Shuttle Replacement

[jimfromnsf]

Those names mean nothing to John Q. Public

 

[no_way]

names like Ned Sauthoff, Carl Strawbridge and Brad Nelson mean even less to them. your point ?

 

[jimfromnsf]

Who and what is going to sell the idea of a moonbase to the public when some of the same arguments were used in selling the ISS and now NASA is going abandon the ISS early

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Who and what is going to sell the idea of a moonbase to the public when some of the same arguments were used in selling the ISS and now NASA is going abandon the ISS early</font>/i><br /><br />NASA has been <i>talking</i> about continuing to use ISS for many years past 2016. Now, given that NASA currently doesn't have enough money to do what it is already committed to, I don't know how much I believe this will come to pass. But there it is.<br /><br />Should ISS or even a Bigelow orbital platform grow in success (here, I define "success" as receiving significant non-NASA money for research, manufacturing, or other activities or creating significant public buzz (i.e., what Hubble pictures do)) in the first half of the 2010s, then past concerns of ISS will largely be forgotten. (I suspect, anyways)</i>

 

[marcel_leonard]

You’ll use the same semantic arguments on this board every time you’re trying to make your point. This is the year of our lord two thousand and seven; no one is what for an antiquated organization like the NASA to change their ways. What people are waiting for are the Burt Rutans of this world to revolutionize space delivery w/ a single stage to orbit vehicles. All over the world graduate students and their professors are working on this problem and it will only be a matter of time before we have SSTO that can not only produce affordable deliveries but can stage a launch from orbit to the moon of a lunar modular vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

And they will be wasting their time and resources just like the Knights of the Holy Grail. SSTO with marketable payload is a falacy.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">You’ll use the same semantic arguments on this board every time you’re trying to make your point. This is the year of our lord two thousand and seven; ...</font>/i><br /><br />Huh?</i>

 

[tomnackid]

SSTO could be done with todays technology--heck Phill Bono was designing SSTOs back in the 60s. Boeing was designing them in the 70s. So what's the problem? With todays materials SSTO will only work if your spacecraft is really, really big. The mass fraction of a SSTO that is payload is very small so in order to get a usable payload your ship has to be massive. It makes no economic sense to build massive SSTO spacecraft right now--it wouold be like building petroleum supertankers before the invention of the automobile. Bono ws betting on high speed passenger and cargo transport. Two areas that have been hurt by the telecomunications revolution and the Fed Ex hub model. How many packages really need to be anywhere sooner than overnight? How many people would pay a small fortune to be around the world in an hour? Not too many. Boeing was looking into solar power satelites, but oil will have to get really expensive to make that work.

 

[no_way]

First generation Atlases were very nearly SSTO. <br />SSTO and reuseable dont necessarily mean the same thing.<br /><br />SSTO does not mean cheap either. Cost of payload pounds to orbit is not a linear function of stages.<br /><br />You can very well design an SSTO as expensive to operate as Shuttle.

 

[vt_hokie]

I'm still hoping there really is/was a Blackstar!

 

[tomnackid]

Even if Blackstar is real there probably isn't a whole lot that could transfer to non-millitary spacecraft. Maybe it could work as a fast rescue craft, but Blackstar (if it exists) would be a thouroghbred race horse. It would be very difficult to turn it into a draft horse.

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">“Boeing was looking into solar power satelites, but oil will have to get really expensive to make that work.â€</font><br /><br />As far as I know since the 1956 Sputnik satellite almost all satellites have been solar powered. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> As far as I know since the 1956 Sputnik satellite almost all satellites have been solar powered. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about? </i><br /><br />Solar Power Satelites (SPS) are theoretical space-based power stations that would use microwaves to beam power to Earth or other spacecraft. It is an extremely compelling prospect that is barely related to current spacecraft. On the ground, you would just need to string wires across a grid of poles to receive power. In space, it brings about the possibility of satelites that can receive power as a utility service instead of carrying onboard photovoltaics and batteries. <br /><br />Boeing's best ULV (ultra heavy lift) proposal was the "LEO" booster that was TSTO, not SSTO. 500+ tons to orbit, yeah, baby! I hope someone builds something like it in my lifetime. It'd dward any rocket, even the Saturn 5 or N1.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>1956 Sputnik satellite<br /><br />Sputnik [fellow traveler] was launched October 4th, 1957. I remember it well.<br /><br /> />>Solar Power Satelites (SPS) .. an extremely compelling prospect ..<br /><br />I was at the "last" SPS conference. The SPS concept itself was doomed by several unrealistic assumptions; that nuclear power, even fusion, would be "unacceptable" while powerful microwave beams would be OK, and that there was no way to store power from ground-based solar cells or transport it over long distances (though even then, hydrogen fuel cells were available). Finally, the initial cost and risk of SPS were obviously too high for private industry to accept. None of these problems was seriously considered by any of the speakers; everybody wanted SPS to be the magic mission that would justify a very high cost.<br /><br />However the large two-stage fully reusable shuttle, both stages fueled with LOX and methane without drop tanks, was a very interesting concept. SSTO vs TSTO is less important than overall operating cost.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">And that is what is going to sell the idea to the public? </font><br /><br />Yes, without a doubt. Right now the public looks at the space program as fairly boring, doing the same thing that we have been doing for 25 years. The ISS is just another Skylab, MIR. It doesn't generate nearly the attention that a 500 foot long "aircraft carrier" in space going to Mars and Jupiter, manned by a crew of 100 would generate. A ship that size shouldn't be made on Earth, we'd need a moonbase to build it and launch it. Can you imagine how much a Saturn V size booster can lift off of the moon? <br /><br />Sure I'm talking about the distant future, but it doesn't have to be as distant as it's going to be if we keep putzing around, doing what we've been doing for the past 30 years. Arries and Orion are a good start, but they should compliment a robust moon program, not be the only main players. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

I have difficulty seeing the taxpayers pay for a flight to Mars just to be excited. They can take the new Shuttle ride at KSC for a lot less, even though soon there will be no shuttle. Each NASA project should produce useful technology that will make flight, both in the air and in space, less expensive, more productive, and safer. Our dream was not to send one lucky man to Mars, it was to open space for all of us. It will be more difficult, but it would be a lasting achievement, one that will not fade away when the program ends.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">I have difficulty seeing the taxpayers pay for a flight to Mars just to be excited.</font><br /><br />It depends on the kind of mission. If it's just another Apollo to Mars, no, it won't be that exciting to most people. But if it's really big, a huge leap forward, I bet a lot of people would get behind it. Unfortunately, our current space program isn't very inspiring to most people, but that's because we've sort of wussed out for the past 25 years as a nation. When we do something really bold, Americans will enjoy feeling very proud, even if they're affraid to admit it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>Unfortunately, our current space program isn't very inspiring to most people, .. But if it's really big, a huge leap forward, I bet a lot of people would get behind it.<br /><br />Would it be presumptuous to suggest that practical human spaceflight that would give a significant percentage of all young people the chance to really fly in space would be a huge leap forward, really bold, and make Americans feel very proud?

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Would it be presumptuous to suggest that practical human spaceflight that would give a significant percentage of all young people the chance to really fly in space would be a huge leap forward, really bold, and make Americans feel very proud?</font><br /><br />I've often said that we need aprogram that has hundreds of people constructing a moon base for the construction of big ships to travel the solar system, and the Army Corps of Engineers are just the people to build the base. The Air Force handles the logistics to the Moon and the Navy handles everything from the moon outward. The U.S. as a nation would be the richest country on, and off, Earth with all of the resources in the solar system. Most Americans would be very proud of that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Why the Navy, they have no applicable space experience? Terristrial experience doesn't apply.<br /><br />Same for the COE<br /><br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Why the Navy, they have no applicable space experience? Terristrial experience doesn't apply. <br /><br />Same for the COE</font><br /><br />It goes along with their mission. True, the Navy has no real "Space Ship" experience, but the type of mission isn't that unlike a submarine mission under the water for months at a time. Same with the Corps of Engineers, they'll figure out a way to make it work no matter what. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why the Navy, they have no applicable space experience? Terristrial experience doesn't apply.</font>/i><br /><br />In science fiction novels, it is often the navy providing the long-haul capabilities. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[scottb50]

Duh! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"It goes along with their mission."<br /><br />Not the Navy's, no "seas" in space.

 

[lampblack]

<font color="yellow">Not the Navy's, no "seas" in space.</font><br /><br />It's only lacking water -- but there is nonetheless the vast ocean of space. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>