Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: henchman on October 07, 2009, 10:25:54 AM
-
I'm curious as to what everyones opinion is.
What nation has the best space program?
-
Scandinavia without a doubt!!!
IKEA can do wonders with your space :aok
-
if best means the most commercially successful, then probably the French, or maybe the Russians.
-
define "space program".
-
... and "best"
:)
-
I'm curious as to what everyones opinion is.
What nation has the best space program?
vulcan engineering, and scaled composites.
-
From a commercial carrier point of view I'd say the Russians are way ahead of everyone else - they are already taking tourists into space. Price tag around $20 million - not sure whether that includes complimentary drinks c/w umbrella and pretzels.
I see the Europeans have a real strangle hold on commercail package (weather/scientific satellites etc.) deliver with the Japanese snapping at their heels.
Militarily the US is a solid front runner - not sure whether that will translate into the private sector tho.
China in my view is the one to keep on the radar - their growth potential is astronomical and within 20-30 years will likely have easily surpassed the West as the leading economy.
...cheers eh! :D
-
One thing for sure is that the US with all its industrial might and technical expertise has been left in the dust. We still have a good program, but it is way behind where it should have been. Many other countries are all ready going for the commercial dollars while the US is busy with its limited payload shuttle program. The shuttle program was supposed to be a temporary measure as we develped better vehicles. Our exploration is limited to the Hubble and satilites. Most of the original thinkers thought we would have had our own expansive space station, possibly a permanate station on the Moon and a easier way to get into orbit by now. Like everything else the public loses interest so does Congress.
There are some things on the horizon for the US however. Specifically a new magnetic based engine design. This engine will be tested in the next couple of years. If successful it could reduce projected travel time to Mars from six months to a month and a half. Perhaps if there is a defined goal the US can get back to the top of the space race.
-
NASA is the biggest joke.....great minds led by the incompetent.
That whole organization needs a rework.....
-
NASA is the biggest joke.....great minds led by the incompetent.
That whole organization needs a rework.....
Without a defined mission they have wallowed and flopped around like a dying fish. Successive administrations have done nothing to give NASA a defined goal. They have a hundred different missions going a hundred directions.
-
Lets not forget tho, only Russia and the US have operational manned vehicles. The U.S. will debut the new Orion capsule in the next few years. The Russians are still using a dated, (but refined) manned vehicle design. In this respect the U.S. does have the best program in my eyes. The Orion will be capable of lunar orbit missions and perhaps to Mars as a part of a larger vehicle.
Strip
-
Without a defined mission they have wallowed and flopped around like a dying fish. Successive administrations have done nothing to give NASA a defined goal. They have a hundred different missions going a hundred directions.
Yes I agree, some of their issues comes from outside sources.
Although, I feel a good portion comes from within the organization itself.
-
Speaking of military...
Last night's episode of the Universe covered space warfare. Interesting stuff, although one MAJOR glitch regarding "starfighter" combat:
Inertia still exists in space. You can't be going one direction then instantaneously stop and jet off in another. For one, Newton doesn't like that, not to mention that the G forces of such sudden acceleration and deceleration would smash your pilots into goo. While it may not exactly be like Star Wars, space dogfights probably wouldn't look TOO dissimilar from a terrestrial one as far as the movement of the craft (and possibly by intent to make it easier for pilots to adjust).
The also completely neglected the concept of energy-based weaponry, maybe some sort of magnetically bottled plasma? Except for their "antimatter bomb," everything was either a laser, nuclear, or solid projectile.
I will say, though, that "the Rod from God" may have just become my favorite technology term.
:D
-
The also completely neglected the concept of energy-based weaponry, maybe some sort of magnetically bottled plasma? Except for their "antimatter bomb," everything was either a laser, nuclear, or solid projectile.
Light is pure "frozen" energy.....
The most powerful form of energy comes from gamma ray bursts, which in simple terms is highly energetic light.
Strip
-
Sax, I was watching that earlier today, while my wife was napping. She came out to the family room about the same time they said that about the "Rod from God".. she was half-asleep and asked me why I was watching porn, and wtf kinda porn is it.. :x
-
Light is pure "frozen" energy.....
The most powerful form of energy comes from gamma ray bursts, which in simple terms is highly energetic light.
Strip
I think you know what I mean, though. Rather than light-based, some other form of energized particle.
-
What nation has the best space program?
Has to be the US. Millions of kids taking up space in school every day.
-
Has to be the US. Millions of kids taking up space in school every day.
:x, :rofl :rofl :cry
-
I'd say it was a toss-up, between China and India. China is developing FAST, but they have a lot of help from the US (intentional tech transfer, unintentional tech transfer, and traitorous bastages selling them info) and from other nations like Russia. India is pretty much rolling their own due to sanctions from the US because of India's nuke program.
I'd give India the edge on innovation, but China the nod for rapid progress and active, successful, and fully funded development programs that actually do something new (for them).
Comments on non-winners...
Russia still has a lot of hardware that is reasonably affordable and reliable, but I don't think they're doing much of anything that is really new and they are relying on income from other nations to fund their space program. As for ESA... What's ESA done lately that's worked and was revolutionary? I'm not talking about lofting some neat new astronomical instrument into space... Anyone can do that. I'm talking about progressive stuff... I don't know when the last time was that ESA did anything that nobody else has done.
I won't even go into the US space program, except to say that a lack of focus and enthusiasm is fatal to a space program. Sending machines up to space is expensive but routine and not very exciting. Also, if you get to adverse to risk, you'll never do anything worthwhile. NASA needs to grow a pair and hire some adventurers to pave the way for the scientists who will use mature systems. But to do anything new and worthwhile you need adventurers and explorers who will take risks with their eyes open, and a management/leadership team that is willing to send them up with a higher margin for failure. We lost hundreds of pilots while developing our aeronautical systems since the pioneers like the Wright Brothers and Langley had their first fatal accidents. We've lost a mere fraction of a percent of the number of astronauts when compared to the same amount of time. Yea a space accident costs more than an airplane accident so the lost resources are greatly multiplied when you lose a spaceship compared to losing one airplane, but excessive concern over human risks are crippling NASA.
Rutan and his team won the x-prize flying a spaceship with a propulsion system that would never leave the drawing board with NASA, let alone earn a manned rating. The ablative nozzle used with spaceship one is effectively a random vectored thrust nozzle, due to uneven ablation. That's dangerous as hell. But they did it, and the pilots survived. Had they met with disaster, some funding may have dried up but they'd still have a list a mile long for volunteers lining up to be the next test pilot. That's how you run a space research program... You take steps to counter hazards and reduce risk, but at some point you light the candle and go for it instead of running endless simulations and design reviews until you run out of money or come up with a foolproof plan that isn't affordable. Every pioneer in every field of human endeavour for the last 2000 years would agree.
-
Rutan and his team won the x-prize flying a spaceship with a propulsion system that would never leave the drawing board with NASA, let alone earn a manned rating. The ablative nozzle used with spaceship one is effectively a random vectored thrust nozzle, due to uneven ablation. That's dangerous as hell. But they did it, and the pilots survived. Had they met with disaster, some funding may have dried up but they'd still have a list a mile long for volunteers lining up to be the next test pilot. That's how you run a space research program... You take steps to counter hazards and reduce risk, but at some point you light the candle and go for it instead of running endless simulations and design reviews until you run out of money or come up with a foolproof plan that isn't affordable. Every pioneer in every field of human endeavour for the last 2000 years would agree.
The Space Shuttle SRB's are ablative nozzles, NASA considers them inherently safer than regen or radiation cooled nozzles.
I dont think thats a fair statement to make about Rutan's design.....
-
Rutan and his team won the x-prize flying a spaceship with a propulsion system that would never leave the drawing board with NASA, let alone earn a manned rating. The ablative nozzle used with spaceship one is effectively a random vectored thrust nozzle, due to uneven ablation. That's dangerous as hell. But they did it, and the pilots survived. Had they met with disaster, some funding may have dried up but they'd still have a list a mile long for volunteers lining up to be the next test pilot. That's how you run a space research program... You take steps to counter hazards and reduce risk, but at some point you light the candle and go for it instead of running endless simulations and design reviews until you run out of money or come up with a foolproof plan that isn't affordable. Every pioneer in every field of human endeavour for the last 2000 years would agree.
actually, they almost did meet with disaster, but it had nothing to do with the propulsion system.
-
I have always wondered, given the shuttle's long term (relatively speaking) capability to remain in space, why a modified shuttle couldn't be used as a lunar orbiter, and the larger payload capacity used to deploy a larger lunar lander with greater capabilities. Perhaps even a re-supply capability that takes advantage of the cargo bay.
The shuttle develops enough speed after being in orbit to "slingshot" to the moon similar to the Apollo rocket, so it shouldn't be that hard I don't think.
-
I have always wondered, given the shuttle's long term (relatively speaking) capability to remain in space, why a modified shuttle couldn't be used as a lunar orbiter, and the larger payload capacity used to deploy a larger lunar lander with greater capabilities. Perhaps even a re-supply capability that takes advantage of the cargo bay.
The shuttle develops enough speed after being in orbit to "slingshot" to the moon similar to the Apollo rocket, so it shouldn't be that hard I don't think.
You mean permanently docked somewhere in orbit? The main problem I think would be with keeping the shuttle itself maintained (fuel, repairs, etc). AFAIK, the only manned objects that are permanently kept in space have been the various space stations, and never a self-contained spacecraft or shuttle.
-
I think most of the original shuttles are near the end of their designed lifespan. I don't know how many if any have been built since the 80s.
-
Besides, if you're going to build a permanent orbital spacecraft why bother with a design as outdated as the shuttle? We need to look AHEAD.
(http://vulcanstev.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/ncc-1701-a.jpg)
:D
-
actually, they almost did meet with disaster, but it had nothing to do with the propulsion system.
Actually...lol....it was from the propulsion system.
The hybrid rocket developed asymmetric thrust causing the vehicle to start spinning......close to 60rpm if I remember correctly.
Strip
-
Actually...lol....it was from the propulsion system.
The hybrid rocket developed asymmetric thrust causing the vehicle to start spinning......close to 60rpm if I remember correctly.
Strip
it was higher than that i think.....but that wasn't anything compared to the elevator trim that got stuck in the full up while mike mellville was out of the atmosphere. had they not gotten it un-stuck(and they almost didn't) he would have not been able to control the ship on re-entry.
i think it was the first test flight that took him out of the atmosphere.
-
So they had two near fatal accidents then....
-
Inertia still exists in space. You can't be going one direction then instantaneously stop and jet off in another. For one, Newton doesn't like that...
I know this is tangent to the conversation, but you can have a lot of nerdy fun with this: Ask ten normal intelligent people what would happen if you kicked a bowling ball. Then ask them what would happen if you kicked a bowling ball on the surface of the moon.
In my experience, few people understand you will actually break your foot either way. They seem to think the ball on the moon will have less mass. :rolleyes:
-
So they had two near fatal accidents then....
yep. and one fatal aftarwards.........when one of the rockets exploded on a test stand.
-
I know this is tangent to the conversation, but you can have a lot of nerdy fun with this: Ask ten normal intelligent people what would happen if you kicked a bowling ball. Then ask them what would happen if you kicked a bowling ball on the surface of the moon.
In my experience, few people understand you will actually break your foot either way. They seem to think the ball on the moon will have less mass. :rolleyes:
That's why I doubt that dogfights will change TOO much in vacuum. The nature of mass, inertia, and human reaction times almost guarantee that fighter designs will be geared towards maneuvering in a manner familiar to terrestrial pilots. Just like some pilots in real life are better than others, some starfighter pilots will be good enough to be able to take advantage of being able to change attitude without actually changing heading (circle strafing, etc).
-
if u were designing a fighter for space or even air use, why would you want to put a human it in with all the compromises that brings? a starfighter pilot would certainly be a very long way from the action.
-
yep. and one fatal aftarwards.........when one of the rockets exploded on a test stand.
I heard the composite nitrous tank failed?
Sounds like a NHRA Prostock in the 90's.....
:bolt:
-
if u were designing a fighter for space or even air use, why would you want to put a human it in with all the compromises that brings? a starfighter pilot would certainly be a very long way from the action.
Need to perfect UAVs and ROVs to the point they can effectively engage in a terrestrial dogfight, first. Last I checked there still needs to be a pilot in the cockpit to be a viable air-to-air combatant.
-
The Space Shuttle SRB's are ablative nozzles, NASA considers them inherently safer than regen or radiation cooled nozzles.
I dont think thats a fair statement to make about Rutan's design.....
Have you read the test pilot's writeups about the nozzles and every one of the flight debriefs? I did, from the perspective of a guy who's flown high performance aircraft for over a decade now. The nozzles ablate very unevenly, with the same effect of random thrust vectoring. It exceeded flight control authority on at least one flight, possibly two. They came close to losing at least one flight due to the nozzle design. And that was the test pilot saying that, not me.
Ablative nozzles are not new, but in a single engine design like spaceship one, they can be hazardous. In the space shuttle, NASA compensates with another million pounds or so of thrust from gymballed nozzles that swivel to keep things on track. Spaceship one has no such option... 'Mr. Toad's wild ride' comes to mind when describing what it must have been like to try to keep that thing going straight.
-
I have read some of the test reports and noticed the ablation issues. However, I think the real danger comes from lack of an active nozzle gimbal. Other wise they need to fire the injector and fuel grain designers. The only thing that will typically cause uneven ablation is poor gas flow and distribution. Aside from poor nozzle construction....
Strip