Podobná online videa

Komentáře & Download

americaneagle2076 - 24.4.2012 22:40:51
This concept dates from 1977 and it has been balked at by Congress due to the price tag.

Finkletonian - 18.4.2012 22:25:56
WHY AREN'T WE DEVELOPING THIS.

plavins1 - 27.3.2012 18:11:24
this is a great solution for a problem that shouldn't exist in a first place! what the fuck was wrong with the saturn V !? Look at Russians they are still using R-7 rocket to get soyuz in space, and why? because they know that there is no need to make something new, if the R-7 is perfectly fine.Saturn V could lift much more cargo than shuttle and the shuttle isn't as half as cheap as they originally expected.If nasa hasn't burned all plans for saturn V make it again!

jimabbey1964 - 26.3.2012 0:38:36
i agree ,your throwing away good engines ,at least the suttles they could be returned and used again. not only that but the Cargo bay part is desposed of. As a tax payer,I would not pay for such a waste.well Obama is destroying NASA anyway and it's on purpose. What a scum bag!

PRSOV - 25.3.2012 8:54:14
is it confirmed that the old SSME's are going to be used on the new SLS? They aren't building new ones? They did keep the 14 or 16 from the retired shuttles.

MonkeySci - 15.3.2012 2:47:48
The biggest problem is that Space Shuttle Main Engines are very expensive, i think to carry a "cheap" rocket like Second Stage of Saturn V is the best idea. As we known, J-2X has a lower price and it's considerable

MattBlak1 - 9.3.2012 12:17:10
Kinda does! But so do most rockets: look up Atlas V on YouTube!!

MattBlak1 - 9.3.2012 12:15:24
But Falcon Heavy would be much cheaper than Shuttle hardware, so launch far more of them! Falcon Heavy's biggest handicap would be a small payload fairing compared to Shuttle side-mount or 'Inline' design. Falcon fairing only 5 meters in diameter - Shuttle derived 8 to 10 meters. One idea would be to cluster 5x Falcon stages along with a wide-body upper stage with 2x Space X 'Raptor' engines. Such a beast could lift 80 tons. But 45x engines on first stages a bit silly & risky though.

MattBlak1 - 9.3.2012 12:08:46
Shuttle Side-mount heavy was designed to launch more than 80 metric tons to orbit (180 thousand pounds) and send 30 tons to escape Earth. Falcon Heavy, IF and when it flies will orbit 53 tons & send 12 to Earth escape. Side-mount MUCH larger design, able to upgrade to 90 tons to orbit, which was the Shuttle's mass. Falcon H could get a better upper stage and make up to 57 tons but that's it without redesigning from scratch. Elon Musk wants to build bigger! Write the man checks, now..,

MattBlak1 - 9.3.2012 12:01:35
Engines gimbal and steer through vehicles centers of thrust and mass, just like the Shuttle. And there is a second version of this video somewhere that shows engine 'pod' being recovered from ocean after parachuting in. But its likely the engines for the cargo version would be throttled higher for more payload, sacrificing re-usability for power. Some missions are worth sacrificing hardware - exploring another world, for instance.

MattBlak1 - 9.3.2012 11:57:46
Rockets expend stages and engines - anything else at the moment is sci-fi. And myths: Space is NOT taking food from the hungry or money from Homeland Security. It provides JOBS for thousands and hope for many. And Russia's space program earns money to feed thousands, as does ESA operations in French Guiana - poor folk there wouldn't eat without Ariane rockets launching. And Florida economy now suffering because of the lack of U.S. Astronauts launching for many years to come.

MattBlak1 - 9.3.2012 11:52:17
Rockets will be with us for many decades yet. Russia and China know this: so does Space X. I like Space X but don't make them into a cult: they have some good ideas and a couple good launches. But until they actually launch and dock Dragon with ISS and launch Falcon Heavy AND successfully re-use a stage - its all just faith and animated videos. Too many people saying 'Space X will save us!' and Space X is cheapest. NOT proven yet. YET.

Aristyora - 9.3.2012 0:25:30
The center fuel tank is destroyed? But my suggestion it will fall to pacific ocean

Aristyora - 9.3.2012 0:23:05
Orion Spacecraft will be launched by Ares I or V, nor by the Space Shuttle SRB

ViperGTS19801 - 3.3.2012 23:46:35
1. How would the craft remain stable during upward flight? The only surfaces able to control the path of the craft are the engines. 2. The center fuel tank is jettisoned to burn up in the atmosphere - what about the main engines? They'd be destroyed on the way back to Earth. 3. We need to get our shit straightened out on the ground first - financial turmoil, wars, famine...we need to be secure at home before we go off into the great black yonder again.

ti994apc - 26.2.2012 23:19:11
**** MAJOR problem is 50,000 lbs of weight for $1.5 BILLION is just stupid. If you use the same Shuttle parts, you get the same Shuttle costs. You can lift 110,000 lbs of wight (more than double) for 100 MILLION with Falcon Heavy.

StevieBabyFace - 25.2.2012 5:47:02
it looks like a penis

Hywel1995 - 25.2.2012 0:16:20
it could be a possiblity... who knows what the future will hold...

Hywel1995 - 25.2.2012 0:15:13
i thought of that too... but this is only a proposal, they might think of something if it does get comissioned by NASA... maybe a heatshield??

fredulusinc - 21.2.2012 21:11:40
This is still old technology. It's not a step up from the space shuttle in any significant way. We need something completely re-usable. Enter: SpaceX :)

anuoldman - 17.2.2012 2:16:04
its a bummer that the basic Apollo/ Skylab/ Shuttle concepts are where we still are at... for us older engineers, we were looking at the movie 2001 in the early part of our careers in the early 70"s and thinking: we are gonna see some great stuff.... not

tk5800thesecond - 14.2.2012 10:07:15
you know, they had an already awesome way to take stuff into orbit, its called the shuttle!