Space vehicles, to scale

Discuss

40 Responses to “Space vehicles, to scale”

  1. chenille says:

    Very neat! It reminds me of Starship Dimensions for fictional spaceships.
    If you don’t like the name Skylon, they could always go with Cynet.

  2. Nadreck says:

    Well, if the “Skylon” could lose that tail out the back we could call it “Fireball XL-5″.

  3. awjt says:

    Get off my Skylon.

  4. motion view says:

    We picked Skylon.  Don’t piss us off already.
    -Your new robot overlords

  5. Adam Coe says:

    did they know that skylon is the name of the not-so-impressive tower next to Niagara Falls?

  6. Dan Hibiki says:

    something tells me Soyuz will still be in service long after Skylon is retired after several design flaws are revealed following several tragic incidents.

  7. jgs says:

    How can Skylon fail? Their Chief Engineer is not merely Mr. Scott, he’s Mr. Scott-Scott.

  8. stumo says:

    It’s a British company, so I assume that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(tower) is the inspiration for the name. 

  9. baronkarza says:

    …No love for Skylab? It had a pretty spectacular retirement! I’d be curious to see how its size would have compared.
    http://mattstodayinhistory.blogspot.com/2006/07/skylab-falls-to-earth-july-11-1979.html

  10. Andrea says:

    Mercury was so tiny

    Brings home the amount of guts it took to go up in that thing.

  11. Jay Converse says:

    Where’s the NCC-1701?

    • Antinous / Moderator says:

      All of these would fit in Ten Forward.

      • MarcVader says:

         You are of course now referring to the NCC-1701-D. Mercury would probably fit in a large Jeffries tube. シ

      • jgs says:

        Enterprise is here: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4aodvO0gT1qa0fruo1_1280.png

        It doesn’t say which NCC-1701 variant it is, but by the looks of it the Shuttle wouldn’t even fit in the shuttle bay. Awkward, that.

  12. Sebastian Lambinon says:

    Where’s Mir?

  13. Ryan Lenethen says:

    “Skylon would not have a human pilot but would be capable of hauling humans into space, carrying up to 24 in a special box loaded into the payload bay.”

    Then one day the autonomous Skylon realized that it could use its special box for fuel, the earth changed that day.

  14. BongBong says:

    That “Skylon” vehicle is almost a direct copy of the royal Naboo space crusiser (Queen Amidala) from Star Wars. This project smells “scammy”.

  15. WaferMouse says:

    Skylon is actually based on the older HOTOL research.  They recently successfully tested some key enabling technologies for the engine cooling system, which is where much of Skylon’s planned SSTO magic lies.

    Terrifying as the name is, I think the technology’s worth pursuing, and I’d love to see something designed in Britain make it into space. It does kinda remind me of the massive plane from Thunderbirds, though.

    • nartacht says:

       Skylon – terrifying? Not when we already have SKYNET (British military SATCOM constellation)…

    •  Is it even possible to enter orbit by flying at an angle? I always thought you tried to go “straight up” because that would be the most fuel efficient way to fight gravity.

      • WaferMouse says:

        I honestly do not know. It IS rocket science, after all :) But they’re trying, and I dig their single-engine approach.

        And besides, it’s plain old exciting :)

      • Exo says:

        All orbital vehicles enter space at an angle.  The space shuttle, for instance, used to take off the pad vertically and then roll over and fly to orbit at an increasingly  shallow angle as altitude is gained.  There are many reasons for this, but the main one is that when something is orbiting the Earth it is actually constantly falling AROUND the Earth. 
         Imagine you could throw a ball so hard that it landed in the next State over.  It goes up in a curve… and comes down in a curve.  Now throw it even harder and Faster and it will make it to the next Continent, well over the horizon, in a even bigger arc.  Throwing it fast enough and high enough to enter orbit means that  when the ball starts falling back to the Earth, the earth “falls away” in the same arc.  IE, the curvature of the earth is the same ‘curve’ that the falling ball has.  So the ball just goes round and round.  It hasn’t escaped gravity at all, it’s just going so fast that it is falling around the earth instead of coming back down to the surface.
        So…. If rockets just flew straight up away from the Earth, they would fall straight back down to the surface as soon as they run out of fuel.  Even if they are in space.  Instead, orbital vehicles fly up in that big ballistic curve, and when they reach the top of the curve (the apogee) they are hauling ass and are moving “horizontally” compared to the earth’s surface.  And since they are beyond our atmosphere, there is nothing to slow them down, so they just keep going and going.

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GE_USPTmYXM&feature=related  Good example of the pitch-over of the spaceshuttle.  Look at  that curve!

      • The Apollo lunar module ascent stage flies an almost horizontal trajectory from a few seconds after liftoff. Launches from Earth go a lot higher initially to get above some of the atmosphere.

  16. Boundegar says:

    Whose idea was it to render the ISS in white-on-white?  I thought it was a graphics glitch at first.

  17. Donald Petersen says:

    Am I the only one to remember the Skylons from the old Land of the Lost TV show?  When I was six years old, my favorite football team was the Pittsburgh Steelers for the sole reason that their logo slightly resembled the Skylons that controlled the weather in one particular episode of that show.

  18. What is wrong with the name Skylon? The only connotation I know is the Festival of Britain one.

  19. Ms. Anne Thrope says:

    Where’s Serenity??

  20. Roger Jones says:

    I’d like to see them add the larger NCC-1701-D in comparison

Leave a Reply