Capsules go up and shuttles come down!

Do hotels in space count? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigelow_Aerospace and the company's own Web site, http://www.bigelowaerospace.com/

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Why did NASA scrap the "DC-10 Piggyback" ???. It looked quite effective as it required no oversized boosters!!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Orion = Bullshit.

The space shuttle needs to be redesigned from the ground up. Watch the intro to Star Trek: Enterprise- that flying wing idea is what we need. A hypersonic craft able to operate outside of the atmosphere.

Course, what we REALLY need is to finish the goddamned International Space Station...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What makes you think a flying wing is going to be more efficient?

 

Also, as for refueling, there is no need. BUILD a deep-space vessel in space (which means you should build a spaceport ala Star Trek to hold and build the vessel in) and launch it from Earths outer (and easy to escape) orbital gravity.

Star Trek is the best thing to go off of for space flight... NASA is only just realizing this.

 

and what about the anti-matter propulsion system?

 

Fascinating. Did star trek mention on how they get from the surface to the station? I'm sure we can do the vaporization part of the teleportation but I'm not to sure abouth the reassemble though?


Anyway I can't say that orion in bullshit especialy compared to the space shuttle, this last one was completly out of NASA's league no offence it was to big and to costly and if it did anything then it was holding NASA's space development. Anyhow I still have a small hope that if the shuttle retire that they will launch it one final time with a cargo to transform it into a nuclear thermal rocket. So objects that have to be sent to the moon could only be launched in low orbit where the old shuttle transfers it to a near escape orbit and the fuel lessly aerobrackes or uses a large solar sail to get back in low orbit

 

In the words of Kenny Roger's The Gambler, You've got to know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em; know when to walk away, and know when to run.
The time for running from the badly designed, inadequately maintained, poorly supported, illogically conceived, politically motivated, ISS has long since passed. Consign it and the shuttle to dark attic where we place bad memories.

 

the ISS and the shuttle where the worst of the worst, well besides the russians former moon project.

 

Surface to Station is a lot less than Surface to Destination

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Space Shuttle was a grand idea that suffered from being a huge cost. The problem is, it is the only real heavy lift the world has- I think it can bring up loads of 100 tonnes. The next best is a Russian design that can heft 65 tonnes

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The Brits and Japanese have 15 tonne lift... not enough for the ISS by any stretch.

And yes, we can do the vaporization and travel part of teleportation... but the Heisenburg Uncertenty Principal is a bitch when re-assembling...

 

I think you are confused.

The first test flights of 'Enterprise' a non-fully functional Shuttle mock-up were conducted from the back of a Boeing 747. There was never any intention of launching a Shuttle this way. The test was solely to test the glide path control of the mockup.

 

Stupid. Stupid, stupid stupid. Carrying all the parts to orbit costs no less fuel in pieces or whole. Gravity is a conservative energy field!

Riiiiiight, so it takes less energy to launch a frikking space port and all the parts required to build spaceships, than a spaceship? Er, no, by far it doesn't.

Er, again, no. Star Trek is a camp space opera. NASA actually build space vehicles. See the difference? No, probably not.

 

What do you mean 'the', there isn't one.

 

Perhaps the only american one I believe that that the russian have some energya rockets that can lift more tons to outer space.

I agree that's why I talked abouth a shuttle mission where it would be launched normally and ones it enters orbit it would be stripped down (loose the wings and parts of the tale and perhaps part of the cone so only a mauvable platform is left. Then the last cargo containing a nuclear reactor is used to lift the entire platform and it's cargo to a high orbit with a thrust ratio at least 2 times higher then could be achieved with a chemical rocket... So basicly the shuttle would become a reusable nuclear upper stage rocket.

now that's not entirely true we had as much antimater to make a 50 watt lightbulb burn for a couple of minutes.... But then again we still have storage problems (aka we can't store the stuff for long or in any large conataties even on a microscopic level)... Still antimatter was only created in the '90 and is still basicly a by product so a plant especialy developed to make antimatter could proberly make 10 times as much... okay so the light bulb may burn for a hour the engine however is still not going to work anytime soon

 

Are you retarded? If not you are doing a good job at acting like it.

1) It is EASIER to launch a Deep Space Exploration Vessel from off-world than it is from the surface. Why? You don't need to burn 80% of your fuel JUST to escape Earths gravity! Conservative or not, build the spaceport. You now have a PERMANENT point of launch. Get the materials up there and you're good to go. You can also build much BIGGER ships as you don't have to worry about it surviving exit/reentry.

2) I never said it did. I said it took less to launch the SHIP from the STATION rather than the SHIP from the EARTH. Reading Comprehension- it's for the win!

3) NASA Vehicles are looking more and more "trekkie" as time goes on. Science is as well- teleportation, ElectroMagnetic shielding, Matter/AntiMatter reactions, these are all things MODERN CURRENT SCIENCE is looking at making possible. As there is no AIR in space, why build an AERODYNAMIC vehicle? Build a more economic one that is easier to service and fly! Duh.

 

Actually... we had enough antimatter to remove a small island from the face of the earth

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But who's counting particles?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's still possible that a shuttle could achieve stable orbit after been released off the back of a DC-10 at desired altitude?

 

the space shuttle couldn't unless it had booster rockets and a fuel tank. the on-board fuel tank in the shuttle is meant to give it just enough of a tiny kick to send it on a re-entry trajectory, and maybe a dab more for course correction. it is definetly not sufficient to get the shuttle to haul ass up to 8km/s orbital velocity.

honestly, NASA might have it right this time, with current technology, the cheapest way to get to orbit seems to be using cheap, disposable boosters. why rock the boat? untill we have the ability to make a low-maintenance, cheaper, reliable reusable vehicle system (maybe even an SSTO), this seems to be the best way to do things. much better than the cluster-fuck of a rocket system the shuttle is. i mean look at it: on launch, it's a clutter of boosters, tanks, and orbiter, not great drag charachteristics compared to a cylindrical rocket!

my question though is what would the re-entry method be? if the upper stage were reusable and landed on a runway, that could be a nice plus if they could make it cheap

 

There has to be a more efficient fuel system other than liquid gas!

 

This may very well apply to you. Here is why:
You say the following -

And tell me my fine, sarcastic friend, what about the energy to get the materials for the ship up there in the first place. [Not to mention the consumables to support construction team who assemble those materials into a vessel.] You really haven't thought this through. Phlogiston is correct and you are blowing hot air. Entertaining, yes, but not very educational.