# Best innovation in space travel so far is the bouncing capsule



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 11, 2018)

Soviet astronaut launch fails everyone is safe

It's too bad the US never made a shuttle vehicle with a crew space as an ejectable capsule in the event of an emergency. It might have enabled a simpler design to be put into use that would be still be available for use today.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Oct 11, 2018)

I was going to post about this story: Astronauts escape malfunctioning rocket

On the one hand, disappointing the launch didn't succeed - but great to see a dangerous situation turn out well for the astronauts.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Oct 12, 2018)

It does however endanger the future of the ISS - I think the Soyuz is the only trans-orbital rocket in use at the moment? I do fear we are moving into an age where manned space flight becomes less and less governmental and more and more commercial. Especially given the rise of autonomous and complex machines.


----------



## TheEndIsNigh (Oct 12, 2018)

SilentRoamer said:


> It does however endanger the future of the ISS - I think the Soyuz is the only trans-orbital rocket in use at the moment? I do fear we are moving into an age where manned space flight becomes less and less governmental and more and more commercial. Especially given the rise of autonomous and complex machines.



Fear Not. N Karrea will come to our rescue.

Think about it. It explains all the cosying up by Donney Trumpy.

**Some spelling mistakes are not mistakes


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Oct 12, 2018)

SilentRoamer said:


> It does however endanger the future of the ISS - I think the Soyuz is the only trans-orbital rocket in use at the moment?



Only because NASA has been doing so much to stop commercial crew launches. They'd rather keep astronauts flying on Soyuz and demand that commercial launchers prove they're significantly safer than Soyuz, than let astronauts fly on commercial launchers rather than a Soyuz that's had numerous problems in recent years.

As a result, we're likely to see ISS go unmanned in the near future, because I gather the Soyuz that's currently docked can only be used to return the crew to Earth in the next couple of months before its on-orbit lifetime expires (and it has a leak, so who knows what else might be wrong with it?)



> I do fear we are moving into an age where manned space flight becomes less and less governmental and more and more commercial.



Why would you be afraid of that? The more companies launching people into space, the better.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Oct 12, 2018)

Sorry @Edward M. Grant my post was unclear. I fear that the risk to humans will mean that machines will be increasingly used to run missions and human risk will be considered too high. I hope that doesn't happen and humans - through commerce and government still get to go to the stars (or at least into orbit or intra-solar locations).

That makes a bit more sense now. Although it would be a concern if space flight proved commercially unviable - in which case we may no longer have nation state space programs, which would be a shame as we would have lost a lot of expertise and experience.


----------



## SilentRoamer (Oct 12, 2018)

TheEndIsNigh said:


> Fear Not. N Karrea will come to our rescue.
> 
> Think about it. It explains all the cosying up by Donney Trumpy.
> 
> **Some spelling mistakes are not mistakes



I have no idea what you are on about. What has Trump and N Korea got to do with this thread? Are you alluding to N Korean rocket technology? This is so far from what would be needed for manned space flight it's not even a consideration. 

Otherwise I may have missed your point entirely.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Oct 12, 2018)

I'm pretty sure North Korea's rockets aren't compatible with Soyuz, and they're even less reliable. China's may be, because I believe they based a lot on Soviet technology. I've no idea whether their own manned spacecraft could dock with ISS if it could get there.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 12, 2018)

The business world doesn't put safety first, so there is no worry that the business world will abandon their efforts to put people into space because of the risks. Apart from the restrictions of where we can go, unmanned space exploration is simply cheaper than using people because the "occupant" in an unmanned craft only needs a simple power supply and a drawer to live in. When there is a human crew the entire craft has to be redesigned to keep the people alive, the mission design becomes secondary and the cost goes up dramatically.

I heard the Chinese were getting their space equipment designs from the Smithsonian. A good place to shop for technology and it's free. The design for the stealth bomber wings came from a German WWII bomber residing in the Smithsonian.

I don't why the Russians are still using Soyuz capsules but at this point in time it is the right thing to do. It's concept safely anticipates what can happen when a rocket launch doesn't work right. It's like a seat belt, which will be needed until cars don't crash. Based on real experience to think that every rocket launch is going to work perfect is not facing reality. 

We're not at the point where one vehicle can do everything. The capsules need to be crash proof to get people off the planet so long as we are using a giant rocket to get past gravity. Until we have some other kind of heat shield besides tiles glued onto the outer surface of a space traveling ship, the capsule is the safest choice for re-entry. Once out there, a shuttle is a good tugboat to carry people around and fix things because stuff breaks everyday, another issue that needs to be addressed and not ignored. The living quarters is the space station, construction wise, it is the weakest link. Using all three of them together makes low orbital space a workable proposition.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Oct 12, 2018)

Robert Zwilling said:


> The business world doesn't put safety first, so there is no worry that the business world will abandon their efforts to put people into space because of the risks.



Business is much more safety-conscious than NASA, who were happy to fly for decades a vehicle that killed its crew nearly 2% of the time. There aren't many businesses who survive selling a product that kills its customers with one use in sixty.

As I understand it, the problem for SpaceX is not that NASA are claiming their rocket will explode and kill the crew, but that they're demanding that it has to survive micrometeroid impacts in orbit which Soyuz doesn't have to. And those are basically out of their control.

At this rate, NASA won't let it fly until after ISS has been abandoned and burned up.

And SpaceX will probably have people on Mars by then.


----------



## Robert Zwilling (Oct 12, 2018)

Nasa is asking private contractors to come up with a design that carries half a ton. General Dynamics is deigning a super capsule ship to get to Mars with the intent of carrying a ton of cargo. I have no idea how physically capable their design is of being built anytime soon but it is ambitious. They don't care if they go to the Moon or not.


----------



## Edward M. Grant (Oct 12, 2018)

And SpaceX is designing a hyper-capsule that will take over a hundred tons of cargo to Mars .

Actually, the Dragon 2 (the one they're trying to get cleared to launch astronauts to ISS) was originally intended to be landing cargo on Mars by now, but when NASA said they had to use parachutes to land instead of rockets, SpaceX dropped that idea. They didn't want to have to build a special version that would only be used for Mars.


----------

