New Spaceshuttle - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

New Spaceshuttle

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
shiningwolf88
Sep 14, 2011 11:02:58 Or is it?
But at least the time line to get a manned mission beyond the moon seems more likely now.
#2
capitan_estaban
Sep 14, 2011 11:23:08 So, let me get this straight. The Saturn V could lift a 130 ton payload, and NASA's new rocket can lift only 77 to 110 (at first).
So much for American engineering.
Iam sure their estimates on costs, and future payload carrying capacity are accurate. Government departments have a great history of getting those estimates right.
#3
quadibloc
Sep 14, 2011 12:39:39 For one thing, they need to get over the idea that launching a rocket into space is somehow a luxury and a frivolity, far less important than, say, the convenience gained by millions of Americans in driving to work in the morning instead of using public transit.

Thus, it is OK for a space rocket, a very small part of the total U.S. energy budget, to use kerosene as fuel for the first stage, even though that produces carbon dioxide - so as to obtain more thrust (which counts for more than maximum specific impulse when you're still fighting gravity) and avoid the need for (really dirty and messy) solid rocket boosters.

Starting from that proposition, while a man-rated Atlas V (currently using Russian-made rocket engines!) one of the things now being worked on, will do for getting astronauts to the ISS, for going to Mars and so on, essentially reviving the Saturn V is indeed the most reasonable course.
#4
Escef
Sep 14, 2011 13:24:29
One would think that something larger than a "capsule" would be used for going to mars

I think you are misinterpreting how the word capsule is being used. All it means is a sectioned off, removable piece. As opposed to the old sci-fi trope of rockets being single piece affairs (old Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon type stuff).
#5
Escef
Sep 14, 2011 15:12:04
Not having specific to work with other than the word. I'm invisionaing the "capsule" used for the lunar missions.

Lets be realistic, that was not very comfortable. Mars is a much longer trip, give the men something bigger than a bathroom.

Once again, you are using an overly restrictive definition of capsule. They aren't going to be going in a cold & flu pill either, but that is a capsule.

A "capsule", once again, is a sectioned off, removable piece. That "piece" could easily be the size of an RV or three. (Granted, however, with a maximum expected cargo capacity of possibly somewhere above 130 metric tons you are looking at cargo space largely dedicated to food and air considering that a round trip to Mars will take months.)

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 shiningwolf88 Sep 14, 2011 11:02:58	Or is it? But at least the time line to get a manned mission beyond the moon seems more likely now.
#2 capitan_estaban Sep 14, 2011 11:23:08	So, let me get this straight. The Saturn V could lift a 130 ton payload, and NASA's new rocket can lift only 77 to 110 (at first). So much for American engineering. Iam sure their estimates on costs, and future payload carrying capacity are accurate. Government departments have a great history of getting those estimates right.
#3 quadibloc Sep 14, 2011 12:39:39	For one thing, they need to get over the idea that launching a rocket into space is somehow a luxury and a frivolity, far less important than, say, the convenience gained by millions of Americans in driving to work in the morning instead of using public transit. Thus, it is OK for a space rocket, a very small part of the total U.S. energy budget, to use kerosene as fuel for the first stage, even though that produces carbon dioxide - so as to obtain more thrust (which counts for more than maximum specific impulse when you're still fighting gravity) and avoid the need for (really dirty and messy) solid rocket boosters. Starting from that proposition, while a man-rated Atlas V (currently using Russian-made rocket engines!) one of the things now being worked on, will do for getting astronauts to the ISS, for going to Mars and so on, essentially reviving the Saturn V is indeed the most reasonable course.
#4 Escef Sep 14, 2011 13:24:29	One would think that something larger than a "capsule" would be used for going to mars I think you are misinterpreting how the word capsule is being used. All it means is a sectioned off, removable piece. As opposed to the old sci-fi trope of rockets being single piece affairs (old Buck Rogers or Flash Gordon type stuff).
#5 Escef Sep 14, 2011 15:12:04	Not having specific to work with other than the word. I'm invisionaing the "capsule" used for the lunar missions. Lets be realistic, that was not very comfortable. Mars is a much longer trip, give the men something bigger than a bathroom. Once again, you are using an overly restrictive definition of capsule. They aren't going to be going in a cold & flu pill either, but that is a capsule. A "capsule", once again, is a sectioned off, removable piece. That "piece" could easily be the size of an RV or three. (Granted, however, with a maximum expected cargo capacity of possibly somewhere above 130 metric tons you are looking at cargo space largely dedicated to food and air considering that a round trip to Mars will take months.)