Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> rocket design
tjwes12
post Oct 2 2005, 08:01 PM
Post #1



*

Group: Members
Posts: 115
Joined: 26-July 05
Member No.: 2,642



With technology emerging, from going from black and white tv to color screen to lcds we have today, i dont see how rocket designs have not gotten any better. I mean come on, we landed on the moon in the 60s, we should be closer to landing on saturn or somewhere else other than the moon, rocket designs have not gotten much better or advanced in any way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Google Bot
post Oct 2 2005, 08:01 PM
Post #


Google Ads









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Galvacon
post Oct 2 2005, 08:50 PM
Post #2



*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,340
Joined: 3-May 05
From: in between black and white
Member No.: 2,277



I'am sure the demagraphics of the television technology advances are far different than the demigraphics of rocket technology. It like comparing the advances of microchips to coffee makers it just isn't the same technology.

-Austin
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ThePredator
post Oct 2 2005, 09:36 PM
Post #3



*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,720
Joined: 17-May 05
Member No.: 2,325



Because rockets need fuel for expolsion, their isn't a better way to make them. What we really should concentrate on is a propulsion system that can use electical energy to move through a vacuum.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ArianeIV
post Oct 3 2005, 05:43 AM
Post #4



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,413
Joined: 16-November 03
Member No.: 9



(ThePredator)
Because rockets need fuel for expolsion, their isn't a better way to make them. What we really should concentrate on is a propulsion system that can use electical energy to move through a vacuum.

Not really... such systems exist but they are not suitable to launch.

The problem is that there are fundamental natural laws which make it quite difficult to create an efficient way to get into space. The main problem is that you require much much energy and no system can help that. The principle has not changed over the last 50 years, that is correct. The main reason is because it is still the most effective system available today. There are many approaches and maybe in the next decade we will see some of them rising because technology is finally able to put them to reality. But the main problem is still that such systems require large investments and can barely be done by a single company or state which causes fewer to bear the risk of failure which is immense.
Also there is even in theory today no really breakthrough system which would be feasible, so current rocket technology will stay like that for a long while and the principle even will even endure much longer still.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Keegan
post Oct 3 2005, 07:53 AM
Post #5



*****

Group: Members
Posts: 1,980
Joined: 9-August 05
Member No.: 2,704



All a rocket is a solid fuel and an oxidizer, you cant get much more advanced because its just so simple. Better off studying anti-gravity and free-energy as a means of propulsion...
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andrew
post Oct 3 2005, 08:51 AM
Post #6



*******

Group: Members
Posts: 3,714
Joined: 16-January 04
Member No.: 205



(Keegan)
All a rocket is a solid fuel and an oxidizer...

As far as rockets for space go, solid fuel are generally the exception, rather than the rule. And the oxidizer is a component of the solid fuel in such rockets.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 


Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 13th October 2008 - 03:39 PM