X-33, VentureStar - Reusable Launch Vehicle

[Jaz4stfguy 0]

In another thread, the question was asked whether or not NASA planned to replace the current space shuttle fleet, in light of the previous tragedies with Challenger and Columbia. The answer is: yes! The Reusable Launch Vehicle - RLV - program is to use a 1/2 scale version, the X-33, for testing. The full-size version is to be called the VentureStar. I have posted a photo below of the two alongside a Space Shuttle.

 

 

There is a lot of facinating information that I hope to pass along. Stay tuned!

[Jaz4stfguy 0]

Here is another photo of the VentureStar RLV. Doesn't it resemble one of the space vehicles seen in the opening credits to "Enterprise", the one just after the ISS Space Station? IMO, anyway. :P

 

Click For Spoiler

Edited December 12, 2004 by spacetigger

[A l t e r E g o 9]

Here is another photo of the VentureStar RLV.  Doesn't it resemble one of the space vehicles seen in the opening credits to "Enterprise",  the one just after the ISS Space Station?  IMO, anyway. :P

 

Click For Spoiler

288757[/snapback]

 

I see what you mean and I agree.

[HRH The KING 0]

Too big in my opinion.

 

The problem is this GIANT payload bay the DoD insist the shuttle must have, and the ridiculous "cross range" that they wanted from the original shuttle so they could launch it from either Cape Canaveral or Vandenberg (which never happened anyway).

 

They need a smaller vehicle. Otherwise the heatshield problem becomes much too risky, and the amount of power needed to launch such a large vehicle into orbit becauses too expensive and inefficient. Since you are launching a giant space vehicle into orbit to release a satellite and then bringing the whole vehicle back again. There are better ways of accomplishing things.

 

Large Satellites can be launched with disposable unmanned rockets. They don't need to be launched with shuttles and crews.

 

Any missions that need humans can be carried out on the ISS. Robots and such can do everything else. It's cheaper and doesn't put humans at unnecessary risk.

 

If they INSIST of launching a space plane vehicle to get to the ISS with various playloads and human crews, they need something like this, which NASA proposed as the shuttle in 1970, both the orbiter and the fuel vehicle would be fully reusable:

 

1970 Shuttle Concept

Edited December 12, 2004 by The King

[Jaz4stfguy 0]

That '70's shuttle concept idea is really neat! I like it!! :P

I believe that the unmanned/robot - type of launch vehicle is a good idea, too. You can see that the US military is doing just that with the Predator and similar vehicles. Cheaper, smaller, and the "pilot" can be hundreds, or thousands, of miles away. However, there is something to be said of a manned flight. Pres. Bush wants to do just that with a mission to Mars. It'll require a bigger platform in space, or even on the moon, to make it work, IMO. Perhaps the VentureStar in a smaller package, incorporating a booster ship, is a step in that direction. I seem to recall that NASA has a new-improved Delta rocket for heavy payloads. Whatever. I'm excited to see what the future of space flight will bring. :P

[HRH The KING 0]

That '70's shuttle concept idea is really neat! I like it!! 

 

That was THE one, before the Office Of Management and Budget made NASA accept an inferior design and dropped the reusable fuel vehicle in favour of the giant external tank and "death sticks" that became the SRB's.

 

I believe that the unmanned/robot - type of launch vehicle is a good idea, too. You can see that the US military is doing just that with the Predator and similar vehicles.

 

For most missions, robots do the job well. There's not that much reason to send humans into space at the present time except on the ISS. Certainly not enough reason to send seven astronauts on a shuttle to launch a satellite which could be easily done without humans.

 

Cheaper, smaller, and the "pilot" can be hundreds, or thousands, of miles away. However, there is something to be said of a manned flight. Pres. Bush wants to do just that with a mission to Mars.

 

Manned missions to Mars are very far away IMO. Robots are not exactly entirely reliable when they are sent there. If a manned mission sets out for Mars, and something happens, there's no way back with present technology. Eventually we will explore the rest of the solar system. For now? robots, space telescopes, unmanned rockets, and humans conducting experiments on the ISS.

 

It'll require a bigger platform in space, or even on the moon, to make it work, IMO. Perhaps the VentureStar in a smaller package, incorporating a booster ship, is a step in that direction.

 

In terms of shuttles, we need that 1970 type design, for reasons I gave on the Shuttle Thread. In terms of the moon, the modular Apollo-esque design is the best way to get there. Once there, I would think a base can be established gradually. It's terraforming that should be getting some funding too. Changing environments to suit us. We'll test them on them Moon, then worry about Mars later. We should use the Moon as a proving ground as much as it is possible to do so.

 

I seem to recall that NASA has a new-improved Delta rocket for heavy payloads. Whatever. I'm excited to see what the future of space flight will bring. 

 

Me too. Safety and reliability is the main priority. Of course I understand that exploring space is dangerous, but think of it this way. With Challenger, they knew that Solid Rocket Fuel is dangerous, because there is no way to turn them off in an emergency. They knew the O-Rings would be weakened in cold conditions, they knew Thiokol engineers were hestitant to approve the launch, they knew an explosion was a real possibility, but they went ahead and launched, and disaster occured. That wasn't caused by the dangers of exploration, it was caused by idiocy and negligence.

 

With Columbia, they knew that the foam had hit the leading edge of the wing, and did nothing about it. They didn't even check the wing when the orbiter was in space. They knew that pieces of foam had broken off in the past and presented a danger. They knew the orbiter sat too low on the fuel tank and was vunerable to being struck by debris. They knew that the shuttle was far too large, it's wings designed in such a way by the DoD, for a non-existant purpose that NEVER came about, it's payload bay massively large to uneccessarily launch satellites. They knew the tiles were fragile and the shuttles greatest weakness. They knew that the journey through the atmosphere on re-entry put great stress on the shuttle which would be lessened by having a smaller vehicle with it's own engines that could slow down during descent like the X-15.

 

These are not the dangers of exploration. It's bureaucracy, budget cuts, and negligence. Until those aspects of space exploration are addressed, NASA will continue to have problems.

Edited December 13, 2004 by The King