You are not logged in.
[=http://www.nsschapters.org/ny/nyc/Shuttle-Derived%20Vehicles%20Modified.pdf]A nice slide show concerning the idea of shuttle derived boosters.
Scrap the orbiter? Sure.
Why throw away the whole system, however?
Thoughts?
Offline
Like button can go here
If you remember from the Mars Society site, NASA was quoted as saying that Zubrin's modification plan for the shuttle launch stack was "wrong-headed thinking." Why? I haven't been able to find any kind of rebuttal supported by facts. Does anybody know what disadvantages NASA sees (or imagines) in such a plan?
The Ares concept in the slide show (designed by Zubrin et al) seems like a reasonable re-adaptation of existing tech that would be a HUGE asset to Bush's upcoming plan. And one would think that it'd be a lot quicker to get into production-- and cheaper. So why does NASA pooh-pooh these suggestions?
You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it. -Chinese Proverb
Offline
Like button can go here
Ahh, I juse saw this. This is fantastic! This is what we need! Ares is really a beautiful ship.
edit, if we want to go to Mars any time soon, Ares is the way, imvho. We need to get our act together.
Edited By Josh Cryer on 1074115921
Some useful links while MER are active. [url=http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html]Offical site[/url] [url=http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/MM_NTV_Web.html]NASA TV[/url] [url=http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/mer2004/]JPL MER2004[/url] [url=http://www.spaceflightnow.com/mars/mera/statustextonly.html]Text feed[/url]
--------
The amount of solar radiation reaching the surface of the earth totals some 3.9 million exajoules a year.
Offline
Like button can go here
A new story on shuttle derived [http://www.thespacereview.com/article/86/1]launch systems.
Offline
Like button can go here
Well-balanced article there, but I still have yet to hear any justification for NASA's (well, at least O'Keefe's) opposition to SDVs. (Other than Clark here at NM asking what we would need such a thing for. Sure there may not be an immediate need for an SDV heavy lifter to sling big payloads to Mars, but having a heavy lifter still allows you to put MORE stuff into LEO and lunar applications per launch. This seems like justification enough to me.)
At the very least, some feasibility studies should be done (from the article I assume the folks in Huntsville have already done this for at least one of the options).
I want to hear more from NASA on the anti-SDV side of the argument.
You can stand on a mountaintop with your mouth open for a very long time before a roast duck flies into it. -Chinese Proverb
Offline
Like button can go here
to stay in the 'pretty pictures' environment:
[http://www.starbooster.com/]StarcraftBoosters
Led by Buzz Aldrin...
Has the Aquila
The 'pretty pictures' are here:( LOOK OUT 1.1Mb pdf.) [http://www.starbooster.com/aquila.htm]Click the 'presentation' link
It's some kind of powerpoint thing, with the possibilites etc...
Offline
Like button can go here
Well-balanced article there, but I still have yet to hear any justification for NASA's (well, at least O'Keefe's) opposition to SDVs. (Other than Clark here at NM asking what we would need such a thing for. Sure there may not be an immediate need for an SDV heavy lifter to sling big payloads to Mars, but having a heavy lifter still allows you to put MORE stuff into LEO and lunar applications per launch. This seems like justification enough to me.)
At the very least, some feasibility studies should be done (from the article I assume the folks in Huntsville have already done this for at least one of the options).
I want to hear more from NASA on the anti-SDV side of the argument.
Based on my reading of some of the more libertarian space bloggers, I think the idea is that NASA "competition" stifles private investment and folks want NASA out of the launch business altogether.
Offline
Like button can go here
I beleive Boeing was thinking along those lines, as part of their Shuttle into 2020 program thingy... Wouldn't it kill to think Bush might have ended a natural progression of the shuttle into an independant booster by retiring the big ship by 2010? Okay, maybe I shouldn't blame Bush. But the likelyhood of a shuttle derived booster might have been better without him. We can now only hope NASA will see the virtues of a shuttle based HLLV. And hope the cries of the shuttle workers are heard.
- Mike, Member of the [b][url=http://cleanslate.editboard.com]Clean Slate Society[/url][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here