[phatosealpha]

Well, I'm glad they didn't blow it up and completely annihilate everyone's faith in the space program, but the sooner those things are out of service the better.  Replace it with something similiar, but newer without all the danged cargo capacity for ferrying crew back and forth, and go back to the good old rockets for heavy lifting.

[TrashMan]

I though Bush calncelled the next-gen shuttle program?

[Kazan]

by using a rocket sled with enoguh force on a 2mile long 45 degree elevated track you can propel a shuttle-like orbitter well enough past mach 2 so that it can reach orbit velocity on it's own without external fuel thanks or any more external boosters.

as system like this could theorectically be perfected enough that the only componant that isn't reusable is the fuel, and you could launch as fast as you can reload the rocketsled

[edit]
Found the website! http://www.skyramp.org/

[aipz]

Another interesting concept is the use of  carrier aircraft
and a smaller shuttle (like Burt Rutan did in 10.2004 when he won
 "X"  Prize)...

It's useful for bringing supplies and personell on Earth orbit...

For heavy loads either the rockets, rocket sledge or
1-step shuttle will have to do(without booster rockets)?

But I onder when this will become true?

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]
Prelude to space

Note the year it was written and consider that NASA created the space shuttle in the late 1960's.

Clarke proposed a rail launched, nuclear powered, single stage carrier.  Much like Burt Rutan's design it carried a smaller craft. The design was reusable, used less expensive fuel, was 20 years ahead of its time and was based on sound scientific principles.

Of course NASA decided their way was better.
[/color]

[Kazan]

it's not NASA's fault the military heads push and push for vertical launch - because  the space program using vertical launch allows the military to save money not having to do rocket reseach themselves

military needs vert-launch for missiles

[Martinus]

[color=66ff00]Is there proof of this or is it just intelligent speculation?
[/color]

[Kazan]

well Werner von Braun didn't want to do vertical launch but they went ahead and did it anyway because the military wanted to

that evidence enough for you?

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Kazan
well Werner von Braun didn't want to do vertical launch but they went ahead and did it anyway because the military wanted to

that evidence enough for you?

[color=66ff00]The question was an attempt to find a good source of information as to why NASA decided to abandon better designs over the shuttle.

It was not intended to undermine your 'supreme decree'.
[/color]

[Kosh]

While that may or may not be true, I wouldn't put it past the military to pull something like that.


Look at the Buran. The people in the Russian space program were going to have something other than the "glider" design, but the military insisted on have the "glider" for political reasons, IIRC.

[Lynx]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]
Prelude to space

Note the year it was written and consider that NASA created the space shuttle in the late 1960's.

Clarke proposed a rail launched, nuclear powered, single stage carrier.  Much like Burt Rutan's design it carried a smaller craft. The design was reusable, used less expensive fuel, was 20 years ahead of its time and was based on sound scientific principles.

Of course NASA decided their way was better.
[/color]

Something being technologically possible doesn't make it the right choice, though. The NASA had lots of experience with solid and liquid fuel boosters and aerodynamics, while next to none on the field of nuclear propulsion, so choosing the partly reusable glider approach wouldn't be so far off. If they'd opted for that project, for example, they'd have to invest far more money and time into fundamental research, planning and testing which can be avoided if they draw from currently existing tech, especially if you want a reliable and secure craft for personal transportation.
Though I'm not saying that the shuttle design is perfect - in fact, it's the result of time and budget issues; initial designs of the shuttle were more advanced with fully reusable boosters and such, but were cut back to the current configuration because of the development costs. Which came back to haunt the NASA since the advanced shuttle designs, while costing more at the development would've probably been much less expensive on launch compared to the average $600 Millions of a shuttle launch.
But the point is if you want a reliable system you'll probably go for the simpler and tested technology rather than pursuing hairbrained shemes that could, but also could not work out.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by Lynx


Something being technologically possible doesn't make it the right choice, though. The NASA had lots of experience with solid and liquid fuel boosters and aerodynamics, while next to none on the field of nuclear propulsion, so choosing the partly reusable glider approach wouldn't be so far off. If they'd opted for that project, for example, they'd have to invest far more money and time into fundamental research, planning and testing which can be avoided if they draw from currently existing tech, especially if you want a reliable and secure craft for personal transportation.
Though I'm not saying that the shuttle design is perfect - in fact, it's the result of time and budget issues; initial designs of the shuttle were more advanced with fully reusable boosters and such, but were cut back to the current configuration because of the development costs. Which came back to haunt the NASA since the advanced shuttle designs, while costing more at the development would've probably been much less expensive on launch compared to the average $600 Millions of a shuttle launch.
But the point is if you want a reliable system you'll probably go for the simpler and tested technology rather than pursuing hairbrained shemes that could, but also could not work out.

[color=66ff00]The reason I gave it so much credence is that it's coming from Clarke, the man who envisioned and had no small part in the creation of viable satelite technology.

If you read the book, despite it being fiction, he gives an awfully decent set of reasons for why the technology is viable. A lot of physics buffs back then wrote 'sci-fi' as an alternate money source and this book is a prime example of good science being used to spark imagination in a fictional story.
[/color]

[Turnsky]

[Shrike]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]
Prelude to space

Note the year it was written and consider that NASA created the space shuttle in the late 1960's.

Clarke proposed a rail launched, nuclear powered, single stage carrier.  Much like Burt Rutan's design it carried a smaller craft. The design was reusable, used less expensive fuel, was 20 years ahead of its time and was based on sound scientific principles.

Of course NASA decided their way was better.
[/color]

Nuclear power in the atmosphere is so utterly politically unviable its not even funny.  Most people in the space industries want to use nuclear power, but there's been so many soccer moms and hippies protesting it from the 60s onwards nuclear propulsion simply won't fly any time soon.

[Turnsky]

Originally posted by Shrike
Nuclear power in the atmosphere is so utterly politically unviable its not even funny.  Most people in the space industries want to use nuclear power, but there's been so many soccer moms and hippies protesting it from the 60s onwards nuclear propulsion simply won't fly any time soon.

besides, there's enough radiation in space as it is, it's not like a little itty bitty nuclear engine would do much harm, seeing as there's the largest nuclear furnace locally sitting in the heart of our system...

these people don't think, seriously.

[EtherShock]

I think their concern is failure. If an accident with a nuclear vehicle were to occur in the atmosphere, what would happen? Although, this hasn't stopped us from launching nuclear powered probes.

[Nuke]

they just dont want to be puting nuclear materials in things that go really fast through the air. the only reason they get away using reactors on ships is that they tend to sink in a highly effective radiation blocking medium. imagine the fallout conditions if colombia had an onboard nuclear reactor. space should be explored for the discovery of new isotopes than t may make better, safer fuel for nuclear/fusion reactors. if we can discover a way to have safe nuclear energy you would find reactors in everything. and that would be really ****ing cool. helium 3 is the bit one but who knows what other unknown isotopes are out there.

[Kosh]

Is you're going to use nuclear propulsion inside of an atmosphere, figure out a way to make fusion a viable source of propulsion. Fission has a big problem with radiation and the threat of a Chernobyl repeat hanging over it.

[Shrike]

Originally posted by EtherShock
I think their concern is failure. If an accident with a nuclear vehicle were to occur in the atmosphere, what would happen? Although, this hasn't stopped us from launching nuclear powered probes.

There's a very large difference between the plutonium powerpacks they use in space probes (which are extremely safe and have very low energy emissions) and a nuclear thermal rocket, which basically pours reaction mass through a nuclear reactor to generate thrust.

They're efficient, with even the most basic types having double the ISP of conventional rockets, but there's a certain justification in being leery over the technology.  If one blows up from a malfunction it'll be a big ****ing mess.

For the record, I support the use of NTRs, but then again I don't live right next to where they'd be launched . . .

[Lynx]

Also, all nuclear propulsion techniques which use the reactor to heat the propellant, radiate the fuel to a degree or produce toxic side products and therefore make the exhaust radioactive to a degree, ranging from low-level radiation to highly toxic waste like in the nuclear salt water engine. They are great for space missions, but it'd probably not wise to fly around with them in the atmosphere.