It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Could you design a better spacecraft?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:29 PM
link   
Given the recent delay of the aging shuttle, I was wondering if any of you guys had any ideas on the creation of a newer spacecraft that incorporates the lastest technologies? I just thought it would be interesting to get a think-tank going!

Ok I will start first. They mothballed the X-33 back in 2001 after years of development and a design that was 85% complete because of a design flaw with the composite tanks, I believe we should go back and examine the design of the tanks. The tanks could possibly be used now if carbon nanotubes were incorporated into them.

Thats my first suggestion.

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Sigma]




posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Latest again?
Lets go back to tested and proven technologies that sent the USA to the moon, enough of this "Spaceplane" BS, Orbiters should not have wings of any sort! A Parashute is reliable and safe, maybe even more so due to the fact that less surface area would be in need for heat shielding. Make all other parts of the shuttle that were disposable into re-usable parts. We need to drive cost's down not up, for Spacecraft use all the whizzbang new tech. For our launcher we need Reliablility, Cost Effective and Safety all in one. The simpler solution is usually the better solution.



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 07:47 PM
link   
Ok scrap the spaceplane idea and go with the more tried and true apollo-style capsule concept... hmmm... sounds like a good idea. Payloads should be sent up via a seperate launcher or maybe a sledlauncher... and assembled in orbit. Any larger ship should be assembled in orbit. Simple, but effective!

I like this keep it up... next!

[edit on 13-7-2005 by Sigma]



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 08:36 PM
link   
I'd like to see some investment in R&D for a space elevator. If developed it would lower the cost per pound dramatically.

www.spaceelevator.com...



posted on Jul, 13 2005 @ 09:44 PM
link   
Google "transformational space" and see what Rutan has come up with.
Very sensable!



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:06 AM
link   
getting rid of the "wings" is a great idea

the best shape i know of aerodynamically is the "Raindrop"

so lets build a "UFO" type craft that has this "raindrop" shape

did anyone ever see that movie 'flight of the navigator' lol

its just an idea
im not an engineer so i dont have any clue how it would work thats for the engineers to figure out



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:11 AM
link   
We all know that the best spacecraft are engineered using light, anti-matter and wormholes.

Start thinking out of the box, earthlings!



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
You are right about the box, but sometimes you have to learn the box you are in so you can get out.

As of yet we have no means of "FTL" transportation, nor anti-gravity or even gravity manipulation, so our best bet at the moment is to use innovative concepts based in known concepts in order to get into space. Once we are in space we can concentrate on how to get around the solar system, galaxy and universe.

Realist05- Excellent site! I think I heard about them a long time ago but I forgot about them, thanks for reminding me! I have to say they have one of the best laid out plans I have seen in awhile.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:13 AM
link   
The wings on spacecraft are there for ease of launch and reentry from the atmosphere supposedly. we should look forward not backward for better ideas



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   
The wings are also there not only to create more surface area for deceleration, but to enable it to glide its way down to the surface for landing and reuse - Wouldn't trust a capsule with a parachute after seeing how those babys impact.

Sky Hooks would be the best option:



Oh wait, sorry - wrong Sky Hooks!



Ah, there we go! Thats better.

More info:
science.nasa.gov...



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:06 AM
link   
Wings don't make sense if you have to deploy a parafoil to land anyway, which is what the Lockheed and Klipper concepts include.
Speaking of chutes, there's a concept out there for a hypersonic one to slow re-entry vehicles to speeds under 2000 degrees, saving a lot of weight in protective tile / ablative shields. I'll see if I can come up with a link.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 06:35 AM
link   
If it's true that NASA was buying old computer parts from Ebay, then yeah, I could design a better spacecraft.



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Oswald
If it's true that NASA was buying old computer parts from Ebay, then yeah, I could design a better spacecraft.


I haven't heared that one! Where did you hear that?



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 10:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
The wings on spacecraft are there for ease of launch and reentry from the atmosphere supposedly. we should look forward not backward for better ideas


They are not necessary though, it's just added payload which leads to less stuff/people we can send up there. Wings are definetaly a plus but a superflous plus at that.

And No one has died due to re-entry of this tried and true method. Of course it would not be for the tourists
They would want to have as confortable a flight as possible Astronaughts really need to get back to "the right stuff" mentality.

Remove the points of failure by making the whole craft simpler.

[edit on 14-7-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Jul, 14 2005 @ 12:14 PM
link   
travelling on a laser? works for bombs from fighter jets...i remember thinking ages ago that it would be a good way to have wheeless cars traveling off ground..what do i know, only got a C in science



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 12:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ekul08

Originally posted by Oswald
If it's true that NASA was buying old computer parts from Ebay, then yeah, I could design a better spacecraft.


I haven't heared that one! Where did you hear that?


Take it with a grain of salt, it came from Fox News, the early show. They were discussing the lift off and whatnot of the upcoming shuttle mission and they claimed that NASA was shopping Ebay for computer parts that are no longer manufactuered.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 01:16 AM
link   
Oswald this wouldn't surprise me in the least... the shuttle uses old 386 or 486 computers (fairly sure this is right, however I know for sure they are old). Before you all go mental on this you need to keep in mind one thing. In space there is no atmosphere to slow down stray particles which can whiz into a chip at the wrong time either destroying it or causing a one to be a zero or vice versa...

Now imagine this happens while calculating a reentry burn where the difference between skipping off the atmosphere and never making it back or converselly coming in too steep and being a shooting star some goatherder in mongolia wishes on as you burn up on your way down. Ok now that those two utterly pleasant scenarios are fixed in your mind think about this... the older chip's transistors are further apart thereby making a "lucky shot" from a stray particle less likelly. They are also easier to harden with additional protection.

This is why the space shuttle uses computers from the day when good graphics were 256 colors and non polygon environments.

Apologies for going off topic and I do hope to post some ideas about the future of space travel in the near future. However I just thought I would clear this up for those who have questions.



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 06:55 AM
link   
That is why instead of using a electron-based processor, you go with a optoelectronic processor like one developed by lenslet and use fiberoptic interconnects to shuttle the data.



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Oh, I would tend to believe it as well, but thought it was somewhat funny to hear NASA was using the federal Ebay account to buy parts. Considering when the shuttles were built using "current technology" I am sure parts for 386 and 486s are becoming more difficult to obtain. Guess we should be thankful that the shuttle is not Windows based....phew! BSOD on re-entry....



posted on Jul, 16 2005 @ 04:23 AM
link   
I think NASA should use 2 different kinds of spacecraft
1. traditional shuttlelike with wings but all parts reusable and much smaller (10-15% of shuttle size). This spacecraft would be used for transport of astronauts, space tourists or small amount of supplies (2.5-3 tons) to the low orbit. Simply it would be used when speed is more necessary than cost.

2. Heavy lift with 2 reusable stages (without wings). The first stage is traditional reusable rocket (with parachute) for the 1st phase of flight it is used up to 100-150km alttitide.. The second stage has ion engines (much lighter so you don't need the tons of fuel) for space traveling. The ion engines also give it grater flexibility in space (they can work for long time). Of course it would be slow so it should transport only cargo, not humans. payload should be 35-50 tons. This stage would be reusable too with parachute. Both stages should land in water and they will be recovered by giant airships (cheap and fast).

[edit on 16-7-2005 by longbow]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join