/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14528989
>On that note, aside from starship-style, what reusable rocket designs could actually work? Dolphin-sex shuttle?
Venture Star
I will never stop being mad

>>12778592
I would continue to fund the X-33 test program which would produce a successful flight article that informed development of the Venture Star which would be developed, tested and certified for manned and unmanned spaceflight and enter service mid 2000's formally replacing the Space Shuttle program

>>12628826

>.

First for the finest

>>12186674
Technolgoy demonstrator, maybe this time with 3D CAD design and shit they can skip the tech demonstrator and go straight for the final product- Venture Star, the real deal.

>>12164262
>instead of relying on the Russians for nearly a decade we ride up to our station in style in the coolest and safest spaceplane around while waiting for NASA to get their shit together with returning to the moon at some point

Imagine if China decided to copy the DC-X or the X-33.

>>12066706
Venture Star would have been a great update for the Shuttle

>>11991304

>>11978759
we could ha vehad

>>11962012
MARS VENTURE STAR WHEN

>>11730923
Wow what a terrible opinion that is wrong in every way as well.

Aerospikes were proven to be more economical and effective than traditional nozzles by Lockheed testing

>>11714682
>as an actual "space shuttle" to stations and orbit-only vehicles
Yeah exactly, and safer than strapping it to a pair of SRBs

Everything Shuttle ended up doing, the Venture Star could have done the same, and much cheaper/safer, damn shame it got cancelled so unfairly like that

>>11707543
Wish they never bothered with Shuttle and went with the superior Venture Star

>>11397083
Way more feasible than doing so with the Shuttle.

Shuttle was a mistake, we should have gotten Venture Star to replace it, we wouldn't need to be dealing with designing whole new capsules and service modules now, fuck, we are so behind

>The goal was to replace the Space Shuttle by developing a re-usable spaceplane that could launch satellites into orbit at a fraction of the cost
>VentureStar was to be simply inspected in a hangar like an aeroplane before launch
>VentureStar would not have relied upon solid rocket boosters
>the use of linear aerospike engines that maintain thrust efficiency at all altitudes
>VentureStar would have used a new metallic thermal protection system, safer and cheaper to maintain than the ceramic protection system used on the Space Shuttle.
>VentureStar's metallic heat shield would have eliminated 17,000 maintenance hours typically required to satisfactorily check (and replace if needed) the thousands of heat-resistant ceramic tiles that compose the Shuttle exterior.[4]
>VentureStar was expected to be safer than most modern rockets.[4] Whereas most modern rockets fail catastrophically when an engine fails, VentureStar would have a thrust reserve in each engine in the event of an emergency.[4] For example, if an engine on VentureStar failed during ascent, another engine would shut off to counterbalance the failed thrust, and each of the remaining working engines could throttle up to safely continue the mission.[4]
>VentureStar's exhaust would have been composed of only water vapor, since VentureStar's main fuels would have been only liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen.[4] This would have given VentureStar the benefit of being environmentally clean.[4]
>VentureStar's simpler design would have excluded hypergolic propellants
>Because of its lighter design, VentureStar would have been able to land at almost any major airport in an emergency,[4] whereas the Space Shuttle required much longer runways than available at most public airports.

We fucked up, we fucked up the moment we didn't have a fleet of Venture Stars all ready in their hangars waiting to take over the moment the last shuttle touched down.

I cannot believe the monumental scale of this fuck up.