Boeing CST-250

[MiB]

Old and actual logo:



70's and 80's logo:



I love the second one

[kitnut617]

Slightly off topic, does anyone know what is going to replace the real shuttles ?  The gist of what I've read is they want to take much bigger loads up there at one time.

[Stargazer]

Actually I love both, but the second one certainly is more hi-tech and futuristic. Used to have giveway roll-up sunglasses from NASA with that logo and I felt sooooo very smug! LOL

[Atlantis]

Now that Goldin's gone, there might be a possibility of a worm revival. It's already been sighted in a few places such as the Lunar Electric Rover prototype.

[tinlail]

Slightly off topic, does anyone know what is going to replace the real shuttles ?  The gist of what I've read is they want to take much bigger loads up there at one time.

It looks like nothing is going to replace the shuttle. Nasa has some ideals, but they tend to be expensive and probably won't make it to flying hardware. I would say that SpaceX is going to be fly people into space in the Dragon capsule before Nasa gets something in the air

[Atlantis]

Apparently, the deal fell through on the C-17, so I'm still looking for a carrier aircraft. I would do the SCA, but like I said it seems like overkill.

[Hobbes]

Replacement plans for the Shuttle are a political ballgame these days. The Ares V was the most prominent heavy-lift proposal (and it was heavy, capable of lifting up to 188 tons into low earth orbit), but that's been cancelled in favor of a new heavy-lift proposal that I haven't seen any drawings of yet.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that it's unlikely we'll see a spaceplane with a big cargo hold like the Shuttle again. Everyone has gone back to wingless capsules.


overview of US space plans

[kitnut617]

.

The one thing everyone agrees on is that it's unlikely we'll see a spaceplane with a big cargo hold like the Shuttle again. Everyone has gone back to wingless capsules.

I think you're right Hobbes, and until beating gravity is discovered it will always be a major problem getting economic loads up into space.

I think I understand now why Steven Hawkin has dedicated his life's work to solving the gravity problem

[anthonyp]

Apparently, the deal fell through on the C-17, so I'm still looking for a carrier aircraft. I would do the SCA, but like I said it seems like overkill.

777?  767?  A340?

[Atlantis]

I managed to run across a C-17 at Hobby Lobby tonight in Huntsville.

[Hobbes]

The one thing everyone agrees on is that it's unlikely we'll see a spaceplane with a big cargo hold like the Shuttle again. Everyone has gone back to wingless capsules.

I'll have to correct myself. The X-37 is a spaceplane, albeit much smaller than the Shuttle and unmanned. And it seems NASA is determining if they can reactivate the two X-34 spaceplanes:

http://www.universetoday.com/80127/the-fall-and-rise-of-x/

Still, spaceplanes as large as the Shuttle are unlikely.

[Atlantis]

There's also the SpaceDev Dreamchaser, a revamp of the old HL-20 CRV
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_Chaser_%28spacecraft%29

[anthonyp]

The Shuttle has been called a "Spaceplane" in its life, so I don't see a problem calling the Beagle that.

And btw, definitely either a 777 or A340 for the carrier plane.  It'd just look too cool (and tie into the Superman Returns movie from a few years ago when they had a 777 as a shuttle carrier plane...  totally OT, but anyone have any idea where I can get screen caps to that?)

As for the X-34's, they're in rather poor material shape after 10 years in basically "stricken" storage.  Not sure if they'll ever be able to fly.