Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MicroPsycho on July 28, 2005, 01:12:47 pm
-
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-shuttle28jul28,0,2262872.story?coll=la-tot-promo
seriously, what the ****? They're all just a bunch of pussies. If the this launch fails, the space program is done, if it succeeds the space program is still over. I'm sure stuff fell from the shuttles all the time, they just havn't noticed before because they havn't had 100 cameras filming the launches.
-
It's all fun and games till somebody dies.
-
Um, yeah, stuff falls from launches. That's inevitible. Stuff doesn't always punch large, or at least, probable holes in critical components of the shuttle (such as it's heat shield) however.
With the Columbia 'sploding, losing the shuttle and the entire crew, it stands to reason why NASA is being so cautious this time around.
-
Very true. NASA's playing with human lives every time a shuttle launches, and after Columbia, they've realized just how fragile those heat shield tiles are. I'd much rather have them wait a few more months after Discovery comes home and get everything as safe as possible than push another launch and end up with another catastrophe.
-
I think it's because they're running out of actual shuttles. They've only got three left, unless they want to try and get the Enterprise space-worthy .... :nervous:
-
They're over 20 years old - we need a new design.
-
I think recent events will get you your wish, especially if there are further complications - But I imagine it will cost a bomb, and take years to do...
-
You won't get it.. Bush is a cheapskate.
-
Originally posted by vyper
They're over 20 years old - we need a new design.
They're nearing 40 years old. Designed and built in the 70's, using technology of the 60's.
-
tell me why the **** do they cover the fuel tank in fragile foam in the first place? they need to retrofit the shuttle with hybrid rocket engines. wich are safer and use a far less volitile fuel. LOX/LH engines are so 50's :D
or they could be smart and shrinkwrap the damn thing. a graphite/epoxy layer shouldnt hurt weight much.
-
I suspect it's cause the fuel tank is full of LOX/LH and if you didn't insulate it you'd lose all the fule/cause an explosion before you could actually launch the shuttle.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
You won't get it.. Bush is a cheapskate.
If we tell him Muslims are in space we'll get a new shuttle ;)
-
The Chinese will be kicking NASA's ass in a couple of decades if they don't pull their finger out. If that doesn't scare George then nothing will...
-
Originally posted by Nuke
tell me why the **** do they cover the fuel tank in fragile foam in the first place? they need to retrofit the shuttle with hybrid rocket engines. wich are safer and use a far less volitile fuel. LOX/LH engines are so 50's :D
or they could be smart and shrinkwrap the damn thing. a graphite/epoxy layer shouldnt hurt weight much.
The shuttle keeps losing the foam actually because the "glue" they use to hold it in place was downgraded due to complaints from environmental groups. The original stuff was much better.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
tell me why the **** do they cover the fuel tank in fragile foam in the first place? they need to retrofit the shuttle with hybrid rocket engines. wich are safer and use a far less volitile fuel. LOX/LH engines are so 50's :D
or they could be smart and shrinkwrap the damn thing. a graphite/epoxy layer shouldnt hurt weight much.
The foam is for insulation. I just say scrap the damn shuttle already. The Russians were smart and scrapped their shuttle a long time ago.
-
Originally posted by Ace
If we tell him Muslims are in space we'll get a new shuttle ;)
There be terrorists on the moon!
-
rotavilelatibro
-
ecaps sirbed
-
tihsllub
-
that is the one big problem, but I think a destributed array of tethers (in addition to moveing the individual tethers to avoid impact as much as posable, and dunow maybe lasers) could solve this problem
-
oooor we could research stronger materials. Perhaps some sort of metalic-ceramic composite, strengthened with more metal and ceramics? :nervous:
oh! Or energy shielding!
-
or we could just have a whole bunch of tethers so if one gets hit, the others can take over while the section gets fixed.
-
I like energy shielding better...
-
or we could create a more efficient and safer launching system.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
The shuttle keeps losing the foam actually because the "glue" they use to hold it in place was downgraded due to complaints from environmental groups. The original stuff was much better.
The foam itself was downgraded about a year before Columbia. I learned not to correlate incidents like these with cause and effect but I can't say that I'm not almost convinced that it had something to do with it.
or we could create a more efficient and safer launching system.
Oh that's "easy". Put the reuseable part on top of the rocket instead of beside it. That's why the Saturn V could get away with having tons of ice falling off of it.
In any case, the Shuttle Fleet was meant to be retired by 2010 regardless to be replaced by the Crew Exploratory Vehicle (if that ever is designed and built).
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The foam is for insulation. I just say scrap the damn shuttle already. The Russians were smart and scrapped their shuttle a long time ago.
Query: without the Shuttle's cargo capacity, how do you expect to finish construction on the ISS or perform other cargo-intensive missions? The shuttle is far more valuable than the Russians' Soyuz capsules due to its large cargo capacity (not to mention its spacious interior, for which astronauts were incredibly grateful after the Apollo sardine cans :p). At the moment, the Shuttle is the best thing we've got and a necessity for maintaining a presence in space; while a replacement is desperately needed, we also need to keep them up and running.
-
The shuttle keeps losing the foam actually because the "glue" they use to hold it in place was downgraded due to complaints from environmental groups. The original stuff was much better.
Nice statement, got any credible proof?
At the moment, the Shuttle is the best thing we've got and a necessity for maintaining a presence in space; while a replacement is desperately needed, we also need to keep them up and running.
Unfortunatly, you are right in that the shuttle is the best thing we have........which shows how pathetic our species really is.
Query: without the Shuttle's cargo capacity, how do you expect to finish construction on the ISS or perform other cargo-intensive missions?
Magic. ;) It's not like the ISS will be finished within our lifetimes. It's rapidly turning into the vaporware of the international community.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
that is the one big problem, but I think a destributed array of tethers (in addition to moveing the individual tethers to avoid impact as much as posable, and dunow maybe lasers) could solve this problem
Sort of like Reagan's Star Wars, minus the "HAHA WTF UR J/K RITE?" part?
-
We need to accept the fact that the shuttle was good for what it was made for, which was throwing something in the ruskies faces :D
-
Originally posted by Swantz
We need to accept the fact that the shuttle was good for what it was made for, which was throwing something in the ruskies faces :D
Not really considering that the Russians came out with a virtually identicle copy a few years later. :p
-
Not to mention they actually built a "star wars" weapon, unlike America...
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Not really considering that the Russians came out with a virtually identicle copy a few years later. :p
That's what the Ruskies are best at, nicking other nation's ideas; like when they stole the design for the B-29 Stratofortress, a brilliant people they are. Not to mention the fact that they realised early that landing people on the Moon was impossible given technology at the time, and thus didn't go to the trouble of staging it to fool the entire world...like a certain Superpower went on to do...!:nervous:
Anyway, why can't the US just reorganise NASA and make a profitable, successful Space Program, hell, they spent several hundred thousand dollars proving that a Frisbee couldn't be used as a weapon! If they have enough money to try out Frisbee-Grenades, then they should have enough to restructure a competent Space Program, and get some Orion Destroyers into space...
...Just as long as they don't commercialise Space, like what's happening with that X-Plane Prize thing a little while back. Think of it, if Space Travel becomes commercialized, there'll be gigantic 'COKE' signs in orbit, and before long some American dip**** will have the bright idea of bringing an Asteroid into orbit so they can mine it...and suddenly 'oops!' there goes all life on the planet...
-
^
Please tell me you're being sarcastic.
-
[q]Anyway, why can't the US just reorganise NASA and make a profitable, successful Space Program[/q]
Because there's no oil in space.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
...Just as long as they don't commercialise Space, like what's happening with that X-Plane Prize thing a little while back. Think of it, if Space Travel becomes commercialized, there'll be gigantic 'COKE' signs in orbit, and before long some American dip**** will have the bright idea of bringing an Asteroid into orbit so they can mine it...and suddenly 'oops!' there goes all life on the planet...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/20/space_billboard_ban/
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The foam is for insulation. I just say scrap the damn shuttle already. The Russians were smart and scrapped their shuttle a long time ago.
Specifically, the foam is to stop ice forming on the tank once it's filled up (the exterior parts are filled with freezing cold oxygen & hydrogen). Basically so you don't get giant chunks of ice falling.
-
A sensible thing to do whould be to add a second skin to the tank, and have the insulation between the two. Then it can't fall off. Or wrap the thing in gaffer tape like I suggested before...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/20/space_billboard_ban/
Hmmm, the US Government doing something that could be 'positive'...not only is that something you really don't hear too often these days, it's definitely something that should be taken with a grain of salt...
...Well, thankfully, we'll still be able to what Red Dwarf so eloquently put forward; using a ship capable of Faster than Light Travel, initiate a series of specifically timed and placed Supernovas (shouldn't really be a problem if you've got FTL Travel down :p) so that the light from the Supernovas all reach Earth at the exact same time...thus, you've got 'ENJOY COKE' tatooed across the night sky for Generations to come...
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The foam is for insulation. I just say scrap the damn shuttle already. The Russians were smart and scrapped their shuttle a long time ago......Not really considering that the Russians came out with a virtually identicle copy a few years later. :p
The Russian canceled their program because of it's costs; as the Sovjet Union dwindeled, there wasn't any money left to run it, but not because of concerns for crew security.
Actually, while the Buran design is an aerodynamical copy of the shuttle, it's inherently different on the inside and only employs domestically developed on-board systems and is considered a superior design, partly because it was developed after the shuttle and therefore has newer on-board systems. Also, the heat shield tiles of the heatshields are employed in a different, more robust way than on the shuttle and are less susceptible to damage. Buran has a significantly higher lift capability, no main engines(which makes it less complex) and instead relied on it's Energija booster, which is also very different to the shuttles launch system. Instead of three separate parts, it's just one big rocket. There are less chances of damage during separation, since there's only one compared to the two of the shuttle(boosters&tank) and since Energija is made from metal you don't have pieces of it falling down from it all the time.
The Energijas are also cool machines for themselves. They had a lift capability of almost 200 tons, so you wouldn't need shuttles for building the ISS since you could launch half the space station at once with one of those.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Hmmm, the US Government doing something that could be 'positive'...not only is that something you really don't hear too often these days, it's definitely something that should be taken with a grain of salt...
[tinfoil hat] Perhaps they just realise they wouldn't be able to solely control the advertising? [/tinfoil hat]
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Not really considering that the Russians came out with a virtually identicle copy a few years later. :p
not to mention that fact that the way things seem to be going the Russians will be the ONLY ones with a regular manned spaceprogram.
-
Originally posted by Crazy_Ivan80
not to mention that fact that the way things seem to be going the Russians will be the ONLY ones with a regular manned spaceprogram.
Not entirely. There's talk that the chinese will go into space again in October. Just wait a few years and they will pw3n NASA.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Not entirely. There's talk that the chinese will go into space again in October. Just wait a few years and they will pw3n NASA.
I said a regular programme. The Chinese don't have that (yet).
And the US could godamn better shoot into action cause we can't allow the commies the upperhand in space.
-
Why do we even bother with manned expeditions which are grossly inefficient and expensive when we could use relatively cheaper robotic missions for all of our ventures into space... At least untill we invent FTL travel.
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Why do we even bother with manned expeditions which are grossly inefficient and expensive when we could use relatively cheaper robotic missions for all of our ventures into space... At least untill we invent FTL travel.
We do it because we need the practice.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Hmmm, the US Government doing something that could be 'positive'...not only is that something you really don't hear too often these days, it's definitely something that should be taken with a grain of salt...
As you should with any government.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
We do it because we need the practice.
That and to move Gitmo onto the moon. Pesky Red Cross inspectors, sticking their noses in where they're not wanted.
-
Wow, I'm sort of shocked at some of the ignorance displayed in this thread.
First of all, the Russians stole the US plans, and they only built one actual ship (the other five or so were test beds).
Second of all, PLEASE tell me that you're kidding about the US faking the moon landings. I mean come on. Here's a huge bit of proof: remember the failed Apollo 13 landing? Unless you're ready to tell me that the US purposely set up it's "fake" launchers so that they would deliberatly fail and put the astronauts lives in danger, but then, if you were ready to say that the US faked the moon landings (I'm still going :wtf: about that), then I guess you'd be willing to say that, too.
Moving on; NASA has become overbloated and overfunded, and become too cocky with itself. Remember how it used to be able to launch several Apollo rockets and fund and deploy multiple successful moon landing missions, and now it's blowing half it's cash on the ISS. If NASA could consolidate and do it's job right, then we wouldn't have this problem, non?
Further down the road: the space shuttle. Ok, it's outdated, overfunded, and mismanaged - but the Shuttle itself is quite simply the best thing we have right now (as for your comment, Kosh on how pathetic our species is...it's not like we have a lot to compare it to :wtf:). Anyway, the shuttle, while aging, is still a viable option in my opinion. Now, whether or not NASA is capable of turning the shuttle into something that's more modern is up to debate.
Fact is, the shuttle has launched several hundred missions with only two major mishaps (the conclusion of this particular accident one still being unknown). Now, if NASA could dump half of it's budget-sucking duties, or shift them over to another department, and free some of it's billion-dollar budget, it could probably rennovate all of the shuttle's internal systems.
I bet you that if NASA were to completely replace all the shuttle's (just one, not all) computer systems with modern ones, it would probably come out to only about ten million dollars.
So why haven't they done it yet? Well, it's because of cost, fear, and mismanagmenet. NASA is bloated, and isn't able to move in any direction fast enough to do anything - for instance, by the time they finished space-proofing and testing all of the shuttle's new systems, they'd probably already be outdated. Fear because NASA is afraid of so much change all at once, and doesn't want to risk anything. And cost because, well, because it's government and it would take 20 billion dollars more to do than it should.
-
Originally posted by Raa
oooor we could research stronger materials. Perhaps some sort of metalic-ceramic composite, strengthened with more metal and ceramics? :nervous:
oh! Or energy shielding!
do you know anything of the magic material known as carbon fiber? it has greater structural integrity than aluminum and far less weight. typically it is used much like fiberglass, requiring epoxy layers to hold the fivers together and prevent them from shearing. carbon fiber will get stronger once nanotubes become easy to produce they will switch over to a nanotube weave. rutan likes to sandwich layers of honeycombed foam between graphite/epoxy layers, wich essentially moves more of the craft's structural integrity to the skin. meaning a much lighter frame. the shuttle is a brick compaired to what it could be just using more advanced composites. lighter craft require less fuel, can be slowed down in upper atmoshpere without a complex array of thermal tiles. once we establish some space infrastructure we could make use of the solarsystem's abundance of naturally occuring nickel-iron alloy to build ships in orbit. then you can all have your orions.
-
Carbon nanotubes are the only way that a space elevator can be built. Unfortunately, our current technology limits us to producing strands less than the width of a human hair, and only a few inches long.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
do you know anything of the magic material known as carbon fiber? it has greater structural integrity than aluminum and far less weight. typically it is used much like fiberglass, requiring epoxy layers to hold the fivers together and prevent them from shearing. carbon fiber will get stronger once nanotubes become easy to produce they will switch over to a nanotube weave. rutan likes to sandwich layers of honeycombed foam between graphite/epoxy layers, wich essentially moves more of the craft's structural integrity to the skin. meaning a much lighter frame. the shuttle is a brick compaired to what it could be just using more advanced composites. lighter craft require less fuel, can be slowed down in upper atmoshpere without a complex array of thermal tiles. once we establish some space infrastructure we could make use of the solarsystem's abundance of naturally occuring nickel-iron alloy to build ships in orbit. then you can all have your orions.
I do know of carbon fibre, yes. Lots of automotive parts are made in it. I've seen it crack, though. Dunno how much these microtubes will help it, but it's a start.
-
Look up "carbon nanotubes" . A strand is stronger than a foot (or maybe even greater, my memory is off) of steel, and obviously way lighter.
-
Post deleted so as to avoid further tarnish of my already grubby name :p *Sheepish look*
-
Originally posted by Deepblue
Why do we even bother with manned expeditions which are grossly inefficient and expensive when we could use relatively cheaper robotic missions for all of our ventures into space... At least untill we invent FTL travel.
Yeah...and how about we don't try sailing west across the Atlantic to see what's out there? :rolleyes: The only reason I need for exploring space is because it's there. Exploring the unknown is part of the human spirit, part of what makes us who we are. While a piece of machinery could collect the same data, nothing at all can compare to actually experiencing it yourself. Would you rather just look at pictures of Mars all your life, or would you try to stand there and look around yourself?
-
you know the internet is fake, it's all just an elaborate computer program made by the government to keep the masses complacent.
don't beleive me? think about it, how many times have you wanted to go do something, but you just wanted five more minutes on the internet, to see if someone answered you, or to read the next page, ect...
-
So those people telling me the moon landings are faked because my country sucks don't really exist?
Well that's a relief...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Oh, c'mon, you think that was an actual accident?! While it may be a little far out to consider, the US likely staged the entire accident, so that people like you could go "it's really because, y'know, they had an accident". Think about it, why does an accident prove conclusively that the Moon landings took place? If you can make the entire world believe you've landed man on the Moon, then staging a little accident should be simple...see, i'll give you a little run down on what probably happened...
1) The US Government decides to stage an accident, not only to heighten exitement in the Apollo Program (which was beginning to wane), but also so they can point to this in the future and say 'we had an accident! why would we fake that?'.
2) They gather the Apollo 13 crew and stage the accident (possibly as a rehersal, but maybe as the actual thing so they can edit it, play with it, whatever), most likely where they filmed the Luner Landing footage; Area 51. The bloke who got left out - as they thought he had the measles or something (haven't reviewed the exact history in a while) - probably got cold feet about doing it, and was left out.
3) Launch the Saturn V Rocket, put the crew in orbit, and have them simply orbit the planet sending back appropriate footage, as if they were really 'on the way to the moon'.
4) Begin staging the 'accident', feeding false information to the media, the public, and the world about an incident that isn't really happening. (Think about it, all the information we have about the incident comes from NASA itself, and of course the testimony of the astronauts involved *taps nose*)
5) Bring the crew into re-entry in time with their fictional 'triumphant return to Earth', make sure they keep their stories straight, and BAM! You've got yourself the infamous Apollo 13 Disaster, a story of triumph, heroism, and good ol' American Knowhow...too bad it's all ficticious...
Unfortunately, i'm not intamately knowledgable about the Apollo 13 accident, but i'm pretty sure that there were no exceedingly negative consequences to come out of this. The Apollo program didn't stop, there may have been controversy over the accident, but nowhere near as much as...say...the very real (and very unfortunate) Shuttle disaster. Now, call me crazy if you want to, but just think about this; could the Americans do this? yes...Would the Americans do this? The answer, sadly, is yes
Why would they want to? Seriously, if they had all the money to construct working mock ups of everything, AND blast people off into orbit, they might as well go the entire way.
It's ****ing retarded to think the moon landings were fake.
And show me proof that the moon landings were faked.
If you're going to say the typical "the flag's straight" and "there are no stars" arguments, well, guess what? In space, you can't see stars. Also, the flag's straight because it's made out of metal. Plus, let's just say it is fake - don't you think after spending 40 billion dollars, that they'd make sure to notice something like that? On top of that, the flag is straight, not wavy - hold up a flag on planet Earth (if you even live here with the rest of us :rolleyes:) and watch as how it is never straight in the wind, but waves instead.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
In space, you can't see stars.
You can see them. You can even take photos of them. It's just that the astronauts prefered to get a picture where the moon, lander or astronaut were in focus and that means that you don't get photos of the stars.
Mefustae go read Phil Plait's Bad Astronomy Page (http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html) cause the stuff you're quoting from the moon hoaxers makes you look like a idiot and you're usually too smart to fall for that kind of bulls**t.
If after you've read that you've still got questions I'll be happy to answer them.
-
...It seems that a visit by several men in Black Vans has pursuaded me to repeal my slanted arguement...the US did land on the Moon, anything else is a drunken rant...
...they've got to me! they're monitoring my computer! get the truth to the people! it's our only...wait...NO! STAY BA...*BLAM!* *Thump*
Now, back to something vaugely resembling the beginning topic; what ever happened to that plan for a Heavy-Lifter Shuttle? I remember reading about it in the papers a while ago, but nothing seemed to come of it?
Edit: Originally posted by Solatar
So those people telling me the moon landings are faked because my country sucks don't really exist?
Sorry if i offended you there, but not only was i talking only of the US Government in my newly-dubbed-insane rant ( :nervous: ), but i was talking about a specific breed of US Government, as in Cold War style; and conspiracy or not, i think we can all agree that those guys weren't exactly saints. See: Kissinger...
-
Another soul wrenched from the jaws of stupidity! :D
Problem with that moon hoaxing thing is that it does sound very convincing. I have no problem with people being fooled by it cause it's easy to do. I only have a problem with people who continue to be fooled by it after having been shown that it's a load of crap.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Sorry if i offended you there, but not only was i talking only of the US Government in my newly-dubbed-insane rant ( :nervous: ), but i was talking about a specific breed of US Government, as in Cold War style; and conspiracy or not, i think we can all agree that those guys weren't exactly saints. See: Kissinger...
Well of course they weren't...no government really is.:)
-
I'm really amazed by the stupidity displayed here. I have a problem with people taking things at face value, especially those that are broadcast on television. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of the location of the believers and non-believers in this sample, whether more Americans believe we did land on the moon and whether more Europeans believe we didn't.
Now then...
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Further down the road: the space shuttle. Ok, it's outdated, overfunded, and mismanaged - but the Shuttle itself is quite simply the best thing we have right now (as for your comment, Kosh on how pathetic our species is...it's not like we have a lot to compare it to :wtf:). Anyway, the shuttle, while aging, is still a viable option in my opinion. Now, whether or not NASA is capable of turning the shuttle into something that's more modern is up to debate.
Fact is, the shuttle has launched several hundred missions with only two major mishaps (the conclusion of this particular accident one still being unknown). Now, if NASA could dump half of it's budget-sucking duties, or shift them over to another department, and free some of it's billion-dollar budget, it could probably rennovate all of the shuttle's internal systems.
I bet you that if NASA were to completely replace all the shuttle's (just one, not all) computer systems with modern ones, it would probably come out to only about ten million dollars.
So why haven't they done it yet? Well, it's because of cost, fear, and mismanagmenet. NASA is bloated, and isn't able to move in any direction fast enough to do anything - for instance, by the time they finished space-proofing and testing all of the shuttle's new systems, they'd probably already be outdated. Fear because NASA is afraid of so much change all at once, and doesn't want to risk anything. And cost because, well, because it's government and it would take 20 billion dollars more to do than it should.
:nod: I agree.
-
Funny, because I haven't heard of too many Europeans who claimed that the US never landed... while a whole lot of Americans say and believe that.
-
I've never met anyone who thought the moon landings were faked.
-
You have now :p
-
I'd say you and maybe EtherShock up there are the only ones that I've ever personally heard say that the landings were fake :)
-
I don't think they're fake. I was talking about the people that think it is, especially if any of them watched that stupid Fox special.
-
Hooray! I'm somewhat unique!
-
NB: One thing - if the Moon landings were faked, wouldn't the USSR have screamed bloody murder about it? I mean, they had the capability to detect scientific errors in any faked feed, and probably an ability to monitor the actual Apollo mission.
-
Nope. You see Russia was in on it too. They helped the US fake it.
Believe it or not that's the explaination I heard from one of the hoaxers.
-
Ah.... thinking about it, it makes perfect sense.
Our moon overlords would have to subjugate the Soviets - after all, if they didn't then Stalin could have sent tanks to the moon to steal all their cheese. Obviously they used time travel to send a moon rock to crash into Tunguska, as an early warning for 50 years in the future. Oh, and shot Kennedy, because he knew too much.
-
Originally posted by vyper
They're over 20 years old - we need a new design.
I'd either push for this or build new shuttles with modern technology stuck in them. Seriously, the ones we have now really are too old...
-
I've said it previously, but the shuttle fleet had a complete overhaul a few years ago. Everything was replaced or upgraded systems-wise, so they're as good as they can be. They're just a bad design by modern standards.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I've said it previously, but the shuttle fleet had a complete overhaul a few years ago. Everything was replaced or upgraded systems-wise, so they're as good as they can be. They're just a bad design by modern standards.
Ah, but the ships themselves are old.
-
The shuttles were upgraded, but in reality if you took about three home computers and networked them, they'd probably still have more processing power than the shuttle - so they're not quite there yet.
Besides, what's wrong wit the shuttle design? Fragile heat tiles, that big ass booster tank, and a gliding descent.
The heat tiles can be redeveloped, the booster tank could be done away with with better booster rockets. The glider profile can't be fixed, though, because it's integral to the overall design.
-
True, but they'll be in excellent physical condition. Any spacecraft will be built and maintained very well indeed - they stripped them down entirely (right back to the bare air(space?)frame) for the refit. Building more to the same design wouldn't really be worth it - it'd be better to design new ones.
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
The shuttles were upgraded, but in reality if you took about three home computers and networked them, they'd probably still have more processing power than the shuttle - so they're not quite there yet.
Besides, what's wrong wit the shuttle design? Fragile heat tiles, that big ass booster tank, and a gliding descent.
The heat tiles can be redeveloped, the booster tank could be done away with with better booster rockets. The glider profile can't be fixed, though, because it's integral to the overall design.
I'm pretty sure that modern computer tech isn't manufactured to withstand the same stress levels / power usage / heat level as the stuff used 20 years ago, though.
It is questionable how much processing power you'd actually need, though. 3 networked home PCs with custom written low level / medium level code might be sufficient for the shuttle or indeed general space travel.
-
Originally posted by Ghost
I'd either push for this or build new shuttles with modern technology stuck in them. Seriously, the ones we have now really are too old...
Unfortunately materiels science hasn't quite caught up with aerospace advances. Look at the Venture Star project - ambitious and a new paradigm, but simply not yet workable.
-
Unfortunately materiels science hasn't quite caught up with aerospace advances. Look at the Venture Star project - ambitious and a new paradigm, but simply not yet workable.
Never heard of it.
Building more to the same design wouldn't really be worth it - it'd be better to design new ones.
You're right. But even if they were to build more of same design, that wouldn't happen for many years. The new design won't come into service for many years too. So except for the Russians, the Chinese, and maybe the europeans, we're going to be stuck on the ground for a while.
-
Well, it's NASA's own fault for not making a new shuttle their highest priority.
-
Originally posted by pyro-manic
I've said it previously, but the shuttle fleet had a complete overhaul a few years ago. Everything was replaced or upgraded systems-wise, so they're as good as they can be. They're just a bad design by modern standards.
the systems might be newer but the spaceframe and skin are all quite old and outdated, as are the engines. the frame is mostly aluminum, which is prone to metal fatuige so at some point they will have to rebuild the shuttles. the original shuttle design also included 3 jet engines for a powered descent but testing determined they were not neccisary and they were ommited. what they need to do is not neccisarily chnge the design, but rather rebuild the spaceframe with more modern materials. if you make the ship lighter you decrease the fuel requirements (meaning a smaller fuel tank), you increase glide performance, and you also free up more wight for cargo. perhaps change the design to house the fuel in the cargo bay for missions that dont require a full payload. its also sad to require a full rigging for something as stupid as a crew teansfer mission. perhaps having multiple fuel tank/booster configurations for different missions. it should make the shuttle more economic and versitile.
-
what they need to do is not neccisarily chnge the design, but rather rebuild the spaceframe with more modern materials.
Like what?
-
CARBON FIBER COMPOSITE!
perhaps not the best choice but put it this way. if there is a super material out there, its probibly classified tech. seriously, you people need to take your brains out of the box.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'm pretty sure that modern computer tech isn't manufactured to withstand the same stress levels / power usage / heat level as the stuff used 20 years ago, though.
It is questionable how much processing power you'd actually need, though. 3 networked home PCs with custom written low level / medium level code might be sufficient for the shuttle or indeed general space travel.
[color=66ff00]The guidance computer used to get Apollo 11 to the moon was less powerful than a z80 (original gameboy) and ate a significant amount of power: details. (ed-thelen.org/comp-hist/vs-mit-apollo-guidance.html)
Given modern cpu's have a fairly limited working temp. range but are proven tech, it's not too far fetched to see a hardened (physically) version of a 8086 being very capable of managing a hefty amount of the workload of a modern space vehicle. Power densities have gone up significantly in batteries (power to volume ratio).
All this means you can fit a significantly larger amount of processing power in the same space as the old units (and more redundancy which improves safety) and you don't need so much space for power provision.
[/color]
-
On a vaguely related note, anyone read Warren Ellis' Orbiter?
-
Sorry to quote from so long ago, but i've got to educate you gits!
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, and shot Kennedy, because he knew too much.
Aliens had no hand in this, in actuallity, it was the Red Dwarf Crew. They sumbled upon a Time Travel device, travelled back to Dallas during Kennedy's parade, and scared Harvey Lee Oswald into going down one floor to take this shot, which he subsequently missed, causing disruption to the timeline. The Crew then travelled forward in time several years, only to discover that Kennedy had been impeached, and a New President, under the control of the Mafia, had allowed the Sovies to rebuild their missile sites in Cuba - which of course led to a whole world of problems. In an attempt to fix the timeline, the crew snagged this alternate-future Kennedy from a Police Van, told him their story, and proceded to take him back in time, give him a rifle, and have him take a shot from...you guessed it; the Grassy Knoll.
So, you see, the man how actually shot J.F.K, was in fact J.F.K himself...!
Edit: Whoops, forgot the :p
-
no no no, you got it all wrong, kinnedy was assasinated my genetically engineered mice. get your facts straight.
-
I always thought it was Lyndon B Johnson......
-
JFK wasn't shot, thats what they want you to think...
-
I'm pretty sure that modern computer tech isn't manufactured to withstand the same stress levels / power usage / heat level as the stuff used 20 years ago, though.
They just have to use mil-spec chips. They have a temperature range of -55c to +125c - of course there may not be any 3GHz processors available, but they should find something better than what they have now...
The main problem imo, is the way the whole thing is done. There must be some better method than flying straight up using all those boosters and stuff. I mean an SR-71 can almost fly into space, and land again without drama...
-
(http://homepage.ntlworld.com/karajorma/freespace/Misc-Pics/KennedySmall.jpg)
Kennedy killed himself.
-
yeah, i had figured all of that out by myself one night.
-
Originally posted by Clave
They just have to use mil-spec chips. They have a temperature range of -55c to +125c - of course there may not be any 3GHz processors available, but they should find something better than what they have now...
The main problem imo, is the way the whole thing is done. There must be some better method than flying straight up using all those boosters and stuff. I mean an SR-71 can almost fly into space, and land again without drama...
computer speed is no longer about clock cycle. 3ghz is like a brick wall, after that the off die bus cant keep up. even though the thing runs at 3 billion cycles a second, most cycles are just wasted while it waits for data and instructions to go to it. the military, and nasa im sure, only likes to use enough cpu power for a device to do the job it was intended for. why max out a cpu if you really dont need the extra power. they trade off excess speed for reliability. military/nasa computers really dont need to multitask, they can get away with running a single thread. the computer does only what it needs to, alot of math, rather than stupid **** like making your desktop look cool.
-
Not to mention the fact that modern chips are vastly more vulnerable to the effect of cosmic rays than older chips are.
-
The whole CEV thing is stupied. The NASA pumps most of it's funds into it, abandoning the development of a successor to the space shuttle and limiting the budget for it's space probe program. When the shuttle is decomissioned, there's no heavy cargo lifter left in service. Incidentially, the ESA cooperates with Russia on developing the Kliper reuseable spacecraft which is similar to the CEV only that it'll have it's first operational flight when the CEV is still in it's advanced planning stages. They should cooperate on that one rather than to put unbelievable ammounts of money into something that's already being developed.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
Never heard of it.
You're right. But even if they were to build more of same design, that wouldn't happen for many years. The new design won't come into service for many years too. So except for the Russians, the Chinese, and maybe the europeans, we're going to be stuck on the ground for a while.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venture_Star
No offense, but if you don't even know what one of the most revolutionary spacecraft of the 1990s is don't you think you shouldn't be ranting about how the Shuttle is bad and NASA is evil and all kinds of ****? Educate yourself a little.
-
Oh, I remember what that was now. I knew that they were developing a replacement, and that it got canned a few years ago, but I never knew what the project was called.
-
Ah yes, the Venture Star. Who knows, if it was never cancelled, we might've had our shuttle replacement by now.
-
that ship would have been the ****, stupid, stupid nasa.
-
NASA made a prodigious effort to get the X-33 (the lead-up to the full scale Venture Star) working, but was eventually defeated by immature technology.
In particular was the cryogenic hydrogen fuel tank that was to be constructed with composite materials. They could not produce the composite materials that were necessary. (Either the materials were not strong enough or they made the tank far too heavy.)
It may very well be that even today the X-33 and the VS are impossible, the refinement of technology still being insufficient to solve the more scathing problems.
The X-33 and the VS were great ideas just a little too ahead of their time. It may be some years yet before the technology needed to make them viable emerges, if that has not already happened. Even if the technology does exist today, it may not even be possible to resurrect the program (i.e. funding.)
I am sure that the lessons learned from the X-33 will be put to good use in the upcoming CEV.
-
I think the CEV is an interim craft, until the VS is technologically feasible. It seems like we're taking a step backwards with Apollo-based capsules though.
-
So...doesn't anyone in the US think that possibly NASA and all Space Programs be put on hold for the time being, so you guys can get your Economy, not to mention your Health and Education systems, back on track? I'm not saying it should be cancelled, but since you guys are putting so much cash into the Occupation force in Iraq, maybe you should cease all non-neseccary functions that put major drains on your economy...
-
I have a question about the Kliper and the CEV. Do either of them have the ability to carry things like modules for the ISS and satalites into orbit?
I looked both of them up in the Wiki, but it didn't give me that impression.
-
Originally posted by kv1at3485
NASA made a prodigious effort to get the X-33 (the lead-up to the full scale Venture Star) working, but was eventually defeated by immature technology.
In particular was the cryogenic hydrogen fuel tank that was to be constructed with composite materials. They could not produce the composite materials that were necessary. (Either the materials were not strong enough or they made the tank far too heavy.)
It may very well be that even today the X-33 and the VS are impossible, the refinement of technology still being insufficient to solve the more scathing problems.
The X-33 and the VS were great ideas just a little too ahead of their time. It may be some years yet before the technology needed to make them viable emerges, if that has not already happened. Even if the technology does exist today, it may not even be possible to resurrect the program (i.e. funding.)
I am sure that the lessons learned from the X-33 will be put to good use in the upcoming CEV.
space ship one used a composite no2 tank for its engine which worked pretty effectively. nasa needs to get away from cryo-fuel and start working with hybrid engines. they are much lighter and are pretty safe. they dont require complex plumbing like solid fuel engines, so theres less that can go wrong. anyone who has studied ss1's schematics would be supprised how simple the design is compaired to nasa hardware. ss1 is also an example of what an all composite spaceframe can do. the composite skin adds to the ships structural integrity, meaning that a lighter spaceframe may be used. the materials are also less thermally conductive than metals. also the fuel tank is epoxyed to the skin and doesnt require any structural support by the frame, it gets all the support it needs from the spacecraft's skin.
the other major thing nasa should learn from rutan is that a spacecraft, if light enough, can be slowed down in upper atmosphere and avoid a hot reentry. to slowdown from an orbital velocity in a manor to pull off a cold re-entry would be trickey, but not impossible. nasa likes to do a steep re-entry for some reason. one thing i descovered by playing orbiter, is that you can andjust your orbit so that your ship skims through the upper atmosphere, and by doing this you can bleed off excess velocity. if you enter the upper atmosphere yet still remain in an orbit of sorts so that your wings produce lift and drag essentially moving from a low orbit to high altitude flight (sorta what they want to do with high altitude passenger jets). orbit to atmoshere transition need not be a violent affair.
-
Originally posted by Kosh
I have a question about the Kliper and the CEV. Do either of them have the ability to carry things like modules for the ISS and satalites into orbit?
I looked both of them up in the Wiki, but it didn't give me that impression.
They don't, but they aren't supposed to either since they have different mission profile. They're meant to serve either as pure crew shuttles and command modules for bigger craft. They're a good step forward, since they're reuseable and offer far more space than a Soyuz capsule. They're like mini-space shuttles, but without a cargo hold. And they can be combined with several modules a form a bigger spacecraft for ong duration missions as future moon landings or mars missions.
On the havy cargo lifting front, the ESA is working on the Phoenix spaceplane. This is especially cool since if it actually gets fully developed it's going to be incorporated into the Hopper project - a 4 mile long massdriver used to accelerate spacecraft to escape velocity. Phoenix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Phoenix)
As for the NASA, it should be disbanded and reformred as new agency since it's severly hampered by monstrous buerocratic apparatus. No other space agency is being dragged down by such a
deadweight. The NASA, while being the highest funded aerospace organization, is also among the least effective ones.
-
It is anticipated that the production craft will enter use between 2015 and 2020
So there will be a 5-10 years "lag" where we will be without a cargo carrier. So, what will happen to the ISS while we wait? Does it just become vaporware?
-
Something like that. It'll be maintained by a crew of three, though that's barely enough to keep it afloat, so they won't be able to run any expreiments on the station though. They'll have to limit the crew to three since that's the maximum crew capacity of a Soyuz capsule which are docked as return and rescue vehicles. Normally, this shouldn't be the case, but in an especially smart move the NASA killed off the development of the Crew Rescue Vehicle, which would have allowed a crew of seven to stay on the ISS.
If things go by, Kliper will enter service in 2011 and allow a bigger crew on the ISS to finally being used for reasearch, even though still incomplete. So far it's only been eating up money without any other effect thanks to the NASA's homegrown stupidity.
-
Am I the only one who's become convinced that the ISS was a cataclysmic waste of money?
-
Who is in charge of the next-gen development of shuttles?
Is it NASA itself or do they outsource like the military? I'd hand this project to a private firm like Lockhead or Boeing, and say - make me a cost effective, reusable, high capacity vehicle capable of a return moon trip.
Then I'd sit back for a while.
Have a cigar, some red wine, maybe even a nice steak or three hundred...
Then eventually you'd get a good shuttle.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Am I the only one who's become convinced that the ISS was a cataclysmic waste of money?
Yes. The ISS is a weight around the necks of politicians that will force them to continue support for the exploration of space - so long as there's a very large and costly space station ready to plummet to earth, they'll be willing to spend money to keep it up there.
-
There is no official successor for the shuttle in development; there were a fewones in development some years ago but they got all killed off thanks to budget cuts. IIRC some companies are conducting independent design studies on that subject, but without an order from NASA they won't get far.
-
Originally posted by vyper
Yes. The ISS is a weight around the necks of politicians that will force them to continue support for the exploration of space - so long as there's a very large and costly space station ready to plummet to earth, they'll be willing to spend money to keep it up there.
Yeah, but keeping the ISS in orbit isn't synonymous with space exploration. A perpetually unfinished space station hanging around and sapping resources from an already impoverished space program doesn't exactly look like the march of progress.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
space ship one used a composite no2 tank for its engine which worked pretty effectively. nasa needs to get away from cryo-fuel and start working with hybrid engines. they are much lighter and are pretty safe. they dont require complex plumbing like solid fuel engines, so theres less that can go wrong. anyone who has studied ss1's schematics would be supprised how simple the design is compaired to nasa hardware. ss1 is also an example of what an all composite spaceframe can do. the composite skin adds to the ships structural integrity, meaning that a lighter spaceframe may be used. the materials are also less thermally conductive than metals. also the fuel tank is epoxyed to the skin and doesnt require any structural support by the frame, it gets all the support it needs from the spacecraft's skin.
the other major thing nasa should learn from rutan is that a spacecraft, if light enough, can be slowed down in upper atmosphere and avoid a hot reentry. to slowdown from an orbital velocity in a manor to pull off a cold re-entry would be trickey, but not impossible. nasa likes to do a steep re-entry for some reason. one thing i descovered by playing orbiter, is that you can andjust your orbit so that your ship skims through the upper atmosphere, and by doing this you can bleed off excess velocity. if you enter the upper atmosphere yet still remain in an orbit of sorts so that your wings produce lift and drag essentially moving from a low orbit to high altitude flight (sorta what they want to do with high altitude passenger jets). orbit to atmoshere transition need not be a violent affair.
The difference is scale. The shuttle is a hundred+ ton heavy launch system, spaceshipone can't even make it into orbit and is absolutely tiny in comparison. You can't just make a small proof of concept and automagically scale it up.
People are really quick to jump on the shuttle program, without seemingly realizing how bloody freaking difficult space travel actually is, particularly when you're dealing with heavy lift regimes.
Also, something people might not know of, but there's an industry proposal by the people who make shuttle components (which company escapes me at the moment) to basically make a heavylift 'shuttle' - by removing the shuttle and putting a cargo stage on top of the main fuel tank. That's an Apollo-level launch vehicle right there, if not better.
-
Not to mention that the landing method of SpaceShip one simply wouldn't work. SS1 was moving at the fraction of speed of the shuttle at a far lower height. If anything shuttlesized tried to deorbit the say ss1 did no piece of it arriving the the ground would be larger than a suitcase.
-
i view space ship one as more a successfull test of the indivitual systems rather than the functionality of the whole ship. mainly composite spaceframe and hybrid engines were the major advances. i dont see rutan's re-entry meathod working on a large scale.
the thing about re-entry is that nasa always does it broadside at extreme velocity and a steep angle of descent. rutan's meathod was unique but was just a variation of nasa's reentry philosophy. my idea is to enter the atmosphere nose first in an extremely well streamlined vehicle at a very shallow angle (nearly paralell to the surface). the idea is to enter with as little drag possible and actually skim the upper atmosphere to decelerate more slowly. nasa has us all think that the atmosphere is like a brick wall, its far more gradiated than that. you would burn retrograde so that the ship skims through ultra low density atmosphere. you would then fire another burn retrograde again untill your orbital trajectory is paralell to the surface. you would then fly, decelerating, until it is no longer posible to maintain altitude. after that you would be in glide mode. it would require fancy piloting, complex planning, and balls of steel, most of wich nasa doesnt care about.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
...it would require fancy piloting, complex planning, and balls of steel, most of wich nasa doesnt care about.
:nod: Sounds like what should be the requirements for an astronaut to me.
-
theese guys can fly by their guts, the problem is that nasa wont let them. they do not recognize that flying is more of an art than a science. rutan understands this. melvill didnt get out of that spin with fancy calculations.
-
SS1 was nothing revolutionary. The technology and theory existed already for decades, it only pioneered in the field of private semi-spaceflight. Rutan's craft did no reentry. It still was in the upper layers of the atmosphere at a relatively low velocity, so it was able to use the air to brake. That's a luxury which an orbiter can't afford. Retro rockets would solve the problem, but since you'd need lots of thrust to achieve that it'd add siginificant weight to the craft limiting it's lifting capability which would defeat the concept of a cargo lifting capability.
And nuke your post reads like you think the way the shuttles enter atmosphere the result of the nasa conspiracy to hide the true nature of the upper atmosphere from the common men.:doubt:
-
no, what happens is when you start something new you come up with several possible ways to solve the problem. so you pick the meathod you think will work best at the time. once you have worked with that solution for some time you simple forget that there are other possibilities. its not so much conspiricy as it is conservatisim. go with what has worked in the past, and foregt about other possible ways to solve the problem. but as the technology change, the best way to solve a problem may also change. nasa wants to stay in its comfort zone, rather than take a risk doing something that can potential to work better.
-
No. There have been countless experienced people and companies working on developing shuttle concepts as well as studies on shuttle successors and various other spacecraft; so if some guy on an odd internet forum could come up with that solution, you can be sure that they could've thought of that as well.
Entering an atmosphere is not a matter of fancy piloting and balls of steel, since when your balls are wrong your pieces are splattered onto a hundred mile corridor. The one time you make a mistake you are finished.
-
they probibly wouldnt want to try my idea bacause of the question marks. that does not mean it wouldnt work. il know am wrong when i see my idea fail. ive yet to see that.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Yeah, but keeping the ISS in orbit isn't synonymous with space exploration. A perpetually unfinished space station hanging around and sapping resources from an already impoverished space program doesn't exactly look like the march of progress.
It used to be. From what I read about it on the Wiki, it was NASA that screwed everything up. Now all the other space agencies are angry at NASA. I could be mistaken though.
-
Would you be willing to bet people's lives on proving yourself wrong or right?
And anyway, the reason NASA doesn't let it's pilots fly on "gut instinct" and "balls of steel" is because not all pilots are equal. If NASA put all their trust in the pilot's skill, then what happens when a bad pilot goes up there? You lose ten people and fourty billion dollars worth of equipment - because you entrusted all of that to a pilot's gut instinct.
It works for simple things like flying an atmospheric aircraft (it's simple and easy, don't tell me it's not, because I've done it), but not for complex things where a simple degree off to the wrong side can destroy everything.
-
in that case il fly the damn thing, im getting really good at orbiter :D
seriously what sounds safer, a hot reentry in a plasma ball pulling 3 or 4 gs, or a cold one where you pull about 1.5-2gs, have constant radio contact, and a smoother interface into areodynamic flight. they are too comfortable with the existing system, than to test concepts that could be far more practical and much safer.
-
you sound like one of those guys who goes on about military tactics because you've played some counterstrike and think you know everything. come on now, this IS rocket science, if you'r going to make some claimms like this at least make some calculations and show us something more than "I know better than every profesional space agency in history, trust me".
out of curiosity, have you tested this in that space simulator thing?
-
Here is the problem: You are coming into an atmosphere at an incredibly fast velocity. The heat is caused by the friction between the atmosphere and the shuttle.
I'm not so sure that the angle of re-entry really matters. The outside of the shuttle would get extremely hot.
-
The angle certainly does matter. That's one of the main reasons reentry is such a precise process.
I think Nuke is right. There are better ways to travel into and out of orbit, but we just don't have the money.
-
Originally posted by Nuke
no, what happens is when you start something new you come up with several possible ways to solve the problem. so you pick the meathod you think will work best at the time. once you have worked with that solution for some time you simple forget that there are other possibilities. its not so much conspiricy as it is conservatisim. go with what has worked in the past, and foregt about other possible ways to solve the problem. but as the technology change, the best way to solve a problem may also change. nasa wants to stay in its comfort zone, rather than take a risk doing something that can potential to work better.
Source up or shut up.
-
my point is if you put your craft in the spot where theres only a few atmospheric molecules per cubic meter and keep it there for a long period of time, you will eventually slow down to safe speed without the deathly side effects of plasma heat buildup. when the shuttle re-entteres its always hitting denser air because its coming in at 45 degrees buttom first. i know i dont have any data mainly because i suck at math. its an abstract idea that people with the power of geekyness should examine. i do foree a number of obstacles that need to be overcome. you would have to be able to generate adequit areodynamic lift in a near vaccume environment. you also have to be able to have extreemly percise control in the same environment. maintaining altitude would be very difficult. you would have to take creat care not to loose control and re-enter space, as it would cause you to re-enter at an angle your craft wasnt intended to. its like surfing, but whipeout is fatal. probibly would need some high tempurature composits.
i tried this in orbiter, but orbiter has a poor means of simulating death caused by airframe stresses and re-entry screwups. id need to be able to measure hull tempurature and drag induced deceleration to know if it stands a chance of working. i should e-mail a bunch of aerospace people and see what they think.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
Source up or shut up.
my ass :D
-
Originally posted by Kosh
The heat is caused by the friction between the atmosphere and the shuttle.
Actually no. The heat is caused by the shuttle compressing the air ahead of it as it descends not by friction at all. Look at the shape of the Apollo mission re-entry capsules. Do those look like something that has been steamlined to reduce friction to you? :D