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.

 

Cutting Edge NASA Engineers Reveal Radical New Rocket Design

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 11:55 AM
link   
Cutting edge NASA engineers reveal a new milestone in rocket design!


CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida, Sep. 10, 2008 (Reuters) — NASA on Wednesday cleared the launch system being developed to replace the space shuttle for a detailed design review, confident the Ares rocket will meet technical, safety and budget requirements.


It even has the capability of going to the Moon!


The new rockets are being designed to carry a capsule-style spacecraft called Orion, which can fly to the moon as well as to the space station in low-Earth orbit.


source

My editorial opinion:

We can safely conclude that plans are afoot to design and build a new lunar lander to further Lunar exploration. Will it also incorporate radical new design changes from the old LEM like Ares does for the space shuttle?




posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 12:45 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 

Milestone, maybe, radical, don't think so. It's still a chemical rocket.

It's simply an improvement on the design of the J-2 engine which powered the old Saturn V:

Wiki - J-2 X rocket

Not to say yours isn't a worthy post - it is. Just remarking on the comments by NASA for a design that isn't even built, yet.

You think, given a Moon landing in the late 60s that by 2015 (the scheduled launch date) we'd have something better then chemical rockets, powered by liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen (LOX, LH2), don't you think?


2 cents.


[edit on 6/10/2008 by Badge01]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Badge01
 




O-K, I'll concede "radical" may be too strong a word. I could have said their engineers were "off the hook", but that would have been bordering on sarcastic.

So let's say, a "modest milestone"? Still, plugging in descriptors seems oxymoronic.

My intention is to bring attention to NASA's seriousness about going back to the Moon. If it is just a bunch of rocks that we have had no interest in for ~40 years, why all of a sudden this kind of push? Surely Lunar orbit can be interpreted as a push.

What is this? Could we call it a "new and improved" lander, as opposed to, say, a "radical new design"?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Badge01You think, given a Moon landing in the late 60s that by 2015 (the scheduled launch date) we'd have something better then chemical rockets...


Lordy, you are right!

I just remembered one. I posted it here.

Seems to make a lot more sense to me...

edit to fix link

[edit on 10/6/2008 by Matyas]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 

Well, again, my comments are not directed to you, your adjectives or your thoughts on this in the least.

NASA is touting this as a new design, istm, which it is not.

I just have to marvel that are they still designing ships around chemical rockets after nearly 50 years. The design, itself, is not safe. LOX and LH2 is probably the most explosive mixture you can use as a propellant.

I would -not- want to be an astronaut sitting on top of that.

I'd have hoped, by now, they'd have had a robust space station design up and be using ionic propulsion to get to the Moon from there, not launching from the Earth, fercryinoutloud.


2 cents.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas

My intention is to bring attention to NASA's seriousness about going back to the Moon. If it is just a bunch of rocks that we have had no interest in for ~40 years, why all of a sudden this kind of push?


Well, perhaps because of Helium 3? This is from an article in "Technology Review" in 2007:


At the 21st century's start, few would have predicted that by 2007, a second race for the moon would be under way. Yet the signs are that this is now the case. Furthermore, in today's moon race, unlike the one that took place between the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the 1960s, a full roster of 21st-century global powers, including China and India, are competing.
Even more surprising is that one reason for much of the interest appears to be plans to mine helium-3--purportedly an ideal fuel for fusion reactors but almost unavailable on Earth--from the moon's surface. NASA's Vision for Space Exploration has U.S. astronauts scheduled to be back on the moon in 2020 and permanently staffing a base there by 2024. While the U.S. space agency has neither announced nor denied any desire to mine helium-3, it has nevertheless placed advocates of mining He3 in influential positions. For its part, Russia claims that the aim of any lunar program of its own--for what it's worth, the rocket corporation Energia recently started blustering, Soviet-style, that it will build a permanent moon base by 2015-2020--will be extracting He3.
The Chinese, too, apparently believe that helium-3 from the moon can enable fusion plants on Earth. This fall, the People's Republic expects to orbit a satellite around the moon and then land an unmanned vehicle there in 2011.


Link to article:
www.technologyreview.com...

If you want to learn more about Helium 3:
en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
We can safely conclude that plans are afoot to design and build a new lunar lander to further Lunar exploration. Will it also incorporate radical new design changes from the old LEM like Ares does for the space shuttle?


Yeah, it's called Altair.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by nataylor]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 08:50 PM
link   
3He you say?

Why when there is this?

Looks like it doesn't need 3He to me! Boron 11 can do just fine.

edit to strengthen argument for boron

[edit on 10/6/2008 by Matyas]



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 09:07 PM
link   
The Constellation Project was announced some time ago. Basically it's a modern version of Apollo able to carry 6 astronauts. The new technology allows all 6 to go down to the lunar surface while the Orion command module remains in orbit unmanned, hence the necessary upgrade for the lander. The Orion is launched on a modified solid rocket booster called the Ares I, while the cargo, such as the lander, is launched on a rocket very simular to the Saturn V called the Ares V.

Official Site.



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:04 PM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


Well, whaddya know! It DOES look like Apollo!

They even have the "splashdown" concept, and a new hardbounce on the ground!

Well, it must mean they are really aching to get back, a sure bet to use the tried and proven methods!

So what is it about 3He that makes it so superior to any other fusion reaction? Or could it just be a ruse to fleece the American public of a few trillion more?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
reply to post by nataylor
 


I knew it!

A hatch is surely a novel concept. Why didn't the original LEMs have one?



posted on Oct, 6 2008 @ 10:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Matyas
 


Not so much superior, but can be found in sufficient quantities on the lunar surface to be used as a power source for a lunar base, thus negating the need to supply the base with a fuel source from Earth, making the base more self sufficient.

ED- Source.

[edit on 6-10-2008 by JaxonRoberts]



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   
reply to post by JaxonRoberts
 


O-k, perhaps so, but your Wiki reference leaves this at the end:


...these systems would scale well enough that their proponents tend to promote p-B fusion, which requires no exotic fuels like He-3.


Which I think is cool.

So assuming your statement is correct, then the 3He source would be in sutu, but according to Harrison H. Schmitt's book, is ultimately intended for Earth?


I would be surprised if we saw any of it. Better stake your claim while you can!



posted on Oct, 7 2008 @ 09:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Matyas
A hatch is surely a novel concept. Why didn't the original LEMs have one?
Well, in Apollo, both the astronauts went out for EVAs on the surface at the same time, so they could just depressurize the whole lander. With Altair, there will be 4 astronauts in the lander, and they may not all want to go out at the same time. So a hatch is necessary to allow some people to stay in the lander. Also, a hatch adds to the size of the vehicle. The Altair is much larger than the LEM.




top topics



 
0

log in

join