The Space Shuttle's Replacements July 2011 and beyond.........

Hello All

Thought I'd post this information as I was unaware of all the various types NASA have been funding and are trialling....

With the exit of the space shuttle there is now a gaping hole and a dependance on a foriegn country to enable space transit and access to the ISS....

Have a look through and see what you think..........

www.bbc.co.uk...

The ideas are

CST-100, Boeing - Dragon, SpaceX - Dream Chaser, Sierra Nevada Corp -
MPCV, Nasa/LockheedMartin - Space vehicle, Blue Origin

Each on has a 'tab' and further information from the intial landing page.........

Cheers

PDUK

Looking more and more like flying sourcers to me lol

funny coincidence?

reply to post by Flying Sorcerer


Your right............ the last one from Blue Orign actually lands vertically like you would expect a UFO from a 60's B movie to do.........

Can't help thinking that they all seem a little bit of a compromise compared to the shuttle..

PDUK

reply to post by PurpleDog UK


There is no way America have left themself in the hands of an other country.They must have a replacement,they just havent told us.
Would'nt be suprised if it was tiangular with a light on each corner,does'nt make a sound and can break the laws of gravity and aerodynamics.

Originally posted by Flying Sorcerer
Looking more and more like flying sourcers to me lol

funny coincidence?

All of them except the Dream Chaser and Blue Origin Space vehicle look similar to a larger version of the Apollo Command Module from the 1960s. These are basically the spacecraft that will be launched into orbit, the actual launcher will likely be the Atlas V.

Under the agreement NASA will try to adopt the ULA's Atlas V commercial rocket to send astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS).
"Having ULA on board may speed the development of a commercial crew transportation system for the ISS, allowing NASA to concentrate its resources on exploring beyond low Earth orbit," said NASA administrator Charles Bolden.

Read more: www.news.com.au... 3998#ixzz1SdeGScu5

space elevator research urgently needed looking at these people carriers!

Interesting though that commercial transport finally is the only solution 40 years after the moon landing.

The Space Shuttle if nothing else taught us that the command module and payload should be two separate detachable rocket stages for better economical lifting bodies to orbit and beyond. I mean, NASA had a big successful series in Apollo to follow up from, no wonder economics took a back seat. How do you top Apollo? Build an excessively large craft that lands like a plane, that's how.

Luxury and space will have to wait a long time now the big birds are retired.

reply to post by C0bzz


I think NASA still likes the huge solid rocket boosters ala Titan IV and beyond. I know Space X prefers to bunch about 20 or more conventional liquid fuel rockets in assembly line production it claims to drastically cut the cost per tonnage of payload.

reply to post by PurpleDog UK

Can't help thinking that they all seem a little bit of a compromise compared to the shuttle..

More like the other way around. Shuttle was a compromise between crew and cargo vehicle. The end result was that both of these roles were not done optimally. These new vehicles should be much cheaper per seat than shuttle, and also safer. And if the SLS flies, it will have more than four times the cargo capacity of shuttle despite being in the same league (100 tons to LEO).

Also the new plans for command modules include occupant ejection systems, probably similar to Apollo's, not possible for the Space Shuttle, well, (reasonable cost functionally possible).

reply to post by Illustronic


The Atlas 5 configuration most likely to be used to launch people into space, will not have any solid rocket boosters but will rather use kerosene and liquid oxygen. Interestingly the rocket engines used in the first stage will be Russian RD-180s.

Originally posted by marvinthemartian
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

 

There is no way America have left themself in the hands of an other country.They must have a replacement,they just havent told us.
Would'nt be suprised if it was tiangular with a light on each corner,does'nt make a sound and can break the laws of gravity and aerodynamics.

Your faith in government's ability to make sensible decisions far exceeds my own.

It's quaint, in a "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" kind of way...

Its is a pitty they cannot take the idea from The Dawn spacecraft returns, which is Ion technology on it, why cant they use that for future craft which go into space.

I agree with Illustronic. Payload and crew don't mix. The Space Shuttle has been a design failure from the beginning. I wonder why it took so long to scrap it. I mean the orbiter is about 70,000 kg empty(dead weight). Just to have a comparison, the Soyuz spacecraft is about 7000 kg with 3000 kg for the reentry module. In orbital flight it is all about the weight.

Originally posted by PurpleDog UK
Hello All

Thought I'd post this information as I was unaware of all the various types NASA have been funding and are trialling....

With the exit of the space shuttle there is now a gaping hole and a dependance on a foriegn country to enable space transit and access to the ISS....

Have a look through and see what you think..........

www.bbc.co.uk...

The ideas are

CST-100, Boeing - Dragon, SpaceX - Dream Chaser, Sierra Nevada Corp -
MPCV, Nasa/LockheedMartin - Space vehicle, Blue Origin

Each on has a 'tab' and further information from the intial landing page.........

Cheers

PDUK

I would like to hope that within those projects and names is hidden the magical triangle craft that have been witnessed, radar-tracked and photographed. Since they are seen virtually all over the US, UK and OZ, they obviously are not prototypes but are operational.

They cannot be denied, so they are ignored.

Why havent they built the ships from Battlestar Galactica yet?

The seemed pretty efficeint..

It's not the end. Different sides and points of view will paint a picture. But the important thing is that we're still moving ahead. Progress won't stop because shuttles stopped flying.

Paint your own picture. It's more rewarding when you do it yourself.

No one can kill the spirit to explore, to build, to learn, to grow, and so on. Nobody.

reply to post by C0bzz



Since I'm not allowed to post since I have less than 20 posts, I have a question for you guys. I read on another board several years ago, that if one would happen to get the chance to get into space, you would only be able to see with the naked eye, the Sun, Moon, Earth, and total blackness. You would not be able to see the stars like we can when we're on the ground because the Earth's atmosphere acts as a telescoptic lens which allows us to see the other heavenly bodies at night. Is this correct and if so, do you think that the night sky is just an "illusion" anyway?

Thanks guys and gals!

Originally posted by marvinthemartian
reply to post by PurpleDog UK

 

There is no way America have left themself in the hands of an other country.They must have a replacement,they just havent told us.
Would'nt be suprised if it was tiangular with a light on each corner,does'nt make a sound and can break the laws of gravity and aerodynamics.

Yes, but NASA doesn't have the guts/brains to use Navy Space Command technology. That would require grasping quantum-field physics propulsion. And that's not 'rocket science' - it's far beyond it, and NASA.

Thankyou for the replies so far.........

I think from the '5' five options, I know which one looks the most sexy and futuristic....... however the Blue Origin one might have some benefits the others cannot match......... if it is true....

I do not think that NASA or the USA will ever reveal a Black Triangle 'ship?'....... at best It is probably just a stealth recon platform and no more..then again they said the earth was flat once upon a time ......

Regards

PDUK