I'm an engineer working for NASA - I've been working on SLS since the President cancelled Constellation - of course, we didn't call it SLS at the time...
I see that Isaac has answered many of your questions, but I'll take a crack at some of them:
DannyMac: "Our Rockets are holding steady? What up with that?"
Unfortunately, some technology can't really be improved that much. The rocket equation is well-known, and the physics are such that we're getting just about everything we can from the fuels we have available. It'll take a huge leap in technology (Space Elevator, maybe) to improve on it.
LadyLorraine: "Is there really no model better for launching shit into orbit than a GIGANTIC SPACE CYLINDER?"
There's a reason why every rocket that goes into orbit is shaped pretty much like that. Any other shape is a bad choice.
LadyLorraine: "These rockets are fueled by a petroleum product, yes?"
Not NASA launch systems. We use Liquid Oxygen / Liquid Hydrogen and solid rocket boosters with some really nasty stuff in them. The Russians, the Air Force, and Space-X use kerosene (RP-1), though. It's very dependable and easy to store - at room temperature.
Isaac:
MJ/kg isn't really as important as ISP for determining which is the best rocket fuel, which is why RP-1 can be competitive, especially when you want to keep operation costs down. (Something I wish NASA would pay more attention to)
All:
Nuclear propulsion is doable, but we crash rockets, sometimes. Anyone who wants a nuclear power plant crashed into their town at Mach 5, raise your hand.
Put your hand back down, TMJ
I see that Isaac has answered many of your questions, but I'll take a crack at some of them:
DannyMac: "Our Rockets are holding steady? What up with that?"
Unfortunately, some technology can't really be improved that much. The rocket equation is well-known, and the physics are such that we're getting just about everything we can from the fuels we have available. It'll take a huge leap in technology (Space Elevator, maybe) to improve on it.
LadyLorraine: "Is there really no model better for launching shit into orbit than a GIGANTIC SPACE CYLINDER?"
There's a reason why every rocket that goes into orbit is shaped pretty much like that. Any other shape is a bad choice.
LadyLorraine: "These rockets are fueled by a petroleum product, yes?"
Not NASA launch systems. We use Liquid Oxygen / Liquid Hydrogen and solid rocket boosters with some really nasty stuff in them. The Russians, the Air Force, and Space-X use kerosene (RP-1), though. It's very dependable and easy to store - at room temperature.
Isaac:
MJ/kg isn't really as important as ISP for determining which is the best rocket fuel, which is why RP-1 can be competitive, especially when you want to keep operation costs down. (Something I wish NASA would pay more attention to)
All:
Nuclear propulsion is doable, but we crash rockets, sometimes. Anyone who wants a nuclear power plant crashed into their town at Mach 5, raise your hand.
Put your hand back down, TMJ
Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion.
NASA unveils new spaceflight rocket
14/09/2011 07:50:09 PM
- 700 Views
I wanted to be happy but I have to say I am a little sad.
14/09/2011 08:48:53 PM
- 252 Views
I have to agree
14/09/2011 10:05:08 PM
- 245 Views
It does say in the article ...
14/09/2011 10:20:19 PM
- 273 Views
We don't use petroleum in most rockets and never have used them much
14/09/2011 10:53:14 PM
- 252 Views
Hi Guys!
15/09/2011 01:44:13 AM
- 497 Views
do you really believe a space elevator is doable with current materials?
15/09/2011 05:45:01 AM
- 233 Views