I say build two more just like this and test them at my next years 4th of July party!

or when you compare the amount our military takes from our taxes each year. ya know, given the fact that one year of our military budget is more than the ENTIRE NASA HISTORY.

But we did it in 69' with computing power that would fit in your watch today and a capsule that would have fit in the cargo bay of the shuttle fleet.

A normal day in the life of engineering a new product.

This is why you test, and test, and test, and then test some more.

.

Must have been built in China

@believerof - So I take it you would rather shut down the military and become a slave to some other nation then. It just amazes me the ignorance of people when it comes to the military. Maybe you should get some education before making stupid comments.

Failures are part of any ambitious development program. This should not come as any big shock or be taken as an huge setback. Things like this happen when developing new technology and they will learn from this failure and move on.

You often learn more when a test like this "fails", than if nothing had gone wrong at all.

Just to keep things in perspective, Ophotfoot: while it is true that in '69 we had a lot of success with much less computing power, I'm not sure you can say that we didn't have any failures at all. Apollo 1 was a spectacular failure and cost the lives of the entire crew. This system is supposed to run autonomously, which is something those capsules in '69 would not have been able to do. So there really is no comparison.

UnitedState1776 says it all very well: this is why you test, and test, and then test some more.

or when you compare the amount our military takes from our taxes each year. ya know, given the fact that one year of our military budget is more than the ENTIRE NASA HISTORY.

As were the bailouts.

Time for Prototype-2. Similar thing happened with my Estes engines, the kids loved it!.

This was a test bed and they expect the possibility of catastrophic failures, this is how you learn. Besides, this vehicle was suppose to be autonomous, so all of the bugs have to be worked out. Even the lunar landing research vehicle for Apollo had 3 out of the 5 destroyed in crashes. You have to break things to see what they can or cannot do.

believerof

or when you compare the amount our military takes from our taxes each year. ya know, given the fact that one year of our military budget is more than the ENTIRE NASA HISTORY.

To my knowledge NASA has not protected us from foreign invasions

A test is meant to not only show what you have done right but also where you need to get better. I'd say that NASA's test was a success and not a failure in that regard. Good job!

GO NASA!

Cheep, fast, or good. Pick two.

Just part of reasearch. No worries still benefits to be gained from this. Keep on after it NASA.

Such a shame. Hope their next prototype works better.

And people, please, we can shave off 10% from the defense budget and still outspend the rest of the world combined. I am a huge fan of our military, our soldiers and their capabilities, but lets be objective. I mean, the Pentagon just told Congress they didn't need anymore Abrams tanks and congress told them too bad, you're getting them anyway. If you removed those extemporaneous spending "projects" and repurpose those funds to NASA, I'd say go for it.

I didnt know NASA had a budget anymore. I though obama took most of their money not that he killed the shuttle program.

The Shuttle Program wasn't killed. The service life of the vehicles had expired. The grounding of the fleet was inevitable.

I heard the Curiosity is nuclear powered. I don't remember the public being warned when it was launched.

"Amazed and Irritated

@believerof - So I take it you would rather shut down the military and become a slave to some other nation then. It just amazes me the ignorance of people when it comes to the military. Maybe you should get some education before making stupid comments."

i beg to differ. both my grandfathers fought in WW2. i dont need A NY education from you.

and its a nice strawman/slippery slope fallacy you've set up, but HAVING ANY military, versus "becoming slaves to another country" are not the same thing whatsoever, but you already know that.

the amount of WASTE WASTE WASTE you teabags LOVE to whine about STARTS with the military industrial complex, not NASA.

All of our rockets blow up the first time . . . the lunar landing test rockets - the one the astronauts used for landing practice - those blew up alot too. Armstrong needed to eject from one once.

The Atlas, blew up. The Vanguard Explorer? Blew up. The Titan? Blew up.

As others have noted testing is what finds these problems

and Danimyl? Uh, don't you think that spy satellites have saved us from many issues by discovering problems before they became big issues? Cuba? Turkey? Iraq? Any of that ring a bell? The basic rocket motor research allowed the CIA to develop satellites that either the Air Force or the space shuttle launched.

It always amazes me with the instant availability of information from Google that people are still idiots . . .

when did the NASA program start up again?

So... when do we get our money back?

First thing that came to my mind:

Airbag's a little slow... But THAT'S WHAT THESE TESTS ARE FOR!!!!!

Jim Carrey - The Grinch

Practice ....

Practice ....

Practice ....

Thanks Alan ....

A single rocket engine in the center, what idiot thought of that one and they wonder why many think it's a waste of money. Karma is a BIT_H, when another country has a mishap We should not make dumb azz remarks because what goes around comes around.

But 7 million............c'mon..we have budget issues, that need addressing. We have hungry people, we have homeless, we have elderly that need help, we have budget shortfalls, in all states, we have a war costing us billions. What a waste trying to be like Captain Kirk...We want a refund..When we have surplus monies, we can afford to do this kind of thing.. Not at this time, is it feasable...You that want it pay for it...I don't want it or see that it is necessary...

This is exactly why they "test" their designs. An apparent failure is anything but a failure. This gives them the chance to learn what went wrong and correct it now. They will try again. If they don't have failures, then something is terribly wrong.

If I was to fly on a rocket, I want all the failures to take place BEFORE I take it for a spin.

@ believerof,

Other than the fact that our military keeps this country safe and sovereign, a lot of its technology passes to the civilian side for use by industry and citizen alike.

Half the things you take for granted in your everyday life were created for military use. The computer you are using is the great great great grand child of the fire control computers used on battleships during WWII. The radar used to track storms and see tornadoes forming have their roots in the military. LCD and LED were the results of military specifications. Next time you travel anywhere by jet, that is from military application, albeit was originally designed by an English man named Frank Whittle, and the fact you are not freezing to death or starving from Oxygen while flying at high Altitude is also derived from the military. Most of the astronauts served in the military. The rockets that send up every single satellite, their guidance systems, etc.etc.etc. I could go on for hours with example after example but the reasonable people here understand. To bad you don't.

While there are threats and enemies of the United States of America then we shall always, and thankfully, have a military with men and women committed to the safety of this country.

nice fire and EXPLOSION !!!,worth every penny :Pcan't wait for a encore !

Failures are part of any ambitious development program. This should not come as any big shock or be taken as an huge setback. Things like this happen when developing new technology and they will learn from this failure and move on.

It is hardly ambitious or new technology.

"I didnt know NASA had a budget anymore. I though obama took most of their money not that he killed the shuttle program."

Because you listened to the whiners, instead of paying attention to what was really going on...

And yet this organization was able to successfully land men on the moon how many years ago?

How much did the (fake) lunar lander that supposedly touched down and then took off again weigh including men and equipment?.....puhleez.

Even with the recently released lunar landing site (Photoshop) images, I'm still not buying it.

What did the money really get spent on?.....never mind, the answer would just make me mad.

"Having spent less than $7 million over 2.5 years, the Morpheus project is considered lean and low-cost for NASA."

This is what happens when you cut corners!

William Bentley: "It is hardly ambitious or new technology."

Oh really? Hmmm... how many LOX/LCH₄ fueled, single engine landers are you aware of?

This is new technology. Please at least try to be informed on topics to which you speak!

...not to mention completely autonomous!

LOX/LCH4 fueled, single engine... This is new technology..

Are you serious?

danimyl

To my knowledge NASA has not protected us from foreign invasions

What do you call ICBMs that kept the cold war from turning into a hot war. Along with a lot of other technology that NASA pioneered that is in use by the military?

What do you call ICBMs that kept the cold war from turning into a hot war

ICBM's didn't prevent the war from erupting; actually NASA and cooperation with the Russians during Nixon's term did more to prevent the war than ICBM's did.

Are you serious?

Yes Bentley, I am serious... LOX/Methane fueled rocket engines are NEW TECH. Look it up! It is especially new tech in the context of a completely autonomous, low cost, single-engine lander!

What is with some people... when presented with facts that oppose their visceral (and uninformed) comments, they would rather dig in and rationalize? There IS dignity in allowing yourself to stand corrected and learn something!

Even I have been wrong once or twice before ;)

Cjsks, as far as NASA goes you're right, I'll admit that it is "new tech" to be serious about LOX/LCH4.

But liquid oxygen/liquid methane was first proposed by the Russians, who've been playing with it since at least the 1990's that I'm aware of.

As far as a completely autonomous, low cost, single-engine Lander, there are aspects of novelty there; however, i do not considering putting various things together that have been done before individually "new tech"

What is with some people... when presented with facts that oppose their visceral (and uninformed) comments, they would rather dig in and rationalize? There IS dignity in allowing yourself to stand corrected and learn something!

Was this really necessary at all? We have differing views about what we consider "new tech."€ It's rather ambiguous and I don't have the same point of view. Does this really make me uninformed? What are the fact's we've been discussing? I just thought we were discussing what new tech was.

Failure is the most accurate guide to success.

Sorry if I was a little harsh, but waaaay too many people come onto this site and assert their gut feelings and false impressions as if they are facts...

Go to nasaspaceflight.com, a forum dominated by experts working in the aerospace industry... repost your original comment over there and see how well that flies!!

Fact (my original comment): "This is new tech." Supporting research:

NASA 2007: "Engineers have successfully tested a rocket powered by methane--the first of its kind for spaceflight. Future generations of the new engine could use Mars, Jupiter, Saturn's moon Titan and other planets and moons as celestial refueling stations, allowing for lighter spacecraft and easier lift-offs from Earth."

Additionally... Morpheus is unique in that it will enable demonstration of any number of new technologies that will be critical to more robust exploration of the solar system in the near future:

"Morpheus is a vertical test bed demonstrating green propellant propulsion systems and autonomous landing and hazard detection technology. The system is a prototype lander engineers can use to integrate technologies for future spacecraft that could land on a variety of destinations in our solar system..."

"The primary focus of the test bed is also to demonstrate an integrated propulsion and guidance, navigation and control system that can fly a lunar descent profile to exercise the Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT) safe landing sensors and closed-loop flight control."

"The system is associated with the efforts relating to in-space propellant transfer... because Morpheus utilizes the propellant of choice for future missions that would utilize in-space refueling and/or depots...the lander has all the systems required for automated rendezvous and docking...two landers could rendezvous in low Earth orbit and demonstrate all the key technologies required for in-space propellant transfer and storage of mid-temperature range cryogenic propellants."

Anyone who calls that "hardly ambitious or new technology" is showing the rest of us that they did little more than look at a picture or two before clicking 'post comment'...

Have a nice day!

Go to nasaspaceflight.com, a forum dominated by experts working in the aerospace industry... repost your original comment over there and see how well that flies!!

I work in a space industry, have many friends that work in the NASA space industry, but I'm assuming that means nothing to you.

NASA 2007: "Engineers have successfully tested a rocket powered by methane--the first of its kind for spaceflight. Future generations of the new engine could use Mars, Jupiter, Saturn's moon Titan and other planets and moons as celestial refueling stations, allowing for lighter spacecraft and easier lift-offs from Earth

This is blatantly incorrect; look up several of the RD variants and the Russians work into both LOX/liquid methane and LOX/Kerosene engines. Again, they were the first to suggest it during the 1990's--based off Kosbergs work, and continued by the agency that carries his name. In fact, they have one major limitation: ensuring you have a reliable ignition source usable in space.

"Morpheus is a vertical test bed demonstrating green propellant propulsion systems and autonomous landing and hazard detection technology. The system is a prototype lander engineers can use to integrate technologies for future spacecraft that could land on a variety of destinations in our solar system..."

"The primary focus of the test bed is also to demonstrate an integrated propulsion and guidance, navigation and control system that can fly a lunar descent profile to exercise the Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology (ALHAT) safe landing sensors and closed-loop flight control."

"The system is associated with the efforts relating to in-space propellant transfer... because Morpheus utilizes the propellant of choice for future missions that would utilize in-space refueling and/or depots...the lander has all the systems required for automated rendezvous and docking...two landers could rendezvous in low Earth orbit and demonstrate all the key technologies required for in-space propellant transfer and storage of mid-temperature range cryogenic propellants."

This project is merely a cost cutting one; it isn't nearly as advanced or revolutionary as you're making it out to be. The main benefit of liquid oxygen /liquid methane designs is it storage temperature. It's far lower, allowing for less insulation in a design = cheaper. The automated navigational system, and everything you else you heralded as a new technology has been around for quite some time. So we should be impressed they're taking them and trying to come up with a cheap design?

As far as orbital fuel transfers, I could have sworn we've been over this before. First you have to realize that positioning things in orbit, docking them, and transferring the fuel requires fuel itself. The orbital maneuvers required make it almost useless to do in the first place. Without mentioning the fact that putting the gas up there requires fuel to spent; so what benefit is there to extending something's range on methane a minuscule amount that might or might not work once your ignition source stops functioning due to space itself? Besides, I don't see this craft ever getting off the ground. And further, if we want something for the long haul in space it'll be nuclear powered regardless.

Anyone who calls that "hardly ambitious or new technology" is showing the rest of us that they did little more than look at a picture or two before clicking 'post comment'...

Why because I'm not a fan boy?

Have a great day buddy.

Not sure why this is considered a failure. To me it looks like we will learn from this numerous ways to improve our equipment to keep our people safe. It is only a failure if we learn nothing from it and keep doing the same thing again and again. I would jot this one down as a step towards success.

Learning what doesn't work is almost as important as learning what does work.

William, cj - I did some further searching and looks like the Russians using LOX/LCH4 at least back to 1994, specifically on the "rishka" rockets.

For those who think this crash is a tragedy, then you know nothing of engineering. There will be more destroyed before they actually launch one. One of the more interesting tests used in engineering is failure testing. Push it to the limit and see what breaks. Have you ever seen the the facility that test crashes aircraft to determine their crash worthiness? They pull the object up to about 74 feet and let it fall at different angles into the ground. The Orion capsule has already went through some of this testing. http://www.nasa.gov/centers/langley/multimedia/iotw-orion-landir.html

William, cj - I did some further searching and looks like the Russians using LOX/LCH4 at least back to 1994, specifically on the "rishka" rockets.

Thanks for actually looking TReed.

I'm just waiting until NASA starts messing around with Tri-propellant engines and calls it "first of its kind"

NASA would continue to work on RS-18 (the engine used in this Lander I believe) whether or not they develop this Lander and actually put a robot on the moon. (I know, robot on the moon! Exciting (!)) They are only taking a good hard look at LOX/LCH4 because of the planned Mars mission; since you could possibly make your own fuel there somewhat easily(and by easy I mean, extraordinarily complicated and subject to many points of failure.)

In the bottom caption of one of the pictures it lists the vehicle at 500,000. Pretty cheap, not anywhere close to a tragedy when put into perspective. In fact if you look at the cost, nothing new and revolutionary would ever cost 500,000, even for the test bed mock up.

TReed, oh man, don't get me started on my disdain for the Orion and its role in NASA's vision. The poor bastard of a capsule no longer has a program behind it(other than it's development), do you know if they're still talking about using it as a escape capsule for the ISS? Or are they going to modify it for Mars?

Just a note too for anyone whos curious, the RS-18 used to be the Apollo lander engine, now modified for LOX/LCH4.

Project Morpheus was an example of what the former project manager called ""Home Depot engineering" - low-budget projects that use existing resources and partner with non-traditional aerospace companies. ---- Reuters

Just so ya know too. : )

Does anyone remember the Centennial prizes? Armadillo Aerospace and Masten Space systems have been doing this kind of thing for some time now. They had some similar, sometimes fiery, misadventures early on, but both seem to have such technology down pat now.

I'm amazed NASA has to re-learn so much, especially after the stunning display on Mars...

None of their programs are really set up for longevity; the government also has some archaic practices when it comes to information sharing and training private contractors in anything.

I work in a space industry, have many friends that work in the NASA space industry...

Cool, what do you do?

This is blatantly incorrect; look up several of the RD variants and the Russians work into both LOX/liquid methane and LOX/Kerosene engines.

William, cj - I did some further searching and looks like the Russians using LOX/LCH4 at least back to 1994, specifically on the "rishka" rockets

This is some pretty obscure info... The astronautix site has info regarding a series of Russian LOX/Methane engines which were in some stage of development in the mid-90's, and mention of a "Riksha" launcher, but the info is nowhere to be found elsewhere on the Web.

Did they ever launch, or even test fire? I don't think so, considering this test flight in 2008, "believed that this is the first such powered flight of this [LOX/Methane] cryogenic propellant combination."

I see no evidence that the Russian engines ever made it past the PowerPoint phase (which does not qualify anything as "first").

This project is merely a cost cutting one; it isn't nearly as advanced or revolutionary as you're making it out to be.

"Merely"? Funny how you downplay. Keeping costs down, particularly in this economic environment, is just as important as the technology itself, if not moreso...

Look, I'm not trying to overhype this thing as some kind of Earth-shattering new spacecraft, but give some credit where it's due. There are some new technologies being developed here, and it will serve as a test bed for further tech to follow...

As I keep mentioning, LOX/Methane (to my knowledge) has only been an existing and tested tech for a few years now.

The automated navigational system, and everything you else you heralded as a new technology has been around for quite some time.

Incorrect. "ALHAT" (Autonomous Landing and Hazard Avoidance Technology) is future tech. This is just one of several technologies that NASA hopes to develop via the Morpheus test bed.

so what benefit is there to extending something's range on methane a minuscule amount that might or might not work once your ignition source stops functioning due to space itself?

I'm surprised that someone with your experience in the industry doesn't see the potential of space-based propellant depots. It kind of goes without saying; a major "nice to have" for a variety of applications and missions.

if we want something for the long haul in space it'll be nuclear powered regardless.

I agree. Nuclear propulsion (e.g., NERVA) and nuclear-powered ion-electric propulsion (e.g., 200kw+ VASIMR) would represent near-term game changing propulsion technologies. But both would require sending nuclear fission reactors (e.g., SAFE 400) into space. Don't expect that to be politically popular anytime soon though, hence fuel depots.

RS-18 used to be the Apollo lander engine, now modified for LOX/LCH4.

Essentially... though at the time it was called the "Lunar Module Ascent Engine" (LMAE) and it used hypergolic fuels (Aerozine 50).

It wasn't until 36 years after Apollo (circa 2005-2008) that it was brought out of retirement and redesignated RS-18, and redesigned to use LOX/Methane. NASA was testing LOX/Methane for use on the Altair lander under the Constellation program. Cost overruns and immature LOX/Methane tech prompted NASA to return to hypergolics for Altair, before it was ultimately cancelled.

NASA would continue to work on RS-18 (the engine used in this Lander I believe)...

Project Morpheus uses Armadillo's CH4K, not the RS-18.

Why because I'm not a fan boy?

Lol, nice jab. A little old to be called a boy, but thanks!

Have a great day buddy.

Same to you.

@cjsks,

Your posts would be a lot more convincing if you didn't have a history of making up your references....

Cool, what do you do?

Satellite communications; I'm only a technician, but not completely uniformed about the subject.

This is some pretty obscure info... The astronautix site has info regarding a series of Russian LOX/Methane engines which were in some stage of development in the mid-90's, and mention of a "Riksha" launcher, but the info is nowhere to be found elsewhere on the Web.

Did they ever launch, or even test fire? I don't think so, considering this test flight in 2008, "believed that this is the first such powered flight of this [LOX/Methane] cryogenic propellant combination."

I see no evidence that the Russian engines ever made it past the PowerPoint phase (which does not qualify anything as "first").

http://users.wpi.edu/~aiaa/esas/ESAS.REPORT.04.PDF Not to sure about this school, or why they're reposting www.nasawatch.com stuff but, go down to page 123, they built and tested them. While it says they didn't fly them here, I'm a bit confused since I recall reading about successful launches they had. If I recall the book I read it in I'll post it in your comments.

"Merely"? Funny how you downplay. Keeping costs down, particularly in this economic environment, is just as important as the technology itself, if not moreso...

Look, I'm not trying to overhype this thing as some kind of Earth-shattering new spacecraft, but give some credit where it's due. There are some new technologies being developed here, and it will serve as a test bed for further tech to follow...

As I keep mentioning, LOX/Methane (to my knowledge) has only been an existing and tested tech for a few years now.

The old PM called it "home depot engineering" using existing technology. Don't see the point in another lunar lander to put a robot on the moon, and I fail to see what kind of innovation this thing is ushering in. Therefore, to me, personally, it doesn't mean the qualifications of ambitious or new technology. Slightly interesting, sure, the bee knees, no.

I'm surprised that someone with your experience in the industry doesn't see the potential of space-based propellant depots. It kind of goes without saying; a major "nice to have" for a variety of applications and missions.

Again, the fuel required to do these maneuvers and the costs associated don't help their cause. Not to mention long term storage is limited due to boil off. The better insulations can store LOX and liquid hydrogen for a while... but not very long in terms of space missions. Liquid Methane can be stored longer due to a higher boiling point, but it's still limited and requires LOX to oxidize. I suppose you could manufacture these on say, mars, or just scoop it up at Titian, but the lab required to do fractional distillation on Mars/LEO/Titan/Elsewhere adds substantial weight to any kind of vehicle. So I really fail to see the point of fuel depots, until boil off is substantially reduced or more stable fuels are developed in usable quantities.

Further, since methane and liquid oxygen engines require an ignition source you complicate things by adding another variable. If the igniter fails the mission fails, if the igniter doesn't function properly in space due to the temperature you're left with drifting space craft falling at the mercy or whatever body pulls them in.

I agree. Nuclear propulsion (e.g., NERVA) and nuclear-powered ion-electric propulsion (e.g., 200kw+ VASIMR) would represent near-term game changing propulsion technologies. But both would require sending nuclear fission reactors (e.g., SAFE 400) into space. Don't expect that to be politically popular anytime soon though, hence fuel depots.

We send fission based things into space all the time; don't see the problem. I just started reading up on the VASIMR, while useful for in space propulsion for missions you have time to accelerate in, ION and VASIMRS might not ever be the method of choice for man rated exploration.

Essentially... though at the time it was called the "Lunar Module Ascent Engine" (LMAE) and it used hypergolic fuels (Aerozine 50).

It wasn't until 36 years after Apollo (circa 2005-2008) that it was brought out of retirement and redesignated RS-18, and redesigned to use LOX/Methane. NASA was testing LOX/Methane for use on the Altair lander under the Constellation program. Cost overruns and immature LOX/Methane tech prompted NASA to return to hypergolics for Altair, before it was ultimately cancelled.

Exactly, but the RS-18 lives on.

Project Morpheus uses Armadillo's CH4K, not the RS-18.

Yep, you're correct on this one. The Armadillos engine is eerily similar to the RS-18 though! I'll see if I can get some specs on them and compare. I'd imagine the ISP's are about the same.

Lol, nice jab. A little old to be called a boy, but thanks!

Haha, well, I was only jabbing in kind to your two jabs.

You'll have to excuse the spelling errors; talking science while inebriated isn't easy.

@William & cjsks,

I'm not even going to break down who said what but both of you have brought some rather interesting info to the table that provides those that choose an opportunity for additional research.

William when you take tech that has been done before and combine it in a new project for the first time a whole new animal is created. It takes alot of work to integrate systems and get them to play nice together. So I feel safe in saying that when you "initially" combine "relatively recent" ideas it is new tech to most people and "most" engineers (I'm not a technician but I do design and build things - and most importantly "They Work" as planned in the end)

"Satellite communications; I'm only a technician, but not completely uniformed about the subject" - There is NOTHING ONLY or Second Rate about that. That is a very cool job indeed!!! You have an excellent knowledge base and I enjoy reading your posts and I'm not trying to flame but you would be really cool if sometimes you didn't come across as such a d!ck (looking at your avatar you actually remind me of my little brother whos 14 yrs. younger and Only a teacher and H.S, Offensive Coordinator - how he went from marine biologist to that is beyond me) Either way please keep posting and I'll keep reading as I do enjoy (most) of what you write:)

"You'll have to excuse the spelling errors; talking science while inebriated isn't easy."

My favorite post of the day and YES I'm jealous :)

cj - There was a lot of papers at Google Scholar regarding the LOX/LCH4 engines if your interested. Very technical though. Man I miss areospace engineering, started out in it, Reagan cut back spending in the industry and I switched to math and computer science.

Your posts would be a lot more convincing if you didn't have a history of making up your references....

Huh?? For example...?

TReed, thanks I will look into that. No doubt, at least the idea has been around for a while.

We send fission based things into space all the time; don't see the problem.

Nope, we send RTG's which obtain power from the natural radioactive decay of plutonium. But there is no fission reaction. BIG difference. SNAP-10A was the only time the US ever sent a fission reactor into space, back in the 60's. The Russians did it a handful of times.

It would take a significant shift in political will to start sending reactors up again today. We most likely will eventually, but no sign of it in the immediate future.

...while useful for in space propulsion for missions you have time to accelerate in, ION and VASIMRS might not ever be the method of choice for man rated exploration.

"Mars in 39 days" (search it). Sounds pretty useful to me, lol!

Heading to the beach, you guys have a great weekend. Thanks for the interesting conversation!

cjsks "we send RTG's which obtain power from the natural radioactive decay of plutonium." How often is this done? Wouldn't an explosion like the Morpheus endanger the public?

Your posts would be a lot more convincing if you didn't have a history of making up your references....

Huh?? For example...?

Post 1.25 through 1.36 of this thread: http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2011/12/23/9665794-earth-has-two-moons-right-now-theorists-say?commentId=61059220#c61059220

Sorry cj, but you simply have to do better if you want to be taken seriously.

A little creepy? To dig up comments from someone 8 months ago, that has little relevance to this thread, and it looks like what cj stated was actually true!

Shuttle was a LEO only vehicle, which is commonly known. Looks like you challenged this, at which point he and others provided references, showing the highest shuttle ever flew (to Hubble, 385 miles), as well as theoretical max, which varies by source, but still considered LEO.

I find cj's posts to be accurate mostly and seems to me like the references in the posts you cite are valid. Maybe cj just needs to work on people skills? :)

I find cj's posts to be accurate mostly and seems to me like the references in the posts you cite are valid. Maybe cj just needs to work on people skills? :)

He definitely needs to work on his people skills, but his reference was not valid; it simply did not support his post. He seemed to post it thinking other people would simply be too lazy to open the post up and check. Unfortunately for him, I always check :)

Throw in the fact that when he was challenged he gave no reason at all for posting it as a fact when he knew the post he threw out was disputed and I would say you should be very careful believing anything he posts: he may very well know what he is posting here is wrong, but post it anyway thinking none of us will check.

Cj's comment: "The Shuttle was not capable of spaceflight beyond low-earth orbit (LEO). The Shuttle maxed out at about 400 miles above Earth's surface, whereas 2006 RH120 is roughly 175,000 miles out."

Your response: "Can you provide a reference for that? Preferably one that you didn't type into Wikipedia yourself.... Thanks in advance."

Cj's reply: "The highest altitude Space Shuttle missions ever flown were the Hubble Space Telescope deployment and servicing missions... This data is all over the web, but here is one link: http://www.vibrationdata.com/space/Shuttle.html"

Quote from this link: "Note that the shuttle mission which placed the Hubble Space Telescope into orbit reached an altitude of 385 miles... This mission apparently holds the record for the highest altitude for a space shuttle."

I don't what he was wrong about? 385 miles is after all "about 400 miles" :) Were you challenging on the basis of Shuttle actual proven max vs. theorectical max?

He acknowledged that point too it looks like in this comment, but in my honest opinion, it is really splitting hairs as they say: "Whether the the Shuttle's 'theoretical' max was 400, 600, or 1,100 miles (all numbers I've seen reported), it is still nowhere near 175,000 miles (2006-RH120's closest approach to the Earth), which was the point of my original comment."

Anyway, I don't like to see personal attacks on these science and technology pages, save that for the politics page. Most of us regulars here are for good discussion, not to pick bones, haha.

Take care and be well Robert!

I don't what he was wrong about? 385 miles is after all "about 400 miles" :) Were you challenging on the basis of Shuttle actual proven max vs. theorectical max?

Not at all, I was pointing out the difference between the words max out and reached. The simplest way I can explain my point is to tell you I saw a Ferrari in Honolulu last year that reached a top speed of roughly 10 miles an hour due to the traffic. Although the car never went over 10 miles an hour it would be wrong for me to say the car's max speed is that slow - that car will run out of open road in Honolulu long before it runs out of horsepower. See the difference? Cj made the statement the shuttle maxed out at that altitude, but his reference merely stated the shuttle reached that altitude. When I pointed this out to him, he should have found a different reference, but instead of acting like an adult he chose to throw a temper tantrum - I remembered his post simply because I recalled laughing at his behavior :)

I do understand yours and his point that the shuttle was designed for low earth orbit, but I also know modern aircraft were not designed to fly the distances they regularly do thanks to the magic of in-flight refueling. Is it possible they could do some in-space refueling and get the shuttle to fly longer distances? I'd be surprised if it wasn't possible, now whether or not it is practical is a different story.

Anyway, I don't like to see personal attacks on these science and technology pages, save that for the politics page.

I'll see your dislike for personal attacks on this pages and will raise you that I don't like to see it on the politics page either. You seem like an intelligent man who reasons well so I'd be sending you a friend request right now except you called my previous post "a little creepy." I'm sure you'll agree that personal attack should have been left off this thread....

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

Hello Robert, hope you enjoyed the weekend. First, the "creepy" comment was more of a comment on a behaviour than a personal attack, but I am sorry if I offended. Not meant as an insult, and something I'd be happy to say to any of my friends, haha!

I was pointing out the difference between the words max out and reached.

Ok, this is what I thought when I asked the question. To me it is splitting hairs, when shuttle could have attained at most somewhere between 400-1,100mi altitude (which no one would deny). I will explain...

LEO is defined as everything under 1,200mi. Moreover, this "second moon" discussed was 175,000mi at closest. Long way to go no matter what for a Shuttle! :)

Is it possible they could do some in-space refueling and get the shuttle to fly longer distances?

"Possible"? Yes, but I rarely say that anything is impossible. Fact is this would require billions in R&D, and basically a whole new spacecraft.

Four BIG reasons come to mind off the bat (there would be many more):

1) LOX/Hydrogen (which shuttle main engines used) cryogenic fuel depots, are not as practical as LOX/Methane would be (now we are back on topic!) for in-space refueling. So this would require development of an expensive, less than practical, tech and capability that does not exist yet, when we would rather develop LOX/Methane fuel depot.

2) SSME (shuttle main engines), the RS-25D, could only be started on the ground. Stopping to refuel in space, then perfoming second ignition/burn for deep space, would have require A LOT of R&D spending, testing, and basically a new main engine.

3) External fuel tank could not have survived long enough. See issue of "popcorning" ET insulation. It would need to be redesigned to prevent/reinforce the tank. More of an effort than you might think.

4) Shuttle heatshield was not designed to handle the much higher speed re-entry that would result from much much higher altitude/distance from Earth.

...So you see there would have been many technical challenges requiring tons of redesign, basically a new launch system and spacecraft.

REALLY, in many ways, this is what we are doing with the SLS rocket and Orion spacecraft. We will be able to go further out to the moon and other places with these!

Pretty exciting if you ask me!

Lee - But the J-2X engines under development are LOX/LH. And there no known plans to refuel in orbit. I don't think the US is ready to switch to LOX/Methane for manned flights, based on the littlle bit that I have read.

Hey TR, yes J-2X is mostly ready to go, and I agree that in-space refueling development is not a priority at this time. But if and when it is, Methane is considered the preferred fuel to do this. This is the long-view..

Methane ISP is higher than RP-1, albeit lower than Hydrogen. However, this is seen as a reasonable compromise, because as others have mentioned, methane's abundance on Earth and throughout the solar system, cost, safety, stability, and being easier to store than Hydorgen, makes it the preferred fuel for interplanetary travel and propellant depots.

These are longer term goals. Hydrogen upper stages still give the best bang for our buck today (over RP-1, hypergolic, or solid fuel), since methane rockets are still "maturing" as a technology relative to other fuels, hence one of benefits of Project Morpheus!

I totally agree with the long term view.

If methane didn't require the need for an ignition mechanism I'd agree with its possible usefulness in interplanetary travel. Methane's ISP is what? In the 300's at best case for the NASA engines right? There was also an issue theoretically with the lower thrust using Methane, making it more difficult to launch from a planetary stance. It's rather abundant, but so is hydrogen. It's only cheaper because cryogenic type engines using methane wouldn't require the same amount of insulation, since liquid methane has a lower store point.

RP-1 actually seems like a better candidate for any type of propellant depots (stable at room temp, no need to worry about boil off), with methane's usefulness being that it's "relatively" easy to refine on other words. Hydrogen though isn't much more difficult to do if you really want to put the infrastructure in place. Then again, the whole propellant depots thing seems to be a little silly currently with the costs associated with putting stuff into space.

I thought the current hydrogen upper stages were pressure fed hypergolic systems?
I think methane will have a limited role dependant on destination and delta-v requirements. Maybe when they start working on a tri-propellant engine that uses hydrogen to escape earth then switches to methane or RP-1 we might see a somewhat useful aspect of it. All in all though, just seems like it adds another variable that could fail.

Zardoz8238

You are correct! Thomas Edison once answered one of his critics, who stated he "had over 1000 error trying to invent the light bulb". He answered them with the statement "No sir, it was not 1000 errors, but a 1000 step process".

You can only be so sure on the drawing board but the true test comes when you have live experimentation of the desired product.

Exactly. Live and learn. Goddard had a bunch of failures, the early Mercury rockets went through revisions as well. There's some classic footage of the rocket rising a few feet in the air and then collapsing in a ball of flame. Just wait until we starting experimenting with warp drive.

I tend to want to agree with you however I can't help but imagine the comments that would be here if this same video became news BUT instead it was the result of a failed Iranian or N Korean project ... just sayin'

you are so lost.

I'm embarrassed. That should have read:

Can't make an omelet withOUT breaking some eggs.

I recall seeing footage of how ever many launch vehicles failing during the first Mercury program. :(

That comment was in bad taste. I live on Florida's Space Coast and witnessed that horrific accident. It haunts you forever.

Smartgirl888,

I agree with you for a different reason. Those 14 lives were lost (1986 and 2003) for what, experiments in low Earth orbit? If they were lost in the process of going to Mars or even an asteroid, I can better understand. Sure we learned some things, but was it worth the best of us?

I prefer a goal worthy of the risk.

The O-Ring failed because of a political decision made by the White House to fly the Shuttle in temperatures below those in which he O-Ring was made for and against the protest of many of the program scientists. I wish only that those scientists took it one step further and refused to launch that day. But it was decided politically, that it would look bad to have another shutte delay. So instead, lives were lost!

Absolutely! This didn't "blow up" it crashed and burned, and there is a difference between crashing (guidance failure) and blowing up (catastrophic unexpected explosion).

A guidance failure could (and most likely is) simply a software bug or a malfunctioning thruster. Relatively simple to fix. And explosion of unknown cause would have most likely necessitated a complete redesign of a system or the whole craft.

I'm surprised here. Alan Boyle doesn't usually resort to unnecessary sensationalism like much of the rest of the media. But perhaps he's not responsible for the title. I hope not - I like Mr. Boyle and his writing.

And what are you doing to advance space travel?

Styro, our science fiction writers underestimated the risks and costs...which we are still working to improve. So, unless Hilton can count on a steady stream of Moon vacationers willing to fork out several millions (bare minimum) per trip, don't expect Hilton (or anyone else) to fork out the tens of $billions to build some small hotel on the Moon. Even that assumes some supply-chain infrastructure that is currently non-existent. Even these rates are assuming SpaceX is successful in generating enough efficiencies and re-usability to engineer those 'low' costs. At current rates, it might be closer to expect $100 million per person (assuming everything was already in place). Maybe go to Rio instead?

Well, I went to Dubai. It's kind of like the moon.

Not really. There were lots of rocket failures while they were learning the dynamics of rocketry. There is a reason we compare things to being "rocket science." Folks this stuff is hard and accepting failure as part of the growth and learning process is something engineers understand, but business people don't.

Oh you know, American Engineers were not smart enough so we had to import them from around the world.

Or they were from Texas

hotinTexas - you're a prejudiced jerk.

Or...more likely... that $7,000,000 could have bought a few bombs for our military to use in target practice. Don't forget that that money paid peoples salaries. It was used to purchase materials for the craft. It's not like we packaged up $7 million and set it on fire. Don't be a moron.

dont worry nancy, after we finish destroying our planet (hottest summer on record, wtg!) you will be thanking nasa for these tests as we find another place for humans to live (destroy).

Yes, but developing more technology and furthering the human race's acheivements are also important (and some of the side effects of the space program ARE improving these things)

Let's break it down. $7,000,000 could:

Insure about 400 people with decent insurance. 340 with good insurance.

or

Fund about 2 years of cancer/stem cell research in a small lab, 3 months in a large lab, or half of a single phase of clinical trials.

or

Feed about 710 homeless people 3 square meals a day for one year.

or

Fund the City of Detroit for about 20 hours.

The feeding and insuring people assumes zero overhead costs, which would certainly not be the case. Of course if you're going to gripe about $7,000,000 in space technology, why not gripe about any portion of the $700,000,000,000 going toward national defense. Take those numbers and multiply them by 100,000 to get an idea what we spend on blowing things up on purpose.

it's people like you nancy, that caused nasa to cut the apollo 18, 19, and 20 missions, so that the funding for those missions could be spent on lyndon johnson's great society welfare programs. btw, those programs have spent over several trillion dollars since '68, and not much progress in the war on poverty.

I usually don't go after others but....

Nancy is the same person who would kill the golden goose to get the gold inside instead of waiting for the goose to lay the eggs. Same short sighted ignorance.

Nancy you have no clue what you are even talking about as you obviously have no idea how little $7 million is in this world today, especially when it comes to the US government, or how much the space program has paid off; best ROI ever.

Do us all a favor and Google benefits of the space program and then come back and comment. Just because it doesn't benefit you directly that you can easily perceive doesn't mean you still aren't benefiting from the space program.

Your thinking is dangerous and people with your reasoning are holding mankind back and is demeaning to the potential of the human race. You want to stay in the stone age, there are plenty of middle east countries to choose from. You wouldn't know wasteful spending if it bit you in the rear.

It is time

... this message was brought to you by: Intel. 802.3 Ethernet Standard. Internet. HTTPS. Video from CCD cameras captured from video distributed by, among other things, a constellation of Satellites.

What do these things have in common? Guess who developed or funded the prototypes for these things? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't a welfare program, and yet it's fed more humans and indirectly saved more money than all the social welfare programs put together.

maxcat - Nixon axed the Apollo missions, first for the development of the space shuttle and second, the US figured out that the Soviets couldn't get to the moon. Government can't help in the war on poverty, their billionaire puppet masters need tax breaks to survive, oh, I mean to create new jobs. Stay away from the kool-aid.

Prag - Won't help on stem cell research, religious folks will fight that one in regards to embryonic stem cell. Most of the work now is in adult stem cells. Besides 7 million on an aerospace engineering project is actually pretty cheap.

"it's people like you nancy, that caused nasa to cut the apollo 18, 19, and 20 missions, so that the funding for those missions could be spent on lyndon johnson's great society welfare programs. btw, those programs have spent over several trillion dollars since '68, and not much progress in the war on poverty."

but the rich!! ohhhh the rich are doing record fine as always!

You'll whine about this when $7 million dollars is the average salary of a marquis professional sports player over the course of a few months during a playing season, of which there are almost a thousand, when you count the NFL, NBA, MLB, FIFA, NHL...should I continue? Where does that money come from? Morons like you. I hate to break it to you, but money is pissed away at all levels of our society, not just the government. If you think this is waste, it was an accident. Think about the millions of dollars wasted every year with the NTSB deliberately crashed hundreds of cars and other vehicles to test their failure modes. Think about the millions wasted when buildings are deliberately set on fire so fire departments can train themselves. Think about the millions wasted on pharmaceutical research when a new drug doesn't pan out.

This country isn't a goddamned charity. In any society where an individual is responsible for themselves, people fail, and they fail spectacularly. We're not all going to win the game of life, you may as well get used to it. You take your chances like the rest of us, and exploit your opportunities, or watch them drift away in the wind. Spaceflight is an opportunity we're not going to sideline to suit your sense of moral outrage.

No but if you read the article they still got useful information from the crash. This was a prototype for testing and the chance of failure was high and not a surprise to anyone.

And you are doing a good job of it yourself. Keep it up.

Why would you ever see this as an embarrassment?? Its just one part of the process. Think everything works the first time? I think you have embarrassed yourself!!!!

The problem is, the first time was in the 1960s. One would expect engineers to be able to get something right on the first try after 50 years of experience. After all, we don't expect bridges to fall down every time we build a new one. We expect that civil engineers have mastered their trade, learned how to avoid catastrophic failures as a routine part of their craft.

This prototype used methane and oxygen. And it is development project for an autonomous lunar lander, doesn't have the same requirements for human flight.

We did it several times.

Agreed! Can't they do something more important with our tax money? Like pay for health care or feed hungry children? What a waste of my money! We should be able to vote where our tax money is spent. They nickel and dime us taxpayers to death and waste it on this useless crap?

I love how people complain about science from a computer.

turtle - So the nearly 32 billion dollar 2012 budget for the NIH is not enough? NIH gives out the research grants for health related research. And there is one party that would remove the funding for hungry children and their grandparents. Programs like WIC and Medicare.

well played sir!

Yes. I agree with that.

It's not a failure, it's just one more step towards success!

yup. mostly they're probably angry right now they cant figure out any way to tie this to obama.

So many of you jerks get a kick out of failure. No wonder this contry has turned to crap.

This is what blind ideology that saturates the airwaves gets you. People would rather see a person or organization fail because it goes against their ideology, without realizing that it damages society as a whole when things fail.

Well Prag...that pretty much describes liberals.

FroboseTF

And go back to living in the 1950's right? People obviously forget that our early space program had alot more screw ups back then along with the military's many many useless A-bomb tests.

I'd rather waste my money on nasa any day.

Isn't that how we handled the fall in public education? Gut the program and when it fails, say 'Ah ha!'

Cycledude:

Believe me. So would I. But this is not the 1950's. The people presently running America do not have the juevos, or the desire to take on challenges like this. They feel they need to discredit Nasa before they can shut it down.

I seem to remember one screw2 up...one of the moon landings with the suits so bulky one of the astronauts broke a switch off...the one to launch the modual when they were ready to leave

Or better yet, give it to the fat cats on Wall Street so they can "trickle it down" to us peons. Yeah, right.

go ahead gringo and realize that the entire budget for nasa fifty year history COMBINED is less than what they steal from us for the pentagon and military budget in ONE YEAR.

then go ahead and complain to us.

You keep spouting that crap yet you offer no facts. You obviously never served or you would not be coming down on the military the way you are. You should bend over kiss you lucky @$$ that we have a strong military and thank the servicemen for protecting that same sorry @$$. I look at it this way, you can always leave this country and go somewhere else. Bet you will be crying to return. Have you ever been to Korea or any country that can be considered 3rd world? Try it sometime, it is a real wakeup call. OH, and btw, that crash was Obama's fault. He cut the budget and shut down a viable program without a replacement vehicle.

actually, Amazed, Obama asked for more money to NASA and it was Congress who decided to give them even less than last year. It was Bush who initiated the process to shut down the shuttle program and it was Congress who approved it. It irritates me to death that some people just don't pick up a US Govt book and read the powers of each branch of government. CONGRESS writes the laws, CONGRESS appropriates the funds, the PRESIDENT just signs or vetoes them. Before you go on bashing whoever the President is about "killing" NASA, remember that Congress decides the fate of any government organization or program! As for the failure of this prototype, I am glad it failed because I'd rather have it fail during testing than when it's in operational use with our people on board!

SSSHHHH!!!! dont tell him that the events of today, including economies and policies, are more often than not set up 1-4 years before the current reality!

dont let the FACTS get in the way of his axe to grind!

"You keep spouting that crap yet you offer no facts."

kinda funny, i STARTED with a FACT!

the ENTIRE 50 YEAR BUDGET FOR NASA COMBINED is but one year of what we spend on the military.

which part of that FACT are you having a hard time with? its easily verifiable.

You don't know what you are talking about. Halliburton does work no other companies can do so that is why they get the no-bid contracts. If Halliburton is so bad why has Obama continued to use them?