New Mars Forums

mark, you had said that carbon nanotubes wont be ready for the highlift's needs within the next 15 years.  i would beg to differ.  15 years is a tremendous amount of time.  in the past 2 years, we have come from the virtual basement of nano-tech to developing 1 Ghz nanobots. 

especially now that companies like IBM are spending money on CNT research, i think that the development will happen.

yeah, we should.  there are some really smart people over there.  ill mention it.  i didnt know you checked the site out 

bah, not really.  CNT research is going way up, and the improvements are amazing.  that is the only real challenge to the elevator right now, besides funding.  i think once CNTs are built in large quantities, funding won't be a problem.  so 3-5 decades is really ignoring the true events that are going on.

I like a couple of ideas:

1) RBCC, i was told about this by mark s, this sounds like a very good idea. 

2) an NTR SSTO.  they can be made clean, and have a far greater mass ratio.  they dont need as much fuel, and the fact that they can carry much more mass per total mass means better safety possibilities, including the heat shield. 

3) the elevator.  yes, its a decade or two away, but it is the ultimate SSTO in terms of cargo.  we will always need a launch SSTO for crew and long distance passenger flights, etc.

4) OSP must be pushed!

josh, how clean is clean?  the fuels from the colombia werent "clean."  in such a situation, a properly designed reactor would have released little to no contaminants.

but i completely support nuclear options to space.  i truly think they can be made clean, but lack of research for too long of a time has stopped any progress beyond the tremendous achievements of the early nuclear program.

we need the shuttle until we have something new.  exactly, cindy.  to shelve it would be a terrible waste.  like someone else said, we need a varied fleet in terms of size.  we didnt really need a 110 ton orbiter for this last mission.  so we have a few goals:

1) Decreased cost
2) More reliable, or less risky thermal protection
3) More ships in the fleet
4) Varied fleet
5) More missions
6) Pre-orbital abort capabilities

In terms of 6, even if we had known the implications of the foam pre-exit from the atmosphere, the orbiter was doomed.  at that point, our only abort option would have been to leave the atmosphere, orbit and come down.  obviously, the shuttle would have found the same fate.  perhaps the crew could have boarded the ISS, and a repair effort could have been done from there.  but i dont think we could have known.  that ties back to number 2.

Adrian, i completely agree.  I was just trying to make a point.  If there is a way to preserve lives, not just from the much more important humane standpoint, but from a resources standpoint, it must be taken!

there will always be a risk.  there is a risk in driving your car.  but the risk should be completely minimized-with efficiency and other factors in mind as well.  we can't build a 100 ton spaceship that gets 100 pounds into orbit either.  but safety should be our primary concern, followed by the performance of the orbiter.

I would hope our astronauts are more dedicated to our cause than to a 2% chance of failure.

um...there have been 113 flights.  2 accidents.  this is under a 2% failure rate.  not to sound could, but for all the talk of huge risks and all, 2% is pretty damn good.  the problem is when you spend so much per launch, and have so few shuttles, you cant afford that loss.

:angry:   moving on....

state of the art?  hardly.  we are using old computers, old technology, and a 20 year old launch system.  how is that state of the art?  i would really like to know.

the sci-fi channel still exists, doesnt it?

the nasa channel still exists-and they havent really had much exciting new recently besides the shuttle and ISS.

Discovery, TLC, etc. promote the same kind of educational, documentary television progamming, but its far less exciting.  what is a lions life compared to our planetary development?