Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
To Infinity and Beyond!
Stingray
Elite Ranger
in Zocalo v2.0
So NASA finally introduced [URL="http://news.yahoo.com/future-nasa-rocket-most-powerful-ever-built-171120699.html"]a "new" rocket[/URL] to the world.
Just from looking at it, I'd say they asked a janitor at the Houston HQ to come up with a design on a dare, in less than a minute. He then took a piece of the Saturn V, added a couple SRBs from the Shuttle and voilà, there's your new rocket.
The only thing that looks new is Orion and you can't even see it because it's the new "LEM" equivalent that sits on top of the rocket, inside the protective shielding.
NASA's just pissed that their budget keeps shrinking...
Just from looking at it, I'd say they asked a janitor at the Houston HQ to come up with a design on a dare, in less than a minute. He then took a piece of the Saturn V, added a couple SRBs from the Shuttle and voilà, there's your new rocket.
The only thing that looks new is Orion and you can't even see it because it's the new "LEM" equivalent that sits on top of the rocket, inside the protective shielding.
NASA's just pissed that their budget keeps shrinking...
Comments
I'm not quite sure what you were expecting, Stingray. A rocket is a cylindrical thing with engines at the bottom (or, about 80 years ago, at the top). While I agree that shoehorning bits of the space shuttle program in to save jobs is crippling long-term goals for short-term political gain, NASA needs to get stuff into orbit now. There is a proven technology to do that (rockets) so that's what they're building.
Apart from the specific design that over-reuses shuttle parts, I think NASA is taking the right approach. They need a heavy lift rocket to get the stuff up there they need to do long-distance missions, such as to asteroids.
I still think [URL="http://uk.news.yahoo.com/virgin-aims-first-space-launch-within-044339875.html"]private industry[/URL] needs to make space exploration profitable.
NASA can only do so much and because of all the other economic problems the top deciders are dragging their feet. They just throw a lot of cash at their projects, but that's not what got the aeronautics industry going. I don't see why it shouldn't work like that for space.
Step one is to find someone who enough money to fund our cause.
Step two is to build an Omega class destroyer in orbit. It can't be that hard, we can leave the lazers out from the design tho'.
Jake
[IMG]http://i162.photobucket.com/albums/t250/Callamon/Discovery_Lagrange1.jpg[/IMG]
IMHO there is nothing in this design that does not use technology available now. Well, except maybe a homicidal AI perhaps. ;)
Built on Earth, assembled in space. It is difficult to get there, especially when we stumble on as basic a challenge as the next EVA space suit, but AFAIK they are busy working on this problem as well. So there are people hard at work. :)
Space elevator is another concept, probably more realistic than a mass driver, but lacking a strong enough material.
[QUOTE=Biggles;193673]It is a serious idea, but unfortunately it, like most other serious ideas besides rockets, is not anywhere near ready for use. Mainly because not enough money is available to properly develop it.[/QUOTE]
Also, not enough energy density...
Jake
[QUOTE=Stingray;193674]As far as I know, we do have the means to build this:[/QUOTE]
We may, but that has nothing to do with launch vehicles, and thus has no bearing on how we would get the parts up there.
It seems to me that the whole trip to Mars is still meant to start from the ground of our planet to Mars, which of course would require a huge rocket. But if they would use a ship built and waiting in orbit, they would require a lot less fuel or the means to lift said fuel. I am sure they have such plans, because it is an obvious solution. If I understand it correctly, right now they just want astronauts to go around the orbit of Mars, not to land on it. A space-only vehicle seems like the right choice. :)
[QUOTE=Entil'Zha;193685]Wasn't NASA looking into the possibility of Space Elevators at one point?[/QUOTE]
They still are, but it's one of their (many) "long-term future" projects. I think that the space elevator one is mainly being funded through X-Prize-style competitions. They've held one every year for a few years now.
That is the biggest problem I have with government funded space programmes.
[/QUOTE]
Actually there is a strong enough material, according to many scientists:
Carbon Nanotubes.
The problem is making a continuous cable of (almost) perfect nanotubes for the many kilometers needed for the space elevator.
An oldie but goodie divulgation article on carbon nanotubes, which mentions (very briefly) how they have the properties required for a space elevator:
[url]http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/id.917,y.0,no.,content.true,page.10,css.print/issue.aspx[/url]
This one came out when I was in grad school... doesn't seem that long ago, but it is. The cover of the magazine had an artists concept of a "buckytube" space elevator (which is why everytime the concept is mentioned I remember this article).
Arthur C. Clarke's 3001 (final sequel of 2001) briefly mentions nanotubes in the afterword, BTW, and compares that to what he had imagined for Fountains of Paradise, the novel in which he popularized the concept (strangely enough another SF writer, Charles Sheffield published a novel about space elevators the same year, both are good).
IIRC Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy actually mentions that the space elevators featured are made of carbon nanotubes.
The foundation that sponsors the space elevator competition is at the following website:
[url]www.spaceward.org[/url]
And, there was a scientific conference about space elevators this year (whenever a research topic becomes important enough a conference about it tends to happen anually). The website of the organization that sponsors the conference is:
[url]www.isec.org[/url]
(I believe they also sponsor a prize to encourage development of strong tethers with the ultimate goal of making a space elevator feasible).
I believe it is technically feasible, but maybe still a few decades from now.
I hope it happens soon, it would solve many problems with going up to space. As they said in an SF novel (don't remember which): Earth Orbit is half the travel. Given how much energy is required to lift objects to orbit in comparison to the energy required to travel from there to elsewhere in the solar system, a space elevator could allow so much more exploration, as well as assembling ships in orbit without requiring heavy lifting by rockets.
I was actually talking to a friend yesterday who's a bona fide rocket scientist, and he's absolutely against depending on the private sector for manned space flight, The Private sector isn't concerned with pure science, or exploration, or having a way to get us off this little rock, they are concerned with making a buck. Space Flight will become all about the money and not about the science.
Now, Private Sector space flight with government oversight might work. but I don't think pure privatization is the way to go.
You'd think that establishing a permanent settlement on our moon would be the logical step but apparently it is not.
It sure looks like China may be the one to soon carry the burden of human exploration of space in the not so distant future. So far though I have not seen much to give me confidence in their abilities. They do have a large pool of volunteers for sure. ;)