Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: BlackDove on July 12, 2005, 08:08:35 pm
-
Discovery Set for July 13 Launch
Discovery sits at Launch Pad 39-B at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, awaiting the final "go" that will send it rocketing into orbit on the first Shuttle mission in more than two years.
The seven crewmembers, led by veteran Eileen Collins, will travel to the International Space Station, testing new safety procedures and delivering supplies to the orbital outpost.
Hope it takes off flawlessly, in spite of this:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/12/space.shuttle/index.html
-
Let's hope there are no problems. :yes:
-
looks good so far, they're just a bit worried about the weather.
-
not anymore :(
http://news.yahoo.com/fc/science/space_shuttle
-
just scrubbed, they will try again later
-
Better to call off the launch rather than have the shuttle and crew go up in flames.
I still find it funny that spaceship one seems to be much safer for space travel, albiet it doesn't go as far up into space.
-
Well, the shuttle was designed in the 70s, after all . There are probably much better ways to do it now. I think that re-entry is something that needs looking at - it's far and away the most dangerous part of space flight.
Spaceship One is a great piece of design, and the idea will surely be used more in coming years. However, I don't think you could launch something the size and weight of the shuttle in the same way - the carrier aircraft would have to be enormous, probably more than is currently feasible.
Space elevators are the way forward, IMO - as soon as they are in use, access to space will be far more widely available. You can simply ride it into low orbit, then use pure spacecraft to move to wherever you want to go. You get rid of any weight/size limits on the spacecraft, as they don't have to be launched from the surface, and re-entry is no longer an issue, so the only part that needs heat shielding is the escape vehicle.
-
But we cant build space elevators yet...
Project orion was an excelent idea that was ahead of it's time.
-
Originally posted by FireCrack
But we cant build space elevators yet...
Oh, yes we can.
-
It would just be excessiveley expensive ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
Oh, yes we can.
gonna call in bob the builder, eh? :p
anywho, yeah, the shuttle's initial design was a confluence between NASA and the DoD.. that's right, the department of defence, nasa actually wanted something smaller, and better designed.. but the DOD wanted payload.. guess who won?
but i think nasa are looking into shuttle design alternatives, they just need the time and funding to do it.
as far as i see it, Nasa as the primary space-launching body will become redundant eventually due to private enterprise developing their own space-based industries, like Richard Branson for example (Virgin, spaceship one)..
Also, as far as i can see it, it will be the pursuit of greed that will lead man to the stars.. it's like the gold rush of yore, some of the US wouldn't be as populated in those areas if it wasn't for greed..
Cynical, but true.
anyways, i don't blame NASA for being overly careful with this launch, they don't want a Repeat of columbia, after all.. or even a repeat of Challenger. :nod:
-
where do you guys think the next step solid-wise will be for people? mars? or back to the moon to see if humans can stay there longer than a week or so?
-
Originally posted by icespeed
where do you guys think the next step solid-wise will be for people? mars? or back to the moon to see if humans can stay there longer than a week or so?
moon's a little cheaper, and closer than mars, yet again, mars is unknown territory for mankind..
i'd say the moon, 'cuz then you can use it as a resupply base to load up any mars missions with supplies that would be needed.
-
[color=66ff00]To be honest the moon is simply another dubya move to try and get his name into the history books. The Chinese have been talking about a moon mission but it's very hard to know how much thought they've put into it.
The moon has a myriad of issues for lengthy stays, not least of all being the dust.
The american space shuttle was a bad idea from the get-go, better solutions were proposed but ignored. (Arthur C. Clarke suggested a Spaceship one/White Knight system albiet nuclear powered). It's always been known that a parachute descent is much preferred to attempting to make what is effectively a huge, barely steerable glider.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]To be honest the moon is simply another dubya move to try and get his name into the history books. The Chinese have been talking about a moon mission but it's very hard to know how much thought they've put into it.
The moon has a myriad of issues for lengthy stays, not least of all being the dust.
The american space shuttle was a bad idea from the get-go, better solutions were proposed but ignored. (Arthur C. Clarke suggested a Spaceship one/White Knight system albiet nuclear powered). It's always been known that a parachute descent is much preferred to attempting to make what is effectively a huge, barely steerable glider.
[/color]
AKA "Volvo With wings" (flying brick)
-
Originally posted by Turnsky
AKA "Volvo With wings" (flying brick)
[color=66ff00]As maneuverable as my rocketcar but without the bangin' sound system. ;)
[/color]
-
Spaceship One uses a "feather" system for nearly flawless and perfectly safe re-entry. I think NASA should design their next shuttle with that system in mind.
-
Originally posted by Swantz
It would just be excessiveley expensive ;)
And Boeing would be pissed 'cos they'd lose their multi-billion dollar contracts... [/cynic]
IMO the shuttle concept should be junked entirely, and the money should be spent on an elevator. That would completely negate the need for a "heavy lift" launch vehicle, and a smaller SS1-style orbiter/carrier system can be used for other flights.
As for icespeed's question, I think it's inevitable that the next manned mission that leaves Earth orbit will be to the Moon. Establishing a Lunar base is the next big step after the ISS is completed, and it can be used as a super-quiet observatory (no interference or noise on the dark side). It would also make sense to launch any missions to Mars and the like from the Moon.
-
The ISS is sorta like Duke Nukem forever though.
-
We will live on the moon someday. I have forseen it. ^_^
-
The elvevator would need to be made of buckey balls right?
-
The american space shuttle was a bad idea from the get-go, better solutions were proposed but ignored. (Arthur C. Clarke suggested a Spaceship one/White Knight system albiet nuclear powered). It's always been known that a parachute descent is much preferred to attempting to make what is effectively a huge, barely steerable glider.
You are absolutly right. Unfortunatly, it doesn't look like the next generation is much different. :(
-
The carbon structures needed to build a feasable space elevator cost about as much as anti matter, IIRC and AFAIK.
Do a rough sketch on how much you'd need.....
I think anything but commercial space engineering is a waste of cash. Science might be a good thing, and it might help in the end, but stuff like going to Mars is useless. The amount of fuel needed to get there won't be replaced by any ore you find there. Unless the thing is mostly made out of antimatter, I doubt that if you look at it economicly, or worse, looking at it from a fuel-saving POV, you could ever make it look worthwile.
As for the shuttle, I don'treally care. It's not like the ISS is all that vital anyways, compared to commercial launches.
-
So Newton wasted his life then? Da Vinci? Einstein? Edison?
-
So, what happened to the shuttle? They postponed the flight again?
-
All we need to do is hoist a big freaking metalic asteroid into orbit around erth, and then mine it.
-
The thing is, the shuttle, with all it's flaws, still works. It's only had two mishaps, albeit both were fatal. However, the ratio between the hundreds of launches and the two fatal ones is so great, you can say it's probably got a better safety record than most passenger jets.
I have faith in the shuttle program, the thing is that NASA is completely screwing it up. They only patch what they need to, and blow the rest of their money on overbudgeted programs. They could probably give the shuttle's avionics a complete overhaul for the amount it costed them to make the toilet on the same ship. But they don't. Why? Because they're a government beuracrocy (spelling?).
-
From the NASA website:
NASA is continuing extensive testing and troubleshooting into a problem with a low-fuel sensor in the Shuttle Discovery's External Tank.
Program managers have not set a new launch date, but say if the problem is fixed, an attempt could be made as early as four days later.
Firecrack: That isn't exactly easy to do. The Asteroid Belt is even further away than Mars. Any "rogue" asteroids closer than that are on wierd orbits, are moving very fast, and you want to keep them as far away as possible - we don't have the ability to slow them down or alter their orbits short of nuking the hell out of them and hoping, a la Deep Impact.
EDIT: UT, the shuttle had a complete systems replacement about 5 years ago. They got rid of all the old '80s equipment, and put in brand new digital stuff. Cost a lot of money, and meant that the shuttle could stay in service rather than being junked sooner than it now will be. It was never meant to be in use for this long. :)
True, the shuttle has had two failures in just over a hundred flights, which isn't bad, but those failures were the result of design flaws, rather than just being accidents. With modern technology, a much better design could be created, which would be cheaper to launch, safer for the crew, and more flexible than the current vehicle. I'd much rather see NASA bods bite the bullet and commit to a new orbiter and launcher, rather than spunk even more money away on an old, flawed design.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
The carbon structures needed to build a feasable space elevator cost about as much as anti matter, IIRC and AFAIK.
you recall incorectly, and know a distance of four inches. we are makeing multi-kilometer long strands of the stuff, a japinese company, Mitsui&co, are about to set up a facility that will produce them at about $1 per gram, and there are techniques that can make sevral centemeters per second.
we need 40-70 million meters of the stuff per strand.
now I don't know the dencity of the nanotubes off hand, but I'd imigine it'd be similar to graphite wich is about 1.5g/cm^3, so lets say you want a strand that is about 3 meters in diameter, would cost about 1.5 billion dollars.
and there called carbon nanotubes.
-
I now it's not "that" easy, but it's certianly possbile.
-
I didn't mean to imply it would be easy, it would be super dificult, makeing a mars shot look like a walk across the street, but it's within posability if we try.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Why? Because they're a government beuracrocy (spelling?).
Bueracracy ^_^
-
Originally posted by EtherShock
Bueracracy ^_^
Bureaucracy
Originally posted by EtherShock
We will live on the moon someday. I have forseen it. ^_^
We won't all fit :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The thing is, the shuttle, with all it's flaws, still works. It's only had two mishaps, albeit both were fatal. However, the ratio between the hundreds of launches and the two fatal ones is so great, you can say it's probably got a better safety record than most passenger jets.
A NASA report after Challenger put the chance of a catastropic failure causing the loss of the shuttle at 1 out of every 78 launches. I certainly would't fly on a passenger jet which had ever gotten a risk assessment like that!
The shuttle isn't safe. But then going into space isn't safe.
-
Originally posted by SuperCoolAl
Bureaucracy
We won't all fit :rolleyes:
Blast! I thought it looked wrong.
I know we won't all fit.
-
I'm sure astronauts know there is possibility of catastrophic failure with every flight but still make the choice to go up, unlike a passenger on an airplane that has come to expect a safe flight.
On another note, if and when that space elevator is built, they should build a Deimos!
-
Nonono. They should build a Reliant. :drevil:
-
I fail to see what use that (http://totalcar.index.hu/images/tortenelem/reliant/robin1.jpg) would be. :p
-
:bump:
Bump! (http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/25/space.shuttle/index.html)
EDIT: CNN article now I don't know why in the hell none of the yahoo links I try work.
-
$50 says it explodes on takeoff.
and your link doesn't work
-
burt rutan is gonna have space ship 2 done before they get that ship off the ground.