Challenger disaster '86 and Black "successor-follow-on" after it!

More on the X-33 from Wiki, for the novice audience....

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

Construction of the prototype was some 85% assembled with 96% of the parts and the launch facility 100%[9] complete when the program was canceled by NASA in 2001, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight.

Continued research
After the cancellation in 2001, engineers were able to make a working liquid oxygen tank out of carbon fiber composite.[citation needed]
On September 7, 2004, Northrop Grumman and NASA engineers unveiled a liquid hydrogen tank made of carbon fiber composite material that had demonstrated the ability for repeated fuelings and simulated launch cycles.[8] Northrop Grumman concluded that these successful tests have enabled the development and refinement of new manufacturing processes that will allow the company to build large composite tanks without an autoclave; and design and engineering development of conformal fuel tanks appropriate for use on a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle.[13]


Is the X-37B a stealth version of the X-34?

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_Sciences_X-34


en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceplane

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

dig into copper canyon

if the rumors hold up digging ends with 0207424F recieving no funding in FY04...

originally posted by: humanoidlord
a reply to: mightmight

they have secret launch sites hidden deep in vastly unexplored places like the saahara desert

yeah and how would that work
Orbital launches are visible for hundreds of miles. Especially in desert. not to mention the logistical efforts...

Take your pick...
www.google.com.au... UICigB&biw=1366&bih=703#imgrc=t3naCTXM1W-M0M:

a reply to: face23785

It really had nothing to do with colonization.

Awww, I remember quite clearly the push behind a shuttle was to build a space station; a precursor to, a work platform to ferry between the earth and moon, with the eventual goal of building a moon base.

Shuttle was expensive alright, and complex. Over two million parts.

a reply to: EBJet

Thank you for your post. Its always good to see you post here.

a reply to: intrptr

A considered use for the space station was to use it as a waypoint for deep space missions. Whether you supply it with the shuttle or a conventional rocket doesn't really have any impact on whether that was feasible or not.

a reply to: mightmight

hint: there is an secret space program

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: intrptr

A considered use for the space station was to use it as a waypoint for deep space missions. Whether you supply it with the shuttle or a conventional rocket doesn't really have any impact on whether that was feasible or not.

As I understood it, the shuttle was to be used to shuttle moon base fixtures to the moon, too. The space station was to be a staging factory kind of facility, shuttle 'fleets' would bring materials to the station, they would be assembled and then ferried to the moon.

The idea being it was much easer to final assemble moon base parts in orbit, less costly than assembling them on earth and shuttling them all the way to the moon.

This is a stepping stone method, used by explorers climbing mountains by establishing chains of base camps to reach a summit.

The movie 2001 had this pie in the sky development well under way. It is logical, Arthur C. Clark was a well respected and highly intelligent engineer. He invented the idea of global communications satellite network. His book 2001 was supposed to be a blueprint, with a little sci-fi in the mix.

a reply to: intrptr

And it's a damn shame that we decided to spend our tax money elsewhere from the late 60s onward.

Seeing they had a tonne of stuff worked out then and into the 70,s you would almost think it was some sort of conspiracy to stop us moving further into space.Maybe this?

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

originally posted by: Barnalby
a reply to: intrptr

And it's a damn shame that we decided to spend our tax money elsewhere from the late 60s onward.

yah, war is much more profitable.

There is no longer a 'space race'.

Theres no real point to living there either. Vacuum and lifeless planets are extremely hostile to life.

Thats part of the reason they stopped all the moon missions and discontinued the shuttle. Manned missions are a waste of time.

Probes, robotic landers and space telescopes are cheaper, more purposeful.

Simple occupying space is not.

originally posted by: intrptr

yah, war is much more profitable.

There is no longer a 'space race'.

Theres no real point to living there either. Vacuum and lifeless planets are extremely hostile to life.

Thats part of the reason they stopped all the moon missions and discontinued the shuttle. Manned missions are a waste of time.

Probes, robotic landers and space telescopes are cheaper, more purposeful.

Simple occupying space is not.

Probably a bit of truth in that.
There's a few stories about "secret" tasks undertaken by select individuals during conventional NASA missions that cast further doubt on any secret ability to access space - due to their (unintentionally) comedic nature.

Saying that...the idea of building a re-useable airship to ferry stuff up to near space, detach, then accelerating the article to an orbital velocity does have its merits and MUST have been seriously considered at some point in the past for surreptitious activities.

Only thing i can see anyone gaining anything from space is resources..

a reply to: Jukiodone

There's a few stories about "secret" tasks undertaken by select individuals during conventional NASA missions that cast further doubt on any secret ability to access space - due to their (unintentionally) comedic nature.

I always wondered what the shuttle cargo bay had in it when it came back. The maneuverability, robot arm and huge cargo bay, would be a wasted trip if they didn't 'capture' something for return.

Same with the newer X-37B. The 'officlal' narrative doesn't mention return 'cargo' either.

popular mechanics

a reply to: anzha

Are you joking, anzha? Aircraft enthusiasts using this forum for personal discoveries and to find answers to questions they have. Everyone has own opinion. IMO better idea is to do something instead of sitting and waiting... The OP post and all thread is about the system that probably flew after Challenger disaster in 1986. We have many hints dropped by other member(s) so it's not pure fantasy.

a reply to: intrptr

That may have been considered at some point but its final design wasn't capable of going to the moon.

Edit: Admittedly I haven't done the math myself, but I've heard numerous astronomers and astrophysicists over the years claim that the space shuttle isn't capable of flying to the moon. Perhaps it could have been modified to do so.

If we really wanted to go back to the moon, we shouldn't have canceled the Constellation program. But that's a whole other discussion about whether its worth the money or not. Personally I think we should at least have retained our own orbital launch capability so we weren't relying on the Russians to launch our satellites.

a reply to: face23785

That may have been considered at some point but its final design wasn't capable of going to the moon.

They envisioned adapting it. There was one that had seating for 'routine work crews'.

The name 'Shuttle' implies just that. But you're right, not a moon lander. I think the moon basses were to be proceeded by moon space stations, too. The shuttle was to move between earth and moon orbiting space stations.

Mostly ideological. Waaay too expensive a), and b), they always talk about the future when they want money for xyz project.

As usual, the funding question arises: whats the ultimate goal?

The Moon, Jupiter and beyond infinity, in stages.

a reply to: intrptr

I do have to disagree with you on the merits of exploration. It's not a complete waste of money to try to spread out. For the long-term survival of our species, we have to get off this planet eventually. I'm not talking about sci-fi like there's gonna be an alien virus or a zombie apocalypse. There are realistic threats that are unlikely but become pretty much a certainty over long time scales. Eventually, a large enough asteroid or comet will strike our planet to cause our extinction. Gamma ray bursts are a real possibility, and we have no way to know they're coming ahead of time. And eventually the sun is just going to get hot enough to bake us to death. So there are practical reasons for pursuing colonization.

A colony on the moon or Mars would be a good place to start, and continue to advance our techniques and technology so we could move further out. It's not like we can wait until we find out there's a comet coming that's large enought to cause our extinction to decide we want to develop the technology to colonize space. That will take a long time, and the sooner we start the sooner we will get there.

a reply to: intrptr

If it works in Kerbal Space Program, it should work IRL.

Although I chose to build my fuel transfer station orbiting minmus since the lower gravity was more conducive to easy flights by my fuel transfer vehicles from the mobile extractors and refinery vehicles to the station.

Too bad earth doesn't have a small, icy outer moon.

a reply to: face23785

I do have to disagree with you on the merits of exploration. It's not a complete waste of money to try to spread out. For the long-term survival of our species, we have to get off this planet eventually. I'm not talking about sci-fi like there's gonna be an alien virus or a zombie apocalypse.

"We have to get off this planet eventually".

We do, when we 'pass' away.

I know thats not very scientificum and yet, it is.