Quote :

"you don't race nascar with cars from the 70s "

leaded fuel, carburators, solid rear axles, and overhead valves are so futuristic.

8/18/2007 12:16:43 PM

leaded fuel is gone.

8/18/2007 12:21:16 PM

i would say that the shuttle was pretty damn good at being a jack of all trades

repeatedly flying up to, through, and returning from space is hell on any vehicle

8/18/2007 12:23:22 PM

well, technically the shuttle has never actually made it to, through, or from space


[Edited on August 18, 2007 at 12:31 PM. Reason : s]

8/18/2007 12:29:23 PM

^ Space is generally considered at 100km, Shuttle orbits at around 200km.

Space = easy
Re-Entry = a bitch

8/18/2007 12:35:09 PM

mesosphere != space
thermosphere != space
exosphere != space

space == space

[Edited on August 18, 2007 at 12:39 PM. Reason : s]

8/18/2007 12:37:38 PM

well then how far out do you have to go to get to space?

8/18/2007 12:43:23 PM

it depends based on the sun's temperature and other conditions, but typically 1000+km

i mean, pedantically speaking



[Edited on August 18, 2007 at 12:46 PM. Reason : s]

8/18/2007 12:44:34 PM

Quote :

"leaded fuel is gone. "

yeah, this year. they used it up until last year though.

8/18/2007 12:47:45 PM

^^ so then basically you are being a bitch about it and you know what i meant

ok i can handle that

8/18/2007 12:49:18 PM

repeatedly flying up to, through, and returning from LEO is hell on any vehicle

happy?

8/18/2007 1:02:51 PM

OPEII1 or whatever it is, on the topic of the "space elevator" you should read this part from the wiki you posted:

Quote :

"Material defects Any structure as large as a space elevator will have massive numbers of tiny defects in the construction material. It has been suggested that because large structures have more defects than small structures, that large structures are inherently weaker than small, giving an estimated carbon nanotube strength of only 24 GPa down to only 1.7 GPa in millimetre-scale samples[emphasis added], the latter equivalent to many high-strength steels, which would be vastly less than that needed to build a space elevator for a reasonable cost."

Carbon nanotubes just barely large enough to be visible with the naked eye are not expected to be strong enough for this application. Despite how cool a space elevator would be, there is still no known material that even approaches the properties required.

8/18/2007 1:16:39 PM

Quote :

"But whatever i guess wolfwebers understand the the shuttle better than experienced combat pilots and highly trained astronauts "

Learn it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority

Besides, astronauts and pilots are highly biased for several reasons
- They are natural risk takers who don't want to get cut out of the chance to pilot the space shuttle
- Astronauts naturally get a lot of ownership over their missions. It's only natural to feel bitter about your baby getting canceled
- The astronaut opinion doesn't address the budgetary, political, and philosophical criticisms being leveled at the space program.

The cold hard reality is that NASA is not innovating the way it has in the past, nor is it making significant progress towards any goal. The only people who are happy about it are the astronauts who are beneficiaries of billion dollar expenditures that allow them to ride a hot rod into space.

Pardon the rest of us if we want them to take a Toyota into space so that the space program can address some some of its macroscopic problems.

[Edited on August 18, 2007 at 1:37 PM. Reason : kl;]

8/18/2007 1:36:50 PM

^ Exactly,

Do you think the Astronauts that were in the rotation for Apollo 18,19 and 20 were happy to see their programed canned even though NASA was moving on to a reusable space craft and space station?

8/18/2007 1:40:13 PM

Quote :

"so then basically you are being a bitch about it and you know what i meant ok i can handle that"

well, this is a space thread full of science. I don't consider it bitchy to clarify the facts. but, then again, you are a humanities major - or act like one anyway

Quote :

"Carbon nanotubes just barely large enough to be visible with the naked eye are not expected to be strong enough for this application."

that's correct, but if we could just figure out a way to significantly increase the length of a carbon nanotube then that's all we'd need to build the elevator

8/18/2007 3:03:07 PM

duct tape ftw

8/18/2007 3:34:52 PM

Quote :

"well, this is a space thread full of science. I don't consider it bitchy to clarify the facts. but, then again, you are a humanities major - or act like one anyway"

there are things that are important and then there is the internet

8/18/2007 6:09:15 PM

alright so I'll address this one at a time

Quote :

"Learn it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_authority"

so you mean people with no relevant experience have more valid aquements, if they "seem" logical than an authority, or a qualified individuals arguement on a subject. Sounds like you get upset with people that dont agree with you

Quote :

"Besides, astronauts and pilots are highly biased for several reasons - They are natural risk takers who don't want to get cut out of the chance to pilot the space shuttle"

That is quite an incorrect stereotypical generalization. This is the commander for the next flight, STS-120

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/Bios/htmlbios/melroy.html

she is hardly a risk taker and neither are most of the other astronauts

Quote :

" -Astronauts naturally get a lot of ownership over their missions. It's only natural to feel bitter about your baby getting canceled"

actually a lot of experienced shuttle astronauts will be retiring with the shuttle, and the rest will be pushing forward to be able to fly in the new vehicle

Also, you say "naturally" and what would make you think that

Quote :

" - The astronaut opinion doesn't address the budgetary, political, and philosophical criticisms being leveled at the space program."

All of which they dont have a choice in so why would their opinion matter?

Quote :

"The cold hard reality is that NASA is not innovating the way it has in the past,"

According to. . . . . Or this statement completely unbacked by a relevant document

Quote :

"nor is it making significant progress towards any goal."

Except the ISS, and the progression to the new vehicle

Quote :

"The only people who are happy about it are the astronauts who are beneficiaries of billion dollar expenditures that allow them to ride a hot rod into space."

So you're saying the astronauts like driving 76 monte carlo to space, I dont get it

Quote :

"Pardon the rest of us if we want them to take a Toyota into space so that the space program can address some some of its macroscopic problems."

so the astronauts are pissed off whay? They are still going into space right?

It seems to me that youre trying to argue that the astronauts are really pissed off about having to fly a new vehicle rather than the shuttle. All I said is that most of them like the shuttle, and dont consider it the biggest mistake NASA has ever made like most of you are saying. I dont see who exatcly youre arguements are made torwards, or what exactly they are being made to prove

That being said before we get into an unwanted pissing contest. Im not trying to say that we shouldn't retire the shuttle and move on and progress. Im just saying that people dont give the shuttle program the credit it deserves because its "old"

[Edited on August 18, 2007 at 10:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/18/2007 10:06:50 PM

no, it has nothing to do with being old.

it has everything to do with being one of the most classic examples of feature bloat

8/18/2007 11:27:49 PM

Quote :

"she is hardly a risk taker and neither are most of the other astronauts"

that is just silly. before basically every mission you read interviews of astronauts saying "space travel is dangerous but it's worth the risk."

8/20/2007 8:53:43 AM

There is risk taking for the purpose of risk taking, and there is mitigated risk taking to accomplish a (perceived) greater goal. I think thats what he was driving at. This isn't the Jackass crowd you're dealing with.

Still, she's pretty good looking for a retired colonel.

8/20/2007 9:02:47 AM

i don't think that the shuttle has been bad... just over used... we should have had a reusable crew only vehicle long before now and had one in the final stages before it got canceled (crew recovery vehicle for the ISS)

the ISS is a good idea but kinda late in coming really, and still is not big enough to be a truly practical space station.... which should, theoretically be a platform for further deep space exploration.... as in, moonbase staging, mars exploration staging etc.

i think what most people think when they say NASA hasn't been innovating like they had in the past refers to the huge jump in technology they ramrodded through during the 50's and 60's. things have slowed down considerably since then, though a good bit is due to budgetary reasons....

on another note, the reason why the foam issue has become a problem now and wasn't so much for the dozens of missions before is in the method of which they apply the foam to the tank.... they took out the CFC's in the spraying formula and it hasn't been the same since...

[Edited on August 20, 2007 at 10:56 AM. Reason : spray foam]

8/20/2007 10:53:17 AM

just a few things, Originally the shuttle and ISS were supposed to be a package deal in the late 70's. The whole purpose for the shuttle was supposed to be the ISS, but Nixon said NASA could only do one. So they opted for the shuttle, and they started by doing things like SpaceLab, Humble, and eventually SpaceHab. Alos, they used the Shuttle commercial purposes, such as deploying satelites, thats probably how you talk on your cell phone. Eventually they stopped doing it commercial reasons.

Anyhow, the ISS came along again once Shuttle was up and running, and this is the whole reason for shuttle existance. Once, we finish building the ISS, and it will be huge once completed. The there isnt a whole lot of reason for shuttle, since we can send consumables to ISS through other unmanned vehicles.

However in the Shuttle Programs "Golden Age" ('88-'02) the plan was to use the shuttle till something like 2030. So there was a big updating the shuttle campaigne in the late '90's. But after columbia, Bush decided he wanted to reach somewhere other that Lower Orbit, so thats why we are switching to a new vehicle.

The American portion of the Station should be finished with the next Node going up on sts-120, then the japanese and few others and some new type of boom is going up. Anyhow, Iss will be supplied with 10 years worth of backup parts on the last few shuttle missions

As far as the Foam issue goes, it has been a problem since day 1 apparently, according to some of the older folks i work with. They are always anticipating foam problems, thats why the do so much scanning of the orbiter. The ET contracts like 6" or something like from the ground to ET Sep, that no wonder so much foam falls off during launch. Anyway the say expect to have some kind of foam damage every flight from here on out. and for most of the flights they have a shuttle ready to be wheel out ot the launch pad to rescue a catastrophically damaged shuttle, and they are supposed to be ready to get them in like 7 days

8/20/2007 6:52:22 PM

It's okay guys you can relax now. I am an engineer for NASA and I would be happy to answer any and all questions you may have regarding how awesome I am .

(but seriously, I've only been working here for a little over 2 months and I already feel so much smarter)

[Edited on August 21, 2007 at 10:12 AM. Reason : ]

8/21/2007 10:12:20 AM

if i got to see another shuttle launch, can you get me out of nasa and back to the disney area in less than 4 hours??

i'd LOVE to go again but i don't think i will b/c the traffic handling is non-existent. it took us 4 damn hours to get back to epcot. ):

8/21/2007 3:07:50 PM

Haha I actually get to park/watch from a special area because I'm a NASA employee, so anyone who goes with me to see it gets to enjoy it in style.

I'm actually planning on going to the planned launch in December.

8/21/2007 3:55:48 PM

yeah but youre still like 3.5 miles away from the launch

the training teams usually get family passes from the astronauts to get really close with the family's

Ill let you know how it is when i get a ssigned to a training team


Also, just so you know, everyone in my building was on the edge of their seat for that landing

8/21/2007 5:09:01 PM

^Nobody here at Marshall seemed too interested [in the landing]. I was watching it on one of the huge TV's they have hanging in the hallway and most people were just walking by like nothing special was going on. I guess it's just cause I'm a NASA n00b.

[Edited on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 PM. Reason : ]

8/21/2007 5:11:40 PM

its probably because you dont really have anything to do with the shuttle or the crew flying it with what you do

I know everyone was watching it from their computers (the closed circuit nasa feeds we get on site) and we logged into the flight controller loops so we can hear what is really going on

For the last flight i was in the SCA watching the data from a console. I'm kind of a big deal

8/21/2007 10:49:54 PM

Honestly, landings don't seem that they'd be that exciting. take-off, deorbiting burn, and re-entry seem like the most exciting (and most likely to have problems) than any other part of the flight

8/22/2007 1:30:06 AM

whats a re-entry? you prob mean Entry which includes the deorbit burn all the way to the ground

and entry's are prob the most exciting for controllers, but Liftoffs, or Ascent is the most exciting to watch, overall, Orbit Ops sucks

8/22/2007 8:31:46 AM

Quote :

"whats a re-entry? you prob mean Entry which includes the deorbit burn all the way to the ground "

what a douchebag

8/22/2007 10:37:22 AM

^^ Ok, so its called entry, however the shuttle is a reusable vehicle and has gone through entry procedures before, therefore its re-entry.

8/22/2007 10:46:18 AM

touche

8/22/2007 4:49:36 PM

technically right is the best kind of right :

8/22/2007 5:09:01 PM