2010 really isn't that far away.

Infernus · 2006-09-01, 02:05 AM

Ivan · 2006-09-01, 02:28 AM

This will be the first time that Lockheed has been given a lead role in manned space flight. It comes after the company failed in a 1996 attempt to design the X-33 space plane, which was to be a replacement for the quarter-century-old shuttle fleet but was abandoned because of technical problems after NASA spent more than $900 million on it.

Damn it must be nice to get paid to work on something that never goes anywhere. $900 million tax write off!

Infernus · 2006-09-01, 02:31 AM

Yeah, I mean look at how much Boeing has been making off the ISS.

TX3RN0BILL · 2006-09-01, 05:51 AM

LOL, instead of making a replacement for the space shuttle, the U.S. go backward in time... guess the russians were right not to go ahead with any space shuttles... even the ESA only bets on rocketry...

Derfud · 2006-09-01, 06:56 AM

When do we start getting cool ships like:

or

Well, you get the point.

Hamma · 2006-09-01, 07:43 AM

Pretty Cool.

They know the concept works, reliability is key.

OneManArmy · 2006-09-01, 10:17 AM

we'll start getting big ships like that when mankind decides to work together... which is sometime this side of never.

TX3RN0BILL · 2006-09-01, 10:25 AM

You know, I'd say colonize Mars first. Terra-form it, so that Mankind can value Earth more. Maybe we'll get a little more pacific that way, and stop the wars and pollution. Mars has 1/3 of Earth's gravity and it's atmosphere is a lot thinner, so it would be more feasible to use Mars as a base from which to start building ships. Oh, if we only had a "stargate" to Mars... and Titan. That would get us started off in the right direction.

Infernus · 2006-09-01, 10:35 AM

Originally Posted by TX3RN0BILL

LOL, instead of making a replacement for the space shuttle, the U.S. go backward in time... guess the russians were right not to go ahead with any space shuttles... even the ESA only bets on rocketry...

The shuttle program was great for what it let us do. Build stations in orbit, release large payloads, fix satelites, and more importantly - reuse the craft. The shuttle was created in a time when it was seen that humanity didn't need to go to space anymore - we'd conquered the moon and the soviet union, why waste the money. It's design reflects that.

However it is utterly unsuitable for use as a CEV, it needs a runway to land, I don't see any of those on the surface of the moon. This is basically the Apollo project on the 'roids of modern technology, because guess what, Apollo is a proven method. Now maybe when we have a colony on the moon, and are fully capable of building a landing strip there, we'll start to see commercial models of something shuttle-eque because it'll make mass transport that much easier.

It is most certainly unfair to say we're going back in time, if anything we're taking the next bold step into the future. I hate to break it to you, you won't be seeing Battlecruisers and TIE-Fighters floating around in space anytime soon, because we don't need them. All I can see us needing in the immeadiate future after the retirement of the Shuttle Fleet is something like the Orion to colonize, and 20 years down the line, an expanded-hold/transport shuttle-esque type craft.

Also, I don't think you fully comprehend why the Russian Buran program was cancelled. It was a huge money sink for a nation that just didn't need that at the time. The program was started in 1988 - a lot was happening in those few years... like the entire collapse of the soviet union, something that appearently put a lot of political strain on the country. It's also worth while to note that the Energia rocket booster which came out of the Buran Project has a moon-delivery payload capability, though it's never been tested. And another thing, maybe you haven't noticed, but Russia's space program isn't exactly a power house anymore after not picking up the a shuttle system.

TX3RN0BILL · 2006-09-01, 12:15 PM

Along with NASA, the russian space agency is one which has the most experience with space (remember, the first man out there was a russian), and they've filled many needs for every time a shuttle was lost - russian rockets seem to be more reliable than the shuttles.

AFAIK though the russian space agency is looking into the possibility of developing craft to provide the experience of space-flight in orbital flights etc, to the space tourists of which there seem to be plenty around - so I wish them good luck and hope they do a good job of doing those.

And since rockets existed before shuttles, in my view abandoning something more modern in favour of something that conceptually existed before is going back in time.

Also, colonization of the moon isn't something I'd be looking too much forward to because it's a moon without an atmosphere of its own - hence, any structure will not be minimally protected against meteorite strikes and such, which is a bit hazardous I'd say. Colonizing Mars, in that view, makes much more sense because it is possible to terra-form Mars (converting it's atmosphere into something breathable by humans, as well as rising surface temperatures to less extreme values with the greenhouse effect).

Also, I never mentioned anything about Starwars-type space fighters or such - although I believe that we're not quite alone here in this galaxy and the truth be out there - and everybody should know what only few know, and be able to partake of it, if you know what I mean.

Hamma · 2006-09-01, 12:25 PM

Going back in time would be pulling the Apollo craft out of the viewing area at Kennedy Space center and trying to launch it.

Originally Posted by OneManArmy

we'll start getting big ships like that when mankind decides to work together... which is sometime this side of never.

Agreed

Infernus · 2006-09-01, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by TX3RN0BILL

And since rockets existed before shuttles, in my view abandoning something more modern in favour of something that conceptually existed before is going back in time.

Which is the practical equivilant of saying "Binary is old lets forget about it."

If I was an astronaut, I'd rather be sent to the moon and beyond in something that is proven to work, rather then some super cool new ultra-flyer spaceship with laserbeams that goes all soyuz on me. Its not like their telling the smithsonian to give them the lunar lander they have on display so that it can be used to go to the moon.

And whether or not you would do it, colonization of the moon is the first step. You mentioned meteroid strikes... well have you noted the general spatial location of mars? Its not exactly the most object-free environment. As far as I know, mars gets hit by some fairly good size rocks quite frequently. The moon is a jumping off point. Nasa doesn't like throwing its astronauts randomly into hostile extra-terrestrial environments. I wouldn't sign up for a trip to mars without first training somewhere that wasn't Earth, and the logical place for that is the moon - its 4 days away, as opposed to 9 some months for mars. Also in regards to distance, did you know that on average there is only one viable launch window for mars every 26 months and in the 9 months it takes to get there mars has moved approximately 3/8 of its orbit around the sun, the Earth moving even faster. A team on mars would be relatively sol for about a year and a half before anyone else could even launch to get to them.

In the end it all comes down to two things, practicality and safety. The moon is practical, the CEV is safe.

Hamma · 2006-09-02, 01:04 PM

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/co...ion/index.html

Pretty cool stuff on that site

edit: realplayer though

kurushio95 · 2006-09-03, 03:08 PM

i'm waiting to see this moon lander that lockheed is supposed to develop, but that's about 10 years down the line.

on the note of battlecruisers and that like, we won't see that for at least a century.

Rbstr · 2006-09-03, 05:59 PM

I'm kinda dissapointed, this is just the Apollo/Saturn V Version 2.0

Atleast we'll be going into space more often.