.:SonicBomb:.
    Login or Register
::  Home  ::  Videos  ::  Your Account  ::  Forums  ::  RSS Feed  ::
 
 
::Content::
  • Atomic
  • - Aviation
    - Aircraft
    - Military
    - Explosions
    - WW2
    - Various
    - Hi-Def
    - Photos

    - Wallpaper

    - Nuclear

    - WWI

    - WWII

    Advertisment
    Search
    Custom Search
    User Info
    Welcome, Anonymous
    Nickname
    Password
    (Register)
    Membership:
    Latest: Lawrenceouace
    New Today: 1
    New Yesterday: 1
    Overall: 740

    People Online:
    Visitors: 0
    Members: 0
    Total: 0

    sonicbomb.com :: View topic - space shuttle replacement?

    Forum FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    Post new topic Reply to topic  sonicbomb.com Forum Index » Aerospace
    Poll

    has the space shuttle done a good job or is it an expensive bus?
    good job?
    50%
     50%  [ 4 ]
    bus?
    50%
     50%  [ 4 ]
    Total Votes : 8

    Author Message
    UoPMark
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: May 16, 2010
    Posts: 4
    Location: Plymouth, UK

    PostPosted: Sun May 16, 2010 11:15 pm Reply with quote

    what do you guys think of the space shuttle program and what do you think should be next?
    replacement rocket system ie. orion/constellation
    x-37 style ram jet system
    nothing
    hybrid rocket flight system
    space elevator
    super fluid/beifeld brown effect/meta-materials/ferral fluids ie.anti gravito technology

    lets discuss this
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 424

    PostPosted: Mon May 17, 2010 8:12 am Reply with quote

    Replacement: Either space elevator or ram jet.
    But I could live with pretty much anything as long as they finally take the fingers out of their arses and do something. It's 2010! It's the "future" from a 20th century pov. According to Stanley Kubrick moon-flights should be a routine-job nowadays and flights to Jupiter not uncommon.
    And now the grim reality: The next US-spaceship is supposed to look like the Apollo-capsule with Micky Mouse-ears. I mean, c'mon NASA! Surely you can do better than that. Confused
    View user's profile Send private message
    UoPMark
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: May 16, 2010
    Posts: 4
    Location: Plymouth, UK

    PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:27 am Reply with quote

    your completely right my man. imagine what old men of the 60's thort 2010 would be like. they would be rather disappointed i think. this is why im working towards this goal. i want to be in the front loop of this technology, and i think many other people want to see it change.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Ballistic
    Priscilla (37 kt)


    Joined: Mar 21, 2010
    Posts: 41
    Location: Winterthur, Switzerland

    PostPosted: Tue May 18, 2010 10:50 pm Reply with quote

    You're right when I first saw the new capsule I thought that was a bad joke.

    They should force the development of scramjets like the X-34. That would give a good base for reaching the orbit via a relatively small booster rocket.
    Such a waverider design comes virtually without wings and that's a good thing for reentry. Developpng the appropriate Carrier plane to lift the whole thing looks to be the easiest part. That is Eugen Sängers dream and one should think that the NASA should manage to do that.

    Of course the resulting plane whould be much smaller than the space shuttle but it might make for a good and cheap crew shuttle.

    Combine such a System with a powerfull rocket to launch the cargo and you're done.
    View user's profile Send private message
    kwill
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: Mar 24, 2010
    Posts: 4

    PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2010 5:37 am Reply with quote

    The space shuttle has done a very good job. What most people forget is that it's not just a rocket, it's a mobile space station that can spend a month in orbit and then re-enter and land, and then go up again. Nothing in service even comes close to that capability.

    The most reliable rockets still blow up every 100 launches, and the space shuttle is several times as complicated as the average rocket, meaning there are many, many more things that can fail and lead to a catastrophic ending. In that light, the Space Shuttle has been phenomenally successful and the program cost understandable.

    The problem with the Constellation Project was that it was importing the Shuttle's high costs while delivering a reduced capacity - with old technology. In fact, the overhead was projected to be even greater than the shuttle's. Furthermore, NASA was simply subcontracting the project out to the contractors that built and ran the Shuttle. It was in the private sector but without any real competition. Something had to give. Canceling Constellation was the right thing to do.

    Historically, NASA gets a lot of money to develop new technology that wouldn't materialize in the private sector. That's what they should continue to do. They should keep a launch capability but continue to push the envelope with new technology; gem srb's for Ares1, air breathing first stages, flyback stages, hypersonic vehicles, and inexpensive launch infrastructure (these guys are supposed to be smart, make that a problem to solve), and robotics. Human space flight is expensive and we have our hands full with the ISS. NASA should be pushing the frontiers of robotic exploration. By the time humans walk on Mars, the living quarters and return fuel factory should already be constructed.

    Also, NASA needs some competition, and I don't mean from the private sector.


    Last edited by kwill on Tue May 25, 2010 7:37 pm; edited 2 times in total
    View user's profile Send private message
    bueschu
    Cherokee (3.8 mt)


    Joined: Mar 17, 2008
    Posts: 424

    PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2010 8:55 am Reply with quote

    This might be a good start to combine robotics with the reusability of the shuttle:
    22. 4. 2010: Atlas rocket delivers Air Force spaceplane [X-37] to orbit

    More about the X-37 on Wikipedia





    Unfortunately the air force has taken over the X-37 from NASA. So the whole thing seems to be just another military project for the time being. Pretty much everything about it is confidential. I guess the X-37 is going to serve as prototype for a new global weapons-platform.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Ballistic
    Priscilla (37 kt)


    Joined: Mar 21, 2010
    Posts: 41
    Location: Winterthur, Switzerland

    PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2010 10:26 am Reply with quote

    nice one. sounds great. Now the only thing to do next whould be to launch this thing not entirely with a rocket but with a plane and a booster.
    But reducing the crew is surely a good thing to reduce the costs. Humans need oxygen, water and food while the computers just need electricity.
    View user's profile Send private message
    kwill
    Fizzle
    Fizzle


    Joined: Mar 24, 2010
    Posts: 4

    PostPosted: Mon May 24, 2010 6:47 pm Reply with quote

    UoPMark wrote:
    what do you guys think of the space shuttle program and what do you think should be next?


    What should be Next? ... NASA needs a good swift kick in the ass. They've become bloated fat pigs, along with their contractors.

    For example, the J2X contract awarded to P&W - $1.2 Billion to upgrade the Apollo era J2 engine for the Constellation project.

    For One Tenth that much, Elon Musk created a whole new company, including launch infrastructure, new rocket and TWO brand new engines from scratch. And they made it into space ... for one tenth the budget of the J2 upgrade.

    NASA and their contractors are all lined up at the gravytrain, gorging themselves and consuming enormous amounts of money at ten times the going rate.

    What should NASA do next? They really need to learn work on competitive bidding and possibly engineer some internal competition with funding dependent upon results. Another possibility is a new US Federal agency created to compete directly with NASA - funding based on results.

    In general, the American public is happy to fund NASA's huge budget when they are blazing new trails. But NASA lost its way with the Constellation boondoggle.
    View user's profile Send private message
    Display posts from previous:   
    Post new topic Reply to topic

    View next topic
    View previous topic
    You cannot post new topics in this forum
    You cannot reply to topics in this forum
    You cannot edit your posts in this forum
    You cannot delete your posts in this forum
    You cannot vote in polls in this forum


    Powered by phpBB © 2001 phpBB Group
    | Privacy Policy || Contact us |

    Page Generation: 0.47 Seconds
    :: In the future we will all be robots ::