NASA Exploring Cheaper Shuttle Replacement

[diaflux]

The shuttle design is too risky, expensive and just counter-intuitive. One would intuitively put the load on the opposite side of the engine, for the safest configuration. Old configuration = less expensive, safer and more thrust for payload, where is the dilemma?

[theLEGOPOKEMAINIAC]

oh, TOO LATE!!

[bobfire222]

kill Obama for a lie that ruined us and now halting the space program now you've gone too far

fuck you Obama.

[Lastindependentthink]

Sounds like somebody has got Space Shuttle Withdrawals. make your mind up and stick with it.

[rocketmentor]

You sound like a typical liberal avoiding the fundamental point, the ability to terminate thrust upon command. It's not a matter of opinion,just fact. Play with your solids were human life isn't at more risk than necessary.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@rocketmentor

Solids are more reliable and safer than comparable thrust liquid engines...there is a fact for you. The Ariane 5 SRBs, and Shuttle SRBs are examples with success rates in the 99.5 percentile. The engineers knew the Challenger SRBs would have CATO potential under those freezing conditions and raised the issue, the Challenger accident wasn't a fault of the SRB, it was all down to pompous management.

[rocketmentor]

JFK got US to the Moon. Nixon destroyed the Saturn thus assuring an aerospace monopoly,the flawed Space Shuttle.

BHO did much worse, he eliminated US from the space business all together.

OBTW - Please get rid of those man/women killing SRB's,pretty please! Bring back the F-1.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@rocketmentor

As much as I love the legacy F-1 it was no were near reliable.Pogo oscillations and combustion instability plagued them. The SRB's didn't kill anyone, it was the lack of NASA management heading the warnings of Roger Boisjoly on that uncharacteristic frigid ill fated day in 1986 that caused the accident.

[rocketmentor]

@marmaladekamikaze Not true on all accounts. The F-1 was rock stabile after baffling the injector, never a peep in flight. It was the J-2 that had POGO which led to a premature shutdown of the S-ll stage in an Apollo mission, the S-lV stage made up the lost delta-V. If the SRB was able to be shut down, we would have 7 more living astronauts today,Yes some managers/politicians should be in prison but that still doesn't change the stated facts.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@rocketmentor

It was the F-1 engines oscillations in Apollo 6 that caused material from the mock up CSM to fall off, and it was the F-1 that created the oscillating conditions that damaged the S-II stage that ignited after the first stage was jettisoned. Like I said, I love the F-1A and F-1A but I'm under no illusion.

[1138thz]

@marmaladekamikaze

Combustion Instability is common in very large engines like the LOX/RP-1 F-1. But that was corrected and the engines proved to be very reliable. But the current trend is to use more numerous smaller engines with a higher ISP like the LOX/H2 RS-68 engines on the Delta IV heavy these days. It would however take about 9-10 RS-68's to do what those five F1 did.

F1's ISP = 263

R-68's ISP = 410 ( 55% more propulsive force per pound of fuel/oxidizer)

[marmaladekamikaze]

@1138thz

The current trend has the support of most of the rocket industry, and I can assume they have sound reasons (like a lower likelihood to generate combustion instability) for building and using liquid chemical engines over large F-1 engines. The role of high Thrust takeoff engines has been taken over by Solid rocket motors. The SRB has a sea level ISP ~280, and has a much higher use rate and probable success rate than a revived F-1.I love the F-1, but reviving it wouldn't be wise

[1138thz]

@rocketmentor

Good call, What would you say? Four F-1 strap on boosters operating at about 85% of their max thrust instead of those ragged solids? I'm surprised they every man rated those things. And those F-1s were smoother and generated far less vibration that those solids so perhaps the second lost crew might be alive as well if the SRBs hadn't been adopted.

[SBernardoni1991]

Barack Obama has no business sticking his nose in NASA's business. He needs to worry about other shit!

[katey1dog]

@SBernardoni1991

He doesn't have shit to worry about. He's already tripled the debt, murdered three US Citizens, and declared war with no authority from Congress.

[Ondelendo]

I am very happy to see the vidoe NASA Exploring Cheaper Shuttle Replacement from you, hopefully the others also are happy for You

[bebeheuy]

I Love The Video NASA Exploring Cheaper Shuttle Replacement It Can Increase My Knowledge

[willamricard]

Nice Video NASA Exploring Cheaper Shuttle Replacement That You Share , So Very Nice Thanks You

[imegatrone]

I Really Like The Video A top NASA official is touting a replacement for the Space Shuttle program that would be much cheaper than the planned $35 billion Constellation program From Your

[bundawartini]

Your Video A top NASA official is touting a replacement for the Space Shuttle program that would be much cheaper than the planned $35 billion Constellation program. Is Very Useful Sharing

[thedeviluknow]

@ChaosDynamics Wrong presidency, think the previous one, y'know, the chimpy one.

[roguemale57]

If NASA maintained the same momentum as it did during the space race to the moon-we would have had people living on mars years ago.

[InfiniteMushroom]

@roguemale57 America's financiers aren't interested in space travel or colonization. The future of space was redefined back then to what it is now. Low earth orbit. The sole purpose being satellites for surveillance, GPS for efficient police state control, and even blackmail of nations that resist imperialist bondage.

Clinton gave the Chinese all the info they needed to build multi-stage rockets, so they can compete with the Russians for manned launches.

[GetTheGr33n]

retiring the shuttles is kind of sad but then again its an oppertunity for far more advanced spacecraft to emerge. building new shuttles from scratch, not having to build up on the old framework leaves alot of room for improvements, looking forward to the new generation of nasa air and spacecraft!

[masterdelrap]

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!!!!!! WE SHOULD OF BEEN HAD A NEW SPACE SHIP READY TO GO TO MARS WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY SO WE CAN TRAVEL TO MARS A SPACE SHIP THAT CAN FLOAT AROUND MARS AND SEND PROBES WITH PEOPLE TO MARS AND WE CAN EXPLORE OUR GALAXY HOW STUPID CAN WE BE WE SHOULD BE IN JUPITER BY NOW

[InfiniteMushroom]

All of this talk is moot. NASA is an artifact of an industrial America that no longer exists. We are no longer an industrial people but fat consumers with short attention spans. The Space Shuttle was the last hurrah of industrial America. The NWO evisceration of America is just beginning!

Reagan declared war on the working class and we've lost OVER 46,000 factories since then. The U.S. will NEVER do manned space travel again. We'll be lucky to get subcontract work from the Russian space agency.

[monokhem]

@InfiniteMushroom Your wrong. American industrialism is alive and well in the rocket industry, where we make the o=wordls best and cheapest rockets. China can't even keep up. We still make things, but to be competative we have to make really hard things to make, or else third world countries will just make it cheaper.

Cancelling the shuttle has accelerated this industry, and in ten years the US will be launching more people into space than it ever has before.

[omega4chimp]

@monokhem Why dont you guys make a giant gasoline pipe line that would shoot of into space like that space elevator,that would be way cheaper because then you can refuel satellite rocket fuel stations that can stretch out to the moon and beyond. and make distances shorter.why do you have a gasoline satiation in your city so you can go out to the next city and fill up their same with this space shit.

[monokhem]

@omega4chimp Because that would be stupid and dangerous.

[omega4chimp]

@monokhem It would be smarter actually. Thats like saying dont blast rockets off at all because they might explode.

[monokhem]

@omega4chimp No it wouldn't. When a rocket blasting off is more dangerous than any natural disaster in history you might be right. Until then it is just supid and dangerous.

[omega4chimp]

@monokhem I dont believe you man.why wouldn't you won't a rocky fuel pipeline blasting off into pace then you wouldn't have to lunch rockets off earth if that a what you think,and you can keep then stationary in space and people can live in space.

[monokhem]

@omega4chimp I can't take you seriously.

[omega4chimp]

@monokhem its a pretty smart idea,dude why wouldn't you won't rocket fuel gas stains spread along space?

[monokhem]

@omega4chimp If the line to earth snaps then it can drag along the surface faster than the speed of sound and destroying everything it touches.

[illustriouschin]

@monokhem It would be pulled away from the earth since it would be under tension.

[monokhem]

@illustriouschin That isn't how they work. The station at the top is in orbit. An amount of tension sufficient to pull the tether away from the planet at anything other than a nominal rate would be more than enough to pull it out of the ground altogether.

[DJ1SCY]

Cheaper space shuttles will just make more space junk and I say we have too much of that in orbit already.

[masterdelrap]

NASA IS FUCKING UP FUTURE SPACE EXPLORATION WE COULD OF BEEN ALREADY IN MARS BY NOW

[InfiniteMushroom]

@masterdelrap It's not NASA's fault that we haven't had a manned mission to Mars. Thank Nixon for that. He canceled the two last Apollo launches, even though they were already paid for and in the pipeline. We signed a treaty with the USSR that effectively banned nuclear powered rockets. Verner von Braun already developed a continuous thrust nuclear rocket but, it still collects dust.

Most of all, thank the globalist social engineers who decided that global serfdom is the future, not space travel

[TheAwesomeFormat]

god damn budget cuts... some of the deadliest diseases have been cured with nasa funding. So shut the fuck up anyone whos saying "Weve reached a dead end in space exploration."

[jukio02]

@TheAwesomeFormat we have, our space program sux now, not saying it did before, but today, we arent doing shit anymore.

[sgtpepper1138]

@TheAwesomeFormat I did a whole presentation on why NASA is a good idea. I also love how people think that they get like TRILLIONS of dollars each year. if you look at the map with all of the budgets, NASA is like a pin head compared to the military and stuff.

[DonBringer]

WE NEED A BIGGER, AND A HUGE ROCKET

[ti994apc]

Any way you slice it, using shuttle parts will cost too much and be dangerous. Hello!!! we now have SpaceX, the greatest thing to ever happen to the US space program. Billions cheaper and light years safer than any other US rocket ever.

[jmxgen]

NASA should hire commercial agencies to get cargo payloads into orbit, then congress should fund the Constellation projects on the moon AND missions to Mars. America has had the technological capability and plans to go to Mars since pre-1990. George Bush Sr said he wanted a mission to Mars way back in the early 1990s!

What a shame it hasn't happened yet. Fully fund the space program!

[bobafetthotmail]

@jmxgen Look at SpaceX. They are doing more or less what you are asking for. Both a cargo rocket and a private capsule.

[davisgreen2020]

That is silly and dangerous ! A "in line" rocket is better and safer !! Constellation worked !! Ares 1-X launched !! It worked !!! What rocket can lift 180 tons to low Earth orbit ? And 71 tons to the Moon ?! Except the Ares V !!!

[bobafetthotmail]

@davisgreen2020 Look for DIRECT proposals (Jupiter rockets). It would do more or less the same without a complete redesign of anything.

[bigrobnz]

so the usa has lost it"s way in Iraq, Afganistan and in space!!! Wat"s next?

[jukio02]

@bigrobnz this country is failing, and no ones seems to notice.

[greenseaships]

@bigrobnz Shit happens when you're going through one of the worst economic slumps in a century

[kurt30001]

ARES 1 and ARES V were better ! And safer !!! A in-line design is far safer than the piggy-back design of the Space Shuttle !

[tjohn6041]

@kurt30001 Agreed, they are also safer.

[manifestman132]

What was the project that could be launched from a aircraft?

[MikeofWyoming]

I love my astronauts, don't get me wrong but if we keep spending hundreds of millions to make it safe then that takes the badassery out of calling yourself an astronaut...Strap the bomb on and light the fuse! Then if you make it you get free beer at any bar for life.

[localfishinghole]

To katey1dog

I agree to the first line, why replace an airframe that works. That is exactly why the are going back to the older style.

Only 1 failure in the Apollo program, while 40% of the space shuttles are gone.

[MikeofWyoming]

The problem with that is the number of missions from apollo compared to the shuttle.

[cladiax1]

that idea sucks

[jibbi4one]

"Mom... look what the cat dragged back into the house the side-saddle booster concept."

C-heap Shuttle may yet win.

[katey1dog]

Why replace a airframe that works?

What we need is a shuttle of the same class, yet brand new and modernized.

[MikeofWyoming]

I understand that it was terrible what happened to the two shuttles but to just scrap it and take a step backwards. Not what Kennedy would do.

[santee86]

The problem with the shuttle System is that it's impossible to go further than a low earth orbit with it. So the Orbiter has to be substituted with some expendable cheap and lighter capsule + enough fuel to go to the moon and come back

[MikeofWyoming]

So why did we have the shuttle program in the first place? We still need a utility spacecraft that can haul crew and equipment in low earth orbit. I say go ahead with new ideas, whilst keeping the workhorse in commision. Scrap Obamacare first and second scrap porkulous spending.

[EpiDemic117]

i say scrap the original shuttle since the design on it is becoming very dangerious and risky. Start from scratch, and built one that is far safer, bigger, and uses less fuel. We need to get out there! The space program is extremely important! We must never cut funds on it for it will some day do more than pay its self back. I am inspired by science fiction yet for some reason a few of it eventually becomes science fact.

[MikeofWyoming]

The science fiction they should make science fact is teleportation. I'm so tired of taking hay to the stock.

[dcarrera01]

@EpiDemic117:

The best way to make the shuttle replacement use less fuel is to make it smaller. In hindsight, the shuttle was a mistake. For example, it has a big cargo bay for equipment, it's very heavy, and you have to take all that weight with you whether or not you actually need to carry any equipment with you. It's like if your only vehicle is a trailer. It's a huge waste if you just want to carry people.

There are other issues with the shuttle, too many to discuss here.

[EpiDemic117]

No the shuttle was not a mistake. The had a cargo bay for a reason. To carry satellites and heavy equipment (which weighs nothing in 0g) out to space.

How was the shuttle a mistake if it was one of the most successful space craft in history to date? The actual problem with todays space travel is that we are technically borrowing from what was pioneered in the early 20th century. It's time to start over and think differently.

[dcarrera01]

@EpiDemic117:

Huh? You don't use the shuttle to carry satellites to space. Second, a traditional rocket is better suited for cargo. The shuttle has a lot of very expensive stuff that is useless for cargo (heat shield, wings, landing gear, all the human rating stuff, etc).

I have no idea why you think the shuttle is the most successful space craft. It is not the most cost effective, or the most reliable. It doesn't have the largest number of flights, the longest history, the best safety record.

[dcarrera01]

@MikeofWyoming:

To answer your question: The shuttle was conceived because it was supposed to save a lot of money by being reusable. That didn't pan out. There are a lot of design errors in the shuttle that make it both expensive and unsafe.

There is a good reason why they chose 2010 as the year to scrap the shuttle. If you keep the shuttle longer you have to re-certify every component to make sure that it can still fly with a reasonable margin of safety and that is very expensive.

[MikeofWyoming]

Sorry I injected personal politics into this subject. It's been on my mind a lot lately.

[EpiDemic117]

the problem with most of our space craft in general is the fuel. It's highly inefficient. If we were to be able to harness something as antimatter or some form of movement. It might just solve the problem all together. Ion propulsion is great but WEAK! it takes months to get a craft to move. We need something powerfull.

[dcarrera01]

@EpiDemic117:

I'm sorry, but you are being stupid. First, fuel is not the largest cost component of any space vehicle. Second, antimatter is not a source of fuel. Third, any space transportation involves a form of propulsion. Maybe you don't know what the word propulsion means.

[Ovumee]

@MikeofWyoming

the fault is all about nasa's arrogance. thats why they lost 2 of the shuttles. but as i see them today, they've learned their lesson.

[never4getthis]

@katey1dog because it was expensive

[Flyingazzmunky]

@katey1dog Exactly! These birds have been flying missions for damn near 30 years. And one mission puts more stress on the airframe than your average aircraft goes through in it's lifetime.Saying Rockwell did a hell of a job building them is an understatement.

[tlages]

@katey1dog Space shuttles are the only option for the future of manned cargo trips to orbit. As far as I'm concerned, the space shuttle only lost its cargo once, and that was during the challenger disaster.

[katey1dog]

@tlages

Cargo was lost around ten years ago. It was a package designed to study the Sun. It was on a tether and it broke. It is now floating aimlessly in space.

But surely, we need newer and better shuttles of the same class.

[tlages]

@katey1dog I agree. If only NASA's budget was big enough. We should build new shuttles and build the Ares V or a similar design. Funny how president Obama cancels the Ares V for the Space Launch System, which is essentially the Ares I/V

[illustriouschin]

@katey1dog The space shuttle is not capable of leaving low earth orbit and it costs far too much to rebuild a glider after each trip. It is time to move on.

[marmaladekamikaze]

@katey1dog

The shuttle was never designed to ride strap on, it was originally designed to ride onto like the 'Dyna-Soar' spaceplane. If the original engineers had their way then the circumstances surrounding Challenger & Columbia never would have been able to happen.