International Military Discussion

[Austin]

The numbers are all over the place and full of inaccuracies... even NASA does not spend 50 billion dollar a year

$50 billion is 10 year funding program 2016-2025 not one year

[member_20067]

The numbers are all over the place and full of inaccuracies... even NASA does not spend 50 billion dollar a year

$50 billion is 10 year funding program 2016-2025 not one year

my bad.....

[SaiK]

what are hypergolic rockets?

[symontk]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergolic_propellant

[bharats]

Why India is a major new market for military space systems
By Kiran Krishnan Nair
Kiran Krishnan Nair is a Research Officer at the Centre for Airpower Studies, New Delhi.
Link: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2626/1


In a first, the heads of the world’s largest democracies, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and US President Barack Obama got together to pen an op-ed declaring their commitment to a “robust, reliable and enduring” partnership amongst their respective nations. It’s a partnership whose time has come and is of particular significance in military and economic terms. The economic significance is apparent on considering numerous reports, ranging from McKinsey to Global Policy, predicting a shift of the world’s economic center of gravity to Asia in general, and India and China in particular, by around 2025. Space capabilities, particularly those related to reconnaissance, communication, and navigation, that enable militaries to perform their tasks optimally are inherent to any military modernization.

The military significance is apparent given that the military center of gravity, in economic terms, has already shifted to India. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute report of 2014, India accounted for 14 percent of the world’s arms imports from 2009 through 2013, more than any nation. The trend would continue into the next few decades as the India continues its modernization drive amidst a troubled and violent environment at home and in its neighborhood. The security scenario is not expected to improve anytime in the near future, India’s arms industry is yet to mature, and India’s economy is expected to continue booming with growth rates in gross domestic product that exceed the global average. Put briefly, India’s rising security needs would continue to be supported by a growing economy and the vortex of economy for the defense market would continue to be India. The potential value of Modi and Obama extending the US-India defense cooperation agreement until 2025 thus is pretty impressive.

A buyer’s market beckons, and arms sellers from across the world are already in India in a big way. However, most deals are related to conventional arms like military aircraft and ships. The competition is intense, and big bucks are being made. However, one needs to look beyond the conventional. It is here that space technology fits in. Space capabilities, particularly those related to reconnaissance, communication, and navigation, that enable militaries to perform their tasks optimally are inherent to any military modernization. They enable long distance communication, cross-border observation, precise delivery of firepower, personnel, relief material, and so on. Apart from the military, space also affects other security agencies like the federal and state police forces, intelligence, and narcotics control, all of whom abound in India and all of whom aspire to put space to multifarious uses. For instance, observation satellites enable precise identification of cocaine plantations even in deep forest cover, making interdiction work so much easier. To put their potential demand in perspective, India has a massive standing army of over 1.5 million, another 1.5 million in paramilitary forces, and an even larger number of state police, all of whom covet space capabilities. All security modernization gravitates to space, and the acquisition and integration of space capabilities is an inherently costly affair involving lots of money.

India’s handicap lies in its patently civil space program that has civil origins and, unlike most other major spacefaring nations, is focused only on civil uses. Thus, India’s space capabilities are severely limited in their security applications. The glaring military vacuum is evidenced in the fact that though India has constellations of communication and observation satellites, it has only one dedicated military satellite. Apparently, civil use of space by India’s millions leaves few resources for its security applications. A shift of focus from civilian development to military uses is neither prudent nor affordable and hence not likely. At least none is expected in the foreseeable future. On the other hand, the US is the acknowledged global leader in space capabilities, both of a civilian and military nature. In the civilian domain, a US-India Joint Working Group on civil space cooperation, formed in 2004, pursues the acquisition of civil capabilities; however, no such arrangement exists for defense products. India does seek to indigenize products and services. However, in a technology-intensive area like space, this is easier said than done. Space products are a result of long-term research and development and time in this case is no longer available.

The vacuum thus lends itself to commercial opportunity. This is especially so in view of the extension of the defense cooperation pact until 2025. With no local industry, there exists little option for India apart from tapping into the foreign space industry. India’s space agency already has an excellent interface with private industry that provides a variety of products. The relation is likely to grow as both budgetary allocations and the needs rise. Funding has not fallen in the past decade and are is likely to decline in the next, as evidenced by an increased outlay in the twelfth five-year plan (2013–2018) of 400 billion rupees, or roughly US$6.5 billion.

Equally or perhaps even more significant is the fact that close to one-third of these allocations will flow into the industry. That is only expected to increase to surge as the space demands expand beyond civil to military applications. As it is, the 2013–14 figures of a combined defense and space budget are impressive at over $40 billion. As modernization gathers pace and aircraft, ships, and other items come in, the demand for space capabilities would rise proportionately. Integrating these capabilities into military systems is complex and needs support by industries with established competencies and experience. As of now, no Indian industry is known to have these, and hence the mantle falls on foreign providers. The harvest is ripe considering that in year 2014, the foreign investment limit has been raised from 26 to 49 percent. As it is, foreign imports constitute more than two-thirds of India’s total procurement and as the nascent Indian defense industry opens up, the opportunities rise aplenty.

India does seek to indigenize products and services. However, in a technology-intensive area like space, this is easier said than done. Space products are a result of long-term research and development and time in this case is no longer available: the modern military equipment is already arriving, but the supporting space systems are yet to come in. It is here that India’s new Defense Procurement Policy (DPP) of 2013 provides recourse. It encourages Indian companies to collaborate with foreign companies to obtain products not available locally. The Indian defense industry makes no space products. The DPP, in effect opens new vistas for the Indian defense industry to reorient business strategies and collaborate with foreign firms for space products. Joint ventures to tap into the burgeoning Indian market thus make enormous sense.

This sense is accentuated by the fact that as part of its drive to encourage foreign investment and manufacture of defense products, India has cleared 19 defense sector projects since September that were pending for last several years. Defense deals worth over $6 billion have also been cleared in the past three months. New vistas have opened up and the harvest is ripe. The opportunity is also not fleeting: it would last decades. The potential exists, the heads of nations concur, the defense pact presents an opportunity and there is but little reason for either party to not explore the sense and sensibility of the opportunity.

[kish]

Quite an embarrassment for private 'space' players in US

Unmanned NASA-contracted rocket explodes; damage is 'significant'

An unmanned NASA-contracted rocket exploded early Tuesday evening along the eastern Virginia coast, causing a huge fireball but no apparent deaths.

According to NASA, the Orbital Sciences Corp.'s Antares rocket and Cygnus cargo spacecraft were set to launch at 6:22 p.m. ET from the Wallops Flight Facility along the Atlantic Ocean. It was set to carry some 5,000 pounds of supplies and experiments to the International Space Station.

"There was failure on launch," NASA spokesman Jay Bolden said. "There was no indicated loss of life."

Bolden added, "There was significant property and vehicle damage. Mission control is trying to assess what went wrong."

[putnanja]

Video of Antares blowing up...

[SaiK]

that initial blast off appears to be the key.. the blast would have damaged something significant in the 1st stage.

[Victor]

Was carrying supplies and "classified crypto" equipment, ie. secret encryption stuff. There are 3 Russians on the station right now, including the commander, along with 2 Americans and a German who are due to come back next month.

[Shreeman]

Video of Antares blowing up....

Awhh, poopee. Didnt clear the launch complex. Sucks.

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/10/ ... r-liftoff/

[NRao]

Antares rocket explosion: The question of using decades-old Soviet engines

The engines were far from perfect, but Orbital scientists nonetheless hailed them as unlike anything in the United States. “As we went through testing, we did discover there were some effects of aging since they had been in storage for awhile, including some stress corrosion cracking,” Culbertson conceded at the time. “That’s what we [corrected] with weld repairs and other inspections.” The company’s “user guide” boasts that the engines, “refurbished with modern components,” have “an extensive test history.”

Is that common practice?

Looks too dangerous to me.

[bharats]

Russians launch Progress supply ship to space station
by William Harwood
Updated after successful docking
Link: http://spaceflightnow.com/2014/10/29/ru ... e-station/


A Russian Progress supply ship loaded with nearly 5,800 pounds of supplies and equipment needed aboard the International Space Station takes off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. Image: NASA TV.

Nine hours after a spectacular launch failure that destroyed a U.S. supply ship bound for the International Space Station, the Russians successfully launched a Progress cargo craft from snowy Kazakhstan Wednesday carrying 5,793 pounds of rocket fuel, water, air, crew supplies and other equipment needed aboard the lab complex. The Progress M-25M/57P spacecraft, mounted atop an upgraded Soyuz-2.1a rocket making its first flight, blasted off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan at 3:09:43 a.m. EDT (1:09 p.m. local time) and quickly climbed away through a cloudless blue sky on an easterly trajectory setting up a six-hour four-orbit rendezvous with the space station.

The Soyuz booster, taking off from the same pad used by cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin at the dawn of the space age, featured a new digital flight computer and followed a slightly different trajectory, according to RussianSpaceWeb.com, allowing the Progress cargo ship to carry about 660 pounds of additional cargo compared to earlier versions of the rocket. The ascent appeared to go smoothly and roughly nine minutes after liftoff, the Progress was released to fly on its own. A few moments after that, its two solar panels and navigation antennas deployed as planned.

“The crew feels wonderful, and we’re ready for the timelined activities,” Expedition 41 commander Maxim Suraev radioed flight controllers in Moscow during a morning planning conference. “So, how’s that Progress doing?”
“Good morning, everybody, this is Moscow,” a flight controller replied. “The Progress is doing splendid. … All the systems are preforming nominal, the antennas are deployed, and so all we’ve got to do is wait, because it’s coming your way today.”

“That’s a good thing,” Suraev said. Over the next six hours, the Progress spacecraft carried out a series of carefully planned rocket firings to catch up with the International Space Station, gliding to a docking at the Pirs module at 9:08 a.m. as the lab complex sailed 261 miles above the Atlantic Ocean. “Free drift is confirmed,” Suraev radioed as the docking mechanisms engaged. “Congratulations to the entire flight control team.”

“Thank you, Max, congratulations on the arrival of yet another cargo vehicle,” a flight controller replied. “And we’ll continue performing our steps.”“Right, no time to relax right now,” Suraev agreed. “We’ll keep going.” The Progress and its cargo are a welcome addition for the station’s six-member crew. The spacecraft is loaded with 1,940 pounds of propellant, much of it reserved for space station orbit adjustment maneuvers, 926 pounds of water, 105 pounds of oxygen and air and 2,822 pounds of dry cargo.

While the Progress was closing in on the space station, ground crews at the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport at Wallops Island, Va., expected to be getting their first good look at the havoc caused by the dramatic failure of an Orbital Sciences Antares rocket that exploded Tuesday evening seconds after launch. Destroyed in the mishap was a commercial Cygnus cargo ship loaded with some 5,050 pounds of space station supplies, experiment hardware and other equipment.

It is not yet known what caused the dramatic failure. It was the first in five flights by an Antares and the first station program launch failure since a Progress was destroyed after a third stage malfunction in August 2011 that sent 2.9 tons of space station supplies and equipment crashing back to Earth. Despite the Antares failure, NASA officials say the space station is flush with supplies, enough to keep the crew operating for several months even if no more resupply flights were launched.

“We manage the station to protect for just such an event should it occur,” Mike Suffredini, NASA’s space station program manager, told reporters late Tuesday. “We keep logistics on board the ISS to protect us for about four to six months in the event other logistics vehicles can’t make it to ISS. So in fact, our logistics on board today, if no other spacecraft showed up, takes us well into next year. So from a consumables standpoint, we’re in good shape.”
Cargo aboard the Progress and a SpaceX Dragon cargo ship scheduled for launch Dec. 9 will boost those reserves even more.

[NRao]

Remarkably little amount of destruction in that rocket explosion?

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... ailure.jpg

[PratikDas]

Remarkably little amount of destruction in that rocket explosion?

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... ailure.jpg

If components have been exposed to temperatures well beyond rated conditions, can one really afford to reuse the component just because it looks good?

Everything will have to be inspected and in many cases it may be more cost effective to simply replace.

[member_20067]

Bad week for private space initiatives-----Virgin Galatic Spaceship Two lost after suffering an anomaly

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/31/us/spaces ... ?hpt=hp_t1

[NRao]

Remarkably little amount of destruction in that rocket explosion?

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... ailure.jpg

If components have been exposed to temperatures well beyond rated conditions, can one really afford to reuse the component just because it looks good?

Everything will have to be inspected and in many cases it may be more cost effective to simply replace.

I guess/think the rocket fell further away from the launch site. Very little stuff must have fallen on the site itself.

[Austin]

China's First Lunar Return Mission A Stunning Success

[rsingh]

Remarkably little amount of destruction in that rocket explosion?

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... ailure.jpg

If components have been exposed to temperatures well beyond rated conditions, can one really afford to reuse the component just because it looks good?

Everything will have to be inspected and in many cases it may be more cost effective to simply replace.

Look like lot of cost saving jugad was done there. Dig a ditch put plastic covering and fill with water. Just-in-time type fuel and gas supplied by pvt contractor. Over all lay out and infrastructure look like Somalia tried to launch something.

[NRao]

^^^^^
It was established in 1945!!! And has served in various capacities ever since. If it were not for a ,1960 engine we would not be talking about it and yet the ROI would have huge.

[negi]

^ Well the Russians are clever chaps they sold the NK-33 engines to Orbital Sciences which originally powered their ill fated N1 moon rocket, they also sold the RD-56 ( developed for N-1 ) derivative the KVD-1 to ISRO which gave us a lot of trouble. Most of the Rocket and space travel start ups find Russia as an attractive place to shop for cheap engines afaik Orbital Sciences paid just over a million dollar for one NK-33 engine.

[anmol]

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/10/30/ ... ant-leaps/

Apollo, Ansari and the Hobbling Effects of Giant Leaps at Parabolic Arc
by Doug Messier, parabolicarc.com
October 30th 2014

By Douglas Messier
Managing Editor

On Oct. 4, the world marked the anniversaries of two very different space milestones. In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the first artificial satellite, Sputnik. And in 2004, SpaceShipOne won the $10 million Ansari X Prize by becoming the first privately-built vehicle to fly to space twice within two weeks.

While Sputnik quickly led to Sputnik 2 and 3, the Ansari X Prize has been followed by a decade of frustration. SpaceShipOne never flew again, nor has anyone replicated its accomplishments since. The dream of a vibrant new industry that would routinely fly thousands of tourists into space has remained just out of reach.

So, why did Sputnik quickly help spark a revolution that would transform life on Earth, while the Ansari X Prize led to 10 years of extravagant promises and desultory results? And what does this tell us about the role of prizes in moving technology forward?

The Apparatchik and the Hare

Sputnik 1 resulted from a sustained set of programs in which Soviet engineers developed a series of increasingly powerful boosters and spacecraft. By October 1957, they had produced a launch vehicle, the R-7, that was powerful enough to place a small satellite into orbit. The United States achieved a similar success four months later.

The space race between the two superpowers was intense, with each side seeking to outdo each other in a series of space firsts. Despite fierce competition, however, the development of larger rockets and ever more sophisticated spacecraft was the result of sustained, step-by-step processes supported by billions of dollars and rubles. New, sustainable industries resulted that produced satellites of immense practical value.

The major exception was the moon race. President John F. Kennedy challenged the Soviet Union to a race to put a man on the moon by the end of the 1960’s. Achieving that goal would require giant leaps in technology for both nations. The slow and steady development of human space capabilities was out.

Kennedy’s goal was to make the United States – then trailing behind the Soviets – the number one power in space. By doing so, he sought to demonstrate the superiority of the American system over its Cold War rival. What the long-range plan was beyond the moon landing was less clear.

Apollo Redux

In 1996, Peter Diamandis hoped to accomplish another big leap forward with the Ansari X Prize. Like the Apollo program, the prize involved an international race to send three people to a particular destination by a set deadline. Instead of the moon, they would make suborbital spaceflights on a privately-built vehicle. The winner would receive international acclaim and $10 million.

The underlying goal was to demonstrate that a private company could do what only governments had previously achieved with the suborbital X-15 flights in the 1960’s. The prize would change perceptions about what private sector space companies could do, and launch a new suborbital industry that would open up space to the masses.

When the Ansari X Prize was unveiled at an event in St. Louis, Scaled Composites Founder Burt Rutan publicly announced he would win the prize. He would do exactly in eight years – roughly the same amount of time it took NASA to land men on the moon. Both goals were achieved with only months to spare before their deadlines.

Unfortunately, the winners would see their achievements turn into Pyrrhic victories that would set back their space ambitions for years. The short-term nature of their ventures would prove to be liabilities in the long term.

A Small Step for Man, A Giant Cut for the Budget

Having proven American superiority over the Soviets, NASA was left with no place to go after Apollo. The public and its elected representatives saw little point in continuing a series of expensive and dangerous moon landings. Nor did they have any appetite for taking the next steps of developing a lunar base or sending astronauts on to Mars. Better to end the program before more astronauts got killed.

With public interest waning and the Vietnam War and social programs straining the federal government’s finances, NASA experienced a series of budget cuts that began even before the first moon landing in July 1969. The trend would accelerate as the Apollo program wound down.

The space agency did adapt the Apollo and Saturn technology for the Skylab space station and a docking mission with a Soviet Soyuz spacecraft. But, these were one-shot efforts. The technology was expensive and overbuilt for the Earth orbiting role NASA was assigned in the post-Apollo era. It wasn’t sustainable.

So, the Apollo program ended after only 15 manned flights, and NASA embarked upon another giant leap: the space shuttle. The goal was to develop a fully reusable vehicle that would drastically cut the cost of getting to orbit. A fleet of seven-passenger shuttles would fly up to 50 times per year, opening the cosmos to a broad range of uses and people.

NASA was confident at the start. It had just accomplished the impossible task of landing men on the moon. Certainly it could do this. Right?

The Path Not Taken

In the wake of his Ansari X Prize success, Rutan didn’t have NASA’s financial problems. However, he would end up following much the same path as NASA did in the post-Apollo era, with similar results.

Rutan’s original plan after winning the Ansari X Prize was to fly SpaceShipOne with two passengers aboard once per week for five months. The main goal was to allow 20 of his friends and 20 friends of Microsoft billionaire Paul Allen – who had funded SpaceShipOne to the tune of $25 million – to become astronauts.

The additional flights would allow Rutan to gain valuable data about how SpaceShipOne and its hybrid engine performed. From these data, he could better understand what it cost to operate the ship, and what would be involved in building a successor vehicle.

Rutan didn’t have much of a chance to gather that information during SpaceShipOne’s flight tests, which had been squeezed into a compressed time period in order to win the Ansari X Prize. The aggressive program had consisted of only 17 tests, including three captive carry, eight glide and six powered flights. That’s not very much in terms of flight testing.

There was a problem, however. Allen wasn’t interested in funding any additional flights. They hadn’t been part of the original funding with Rutan, and the Microsoft billionaire had several reasons to not want to continuing flying the spacecraft.

For one, the Smithsonian Institution had come calling. Allen got an offer to donate the vehicle to the National Air and Space Museum after SpaceShipOne had made its first historic flight into space in June 2004 but before the two Ansari X Prize flights.

The offer had a lot of appeal. There would be a tax break for the charitable donation to help offset the cost of the program. SpaceShipOne would be preserved for posterity. If the ship continued to fly, it might be lost in an accident. Someone could get hurt, maybe even killed. And Allen had been unnerved by several hairy moments during SpaceShipOne’s flight tests.

So, Allen decided to get out while he could; SpaceShipOne’s two Ansari X Prize flights would be its last. The vehicle was retired after only 14 manned flights – one fewer than in the Apollo program – and shipped off to the National Air and Space Museum, where today it hangs in the Milestones of Flight gallery where the Apollo 11 command module is displayed.

Rutan could have built another SpaceShipOne, but it is not in his nature to repeat himself. The ship’s tiny cabin – with two passenger seats directly behind the pilot – wasn’t ideal for space tourism. Rutan had something much grander in mind.

That something was SpaceShipTwo, the world’s first suborbital SUV. With room for two pilots up front and six passengers in the back, the vehicle would have ample space for tourists to unbuckle themselves and float around the cabin. They would have a real space experience.

To fund his dream, Rutan forged a partnership with British billionaire Richard Branson. Virgin Galactic would pay $108 million for five SpaceShipTwo vehicles, a pair of WhiteKnightTwo mother ships, and all the ground infrastructure. Branson predicted SpaceShipTwo would begin flying in 2007, and it would carry 5,000 passengers within the first five years.

As with NASA’s predictions about the space shuttle, all these estimates would prove to be wildly optimistic.

The Big Leap

NASA’s effort to build a space shuttle capable of making space access routine and affordable was doomed from the start. Budget restrictions forced NASA to compromise on the design. Instead of a fully-reusable two-stage shuttle, the system was whittled down to an orbiter with an expendable external tank and two recoverable solid-rocket boosters.

The second handicap was NASA’s lack of experience in building reusable winged spacecraft. To win the moon race, the space agency relied upon a series of expendable boosters and ballistic capsules that splashed down in the ocean. Alternative proposals by the U.S. military to build orbital winged space vehicles, such as the X-15B and the X-20 Dyna-Soar shuttle, never got off the ground, in part due to competition from the moon program.

NASA could draw upon flight experience gained during the X-15 and lifting body research aircraft programs, but the space shuttle was a leap too far. The result was a technological marvel riddled with flaws that was extremely expensive to operate and maintain. The system ultimately failed to bring down the cost of access to space, much less make it safe and routine.

The Achille’s Heel

Going from SpaceShipOne to SpaceShipTwo was far less of a leap. They are both winged vehicles built from composites that share Rutan’s innovative feathering re-entry system. But, the comparisons largely stop there.

SpaceShipTwo has a significantly different design from its predecessor, and it requires a much larger carrier aircraft, WhiteKnightTwo. It would take much longer to design and build these vehicles than anyone envisioned. Branson’s prediction of flying within three years was probably optimistic at the time he made it. So were his cost estimates.

But, there was a deeper, more fundamental problem that Rutan wasn’t even aware of, one that has bedeviled the program to this day.

SpaceShipOne had reflected Rutan’s strengths in designing radical flying machines. The use of lightweight but strong carbon composites and the unique feathering system for re-entry were innovative. They represented major advances over the X-15 rocket plane that had flown suborbital missions 40 years earlier.

In terms of its propulsion system, SpaceShipOne was actually a step backward. The X-15 had used the XLR-99, a sophisticated bi-propellant liquid engine that could be throttled, restarted and used multiple times. It was complicated and prone to failure; one blew up on Scott Crossfield during a static test, destroying the vehicle but sparing the pilot’s life.

Rutan steered away from liquid engines; he viewed them as being overly complicated and possessing too many failure modes. Instead, he developed a novel hybrid motor that used nitrous oxide (laughing gas) to burn a large chunk of rubber fuel. SpaceShipOne was the first time a hybrid engine had been used in human spaceflight.

The hybrid worked well enough for SpaceShipOne. However, the motor ran rough, shaking the ship due to the uneven burning of the rubber. On one flight, the pilot heard a loud bang and feared the ship’s tail had been blown off. It turned out to be a chunk of rubber that had shot out the nozzle. The tail was still there.

The hybrid also was expensive because the rocket casing containing the rubber and the attached nozzle needed to be replaced after each flight. Like the space shuttle, the partially reusable nature of SpaceShipOne drove up operating costs and complexity. It was like driving a car from Mojave to Los Angeles and back, and then installing a new engine before making the trip again.

After the Ansari X Prize, some people tried to convince Rutan to replace the hybrid with a reusable liquid engine. He rejected the advice. Rutan came out of SpaceShipOne’s short flight test program believing the hybrid engine was simple and safe, and that it could be easily scaled up for the much larger SpaceShipTwo. He was wrong on both counts.

The first belief was shattered on a hot summer afternoon of July 26, 2007. Scaled engineers were conducting a cold flow of nitrous oxide that did not involve igniting any fuel. Three seconds into the 15-second test the nitrous tank burst, resulting in a massive explosion that destroyed the test stand and killed three engineers. Three others were injured.

Explosions are not unusual in engine development. However, it is rare that anyone dies in them. Safety procedures call for the evacuation of personnel to a safe area before any tests begin. That was not done in this case; the dead and injured were part of a group of 11 people standing near the test stand.

Following the accident, Rutan and Scaled Composites claimed ignorance. “The body of knowledge about nitrous oxide (N2O) used as a rocket motor oxidizer did not indicate to us even the possibility of such an event,” Scaled said in a press release. The media and Scaled supporters have largely parroted this explanation.

A team of experts experienced in working with nitrous oxide reviewed the accident and disputed the claim. “This would seem to indicate either a lack of due-diligence in researching the hazards surrounding N2O (negligence) or a wilful disregard of the truth,” they concluded.

Whatever Scaled’s culpability, there is no dispute the accident delayed the program significantly. Work on SpaceShipTwo was put on hold while engineers investigated the cause of the explosion. Hybrid engine tests would be delayed for nearly two years.

Once engine tests began again in April 2009, engineers would discover that Rutan’s other assumption was wrong. The hybrid engine just didn’t scale very well. The larger the engine became, the more vibrations and oscillations it produced. As engineers struggled to find a solution, Scaled Composites and Virgin Galactic quietly began work on alternative motor designs.

The failure of the hybrid to scale led to another problem. SpaceShipTwo had already been designed and built. The dimensions of the ship, the size of the passenger and crew cabin, the center of gravity…all those were already set. So, engineers now had to fit an engine within those parameters that could still get the vehicle into space.

This is the reverse of how rocket planes are typically designed. Engineers figure out the engine first and then build the ship around what it can do. Rutan – a novice in rocket propulsion who had hit a home run with SpaceShipOne – got the process backward, resulting in years of delays. This failure would cause numerous headaches.

The rubber hybrid engine did get a workout in three flight tests, but the vibrations and oscillations it produced were so severe the motor couldn’t be fired for more than 20 seconds. The engine was sufficient to get SpaceShipTwo through the sound barrier, but it couldn’t get the vehicle anywhere near space.

It was not until May 2014 – after spending nearly a decade on the program, and a reported $150 million on engine development – Virgin Galactic announced it would be switching to a different type of hybrid engine, one powered by nitrous oxide and plastic. They are hoping for much better performance in flight.

By then, Rutan was gone, long since retired to a spread in Idaho. It was for others to make the new engine work and fix the mistake he had made.

Flight tests with the plastic engine are set to begin shortly. It remains unclear whether the new engine will get SpaceShipTwo above the Karman line at 100 km (62 miles), which is internationally recognized boundary of space. Ten years after SpaceShipOne, its successor might not be able to replicate what its predecessor achieved.

The Limits of Giant Leaps

The Apollo program has been followed by more than 40 years in which no humans have ventured beyond Earth orbit. A decade has passed since the winning of the Ansari X Prize without a single private suborbital space flight. Why has following up these two achievements proven to be so difficult?

It turns out that reaching a goal by a deadline isn’t enough; it matters how you get there. Fast and dirty doesn’t necessarily result in solid, sustainable programs. What works well in a sprint can be a liability in a marathon. And the conquest of space is humanity’s ultimate marathon.

The X Prize Foundation built rules into the competition designed to produce sustainability in that the spacecraft had to be reusable and fly twice within two weeks. Yet, there was no requirement for the winning design to have a fully reusable engine, which is the most important element if you want routine, affordable access to space.

The prize route also takes a lot of time. It took eight years for Rutan to win the Ansari X Prize; Scaled Composites has spent another decade trying to commercialize the technology. Eighteen years is an enormous amount of time. Would it have been better to devote all that time, energy and money to directly attacking the problems that make space travel so expensive?

Although the Ansari X Prize had 26 competitors, no other team came close to winning. Instead of the prize resulting in multiple suborbital tourism vehicles competing with each other, there was just one company that received much of the money that would be invested in the nascent industry. All without knowing whether the approach would be viable.

That wouldn’t have mattered as much if Scaled and Virgin Galactic had been able to quickly follow up on SpaceShipOne’s success with a safe, reliable vehicle of some type. They would have been able to prove the viability of the new industry. And a lot more money would have flowed into companies with other suborbital designs.

But, that was not to be. Flush with success and not knowing what he didn’t know, Rutan bet the future on a poor propulsion system that he never took the time to fully test, much less understand. His failure to grasp the nature of technology he selected cost three men their lives.

During the recent Ansari X Prize 10th anniversary celebrations, people downplayed the lack of commercial suborbital spaceflights over the past decade. Instead they focused on the prize’s success in changing people’s minds about what private space companies could do and inspiring entrepreneurs to pursue their dreams in space. They mentioned all the money that flowed into the industry, and the changes in government regulations that resulted that are more favorable to commercial space.

All of that is true. The Ansari X Prize certainly brought about positive changes. But, it also promised much more – a future of routine and more affordable access to space. Today, that future remains just out of reach.

After Mike Melvill became the first private astronaut in June 2004, he stood atop SpaceShipOne holding a sign made by a member of the crowd that read, “SpaceShipOne Government Zero.” Today, those numbers remain embarrassingly skewed in favor of government, while SpaceShipOne remains a momentary blip in the history of spaceflight.

Perhaps this will have changed by the time of Ansari X Prizes’s 11th anniversary. But, to those who would confidently predict that it will, the past 10 years are a sobering reminder of how such predictions can wilt in the hot Mojave sun.

[SaiK]

http://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files ... t_main.jpg
click and expand on your favorite high res monitor

pl discuss chemical contents from the dust out of drilled holes.

on Earth, even after huge sums of money for labor, one can't get this precision on tiled level works.

colors: I can see, gray, pink, bluish gray, grayish white..

[krishnan]

where is that thing ???

[NRao]

Check this out. GE!!!! 3-D printing.

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/2014/11/ ... ?hpt=hp_c4

[NRao]

[youtube]8Nvd_eWg7nk&list=PLDF92451CB0870E9E[/youtube]

[NRao]

[member_28756]

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Europ ... g_999.html

IRON AND ICE
Europe set to make space history with comet landing
by Staff Writers
Paris (AFP) Nov 08, 2014


One of the biggest gambles in space history comes to a climax on Wednesday when Europe attempts to make the first-ever landing on a comet.

Speeding towards the Sun at 65,000 kilometres (40,600 miles) per hour, a lab called Philae will detach from its mothership Rosetta, heading for a deep-space rendezvous laden with risk.

The 100-kilogram (220-pound) probe will seek out a minuscule landing site on the treacherous surface of an object darker than coal, half a billion kilometres (300 million miles) from home.

[member_28756]

Double post

[Austin]

The 5 Most Powerful Armies on Planet Earth

[brar_w]

U.S. Missile Defense Agency Intercepts Three Targets in “Raid” Test

WASHINGTON — Three missile targets were engaged and destroyed over the Pacific Ocean by a like number of Raytheon-built interceptors fired from a U.S. Navy destroyer in an Nov. 6 exercise testing the Aegis missiles shield’s response to a multitiered attack.

“This test showcases the U.S.’s ability to defend against numerous ballistic and cruise missile threats in ‘raid’ scenarios,” Raytheon Missile Systems President Taylor Lawrence said in a press release the Tucson, Arizona-based company issued after the test. “No other nation in the world has the capability to do what the U.S. Navy and Missile Defense Agency demonstrated today.”

The targets — one short-range ballistic missile and two cruise missiles — were all launched from the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, Hawaii, at 5:03 p.m. Eastern time, the MDA said in a press release. An AN/SPY-1 radar aboard the USS John Paul Jones detected and tracked the three targets. The destroyer, equipped with the Lockheed Martin-built Aegis Weapon System, quickly fired two Standard Missile (SM)-2 Block 3A interceptors to destroy the low-flying cruise missiles and an SM-3 Block 1B to take out the ballistic missile. After reaching space, the SM-3 released its kinetic warhead, which acquired and tracked the target missile’s re-entry vehicle and moved into its path, destroying it with the direct impact.

The exercise, known as FTM-25, enables ships “to defend themselves against incoming cruise missiles while simultaneously tracking and defeating ballistic missiles threatening other areas,” said Riki Ellison, founder of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance.

The test marked the 29th intercept in 35 attempts for the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense program since 2002, according to the MDA release.

http://www.spacenews.com/article/milita ... raid”-test

[SSSalvi]

( Wrongly posted earlier in a different thread. )

12th November 2014 is a historic day in Human History.

ESA's spacecraft Rosetta will release a man-made lander Philae on the comet 67P/C-G.A first time event in the history of mankind.

Read about the event with time tags here.


Action has already begun.

Time schedule in IST:





Webcast live from mission control:http://new.livestream.com/esa/cometlanding

Rosetta blog:http://blogs.esa.int/rosetta

ADDED at 0100 IST : The craft is found to be on correct trajectory. 1st GO/NOGO decision is given as OK .. Go Ahead!!

There was a small hiccup initially when heating of Philae started but it was overcome.

This the 1st of 4 GO/NOGO points before the final go ahead for release of Philae.

If any GO/NOGO decision is negative then the operation will be aborted and it will take atleast 2 weeks to reprogram the new set of landing sequence.

2nd decision will be at 0530 IST and 3rd will be at 0705 IST 4th at 1205 or 1305 IST

=======
00:10 GMT
2nd GO/NOGO decision : GO AHEAD!!

Commands for release of Philae have now been finalized.. to be uploaded shortly.


Next GO/NOGO update will now be delayed to 0805 IST

=======

3rd GO/NOGO is positive!!! Both Rosetta and Philae have a GO Ahead for Separation.
Rosetta maneuver for separation positioning will start as scheduled at 0958 IST
Final GO/NOGO announcement set for 1305 IST

=======

Cold Gas thruster in ADS ( Active Descent System ) used to provide counter-force when the harpoons fire has shown up a problem and will not function during touchdown. But mission controllers do not anticipate it as a major malfunction and say that operations will go on as scheduled because the harpoons and the screws should be able to hold the craft down.


=====
More details now available about ADS problem:
ADS has a gas tank with a wax seal. In order to release the gas to outlet mechanism the seal needs to be punctured with a pin. There is also a redundant pin. The change in pressure should acknowledge that pin has punctured the seal. But no pressure change happened even after four attempts.
It is possible that pressure sensing mechanism may be giving erroneous readings even though the seal has been punctured.
In spite of a possible failure the landing was not postponed because it is felt that there is no point in trying again the thing later ( in next attempt after 2 weeks ) which was already attempted 4 times.
=====

Departing image of mother-ship Rosetta by Philae


And mothership also checks .. bachheke paira khul gaye ji


====

Landing expected 2132 IST

=====

PHILAE HAS LANDEDDDDDDDDDD

There is a small worry.. there is no confirmation that harpoons have fired. It could be that they really did not fire or it may be a problem sensor in reporting of telemetry confirmation. More study on .. also ESA may refire the harpoons so that they grout the lander to surface.

Philae has sent an image from very near to surface just before landing.

[NRao]

Philae has landed

[SaiK]

congrats esa

[NRao]

Strange, in the live broadcast they claimed that the harpoon had fired, and now this:

Shortly after landing was confirmed, the probe tweeted: "Touchdown! My new address: 67P!" Later, it tweeted again: "I'm on the surface but my harpoons did not fire."

Hopefully the legs are screwed to the surface.

[SaiK]

should be very low G.. no? any pics of the close encounter? like legs of philae hit the comet, and some comet ground material?

it has those civa, cameras.. quite a lot of camera it has:
http://www.universetoday.com/114471/ros ... struments/

[SaiK]

got one:

[SSSalvi]

An interesting tweet by Rosetta:

"Maybe today we didn't just land once...we even landed twice!"

Does it mean there was a bumpy ride .. we have to wait and listen more.

[NRao]

Earlier they were talking of the possibility of bouncing.

The comet probe Philae may have bounced when it landed, the European Space Agency (ESA) said Wednesday.

It is the first time a soft landing has been achieved on a comet -- but there was a hitch.

Comet 67P has a very weak gravity, so anchoring harpoons were designed to shoot into the comet to fix the spacecraft to the surface. They failed to fire and Philae is not firmly secure, ESA says.

Philae lander manager Stephan Ulamec said the probe may have lifted off again and turned.
Rosetta team celebrates landing
Rosetta: The comet chaser Rosetta: The comet chaser
Comet landing an 'engineering miracle'
Lander snaps goodbye picture of Rosetta

"So maybe we didn't land once -- we landed twice," he told a news conference.

"Did we land in a soft sand box or is there something else happening? We don't fully understand what happened," he said.

Ulamec said scientists remain upbeat as they are still receiving data from the spacecraft and they hope to learn more Thursday.

Shortly after landing was confirmed, the probe tweeted: "Touchdown! My new address: 67P!" Later, it tweeted again: "I'm on the surface but my harpoons did not fire."

What can we learn from comet landing?

Led by ESA with a consortium of partners including NASA, scientists on the Rosetta comet-chasing mission hope to learn more about the composition of comets and how they interact with the solar wind -- high energy particles blasted into space by the sun.

Speaking to CNN shortly after the landing, ESA lander system engineer Laurence O'Rourke said they were trying to check the orientation of the craft, to see "how we landed and where we landed."

"We are extremely happy," he said. "To get the signal it had touched the surface was a major achievement -- it was quite extraordinary. Philae is already taking measurements, sniffing the comet."

He also said the probe could start drilling into the surface and analyzing the material as soon as Thursday.

The comet is currently 500 million kilometers (310 million miles) from Earth and pictures from the Rosetta mission to track it on its orbit around the sun have amazed scientists.

We can land on a comet, but we can't...

NASA's chief scientist, Ellen Stofan, told CNN: "That comet is the most bizarre, wonderful thing I have ever seen. Those images have just blown me away. Philae was such a huge success before it even did anything, so kudos to ESA and the scientific community.

"No one has ever gotten data like Rosetta has gotten. No one has ever been able to land on a comet the way Philae just did."

Astronomer Robert Massey also called the landing a tremendous achievement.

"A comet is a bit like a time capsule, which is why it's special," he told CNN.

"It's an insight into the composition of the early solar system -- the ratio of chemicals.

"Even without Philae, we still have Rosetta in orbit around a comet, giving the ability to watch it at close quarters. There will be a lot of science from this," he said.

Weighing in at 220 pounds, it might be the size of a domestic washing machine but Philae is considerably smarter.

It is equipped with an array of experiments to photograph and test the surface of Comet 67P as well as finding out what happens when the roasting effect of the sun drives off gas and dust.
How Rosetta lands on the comet How Rosetta lands on the comet
What is a comet?
Could Rosetta unlock Earth's secrets?

Built by a European consortium, led by the German Aerospace Research Institute (DLR), the landing probe has nine experiments.
Journey to the surface of a comet

According to details on ESA's Rosetta website, sensors on the lander will measure the density and thermal properties of the surface, gas analyzers will help to detect and identify any complex organic chemicals that might be present, while other tests will measure the magnetic field and interaction between the comet and solar wind.

What is a comet and what will Rosetta discover

Philae also carries a drill that can drive 20 centimeters (8 inches) into the comet and deliver material to its on-board ovens for testing.

Scientists are already pleased with progress of the mission.

ESA project scientist Matt Taylor said: "The orbiter will remain alongside the comet for over a year, watching it grow in activity as it approaches the sun, getting to within 180 million kilometers (112 million miles) in summer next year, when the comet will be expelling hundreds of kilograms of material every second.

"It's got an awesome profile -- the adventure of the decade-long journey necessary to capture its prey, flying past the Earth, Mars and two asteroids on the way," he said.

Daniel Brown, an astronomy expert at Nottingham Trent University in the UK, said: "Although we have landed on planets, moons and asteroids, it has never been attempted for a nucleus of a comet -- and with good reason. These objects have a very low gravity, are loosely composed of ice, dust and rocks, and are very irregular in shape. They are temperamental in their behavior and notoriously difficult to predict.

"Comets such as 67P have already been exposed to the intense heat of the sun in their past orbits, resulting in their surface being altered, but going beneath the surface will give us an insight into unchanged material, allowing us to peak into the chemical composition of our early solar system.

"Apart from the amazing scientific results, the sheer challenge and ambition of such a mission is outstanding and illustrates how our space exploration of the solar system has become more advanced and successful. It gives us much to hope for in future missions."

And science fiction writer Alastair Reynolds said: "This is science fiction made real in terms of the achievement of the mission itself, but Rosetta is also taking us a step closer to answering science fiction's grandest question of all: Are we alone?"

How comet mission helps search for alien life

[SSSalvi]

@ SaiK

Sorry to ask .. What is the source of image above... nowhere ( ESA/CNES/ESOC/NASA ) I cud find that image.

[SaiK]

@ SaiK

Sorry to ask .. What is the source of image above... nowhere ( ESA/CNES/ESOC/NASA ) I cud find that image.

Cathy Finch ‏@CathyFinch 16m16 minutes ago
The surface of a comet!!! How awesome is this? Congrats @esa @ESA_Rosetta @Philae2014 #cometlanding pic.twitter.com/cgZmKllDF7”


https://twitter.com/NASAWatch/status/53 ... 56/photo/1

Now, the question: who is she? how do we validate this?