|
This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. |
1
2
|
NASA |
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
I'm just bewildered by the ammount of money and time NASA spends on making sure their missions are safe. Due to the Colombia disaster we've basically redone the entire shuttle tank and took two years to get back on track. The problem is that you cannot make anything foolproof, you can better your odds of a successful liftoff/return but if you think about it space and reentry are very dangerous, one of the most dangerous things to do. The shuttles are very aged and continue to get older and older as well. I know NASA did what it had to do due to govt and public outcry, but you can't erase what happened either. I think the money should of been spent to design and make a new modern shuttle, or at least replace the one we lost. We are down to I think 3 shuttles now? I'm just curious what everyone else thinks... I'm just glad that finally a private sector of possible space flights may be taking shape... NASA just has too much to deal with. Also what do you think about Hubble... it's old as well. In fact there is good reason to just let it slowly die because there are plans for a much better telescope that will operate at a much lower cost than Hubble. Everyone is attached to Hubble though, I guess it's like a name brand or something, if it's not Hubble we don't care or something. Who knows though we may send up the newer telescope only to have it fail... then we will be without a space telescope for a long long time. ___________________________________ |
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
|
I agree, NASA should have spent the money on designing a better shuttle. But the gov't doesn't seem to care too much about space exploration as of late, which is very bad since we need new sources of minerals/etc. As for the hubble, it can be upgraded and kept in use along with any other telescope they send up. |
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
I disagree that the govt doesn't seem to care, proposals of rovers and another manned mission to the moon are on the agenda, we will also probably see rovers on Titan and a manned mission to mars in our lifetime... hopefully. ___________________________________ |
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
|
Those aren't signs that they care. Sending missions out simply to look for data is pointless right now. We need missions that will actually be good for us. Take the moon, from what I know the moon has big deposits of titanium among other minerals. We need to establish mining bases on the moon as soon as possible for minerals and as a ready made space station. |
Tobias Dammers
Member #2,604
August 2002
|
Quote: We need to establish mining bases on the moon as soon as possible Shouldn't we rather be dealing with issues on Earth? Like, world peace and stuff? Just imagine a world without armies... the titanium we have here would definitely last longer... --- |
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
World peace will never happen... sorry to sound so pesimistic ___________________________________ |
Ron Ofir
Member #2,357
May 2002
|
Conquering the moon or whatever you want to call it will surely just make things here worse. I just don't know about this developing outside of Earth thingy, sounds too futurestic or something |
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
|
Earth isn't going to get any better so might as well mess up other planets/moons in the process no? More minerals = more money/greed/wars = good thing |
Richard Phipps
Member #1,632
November 2001
|
It costs so much money and resources to put a rocket into space. So how will mining the moon prove profitable? |
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
|
The constant flow of minerals to take over other countries and their resources? Besides, if that space elevator takes shape, the cost of going to the moon will go down a lot. |
Avenger
Member #4,550
April 2004
|
Who are "we"???? EDIT: Slight correction
|
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
The whole idea behind a moon base is this: Aigh that space elevator plan... I dunno about that I mean really, you would have to declare air space and have one hell of an anchor point Avenger? Who are you refering to? ___________________________________ |
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
|
They should give about 5-25$ billion to develop a space elevator. The cost of getting stuff to space would get down 100-1000 times if not more. For the money US spent on Iraq war we could have had colonies on Mars in next decade. I think most countries should invest more money in science. It pays off in the long run. Too bad everybody want to get rich immediately:-/ __________ |
Steve Terry
Member #1,989
March 2002
|
Money is the reason for our demise ___________________________________ |
X-G
Member #856
December 2000
|
Quote: Shouldn't we rather be dealing with issues on Earth? You will never establish reunion with Earth if you don't colonize the moon as soon as possible... (Vague Amiga game reference.) -- |
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
|
Quote: For the money US spent on Iraq war we could have had colonies on Mars in next decade. Apparenlty, sacrificing your citizens and spreading "democracy" is more important than keeping your country alive and advanced. |
HoHo
Member #4,534
April 2004
|
People are different(wealth, belief). Different people can't live together in peace. They can try but it won't last forever. Only thing that might look like peace is when bigger countries occupy smaller ones and make them a part of them. Then wars between countries will end but internal problems will rise. It's just like Tchecheny and Russia. Russia occupied Tchecheny some time ago and "ended" the war that way. They gave allmost the same reason for doing it as US gave for their wars: fighting terrorists. Hopefully Estonia won't be occupied by russians or US for me talking like this:D __________ |
SonShadowCat
Member #1,548
September 2001
|
Bush might call you a terrorist. |
OICW
Member #4,069
November 2003
|
SSC: Don't say this name. [My website][CppReference][Pixelate][Allegators worldwide][Who's online] |
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
|
The Columbia accident occurred because NASA had never considered insulating foam to be a threat to the shuttle. Intsy-tintsy foam and space-age alloy leading edge, who would've thought it? So they redesigned the tank to get the shuttle going again. Redesigning the tank was orders of magnitude cheaper than building a replacement. The shuttle will be retired when the ISS is finished (international space station). That will be ~2010. Nasa has put a request for proposals for the shuttle successor; the CEV. They are scheduled to have a 'fly-off' like the f-22 and joint strike fighter competitions in 2008. The CEV is supposed to an Apollo/Soyuz type of capsule. The CEV is going to be a primary building block of future manned space exploration. The shuttle, although cool and worth alot of propaganda currency during the cold war was a turn down a wrong road. The system is just to complex to become the cheaply operated space-truck that was envisioned. The Hubble: In My Opinion the hubble should be scrapped. Land based telescopes (the European Souther Observatory) get better pictures using 'adaptive optics'. The hubble was great, revolutionary, but it's time is passed. A mission to repair the Hubble would cost ~ $1 billion; that's alot even for a shuttle mission. It served us well, we should just let it go. On ward and upward. Quote: It costs so much money and resources to put a rocket into space. So how will mining the moon prove profitable? One kilometer diameter nickel/iron asteroid contains $10 trillion + of material. Quote: They should give about 5-25$ billion to develop a space elevator. The cost of getting stuff to space would get down 100-1000 times if not more. The technology for the space elevator is not ready yet and may never be. The entire feasibility of the thing hinges on making carbon nanotube polymers. It's not known if thats even possible yet. Quote: you would have to declare air space and have one hell of an anchor point Net weight at the ground would be zero . Quote: Shouldn't we rather be dealing with issues on Earth? Like, world peace and stuff? Die hippy scum! My question for you guys is; wtf do you do on the internet? You sure as h3ll don't read or research anything. |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Quote: The shuttle, although cool and worth alot of propaganda currency during the cold war was a turn down a wrong road. The system is just to complex to become the cheaply operated space-truck that was envisioned.
Absolutely. It's also quite a bit larger than it has to be, because they wanted it to be able to carry a lot of cargo. It was a niceprestige project, but in the long run, it has slowed things down. Quote: The Hubble: In My Opinion the hubble should be scrapped. Land based telescopes (the European Souther Observatory) get better pictures using 'adaptive optics'. The hubble was great, revolutionary, but it's time is passed. A mission to repair the Hubble would cost ~ $1 billion; that's alot even for a shuttle mission. It served us well, we should just let it go. On ward and upward.
While it functions, use it. Orbital telescopes have their uses, especially in infra red and gamma ray observations (which the Hubble of course doesn't do). Quote: Shouldn't we rather be dealing with issues on Earth? Like, world peace and stuff? Actually, no, we shouldn't. You can never tell what good science will bring to mankind. Beside which, that statement presumes that effort that is being spend doing research could be spend as easily on finding world peace. This reminds me of a letter I read in a magazine the other day: someone wrote that `scientists' should stop researching physics and astronomy and do something useful for a change, `like cure cancer'. As if science were not so specialized that you can't even fully comprehend what your colleague across teh corridor is doing, let alone someone in an unrelated discipline. That said, I think people in general don't really understand how a science facility operates... I'm reading Dan Brown's Angels & Demons and, well... |
Carrus85
Member #2,633
August 2002
|
Well, building on the moon would save us a lot, theoretically. First of all, since the atomosphere is next to non-existant, it would be next to zero enviromental impact to launch anything from the moon. Also, you could build massive objects and only have to expend a fraction of the energy to reach escape velocity of the moon's gravity. Space exploration would take off rather quickly if we were to colonize the moon. I mean, consider that the moon would be much easier to lanuch stuff from, and you wouldn't have to ship everything elsewhere. For energy, you could even use nuclear power, and jettison the excess into the sun via a railgun. (much less power and effort would be needed to get rid of wastes). Either that, or you could quarentine an entire portion of the moon for nuclear waste storage. You don't have to worry about local's complaining, because it is nowhere near them.
|
nonnus29
Member #2,606
August 2002
|
Quote: I'm reading Dan Brown's Angels & Demons and, well... I made an honost effort to read that book but it was horrendous and I had to stop after the first 100 pages. That guy made millions from 'The DaVinci Code' which I haven't read. If its alot better than 'angels and demons' it STILL blows. Reading drivel like that makes me think I could be a writer. I was so disgusted by that book I just can't describe it. |
Evert
Member #794
November 2000
|
Beh, I find the story (of Angels&Demons) easy to read, but it's no more than fast food. The way the plot is build up is simple and implausable and the way to create suspense is simply insulting ('... He looked up in horror as he heard the name.' next chapter, which contains only two paragraphs return to previous character some arbitrary unit of time later and reveal the name to the reader in fifty pages). |
Matt Smith
Member #783
November 2000
|
Quote: One kilometer diameter nickel/iron asteroid contains $10 trillion + of material. and that same asteroid would do about the same amount in damage (estimated at 2x the cost of buying Britain. Yes, our government got a quote from the auctioneers) if it landed on Earth unannounced. There are several thousand asteroids at least this size in Earth-crossing orbits. |
|
1
2
|