Taking additional time for the team to conduct full inspections and cleanings due to detection of particles in 2nd stage fuel system. Now targeting CRS-13 launch from SLC-40 on Dec. 15. Next launch opportunity would be no earlier than late December.
Is this good? Its reusable so that's obviously good in cutting costs but, I dunno, I still miss the Space Shuttle. Such a beautiful machine.
Just seems like we've gone so backwards in technology since all the rockets we have now (public and private) are mostly just like the stuff we had back in the 60's, whereas the Shuttle was a true orbital vehicle capable of flight (well, gliding) in the atmosphere to a landing like a plane. Why can't we just build a new Space Shuttle?
Is this good? Its reusable so that's obviously good in cutting costs but, I dunno, I still miss the Space Shuttle. Such a beautiful machine.
Just seems like we've gone so backwards in technology since all the rockets we have now (public and private) are mostly just like the stuff we had back in the 60's, whereas the Shuttle was a true orbital vehicle capable of flight (well, gliding) in the atmosphere to a landing like a plane. Why can't we just build a new Space Shuttle?
The problem with the shuttle was the inspections and maintenance after flights were so expensive - and ended in disaster twice, though I do wonder if that's a better or worse rate than single-use vehicles - that single-use rockets would have cost similar amounts.
Really though chemical rockets don't have but so much left to innovate. The designs we have are good and I can't see a revolutionary new design around the corner, only incremental improvements. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a lot less exciting.
The problem with the shuttle was the inspections and maintenance after flights were so expensive - and ended in disaster twice, though I do wonder if that's a better or worse rate than single-use vehicles - that single-use rockets would have cost similar amounts.
Really though chemical rockets don't have but so much left to innovate. The designs we have are good and I can't see a revolutionary new design around the corner, only incremental improvements. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it is a lot less exciting.
I guess to me the Shuttle just engendered such a feeling of wonder and the incredible technical capabilities of NASA, whereas today we really have nothing to excite the imaginations of people in terms of space travel. Does Space X really leave anyone with a sense of awe and wonder like the first Space Shuttle did? Winning hearts and minds is a huge part of moving forward in space exploration and it just feels as if we have gone backwards. We should have brand new shuttles that are the pride of NASA and the USA, utilizing the latest technology available (imagine if we had had the capabilities of today when designing the first Space Shuttle). Oh well...
I guess to me the Shuttle just engendered such a feeling of wonder and the incredible technical capabilities of NASA, whereas today we really have nothing to excite the imaginations of people in terms of space travel. Does Space X really leave anyone with a sense of awe and wonder like the first Space Shuttle did? Winning hearts and minds is a huge part of moving forward in space exploration and it just feels as if we have gone backwards. We should have brand new shuttles that are the pride of NASA and the USA, utilizing the latest technology available (imagine if we had had the capabilities of today when designing the first Space Shuttle). Oh well...
I think the difference is that Space X doesn't really evoke any feeling of patriotism. It's a corporation. You can't really feel like part of its mission.
I dunno, that's a good question. Maybe we've gotten so good at this space thing that what once made global headlines for a solid decade is now mundane.
Its not so much that we've gotten so good at this space thing, its just that we've gotten so good at maturing the same basic principles of space flight that we've been using for 50 years. We need a new direction or technology to get excited about beyond just building rockets that go up and capsules that return to Earth. I thought the Space Shuttle was the perfect evolution away from that basic first step into space and am very disappointed that we never got a further evolution from that concept going forward. instead we seem to have gone straight back to the beginning with rockets and capsules, except with the only difference being re-usability and corporate sponsorship rather than governmental. The thing that was great about the shuttle was that nobody else had that capability at the time. The shuttle was uniquely "American" and the Russians were seen as inferior in space flight (at least to the average person) because America was doing something new, with an actual space ship evocative of sci-fi (USS Enterprise) while Russia was doing the same old same old (I recognize that they did in fact develop their own shuttle that looked like a shameless copy of America's, but it never flew an actual mission that I know of). We've lost that advantage of optics and the stuff we are doing now with Space-X, and even more embarrassingly, of having to use Russian rockets for NASA missions, is not something that can really light the fires of wonder and excitement that the shuttle did back in the 70's and 80's.
Of course the shuttle suffered its own PR disasters such as Challenger and Columbia so I can understand why certain people in charge decided the risk wasn't worth it anymore, but a brand new shuttle designed with the state of the art in technology circa 2017 could potentially be made an order of magnitude safer than the original shuttle whose design is now over 4 decades old.
I guess to me the Shuttle just engendered such a feeling of wonder and the incredible technical capabilities of NASA, whereas today we really have nothing to excite the imaginations of people in terms of space travel. Does Space X really leave anyone with a sense of awe and wonder like the first Space Shuttle did? Winning hearts and minds is a huge part of moving forward in space exploration and it just feels as if we have gone backwards. We should have brand new shuttles that are the pride of NASA and the USA, utilizing the latest technology available (imagine if we had had the capabilities of today when designing the first Space Shuttle). Oh well...
Fist of all, the space shuttle just looked really impressive due to those massive solid rocket boosters, the Falcon 9 just can't match that.
The other one is as mentioned patriotism, I honestly can't say the shuttle caught my heart and mind, and that's probably because I'm not from the USA. And Watching the SpaceX live streams, has me more involved in rocket launches than I've ever been, I remember cheering behind my monitor when they first nailed the fist stage land/barge landings, those were some really amazing moments. Even last live stream, that live video of the boost-back turn, damn that that impressive to watch.
All I can think off when I see the shuttle is what could've been if they had stuck with conventional rockets, well its not hard to imagine, the SLS is basically Shuttle era tech.
Anyway, I personally find SpaceX's much more feasible approach much more interesting than the launch systems NASA has been messing with for the last 40 years, imo NASA should get out of the launch business as their budget is much better spend on what comes after.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric
Its not so much that we've gotten so good at this space thing, its just that we've gotten so good at maturing the same basic principles of space flight that we've been using for 50 years. We need a new direction or technology to get excited about beyond just building rockets that go up and capsules that return to Earth. I thought the Space Shuttle was the perfect evolution away from that basic first step into space and am very disappointed that we never got a further evolution from that concept going forward. instead we seem to have gone straight back to the beginning with rockets and capsules, except with the only difference being re-usability and corporate sponsorship rather than governmental. The thing that was great about the shuttle was that nobody else had that capability at the time. The shuttle was uniquely "American" and the Russians were seen as inferior in space flight (at least to the average person) because America was doing something new, with an actual space ship evocative of sci-fi (USS Enterprise) while Russia was doing the same old same old (I recognize that they did in fact develop their own shuttle that looked like a shameless copy of America's, but it never flew an actual mission that I know of). We've lost that advantage of optics and the stuff we are doing now with Space-X, and even more embarrassingly, of having to use Russian rockets for NASA missions, is not something that can really light the fires of wonder and excitement that the shuttle did back in the 70's and 80's.
You make it sound like going back to rockets and making them reusable is a step back from the space shuttle, it very much isn't, its the path we should've been on all along. I'm not sure why the shuttle is so amazing for you, the damn thing basically had the worst characteristics of both a rocket and an SSTO plane combined.
The evolution you were after is probably something like the REL Skylon, which could be exiting if it ever makes it, but I wouldn't be surprised if the SABRE engine tech is all that's going to come out of that program, which is still pretty cool, but its no SSTO plane..
The other one is as mentioned patriotism, I honestly can't say the shuttle caught my heart and mind, and that's probably because I'm not from the USA. And Watching the SpaceX live streams, has me more involved in rocket launches than I've ever been, I remember cheering behind my monitor when they first nailed the fist stage land/barge landings, those were some really amazing moments. Even last live stream, that live video of the boost-back turn, damn that that impressive to watch.
Its amazing seeing how fast a rocket can go to space, turn around, and land back on solid ground... in one video, in relatively high quality. Seeing it in one sitting really brings the whole thing home. WOW we just landed a rocket that was traveling 5000 Km/h
Musk expects it to kaboom, hopes it gets off the launchpad far enough to explode and not damage it, classing that as a success!. Looking forward to it, it'll will be quite the sight!
Notice in real life we have to use two large solid rocket boosters along with the engines in the shuttle (plus a massive amount of extra fuel to keep them burning for a long time through the gravity turn) just to get one in orbit. And even after all that it has very little fuel to make more than a few maneuvers and then return.
So yes, the technique is doable but not with a huge (note: lots of mass) shuttle on something like a 747.
More like an F-15 with a very small rocket and tiny satellite.
Notice in real life we have to use two large solid rocket boosters along with the engines in the shuttle (plus a massive amount of extra fuel to keep them burning for a long time through the gravity turn) just to get one in orbit. And even after all that it has very little fuel to make more than a few maneuvers and then return.
So yes, the technique is doable but not with a huge (note: lots of mass) shuttle on something like a 747.
More like an F-15 with a very small rocket and tiny satellite.
i see, then the best they could send up using an aircraft launch pad would be a capsule or pod, just enough for one passenger.
and this would still require a really large plane as well i presume.
i see, then the best they could send up using an aircraft launch pad would be a capsule or pod, just enough for one passenger.
and this would still require a really large plane as well i presume.
Something like a pod/capsule is going to be quite heavy. Several tons. The shuttle alone while empty is over 75 tons. That is a lot of mass and you need a lot of thrust to counter that mass along with gravity. Something like you describe is physically possible but there is no aircraft large enough or powerful enough to provide the thrust and lift to do what was depicted in the movie.
Smaller, lightweight craft could possibly do this. There are several sub-orbital space flight concepts that use this very method. Saves quite a bit of money!
It's just not a very effective way to put lots of mass into orbit. We wouldn't have been able to get something like ISS built without conventional chemical rocket boosted payload delivery systems like we still use now.
Making them reusable would surely be another way to save money, we hope.
And if those aliens which landed on Earth, who used nonconventional means of propulsion are real, then we already have access to this technology. But using it would make companies go out of business...
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Ask a question
Ask a question
Overclock.net
27.8M posts
541.2K members
Since 2004
A forum community dedicated to overclocking enthusiasts and testing the limits of computing. Come join the discussion about computing, builds, collections, displays, models, styles, scales, specifications, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!