YAST:Plans For NASA's next vehicle(s)

[So]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: So

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: So
So...nobody has a REAL opinion on where nasa should go with their next gen vehicle?

Do you people think that this is the way to go, or do you disagree with me?

I just don't care. Space travel is so far removed from our every day lives, it just seems silly to give it so much attention.

No worse than religion, politics, outsorucing, or food crisis in africa. It just happens to interest me. 🙂

None of those things concern me.

Mainly I think about what I'm doing later tonight, how many calories I've taken in for the day, when my next oil change is due, and what new gadget I'm going to buy.

Okay then, you're not required to worry about the larger things in life. It's part of the beauty of a free contry. 🙂

Go ahead and don't worry about this thread.

I never said that forming an opinion was MANDATORY 😛

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: So
Okay then, you're not required to worry about the larger things in life. It's part of the beauty of a free contry. 🙂

Go ahead and don't worry about this thread.

I never said that forming an opinion was MANDATORY 😛

I'm still thinking about nailing you. 😉

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: So

Sticking with an old system because it's "the way of the future" and not choosing a more flexible system that could easily make it easier to progress towards that goal (impetus for SSTO, anyone?), or because "we already did that" is silly.

The fact is, a vertical stack is flexible, and a new return to runway vehicle could be placed atop it once it comes online. For the moment, a capsule is a viable system that could quickly replace the shuttle for manned transit to the space station, and a cheaper alternatice to the shuttle frees up the budget for new vehicle designs.

Personally, if it were up to me (but it's not), I'd have a common launch vehicle, a powerful booster such as Energia. This launch platform would make up the core of NASA's heavy lift capability.

I'd then have two configurations for it. One configuration would just have a standard payload fairing on top that a conventional rocket has for lifting satellites/supplies. The other configuration would consist of a smaller shuttle-like vehicle. This would be used for crewed flights where people need a place to move around/sleep. It could have a small payload bay w/manipulator arm like the current Shuttle has, only smaller and lighter.

I don't think single stage to orbit is very practical because you end up carrying a lot of dead weight up with you that you could otherwise shed off. People see a rocket getting discarded and they think it's a waste because they see metal getting thrown out. However, when you think of it logically, you end up wasting more material in hydrogen/oxygen when you try to bring the rocket back down with you. People think wasted metal is bad, but wasted hydrogen/oxygen is just as bad. They're all elements, some are just in gas/liquid form instead of solid form.

 

[NiKeFiDO]

wonder how long it will take nasa to get funding after all these accidents

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
wonder how long it will take nasa to get funding after all these accidents

Where are "all these" accidents? There have been 2 in 16 years.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: So
Okay then, you're not required to worry about the larger things in life. It's part of the beauty of a free contry. 🙂

Go ahead and don't worry about this thread.

I never said that forming an opinion was MANDATORY 😛

I'm still thinking about nailing you. 😉

Oooh. :lips:

 

[So]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

I'd then have two configurations for it. One configuration would just have a standard payload fairing on top that a conventional rocket has for lifting satellites/supplies. The other configuration would consist of a smaller shuttle-like vehicle. This would be used for crewed flights where people need a place to move around/sleep. It could have a small payload bay w/manipulator arm like the current Shuttle has, only smaller and lighter.

I don't think single stage to orbit is very practical because you end up carrying a lot of dead weight up with you that you could otherwise shed off. People see a rocket getting discarded and they think it's a waste because they see metal getting thrown out. However, when you think of it logically, you end up wasting more material in hydrogen/oxygen when you try to bring the rocket back down with you. People think wasted metal is bad, but wasted hydrogen/oxygen is just as bad. They're all elements, some are just in gas/liquid form instead of solid form.

It seems you agree that this is a step in the right direction, as it seems to point directly towards a booster/two vehicle configuration. I must ask, why have a payload bay on the crew module though? I mean, that's the point of having a seperate cargo ship. It seems like a silly thing to make one of the very same mistakes again -- one you seem to recognize -- of wasting all that energy lifiting an empty payload bay every time.

The advantage of a TRUE SSTO system would be if we can find eway to gewt enough fuel up for a CONTROLLED flight back down, and drop the unpowered glide profile that requires burning off the heat in one fell swoop. A truly powered landing would alow for a leisurely return to earth and better safety margins for a runway destined vehicle.

 

[Evadman]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
wonder how long it will take nasa to get funding after all these accidents

Where are "all these" accidents? There have been 2 in 16 years.

There have been 2 major losses of life. burning to death in a capsule doesn't count? Grantedthat was more than 16 years ago. There have been what, 15,000 colisions between the shuttle and other ojects on all their flights? (I forget the exact number but it is right around there.)

We need a new space vehicle. Mankinds place is among the stars.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: Evadman

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: NiKeFiDO
wonder how long it will take nasa to get funding after all these accidents

Where are "all these" accidents? There have been 2 in 16 years.

There have been 2 major losses of life. burning to death in a capsule doesn't count? Grantedthat was more than 16 years ago. There have been what, 15,000 colisions between the shuttle and other ojects on all their flights? (I forget the exact number but it is right around there.)

We need a new space vehicle. Mankinds place is among the stars.

Most definitely agreed, but I don't think you can count non serious impacts by space debris. Still, the shuttle's record, while impressive, doesn't compare favorably to the soyuz. 🙁

 

[So]

just found this article thanks to /.