Originally posted by: Mr Pickles
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
meh, if obama gets elected it'll really turn to sh*t, he wants to cut nasa funding.
I think it was either Chris Rock or Chapelle that pointed out the simple fact that black people don't do stupid things that might kill themselves like scuba dive or go up in rockets and shit.
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
The shuttle is the most complicated vehicle ever built by humans. It is anything but poorly built.Originally posted by: mjuszczak
I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built,
Not as much as hoped for. They have to be fully inspected and rebuilt after every mission, which negates the original purpose of being reusable.but they are re-usable,
They land on the earth.and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right?
No. Unmanned rockets are much more efficient for that task.So why are they retiring them entirely? Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance? Why not keep one or two around?
Also, if the moon lander was really just as powerful as a calculator or whatever, I feel like we should have something better than the ISS as far as space technology goes. Unless I am underestimating what that station can do.
Originally posted by: Brainonska511
Also, if the moon lander was really just as powerful as a calculator or whatever, I feel like we should have something better than the ISS as far as space technology goes. Unless I am underestimating what that station can do.
Only so much weight can be moved into space at one time by the shuttle, hence the modular construction of the ISS. Additionally, the radiation levels at that altitude are much higher, so it is better to use larger process sized computer chips (and thus, slower chips) since they are more resilient to the radiation.
Originally posted by: mjuszczak
Topic Title: Why are the shuttles being retired?
Originally posted by: mjuszczak
I just don't understand. yes, they are poorly built, but they are re-usable, and can do almost anything except land on a planet, right? So why are they retiring them entirely? Aren't they incredibly efficient for bringing things to and from earth to the ISS, for instance? Why not keep one or two around?
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.
Originally posted by: sao123
Direct 2.0 is a much cheaper and safer alternative to the Aries I / Aries V system. I hope someone at NASA finally pulls their collective heads out of their asses.
Aries isnt even fully designed and it already has problems.
I wonder how long until we build one of these. 2030, maybe?Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I wonder how long until we build one of these. 2030, maybe?Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Why don't they just tie a big rope to the back of the shuttle.....send it up to the space station and tie the rope off there? That way, they can simply pull any supplies they need in the space station up with the rope.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_elevator
What is that from? Reminds me of a video game or something.. like wing commander?Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
The Orion looks kick ass...Can't wait to see that...
The shuttle would be nice if it wasn't so expensive.
Besides, we have the Orion and Prometheus...They can defend us, rail guns and all...
Originally posted by: dakels
What is that from? Reminds me of a video game or something.. like wing commander?Originally posted by: thehstrybean
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
The Orion looks kick ass...Can't wait to see that...
The shuttle would be nice if it wasn't so expensive.
Besides, we have the Orion and Prometheus...They can defend us, rail guns and all...
Anyways, the new ares platform looks like the old SRB's on the shuttle because... that's basically what they are.
Someone mentioned the catastrophic failure rate for these. You have to admit 1% is pretty good considering we are basically blowing people into space. It's a controlled bomb with an absurd amount of complex parts and dozens if not hundreds of different engineering and mechanical teams and contractors coming together to make a successful launch and retrieval. It's really quite amazing. It's too bad the failures are such a public catastrophe and also bad timing like challenger.
Sort of like air plane crashes. They are rare yet everyone remembers them because they are usually very remarkable catastrophic events.
Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Because funding for NASA's space program has been on the chopping block for years....
The biggest problem with the current shuttles is how inefficient they are. Rocket-based systems are way too wasteful. The shuttles are merely orbiters so they'll never venture too far. Because of this, they can be replaced with much lighter, more maneuverable crafts that deploy from high-flying jets.
Things that fly straight up don't take advantage of the principles of lift and flight while within the Earth's atmosphere. They just fight gravity.
Originally posted by: So
Originally posted by: 5to1baby1in5
Originally posted by: dakels
What So said is pretty much what my engineer friend at NASA told me. It's a 40 year old platform that is terribly inefficient and overly complicated. Cost per pound for deliverable payload is what is important and the shuttle's is extremely high. The next gen STS is supposedly drastically going to reduce cost per pound to space and require much less support crew.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa.../ares/aresl/index.html
Where are the wings?
Left on the ground, as all unnecessary heavy components should be. You get me a scramjet going and show me a vehicle that's capable of SSTO, and we'll talk.