The wrong stuff.

[starfhury]

Thanks no_way. We can't limit ourselves like that. Frodo, I was speculating as stated. You are completely correct in what you said too as I expected you would be. The problems you mentioned are some well know ones, but that does not perclude the possibility that it can still be done without violating some laws of physics. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ldyaidan]

I think that the destination and the over all picture is what is inspiring. I'm more interested in getting us into space than I am what the vehicle we use to get there looks like. If a capsule is the best way to achieve this, lets use a capsule. The fancy cool looking space planes would be shiney, but I'd rather have something that is going to do the job. All the bashing about "apollo on steroids" is silly. It worked, and will do an even better job with all the new tech that we have now. I congratulate NASA for going back to the drawing board, and having the courage to use a more reliable model, as long as it works. <br /><br />Rae

 

[frodo1008]

Good! That is also my own thinking. NASA has been tasked with many things by the American people through their elected representatives in congress (NASA's real boss). These tasks are:<br /><br />One: To use the shuttle only long enough to finish the ISS to the extent that we have informally contracted ourselves to with our partners in the ISS.<br /><br />Two: After using the shuttle for #1, to retire the magnificent but aging shuttle fleet.<br /><br />Three: To come up with a shuttle replacement for travel to LEO as soon as possible to minimize the gap between the shuttle retirement and the ability to once again launch Americans to LEO.<br /><br />Four: To maintain , and even expand the robotic space science section of NASA, for further exploration.<br /><br />Five: To go back to the moon for further exploration<br />and even possible exploitation, and the building of a permanent facility on the moon. How many people have actually explored the far side of the moon? Just in case you didn't know, exactly none!<br /><br />Six: To make use of the infrastructure and technology of numbers one through five to launch human beings beyond the Earth/moon system, namely to the planet Mars!<br /><br />All of this is to be accomplished within the next two decades if possible, at as low a cost as possible.<br /><br />It is this low cost, or lack of funding that is driving NASA's designs to do all of these things. Whether the people on these boards like it or not, there will not be enough funding available for NASA to delve into more radical designs for launch systems of space craft. So the CEV is going to have to be a relatively inexpensive (OK, and in deference to some on these boards, uninspiring) capsule type of system! That NASA is even going to attempt all of these tasks in the time frame asked for, at the funding levels that congress will allow is amazing to this experienced aerospace worker!!<br /><br />So, perhaps some of the negativists on these boards could cut NASA a little

 

[vulture2]

>>> So the CEV is going to have to be a relatively inexpensive <br /><br />Unfortunately maintaining the infrastructure and industrial base required for the SRBs (VAB, crawlers, MLPs, CX-39) is not cheap. A lot of people and a lot of hazardous operations will still be required.

 

[steve82]

"It is this low cost, or lack of funding that is driving NASA's designs to do all of these things."<br /><br />Not completely. I think crew safety is the primary driver behind the CEV design as released thus far.

 

[vulture2]

"I think crew safety is the primary driver behind the CEV design as released thus far."<br /><br />I'd like to think so, but the large segmented SRBs caused the loss of one shuttle and very nearly another (remember "curtains" Brandenstein?), as well as several large ELVs. There are a variety of hazards with large solids that propogate very rapidly and so cannot be easily mitigated, even with an escape system. In order to "prove" the SRBs are now safe, they count every Shuttle launch since Challanger as two launches for the purpose of SRBs. By that method, we now have over 500 safe launches with liquid fuel. One of the requirements that would have increased the cost of the Delta IV was that the crew wanted "control" over the stack. What "control" do they (or anyone) have over an SRB? Once it's lit, you just cross your fingers.<br />

 

[ldyaidan]

What to people want - Imperial Shuttles?<br /><br />Yes, I do. I also want the Starship Enterprise, Starfleet Academy, and world peace. <br /><br />But, we have to start somewhere. I agree, there are a lot of places that we could cut spending other than the space program. I firmly believe that space is the future of mankind, and you should not skimp on the future. Until we can get our imperial shuttles, I'm happy with whatever we can do. If we need to use capsules, then use them. I do think we'll get our space planes, just not today.<br /><br />Rae

 

[vt_hokie]

<i> I do think we'll get our space planes, just not today. </i><br /><br />Unfortunately, NASA and aerospace programs in general move at such a glacially slow pace that what we plan for now will determine what we get for the remainder of our lifetimes! Heck, we're still living with the decisions of 1972 with the space shuttle. Sadly, I think the choice of a capsule for CEV means that there will be no space planes for another 30 years or more - at least not from this country, unless they really do have something more advanced out at Groom Lake! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I would have much rather seen X-37 become the basis for our next generation crew transport instead of reviving the Apollo capsule design.

 

[ldyaidan]

I agree with the idea of a "taxi" to get us from earth, to space and back. I think the moon should be set up as a spaceship manufacturing/scientific colony to start. It makes a lot more sense to manufacture what we need there, where it's a lot easier to get it launched, than trying to build bits and pieces on earth and hurl it out of the gravity well. I do think this will happen, but NASA is going to have to have better funding to it. The government needs an outside company to set their budget, and cut all the special interest group crap that only caters to the minority, and make that investment in the future for everyone.<br /><br />All I can say is when I become world empress, we'll definitely see some changes. LOL<br /><br />Rae

 

[nyarlathotep]

Perhaps, but it would involve breaking the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty.

 

[rocketman5000]

I don't understand why they would have to break the Treaty. You implying we can't get a spaceplane to Mars w/o an NTR?

 

[baktothemoon]

As long as the NTR ignited out of the atmosphere as an upper stage then we wouldn't need to worry about the treaty. Or we could just try to develop a gas core reactor. I believe NTR technology is extremely useful and that with it we could develop next generation spacecraft capable of going beyond mars. I started a thread with my idea of what kind of space craft we could build with experimental technology, see "Permanent plans to colonize space". Nuclear propulsion is imperative for getting anywhere in exploring the solar system. <br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what your can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[mlorrey]

Average effective Isp of multi-mode airbreathing ram/scramjet/rocket technology is essentially equivalent to NTR. The GTX test vehicle would have had an average Isp of over 1000 sec for its entire trip.<br /><br />No need for NTR.