[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 178 KB, 2000x449, spacecraft.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477124 No.3477124 [Reply] [Original]

What's your favorite future spacecraft?

>> No.3477129

The skylon.

>> No.3477128
File: 69 KB, 800x618, Enterprise_NX-01_2001-01-800.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477128

Enterprise master race here.

>> No.3477143
File: 319 KB, 2480x1654, Skylon.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477143

>>3477129

>> No.3477141

TARDIS, just because it can do pretty much anything.

But in all seriousness, the ships from Alien and Halo are my favorite asthetically.

>> No.3477173
File: 92 KB, 600x785, couldhave.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477173

>>3477129
Yet another fancy spaceplane that will never see the light of day.

>> No.3477193
File: 40 KB, 489x368, 467781main_DreamChaser.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477193

SpaceDev Dreamchaser

>> No.3477194

>>3477173
You jump to conclusions too fast. I imagine you'd say the same of any spaceplane.

>> No.3477198

there will be no future spacecraft. Mankind will be extinct after 2012

>> No.3477199
File: 67 KB, 900x563, SSV_Normandy_by_beregond3019.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477199

SSV Normandy from Mass Effect.

>> No.3477218
File: 390 KB, 1280x1024, redemption_stargate_sg_1_wallpaper-1280x1024.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477218

SpaceX Dragon of course.

Prometheus and Daidalos (Stargate) from fictional ones.

>> No.3477225

The sun.
Shifting its direction of travel, and riding on the earth around it, collecting new planets on the way, jumping to other stars when ours gets old.

Won't have to worry about 1+ year communication delay because we'll all be in the same star system.

>> No.3477228

The up-sized Aquarius capsule. Call it Orion if you will, but it's just Aquarius up-sized and modernized.

>> No.3477232
File: 758 KB, 1280x720, sr_2_normandy__s_decent_by_rvdm88-d35rdo0.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477232

>>3477199

SR2>SR1

>> No.3477238
File: 486 KB, 1920x1080, ISV.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477238

Polypropelled relativistic Valkyrie rocket, design by Charles Pellegrino and Jim Powell. Amat-catalyzed fusion + laser-driven solar sail.

>> No.3477247

>>3477238


it should be called the USS Structural Weakness

>> No.3477250

>>3477238
I really wished they would have chosen such a design for Star Trek: Enterprise instead of giving us a rather generic Star Trek design.

>> No.3477254

>>3477247
The ship is pulled by its engines, not pushed, so this design actually makes sense.

>> No.3477255

>>3477247

The whole point is to have the crew towed behind the engines, trailing on a fullerene tether to put as much distance between them and the engines/Death Ray Bombs.

>> No.3477265

>>3477255
Would you not fly straight into the wreckage if something went wrong?

>> No.3477267
File: 503 KB, 2500x1351, 1265498631575.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477267

>> No.3477268

>>3477254

how would that even make it into orbit?

>> No.3477270

>>3477265

The wreckage would have the same velocity relative to you.

>> No.3477274

>>3477270

but then you're stranded in space

and that's if some of the wreckage isn't propelled towards you and causes a hull breach

>> No.3477275

>>3477268

It doesn't. Interplanetary and interstellar vehicles are better assembled in space because an aerodynamic hull comes with a mass penalty that is beyond ridiculous.

>> No.3477276

>>3477268
It's built IN orbit. It never enters atmosphere.

>> No.3477280

For ground to LEO, Skylon.
For going further, the troy mission ship, with extra attached torus habitat.

>> No.3477286
File: 22 KB, 214x170, 1287202535204.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477286

>>3477280

>troy mission ship
>mfw someone else read that

>> No.3477284
File: 1.31 MB, 1344x756, UEFgKaruna.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477284

UEFg Karuna from Blue Planet 2 WiH (Freespace mod)

>> No.3477295

>>3477270
Oh yeah, rather annoyed I didn't realise that.

>> No.3477303

>>3477286
And watched the concept mission to mars animation.

>> No.3477321

So, guys, how does it feel to know that the Skylon was finally given a green light? They should be testing the fuel precoolers just about now!

http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/skylon-spaceplane-development-given-go.html

>> No.3477330
File: 34 KB, 641x324, defying_gravity_ship_antares_20090914_1350706445.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477330

Defying Gravity - Antares

>> No.3477345

>>3477321
Precooling is one of the last problems to the design as far as I was aware.
So I'm extremely excited.

>> No.3477352

>>3477345

At one point it sounded like a funding black hole, but it just might be crazy enough to work!

>> No.3477353

>>3477321
>Skynet and Cylon in name? This can't end well!
I just realised...

>> No.3477362

>>3477352
Having a SSTO craft with a decent payload capability will be excellent. If it's successful, others are bound to copy the concept. Which makes for good competition.

>> No.3477380

>>3477321
Meh, there was a reason the HOTOL failed, and it wasn't the precooler.
I never got why we can't have a two-stage, both reusable approach.
Wouldn't be any more expensive and at the same time would not need to overcome massive technological barriers

>> No.3477382

Troy concept animation is cool as fuck.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uj45Au3KCRg

>> No.3477389

>>3477380
>there was a reason the HOTOL failed
What was that? And why is it still relevant today?

>> No.3477395

>>3477380

Yeah.. while Skylon is cool, I dont know if it will beats modern rockets (Atlas V, Falcon Heavy) in terms of cost per lifted tonnage to LEO (and it may also be far more volume constrained).

But for passengers it will surely be great :)

>> No.3477397

>>3477389

Because the government is full of fucking awful beaurocrats?

Consider Constellation. It was all "We'll go to the Moon again, American glory, etc." but NASA 3D's aren't visions of the future. Just a way to funnel money into a bunch of corporations that will not take anyone past 10 kilometers into the atmosphere.

>> No.3477399

>>3477395

Since the most awesome rocket right now, the Falcon 9, can carry like 20 tonnes into orbit, I'd say the Skylon would be a good competitor. Even if it doesn't carry that much cargo into orbit (Estimates said between 15 and 25 tonnes) it can still make several trips up and down.

Then again, the shuttle was also intended to go up every two weeks or so. And we all know how that went.

>> No.3477405

>>3477395
It uses significantly less fuel, completely reusable, and can be prepared to return to space within hours.

It is significantly cheaper than modern rockets.

>> No.3477407

>>3477399
Well, that's the next bad thing about the Skylon, it's always one size, and all launches will cost pretty much the same, unlike currently launch vehicles, where you can choose from a plethora of different sizes and prices.
I really think modular, multistage reusable rockets are a better idea.

>> No.3477411

>>3477407

Well let's just hope they can keep the costs low enough to actually get some shit done. At the very least a little space extra space station would be nice.

>> No.3477417

>>3477407
If the Skylon becomes a proven concept, Other models will most certainly be built. With different sized payloads.

>> No.3477425

>>3477417
Yeah, but that would probably entail a massive redesign, including the engines.
With rockets, you just stick some booster on, or even just tack two more identical rockets on the other rocket (see Falcon Heavy) and you're set to go.

>> No.3477432

The Skylon isn't supposed to be a replacement for modern rockets, it's quite capable of working alongside them. Just as the shuttle has done, only better.

>> No.3477434

>>3477425
>massive redesign
This will most likely be done by many companies if Skylon is successful. They'll all be seeking to offer the best craft.

>> No.3477441

Reaction engines are claiming they will be able to achieve 650 dollars per kg to LEO price range :) Thats below SpaceX Falcon. Payload capacity is 15 tonnes.

The size of payload bay may be more of a constraint - 4,5 x 13 metres. Rockets can use custom payload fairings of almost any dimensions.

>> No.3477451

>>3477441
It depends on the needs of the customer then. Price vs payload size.

>> No.3477453

>>3477434
But they'll have to pay the R&D, too
the point is, rockets are cheaper to make, and way cheaper to design, and way, way cheaper to accommodate the rocket to the payload.
IF the rockets are reusable, they will outperform the Skylon easily.

>> No.3477497

>>3477453
Yes, what you're saying has already been proven by the massively expensive space shuttles.
Where spaceplanes are successful is over long term usage.

Rockets need to be built each and every time. Even if you make one reusable, you still need to assemble them each time, which takes quite a while.

The Skylon plane can be prepared for launch after landing, in a few hours.

The point is, as a customer, if you're willing to accommodate your payload to the plane, then you'll get a far cheaper launch.

As a business, your initial start-up costs (paying to build the planes) is massively expensive. But the advantages are massive, you can launch them as often as you like, whereas rockets need to book launch facilities far in advance.

>> No.3477574

>>3477270
>>3477238
>>3477247
>>3477250
>>3477254
>>3477255
>>3477265
>>3477267
>>3477270
>>3477274
>>3477286
>>3477295

I don't understand that configuration at all why would it matter either way. if it blows up the shock wave is traveling in all directions.

>> No.3477686
File: 43 KB, 550x460, nautilusx2-thumb-550xauto-57348.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3477686

I don't understand why Nautilus-X was not mentioned in this thread.

>> No.3477732

>>3477382

What a horrible and uneconomical concept Nautilus-X shits all over it. If anything where to happen soon it would be Nautilus-X out of all the ship described here.

>> No.3478704

bump for technical science

>> No.3478755

>>3477686

What is this shit?

>> No.3478768

>>3478755

Get out -->

>> No.3478780

>>3478768

But I just came from /soc/.