We are limited to orbits of ISS so why not invent a large Space Shuttle to transport things and people..?
-------------------------------------------------------
answers:
Funnelweb say: SpaceX (headed by Elon Musk) plans to do precisely that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4lUvevI...
-
daniel g say: We had a very effective shuttle, but like other space programs, funding did not seem to be cost effective so the STS was brought to an end.
-
squeezie_1999 say: inventing it is not the problem. The real issue is that the Space Shuttle design had fundamental flaws - foremost among them was not having the crew and payload compartments in front of the boosters and fuel tanks.... that's insurmountable. The other problem was that the design could never meet the low cost reusability requirement. It's just a very complex system for boosting things into orbit. and lastly- the shuttle approach does not scale up well - making it bigger, introduces problems that grow exponentially with size. In all, it's a sucky design and in the end, was abandonned.
-
CarolOklaNola say: The Orion manned space capsule will have a crew of 4 to 7 It is NOT meant to replace the shuttles. The version that hopefully will go around the Moon in 2020 may have a crew of only 2 people. There will be no landing.
Given the large anti science contingent in the current Congress that is the legacy of the Tea Party and the 2010 election. Any time either Trump or Pence start talking king about space there is no response except static from the CMBR.
https://www.nasa.gov/exploration/systems...
-
say: go ahead and do it. nobody's stopping you.
-
Ronald 7 say: Can you remember what happened to the other one ?
Fair enough, we have the design
Lets make it bigger stronger faster, more powerful
A massive Magnetic Field produced to protect from Radiation
Look out Jupiter
-
ReductioAdAstronomicus say: That has already been tried. It didn't work.
-
say: We are certainly *not* limited to the low orbit of ISS. However a low orbit is preferred because:
1) The extra fuel required for each additional km of height is large. Especially if the equipment/materials being transorted is heavy.
2) You avoid the high radiation if the orbit is much higher (in the Van Allen belt).
3) There is no real advantage to a higher orbit unless you want a specialised orbit (e.g. geostationary) for a specific purpose.
-
jehen say: Cost and safety. We operated a large space shuttle for 30 years. It proved to be far more costly and far more dangerous than than traditional rocket-payload systems. The only capability that system had that we don't have otherwise is the ability to bring large payloads back to earth from space. It turns out no one wanted or needed that capability. It's cheaper to abandon a satellite and send up a new one to replace it than it is to retrieve and re-launch. But to be fair, the newer rocket systems take full advantage of the technologies and re-usability lessons developed in the shuttle program.
-
quantumclaustrophobe say: Well... we had one. It was used to *build* the ISS. Hopefully now, we'll focus on leaving Earth; I'm hoping to see the first steps on Mars in my time.
-