General Discussion

ChisolmTrailDem

(9,463 posts)

9. Because winged spacecraft are designed for low earth orbit. NASA has no plans to send winged

Fri Dec 5, 2014, 03:36 PM

Dec 2014

aircraft to the moon and Mars. The spacecraft that brings humans back nees a soft landing environment as provided by an ocean touchdown.

Also, winged aircraft are not designed to re-enter Earth's atmosphere at the speeds that deep space craft will re-enter. For instance, after a trip of 3600 miles up today, Orion entered the atmosphere at 20,000mph. A return from the moon will exceed that speed, as will a trip to Mars will be an even higher speed at re-entry.

In order to escape Earth's gravity, a spacecraft must be accelerated to in excess of 17,000mph. Only a massive, staged booster, more powerful rocket (in the case the Constellation, the most massive rocket in human history) can lift a spacecraft out of Earth's gravity field.

Finally, the entire space program today is modeled on proven technology in order to save money, considering the abuse NASA's budget has taken in the past decade or more.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

51 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Why are we back to dropping our spacecraft [View all] Control-Z Dec 2014 OP

No pilots? That would explain it. immoderate Dec 2014 #1

Well, now that makes sense! Control-Z Dec 2014 #3

The Orion is a reusable capsule. Xithras Dec 2014 #12

Everyone is making the mistake of believing that because it is the same shape, it is also the same MADem Dec 2014 #51

The Space Shuttle did not need pilots. former9thward Dec 2014 #22

You are right. immoderate Dec 2014 #27

Because the shuttle is retired? tridim Dec 2014 #2

I guess I had it backwards. Control-Z Dec 2014 #4

The shuttle was built for low earth orbits, not real space travel. nt TeamPooka Dec 2014 #10

Soyuz Capsules also land on land sharp_stick Dec 2014 #6

The Russians do not have much choice. ManiacJoe Dec 2014 #29

It's a test vehicle for Mars landings. Quackers Dec 2014 #5

The final design sharp_stick Dec 2014 #8

It's a deep space vehicle sharp_stick Dec 2014 #7

Because winged spacecraft are designed for low earth orbit. NASA has no plans to send winged ChisolmTrailDem Dec 2014 #9

Why bring them back at all?....... 'A one-way trip to Mars' Baclava Dec 2014 #11

Read an interesting new proposal recently that outlined why Venus is a better choice. Xithras Dec 2014 #17

I go for- "Asteroid Resources Could Create Space Habs For Trillions; Land Area Of A Thousand Earths" Baclava Dec 2014 #20

The problem with space habs and hamster tubes on Mars... Xithras Dec 2014 #21

The pressure on the surface of Venus would crush anything we can build and it's 800 F Baclava Dec 2014 #25

And the pressure 50km up is the closest thing you'll find to Earth in our solar system. Xithras Dec 2014 #28

You're going to tell volcanos how and where to grow? That's pure science fiction. Ridiculous. Baclava Dec 2014 #30

Yes. Xithras Dec 2014 #34

Oh OK - forgive me for doubting your dream, I just want results in the near future Baclava Dec 2014 #40

We are talking about habitats that would be pressurized from .5 to 1 atmosphere of pressure... Humanist_Activist Dec 2014 #35

I believe there's such a colony depicted in the following video. kentauros Dec 2014 #38

That is an awesome video, and I think it portrays an O'Neill Cylinder... Humanist_Activist Dec 2014 #43

Because I don't want them falling on my house. hunter Dec 2014 #13

"Mankind's future is not in space" - bah, we should be gentically engineering humans for deep space Baclava Dec 2014 #15

My bet is on Artificial Intelligence. hunter Dec 2014 #16

robots are good for now, but we can do better Baclava Dec 2014 #18

Just like a corporation being free of government regulation The2ndWheel Dec 2014 #36

No, that would be child abuse to even attempt to create Mars adapted children cpwm17 Dec 2014 #44

I disagree- humans have no need for legs in space, really,we need to modify our spawn for the stars Baclava Dec 2014 #46

Mars ain't the kind of place to raise you kids... hunter Dec 2014 #50

Ah Darwinism at work. Lets bind ourselves to a rotting mudball. We are polluting to the point of Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #47

It's an incredibly proven design, especially when the capsules are single-use Posteritatis Dec 2014 #14

Because it's time to bomb the ocean. Already did the moon. NuclearDem Dec 2014 #19

Already done that. NutmegYankee Dec 2014 #23

Physics. backscatter712 Dec 2014 #24

Cost and weight. cherokeeprogressive Dec 2014 #26

Because it turned out that the Shuttle was NOT cheaper than disposable capsules. Odin2005 Dec 2014 #31

The shuttle was a mistake Kurska Dec 2014 #32

Without the shuttle, we wouldn't have Hubble today Baclava Dec 2014 #41

Because the Shuttle theory was recognized to be a mistake early on Recursion Dec 2014 #33

Back in the 1960's I actually believed there would be space travel for all of us B Calm Dec 2014 #37

2001: A Space Odyssey helped push that view, kentauros Dec 2014 #39

Oh so true about how America politics work. If they had not stolen the election from Al Gore B Calm Dec 2014 #42

It's the most efficient design. It's that simple. Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #45

Space capsules returning through the Earth's atmosphere don't land on runways. Baclava Dec 2014 #48

Exactly, few moving parts, its the best design Katashi_itto Dec 2014 #49