May 03, 2005

Lockheed Martin has come up with a replacement for the Shuttle that is uglier, flimsier, dumber-looking and even more of a chunky-ass piece of crap than that which it is supposed to replace. I have seen the future, and it is fugly.

Mind you, Popular Mechanics can't be believed about anything, these days.

  • I mean, this thing looks like a medical device for operating on terminal anal fistulas. It's like something Boba Fett would wear on his back. Compared to designs being put in to the X-prize projects etc, this thing is a garbage scow. Not that design is more important than function, but high technological design is an integral part of function. I mean.. this thing looks like something that should have flown 20 years ago. I wonder if they'll fit it with computer systems that will actually be upgradeable this time, instead of having to scramble around for 20 yr-old computer parts.
  • Someone had his grumpy flakes this morning! ;) Although I agree. USS Buttplug. Now in new Mountain Fresh scent!
  • Dude, among the things that make me spit chips for real is the state of the space industry. If they'd handed the fuckin' shit over to the private sector in the early 70s right after they cancelled the Moon Shots, we'd be mining the Asteroid belts & maybe the Oort cloud by now. Yes, a lot of people would have died in the development of new vehicles. But it would have been something worth dying for.
  • Yo no comprende tampoco. I thought that when the shuttle program was halted, there were serious doubts that it would be revived. The safety problems allowed for the disposal of a program that simply failed its main objectives -- space travel was not made cheaper by a reuseable ship, (in fact, quite the opposite), that experiments on board were of such a short duration and sample size that the results were largely meaningless, etc. Those problems would not be solved by a revived shuttle program, nor a new shuttle program, right? But maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the solution IS to have a shuttle that looks like a new, children-friendly lawn-dart. How did the designers come up with this? Tape some paper wings on their Thermos?
  • Hmm. I think the truth is that the stated aims of the space program produced poor results, but the R&D that went into developing the technology had *huuuuge* impact not just in aerospace, but throughout society. So many vital technological adaptions came as by-products of the 'space race' that it's not even funny. If you handed the chemical manufacture trick over to the private sector, you'd see a shitload of space depots in lagrange orbit exploiting the positive aspects of weightless-environment manufacturing. The profits would be immense, no lack of carrot at end of the stick.
  • it looks like the widget in the Guinness bottles.
  • The Emperor has made a critical error and the time for our attack has come. The data brought to us by the Bothan spies pinpoints the exact location of the Emperor's new battle station. We also know that the weapon systems of this Death Star are not yet operational. With the Imperial Fleet spread throughout the galaxy in a vain effort to engage us, it is relatively unprotected. But most important of all, we've learned that the Emperor himself is personally overseeing the final stages of the construction of this Death Star. Many Bothans died to bring us this information. Admiral Ackbar, please. You can see here the Death Star orbiting the forest Moon of Endor. Although the weapon systems on this Death Star are not yet operational, the Death Star does have a strong defense mechanism. It is protected by an energy shield, which is generated from the nearby forest Moon of Endor. The shield must be deactivated if any attack is to be attempted. Once the shield is down, our cruisers will create a perimeter, while the fighters fly into the superstructure and attempt to knock out the main reactor. General Calrissian has volunteered to lead the fighter attack
  • > USS Buttplug. Now in new Mountain Fresh scent! :-) Looks like Homer Simpson designed the new space shuttle.
  • Oh great, does that mean the nose will play "La Cucaracha" when pressed?
  • The space shuttle's problems have nothing to do with its (rarely questioned) ugliness. In the 1970s, when public interest in the space program took a nosedive, the proponents of the space shuttle system had to make too many promises to too many people: They had to promise the military that it could be used both as a spy-satellite delivery system as well as a spying platform itself. They had to promise congress that it would fly, and fly A LOT. They had to get the public interested enough by also flying A LOT, and promised for it to build a space station that would hold dozens of people. They had to promise the scientists that it would be used as a space-based platform for science and astronomy. The Spitzer space telescope was at one point designed to be carried in the cargo hold and do astronomy from LEO. And they had to prove that it would be "cheaper" because it could be almost 100% reusable from mission to mission, with a turnaround time of only a few weeks. Now tell me how one can possibly design a SINGLE flight system that can accomplish all these in one? There's no way to do it. So, by building the equivalent of a 1980s cellphone with an 8 megapixel camera and highly-encrypted radio transmitter/receiver that could play TV and Radio signals, be a calendar/PDA, run spreadsheets and full-screen video, mp3 player with a 40GB hard drive, and the ability to drop it from a fifth-storey window, I think it can be forgiven for doing NONE of those things well. But I'm not saying you have to forgive its stakeholders. If you actually look at this new CEV, you'll see a lot of important differences from the Space Shuttle (though this one's still ugly, I'm waiting to see Boeing/NG's version): 1. No cargo hold. Finally a human space system that wasn't designed to be a glorified rocket so a bunch of astronauts can sit and watch while a satellite is let go, that could've been launched from an honest heavy lifter. 2. It's not a glider. Since you don't have to figure out how to land this thing on a runway, that GREATLY simplifies the design so it can be honestly and for-true capable of a much less dangerous re-entry than the Space Shuttle. 3. It's modular. The space shuttle was never designed to go anywhere but low earth orbit. Once the booster rockets got it to orbit, there was no way that it could dock with another booster to get it to the Moon or Mars or HEO. A high-orbiting human platform opens up a LOT of possibilities, not the least of which, as Chy pointed out, mining. 4. It doesn't currently appear to be suffering from swiss-army-knife syndrome. By the looks of it, it's designed to do one thing: transport people safely, and be able to connect to external boosters or mission modules. It sounds to me like NASA has finally learned the lesson it should have in the 1980s: the Shuttle was doomed from the start and they should've built something whose purpose was more focused than a promise of "everything for everybody."
  • Very intelligent points, chimaera.
  • Indeed.
  • Chimaera, nicely written! I have to agree with the function over cool factor argument... No one is every going to say..."Yeah, I flew the shuttle, but I wish they had spent more money on the paint job and less on the functionality!" I'm betting that we've about seen the end of the governmental sponsored space program. Having watched it mature from John Glenn to the recent shuttle events, it just isn't the same. The passion isn't there, the public doesn't get as excited as it used to. I think support is dwindling away.... besides, who is going to pay for it, we've used up our money in other huge mistakes!
  • I mean, this thing looks like a medical device for operating on terminal anal fistulas. It's like something Boba Fett would wear on his back. Of course! If we make spaceships look pretty, they'll work better too, why did noone think of this before... You are a dumbass.
  • terminal anal fistulas Great name for a band...
  • Actually, the graphics in this PopMech article are a little misleading. If I'm not wrong, this whole contraption is supposed to sit on top of a launch vehicle. It is just the final stage. Basically, NASA has given up (for the time being) on reusable launch vehicles. So, to bring the crew to the ISS it will use a crew module on top of a rocket. However, by the looks of it, I think you are wrong, chimaera. It is a glider, as it seems to have a lifting body. Otherwise, I completely agree with you and must point out that it looks a lot like the Crew Transport Vehicle that the European Space Agency wanted to develop from its Automated Transfer Vehicle (aka ISS Delivery Truck), but has had to keep on ice for the last ten years for lack of funds.
  • .."You are a dumbass.".. And you are a fuckhead! Shall we dance? Asswipe?
  • I agree that the Shuttle has outlived whatever usefulness it may have once had, but it can still pay divdends. We have a lot of experience in recovering large, dumb solid boosters. The external tank itself is pretty well tested, issues of foam flaking off notwithstanding. And the SSME's are damned good engines. How about redesigning the external tank to accept 3 or 4 SRB's spaced evenly around it and a bit lower, then nestling a cluster of 3 (or 4...) SSME's on a structure directly aft of the tank? Extend the tank forward with fairing to make a big-ass cargo hold. Take the tank and SSME's into LEO, use the tank for whatever when there and dismount the SSME's and ship them back to earth via a reentry vehicle that you use every 5th or 6th mission to launch. Do this totally unmanned though; I never liked the idea of solid motors on a manned vehicle, and this seems like it'd be a cost-effective means of getting large payloads to LEO... or higher, if you want to use some cargo capacity for a booster to get you to, say, geosynch. This obviously requires a manned presence in space, if only to ship the expensive SSME's back to Earth for re-use.
  • Skeptic, the LockMart's design for the CEV is a lifting body, and therefore technically does "glide" in part of its re-entry regime, but unlike the Space Shuttle, it does not land on a runway. As a matter of fact, it deploys parachutes and will float down and land on deployable legs. Though it looks like it has wings, the shape of the body is more to increase lift in the high-pressure, high-speed regime to decrease the g-forces on the crew, and doesn't really "glide" as most people would imagine.
  • Also, since there really are only so many designs that are aerodynamically feasible for re-entry, everything we see will either be some capsule-variant, or some lifting body / gliding variant. So I wouldn't get my hopes up too high for anything that looks really cool, like the SR-71.
  • Where does the laser cannon fit?
  • What the hell do aesthetics have to do with space travel? Spaceships do not bank in space, they do not make cool "whooshing" sounds, and they don't fire slow-moving lazer beams. The future is not Star Wars. Spacecraft should be designed mainly for functionality, not to look good. I agree that the shuttle is kind of lame, since it does nothing but bump people and spy satellites up into near-earth orbit, but if a thing works, it works. Look at how almost alien the Soviet rockets of the 1960s look; same functionality, different look.
  • It looks like it's taking a crap.
  • A crap which will propel it into the Great Beyond!
  • At this rate I'll be in a rest home crapping into a Depends before we go back to the moon again . . . Much less Mars . . . Not a really inspired design. I'm not saying we have to have Buck Rogers here, but this thing. . . Been There, Done That, Next
  • It just needs a Type-R sticker.
  • I honestly don't think it looks that bad. Just very functional. That said, what it does look like is those toy spaceships that come with a slingshot for $2.99 in a dime store. Now that's not very inspiring.
  • It looks like a design that comes from the late 1950's. Almost a cookie-cutter copy . . .
  • the links are down. bummer. . . but (my 2 cents) space exploration is a misdirected waste of energy and resources. any new shuttle will be just as pointless as the last. as we so intelligently conquered nature, we now set our sites to the conquest of the heavens. but really, how many light years to the closest solar system? closest star besides our sun? traveling up and out in a phallic metal screw is just another absurdity in an ongoing parade of 'em. even at the fastest speed humans can travel, we'd never be able to really explore but the a mere spec of dust on the cosmic windshield. the key to being a great learner is being a great listener. a more sensitive approach -- an open ear -- a receptive radio astronomy model would far greater serve us. and my point being, what a bad idea putting space exploration in the hands of the private sector would be. while some might argue this is going to happen one way or the other, i'm not looking forward to the corporations doing to space what they've done to the earth. i guess we can thank fight club for the planet starbucks prophecy. governments and private scientist run organizations are bad enough as it is. imagine the space economic free market boom of tomorrow. oh geeeesssh!
  • uhmyang What a great visionary you are. Let stop doing the only thing that will ensure the longevity of human existence. Colonising the local area of space has far more value at the moment that trying to get to our neighbours. _ As for being a misdirected waste of energy and resources - refer to line 2 _ Privatised space is a hairy issue to discuss, so I'll leave that topic to those who know more than I. __ Cheryn, thanks for the post, I appreciated the article and the commentry. It does look like a buttplug.
  • I don't think it's ugly. I do think it's boring looking. But I can't even imagine what a good looking shuttle is supposed to look like. you guys have funny-shaped anuses for that to be a buttplug though
  • the only thing that will ensure the longevity of human existence? seems like a stretch. . . .(but i'll grant the possibility in a certain future turn of events). nano technology and other medical discoveries might also increase our longevity, but what else will it really do for anyone besides diminish the quality of our lives or the connection we feel to the earth, to others, and even to our own body? imagine everyone being technologically sustained at a physical age 32 for 100 years or more. sure -- now we've got longevity, but at what point would everyone just feel like a plastic shell, an inorganic heap of meaninglessness, the walking talking wax museum, a brave new world??? living in metal shells floating in space is another means to prolong a plastic existence. . . albeit of mankind rather than a single man (not that the death of mankind means any more to me than the death of my next door neighbor. all these things will come with time).in all likelihood, though, this would be a very small representation of mankind. and this begs the question, 'who would get to decide which of us are important enough to be prolonged in space cabinets?' anyway, when the leaves change color in fall, we shouldn't freak out and try to paint them all green. when i'm dying, i sure as hell ain't gonna sign up for an artificial means to enhance my condition. and when the world comes to an end, it'll come to an end. but really, wouldn't a proper respect and utilization of the earth and her resources be the most viable way to prolong the human existence? we are, after all, of this earth and not shitted out onto it. and as as aside, it's quite alright to attack my points. . .but you would do yourself a service to save the personal affronts for someplace else.
  • And you are a fuckhead! Shall we dance? Asswipe? bwahaha. YHBT HAND Dumbass.
  • Not to get into a philosophical debate on the merits of space exploration and nanotechnology, but I felt I wanted to respond to some of uhmyang's comments: If nanotechnology provides a human life in a sort of physiological stasis at age 32 for a hundred years, I find your presumption that life would become meaningless and trite, or, as you say "plastic," is predicated upon a Luddite's view of technology in general. Woe is us, we are separated from the labor of the earth, woe is us, my soft uncalloused hands have never known the joy of the lathe, or the loom, or my soul the connection of the ancients when I breathe in the dust from the newly-tilled soil. I think that modern "isolation" is poppycock. Hogwash. Humanity will find dissatisfaction behind the next time saving device or technology for a simple reason: because we must. Because the very reason technology and society exist is in order to fulfill certain needs, and people (in general) are nothing if not infinite in the depth of want. If, as you seem to think we'd be happier without technology, remember that it was unhappiness and dissatisfaction that brought the technology about in the first place. Did it make us happy? Most people, no. But it did solve the problem at hand, and people are foolish enough to believe that beyond the problem at hand lay the paradise of perpetual satisfaction. But it doesn't, and that's what makes humanity a toolmaker: it's dissatisfaction. Were people happier working the soil and dying of a simple infection at 25? No. They lamented the long hours of toil and early death. And don't let the anecdotes of people "moving from the country to the city" fool you: just as many would be unhappy moving from the city to the country. It just so happened that the city-bound folk outnumbered the country-bound, and it's called resistance to change. With respect to space exploration, I wouldn't disagree if you said that since Apollo, the US has allowed the manned exploration of the solar system to stagnate. And if you feel it's a colossal waste of money, which do you think is a bigger waste, about $5 per person per year in the US to fund NASA, or about $200 to fund the military? And what do you think of such things as the Hubble Space Telescope (which has cost you, if you're a US citizen, about $10 over the last 20 years), or Cassini? Or the mars rovers? What if the next mars rover mission finds conclusive evidence of life? If you think that private enterprise will explore the solar system for fun and profit, think again. Who funded Columbus? Or Magellan? It wasn't the Dutch East India company, that's for sure. It was the goverments. Sure, business followed, but only after the market was found. I applaud Burt Rutan and Virgin Galactic: private enterprise is well overdue in orbit. But do you think Bill Gates will put up for a lander on Europa?
  • Also, uhmyang, since it is nearly impossible (with present technology, mind) for humans to explore beyond the solar system, you seem to mean that it is useless to even explore our own. Likewise it is impossible to read everything in the book store, so why even bother to pick up and buy the book in front of me? That's not good reasoning. And what if a new batch of telescopes were to find a planet that may be inhabitable, just a few generations' trip in an "ark" away? Humanity's greatest unspoken challenge in the long term is this: what if our little island gets swamped by a metaphorical tidal wave? Sure might be a good idea to make a point of expanding to other islands before that happens.
  • I grew up during the heyday of manned spaceflight and watched the Apollo 11 astronauts as they stepped on the moon on live television as a boy. I was also in Japan looking through a chained link fence at the charred remains of the Apollo 13 command module after it returned from a near-tragic flight. Having said that, I think that for the time being we need to concentrate on unmanned missions to the outer planets/deep space until we get all the technical glitches worked out for manned exploration. The current designs they have for a manned mission to Mars look very similar to Apollo, while the replacement 'space shuttle' looks very much like Dyna-Soar, a spaceplane designed by the germans near the close of WWII that nearly made it into space in the early 1960's. Surely we can do better than to recycle old designs in a newer wrapper? Where are the anti-gravity flying saucers? The Star Trek transporters? I want my replicator cheeseburger ! ! !
  • Ah yes, one Orgazmotron please.
  • Just collecting the various things monkeys have said the new ship looks like: - a medical device for operating on terminal anal fistulas - something Boba Fett would wear on his back - USS Buttplug - children-friendly lawn-dart - some paper wings on [a] Thermos - the widget in the Guinness bottles - [one of] those toy spaceships that come with a slingshot - Orgazmotron
  • Add on 'something that Boba Fett would wear up his butt'
  • Chimaera: you are mixin' my metaphors. I wasn't camparing nanotechnology to a can opener. Sure - technology has fulfilled many wants, and I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that. Nor did I or would I say anything about 'modern' isolation. The isolation people feel has been felt since the beginning of humankind: tis why comparative mythology can and does exist as a reputable field of study. But really, if the purpose of society was to fulfill our needs, then wouldn't society be more concerned with the pressing needs of our own communities and neighbors than with funding manned missions to mars. 'my neighbor can't pay her rent, but whitey's off to mars.' as for the military vs. the space program: the one is used to illustrate our ideological force on the the world and the other is just a glorified wall pissing contest. China, Korea, Japan -- have all entered into the new 'space race'. Science is just the background noise. The real beat is the 'we're smarter and mightier than you opus'. the real research going on is probably something more deleterious than i can imagine. are the us military and nasa in bed together? probably! how else could nasa really expect to get funded? do you think the government funding of Columbus was for any altruistic reason? they wanted to open a direct trade route to india. in a very true sense, it was big business and power at the heart of his explorations. Furthermore, to find close planets that are inhabitable is one thing (and one thing i support) - to get there is another. Alpha Centauri (our second closest star) is 4.22 light years away. We do know enough about science and matter via quantum mechanics to realize that we can not travel 4.22 light years away in any real sense. . . unless we're holding our breath for dreamlike worm holes that will displace all matter into a million fragments and magically put them back together again on the other end (as per a willy wonka film). Space travel will never be a star trekian adventure. It'll be more like a 2001: a space odyssey spook fest. I'm not against science and technology. I'm not against exploring space with practical means. What I am against is pointless science and technology. Jumping off to the next rock is not going to be our salvation. it just ain't gonna be that complex or that simple. I'd also like to point out that the problem with people on farms has never been the hard work or the toiling with their hands. It has been the injustice of their labor -- the raping of their land -- the paying of absurd taxes to feudal lords. I've never met a person that abhors labor, but i've met nothing but people that abhor unfair labor practices. when will society fulfill the need to stop them? Big rat, big rat Do not eat my millet. Three years I have served you, But you will not care for me. I am going to leave you And go to that happy land; Happy land, happy land, Where I will find my place. Big rat, big rat, Do not eat my sprouts! Three years I have served you But you give me no comfort. I am going to leave you And go to those happy fields; Happy fields, happy fields; Who there shall long moan? -unknown (from the Zhou Dynasty)
  • I have to agree with Uhmyang, I'm as big an advocate for manned spaceflight, returning to manned exploration of the planets, etc. as anyone (even more so, I was once pursuing a career in planetary science.) But at this time in this planet's history we need to turn our eyes away from the stars and concentrate on the problems here on earth. Once we finish eating our brocolli, then we can have our dessert . . .