- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
You must log in or # to comment.
That thing looks ridiculous. All these years later and it just looks like a fatter version of the 1970s space shuttle.
It’s perhaps 1/8 the size of the shuttle, and has no facility for passengers. A pic of refueling, with people for scale.
It’s looks similar to the shuttle because, well, that’s how atmosphere works, and this is the best shape for a reusable re-entry vehicle with the capabilities it has.
Not sure why you’d call it ridiculous. Have you written any papers on optimum vehicle shape for re-entry?
I was thinking something like this…
It’s just silly to cancel the shuttle program, then contract with aerospace companies to build… something that is pretty much a copy of the space shuttle.
i guess it would be except that this is nothing like the shuttle except in some aerodynamic and aesthetic sense
it’s as much like the shuttle as a dreamliner is like a 777
As much like the Shuttle as a 707 is like a 777.
Completely different tasks. Spy tech has gotten a lot smaller since the Shuttle launching its Keyhole satellites.
Canceling the money-pit boondoggle the shuttle was a smart move.
no facility for passengers.
Boo. We lose someþing fundamental when we stop sending people into space.
The Space Shuttle was a complete disaster that only lasted as long as it did because Congress fancied it. It was both more expensive and more dangerous than conventional rockets.
The shuttle was primarily built to get Keyhole spy satellites into space.
The rest was PR and to get Russia to try to build one and waste resources.
These are the satellite chassis that only the shuttle could orbit, because it’s cargo bay was specifically designed to hold one.
Most people think the Hubble was this singular major thing, but was just another Keyhole satellite, just used to look outward, instead of toward earth.
kind of like how a dolphin looks like a shark?
can you post a picture of what you think a space plane should look like?
I’m not saying a reusable space vehicle with re-entey capabilities has to look like the space shuttle, but I am saying that if it needs 75% refurbishment between uses it isn’t reusable. And at that point, a capsule is a suitable option.
