Their should be a giant space gasoline pipeline that would shoot of from earth like that space elevator and then spa chips would never have to leave earth,then you could make space gasoline satellite stations,and their would be like mad spaceship traffic congestion and the space highway.
I still cannot believe that that the US government cancelled this project when the prototype was in construction yet they allowed Constellation and Orion (aka GARBAGE) to stagnate for almost a decade before deciding to kill it. Apparently only 2-3 billion was spent on this by the time of its cancellation compared to the almost 10 billion spent on Saturn V 2.0
$1.5B was spent. Almost half of that was on the stupid unobtainium/handwavium composite LH2 tank that NASA absolutely had to have, despite that the Al/Li tank was cheaper, more reliable and lighter.
@MokomaSusi for the amount of money spent we could have had a better solution or might as well went along with the X-33. 10 billion dollars later we had a vehicle no different then the plethora of conventional rockets which could have easily been retrofitted to carry men and cargo into orbit with a small fraction of the cost of Orion's development. When you spend that much on a project and get nothing innovative out of it, there is something wrong.
negative. nasa did a good move by gave up on this project. im not sure the vehicle is big enough just to hold the amount of fuel they need to get out to lower orbit
@applesweeter 1; animalian curiosity, we, like most mammals and birds, are curious by nature. The only difference we have from other animals is that we can comprehend and get to space.
2; We enjoy to desighn and build new crafts to show off and ofcourse to make flights safer and more efficient.
3; Past time.
4; Fit our lifestyle? I cant really speculate on a speculation.
The space shuttle hauls its tanks from ground to orbit with the same set of liquid propelled engines. Had they gone with liquid fueled boosters as well there would be no need for shedding the srb casings.
The X-33 failed because the technology behind carbon fiber was still new. Otherwise it was a perfectly feasible ship.
They could have done it with aluminum so far as the test vehicle was concerned, but administrations changed and time ran out.
Let's just forget the huge fuel tank they throw away every launch. How terribly wasteful.
In "Fallen Angels" it's proposed that astronauts "accidentally" released the fuel tanks in such a way that the remained in orbit and were converted to habitats...
As elegant concepts these SSTO space planes could never achieve orbit with any meaningful payload & NASA has known this since the 50's. The chemical energy/lb is just to high, the only way to make these vehicles possible is with the use of atomic energy. This source yields 1m fold Ej/lb than it's chemical counterpart. Such vehicles would utilize a RTG radioisotope package without the use of nuclear fusion only steady decay. The spaceplane would run electric turbines then plasma rockets to orbit.
The best way to design a space plane is to haul it up to the edge of space with a mother ship and launch it the rest of the way into orbit. This way you don't have to compromise anything in the design of the spacecraft hauler and the spacecraft itself.
In this case the weight demands of the X-33/ VentureStar runway-landing configuration were more subtle. The vehicle had a lifting-body shape which is less efficient than a cylinder, so more heat shield mass was needed. To fit inside that shape, propellant tanks had to be made in complex multilobed forms that required internal bracing to resist pressure. And then there was the dead weight of landing wheels, brakes, struts, doors, actuators, and structure to support them.
Clearly X-33/VS suffered from fundamental problems that were not connected with the composite tank failure that was the official reason for cancelling the program. In failed aerospace projects, a particular technical hitch is often made the scapegoat for systemic management and engineering problems that are too embarrassing for the funding agency to admit.
@Hiraghm The Delta Clipper? Really?! Don't you remember it crashing and burning? It was a neat retro concept but it just didn't work out.
And Omaba has a lot on his plate right now and about three years to get it all done. Space exploration is going to have to wait a while, let's fix up home first!
On its last test, one of the legs gave out on landing. Hardly enough to cancel it.
All the other tests were successful.
Yes, Obama has a lot on his plate. But he's not addressing it.
Instead of the money he's blowing on promoting "alternative energy", how bout a prize for private companies who can get a sustainable, reusable surface-to-orbit system in place?
The ability to hop from New York to Berlin in a couple hours at the expense of the Delta Clipper would create whole new industries.
It seems the reasons for the X33's demise are as much political as they were technological.
Part of the reason it was killed in March 2001 was because it was Clinton and Gore's pet project for NASA.
Hopefully with Obama as president NASA will be made to look into private vehicles for LEO and lunar transport since they can do everything Orion can do but for one tenth the cost and that includes going to the moon and advance technology research programs will be restarted at NASA.
It´s a pity than X-33 was cancelled it would be the best successor for the Shuttle, now with the Constellation proyect is a "setback" for NASA manned spaceflight
Magnetrition. Research indicates, magnetic bacteria and the mitochondria have the same properties. The average person dies around age 70 due to insufficient turning during sleep. Astronauts, when they leave the Earth's magnetic field, must take with them a copy of the Earth's magnetic field, and insure their periodic movement within that field to prevent osteoporosis.
It's Antony Raijekov. I used YouTube's AudioSwap feature to give these videos I edited together a soundtrack. Youtube-TestTube-AudioSwap-Classical-Antony Raijekov.
Actually, when we won World War II, we captured german rocket scientists and they founded NACA, the predecessor to NASA. But, the rocket scientists really weren't into the whole "Global Domination" thing. They actually wanted just to get to space, even if it meant supplying the German War Machine with long range ballistic missiles like the V-2 which was later turned into the American Redstone launch system.
not you won World War II, the russian do ;) and this scientist werent captured Arthur Rudolph come to america because this was the only chance for him to continue "his" projekt.
well most of the scientists were captured like von Braun and his teams were captures (German) littlemrbandmanjr was right many of them were captured but had not intention of world domination... just wanted to get into space. von Braun later was famous for helping the astronauts go to the moon- the Apollo missions
after your comment I serched in my books if I was wrong, and I found this (srry, it's german, but I'm also german and have no english books ;)): "Am 2. Mai 1945 suchte Wernher von Braun [...]zusammen mit anderen Wissenschaftlern einen Amerikanischen Vorposten auf [...]da sie Angst hatten von den Russen gefangen genommen zu werden..." This means that he goes with other scientists to the american, because they were scared of being captured by russian soldiers.(which serched them too)
Actually, according to the extremely well written and researched tech-history book "Peenemünde and the coming of the ballistic missile", the reason why von Braun and his entourage ended up in USA rather then USSR, France or Britain, was that they deduced (correctly) that only the USA could afford to keep the Peenemünde east project going. They got themselves to the USA controlled area and waited for the right moment to introduce themselves to the US forces offering them fantastic expertise.
Scientists are rarely crazy enough to want to dominate the world. Most of them want to create new things, i.e. space vessels, vehicles, medical breakthroughs, et cetera. Science is used in war as a weapon, but you cannot blame the gun for the death.
No, the Soviets didn't win WWII, even though we waited 3 weeks so they could take Berlin instead of us. And they had nothing to do with victory in the Pacific.
You high!!! Ever heard about the Eastern front. What do think would have happend with D-day if the Soviets had not preoccupied most of the German army. The Germans would have rolled over the Allies. Actually their never would have been a D-day if the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had been upheld!!!
It's a fact that we had to wait 3 weeks in order to let the Soviets take Berlin.
It's also a fact that the Soviets were getting their butts handed to them until we began providing them with raw materials and other means to fight the Germans.
It's a further fact that the Soviets busied themselves building opera houses while their cities were under siege.
And it's a fact that the Soviets wasted millions of lives fighting the Germans.
Futhermore the Germans would eventually had taken England if they had commited all their reasources on it instead of waging a two front war and declearing the US war after Pearl Harbour which was rather stupid of Adolf Hitler to do!!! Thank God!!! NB: The Soveits lost 300.000 men taking Berlin so it not a small feat!!!
No, the Germans wouldn't have eventually have taken England. They threw at England everything they could, the war with the Soviets notwithstanding.
Hitler had no choice but to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl; it was part of Germany's pact with Japan. The kind of alliance that turned WWI into the global conflict it became.
England won the battle of Britian granted but reason the Germans suspended their campaign was that they ran out of time not planes and pilots. They had not managed to gain air superiority within time before the weather would hamper an invasion that year. So instead they commited most of their air asset to the invasion of Russia. Hitler also broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, so he could as easily have broken his pact with Japan. What would have Japan done decleared Germany war!!!
NASA was founded by Nazi's. They are nothing but a mere distraction and a money pit to appeal to people who KNOW WE SHOULD BE EXPLORING OTHER PLANETS. With the current "NASA" we shall never get to explore the solar system. Even by their pokey nasa standards, if the space race continued, we'd have a moon base and have a man on Mars by 1980. Pity it came to a crawl.
The idiots at NASA will never achieve single stage lift off until they start designing their ships to launch from horizontal and use basic wing lift design then at high attitude loss the wing(ie slide into the body) and hit the throttle to get the speed for orbit. Until then they are stuck on a revamped shuttle. If NASA said to Boeing it has to carry 100 ppl and fly 6 missions a week I am sure they come up with the design cause those billions of dollars fit nicely into CEO's pockets !!!
I know. What can't they just take off on a runway an airliner. Then go high up and refuel and finally blast into space. What is so important about blasting straight up to space? Space ship one has proven this that is doesn't have to use too much fuel or launch vertically to go in orbit. Yeah, but I guess they are making a lot money in experiments and whatever they spend the taxes for.
space ship one did'nt go into orbit. It would actually require 30 times the amount of energy to send it into orbit. even if they find a way to do it for less, they'll need to make a space plane with a much larger second stage, and of course, an even larger first stge. While a vehicle like that woud certainly be a step in the right direction, it may not be as cost efficient as disposable rockets.
the space shuttle proved that reusable spacecraft are'nt very reliable, plus they can get expensive to maintain. there is still a lot they can do to lower costs of disposbale rockets.
the problem with a catapult launcher, would be the intense g-forces the payload would have to go through. While it would'nt be a problem for launching raw materials, it's useless for transporting astronauts.
Did you see the concept they talk about? The ones where they will be using a super strong carbon nanotube ribbons, in which they will attact in to an anchor in space. Then they'll make an elevator of it? Well I think in the future nanotechnology and advance AI will do much better. People are just way to expensive and support on space. Robots on the other hand are very economical and effecient.
How the HELL can that litle orbiter hold enough fuel to get it into orbit? The fuel tank for the space shuttle is about five times the size of the orbiter, and then it has those SRBS. Is this thing supposed to be nuclear powered or something?
that litle orbiter can hold enough fuel to get it into orbit because of how the engine is desgined. Look up Single stage to Orbit if you want a more precise explanation.
It'll probally be a long time before an SSTO becomes neccesary. Plus, theres alwasy something to be said for a reusable first stage, like the shuttle SRBs. Like, maybe something with a heat shield of feathering that brings an orbiter to the edge of space and then lands. It's a pretty exciting field.
yeah, but a flux capacitor requires an amount of energy on the order of gigawatts. (although it's been mispronounced as "jigawatts" before). vehicle that produces that much energy would be a feat unto itself.
Thanks! Check out the International Space Agency (ISA) site here by clicking on this user account! Also check out the International Space Plane (ISP) Program website! You can google "International Space Plane (ISP) Program", or you can go to this user account which has links to the International Space Agency (ISA) Organization.
The single stage to orbit (STTO) still eludes us. Our technology isn't ready. Someday, it will happen. Things are only impossible until they're not. GO NASA!
China is having a lot more luck with SSTO than we are. X-33 was cancelled because of problems with the fuel cell and cost overruns, but in theory it will fly
RIP X-33
matthewakian2 4 months ago
Their should be a giant space gasoline pipeline that would shoot of from earth like that space elevator and then spa chips would never have to leave earth,then you could make space gasoline satellite stations,and their would be like mad spaceship traffic congestion and the space highway.
omega4chimp 5 months ago
Lockheed martin is still developing the technology from the X-33
wolfyys 1 year ago
I still cannot believe that that the US government cancelled this project when the prototype was in construction yet they allowed Constellation and Orion (aka GARBAGE) to stagnate for almost a decade before deciding to kill it. Apparently only 2-3 billion was spent on this by the time of its cancellation compared to the almost 10 billion spent on Saturn V 2.0
AeroSail727 1 year ago
@AeroSail727
$1.5B was spent. Almost half of that was on the stupid unobtainium/handwavium composite LH2 tank that NASA absolutely had to have, despite that the Al/Li tank was cheaper, more reliable and lighter.
ChrisInAStrangeLand 1 year ago
@AeroSail727
There is nothing wrong in Orion, not when looked ideas behind it. NASA clearly does not want to take a risk like they did with a shuttle.
Shuttle was supposed to be cheap way to go space...was it?
MokomaSusi 1 year ago
@MokomaSusi for the amount of money spent we could have had a better solution or might as well went along with the X-33. 10 billion dollars later we had a vehicle no different then the plethora of conventional rockets which could have easily been retrofitted to carry men and cargo into orbit with a small fraction of the cost of Orion's development. When you spend that much on a project and get nothing innovative out of it, there is something wrong.
AeroSail727 1 year ago
negative. nasa did a good move by gave up on this project. im not sure the vehicle is big enough just to hold the amount of fuel they need to get out to lower orbit
xtrunggax 1 year ago
It would have been a wonderful replacement for the Spaceshuttle..Alas..Like the Ares 1 and Ares V.. Gone..
davisgreen2020 1 year ago
@davisgreen2020
Ares 1 wasn't a wonderful replacement.
We could've converted an existing rocket to do what it was supposed to do, and for much less of a price tag.
GreatExterminator 1 year ago
If we had only picked the Rockwell design back in 1996 rather than going with Lockheed martin. Its a mistake we keep making.
ti994apc 1 year ago
Dear All,
I have some question about psychology:
(1) Why do we love aspace travel?
(2) Why do we enjoy to design and to build new space craft?
(3) Why do we like to be "space tourist" for space holiday?
(4) What will be the most desirable design space craft in the coming future that will fit our life-style?
THANK YOU IN ADVANCE for your creative ideas and brainstorm!!! :)
applesweeter 1 year ago
@applesweeter 1; animalian curiosity, we, like most mammals and birds, are curious by nature. The only difference we have from other animals is that we can comprehend and get to space.
2; We enjoy to desighn and build new crafts to show off and ofcourse to make flights safer and more efficient.
3; Past time.
4; Fit our lifestyle? I cant really speculate on a speculation.
prjerry7 1 year ago
Another program hacked to death by the US government.
montipellier 2 years ago 9
@montipellier It's a pity
argen1123 4 months ago
I would love to know the music.
After saying that, planes and shuttles do seem to be getting wider and fatter. :P
Path2damnation 2 years ago
Click that "Statistics & Data" and you get info you are seeking.
MokomaSusi 2 years ago
"I'll Be Around"
by Houston Preston
Album: Soft Lights
Label: Highnote Records, inc.
chargerdaytona2006 2 years ago
saucer shape is the result after 60 years
leviterande 2 years ago
Piękne, ale chui z tego wyszło
szlamx 2 years ago
We already operate an ssto, in a sense.
The space shuttle hauls its tanks from ground to orbit with the same set of liquid propelled engines. Had they gone with liquid fueled boosters as well there would be no need for shedding the srb casings.
The X-33 failed because the technology behind carbon fiber was still new. Otherwise it was a perfectly feasible ship.
They could have done it with aluminum so far as the test vehicle was concerned, but administrations changed and time ran out.
evil13rt 2 years ago 2
Partly but also the program manager was an idiot who was unwilling to accept other people's input.
The AlLi tanks actually were lighter.
The same guy Steve Cook now is head of the Ares program which has issues that make those that plagued the X33 look minor.
I would not be surprised in the least if Orion and Ares get canceled and a modernized shuttle probably a TSTO design replaces it.
The Spacex Dragon can pretty much do everything the 606 Orion can do and more.
Membrane556 2 years ago
Let's just forget the huge fuel tank they throw away every launch. How terribly wasteful.
In "Fallen Angels" it's proposed that astronauts "accidentally" released the fuel tanks in such a way that the remained in orbit and were converted to habitats...
Hiraghm 2 years ago
Questa si che sarebbe stata una navetta seria,peccato non si costruira'...
Celicavvt1 2 years ago
As elegant concepts these SSTO space planes could never achieve orbit with any meaningful payload & NASA has known this since the 50's. The chemical energy/lb is just to high, the only way to make these vehicles possible is with the use of atomic energy. This source yields 1m fold Ej/lb than it's chemical counterpart. Such vehicles would utilize a RTG radioisotope package without the use of nuclear fusion only steady decay. The spaceplane would run electric turbines then plasma rockets to orbit.
netsight 2 years ago
The best way to design a space plane is to haul it up to the edge of space with a mother ship and launch it the rest of the way into orbit. This way you don't have to compromise anything in the design of the spacecraft hauler and the spacecraft itself.
Atomicskull 2 years ago
As development proceeded, the X-33 sprouted four large fixed tail fins and no
less than ten movable control surfaces with associated hydraulic actuators and
APUs. Lifting-bodies are particularly susceptible to control and stability
problems and it seems likely that this elaborate tail structure was added to solve some unexpected problems that surfaced during wind-tunnel tests.
westing09 2 years ago
With all this burden of landing hardware eating away at that 8% dry weight
fraction, it was no surprise that Lockheed kept cutting back the payload of the
VentureStar - until one day Dan Goldin caught them and had that parameter
contractually defined.
westing09 2 years ago
After that, the weight and size of both VentureStar and its
X-33 prototype grew uncontrollably with every design iteration until the program
was cancelled. The very last VentureStar concept took the drastic step of
eliminating the internal payload bay and carrying ISS supply modules externally.
SSTO Launch Vehicles still have ways to go before they become a reality.
westing09 2 years ago
In this case the weight demands of the X-33/ VentureStar runway-landing configuration were more subtle. The vehicle had a lifting-body shape which is less efficient than a cylinder, so more heat shield mass was needed. To fit inside that shape, propellant tanks had to be made in complex multilobed forms that required internal bracing to resist pressure. And then there was the dead weight of landing wheels, brakes, struts, doors, actuators, and structure to support them.
westing09 2 years ago
Clearly X-33/VS suffered from fundamental problems that were not connected with the composite tank failure that was the official reason for cancelling the program. In failed aerospace projects, a particular technical hitch is often made the scapegoat for systemic management and engineering problems that are too embarrassing for the funding agency to admit.
westing09 2 years ago
Politics may have been the final nail in the X33's coffin it was Al Gore's pet project with Goldwin.
The program was axed soon after GWB took office on March 1 2001.
Now Dubba let us with a mess called Ares which unlike the X33 needs to be axed.
Hopefully Obama will can Constellation and expand COTS.
Membrane556 2 years ago 2
asap the financial crisis gets over xD
BelmondoAlvaro 2 years ago
Goddamn you're stupid.
BlkSun865 2 years ago
Obama would never do anything to improve America's pre-eminence in the world.
We should be using the Delta Clipper already.
Hiraghm 2 years ago
@Hiraghm The Delta Clipper? Really?! Don't you remember it crashing and burning? It was a neat retro concept but it just didn't work out.
And Omaba has a lot on his plate right now and about three years to get it all done. Space exploration is going to have to wait a while, let's fix up home first!
BlueKyne 2 years ago
On its last test, one of the legs gave out on landing. Hardly enough to cancel it.
All the other tests were successful.
Yes, Obama has a lot on his plate. But he's not addressing it.
Instead of the money he's blowing on promoting "alternative energy", how bout a prize for private companies who can get a sustainable, reusable surface-to-orbit system in place?
The ability to hop from New York to Berlin in a couple hours at the expense of the Delta Clipper would create whole new industries.
Hiraghm 2 years ago
It seems the reasons for the X33's demise are as much political as they were technological.
Part of the reason it was killed in March 2001 was because it was Clinton and Gore's pet project for NASA.
Hopefully with Obama as president NASA will be made to look into private vehicles for LEO and lunar transport since they can do everything Orion can do but for one tenth the cost and that includes going to the moon and advance technology research programs will be restarted at NASA.
Membrane556 3 years ago
It´s a pity than X-33 was cancelled it would be the best successor for the Shuttle, now with the Constellation proyect is a "setback" for NASA manned spaceflight
Franciszek64 3 years ago
Magnetrition. Research indicates, magnetic bacteria and the mitochondria have the same properties. The average person dies around age 70 due to insufficient turning during sleep. Astronauts, when they leave the Earth's magnetic field, must take with them a copy of the Earth's magnetic field, and insure their periodic movement within that field to prevent osteoporosis.
alanejackson 3 years ago
Is this thing remote piloted? it looks like it has no crew. Probably a good idea.
DarthTrailer 3 years ago
does someone know name of the song played in this video? thanks
lukas0908 4 years ago
It's Antony Raijekov. I used YouTube's AudioSwap feature to give these videos I edited together a soundtrack. Youtube-TestTube-AudioSwap-Classical-Antony Raijekov.
j363j 4 years ago
It's really disappointing NASA gave up on SSTO and even TSTO and went with some retro vehicle.
Membrane556 4 years ago 12
this project was cancel
alexanderdyk 4 years ago
what simulator is that i think i want it or do you download it on a website?
mumisanmartin 4 years ago
Thunderbirds are go !
ryangiggs69 4 years ago
how sad. I was reading on Alubierre's warp drive concept and ended up here...
JosephPerezOnline 4 years ago
xD xD xD
you have no idea, the NASA was founded in the 60's, many years after the "nazi's"
xD xD xD
Graublwurm 4 years ago
Actually, when we won World War II, we captured german rocket scientists and they founded NACA, the predecessor to NASA. But, the rocket scientists really weren't into the whole "Global Domination" thing. They actually wanted just to get to space, even if it meant supplying the German War Machine with long range ballistic missiles like the V-2 which was later turned into the American Redstone launch system.
littlemrbandmanjr 3 years ago 3
not you won World War II, the russian do ;) and this scientist werent captured Arthur Rudolph come to america because this was the only chance for him to continue "his" projekt.
Graublwurm 3 years ago
well most of the scientists were captured like von Braun and his teams were captures (German) littlemrbandmanjr was right many of them were captured but had not intention of world domination... just wanted to get into space. von Braun later was famous for helping the astronauts go to the moon- the Apollo missions
xjohn00 3 years ago 3
after your comment I serched in my books if I was wrong, and I found this (srry, it's german, but I'm also german and have no english books ;)): "Am 2. Mai 1945 suchte Wernher von Braun [...]zusammen mit anderen Wissenschaftlern einen Amerikanischen Vorposten auf [...]da sie Angst hatten von den Russen gefangen genommen zu werden..." This means that he goes with other scientists to the american, because they were scared of being captured by russian soldiers.(which serched them too)
Graublwurm 3 years ago
Actually, according to the extremely well written and researched tech-history book "Peenemünde and the coming of the ballistic missile", the reason why von Braun and his entourage ended up in USA rather then USSR, France or Britain, was that they deduced (correctly) that only the USA could afford to keep the Peenemünde east project going. They got themselves to the USA controlled area and waited for the right moment to introduce themselves to the US forces offering them fantastic expertise.
solverh 3 years ago
Scientists are rarely crazy enough to want to dominate the world. Most of them want to create new things, i.e. space vessels, vehicles, medical breakthroughs, et cetera. Science is used in war as a weapon, but you cannot blame the gun for the death.
vharshyde 3 years ago 3
No, the Soviets didn't win WWII, even though we waited 3 weeks so they could take Berlin instead of us. And they had nothing to do with victory in the Pacific.
Ultimately, the Japanese won WWII, in the 1970s.
Hiraghm 2 years ago
You high!!! Ever heard about the Eastern front. What do think would have happend with D-day if the Soviets had not preoccupied most of the German army. The Germans would have rolled over the Allies. Actually their never would have been a D-day if the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had been upheld!!!
juuls26 2 years ago 2
It's a fact that we had to wait 3 weeks in order to let the Soviets take Berlin.
It's also a fact that the Soviets were getting their butts handed to them until we began providing them with raw materials and other means to fight the Germans.
It's a further fact that the Soviets busied themselves building opera houses while their cities were under siege.
And it's a fact that the Soviets wasted millions of lives fighting the Germans.
Hiraghm 2 years ago
Futhermore the Germans would eventually had taken England if they had commited all their reasources on it instead of waging a two front war and declearing the US war after Pearl Harbour which was rather stupid of Adolf Hitler to do!!! Thank God!!! NB: The Soveits lost 300.000 men taking Berlin so it not a small feat!!!
juuls26 2 years ago
No, the Germans wouldn't have eventually have taken England. They threw at England everything they could, the war with the Soviets notwithstanding.
Hitler had no choice but to declare war on the U.S. after Pearl; it was part of Germany's pact with Japan. The kind of alliance that turned WWI into the global conflict it became.
Hiraghm 2 years ago
England won the battle of Britian granted but reason the Germans suspended their campaign was that they ran out of time not planes and pilots. They had not managed to gain air superiority within time before the weather would hamper an invasion that year. So instead they commited most of their air asset to the invasion of Russia. Hitler also broke the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, so he could as easily have broken his pact with Japan. What would have Japan done decleared Germany war!!!
juuls26 2 years ago
@Hiraghm why that?
MegaJim555 1 year ago
NASA was founded by Nazi's. They are nothing but a mere distraction and a money pit to appeal to people who KNOW WE SHOULD BE EXPLORING OTHER PLANETS. With the current "NASA" we shall never get to explore the solar system. Even by their pokey nasa standards, if the space race continued, we'd have a moon base and have a man on Mars by 1980. Pity it came to a crawl.
mrjustin5 4 years ago
The idiots at NASA will never achieve single stage lift off until they start designing their ships to launch from horizontal and use basic wing lift design then at high attitude loss the wing(ie slide into the body) and hit the throttle to get the speed for orbit. Until then they are stuck on a revamped shuttle. If NASA said to Boeing it has to carry 100 ppl and fly 6 missions a week I am sure they come up with the design cause those billions of dollars fit nicely into CEO's pockets !!!
seveprim 4 years ago 2
I know. What can't they just take off on a runway an airliner. Then go high up and refuel and finally blast into space. What is so important about blasting straight up to space? Space ship one has proven this that is doesn't have to use too much fuel or launch vertically to go in orbit. Yeah, but I guess they are making a lot money in experiments and whatever they spend the taxes for.
ChuckManiac 4 years ago
space ship one did'nt go into orbit. It would actually require 30 times the amount of energy to send it into orbit. even if they find a way to do it for less, they'll need to make a space plane with a much larger second stage, and of course, an even larger first stge. While a vehicle like that woud certainly be a step in the right direction, it may not be as cost efficient as disposable rockets.
mmysama 4 years ago
the space shuttle proved that reusable spacecraft are'nt very reliable, plus they can get expensive to maintain. there is still a lot they can do to lower costs of disposbale rockets.
mmysama 4 years ago
Lots of taxes at work here. Maybe they should use them catapult launcher, one of their many concepts is lauching into orbit.
ChuckManiac 4 years ago
the problem with a catapult launcher, would be the intense g-forces the payload would have to go through. While it would'nt be a problem for launching raw materials, it's useless for transporting astronauts.
mmysama 4 years ago
Did you see the concept they talk about? The ones where they will be using a super strong carbon nanotube ribbons, in which they will attact in to an anchor in space. Then they'll make an elevator of it? Well I think in the future nanotechnology and advance AI will do much better. People are just way to expensive and support on space. Robots on the other hand are very economical and effecient.
ChuckManiac 4 years ago
How the HELL can that litle orbiter hold enough fuel to get it into orbit? The fuel tank for the space shuttle is about five times the size of the orbiter, and then it has those SRBS. Is this thing supposed to be nuclear powered or something?
mmysama 4 years ago
that litle orbiter can hold enough fuel to get it into orbit because of how the engine is desgined. Look up Single stage to Orbit if you want a more precise explanation.
umtapir 4 years ago
It'll probally be a long time before an SSTO becomes neccesary. Plus, theres alwasy something to be said for a reusable first stage, like the shuttle SRBs. Like, maybe something with a heat shield of feathering that brings an orbiter to the edge of space and then lands. It's a pretty exciting field.
mmysama 4 years ago
Right now it can't do squat. Lauching vertically will require lots of fuel. Unless they have a flux capacitor in it.
ChuckManiac 4 years ago
yeah, but a flux capacitor requires an amount of energy on the order of gigawatts. (although it's been mispronounced as "jigawatts" before). vehicle that produces that much energy would be a feat unto itself.
mmysama 4 years ago
lol
ChuckManiac 4 years ago
read up on Nikola Tesla
Poeticpecan 4 years ago
Linear Aerospike engine
Bigteddy7777 3 years ago
Thanks! Check out the International Space Agency (ISA) site here by clicking on this user account! Also check out the International Space Plane (ISP) Program website! You can google "International Space Plane (ISP) Program", or you can go to this user account which has links to the International Space Agency (ISA) Organization.
isadashhqdotcom 4 years ago
And now we're stuck with Orion which is nothing more than a souped up Apollo.
airdriver 4 years ago
The single stage to orbit (STTO) still eludes us. Our technology isn't ready. Someday, it will happen. Things are only impossible until they're not. GO NASA!
BrianAbruzzi 5 years ago
China is having a lot more luck with SSTO than we are. X-33 was cancelled because of problems with the fuel cell and cost overruns, but in theory it will fly
umtapir 4 years ago