[Crazy_Ivan80]

Originally posted by Kosh



Not really considering that the Russians came out with a virtually identicle copy a few years later.

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.

[Kosh]

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.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

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.

[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.

[Kosh]

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.

[EtherShock]

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.

[aldo_14]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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 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 ). 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.

[Nuke]

Originally posted by Raa
oooor we could research stronger materials. Perhaps some sort of metalic-ceramic composite, strengthened with more metal and ceramics?

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Taristin]

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.

[Unknown Target]

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.

[Mefustae]

Post deleted so as to avoid further tarnish of my already grubby name *Sheepish look*

[Mongoose]

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? 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?

[Bobboau]

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...

[Solatar]

So those people telling me the moon landings are faked because my country sucks don't really exist?

Well that's a relief...

[Unknown Target]

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 ) and watch as how it is never straight in the wind, but waves instead.

[karajorma]

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 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.

[Mefustae]

...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 ( ), 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...

[karajorma]

Another soul wrenched from the jaws of stupidity!


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.