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.

 

What do you think of the New Space Shuttle, should we invest more so we can have it by 2011?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:06 PM
link   
www.cnn.com...

Looks pretty cool to me. How could any senator turn this down?(Especially after all of the stuff they've passed!)

Is this design the most viable option we have right now?

Personally, I'm frustrated we are still using Rockets, for its propulsion, if you have any ideas for other options on what should propel it other than a rocket please add your opinion here.

www.cnn.com...

With the current Space Shuttle going into retirement in the next few years we will need something, we don't want to have to hitch a ride with our communist friends I guess?

My question is should we build it and is this the best Space Shuttle we can build right now?

MOD EDIT: Slight title fix.

[edit on 4/30/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]




posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:23 PM
link   
You're right, we do need ships that can take off and fly through the atmosphere into space without the assistance of rockets. But guess what, there is no country nor government with the motivation to achieve accomplishments that so many people are calling for but will never see the light of day.

We have no choice but to take matters into our own hands. Eventually, companies will step up to the plate and leave stubborn legislature bogged-down nations in the dust.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:50 PM
link   
It looks like Apollo on a stick. Antiquated.

Space elevator. Enough of this schoolboy nonsense with rockets. Time to build the elevator.

You won't need a CEV for that.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:28 AM
link   
Good Insight Asty,

Does anyone have some of the figures on what a space elevator would cost compared to the new shuttle?

www.space.com...

On this site it says that the initial work needed for the Space Elevator "could cost as low as 5 billon."

How much are we investing in the new Shuttle, I'm guessing 2-3 billion?


The space elevator does seem like it could be a viable and affordable option to the space shuttle. Although both systems eventually end up in space they do have a different approach. As long as it is relatively affordable, reliable, and fast we should pursue it.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:59 AM
link   
ugh.. NASA are going backwards.

Basically, the more complex the takeoff and landing proceedures are, the more things can go wrong, not only does this present MORE wastage than the oridinary rocket powered shuttle launch, but it requires a link up in orbit of the 2 modules, which increases the risk of accidents..

you're telling me the brightest scientists in the country have been thinking about the next shuttle for a decade or so and this is the best they could do? gimme a break.. private companies.. you guys are in for a winner.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:13 AM
link   
Seeher, what do you think the next space shuttle should consist of? Such as what should propel it and what should it look like?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
Space elevator. Enough of this schoolboy nonsense with rockets. Time to build the elevator.

You won't need a CEV for that.


We're doing research on building a space elevator, but the ability to actually build one probably won't be available until 20-30 years from now, due to technological limitations. So until the very day we have one built, we'll still be using rockets.

Also, a space elevator would only lift things into orbit. The CEV would still be needed to go elsewhere in the Solar System.



Originally posted by Seether
you're telling me the brightest scientists in the country have been thinking about the next shuttle for a decade or so and this is the best they could do? gimme a break.. private companies.. you guys are in for a winner.


I think it's unfair to blame the research scientists. They need that amount of time to come up with something that fits within the budget and restrictions that all of the beaurocrats put on the scientists.

[edit on 5/1/2006 by cmdrkeenkid]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:52 AM
link   
won't there be longer space elevators if one wants to leave orbit as well?

Whats keeping that vehicle on the elevator from having another form of propulsion to help it leave orbit?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 01:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Low Orbit
won't there be longer space elevators if one wants to leave orbit as well?


No. Far, far, far too impractical.



Whats keeping that vehicle on the elevator from having another form of propulsion to help it leave orbit?


Nothing. That's just about the only way you would be able to leave orbit once something has been brough up by a space elevator.


jra

posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seether
ugh.. NASA are going backwards.


How so?


Basically, the more complex the takeoff and landing proceedures are, the more things can go wrong, not only does this present MORE wastage than the oridinary rocket powered shuttle launch, but it requires a link up in orbit of the 2 modules, which increases the risk of accidents..


The takeoff and landing isn't any more complex then Apollo or Soyuz capsules. It's also a lot safer having the crew sitting at the top rather than on the side like the Shuttle. It won't matter if ice or foam falls off the sides. It's also easier for the capsule to eject off the top in case something goes bad. Which could not be done on the Shuttle.

In what way does it present more wastage? Is it because more fuel is used for two launches? Or because you think that the rockets won't be reusable? Seeing as how both the cargo and crew rockets use the SRB's (Solid Rocket Boosters) from the Shuttle which are reusable. I don't see their being much more waste compaired to the Shuttle.

capsules, shuttles and stations have been docking together for the past 30 years. I don't see how having crew capsule dock with the cargo in orbit makes it more dangerous then anything else.


you're telling me the brightest scientists in the country have been thinking about the next shuttle for a decade or so and this is the best they could do? gimme a break.. private companies.. you guys are in for a winner.


Technically this wouldn't be a shuttle. The CEV would be used in LEO, but it would also be used to go to the moon. A winged orbiter, like the shuttle, is not a practical vehicle to go to the moon in. There is too much useless weight added by the wings, tail, the 3 SSME's etc.

Using a design somewhat similar to Apollo is not a step backwards nor a primative design. Apollo was a practical and efficiently designed space craft. The physics of space flight have not changed since the 60's, so it's still just as practical today. But now we have stronger and lighter materials, better rockets, better and faster computers.

As for your 'private companies' remark. I assume your implying that they should be building spaceships? Who do you think built think built and designed Apollo and the Saturn rockets or the Shuttle and its rockets? It wasn't NASA. They just contracted the work to private companies, like Boeing, Lockheed, Grumman, Rockwell etc. NASA just tells them what they need, the contracted companies figure out how to do it.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   
Well I was under the impression that we were looking into a shuttle capable of taking off and landing under its own power to reduce rocket costs and wastage, I thought that was the direction Nasa was always goin it, hence why I think this is a step backwards.

My idea of the next generation shuttle would be something similar to the one that won the X Prize. A Sub-Orbital carrier, built with the style technique most high altitude plains use, which would fly the shuttle up to the edge of ther atmosphere, then have the shuttle launch from that, it would need an engine that can give it a fast burst for immediate acceleration, then cut them off and use an Ion drive to sustain speed.

For landing on the moon, a capsule could still be used. Landing back to earth can be done as the shuttle does, starting from scratch and given time, I'm sure a more advance heat shield could be arranged, especially if the shuttle is redesigned smaller and more streamlined with the shield in mind.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seether
... it would need an engine that can give it a fast burst for immediate acceleration, then cut them off and use an Ion drive to sustain speed.


Huh? That doesn't make any sense. Pretty much once you're there, you're there. You would need a boost to maintain altitude every so often for a longer mission, but an ion engine wouldn't be practical at all for this. You'd be better off just using small chemical rockets as thrusters like we have been doing for years.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 11:52 AM
link   
I think we should just build the exploration ship in space in orbit on a much grander scale.

Build it like we do modern day Aircraft carrier's or submarines were it can hold many many people and other vehicles.

Like Star Trek or Battle Star Galactica. Now I am not saying we will have all the warp engines and such but it could be build so that you can improve things on it such as the engines as technology progresses.

This ship would be used to spend years in space exploring lots of the solar system instead of a one shot deal to mars you could explore all of the moon, mars and its moons at once then move on to the asteroid field from there etc...

It will cost more in the long run to one shot ourselves out there than just doing it right and building a real space ship like earth ships that travel the oceans.

I would spend 100 or more billion on it and do it right and move humans into real space exploration and colonization.

This ship would never enter a planet. Small ships and robots would do all that from the mother ship.

Wastefull to send a one shot ship with 6 people with limited means to mars.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 12:21 PM
link   
Novel Approach Xeven! Besides being expensive to construct in orbit, once it leaves our atmosphere would a ship that size suffer much from its larger weight and mass?

What I am getting at is,.. are weight and mass factors in Space, is there friction, and so does it matter the size that we build it?



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Let me weigh in on this one.
No.
High orbit spaceyards, let alone the materials to protect astronauts from radiation while outside Earth's magnetic field, are at least two or three (Human, not technological) generations away. The way I could see it happening is building a space elevator a few decades down the line, lifting ships to low orbit, where they would blast off with an overall savings in fuel used.
Succinctly, mass and shape are not factors in space, where you'll find a handful of atoms per cubic yard. Those X-Wings in star wars? Yeah. They don't really have to fold their wings in when they hyperspace. Just looks cool. Resistance doesn't matter. What DOES matter is cost. Believe me, to build a ship in space, let alone getting the infrastructure in place, would cost multiples of $100 B. The CEV system is a throwback, a throwback to an efficient, proven system that got us to the moon and back.
For the last time, Ion drives are sllllloooooowwwwww to get up to speed.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
the good doctor, what do you think about an anti-matter or nuclear as a source of power in the upcoming decades to propel a shuttle?



[edit on 1-5-2006 by Low Orbit]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:27 PM
link   
I have a few reservations about nuclear power fueled space flight, but I recognize that we are not sending up Chernobyles or Fat Mans into the stratosphere. That is to say, we should not throw away as potentially valuable a technology as nuclear propulsion just because of some knee-jerk reactionaries . We shhould also be patient with it, and the recent New Horizons probe that was launched towards Pluto and the Kuiper belt is an excellent stepping stone testbed.

Anti-matter has the potential to create vast amounts of energy for propulsion (And power generation, for that matter). The big hurdle for that one is to create enough of the stuff. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but we are only creating milligrams a year in research labs. As soon as it becomes economical, I'd hope the stuff went to propulsion rather than warheads. That, however, is as much knowledge I have on anti-matter, and I'll wisely step down off my little soap box.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 08:50 PM
link   
Ion drives are slow yes, hence why I said the initial acceleration would need to be fast, the Ion drive would be used for course corrections and sustained propulsion when needed to conserve fuel and subsequently, space on the craft.

A space elevator is a brilliant idea actually.. it sounds just what we need.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Low Orbit
won't there be longer space elevators if one wants to leave orbit as well?

No. Far, far, far too impractical.

Impossible rather than impractical.

The top of the elevator would have to be in geosynchronous orbit -- an orbit whose period is exactly one day -- to keep it exactly over the same spot on earth at all times. Since orbital period is a function of orbital radius (distance from the centre of the earth), there is only a particular height (23,500 miles, if I remember correctly) from which the elevator can be lowered to earth. The top cannot be higher or lower than this or the elevator will tear itself to pieces.

The correct method, as discussed in some more recent posts, would be to use the elevator to lift the components of an interplanetary craft into orbit where it could be assembled, loaded and powered up. As for drives for the interplanetary ship, you could use whatever you wanted to -- nuclear, plasma, solar sail or anything else -- since you would no longer need great blasts of power to haul yourself out of Earth's gravity well. The elevator will have done that for you.

Of course, you'll need rockets to build the space elevator, but Soyuz would probably work reasonably well for that.



posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:13 AM
link   
so what do you think asty, should we build the new shuttle early or should we redirect our resources at designing and building a space elevator?




top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join