Nasa needed this thats for sure. Shuttle just isnt a reliable or cheap enough way to space. We need a new machine made with todays tech and we need a machine that can go high orbit or better. Shuttle is a big fat pork barrel pig thats not only killed but has costed the US tax payer billions and never has lived up to any of its promises. Retire the shuttle and lets go explore space instead of the dicking around in endless low orbit.
Yeah. Surely there's a "better" way to launch people into outer space 25 years after the launch of the first shuttle.
Keep running the space station, but let's send some folks out to Mars and skip even the moon. We've had humans in space long enough for them to be away for a LONG time -- like on a mission to Mars.
Heck, if I were an astronaut, I'd sign up to have my name in the history books even if it meant I might not come back.
For a trip to Mars we'll need some alternate propulsion like nuclear fission rockets. They'll of course only be used at a safe distance from Earth's atmosphere, using conventional chemical rockets but once on route to the red planet, NuFis all the way.
And once we get past the engineering hurdle in creating centrifugal gravity ships, there will be less health concerns about extended time in space for humans.
For a trip to Mars we'll need some alternate propulsion like nuclear fission rockets. They'll of course only be used at a safe distance from Earth's atmosphere, using conventional chemical rockets but once on route to the red planet, NuFis all the way.
And once we get past the engineering hurdle in creating centrifugal gravity ships, there will be less health concerns about extended time in space for humans.
With a launch success rate of about 95%, I don't think I want to have that 5% chance of the nuclear material blowing up on the launch pad or up in the atmosphere.
Yeah. Surely there's a "better" way to launch people into outer space 25 years after the launch of the first shuttle.
\
No kidding. Nasa and many private companies are doing a lot of work with non-chemical propulsion. Ultimately, the one that will win is electrostatic propulsion (assumed to be gravity drive), but there's a lot of science that needs to happen first, and presumably a lot of energy research that needs to happen, since running electrostatic engines takes a lot of electricity.
On another note, I took a break from work at 10:30 to watch it go up. (I do actually live where it says I live. . . more or less.)
With a launch success rate of about 95%, I don't think I want to have that 5% chance of the nuclear material blowing up on the launch pad or up in the atmosphere.
Even with chemical propulsion, there are safe ways of containing nuclear material in the event of a catastrophic explosion. There are other ways of getting things in orbit as well. Check out the Space Plane for low earth orbit entry.
Put the frelling shuttle in a museum -- that's where they belong. And do it quick before more people get killed.
Also, why send humans to Mars when robots can do essentially the same thing? We could, for the same money, explore 100 times the amount of our SS with robots rather than with humans.
Put the frelling shuttle in a museum -- that's where they belong. And do it quick before more people get killed.
Also, why send humans to Mars when robots can do essentially the same thing? We could, for the same money, explore 100 times the amount of our SS with robots rather than with humans.
Candidate for Signature of the Week, regarding risk and exploration...
Quote:
"A ship is safe at harbor, but that isn't what ships were designed for. Sail out and try new things."
Rear Admiral Grace Hopper - Grandmother of today's computers.
Armstrong and Aldrin have both spoken eloquently on the value of human spaceflight as an addition to robotic exploration, and as for the inspirational factors, while Sputnik was certainly a stimulus, Gagarin, Tereshkova, Armstrong, and Aldrin are probably more admired.
The Florida Today article above cites a graphic tracking recent discoveries of humans vs robots, (although it predates both the MER Rovers and the Cassini Mission to Saturn which would now make the list) and I wouldn't disagree that the Hubble has probably done more to inspire than most LEO trips, but Hubble would still be out of focus if it weren't for human servicing.
I'm usually the first to post updates to my threads on Mars and Saturn exploration (huge fan of space science that I am), but much of that dream is built around joining that club in person, not just sending probes.
Don't just take NASA's work for it... see also the French view
Also... the image that arguably kick started the environment movement and woke millions of blue planet dwellers up to the fragile and fantastic wonder of our place in the universe wasn't taken by a droid, it was snapped by Lovell, Borman and Anders of Apollo 8.
I've heard the shuttle still uses 5.25" floppy drives, so yes, it belongs in a museum.
There was a previous thread that mentioned the candidates for the next shuttle. 25 years for a space shuttle is just too long. Technology is advancing way too rapidly for that.
The next fleet should be mandated for 7 years of use, with the next generation on the drawing boards as the new fleet is launched.
I've heard the shuttle still uses 5.25" floppy drives, so yes, it belongs in a museum.
I've been watching NASA TV in the days leading up to the launch today, and there was an interesting program on there. This guy from NASA led viewers through the step by step jist of the entire mission.
He mentioned that people always ask, "Why use such old computers on the shuttle?" His reply was basically "because we know they'll work flawlessly."
He continued: "With all due respect to Mr. Gates and his company, you don't want to have to hit Control + Alt + Delete in the middle of a launch."
No kidding. Nasa and many private companies are doing a lot of work with non-chemical propulsion. Ultimately, the one that will win is electrostatic propulsion (assumed to be gravity drive), but there's a lot of science that needs to happen first, and presumably a lot of energy research that needs to happen, since running electrostatic engines takes a lot of electricity.
On another note, I took a break from work at 10:30 to watch it go up. (I do actually live where it says I live. . . more or less.)
heh cool
well basically what we have is that okay, we've got all the newtonian physics down pat. launching stuff up fast and getting it to dock with the space station, tracking all that shit with computers and algorithms and stuff, sweet.
mars mission ~ we could do it in 10-20years with current propulsion technologies but i don't know, there's something in the quantum physics and fusion realm that i sense needs to be cracked to really do mars and beyond manned missions without spending trillions of dollars. and you really need next gen propulsion to not be so dependent on launch windows.
definitely next gen propulsion that hits 0.01% of the speed of light would be sweet. just 55 days to the sun :thumbs:
as i mentioned somewhere here months ago, and some Ainsiders contributed, we are way too far down the curve for any sort of 'moore's law for space travel' to kick in yet.
anyway, dug up my propulsion calculations:
speed of light is 292,792 kilometres per second
the space shuttle's on-orbit speed is about 8 kilometres per second.
Thats about 0.002% light speed
at light speed, 8 minutes from here to the Sun
10% light speed, 1 hour 20 minutes from here to the Sun
1% light speed, 13 or so hours from here to the Sun
0.1% light speed, 5 or so days from here to the Sun
0.01% light speed, 55 or so days from here to the Sun
0.001% light speed, 550 or so days from here to the Sun
0.0001% light speed, 15 years from here to the Sun
this 'theoretical' technology says it could make a probe reach 60 kilometres per second. That's about 0.02% light speed
Well, that was short-lived. The shuttle program is grounded once again due to problems with the foam insulation. Fortunately Discovery's crew is not in harms way -- it seems -- but future crews could be with things the way they still are.
Comments
Keep running the space station, but let's send some folks out to Mars and skip even the moon. We've had humans in space long enough for them to be away for a LONG time -- like on a mission to Mars.
Heck, if I were an astronaut, I'd sign up to have my name in the history books even if it meant I might not come back.
And once we get past the engineering hurdle in creating centrifugal gravity ships, there will be less health concerns about extended time in space for humans.
Originally posted by Outsider
For a trip to Mars we'll need some alternate propulsion like nuclear fission rockets. They'll of course only be used at a safe distance from Earth's atmosphere, using conventional chemical rockets but once on route to the red planet, NuFis all the way.
And once we get past the engineering hurdle in creating centrifugal gravity ships, there will be less health concerns about extended time in space for humans.
With a launch success rate of about 95%, I don't think I want to have that 5% chance of the nuclear material blowing up on the launch pad or up in the atmosphere.
Originally posted by CosmoNut
Yeah. Surely there's a "better" way to launch people into outer space 25 years after the launch of the first shuttle.
No kidding. Nasa and many private companies are doing a lot of work with non-chemical propulsion. Ultimately, the one that will win is electrostatic propulsion (assumed to be gravity drive), but there's a lot of science that needs to happen first, and presumably a lot of energy research that needs to happen, since running electrostatic engines takes a lot of electricity.
On another note, I took a break from work at 10:30 to watch it go up. (I do actually live where it says I live. . . more or less.)
Originally posted by Existence
With a launch success rate of about 95%, I don't think I want to have that 5% chance of the nuclear material blowing up on the launch pad or up in the atmosphere.
Even with chemical propulsion, there are safe ways of containing nuclear material in the event of a catastrophic explosion. There are other ways of getting things in orbit as well. Check out the Space Plane for low earth orbit entry.
Also, why send humans to Mars when robots can do essentially the same thing? We could, for the same money, explore 100 times the amount of our SS with robots rather than with humans.
Originally posted by dmz
Put the frelling shuttle in a museum -- that's where they belong. And do it quick before more people get killed.
Also, why send humans to Mars when robots can do essentially the same thing? We could, for the same money, explore 100 times the amount of our SS with robots rather than with humans.
Candidate for Signature of the Week, regarding risk and exploration...
"A ship is safe at harbor, but that isn't what ships were designed for. Sail out and try new things."
Rear Admiral Grace Hopper - Grandmother of today's computers.
Why Send Humans to Space?
Armstrong and Aldrin have both spoken eloquently on the value of human spaceflight as an addition to robotic exploration, and as for the inspirational factors, while Sputnik was certainly a stimulus, Gagarin, Tereshkova, Armstrong, and Aldrin are probably more admired.
The Florida Today article above cites a graphic tracking recent discoveries of humans vs robots, (although it predates both the MER Rovers and the Cassini Mission to Saturn which would now make the list) and I wouldn't disagree that the Hubble has probably done more to inspire than most LEO trips, but Hubble would still be out of focus if it weren't for human servicing.
I'm usually the first to post updates to my threads on Mars and Saturn exploration (huge fan of space science that I am), but much of that dream is built around joining that club in person, not just sending probes.
Don't just take NASA's work for it... see also the French view
Also... the image that arguably kick started the environment movement and woke millions of blue planet dwellers up to the fragile and fantastic wonder of our place in the universe wasn't taken by a droid, it was snapped by Lovell, Borman and Anders of Apollo 8.
Ad Luna, Ad Ares, Ad Astra
There was a previous thread that mentioned the candidates for the next shuttle. 25 years for a space shuttle is just too long. Technology is advancing way too rapidly for that.
The next fleet should be mandated for 7 years of use, with the next generation on the drawing boards as the new fleet is launched.
Originally posted by Frank777
I've heard the shuttle still uses 5.25" floppy drives, so yes, it belongs in a museum.
I've been watching NASA TV in the days leading up to the launch today, and there was an interesting program on there. This guy from NASA led viewers through the step by step jist of the entire mission.
He mentioned that people always ask, "Why use such old computers on the shuttle?" His reply was basically "because we know they'll work flawlessly."
He continued: "With all due respect to Mr. Gates and his company, you don't want to have to hit Control + Alt + Delete in the middle of a launch."
Originally posted by Splinemodel
No kidding. Nasa and many private companies are doing a lot of work with non-chemical propulsion. Ultimately, the one that will win is electrostatic propulsion (assumed to be gravity drive), but there's a lot of science that needs to happen first, and presumably a lot of energy research that needs to happen, since running electrostatic engines takes a lot of electricity.
On another note, I took a break from work at 10:30 to watch it go up. (I do actually live where it says I live. . . more or less.)
heh
well basically what we have is that okay, we've got all the newtonian physics down pat. launching stuff up fast and getting it to dock with the space station, tracking all that shit with computers and algorithms and stuff, sweet.
mars mission ~ we could do it in 10-20years with current propulsion technologies but i don't know, there's something in the quantum physics and fusion realm that i sense needs to be cracked to really do mars and beyond manned missions without spending trillions of dollars. and you really need next gen propulsion to not be so dependent on launch windows.
definitely next gen propulsion that hits 0.01% of the speed of light would be sweet. just 55 days to the sun :thumbs:
as i mentioned somewhere here months ago, and some Ainsiders contributed, we are way too far down the curve for any sort of 'moore's law for space travel' to kick in yet.
anyway, dug up my propulsion calculations:
speed of light is 292,792 kilometres per second
the space shuttle's on-orbit speed is about 8 kilometres per second.
Thats about 0.002% light speed
at light speed, 8 minutes from here to the Sun
10% light speed, 1 hour 20 minutes from here to the Sun
1% light speed, 13 or so hours from here to the Sun
0.1% light speed, 5 or so days from here to the Sun
0.01% light speed, 55 or so days from here to the Sun
0.001% light speed, 550 or so days from here to the Sun
0.0001% light speed, 15 years from here to the Sun
this 'theoretical' technology says it could make a probe reach 60 kilometres per second. That's about 0.02% light speed
http://www.space.com/businesstechno...ail_050211.html
(edit: link appears to be down now. maybe the US government in cahoots with the aliens didn't want that technology out yet
THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE (cue x files theme music)
Originally posted by sunilraman
heh
this 'theoretical' technology says it could make a probe reach 60 kilometres per second. That's about 0.02% light speed
http://www.space.com/businesstechno...ail_050211.html
Ion drives should be able to get faster than that, athough the acceleration is weak, so I'm not sure what the average speed is.
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Ion drives should be able to get faster than that, athough the acceleration is weak, so I'm not sure what the average speed is.
yeah another thing for manned space travel around the solar system with next gen propulsion stuff:
time to invent those inertial-damper things we've been watching and reading about for quite some time