of the shuttle haven't been caused by the orbiter, but came from the additional sections of it. A frozen over o-ring on a solid rocket booster and a large chunk of foam coming off of the external tank and hitting the orbiter.

So you want to re-use the two pieces that caused problems for the US space industry and hope like hell that it will get outside of LEO, even though the SRB and ET wern't made for helping the shuttle reach beyond LEO.

eqtworld: We would have been better off building Saturn Vs in the 80s and 90s IMO

Well, hindsight is 20:20. I mean yeah, it'd be great if we still had Saturn V class heavy launchers, but I promise you, if we did, people would complain about how expensive it is and how we throw away an entire rocket on every launch. And people would say, "NASA had the plans for a cheap reusable shuttle in the '70s but they blew it. Imagine if we had that technology today."

I wish that we could have just cut our military budget by say 1/4 and had both Saturn and the Shuttle. Then we could have used the shuttle for what it was really good at - let's face it, since they've actually been building a space station, it's been great. The shuttle is a giant space SUV. If you're actually using it for SUV-stuff, that's fine. Challenger was lost taking a teacher into space. WTF? Columbia was on its own too - doing experiments in the spacehab module that could have been done on the space station. It's like if you buy an SUV and then you only ever use it to commute to work by yourself, that's stupid and wasteful. The shuttle can do things like the HST repair/upgrades, and bringing the LDEF back to Earth that no other spacecraft can do. But politicians cut NASA's budget so low that they couldn't afford any place for the SUV to go. It's really quite sad.



(the numbers for education are state+federal)

So yeah, I don't think the shuttle was a failure. I just think that we failed to set our priorities right. On the other hand...

hasty ambush: imagine what we could do now with our current technology

consider this: The ISS (when it's finished) will weigh in at 400 tons (according to wiki). How long, and how many launches has it taken to build a 400 ton station? A lot, but now that it's built, they're doing important scientific work, so it was worth it. Well get this, the Saturn V could loft 180 tons into orbit on a single launch. So basically, the entire ISS in just about two launches. We all love the hubble right? Everybody sees that as like a national treasure. It weighs about 13 tons. News reporters love to say, "and it's the size of a city bus." Imagine an HST that weighs in at 180 tons and is the size of a tractor trailer!

That's the kind of stuff that you can do with a real heavy launcher. And there were plans for even bigger launchers - Nova could have put 500 tons (1 million lbs) into orbit in a single launch. You ask what we could do with that technology today? How much power could you get from 500 tons of solar panels? People say space-based solar power isn't going to work because it'll be too hard to maintain the stations. lol. just dump the station into the pacific if it stops working. We can launch another one on Tuesday.

So anyway, the shuttle is currently the heaviest launcher in service but the Saturn V is the heaviest ever built (by heavy I mean most payload). We have a chance to finally built something bigger, and finally see all the rewards that would go along with that. Please president Obama, make sure the Ares V gets built. We need it. We can't even imagine the stuff we'll do with it. We just need it.

tag007: Just remember the two fatal faults of the shuttle haven't been caused by the orbiter, but came from the additional sections of it. A frozen over o-ring on a solid rocket booster and a large chunk of foam coming off of the external tank and hitting the orbiter.

50% of the fatal fault is that for the first 8:30 of flight, there is no way between the ignition of the SRBs and pretty much all the way to MECO to remove the crew safely from the stack. RTLS is a fairy tale. Sliding out on a pole with a parachute while the out-of-control orbiter is doing an end-over-end spin isn't too damn likely, either.

Add to that the inability of the orbiter to survive ditching at sea, and it's pretty much in the realm of Stupidest Spacecraft Design Evar.

Fark Me To Tears: one of the big safety drawbacks to the shuttle launch design was use of the SRBs. Once they're lit, they can't be shut down.

How is that a safety drawback? The reason you think it's a safety issue is that it's something that the news people say on every single launch. It's a little shuttle factoid that they've latched onto and it's easy for them to remember so they just keep repeating it. And you've filed it away under "safety" when really it's not.

Yeah, once the SRBs are lit, they can't be shut down. What exactly does that mean? Would you do the countdown, get to zero, then change your mind about launching? You're going to bring up STS 68 were the main engines famously shutdown right before launch. We've all seen the video. But do you know why they shut down? See, the thing is, a rocket motor is basically just a glorified fuel pump. Problem is, like all pumps, they sometimes sputter. Remember all those (sort of funny) videos of early rockets lifting off, then settling back on the pad and exploding? The pumps sputtered, or weren't working quite right in some way. You don't see that happening anymore, right? Ever wondered why? It's because someone had the bright idea to bolt the rocket down on the pad. You ignite the engines and let the pumps work out all their kinks. When everything is running smoothly, you release the bolts and away you go.

Well, an SRB doesn't sputter. There are no fuel lines to clog, no valves to fail. As you said, you light it and away you go. So my question is, how exactly is this a problem? I really don't think it is. Besides, once a liquid-fueled rocket gets one inch off the pad, you can't shut it down either or it'll crash back into the pad. The only thing is, and it's not really a safety thing, the launch escape system on Ares I will have to be more powerful. Because if they have use it, it has to outrun the SRB. The figure I heard was something like 17 Gs. It wont be a comfortable ride, that's for sure. But it's safe (for a rocket anyway)

eqtworld: Tofu: So yeah, I don't think the shuttle was a failure. I just think that we failed to set our priorities right. On the other hand...

It is a failure if you look at the the objectives of the program at the time it was implemented. It has been more expensive and less reliable on almost every measurable specification.

It was designed to launch between 12 and 24 times per year. That would put us at 325 launches at the low end of promised minimum missions and 648 on the high end since 1981.

We have had about one third of minimum intended launches.

The cost per pound of getting to orbit is not cheaper than with an expendable vehicle.

And of the 5 build, 2 were destroyed by nothing more than design flaws and or negligence: killing all on board.

If we had listen to Von Braun we would have built an orbital space station first, Then learned to build a decent reusable orbital vehicle. After which we would have colonized the Moon.
/Just sayin'

tinfoil-hat maggie: If we had listen to Von Braun we would have had Nazis build a V-3 capable of hitting New York City built an orbital space station first, Then learned to build a decent reusable orbital vehicle. After which we would have Nazis colonized the Moon.

FTFY

DarthBrooks: tinfoil-hat maggie: If we had listen to Von Braun we would have had Nazis build a V-3 capable of hitting New York City built an orbital space station first, Then learned to build a decent reusable orbital vehicle. After which we would have Nazis colonized the Moon.

FTFY

Me thinks you've has to muchIron Sky (new window)

If we manufactured an ecosystem on another planet, would we still have hippies harassing us about killing whatever we plant there?

Fark Me To Tears: I thought that one of the big safety drawbacks to the shuttle launch design was use of the SRBs. Once they're lit, they can't be shut down.

there aren't many rockets you want to shut down when they've just left the ground.


Befuddled: Why do we need to go back to the Moon? If there was some reason other than cold-war propaganda to go there in the first place, we'd still be going there.

there aren't many places that we can reach in space besides the moon and mars.
Mars is going to take some prep work. With things like isru and an understanding of how to stop dust from damaging our machinery, the job gets alot easier.
Understanding other worlds also helps us to better understand earth.

Tofu:

How much power could you get from 500 tons of solar panels?

Wrong question.

Correct question: how much power-per-dollar can we get from space-based solar using Saturn V launch tech, relative to the power-per-dollar we can get from other energy sources?

Answer: not enough.

For space-based solar to be economical, it's generally accepted that you have to push launch costs below about $500/kg. While Saturn V-type heavy launchers have lower launch costs than the Shuttle, they're still far above that price point.

Put a lander in the shuttle bay and use the shuttle as the transit vehicle to the moon - then leave it attached to the ISS in between trips for servicing and stuff, sort of an on orbit garage.

Stupid suggestion probably but then I'm stupid too so hey!!

How cool would it be riding the shuttle to the moon?

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

I'm assuming you're being snarky, but just in case you really are an idiot: There is no atmosphere on the moon.

Veeoh: How cool would it be riding the shuttle to the moon?

How do you plan to actually get the shuttle to the moon? It doesn't have nearly enough delta-V. It can't even make it to geosynchronous orbit, let alone the moon. Scroll up to hasty ambush's post and click the link, download the simulator, and have fun trying this out for yourself.

sgilman: johnny_vegas: I mean really, 1/5th the cost? How much does it cost to build a movie set in the desert anyway?

Trolling?

ummm...joking

/poorly, obviously

I'll bet if they just steered the Space Shuttle at the moon and launched it, it might work, instead of curving it around the earth, when it launches.

Sometimes the answers to seemingly complex questions are quite simple, if you take the time to think about them.

if there are any rocket fanboys left in this thread, check out this video of a Saturn V launch set to music from Battlestar Galactica. The raw power of that thing is so starkly beautiful, it actually gets me choked up.

acanuck: The reason for this all-of-a-sudden scramble is that the Indians and Chinese are ahead of the US program's schedule to get there and return weapons-related He3, for those too lazy to read my prior link on what material we are going to mine.

Given the HUGE economic cost of going there to mine, you can bet (look at history) it is of MILITARY significance ONLY. You purists need to wake up and look at history.

Safety of astronauts is a calculated bet on their lives, just as deploying soldiers to steal others' resources is/was. If you are a pansy worrying about astronaut safety, you don't understand the game, or the thrill.

I'd go up there on a 50% bet....

you're an idiot...we don't need help for fusion fuels, not at all, weapons grade nuclear materials and easy to come across, especially for fusion bombs, He3 is ideal for fusion reactors, not for bombs, because of the ways it behaves during a fusion reaction, just as you don't use the same kind of fuels for a bomb as you do in fission reactors

Why can't the shuttle just keep going to the moon once it is in earth orbit?

Use the cargo bay to hold the lander.

Pick: I'll bet if they just steered the Space Shuttle at the moon and launched it, it might work, instead of curving it around the earth, when it launches.

Sometimes the answers to seemingly complex questions are quite simple, if you take the time to think about them.

Only that you're dealing with gravity wells, and space in which the only thing that alters your direction/velocity, is solar pressure, basically you're in a frictionless universe trying to get from one basketball at the center of an ice bowl to the golf ball at the center of another much smaller ice bowl at the point where the bigger bowls slope becomes almost flat.

Doing a figure eight means you can do it slower and let the natural curves of the wells + slight thrust adjustments take you down to the target, with less energy than doing a straight shot that'll leave you going too fast flying at a target orbit or just target small whose mass leaves you with an equally small escape velocity.

Shooting straight leaves for much less forgiveness as well it requires more fuel to stop, or in the case you literally go straight there think about NASA's recent experiments with kinetic energy bombs, if you don't get this play orbiter the simulator/game linked to above, you'll come to understand the problem pretty quickly.

At least that's the problem as I understand it.. .

sip111: Doing a figure eight means you can do it slower and let the natural curves of the wells + slight thrust adjustments take you down to the target, with less energy than doing a straight shot that'll leave you going too fast flying at a target orbit or just target small whose mass leaves you with an equally small escape velocity.

Without precise calculations, we'd fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

greenapple2step: Why can't the shuttle just keep going to the moon once it is in earth orbit?

Use the cargo bay to hold the lander.

Short answer, not enough fuel to get it out of earth orbitinto lunar orbit, and not enough to get it out of lunar orbit and on its way back to earth. You know that big orange fuel tank that fuels the shuttle's main engines? It's empty by the time the shuttle gets into orbit.

DarthBrooks: sip111: Doing a figure eight means you can do it slower and let the natural curves of the wells + slight thrust adjustments take you down to the target, with less energy than doing a straight shot that'll leave you going too fast flying at a target orbit or just target small whose mass leaves you with an equally small escape velocity.

Without precise calculations, we'd fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

Not unless we allow for two free tilts.

here's a few NASA spinoffs


1. The most accurate topographical map of the Earth. This data is used to develop safer navigation techniques and better communication systems.
2. Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.
3. Heart pump based on technology of space shuttle's fuel pumps. It's two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs less than four ounces.
4. Efficient autos and planes benefiting from NASA wind tunnel and aerodynamic expertise.
5. New metal alloys based on research for the space station program.
6. Thermal protection blankets used in everything from fire fighters suits to survival gear for cold environments.
7. Robots and robotic software with wide-ranging uses that include auto-assembly plants, hazardous material handling, monitoring in dangerous environments, distribution and packaging facilities, etc.
8. Lightweight composite materials that benefit cars, airplanes, camping gear, etc.
9. Perfect protein crystals grown in zero gravity; used for more pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other crystalline-based products including insulin for diabetes patients.
10. Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring quality of our oceans and fresh water.
11. Commercial space communication systems for personal phones, computers, video transmissions, global positioning satellite systems, etc.
12. Improvements in energy use efficiency.
13. More responsible use of air and water in private and commercial buildings.
14. Automated maintenance functions for buildings and new lower-cost building construction techniques.
15. Smoke detectors for homes and commercial buildings.
16. Air purification systems used to by hospitals to provide pure oxygen for patients.
17. High-bandwidth and optical communications systems.
18. Technology for cordless tools such as drills, shrub trimmers and rechargeable flashlights.
19. Growth of zeolite crystals that have the potential to reduce the cost of petroleum and to store new types of fuels like hydrogen, which is abundant and pollution-free. This technology could be used in hydrogen-powered cars.
20. Fire-fighting systems that battle blazes with a fine mist, rather than environmentally harmful chemicals.
21. Sunglasses that block certain types of light - blue, violet, and ultraviolet - that could hurt the eyes. These sunglasses block the hazardous light, while allowing light that is good for vision to pass through the lens.
22. Solar power collection.
23. Air filtration systems that can kill all types of harmful bacteria - even anthrax -- and remove allergens from the air with better than 90 percent efficiency.
24. Ultralight solar concentrators that gather power from the Sun and efficiently convert it into electrical power. Applications for this technology on Earth are limitless.
25. Water purification methods using ions (an atom or group of atoms carrying a positive or negative electrical charge). Used in water filtering systems to remove lead, chlorine, bad taste and odor. Newer purification systems also remove contaminants such as perchlorate and nitrate.
26. "Power Pads" to cushion a horse's hooves, protecting against injuries and helping ease discomfort associated with brittle hooves or arthritis.
27. Disposable diapers.
28. Devices for collection and real-time analysis of blood, and other bodily fluids, without the need for centrifugation. Huge potential for hospitals and for remote units to monitor individuals with health problems.
29. Lighter artificial limbs that are virtually indestructible; based on foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's external fuel tank.
30. Computer-aided tomography (CATScan) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for imaging the body and its organs.
31. Light-emitting diodes used in photodynamic therapy. These diodes are used in a form of chemotherapy that kills cancerous tumors.
32. Infrared sensors used in hand-held optical sensor thermometers. These devices can measure temperature in the ear canal in two seconds or less.
33. Devices used to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and disorders of the central nervous system.
34. Compact laboratory instruments for hospitals and doctor offices that analyze blood in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes.
35. Land mine removal using flare device and leftover fuel donated from NASA.
36. Technology which allows vehicles to transmit a signal back to a home base. Used to track and reassign emergency and public works vehicles; also track vehicle operations such as taxis, armored cars and vehicles carrying hazardous cargo. Now used to recover stolen vehicles.
37. Cutters using small explosive charges used by emergency rescue personnel to quickly extract accident victims.
38. Image-processing technology used remove defects due to image jitter, image rotation and image zoom in video sequences. Used by law enforcement agencies to improve crime-solving videos; doctors in medical imaging; scientific applications and even home video cameras.
39. Gas leak-detection system used by Ford in natural gas-powered car.
40. Method of labeling products with invisible and virtually indestructible markings - used on electronic parts, pharmaceuticals and livestock -- in fact it could be used on just about anything.
41. Fire resistant foam used as thermal and acoustical insulation in aerospace, marine and industrial products. Also used as for fire barriers, packaging and other applications requiring either high-temperature or very low-temperature insulation. Used by Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Airbus for for major weight savings in aircraft.
42. Hand-held camera which firefighters use to pinpoint the hotspots of wildfires.
43. Safer soldering base for jewelers using torches in jewelry assembly. Based on heat-shield tiles of shuttle instead of hazardous asbestos bases previously used.
44. Quick-connect fasteners used by firefighters and nuclear power-plant repair technicians.
45. Game-controlling joystick for computers and entertainment systems.
46. Spray lube used for rust prevention; loosening corroded nuts; cleaning and lubricating guns and fishing reels; and lubricating and reducing engine friction.
47. World-wide television broadcasts.
48. Home insulation system which provides significant savings in home heating and cooling costs - uses technology of aluminum heat shield developed for Apollo spacecraft.
49. Laser technology used in artery catheters to spot areas of blockage and fire short bursts of laser beams to vaporize them - a "cool" laser providing thousands of patients with an alternative to heart bypass surgery.
50. New charged coupled devices (CCDs) used in breast examinations (mammographies) which images breast tissue more clearly than conventional x-rays. Doctors then use a specially designed needle to extract a tiny sample (instead of a scalpel) saving time, money and pain.
51. "Smart" forceps made of composite material, with embedded fiber optics. These obstetrical forceps allow doctors to measure the amount of pressure being applied to an infant's head during delivery.
52. Small pill-shaped transmitters Used to monitor intestinal activity; blood pressure and temperature of infants still inside the womb; body functions of athletes and high-stress professionals such as firefighters and soldiers.
53. Technology to quickly arrange and analyze human chromosomes and detect genetic abnormalities that could lead to disease in infants.
54. Image processing software used in dermatology analysis to "decode" the shadow patterns and provided accurate heights and depths.
55. Roofs based on moonsuits that look stiff, but are flexible and expand in heat and contract in cold. Used as covering of malls, stadiums and new airports like Denver International.
56. Padding in helmets, shin guards, chest protectors and aircraft seating.
57. Golf balls with greater accuracy and distance.
58. Lightning protection systems for aircraft.
59. Windshear detection and warning system for aircraft.
60. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TACS) now used by virtually all passenger aircraft.
61. Monitoring system which scans important documents at certain times and compares the differences between the images. The system detects changes in contrast, shape and other features. Used by museums and the National Archives to monitor historic documents and plan a way to stop any damage.
62. Landsat imagery to discover unknown archeology sites; reveal ancient coastlines; manage the harvesting of fish in the world's oceans; calculate how well crops are doing, etc.
63. Robotic mother pigs which keep piglet formula (milk) cool until it is needed then heats and delivers the right amount at feeding time.
64. Improved spray nozzles for crop dusters.
65. New breathing system for firefighters made up of a face mask, frame and harness, warning device, and air bottle. Weighs one-third less than old gear.
66. Virtual reality simulators for medical operations, flight training, truck driving, etc.
67. Hydroponics used by vegetable farmers to grow crops without soil.
68. Fluorometer instrument used to monitor plankton in the world's oceans. Instrument measures amount of glow given off by plankton and other marine life that consume sunlight in their photosynthesis process. Much of the world's oxygen comes from plankton.
69. Oil spill cleanup using beeswax microcapsules. The beeswax balls absorb oil and keep water out. Absorbed oil is digested by microorganism enzymes inside the ball. When the balls get full of digested oil, they explode and release environmentally safe enzymes, carbon dioxide and water.
70. Software to match and track whales.
71. DirectTV.
72. Satellite radio.
73. Fire-Resistant Aircraft Seats.
74. "Cool suit" which helps to improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients.
75. Pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body.
76. Instruments to measure bone loss and bone density, without penetrating the skin.
77. Implant for delivering insulin to diabetics that provides more precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin injections.
78. Device for growing ovarian tumors so that tumors can be studied outside the body, without harm to the patient.
79. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON! Want to read about more benefits? See our "Related Links" section below or go to Google and enter a search for "Benefits of the Space Program". You will be overwhelmed with information.