SHUTTLE FLEET
SHUTTLE FLEET
Has anyone heard of any possible replacement plaftorm for the aging shuttle fleet? When Atlantis is retired it will leave only 2 operational shuttles.
Here's one concept from Lockheed for the CEV
Of course, I remember reading about this one, the X-33. It's been "delayed." Look at the date on the article.
But then recently I read an article suggesting that NASA was going to go back to disposable rockets, since the concept of reusable space vehicles turned out to be way more expensive in practice than traditional rockets.
Of course, I remember reading about this one, the X-33. It's been "delayed." Look at the date on the article.
But then recently I read an article suggesting that NASA was going to go back to disposable rockets, since the concept of reusable space vehicles turned out to be way more expensive in practice than traditional rockets.
I remember reading a while ago NASA was going to contract out boosters to someone to supply uplift to the ISS, and get out of that end of the business. Any latest word on what's happening in that direction?
The other remembrance is using a long physical acceleration device like a catapult for a head start, and then cut-in the booster rockets. And start from a high elevation, in Utah maybe. 8-10,000 feet is a big head start on sea-level. And 300-400mph would be easy to achieve with a catapult or mile long cannon barrel of sorts. Save a lot of propellant and be easily reset for another firing. Every two hours another launch. When we get serious that's likely the most efficient method. That's another reason the Chinese are so hot to take over Tibet. 16,000 ft launch platform with a curve up to 18 or 20,000 for ejection, and booster cut-in shortly after launch, and you're outta here!
The other remembrance is using a long physical acceleration device like a catapult for a head start, and then cut-in the booster rockets. And start from a high elevation, in Utah maybe. 8-10,000 feet is a big head start on sea-level. And 300-400mph would be easy to achieve with a catapult or mile long cannon barrel of sorts. Save a lot of propellant and be easily reset for another firing. Every two hours another launch. When we get serious that's likely the most efficient method. That's another reason the Chinese are so hot to take over Tibet. 16,000 ft launch platform with a curve up to 18 or 20,000 for ejection, and booster cut-in shortly after launch, and you're outta here!
Kovil,
Boosters would probably be more efficient /effective than Marshall Savage's idea of the Bifrost Bridge but the accelleration up the side(inside) of a mountain is excellent. Savage proposed the idea in his book "The Millenial Project" using a fully contained magnetic propulsion track burried underground and exiting at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro which would place the launch platform near enough to the equater that there would be very little chance for launch scrubs due to weather.
Boosters would probably be more efficient /effective than Marshall Savage's idea of the Bifrost Bridge but the accelleration up the side(inside) of a mountain is excellent. Savage proposed the idea in his book "The Millenial Project" using a fully contained magnetic propulsion track burried underground and exiting at the top of Mount Kilimanjaro which would place the launch platform near enough to the equater that there would be very little chance for launch scrubs due to weather.
I still like Carbon Nano-Tubes and Space Elevators. I just don't want to be around when the cable breaks and comes crashing back to ground 
But seriously, I'd thought work was progressing on the "spaceplanes" X-34, X-37, and X-40A, as well as "scramjet" Hyper-X technology in the X-43A and X-51. I thought the idea was "single stage to orbit or SSTO". The X-33 is just one failed version of this as was the X-30.
I also think the ESA is working on the "Hopper" which is to launch from a magnetic catapult. Supposed to be ready about 2015 or 2020.
But as Orca said, I think current replacements are the CEV's.
But seriously, I'd thought work was progressing on the "spaceplanes" X-34, X-37, and X-40A, as well as "scramjet" Hyper-X technology in the X-43A and X-51. I thought the idea was "single stage to orbit or SSTO". The X-33 is just one failed version of this as was the X-30.
I also think the ESA is working on the "Hopper" which is to launch from a magnetic catapult. Supposed to be ready about 2015 or 2020.
But as Orca said, I think current replacements are the CEV's.
Know the quiet place within your heart and touch the rainbow of possibility; be
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
alive to the gentle breeze of communication, and please stop being such a jerk. — Garrison Keillor
-
iamlucky13
- Commander
- Posts: 515
- Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 7:28 pm
- Location: Seattle, WA
NASA has committed to the Lockheed CEV design. This will be our main manned platform for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, the link Orca provided is out of date. In the interest of simplicity and versatility, NASA has opted for a capsule design very similar in concept to the original Apollo.
NASA is developing a series of new rockets under the Constellation program (Link to NASA's Constellation page). The design, although it seems at first like a step backwards, addresses the realities of a limited budget, provides the flexibility to both work in low earth orbit and go to the moon and possibly beyond.
The system uses advanced versions of the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters and fuel tank, combined with technology from Boeing's Atlas IV rockets, and some new features.
The first part will be a personnel/light cargo launcher that will carry 6 astronauts (or 4 for a lunar mission) into orbit in the Lockheed Orion capsule on the new Ares I rocket. Under development right behind that is the Ares V, a giant slightly larger than the Saturn V which can launch payloads 4 times as heavy as the shuttle into orbit, or meet up with an Orion Capsule and push it and the yet-to-be-developed 4 person lander to the moon. The lander will be designed to be able to carry a crew or cargo down to the surface, and NASA is studying what would be necessary to use the system to create a permanent moon base. It may also be possible to conduct a manned mission to a near-earth asteroid with the system!
The downside of the destination versatility is the new system won't be able to serve as effectively as an orbital garage as the space shuttle, which has serviced multiple satellites (including the Hubble) and greatly simplified the task of building the ISS. Plus the shuttle just has a certain beauty to it that I don't think will be compensated for by the sheer size of the Ares V.
All of the space shuttles are scheduled to be retired by the end of 2010, just long enough to finish the space station. Unfortunately, the CEV probably won't be ready to fly manned missions until 2014, so we're going to be relying heavily on the Russian Soyuz capsules (and maybe the private industry, if we're lucky) during the intervening time.
NASA is developing a series of new rockets under the Constellation program (Link to NASA's Constellation page). The design, although it seems at first like a step backwards, addresses the realities of a limited budget, provides the flexibility to both work in low earth orbit and go to the moon and possibly beyond.
The system uses advanced versions of the space shuttle's solid rocket boosters and fuel tank, combined with technology from Boeing's Atlas IV rockets, and some new features.
The first part will be a personnel/light cargo launcher that will carry 6 astronauts (or 4 for a lunar mission) into orbit in the Lockheed Orion capsule on the new Ares I rocket. Under development right behind that is the Ares V, a giant slightly larger than the Saturn V which can launch payloads 4 times as heavy as the shuttle into orbit, or meet up with an Orion Capsule and push it and the yet-to-be-developed 4 person lander to the moon. The lander will be designed to be able to carry a crew or cargo down to the surface, and NASA is studying what would be necessary to use the system to create a permanent moon base. It may also be possible to conduct a manned mission to a near-earth asteroid with the system!
The downside of the destination versatility is the new system won't be able to serve as effectively as an orbital garage as the space shuttle, which has serviced multiple satellites (including the Hubble) and greatly simplified the task of building the ISS. Plus the shuttle just has a certain beauty to it that I don't think will be compensated for by the sheer size of the Ares V.
All of the space shuttles are scheduled to be retired by the end of 2010, just long enough to finish the space station. Unfortunately, the CEV probably won't be ready to fly manned missions until 2014, so we're going to be relying heavily on the Russian Soyuz capsules (and maybe the private industry, if we're lucky) during the intervening time.
"Any man whose errors take ten years to correct is quite a man." ~J. Robert Oppenheimer (speaking about Albert Einstein)