Future NASA designs
- Thread starter Wulf
- Start date
-=\/\/olf=-
Spaceman
It would be cool...I guess, but they wouldn't know how to do it and probley wouldn't even if they new how to.
-=\/\/olf=-
Spaceman
Well, I kinda wrote it wrong to what I was thinking. Im sure NASA would make dragons if they could, but I would see why they would use shuttles more often sense they can hold more crew and equipment.
-=\/\/olf=-
Spaceman
yeah well, im just talkin 
BTW, the forum is not pointless!
I belived that if NASA had some more money, (like it did in the cold war) it would have built ships similar to WingCommander's ideas and of everyother spacesimulator....
Think about it....In the 60s and 70s NASA was able to reach the moon! this in few years of mission and space ship projecting. Now NASA after 30 years has not yet done significantly improvement (and ESA hasn't too!)
I belived that if NASA had some more money, (like it did in the cold war) it would have built ships similar to WingCommander's ideas and of everyother spacesimulator....
Think about it....In the 60s and 70s NASA was able to reach the moon! this in few years of mission and space ship projecting. Now NASA after 30 years has not yet done significantly improvement (and ESA hasn't too!)
Eder
Mr. Standoff
Re: eder
Calm down, Wulf. When I said this poll was pointless, what I meant is that everyone would obviously like to see NASA develop some cool looking spaceships... but just like Ghost, I don't see a reason why they would do that. I mean... some people aren't even glad that their tax money is being used to develop more useful ships like the current NASA projects, I can only imagine what those people would think about financing better-looking ships!
--Eder
Originally posted by Wulf
u know what? im just having fun here, so maybe it is pointless, eder. but who needs u or anyone to tell me that? so get off my ass!
Calm down, Wulf. When I said this poll was pointless, what I meant is that everyone would obviously like to see NASA develop some cool looking spaceships... but just like Ghost, I don't see a reason why they would do that. I mean... some people aren't even glad that their tax money is being used to develop more useful ships like the current NASA projects, I can only imagine what those people would think about financing better-looking ships!
--Eder
Shooter
Rear Admiral
Wulf, even though this thread is useless...
...I'm going to explain something to you. The "bulky crap" you talk about it's the most advanced spacecraft there is. That "bulky crap" is the result of years of research and testing. For us to have that "bulky crap" people had to DIE. I think you saw one too many Sci-Fi movies and now you can't separate fiction from reality. Do you also think that Nasa should build a gigantic space cannon instead of the international space station ? 20 years ago nobody would even dream of americans and russians (along with many more nations) working in such a fantastic project. We're are taking the first steps to reach the universe, have some respect for it .
...I'm going to explain something to you. The "bulky crap" you talk about it's the most advanced spacecraft there is. That "bulky crap" is the result of years of research and testing. For us to have that "bulky crap" people had to DIE. I think you saw one too many Sci-Fi movies and now you can't separate fiction from reality. Do you also think that Nasa should build a gigantic space cannon instead of the international space station ? 20 years ago nobody would even dream of americans and russians (along with many more nations) working in such a fantastic project. We're are taking the first steps to reach the universe, have some respect for it .
Preacher
Swabbie
Banned
Re: Wulf, even though this thread is useless...
:: Pulls up sharply on Shooter's leash:: Whoa, there, big fella!...
Take it easy on the guy. He's just xpressing his preference for a more aesthetic look to NASA vehicles. The same aesthetic that brought you the tasty MiG-29 Fulcrum, F-22 Raptor, et al. Granted, aerodynamics had SOMETHING to do with such designs (and wouldn't be a consideration in space flight), but you must admit that today's aircraft look SO much cooler than the birds we had back in the beginning of the jet age.
Peace.
:: Pulls up sharply on Shooter's leash:: Whoa, there, big fella!...
Take it easy on the guy. He's just xpressing his preference for a more aesthetic look to NASA vehicles. The same aesthetic that brought you the tasty MiG-29 Fulcrum, F-22 Raptor, et al. Granted, aerodynamics had SOMETHING to do with such designs (and wouldn't be a consideration in space flight), but you must admit that today's aircraft look SO much cooler than the birds we had back in the beginning of the jet age.
Peace.
Mekt-Hakkikt
Mpanty's bane
Re: Re: Wulf, even though this thread is useless...
Ow, I don't know. There were quite a couple of WW2 jet fighters (or planned fighetrs) that looked cool IMHO.
Ow, I don't know. There were quite a couple of WW2 jet fighters (or planned fighetrs) that looked cool IMHO.
Wulf
Vice Admiral
misunderstanding
Hey Shooter, look man I meant no disrespect to the people who died for our progress in space, and I was thrilled of international cooperation in space. I apologize if that's how I came across.
I guess what I said could be best understood like this, as an example...
Look at today's cars, I mean like a normal day-to-day car. They kinda have the same look to them, and seeing a new model on TV never impresses me much anymore because I am bored with the same boring look. This is why I love the PT Cruiser so much because it went back to those classic designs. The cars from the 50s especially had those 'wings' and other things built into them that had NO AERODYNAMIC SIGNIFICANCE, but they LOOKED COOL.
Same thing for space. Just because aerodynamics doesn't really matter in space, should we continue to build stuff like we just slapped a titanium shell around the vital parts and leave it that way? What I am saying is this: I personally would like a vehicle every bit as functional as any NASA design in the future, but I don't want to travel around in something that resembles a briefcase.
Hey Shooter, look man I meant no disrespect to the people who died for our progress in space, and I was thrilled of international cooperation in space. I apologize if that's how I came across.
I guess what I said could be best understood like this, as an example...
Look at today's cars, I mean like a normal day-to-day car. They kinda have the same look to them, and seeing a new model on TV never impresses me much anymore because I am bored with the same boring look. This is why I love the PT Cruiser so much because it went back to those classic designs. The cars from the 50s especially had those 'wings' and other things built into them that had NO AERODYNAMIC SIGNIFICANCE, but they LOOKED COOL.
Same thing for space. Just because aerodynamics doesn't really matter in space, should we continue to build stuff like we just slapped a titanium shell around the vital parts and leave it that way? What I am saying is this: I personally would like a vehicle every bit as functional as any NASA design in the future, but I don't want to travel around in something that resembles a briefcase.
Bob McDob
Better Health Through Less Flavor
I like the Boeing JSF, myself. Sure, it looks like a flying whale...but I LIKE flying whales.
Thus, I like the X-33. Too bad the fuel tanks went screwy.
As for whether I want a Dragon, YES! Now kindly show me the dealer so I can flash-pack pizza box...er, never mind.
;;;
Thus, I like the X-33. Too bad the fuel tanks went screwy.
As for whether I want a Dragon, YES! Now kindly show me the dealer so I can flash-pack pizza box...er, never mind.
;;;
mpanty
Keen Commander
Processo (Ita) = Trial (Eng)
Process (Eng) = Procedimento/ Processo (but not in the Law sense) (Ita)
And yeah, piloting a Morningstar-like shuttle would be cool...
Hey besides, the upcoming first ESA (European Space Agency, where my dad works, yay!
) shuttle, Hermes, looks a bit like the Morningstar itself...Smaller of course... <g>