Stinkk

Ah ok, thanks a lot for the reply!

Hi, Was wondering if anyone in the community could answer a few questions about the new NASA spacecraft. What was the reason the Lockheed Martin Service Module was scrapped and ESA's ATV vehicle was chosen to be adapted instead (I'm guessing because classic Lockheed kept doubling the cost estimate and schedule every other week until it was unaffordable?) Would the ATV like vehicle be the future Service Module, or is it just a stand in until either the Lockheed one is build or another design is made? Also, what's the advantage/disadvantage of an Apollo like capsule over something like the Dream Chaser? I'm mean especially since the future plan is to include a habitat module instead of having the Crew Module be the habitat, wouldn't Orion then be just a glorified return vehicle? Thanks in advance!

Falcon 1: 5 launches, 3 failures. 60% failure rate. Falcon 1e: 5 scheduled launches, all cancelled. Falcon 9 v1: 5 launches, 1 partial failure. 10% failure rate. Falcon 9 v1.1: None flown. A cheaper space launch company is great, but don't let your self get sucked into the hype too much. Also I personally believe that once SpaceX has a pretty strong business going they'll just up their prices to what the market can bare, like all the previous commercial space companies have done.

While buying two of everything might be a good idea for caving, the space shuttle and the deep water horizons rig are different things. Couple of extra ropes? $20. duplicating the most expensive oil rig and most expensive space launch vehicle in history for the sake of redundancy? Yeah.

Ahh I see, so while they are less prone to failure and fail less often, if they do it's catastrophic.

But yeah I see your point about the difficulty of escaping a failing engine, I was just reading an article about the problems with Ares-1, that since the solid motor produced so much thrust so deep in the atmosphere it was extremely difficult to design a rocket motor for the escape system that could produce enough thrust on top of that during max Q faced with such wind blast, and even if it could it would probable cause excessive Gs. I think a lot of the objection towards solids rockets is based on common misconceptions, namely; Solid rocket engines can be shut off - by cracking them open, the space shuttle had pyrotechnics for this, - or if your in a vacuum by opening both ends of the rocket up. Also the exhaust plume eating through parachutes is a problem with liquid fuels as well, just look up what happened to the Apollo 15 'cute. Also a liquid rocket can explode fast enough to make little distinction between the two. Just wanted to clear those two points up, they are almost everyone's go to in the discussion.

I want some extreemly heavy science equitment, so you actually have to decide what equitment your going to attach to your probe instead of just sticking on everything. I'm thinking like an AMS module, or the modules sent to the ISS. Oh and robotic arms!

Constantly I hear people saying that solid rockets should never be used for manned flight and how unsafe they are. But looking at it objectively, to me it seems a little unfounded; In terms of statistics, every shuttle launch consisted of two solid rocket motors. Ok so one of the shuttle explosions was the result of a solid rocket failure, granted. But if you look at it there were numerous faults with the RS-25 engines thought out the shuttle history. statistically the solids did twice as many launches, and only 1 failure (albeit spectacularly). You have to consider however the other shuttle explosion was a result of falling ice damaging the orbiter, a result of using cryogenic liquids required for both kerosene and hydrogen fuels. Add to that Apollo 13 was a result of having cryogenic fuels, requiring stirring, electrical systems to keep them frozen etc.. And it's not just the fuel you have to worry about, with liquid oxygen, almost anything will ignite, don't forget Apollo 1. Both hydrogen and oxygen slowly turn to gas even with the best insulation, this means you also have to worry about venting to avoid dangerous pressure build up. I mean to use any liquid fuels you need lots of high pressure, high vibration tolerant machinery, and plumbing, high speed moving parts, electrics, just a whole series of points of failure. To me it seems like mixing a high explosive liquids (hydrogen or kerosene) and a cryogenic highly reactive oxidiser under extremely high pressure is a lot more dangerous, and causes a lot more failures than a relatively inert fuel rubber mixture.

Well the millitary had a pretty big hand in its design. The wings on the space shuttle were a military requirement so that'd if have cross range capability, (So it could land at another airfield if the one it took off from had been taken out of action). If it wasn't for the military it would have probably been a lifting body or more capsule like design, removing the need for the dangerous heat tiles it used and a lot of the cutting edge requirements to lift those enormous wings. Since the inspection and replacement of tiles was one of the biggest processing jobs, in a way the military was the main reason for the shuttles failure.

Hi! I was recently walking around the KSC admiring the new buildings, and it just feels a little barren. Compare it to the lively feeling while inside the VAB/SPH. Since the textures and models already exist for Kerbals and vehicles, it would be sweet if they could be added to the centre.