WHere is the new US Shuttle???

[SUBMAN1]

This is a step backwards, not forwards for the US in my opinion. Yes, it can leave Earth orbit, but where is the advancement in it from the last 30 years???

http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/210746main_ares_collage_1_226x170.jpg

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html

-S

[SUBMAN1]

This is what the X-30 project has become:

http://www.aviationweek.com/media/images/dti_images/large/DT_03_01_2008_243_L.jpg
One project funded in Fiscal 2009 is the 4,000-mph. Blackswift turbo-ramjet demonstrator. Credit: BILL SWEETMAN/DEFENSE TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL

Funded at $70 million in Fiscal 2009, Blackswift is an outgrowth of Darpa’s Falcon high-speed and space program, and is also known as the HTV-3X (Hypersonic Technology Vehicle). Program details are scarce, but work in 2009 will include ground testing of the combined-cycle engine at USAF’s Arnold Engineering Development Center. This suggests that the team for this part of the program has been selected. Pratt & Whitney was working with Lockheed Martin on the Falcon Combined-Cycle Engine Technology program, and may continue this work under Blackswift.

Blackswift is intended to demonstrate several new capabilities. It’s the first attempt since the ill-fated National Aerospaceplane (NASP), canceled in 1994 after eight years of work, to produce an integrated propulsion system that operates in low-speed, ramjet and supersonic combustion ramjet (scramjet) modes. Unlike NASP, it will use a hydrocarbon fuel rather than a cryogenic fuel, which would make a Blackswift-derived vehicle easier to support. The powerplants use circular-section, inward-turning inlets and incorporate high-speed turbojets, similar to the Rolls-Royce Liberty Works engine being developed for the Lockheed Martin Rattlrs program, for takeoff and acceleration.


Key questions to be answered are whether the Falcon HCV-type shapes shown on Darpa videos in 2007 represent the shape of Blackswift, and whether the program will be opened to competition. Ultimately, the project will have to meet the challenge of utility: it’s going to be a long time before USAF needs an operational vehicle that looks like this.

[STEED]

And what do you think of it SUBMAN1?

Your thread get the ball rolling. ;) :)

[Trex]

To a certain degree, it's apples and oranges. The shuttle never had any potential for out-of-orbit missions; this is the first US system with that since what, the Saturn V?

Mind you, too much scifi as a kid - still waiting hopefully for ramps and the Beanstalk.

[DeepIron]

Sorry guys, budget cuts at NASA... But we still have this:

http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/paper_shuttle.gif

[Platapus]

the Faget aerodynamic body may not be "sexy" but it gets the job done cheaper and safer.

Since its development the Orbiter has been hit with design compromises that whittled its capabilities down. It is expensive (even factoring in the spurious "reusability" costs it is is more expensive than the Saturn 1b). It is limited to low earth orbit only and more importantly its complexity adds risk instead of reducing them.

The Faget body is a good design. It is scalable, efficient and it gets the job done.

I think NASA made the right decision.

[SUBMAN1]

the Faget aerodynamic body may not be "sexy" but it gets the job done cheaper and safer.

Since its development the Orbiter has been hit with design compromises that whittled its capabilities down. It is expensive (even factoring in the spurious "reusability" costs it is is more expensive than the Saturn 1b). It is limited to low earth orbit only and more importantly its complexity adds risk instead of reducing them.

The Faget body is a good design. It is scalable, efficient and it gets the job done.

I think NASA made the right decision.I don't think so. There isn't nor has there ever been a lifting body with the ability to put such large objects in space. Saturn V could not put into space what a shuttle can bring up there.

ANd not to mention the versatility, inducing robotic arms, etc. Its the perfect craft for assembling large objects in orbit as well. It is irreplaceable by any conventional rocket.

-S

[NEON DEON]

the Faget aerodynamic body may not be "sexy" but it gets the job done cheaper and safer.

Since its development the Orbiter has been hit with design compromises that whittled its capabilities down. It is expensive (even factoring in the spurious "reusability" costs it is is more expensive than the Saturn 1b). It is limited to low earth orbit only and more importantly its complexity adds risk instead of reducing them.

The Faget body is a good design. It is scalable, efficient and it gets the job done.

I think NASA made the right decision.I don't think so. There isn't nor has there ever been a lifting body with the ability to put such large objects in space. Saturn V could not put into space what a shuttle can bring up there.

ANd not to mention the versatility, inducing robotic arms, etc. Its the perfect craft for assembling large objects in orbit as well. It is irreplaceable by any conventional rocket.

-S


Payload capacities:

Shuttle LEO 53,700 lbs (Your dadys pickup)

Ares V LEO 286,000 lbs (18 wheeler)

What vehicle do you want to use?

Seems to me they will be able to figure out how to attach an arm to the cargo modules.

[SUBMAN1]

the Faget aerodynamic body may not be "sexy" but it gets the job done cheaper and safer.

Since its development the Orbiter has been hit with design compromises that whittled its capabilities down. It is expensive (even factoring in the spurious "reusability" costs it is is more expensive than the Saturn 1b). It is limited to low earth orbit only and more importantly its complexity adds risk instead of reducing them.

The Faget body is a good design. It is scalable, efficient and it gets the job done.

I think NASA made the right decision.I don't think so. There isn't nor has there ever been a lifting body with the ability to put such large objects in space. Saturn V could not put into space what a shuttle can bring up there.

ANd not to mention the versatility, inducing robotic arms, etc. Its the perfect craft for assembling large objects in orbit as well. It is irreplaceable by any conventional rocket.

-S

Payload capacities:

Shuttle LEO 53,700 lbs (Your dadys pickup)

Ares V LEO 286,000 lbs (18 wheeler)

What vehicle do you want to use?

Seems to me they will be able to figure out how to attach an arm to the cargo modules.53,000 lbs is a 18 wheeler, though not fully loaded by the way.

It is not a weight thing here. It is a size of payload here. Width Length Height.

-S

[NEON DEON]

the Faget aerodynamic body may not be "sexy" but it gets the job done cheaper and safer.

Since its development the Orbiter has been hit with design compromises that whittled its capabilities down. It is expensive (even factoring in the spurious "reusability" costs it is is more expensive than the Saturn 1b). It is limited to low earth orbit only and more importantly its complexity adds risk instead of reducing them.

The Faget body is a good design. It is scalable, efficient and it gets the job done.

I think NASA made the right decision.I don't think so. There isn't nor has there ever been a lifting body with the ability to put such large objects in space. Saturn V could not put into space what a shuttle can bring up there.

ANd not to mention the versatility, inducing robotic arms, etc. Its the perfect craft for assembling large objects in orbit as well. It is irreplaceable by any conventional rocket.

-S

Payload capacities:

Shuttle LEO 53,700 lbs (Your dadys pickup)

Ares V LEO 286,000 lbs (18 wheeler)

What vehicle do you want to use?

Seems to me they will be able to figure out how to attach an arm to the cargo modules.53,000 lbs is a 18 wheeler, though not fully loaded by the way.

It is not a weight thing here. It is a size of payload here. Width Length Height.

-S


Payload is payload.

If you removed the wings from the shuttle and you might fit it inside the Ares.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg/800px-Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Saturn_V-Shuttle-Ares_I-Ares_V-Ares_IV_comparison.jpg)


width height that:p

[SUBMAN1]

You aren't hearing me - I'm saying payload as in what it carries. Looking at the SV for example, and they actual size of what it lifts into orbit is tiny comparitively. Maybe this Ares holds more size wise? I don't know enough about it right now personally.

You may be right. I will have to read up on this new rocket.

-S

PS. Where is my HAL and where is my Jupter bound manned spacecraft???!!!! We could have done this by now.

[NEON DEON]

You aren't hearing me - I'm saying payload as in what it carries. Looking at the SV for example, and they actual size of what it lifts into orbit is tiny comparitively. Maybe this Ares holds more size wise? I don't know enough about it right now personally.

You may be right. I will have to read up on this new rocket.

-S

PS. Where is my HAL and where is my Jupter bound manned spacecraft???!!!! We could have done this by now.

Just use your own link.

[SUBMAN1]

Reading up on this - that Ares V looks capable. Problem is, its dream stage now, and it will get budget cuts, and all you will be left with is Ares I. Mark my words! :yep:

-S

[Blacklight]

NASA is planning to go back onto old fashioned rockets and space capsules as soon as they end the shuttle service. That's why they've been flying so many missions to the ISS lately. They need to use the shuttle to get all the ISS parts up to the station that the regular rockets and capsules can't carry.

I don't think we'll be seeing a reusable space truck system any time soon. Congress HATES NASA unless it's doing something commercially viable for THEM. This is regardless to the grandios speeches that all the presidents always give "Man belongs in space exploring....etc". When was the last time NASA's budget was actually increased I ask ? Congress is all out to slash the hell out of their budget constantly. :nope:

[nikimcbee]

Sorry guys, budget cuts at NASA... But we still have this:

http://www.northrim.net/jhouck/images/paper_shuttle.gif

That's the Russian one.:rotfl: :roll: Buran

[Graf Paper]

You're forgetting one very simple fact in your critcism of the Saturn V rocket vs. the Space Shuttle (or any other rocket these days) in regards to payload capacity.

It requires much less fuel and thrust to boost a payload into Earth-orbit. The Saturn V still holds the title of being the most powerful rocket ever built and the only rocket capable of lifting a relatively large payload to escape velocity and beyond Earth-orbit. A lifting body, as it is used with the Space Shuttle, has no benefit when lifting payloads.

In many ways, the Space Shuttle was a giant step backwards for the U.S. space program. It quickly became a white elephant that drained vast resources from NASA and reduced the organization to what amounted to an orbital trucking company. If the original plan had been followed through upon after Apollo, we would have had oribital stations by 1980, a manned lunar base by 1985, and already planted our flag on Mars by 1990.

The so-called "reusability" of the shuttle turned out to be little more than salesmanship by NASA to gain funding for the program. The turnaround time of two weeks between missions, fifty launches between overhauls, at one-half the cost of the Apollo launches all turned out to be lies. It even turned out to be cheaper to simply allow the rocket boosters to fall back into the ocean, without recovering them as originally envisioned, and simply build new boosters.

Instead, we've got an overly complicated "pickup-truck" that has accomplished little more than haul hardware into orbit at ten times the cost of using rockets (which they use now instead of the shuttle because it is cheaper and more reliable) and unnecessarily taken the lives of many astronauts.

Many see the shuttle as a great source of shame and the symbol of NASA's bureaucracy breeding governmental greed, waste, and incompetence that has robbed mankind of his birthright and kept us from the Moon and planets for 36 years.

That's why the "X Prize" was founded. The people have lost faith in NASA to carry us to the stars. Sure enough, it was a private company that won the prize and did it for far less money and in much less time than NASA would take to make a toilet for the ISS.

[bradclark1]

NASA is planning to go back onto old fashioned rockets and space capsules as soon as they end the shuttle service.
Thats what I've heard a couple of times.

Last budget peak was 1966.