I heard a space shuttle columbia joke this afternoon. It was pretty funny. However, I'm sure some of you think it is too soon so I will refrain from posting it in this thread. PM me if you want to hear it.
<strong>Sure the space program should go on but maybe they should reconsider if it's worth it to have a shuttle program.
Not because it's dangerous but because it cost so friggen much. The shuttle is a rather inefficient way of getting people up and down.
Maybe the money could be better spent? How many RC cars could we have sent to Mars with the cost of one shuttle?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you're talking about something I know quite a bit about.
If we are to be serious about space flight we need the space station. For that we need something like the shuttle.
Really we should have built the space station before going to the moon. But, that wasn't as dramatic. Also there was the Soviets and at that time it was important to beat them as a political statement for the cold war.
Now your talking about something I know quite a bit about.
If we are to be serious about space flight we need the space station. For that we need something like the shuttle.
Really we should have built the space station before going to the moon. But, that was not as dramatic. Also there was the Soviets and at that time it was important to beat them for the cold war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Carbon nanotubes are the way to go. Once the technology is developed enough, an elevator with one end latched to an aircraft carrier in the pacific ocean and the other end attatched to a satellite or space station in geosynchronous orbit would be possible. Then all that is needed is electricity to move objects into orbit.
Carbon nanotubes are the way to go. Once the technology is developed enough, an elevator with one end latched to an aircraft carrier in the pacific ocean and the other end attatched to a satellite or space station in geosynchronous orbit would be possible. Then all that is needed is electricity to move objects into orbit.
While this is ultimately true we need a reuseable space craft to build the space station in the first place. Also if something happens to the elevator they need a way down.
Just to make it clear this Maglift elevator or whatever approach they use would only work for earth orbit missions. Missions to other planets require a space craft. Besides we still need the experience. In order to learn to swim you have to get your feet wet.
While this is ultimately true we need a reuseable space craft to build the space station in the first place. Also if something happens to the elevator they need a way down.
Just to make it clear this Maglift elevator or whatever approach they use would only work for earth orbit missions. Missions to other planets require a space craft. Besides we still need the experience. In order to learn to swim you have to get your feet wet.
they should have known the wing was potentially damaged from the launch and had them eject shortly after launch <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" />
Just listen this bad new on the radio. Contrary what we think, Space is still a dangerous adventure. Since the beginning of man in space, 18 people died in space. That's a lot, and not that much.
<strong>they should have known the wing was potentially damaged from the launch and had them eject shortly after launch <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadly, even if they knew for certain the wing was damaged and likely to cause a disaster, I'm not sure anything could have been done about it.
Once launched, I think they were stuck in the shuttle until it reached orbit. Once in orbit, even if they could perform a space walk, I'm not sure they'd have the necessary tools or parts to perform a repair.
I guess they would have had to of gone up and come down regardless, even if it mean't certain disaster. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
Now you're talking about something I know quite a bit about.
If we are to be serious about space flight we need the space station. For that we need something like the shuttle.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I read once that the argument for the shuttle was that it was reusable. The flaw in this was that it costs more to refit a shuttle for its next mission than it does to build a one-shot rocket.
Of course if they had went with the disposable rocket technology then instead of flying in a decades-old shuttle the astronauts would have been in a brand new nth generation rocket based on decades of technological improvements.
The question then is whether the inevitable teething problems would have cost more lives than using the tried and tested old technology.
<strong>Just listen this bad new on the radio. Contrary what we think, Space is still a dangerous adventure. Since the beginning of man in space, 18 people died in space. That's a lot, and not that much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering what's entailed in sending humans to space and back again, from when it began (late 50s--early 60s), and with what technology (I read that a current Mr. Coffee has more computing power than Apollo 11--I may be wrong), it's amazing that more fatalities haven't occured.
Considering what's entailed in sending humans to space and back again, from when it began (late 50s--early 60s), and with what technology (I read that a current Mr. Coffee has more computing power than Apollo 11--I may be wrong), it's amazing that more fatalities haven't occured.</strong><hr></blockquote>
These days with the technology we have, I wonder whether its necessary to send humans into space at all. Why not use unmanned craft? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Just listen this bad new on the radio. Contrary what we think, Space is still a dangerous adventure. Since the beginning of man in space, 18 people died in space. That's a lot, and not that much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Has anybody actually died in "space?" I wonder if NASA will count them as lost in space. 39 miles is just above the stratosphere, but well below the exosphere (?)
Why didnt the shuttle dock with the space station and then they could potentially repair the shuttle from there? Maybe just get into the space station and then release the shuttle as space junk. The astronauts could have been picked up later on another mission.
Comments
Not because it's dangerous but because it cost so friggen much. The shuttle is a rather inefficient way of getting people up and down.
Maybe the money could be better spent? How many RC cars could we have sent to Mars with the cost of one shuttle?
<strong>Sure the space program should go on but maybe they should reconsider if it's worth it to have a shuttle program.
Not because it's dangerous but because it cost so friggen much. The shuttle is a rather inefficient way of getting people up and down.
Maybe the money could be better spent? How many RC cars could we have sent to Mars with the cost of one shuttle?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Now you're talking about something I know quite a bit about.
If we are to be serious about space flight we need the space station. For that we need something like the shuttle.
Really we should have built the space station before going to the moon. But, that wasn't as dramatic. Also there was the Soviets and at that time it was important to beat them as a political statement for the cold war.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
Now your talking about something I know quite a bit about.
If we are to be serious about space flight we need the space station. For that we need something like the shuttle.
Really we should have built the space station before going to the moon. But, that was not as dramatic. Also there was the Soviets and at that time it was important to beat them for the cold war.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Carbon nanotubes are the way to go. Once the technology is developed enough, an elevator with one end latched to an aircraft carrier in the pacific ocean and the other end attatched to a satellite or space station in geosynchronous orbit would be possible. Then all that is needed is electricity to move objects into orbit.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</p>
<strong>
Carbon nanotubes are the way to go. Once the technology is developed enough, an elevator with one end latched to an aircraft carrier in the pacific ocean and the other end attatched to a satellite or space station in geosynchronous orbit would be possible. Then all that is needed is electricity to move objects into orbit.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: BR ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
While this is ultimately true we need a reuseable space craft to build the space station in the first place. Also if something happens to the elevator they need a way down.
Just to make it clear this Maglift elevator or whatever approach they use would only work for earth orbit missions. Missions to other planets require a space craft. Besides we still need the experience. In order to learn to swim you have to get your feet wet.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</p>
<strong>
While this is ultimately true we need a reuseable space craft to build the space station in the first place. Also if something happens to the elevator they need a way down.
Just to make it clear this Maglift elevator or whatever approach they use would only work for earth orbit missions. Missions to other planets require a space craft. Besides we still need the experience. In order to learn to swim you have to get your feet wet.
[ 02-02-2003: Message edited by: jimmac ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Of course...but once the elevator is built, all ships could be assembled in space...
<strong>
Of course...but once the elevator is built, all ships could be assembled in space...</strong><hr></blockquote>
God, I don't think I could stand a couple hundred miles of elevator music.
<strong>they should have known the wing was potentially damaged from the launch and had them eject shortly after launch <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[oyvey]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
Sadly, even if they knew for certain the wing was damaged and likely to cause a disaster, I'm not sure anything could have been done about it.
Once launched, I think they were stuck in the shuttle until it reached orbit. Once in orbit, even if they could perform a space walk, I'm not sure they'd have the necessary tools or parts to perform a repair.
I guess they would have had to of gone up and come down regardless, even if it mean't certain disaster. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>
Now you're talking about something I know quite a bit about.
If we are to be serious about space flight we need the space station. For that we need something like the shuttle.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
I read once that the argument for the shuttle was that it was reusable. The flaw in this was that it costs more to refit a shuttle for its next mission than it does to build a one-shot rocket.
Of course if they had went with the disposable rocket technology then instead of flying in a decades-old shuttle the astronauts would have been in a brand new nth generation rocket based on decades of technological improvements.
The question then is whether the inevitable teething problems would have cost more lives than using the tried and tested old technology.
1. they have lost tiles before on launch, it's never been a problem.
2. they aren't sure that's what the problem was this time
3. they weren't equipped for a spacewalk anyway
4. even if they were, you can't repair those tiles
it was a situation where there was nothing that could be done about it. it just happened not to go well this time.
<strong>Just listen this bad new on the radio. Contrary what we think, Space is still a dangerous adventure. Since the beginning of man in space, 18 people died in space. That's a lot, and not that much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Considering what's entailed in sending humans to space and back again, from when it began (late 50s--early 60s), and with what technology (I read that a current Mr. Coffee has more computing power than Apollo 11--I may be wrong), it's amazing that more fatalities haven't occured.
<strong>
Considering what's entailed in sending humans to space and back again, from when it began (late 50s--early 60s), and with what technology (I read that a current Mr. Coffee has more computing power than Apollo 11--I may be wrong), it's amazing that more fatalities haven't occured.</strong><hr></blockquote>
These days with the technology we have, I wonder whether its necessary to send humans into space at all. Why not use unmanned craft? <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
<strong>Just listen this bad new on the radio. Contrary what we think, Space is still a dangerous adventure. Since the beginning of man in space, 18 people died in space. That's a lot, and not that much.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Has anybody actually died in "space?" I wonder if NASA will count them as lost in space. 39 miles is just above the stratosphere, but well below the exosphere (?)