Shuttle hijinks

[MaxKaladin]

A SSTO Spaceplane would be the sort of thing I imagine as a "Space Truck". All it needs to be able to do is get cargo to low orbit reliably and reasonably cheaply. Current means of doing that are pretty expensive -- especially the shuttle -- and rely on non-reusable components like rocket boosters or disposable fuel tanks. Every launch not only burns up expensive fuel, but expends part of the spacecraft that needs to be replaced. Plus you have to have gantries and launch control systems. Launches also take lots of time to prepare for and set up because you have to essentially rebuild the ship each time at a predetermined location that has all the gantries and other specialized facilities. A spaceplane would eliminate disposable parts and reduce turnaround time and the need for specialized facilities. If you can do that, you can save a bunch of money that you can use on other aspects of space exploration.

Right now, getting stuff out of the gravity well is, AFAIK, the most expensive part of space flight. If you can get stuff to LEO, you can then use other vehicles to get to higher orbits or move around the solar system. I just see a more practical way of getting stuff to orbit as the first step to that.

I can understand building Constellation as a stopgap measure, but they should already be working on a true shuttle to replace it. Honestly, I think it's shameful that they haven't already been working on one so that Constellation is not needed.

Let's just hope private companies like Scaled Composites can get a proper spaceplane working. They will have the incentive to do so in space tourism and in eventually undercutting conventional launch facilities for sattelite launches.

 

[Darth K'Trava]

We need a space truck. Space fighters can come out later

What's next then? Space Cabbies?

Then we have a Space Jam! (not related to the movie of the same name!)

 

[Ranger REG]

So you don't want a ship that remains in space permanently that we can use to explore the solar system? Instead, you want something that can go up into space, and no further, and then back to Earth. Project Constellation isn't a shuttle replacement, its the first real step in space exploration.

Don't we need to build a floating shipyard (let's call it Utopia Planitia) first? I figured the space truck would help us transport the material to assemble it in orbit.

 

[Ranger REG]

What's next then? Space Cabbies?

Actually, we already have one. The winner of the X-ship contest, SpaceshipOne. The first of her fleet with Virgin Aerospace label on it.

 

[trancejeremy]

I can understand building Constellation as a stopgap measure, but they should already be working on a true shuttle to replace it. Honestly, I think it's shameful that they haven't already been working on one so that Constellation is not needed.

See, that's the thing. NASA already tried that. The X-33 (or more accurately, the Venturestar, as there was another option, the Delta Clipper that could have been the X-33).

Basically, it was going to be like the shuttle, but better. But unfortunately, like the shuttle, it was simply too ambitious for the technology we have. In this case, they couldn't get the fuel tanks to work properly. So it had to be cancelled.

And before that, there was a space plane being worked on in the 80s. That never panned out, either.

The thing is, while the concept is pretty simple, actually doing it and doing it cheap is kinda tricky. Kinda like controlled nuclear fusion - we know how to do it in principle, but technology just isn't quite there yet (and if it is, it's fragile and expensive).

By going back to rockets, we can hopefully have safe and cheap travel to space, and spend the money we save on actually researching the new shuttle (among other things).

 

[Numion]

There's been a tendency in NASA leadership to play down the risks involved in space flight, so it's not surprising that people have difficulties to understand how risky it really is.

For example, before the Challenger accident NASA claimed that the probability of a rocket booster failure is one in 100,000. Simple statistical study to all rockets (non-shuttle) fired by NASA would suggest a more conservative number of one in 25 to 50 rocket launches failing. Surprisingly Challenger was the 25th shuttle launch, IIRC.

 

[Mr. T]

They are building a reusable capsule, not a full-fledged spacecraft. The capsule will sit on top of a huge roman candle. Rockets are moronic and the only parts that they test beforehand are the engines. It's like driving a brand new car every day because your car is only used for one shots.

What you seem to be suggesting is that each rocket is different from the one before it and after it. This makes no sense. If you drive the same model of car, no matter how new it is, you will learn things about it. There may be small variations in the rockets. Yes, rockets are like roman candles. But, there are plenty more things to test than the engines. You can test: capsule atmosphere, communications, ect. I could crash the servers with all the things you can test.Engines are at the top of list of things that should work.

Rockets are moronic and the only parts that they test beforehand are the engines.

Rockets are not moronic. We (the U.S. and Russia) sent people to the moon, built nine space staions, and have sent probes into interstellar space without any orbiters.

 

[punkorange]

What we need to further our space travels is warp drive technology. Then the federation can put the prime directive asside and interact with us

 

[Ranger REG]

What we need to further our space travels is warp drive technology.

Shh! We're in hostile Star Wars fan territory here. Just smile and say "Just kidding. We LOVE hyperdrive!"

 

[Darth K'Trava]

Shh! We're in hostile Star Wars fan territory here. Just smile and say "Just kidding. We LOVE hyperdrive!"

Traitor!

This coming from the guy who proposed making a shipyard and naming it Utopia Planetia...