34 replies to this topic

[Robbie333]

ROGER, on 15 September 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

I like this design far better than "The Stick". Though putting the engines at the bottom of the fuel tanks is going to be interesting to see how they do it.

And as for the "Nay" posts. All I have to say is , " This is Reality , not T.V.!"

            

[Taut]

Oppono Astos, on 15 September 2011 - 02:36 AM, said:

Further billions spent on developing a system based on chemical rockets, when some here would have us believe that mankind is already capable of interplanetary travel using alien-derived exotic propulsions - that's one expensive smokescreen...

marcos anthony toledo, on 15 September 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

This looks like Atlas V or Delta IV pumped up this 2011 not 1967 enough with stupid dangeous rockets lets move on to something better and safer how about a vehicles with a force field to replace the heat shield something new please and different.

Spid3rCyd3, on 15 September 2011 - 12:53 PM, said:

Yeah...just kind of seems like we're going in reverse here. I'm all for NASA and the space program, but can't we dump more of that money into R & D and tackle this antigrav, propulsion thing? I've seen so many theories about it lately on how it's done, lets start building and testing.

I had seen the hype on the "Orion" stuff a while back and thought.......Wonderful!  We are doing something new and awesome.   Now I'm just disappointed - I agree with you guys/gals -- chemical rockets?, really?  We gotta have some more advanced ideas than that to spend billions on.   I find myself kinda bummed now, cause that's definitely not how NASA portrayed Orion.  And I was hoping they were  UNDERstating.   Shoulda known.

Edited by Taut, 15 September 2011 - 05:48 PM.

[HoaxHunter]

I am glad to see that NASA are using the design of a previous successful rocket, the Saturn was a great rocket, and is still used in many parts of the world. Though all they seem to have done to it is add 2 SRB's to the Side. Despite the fact that the Saturn V has 5 SRB's.

I really hope you know what your doing NASA, it was a really big mistake to retire the Shuttle.

[Anotheryahoo]

Chemical rockets arent going to open up our solar system.  Lets face it once a engine is made to go interplanetary the whole game changes. Chemicals rockets can only do so much. We need trips to the planets that take days not months or years. Nasa should be focused on the next technology and a spaceship. Capsules and Apollo again after 40 years seems stagnate at best.

[Rolci]

I know one thing. The results of space exploration are there for all of humanity to see, but the money comes from the pockets of the taxpayers of only one country, and that's not the one I'm in. Not that I pay tax. The idea of working for 3 whole months for free every year is not something I wish to make a part of my own life any time soon. Keep up the good job there in the US.

[GnomeWatcher]

the shuttle were retired before they had a replacement, that is due to the Clinton, Bush and Obama, administrations. Bush wanted to push forward, but Congress, regardless of the Fact that is was Republican, decided it was not worth the effort, Before 9/11/01, so...

NASA is at least using a tried and true method to keep us in earth orbit, and soon perhaps back on the Moon, which is step one to going further to say Mars or the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. From my understanding these are just to get stuff into Low Earth Orbit, from there the really impressive engines and vehicles can be built, though this is still a couple decades away (I hope).

[Archosaur]

I'm very happy to see this! I was beginning to wonder is the US was getting ready to quit space altogether.

I understand the desire for more advances propulsion systems. While I think the anti-gravity idea is just silly, there are some systems that Nasa would do well to build, test and deploy (Nuclear propulsion, another craft with ion drive, solar sail, space plane ramjet, etc). Nasa has gotten very conservative with technology, and that is a bit of a shame: as part of the reason the civilian spaceflight agency was concieved was to lead the way in aerospace development. Still, very happy to see this (it looks like the main booster for Orion).

[Cryptozological Mascot]

Aw man... I thought that it had said "Space LUNCH Program."  Now I'm bummed.

[WoIverine]

Rolci, on 15 September 2011 - 10:36 PM, said:

Keep up the good job there in the US.

It's not all of our faults, trust me, I hear what you are saying.  

[Trog]

A total waste of money , but it's your money not mine , and if you want to see social programs suffer through lack of funding then that's good too , because ultimately it'll be you who suffers .

[Rafterman]

Trog, on 17 September 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

A total waste of money , but it's your money not mine , and if you want to see social programs suffer through lack of funding then that's good too , because ultimately it'll be you who suffers .

Perhaps you should compare US spending on social programming vs the space program before making such comments.

[The Russian Hare]

Please, NASA's budget is tiny compared to the social services, which accomplish far less with far greater amounts of money... NASA is not taking a cent away from starving poor people.

[~C.S.M~]

social services are not a waste, but there isnt any future in social spendings.

NASA on the other hand, develop tecnologies, advances science, and create jobs. Jobs are made for workers, technicians, engierneers, sceintist and others. Tecnologies that will be used around the world will be developed (remember the tech advancement based on the moon missions) and unique science work will be done.

Sorry peopl. There isnt any comparission, NASA IS NEEDED. Perhaps if we invested more in space, we could have avoided or lessened the econ-crisis?

About chemical rockets, there isnt any alternative....rockets is what we have, if we have to develop something totally new or revolutionary decades will pass. So for now rockets are the best of the best.

[Czero 101]

marcos anthony toledo, on 15 September 2011 - 11:48 AM, said:

This looks like Atlas V or Delta IV pumped up this 2011 not 1967 enough with stupid dangeous rockets lets move on to something better and safer how about a vehicles with a force field to replace the heat shield something new please and different.

Considering that "force fields" do not yet exist in any way that could be used as a practical solution as you are requesting, the more logical thing to do is what NASA is doing, leverage current proven technology and design a new vehicle based on it.

ROGER, on 15 September 2011 - 02:10 PM, said:

I like this design far better than "The Stick". Though putting the engines at the bottom of the fuel tanks is going to be interesting to see how they do it.

Where else would you put them? You do know that pretty much every liquid-fueled rocket design has the engines underneath the fuel tanks, right?  

HoaxHunter, on 15 September 2011 - 06:35 PM, said:

I am glad to see that NASA are using the design of a previous successful rocket, the Saturn was a great rocket, and is still used in many parts of the world. Though all they seem to have done to it is add 2 SRB's to the Side. Despite the fact that the Saturn V has 5 SRB's.

Uhm... the Saturn V was a liquid-fueled rocket. It had no SRB's (Solid Rocket Boosters) at all.

Anotheryahoo, on 15 September 2011 - 06:50 PM, said:

Chemical rockets arent going to open up our solar system.  Lets faace it once a engine is made to go interplanetary the whole game changes. Chemicals rockets can only do so much. We need trips to the planets that take days not months or years. Nasa should be focused on the next technology and a spaceship. Capsules and Apollo again after 40 years seems stagnate at best.

This launch system and the Orion capsule is paving the way for longer duration trips, including ones to Mars and to the Asteroid Belt. That they superficially resemble the Apollo hardware is just a testament to the solid design of those vehicle. The design was very successful 40 years ago, and with newer technology being implemented, the current designs have the potential to be just as, if not more successful than Apollo's designs. Apollo was cutting edge at the time, and Orion will be cutting edge when it flies as well.

Trog, on 17 September 2011 - 12:52 AM, said:

A total waste of money , but it's your money not mine , and if you want to see social programs suffer through lack of funding then that's good too , because ultimately it'll be you who suffers .

Well Troll... er... Trog... the only "waste" here is that of the time it took the read your uninformed, ignorant post. I want those 5 seconds back...




Cz

Edited by Czero 101, 17 September 2011 - 06:23 PM.

[Rafterman]

Not to mention, any type of deep space engine will more than likely be assembled in orbit and we'll probably use good old fashioned chemical rockets to get the parts up there.

There's a reason the USS Enterprise never landed.