It's too bad Kubrick didn't decide to do 2001 on site the way he did with the moon landing hoax. We'd have had some excellent advanced spacecraft for decades. Imagine having the Orion III instead of the disastrous Space Shuttle.I do indeed like it, sort of reminds me of the Estes National Aerospace Plane, pretty cool.
We need to do a lot more "basic research", particularly in the field of materials, before we can build something like that. We need to stop messing around with ceramic tiles, Silicon glass or whatever. You'll get the Orion when we can building from a ceramic/steel hybrid compound, something that has the bend-able formable shape of a metal, but the heat-resistance of a ceramic. Let's call this material "Duranium"; you could build not just spaceships that can survive re-entry and fly again with a few hours of refurbishment, but also create 90% efficient Internal Combustion Engines that run at 2000c. Your car would get 100 miles to the gallon.Imagine having the Orion III instead of the disastrous Space Shuttle
I don’t suppose you’ve heard of clay? Very easy to work with and has excellent heat properties. It’s very prone to non elastic deformation though.We need to do a lot more "basic research", particularly in the field of materials, before we can build something like that. We need to stop messing around with ceramic tiles, Silicon glass or whatever. You'll get the Orion when we can building from a ceramic/steel hybrid compound, something that has the bend-able formable shape of a metal, but the heat-resistance of a ceramic. Let's call this material "Duranium"; you could build not just spaceships that can survive re-entry and fly again with a few hours of refurbishment, but also create 90% efficient Internal Combustion Engines that run at 2000c. Your car would get 100 miles to the gallon.
People have been talking about this since to 1950's, but most basic research isn't being done anymore, federal budgets have been cut, and corporations shed their research divisions in the name of greater profits and shareholder value.
Kubrick and Clarke were right on the money with one fatal flaw. They assumed that technological progress would continue at the same pace that it did during the 1960's, when we were spending 1/3 of GDP to get to the moon. Obviously, that didn't happen. Instead, we got the rise of Japan in the 80's and then the rise of China in the 2000's, both of which stagnated development in the US in the name of cheaper consumer goods.
Nope, never heard of clay, except that, this is what ceramics are made from. By baking them. After one re-entry, what you've got is a china cup with rocket engines.I don’t suppose you’ve heard of clay? Very easy to work with and has excellent heat properties. It’s very prone to non elastic deformation though.
Yup, that’s why it’s usually broken up into tiles so if one breaks you can quickly swap it.Nope, never heard of clay, except that, this is what ceramics are made from. By baking them. After one re-entry, what you've got is a china cup with rocket engines.
It was a joke. Obviously the state of technology wasn't up to the job.We need to do a lot more "basic research", particularly in the field of materials, before we can build something like that. We need to stop messing around with ceramic tiles, Silicon glass or whatever. You'll get the Orion when we can building from a ceramic/steel hybrid compound, something that has the bend-able formable shape of a metal, but the heat-resistance of a ceramic. Let's call this material "Duranium"; you could build not just spaceships that can survive re-entry and fly again with a few hours of refurbishment, but also create 90% efficient Internal Combustion Engines that run at 2000c. Your car would get 100 miles to the gallon.
People have been talking about this since to 1950's, but most basic research isn't being done anymore, federal budgets have been cut, and corporations shed their research divisions in the name of greater profits and shareholder value.
Kubrick and Clarke were right on the money with one fatal flaw. They assumed that technological progress would continue at the same pace that it did during the 1960's, when we were spending 1/3 of GDP to get to the moon. Obviously, that didn't happen. Instead, we got the rise of Japan in the 80's and then the rise of China in the 2000's, both of which stagnated development in the US in the name of cheaper consumer goods.
I got my wife a 300 piece china set for first anniversary.Nope, never heard of clay, except that, this is what ceramics are made from. By baking them. After one re-entry, what you've got is a china cup with rocket engines.
Ah yes, an oldie but an oldie.I got my wife a 300 piece china set for first anniversary.
It was supposed to be 20 pieces, but I had a mishap on way home from store.
While CCC is very heat resistant, we've already seen that it's brittle and fragile. I'm far from a materials expert, but I assume that carbon nanotubes could be used to form the kinds of structures we're talking about, make then resilient enough to survive the hazards of spaceflight and hopefully survive re-entry. A 3-D printer that spits out carbon nanotube might be an interesting device towards manufacture of test articles.Maybe the magic material, should we learn how to make it inexpensively, would be carbon-carbon composite. You'd still need some insulation unless you could make the entire airframe, payload, and crew very heat resistant.
I'm pretty sure that it would take more than cheap unobtainium to make a 90 percent efficient engine. If you could have magic materials, then very high performance batteries would be easier. At least for road vehicles.
It's about twice as dense as aluminum, but of course that's still way less than steel, and yes, that gives it a much better strength to weight ratio (and I assume toughness to weight as well). Of course, in case anyone was thinking of titanium for heat tiles (which I hope no one is) they should look up how sparky motors are made.Everybody loves titanium, but the only advantages to that material is that it weighs like aluminum, but is tough as steel, which is a great combo for anything that flies. For space however, we'd really need something like that, but double tough.
I'd *really* love to do it as a BT60 model but since I just bought a new pack of BT55 nose cones I'd probably do it that way (original was BT50).
Maybe I should take a break from thinking and just build the Starblazer X20 upscale I was pondering last year. I'd *really* love to do it as a BT60 model but since I just bought a new pack of BT55 nose cones I'd probably do it that way (original was BT50).
View attachment 651518
Hmm, hadn't been thinking that way... 13mm mounts could fit in the pods although it would be a very "interesting" construction, for various reasons. I think I'm not inclined to do it here, gonna be too much going on in there, not worth the extra complication.Would you make it a cluster?
Consider this:I think I could run the launch rod through one of the pods and out the front end of the scoop. Getting the lugs mounted and aligned in there would be quite a thing.
I don't think that'll be possible, for reasons which I could explain but it'll be long and tedious and I'll lose interest before I finish typing it up. If I ever build this then all will be revealed in the build thread (what could be more exciting than reading about launch lug installation?) It will most likely involve a 3D-printed part. I was already planning (*probably*) to incorporate a bit of 3D printing in one key location, now I would just add this in. Seriously it might be the most interesting part of the whole build, as I currently envision it.Consider this:
- Cut a piece of angle that will fit conveniently on the tube ahead of the scoop. (I bet you already see exactly where this is going.)
- Put the lugs (or one long lug) on a piece of rod and stick them there with clay. (Now you see it, I'm sure.)
- Put the rod against the edge of the angle, and adjust the position of the angle and rod around the tube until the lugs are in the right position.
- Apply one drop of CA to each lug to hold it in position while you apply ample glue fillets.
Quite simple if you put a soda straw inside the 13 mm tube pre-build.Right now I'm trying to figure out the launch lug situation.... I think I could run the launch rod through one of the pods and out the front end of the scoop. Getting the lugs mounted and aligned in there would be quite a thing.
This design had its origins way back in 2016. I actually started it, then put it aside. Since COVID I have been reluctant to pick it back up for fear of the build thread turning into a dumpster fire. Am I worrying about nothing?
View attachment 653104
(there is one small problem in that I'm looking at my OR model and absolutely not understanding how I was planning for this thing to go together )
Yes, that was @hcraigmiller.Wasn't there someone who built an HPR version of that? I sort of recall seeing photos, but I can't remember who it was or what it was called.
Edit: Was the builder a contributor to Open Rocket?
Enter your email address to join: