Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Tech Review)   New generation of rocket-powered launch technologies   ( ) divider line
    More: Cool  
•       •       •

7708 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Feb 2003 at 12:36 AM (13 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

64 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

2003-02-07 07:55:32 PM  
A V-2 rocket is the next generation of rocket-powered launch technology?
2003-02-07 08:35:10 PM  
Ok. It's a matter of time until these end up in the hands of our enemies.
2003-02-08 12:08:30 AM  
Impaler, you should hear about this "machine" gun they're working on. Rubbish, I say.
2003-02-08 12:40:52 AM  
WOW that's a long article. But it's stupid how they say we have to rethink the current technology every time there's an accident. The space shuttle isn't outdated yet.
2003-02-08 12:41:51 AM  
"Canadian Arrow"
[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

Oh yeah, that's progress. Thanks, Canada!
2003-02-08 12:45:07 AM  
And the submitter of this is:
[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 12:45:42 AM  
Somewhere, Robert Oppenheimer is laughing his balls off.
2003-02-08 12:46:26 AM  
There's just too many words in that article for my headache to comprehend.
2003-02-08 12:46:46 AM  
M.C.PeePants, I think you meant Werner von Braun.
2003-02-08 12:49:26 AM  
:::blank stare:::
2003-02-08 12:50:18 AM  
Thanks, Collywobbles.

Indeed, von Braun should be the one laughing. His gyro assembly was teh 733t shiat.
2003-02-08 12:52:32 AM  
Uh, ok Canada.

100% Pure Cape Canaveral muscle, your Saturn V rocket
2003-02-08 12:52:36 AM  
I thought this was "farktopia".
2003-02-08 12:52:43 AM  
Join a discussion about this story.

i don't think this guy left anything else to discuss.
2003-02-08 12:53:20 AM  
[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 12:54:03 AM  
That's no Lisa Kudrow, theurge14. :(
2003-02-08 12:55:19 AM  
No, it's me when Lisa Kudrow comes over.

2003-02-08 12:57:06 AM  
[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 12:57:08 AM  
I think that it will happen.. I liked the analogy to the birth of the PC...
2003-02-08 12:58:12 AM  
damn canadians think they can make rockets now?

go make more beer and leave the explosives to the warmongering nations
2003-02-08 12:58:23 AM  
Thats NOT the Damn problem.

Its comming back that needs work.
2003-02-08 12:58:54 AM  
Rocket powered my ass...oh wait.

[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 01:01:06 AM  
Rocket powered my ass...oh wait.

lmao@that picture... his expression, the plate void of any leftover food... a classic.
2003-02-08 01:01:30 AM  
New generation of rocket-powered launch technologies
is there any launch that is not based on rocket type of design? say maybe anti gravity pulse engine?
i must be missing something.
2003-02-08 01:01:51 AM  
Aviation Week and Space Technology had a nice article this week about a hybrid rocket that used paraffins and LOX or GOX (liquid of gaseous oxygen, respectively). A hybrid rocket is essentially a solid rocket motor that you can turn off and throttle much like a liquid rocket motor. Using wax for fuel would really save on costs over a full cyrogenic liquid rocket motor or a full solid rocket motor since you don't have to compress and cool both fuels or you don't have to handle highly hazardous materials, respectively.
2003-02-08 01:01:53 AM  
OMFG! ROCKET pr0n!!!

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

[image from too old to be available]

2003-02-08 01:04:17 AM  
M.C.PeePants - Or was it Robert Goddard that you were thinking of?
2003-02-08 01:04:35 AM  
"Rocket science has become synonymous with advanced technology, but the fact of the matter is that there has been very little in the way of new development of rockets since the early 1960s," says Xcor Aerospace president Jeff Greason..

He went on to say "..but we did get these cool new whistle tips. If we launch a rocket in the morning, you should be up cooking brekfis for somebody, it's like an alarm! WOOO WOOO!"
2003-02-08 01:17:25 AM  
And as a result, rockets can fly far higher than jets, which cannot exceed altitudes of 16 kilometers because the air becomes too thin to burn aviation fuel and provide lift to their wings.

Yeah, except for the jets that can. Like the Blackbird family (26km-ish / 85000ft) and U-2. If I'm not mistaken a GLIDER actually made it to 15km (49000ft) by riding a wave off a mountain peak. And Fossett is aiming for 62000ft in one.
2003-02-08 01:17:52 AM  
Should I believe that?
[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 01:40:39 AM  
Speaking of rocket... Please be sure to go to nation states tommorrow.
2003-02-08 01:43:57 AM  
Anybody remember the Delta Clipper
[image from too old to be available]
It could take off, rotate, move side to side. It was to be the next generation of reusable launch vehicles. That was until one of its landing struts gave out and it tipped over rupturing its LOX tank and becoming a great big fireball.
2003-02-08 01:50:06 AM  
Buddist monks make excellent fuel.
2003-02-08 01:59:19 AM  
Canada's submits new re-entry plan to NASA:

[image from too old to be available]

Catch 'em with a parachute.
2003-02-08 02:07:48 AM  
Safety first.
[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 03:35:52 AM  
Pretty weak. The only actual news in that rather wordy article is the X-COR engine . . . which was news about eighteen months ago.

There are lots of other possibilities. Some are pretty far-out (plausible, but way down the line), but it's a speculative article. It reads like they were too lazy to do more than recycle old news. Or maybe they were just in a hurry.
2003-02-08 08:44:23 AM  
They don't know a damn thing about getting into space and I'll give them what for if they say otherwise.

Ballistics is the new hotness...

[image from too old to be available]
2003-02-08 11:38:15 AM  
NASA is supposed to be the cutting edge of technology, not the caretaker of archeic museum peices. The technology they are working with currently is nothing more than a 6th century bottlerocket. The stuff kills people.

Alternative design theory, the basis of it, is supposed to advance humanity, not hold it in the past. The people at NASA are supposed to be the smartest of the smart. I simply do not see it. Actions are louder than words. Smart, is very basically, doing things that do not hurt people. When you have a device that causes death and injury, and you know this happens, it is not a wise thing to put valiant people on top of said device. This is where you are supposed to use your massive brain pool, to take care of the most basic safety issues.

You do not go down to the local store, find a high school dropout, and put him into a submarine, and expect him to run the reactor with no training. This is not smart.

You do not go into the most hostile environment known to man as a tourist, with no safety factors figured into the mission. This is not smart, either.

NASA has blatantly shown mass ignorance and mismanagement. They sent an experimental vehicle into low Earth orbit, without even the most basic maintainance staff, or even the right people to maneuver the craft in a time of crisis. On the craft, the most basic things were missing: enough fuel to change trajectory, a docking ring for emergency egress, EVA suits, filled with people who know how to fix the craft, They didn't even have an ROV.... you know, battlebots, or the little buggy they put on the submarine to search the Titanic wreckage, simply, an R2D2 with a video lense to inspect the external shell of the craft.

This is pointing out the painfully obvious, I know. Someone has to point it out.

As far as getting to space, the liquid fuel rocket system is a double edged sword. It cuts both ways, both good and bad. It is an inherantly dangerous and complex system. There is nothing that is currently being done in space that is as valuable as one human life, much less seven. Remote controlled cars are cheap and dependable, and risk no life or limb. Space is not a place for tourists or people who want a joyride to look at us ants on the planet. It is a very hostile place.

Alternate systems need to be developed. No question. We are still living in the world of Goddard and the V-2. I suggest looking at electromagnets and water, large brainpools can develope safe systems, on the cutting edge of technology.

Sometimes you have to make something NEW. Completely NEW. New, not like 'I got a new truck with the same motor as before', but new as in completely different and new, start scratching your heads.... THAT is what NASA is paid for. The Smithsonian Institution is where the shuttle fleet belongs.

Anti gravity experiments and warp drive engines are NEW, the Goddard rocket system is OLD. Use your big giant heads, and figure it out..
2003-02-08 12:00:05 PM  
That's it! Madalyns'ghost's ignorant post has totally put me off of Fark for the day. I guess I should count it as a blessing in disguise since I do have schoolwork and shouldn't be goofin' off on the web. Goodbye cruel world.

Mass ignorance? Warp engines?
2003-02-08 12:34:29 PM  
Exactly. There are literally thousands of engineers working on alternative systems at this moment. They have been effectively squeezed out of the system, by the people who run the space program. They have no funding to complete their work because the shuttle program takes the majority of the funding, and uses it for what? Cutting heads off mice?????

When you have a government funded program that is controlled by a monopoly of one private business, the checks and balances are removed, creating unsafe conditions.

And yes, warp drive engines. Think of Oppenhiemer. Just because you are placed at the top of the stack of engineers, and control everything, does not automatically mean you are making the right decisions. This is not a dictatorial state. What other people have to say about the future of their tax dollars DOES matter
2003-02-08 03:13:02 PM  
Almost half of the shuttle is covered with a Nomex felt blanket that is glued on with RTV Silicon and it gets ScotchGuarded before each flight.


Why has the Media ignored this, is it some kind of secret?
2003-02-08 04:10:13 PM  
No, it's no secret. Neither is it a big deal. The Nomex is used on the top of the shuttle. Much of the white part of the fuselage is covered in Nomex. They use it because it's a lot lighter than tiles, and it still provides adequate protection.
2003-02-08 04:25:20 PM  
still looking for that saucer section, on top of the main body, which connects to the port and starboard nacells, guys. We are too far beyond the shuttle technology to keep it in primary use. Fun fun fun until daddy takes the t-bird away. Well, daddy is mad that you wrecked the t-bird, and has spotted a brand new corvette. Time for a trade-in.
2003-02-08 07:44:12 PM  
Warp Drive is impossible at this point. We don't understand the way the universe works well enough for it to happen.

Anti-Gravity? We don't even know how gravity works. Until recently we didn't even know that gravity travelled at the speed of light.

Yes I believe that the shuttle system needs to have a major overhaul, not because of this recent tragedy, but because of the fact that nasa has gone on a very tight budget ever since the space race was won, and hasn't been able to do much ever since then as far as progressing technologically, even though newer technologies would be far cheaper.

Also -- there is a reason that the computer systems on the space shuttle are so old. They work, They've been proven to work and are simple to troubleshoot.
2003-02-08 09:09:02 PM  
well, then divert the funding from the shuttle into research and developement programs for alternative systems. That is why we don't have them, we have done no 'new' research and developement. Nothing done in outerspace cannot be done in the Marianis trench or in a Leyden jar with an antigravity feild around it. We can make a frog float, what more do you need for antigravity?

Remember Star Wars? The first one? They made something, called 'models'. Just work with some hotwheels until you get the concepts down. No one says that every project has to start as a full scale ship, but in order to make the full scale ship, you need a prototype design vehicle... even if it is just carved from wood, as the B-52 was. Without research, there will be no ship. A great design theory, beleive it or not, is the Star Trek Enterprise vehicle, NCC-1701. It has alot of great ideas floating within the soap-opera. Magnetic decks, plasma propulsion, anti-meteor laser, polarized force feilds {this is still a tough one, but it is being cracked} Ion propulsion, nuclear propulsion,
the list of ideas goes on.
The shuttle is a great test platform, no doubt. But it is way too costly for the returns that we get from it, as I see it, and none of the interstellar transport research is being done with it, just repeats of the old 1960's go up come down stuff, that has already been done.
The space program makes advances in technology by demanding those advances to be made. Velcro was demanded and then developed. Well, it's been quite a few years since NASA has asked for something other than velcro and rtv sealant, and the aerospace industry depends on supply and demand; if everyone has a Model A Ford, why would they want a Model T?
2003-02-08 10:32:56 PM  
I believe that the frog levitating act you're talking about is due to a few things.

As the first news article shows from the BBC, it's a joke. The experiment won an Ig awards are spoofs of the Nobel Prize awards. The second link, although somewhat shaky, makes refrences to what in fact made the frogs float. It wasn't Anti-Gravity, it was magnetism. Theoretically, if you have a strong enough magnetic field, you can either repulse or attract any living creature due to the iron content of it's blood. That isn't anti gravity, for if I was able to, I could drop - for the sake of arguement - the body of a bic pen and it would not levitate, it would fall thru the field. Gravity is not a magnetic force.

The problem with your idea of building 'models' (which, if you cite a movie and a television show as examples of how the scientific method works, is horrible, for they're science fiction ) is that it would quite literally be a shot in the dark, without knowing where,how,or even what to begin with. There are in fact designs, attempts being made at other sources of transportation for space travel being made by groups and corporations that aren't NASA.

NASA does not have the man power, nor the funding to take such risks. They do however, have to maintain obligations to the International Space Station, and to help mankind understand space with more depth (which it does by performing experiments in space and as well as continuing and upgrading the HST). You're expecting NASA to make hundreds, if not thousands of years of progress, today. It's only been fourty years since the rocket has been invented, and in that short time, it's taken us to the moon, and in some cases further.

The Aerospace industry does not depend on supply and demand. The Aerospace industry, is driven by humanity's will and drive to explore the unknown and to create new homes for mankind.

I don't understand your last statement. The Model T Ford was the forerunner to the Model A. Why would they want a Model T? Because it was Damned Cheap.
2003-02-08 10:47:40 PM  
blow me. prototypes are made from model designs, which come from theory. Theory, until proven fact, is fiction. So, you take some fiction, and turn it into fact, through WORK.

Goddam nasa shiatheads got all the money and ain't lettin go for nuthin. Go ahead, crash test dummies, keep up the good work.
2003-02-08 10:57:40 PM  
I'm glad I reduced your arguement to swearing and asking me to blow you.

Real Mature.

I guess Einsteins General Theory of Relativity is fiction?

Theory in the scientific world is not always fiction, Theory may in fact be regarded as fact for a long time, however, since we were not there and have not discovered everything, it will be theory. (Unified Theory, String Theory, General Relativity, Big Bang, etc)

Crash Test Dummies? You wanted them to be Crash Test Dummies and test exotic technology for your own whimsy.
2003-02-09 10:24:13 AM  
2003-02-09 11:59:37 AM  
Jackie draper, meet Jackie paper. The Veterans Administration and NASA run on the same budget. When NASA breaks something, the wounded American Patriots suffer directly. No sh*t.

In a Democracy, you have people who build stuff, called companies. There are LOTS of companies.

NASA is tied to Lockheed Martin, a private company. As a company, in the course of 20 years, they have built 6 shuttlecraft. Only six. Two have crashed.

Let me tell you, there ARE other companies. Kenworth, in the course of twenty years, has managed to pump out over 2000 trucks, per year, with no major mechanical malfunctions. John Deere, same story, tractors. Caterpillar, same story, bulldozers. Chevrolet, same story, land speeders.

These private companies have designers and engineers JUST AS QUALIFIED AS LOCKHEED MARTIN.

You just LOST you contract. Come on, Kenworth, show us you stuff. Show me a new space truck, and the Veterans will give YOU the money
Displayed 50 of 64 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

In Other Media

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.