America's space program is not dead!
- Thread starter E-DUB
- Start date
That sky crane scares me. That's the launch vehicle size biting you. I would have placed curiosity atop SLS--atop a larger, Viking type lander. Keep all the sophisticated electronics on the rover, but the spacecraft/descent stage should be as simple a bus as possible. Viking to me had about the best in solid state--better than Apolo but not as sensitive to radiation as some chips. Viking burned all the way down. Here Curiosity would have roled down a ramp already deployed with nothing needed to unfurl--unfold--none of that.
I have the feeling the sky crane is going to snag or crash.
I have the feeling the sky crane is going to snag or crash.
It's pining for the Fjords...
It will be a long wait before the SLS launches anything, if it ever does.
New deep spacecraft design
http://www.universetoday.com/96256/design-for-a-long-duration-deep-space-mission-habitat/
http://www.universetoday.com/96256/design-for-a-long-duration-deep-space-mission-habitat/
I saw it the first time when it was called "Transhab."
We need all the Powerpoints we can get. I believe the Canadians call them Zed-PMs, which stands for "Zero Point Energy." By tapping into the energy inherently stored in Powerpoints (each PP presentation has an extremely large degree of uncertainty, which is a quantum effect) we can power ions drives or VASIMR engines.
^ You, Sir, owe me a new keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee.
Nice production work. It actually felt like a "trailer" for the mission. Good way to market it on the web. Now we just wait to see if it works.
Jesus Christ.. who approved this?
With Space engineering (and especially such costly ones) i thought the maxim "Keep it simple" should be followed.. especially with the forces and temperatures at work.
"Zero Tolerance" sounds flashy and dangerous but dangerous should be the least thing you want in such missions.. there's so many moving parts and system involved that there really is no tolerance for errors.
Has anyone thought about flaws in the manufacturing? What if Joe Schmuck had a bad day months ago when he put together some part of this whole machinery and made an error nobody noticed?
For me it sounds way too complicated and too many unforeseen circumstances could crash the entire thing but i hope it works.. the trailer was well done and something uniqe but i doubt the Hollywood approach to engineering will work long term.
With Space engineering (and especially such costly ones) i thought the maxim "Keep it simple" should be followed.. especially with the forces and temperatures at work.
"Zero Tolerance" sounds flashy and dangerous but dangerous should be the least thing you want in such missions.. there's so many moving parts and system involved that there really is no tolerance for errors.
Has anyone thought about flaws in the manufacturing? What if Joe Schmuck had a bad day months ago when he put together some part of this whole machinery and made an error nobody noticed?
For me it sounds way too complicated and too many unforeseen circumstances could crash the entire thing but i hope it works.. the trailer was well done and something uniqe but i doubt the Hollywood approach to engineering will work long term.
I also drew a few of those.
This actually is simple compared to Nautilus X which came from the mind of Mark Holderman at JSC--no dummy.
Folks want ISS assembly--but when it is offered--they put it down--sheesh.
More on similar concepts
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/neemo-16-real-nea-mission-outline-continues-worked/
Folks want ISS assembly--but when it is offered--they put it down--sheesh.
More on similar concepts
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/06/neemo-16-real-nea-mission-outline-continues-worked/
^ And half of their simpler concepts would be easy enough to build and launch on a reasonable budget, but for some reason every time they sit down and start designing it it turns into some sort of feature-creeping "I know we finalized the design last month, but the final design isn't expensive enough, so let's blow $250 million on another design capability study."
Similar threads
