Go nasa!
Soooooo amazing! I am so pumped!! Can't wait to see the future and what we have in store for us
Soooooo amazing! I am so pumped!! Can't wait to see the future and what we have in store for us
Reusable space craft (shuttle) what a great idea, except it was so damned expenive and vulnerable , which seems like the opposite what the idea of reusability was supposed to accomplish. It illustrates what 60s technology could achieve with billions to throw at it. The value of reusability is still there if we can keep costs under control.
They are working on propulsion, the problem is the fuel source and making it small enough to be practical.There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done. Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.
We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.
There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done.
Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.
We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.
There's still no effective space plane, sadly, and we're going back to the 1960s to get things done. Why we have to copy an already usable craft in the Soyuz is beyond me, but America gets its panties in a knot if it has to share something Russian.
We should be focusing on a propulsion system that can carry a habitation module and a landing vehicle to Mars and beyond quickly and efficiently rather than reinventing the wheel.
Because a foreign government can say "nyet" and you no longer have a launch vehicle or exploration craft.
That's pretty much what the Orion craft and SLS vehicle are, though, right?
The issue with SLS is that there is nothing new on the propulsion side. The Core stage is the Shuttle's external fuel tank( just enclosed now), using the RS-25 engines also known as the SSME's( Space Shuttle Main Engines), a 5 segment version of the same Shuttle SRB's, and the upper stage is from the Delta IV.
Though that is just the 70t version. The 130t version will use new boosters and I am hoping the Pyros booster wins since it uses the F-1 engines from the first stage of the Saturn V.
But that's not an "issue." The criteria were quick and efficient, not newness. (And newness shouldn't be a requirement anyway.)
I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion
Orion has a better abort system. They can eject the capsule from the rocket if things go south.I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion
Orion has a better abort system. They can eject the capsule from the rocket if things go south.
Either way how are we supposed to get into space. What can provide enough thrust.
Plus we are going to Mars. We don't know if a crew can even get their safely. Space travel is risky, there are no guarantees.
I'd say more quick and dirty. The solid fuel rockets on the shuttle were an extreme risk every time the shuttle went up. More than a few of the o-rings burned through at least partially and it was only luck there was not another accident like Challenger. I was horrified when I saw they were continuing to use the same type on Orion
Although similar to the solid rocket boosters that helped power the space shuttle to orbit, the five-segment SLS boosters include several upgrades and improvements implemented by NASA and ATK engineers. In addition, the SLS boosters will be built more affordably and efficiently than shuttle boosters, incorporating new and innovative processes and technologies.
The bigger problems with a trip to Mars is the distance and the inability to have any chance of rescue. The moon was 3 days away and they were on their own. Now we are talking about a 6 - 9 month trip. There are going to be so many points of failure. The first of which is getting a crew of 4 to get along for a very long car ride with no pit stops.IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.
IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.
Either way how are we supposed to get into space. What can provide enough thrust.
IMHO, liquids are safer than solids for manned vehicles. It's why I am rooting for the Pyros booster.
Wow. Absolutely fascinating. That is simply incredible, and thank you very much for drawing my attention to this; I had never even heard of them.
This is still too far out from amateur rocket scientists -which is what excites me most- but still awe-provoking nonetheless:
Full screen in HD and with sound, of course
Wanderers