Poll What is your "state-of-art" airplane/spacecraft?

[OrbiterSpore]

So? What's yours? Fictional also counts on! Mine is the eccentric R-103 "Delphinus" III:

I wanted it for me IRL!

My state-of-the-art spacecraft:
The shuttle.

Post yours!

:edit: I wrote airplane wrong at the title, can someone fix that?

 

[orb]

:edit: I wrote airplane wrong at the title, can someone fix that?

Fixed. But you could fix it as well if you clicked on "Go Advanced" button in editor.

 

[Urwumpe]

GOCE:

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/GOCE/index.html

Because no fancy fantasy can beat the beauty of reality.

 

[Izack]

Because no fancy fantasy can beat the beauty of reality.

Yes indeed!

Was there any specific reason GOCE was shaped like that, or was the ESA going for awesome factor with those fins?

Going to combine the two categories with the most obvious choice here:

 

[T.Neo]

Space transportation system. Hands down.

I don't need a silly fictional aircraft, when there is such a beautiful vehicle as that. :thumbup:

 

[marooder86]

Mine are:
F-14 Tomcat, cause it really attracted my attention to jest fighters. Guess after watching what movie did that happened:lol:.

and Su-27 as prettiest jet fighter ever build, period:thumbup:.

As for spacecrafts I guess when I'll finish my own, that would be them:lol:.

 

[Rtyh-12]

Agreed:speakcool:

Edit: As always, someone else posts before I even finish writing...I agree with T. Neo.

 

[C3PO]

MMU/EMU!!! :thumbup:

 

[Urwumpe]

Was there any specific reason GOCE was shaped like that, or was the ESA going for awesome factor with those fins?

Yes, the reason is actually because GOCE flies lower than other satellites, it had to be optimized for aerodynamic shape. All fins are just the normal radiators and solar arrays, but placed and shaped a bit different for having less satellite drag.

 

[N_Molson]

That one made its proofs

 

[Loru]

Fictional first: Hammerhead from : "Space: Above and Beyond"

Real life:F-16 XL

 

[Wally]

State of the art fictional ship: USS Enterprise NCC 1701-D.
State of the art real spacecraft: Any shuttle form Space Transporation System. I would have said Enterprise here, but without SSME, she looks like weird.

 

[Notebook]

http://www.britain-in-space.co.uk/info/pix-archive/mustard/mustard02.html

http://www.unrealaircraft.com/wings/bac_mustard.php

and an older composite:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_Mayo_Composite"]Short Mayo Composite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

N.

 

[orbitingpluto]

I'm going with the shuttles too. They're no longer state-of-art and the twilight of their working years is almost at a close, but they inspired an affection in me for them despite that. And despite safety+monetary concerns that colored my eariler thoughts about them. I hope the ones we have left make it safely to retirement, and then to a museum close to me.

 

[Izack]

What's not state-of-the-art about STS? The orbiters are the most mechanically complex machines ever made, for crying out loud. :lol:

 

[JEL]

Nice thread, and many good answers

I personally hold the Boeing 747 as the state-of-the-art aircraft.
And the LEM as the state-of-the-art spacecraft.

 

[Hielor]

Nice thread, and many good answers

I personally hold the Boeing 747 as the state-of-the-art aircraft.
And the LEM as the state-of-the-art spacecraft.

Wait, how are vehicles designed in the 1960s "state of the art"?

 

[Urwumpe]

What's not state-of-the-art about STS? The orbiters are the most mechanically complex machines ever made, for crying out loud. :lol:

Weeeeeeelll...actually they are just Apollo + Skylab with Wings. if you would read the exact technological specs and compare it to what you have in your PC today, you would be badly surprised. The A/D converters of your sound subsystem are likely 50 times better than the A/D converters used in the Space Shuttle, and way more accurate. Even if you agree that the Shuttle A/D converters have to work for a bigger temperature range, this is not so impressive anymore.

 

[T.Neo]

It is always important to remember that STS is, by and large, 1970s technology.

But I mean, name one other 70 ton + spacecraft, that has flown into space and returned to Earth intact, more than 100 times. Or had the same crew capacity as the shuttle, or acted as an orbital work platform, or allowed the retrieval of payloads from orbit, or allowed in-flight repairs to stricken spacecraft. Or had the ability to launch station modules, that were just components, rather than having to be spacecraft in their own right.

We all know the disadvantages and problems of the shuttle. But it's easy to dismiss that it has any upsides or advantages, or capabilities otherwise unseen in spaceflight. Which it of course does; they do exist, they're just marred by those same problems.

No other spacecraft has yet launched that amount of people into space. And the whole 'story' of a shuttle mission from launch to return really gives one a feeling that humans are competent in space. It is not a three ton, three-person capsule surrounded by disposable infrastructure.

I know everyone is going to shout "Buran", and yes, Buran had some interesting aspects that seemed to be better than those of STS (increased carrying capacity, increased capacity to orbit, more powerful, non-toxic OMS/RCS), but it was unfortunately only tried out once, on an unmanned flight, and almost certainly would have experience many of the problems of STS. Only the US shuttle has really seen action, and shown the attibutes of it's design and engineering in operation.

 

[cljohnston]

^ Very well said, T.Neo! I will never cease to be amazed by the Shuttle.
Of course, this latest problem with the ET stringers depresses me. In recent years I'd been happily noticing that launch delays were almost all weather-related. I figured we'd finally gotten the technical bugs worked out of the system. Like my Dad always said about big projects, "Around the time you get finished, you'll have figured out how to get started."