They all look silly.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
So they do; the Lockheed Martin one is worst, IMO, triple stacked?!?! What were the designers taking?
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I'd say that one has the best-looking actual shuttle, myself. And why is "triple-stacking" such an inherently bad thing? Looks like all they did was move the solid-fuel boosters from the sides to the bottom.
Posted by YrdMehc (Member # 417) on :
N.G.'s looks the best.....
Boeings looks like an old cargo aircraft.....
L.M.'s looks goofed up.....
Posted by The359 (Member # 37) on :
What the hell happened to the full-size version of the VentureStar?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Cancelled for "budgetary reasons".
Why is triple-stacking such a bad thing? Because it's basically old whine in new bags, and also horribly inefficient.
Only a re-usable SSTO (single stage to orbit) vehicle can bring about the desperately needed changes that all space agencies dream of... like dramatically reduced launch cost.
Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :
Call me cynical, but I suspect that engineers might know a bit more about spacecraft, than, oh, John Q Poster.
Posted by David Templar (Member # 580) on :
Three different sections means three different craft that could go wrong, it's common sense.
I personally like Boeing's entry the best, but it's one of those lesser of three evil sort of choice.
I say we'll see the first actual flight by one of those things in 2011.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Three different sections means three different craft that could go wrong, it's common sense."
So? You either have three different craft that can go bad, or three sections of one craft that can go bad. What's the difference?
Posted by Vogon Poet (Member # 393) on :
The top one is the least silliest, and even that's very silly.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
I agree with Vogon Poet
quote:Originally posted by Sol System: Call me cynical, but I suspect that engineers might know a bit more about spacecraft, than, oh, John Q Poster.
I don't think people are saying they're bad spacecraft; just that they look ugly.
Actually, certain elements of the NG one look like the X-35...
NASA is predicting 2012 for the first flight; I'd say around then, although if anything it'll be a couple of years late. Anyone know how many of these they're gonna buy? What are everyone's thoughts on the future of the space programmes anyway?
Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :
Planned for launch in 2012? Knowing NASA, that would probably become 2020.
I like Boeing's.
quote:Anyone know how many of these they're gonna buy?
I guess that NASA would order at least more than four of these craft. Since launch costs are greatly reduced, they could afford that.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
How 'bout one of each, for a little variety? Posted by Matrix (Member # 376) on :
How about one of each for me?
Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :
The budget for the NG shuttlecraft is based on politics and social events. We don't know what will happen in the next 10 years. There could be major changes which could benefit or hinder the development of the prototype vehicle.
I have heard talk from NASA that the Enterprise-type orbiter will be on active duty for the next 20 years.
Posted by Saiyanman Benjita (Member # 122) on :
So what is done with the old ones? Commercial liners?
Posted by Alpha Centauri (Member # 338) on :
From what I know, Space Shuttle Mark I is planned to remain in active NASA service beyond 2010. I wouldn't exclude the possibility that NASA will put the oldies in sale when they have made obsolete by the Mark II. A future may be ahead for commercial spaceflight using Mark I orbiters, although I doubt that any company can afford it to maintain regular tourists flights, say, once a month. A typical NASA mission using one orbiter typically costs about $150-350 million. Not to mention the costs to purchase even a single orbiter (the building costs were about $1.2 billion each).
Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
And you'd have to buy pretty much the entire Cape, too. The shuttle is just a tiny little part of the Space Transportation System, most of which is ground-based.
You'd need at least
a) the Cape launch pad, or preferably two, plus timeslots for the flights from those pads b) all the pre- and postflight prep facilities c) the fuel support infrastructure d) at least part of the launch control facilities (although these are probably the ones you can most easily and inexpensively replace with up-to-date tech of your own) e) the industries that produce the SRBs and the ETs f) the recovery infrastructure for the SRBs g) time on the Cape landing strip, or else a suitable transportation system for the Orbiter (one of the B747s, a more modern carrier aircraft, or a road- or railroad-based alternative).
It ain't gonna be worth it. The only justification for buying the STS would be if you needed to put both men AND outsize cargo into space at the same time, and I can't see any commercial requirement of that nature in the near future.
Timo Saloniemi
Posted by colin (Member # 217) on :
Besides, the Enterprise-type orbiters would be obsolete in technology by then. This point is conceded by NASA which says the shuttles are based on 70's technology.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)