X-37B and its Russian Friend...

[Slartibartfast 153]

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/04/x37b_ski/

[JediMaster 451]

Or rather its rumored possible Russian friend...

[macelena 1,070]

Then it is no secret anymore, is it?

 

Btw, glad to know that new US spacecraft have solar energy. The russians had it since Soyuz. The recovery of Apollo 13 would have been some smooth if they had solar panels. (probably damaged by debris after the explosion, but that´s a chance) and maybe this together with a better capability in terms of air storage/recycling could have kept the Columbia longer aloft while some solution was worked out. I just say that range and endurance should be implemented, despite it is not needed for its original role (wich could need to change) or makes it more expensive. Budget, i guess

[+Gepard 10,891]

That the russians had space weapons is not new. They had it since the late 60th. There was a interceptor version of the Sojus, there was the Mikoyan Projekt in the 70th, there was BOR in the 80th and so on.

BOR looks similar to the US X-37B, but this is only a question of aerodynamics.

 

Here a link to Mark Wades Encyclodedia Astronautica

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bor4.htm

Edited February 4, 2011 by Gepard

[Gr.Viper 131]

That the russians had space weapons is not new.

Yeah, 23 mm cannon on a station was a nice touch.

http://www.astronautix.com/project/almaz.htm

[FastCargo 412]

US spacecraft have had solar energy before. Skylab, the ISS, a lot of unmanned satellites.

 

Frankly, the whole way we approach our space program needs an overhaul.

 

If it were me, I'd have a tiered system. Make your man rated system a small reusable item, like a spaceplane. It doesn't (and shouldn't) be a big large spacecraft...the idea is to get people up and down safely...maybe small reconnaissance type missions, but that's it. The idea is not to send up something the size and weight of a DC-9 everytime you launch a human.

 

Then, have a family of dumb, simple boosters (aka Big Dumb Boosters) for your freight hauling needs. Simple, robust, cheap. Hell, Apollo 12 was struck by lightning during ascent, but kept on going...that's the kind of rockets we could use for our freight hauling. You could even make the first, biggest stages recoverable if you want.

 

FC

[+Gepard 10,891]

Yeah, but the Saturn V was devoloped by von Braun and his team.

The Space Shuttle was made by americans only, with the task in mind to bring big satellites like Keyhole 11 or 12 into orbit and back to the earth.

For crew transport the NASA had had developed the Dynasoar. This was a small and nice system. Placed on the top of a Titan rocket. Intended as a crew ferry vehicle to a space station MOL or Skylab.

[FastCargo 412]

What's your point?

 

The idea is still sound.

 

FC

[JediMaster 451]

The point is just the DoD interfered with NASA's design to save themselves money on the costly Titans then abandoned them and left NASA with a bigger bill than it could afford after Challenger.

 

Future crew vehicles should be JUST crew vehicles, period. Cargo goes up in unmanned vehicles before for them to access when they get up there.

 

As for cannon in space, that means supplying oxygen to allow the gunpowder to combust. Doesn't sound like a great idea to me.

Edited February 5, 2011 by JediMaster

[macelena 1,070]

Railguns anyone?

[+Gepard 10,891]

No, they had had a real 23mm gun at one of the Salut space stations. In fact it was an Almaz station, which got the civil Salut designation.

For the oxygen, if i remember right they put something into the gunpowder. (Kaliumpermanganat is the german term, dont know the english one. For description of the chemical process my english is a little bit to weak.

[macelena 1,070]

When in doubt, my favourite ever weapon in space warfare in the Anvil. It doesn´t require guidance, you just leave it synchronical in the orbit-path of the target, and let the target speed do the job. However, given the trouble of getting spaceborne the thing, i´m not sure about cost effectiveness