US Space Program

Advertise with us
shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
W

west point

Engineer
Joined
Jun 9, 2015
Messages
4,806
Location
SW ATL airport
We cannot minimize the example of what the just completed mission has proved. The various delays with the batteries and hurricane proved the mission pre launch was well planned. Then a rocket 1 - 1/2times the thrust of Saturn 5. New SRBs that had no problem. As well most powerful earth launched rocket ever. Yes just a little more noise. Then a perfect flight plan that went past moon to farther than any other space craft lunched from earth. The perfect return to a Pacific landing less than a mile from planned touchdown spot. What does this spotless misssion mean? Have no idea.
 
I would expect that the space shuttle design would be different enough that a new one will need a clean sheet design from lessons learned from original design. Especially the design of the heat tiles that brought down the ??? . Electronics and especially computers as the old ones in original are now manufacture dicontinued and only old farts know how to operate them.
 
It’s been almost a half-century since the Space Shuttle was designed. I would think that they could have made significant progress since then in furthering its concept. Perhaps to the point where it could even take off on its own, from an airport, without the need to launch it attached to fuel tanks and boosters, at least for shorter missions…
 
There is that minor issue of packing enough thrust (8.8 Million Pounds of it for the SLS) and fuel, on something that can take off from a runway to place that much weight on its way to interstellar flight. The Space Shuttle, in spite of all the fancy Hollywood footwork with it, was really not designed for putting anything beyond low earth orbit. It was primarily designed for building the ISS. One has to take cognizance of limits placed by just the Physics of it.

In fact, the Space Shuttle for all its capabilities proved to be too complex and unreliable and expensive. In fact SpaceX has been able to achieve a more reliable and less expensive platform for doing essentially what the Shuttle was originally expected to do.

Of course, meanwhile we all await the invention of Teleportation. :D
 
jis said:
There is that minor issue of packing enough thrust (8.8 Million Pounds of it for the SLS) and fuel, on something that can take off from a runway to place that much weight on its way to interstellar flight. The Space Shuttle, in spite of all the fancy Hollywood footwork with it, was really not designed for putting anything beyond low earth orbit. It was primarily designed for building the ISS. One has to take cognizance of limits placed by just the Physics of it.

In fact, the Space Shuttle for all its capabilities proved to be too complex and unreliable and expensive. In fact SpaceX has been able to achieve a more reliable and less expensive platform for doing essentially what the Shuttle was originally expected to do.

Of course, meanwhile we all await the invention of Teleportation. :D
Click to expand...
I teleport every night when I go to sleep. Oh, the crazy places I've found myself at.... 🤣
 
The race to the moon is back on, but why does SpaceX's Starship & super heavy booster need 33 engines when NASA's Saturn V rocket, which went to the moon six times 55 years ago only needed five. We look at what has changed since then and why many smaller engines and all the extra complexity that comes with them seem to be the way forward for the modern space industry.
Click to expand...

Written, Researched, and Presented by Paul Shillito - The Curious Droid

 
Well recall the moon landing. At the time, many of us thought this to be a first step into going to Mars. In fact, 5 years or so would have been about right to develop the methods and materials for that trip. It is nigh impossible, and would have been laughed out of the room at the time that, over 50 years later, we have gone no further and have not even gone back, nor established some form of permanent base on the moon at the least and almost certainly on Mars as well. Venus was considered a less likely target due to inhospitable surface conditions and the deep "gravity well" necessary to climb for return to earth.
 
George Harris said:
Well recall the moon landing. At the time, many of us thought this to be a first step into going to Mars. In fact, 5 years or so would have been about right to develop the methods and materials for that trip. It is nigh impossible, and would have been laughed out of the room at the time that, over 50 years later, we have gone no further and have not even gone back, nor established some form of permanent base on the moon at the least and almost certainly on Mars as well. Venus was considered a less likely target due to inhospitable surface conditions and the deep "gravity well" necessary to climb for return to earth.
Click to expand...
That may be why they called those that performed that amazing accomplishment in 1969, only 63 years after the Wright Brothers first powered flight, "The Greatest Generation", and not those that have come in the 55 years since.... 🤷‍♂️
 

Latest posts

Back
Top