page 6

1/26/2012 1:49:33 PM

MOON BASE BY 2020!

1/26/2012 2:16:49 PM

speaking of the moon, this is neat:

Quote :

"This track was left by a rock nearly 30 feet across after rolling hundreds of yards down from the central peak of an impact crater on the moon. As far as the moon is concerned, this is a pretty big deal: without an atmosphere or much in the way of active geology, the lunar surface doesn't get a lot of action aside from the occasional astronaut or impact. Shock from an impact is likely what caused this rock to get rollin' in the first place, but it's definitely a classic, not any of that newfangled stuff that you kids are into these days: analysis of the cratering in the image suggests that this rock got its move on between 50 and 100 million years ago."

http://dvice.com/archives/2012/02/picture-shows-c.php

2/13/2012 3:59:31 PM

That kinda stuff is just crazy.

2/13/2012 5:22:56 PM

haha that's awesome.

2/13/2012 7:11:09 PM

Are you telling me that I could draw a penis in the dust that would last for 50 million years?

2/16/2012 1:14:51 AM

absolutely.

2/16/2012 7:42:27 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc

3/19/2012 4:04:33 PM

love him ...

3/19/2012 4:23:54 PM

We stopped dreaming went broke.

3/19/2012 4:33:57 PM

we must construct additional skylons

3/19/2012 5:34:44 PM

If you want any more manned missions, they will have to be militaristic. Most of the shuttle missions were anyway.

3/20/2012 1:41:41 AM

you know how they say the only real currency is time? well, you can do that same thing by saying the only real currency is scientist/hours. i don't think it's so much about budget and leadership as it is about manpower. most of the possible manpower that could explore the universe are wasted on making luxuries or guns. what we need is"war" bonds for science projects. oh and how do you do that thing where you type out a word with a line through it like you're saying "not this" its like an underscore but higher.

3/20/2012 5:51:19 AM

^That is called a strikethrough. Just hit the "S" button next to the underline button when you are posting a message or put your words between [ s ] [/ s] tags (without the spaces)

^^I do agree that if for some reason China was putting guns on their satellites/space stations NASA would receive tons of funding for manned missions but I'm not sure where you are getting your info from that most Shuttle missions were militaristic. There were a bunch of Shuttle missions that had classified objectives -- probably something to do with spy satellites or some other kind of military capability, but it's pretty easy to look up the objectives of the other missions. Unless you are a conspiracy theorist I don't see why you would think the non-classified missions were militaristic.

3/20/2012 9:37:06 AM

Hey there folks, just in case you aren't a mechanical or aerospace engineer and therefore didn't look in my other thread (message_topic.aspx?topic=592871&page=2#15305024) I figured I'd post something here letting you guys know that NASA MSFC is hiring for a number of positions in both technical and non-technical fields. If you are interested in working at NASA, please take a look at that thread and let me know!

3/21/2012 11:55:33 AM

Think NASA will be hiring CSC majors with a secret clearance in the fall of 13?

3/21/2012 12:00:30 PM

That's way too far into the future determine at this point, especially since there is a possibility of a new president coming to office and various changes in Congress. If you were looking now there would definitely be stuff for you. Send me a message or bump this thread or something around that time and I'll let you know if we have anything.

3/21/2012 12:49:25 PM

3/21/2012 12:54:12 PM

hey Wraith, have you met Neil Degrasse Tyson?

3/21/2012 1:29:11 PM

No, but I'd love to. I could talk to him for hours about all sorts of geeky stuff. I think his time would be more valuable talking to the American public and politicians to help further the cause of space flight though.

3/21/2012 1:44:42 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46799347/ns/technology_and_science-space/#.T2oUVfWbSSo

After a series of delays due to bad weather and a technical glitch, NASA is now aiming to launch the five-rocket barrage Wednesday night (March 21) after fog and other concerns thwarted a Tuesday attempt. The sky display may puzzle and amaze some unsuspecting observers, so before you call to your local news or police, here is why this is happening and when you may see it.

3/21/2012 1:50:13 PM

http://www.startram.com/

3/27/2012 10:36:23 AM

Quote :

"No, but I'd love to. I could talk to him for hours about all sorts of geeky stuff. I think his time would be more valuable talking to the American public and politicians to help further the cause of space flight though."

I'm not seeing how. We don't have any money to do it. Maybe we would have had the money if we didn't piss it all away on frivolous shit, but we did.

Neil Degrasse Tyson is a brilliant guy and all, but he doesn't recognize the financial restraints we're up against, which are pretty burdensome.

3/27/2012 11:18:15 AM

the thing with spending on NASA, is that there is always a positive economic return... think of it as an investment... more people with good paying high tech jobs boosting the economy, technologies and advanced materials derived from the work being done, and something to inspire students in science and technology (yes this is a "soft" reason, but it is damn important, especially in today's society where kids have very little inspiration to excel in the sciences.)

3/27/2012 11:33:21 AM

^^I'm not sure I understand what you are saying there, it doesn't seem to match up with the context of what you quoted. You don't see how Tyson is valuable talking to the American public because we don't have the money to do it? What I was saying is that he is someone who could help get more funding for the space program.

3/27/2012 12:09:50 PM

Quote :

"always a positive economic return"

Debatable or outright false. Much like warfare, shooting men into space is a perfect example of the broken window fallacy. Manned spaceflight has a direct, measurable negative effect on the well being of human life, including rocket pollution, massive pollution and consumption of natural resources from spacecraft manufacturing and facilities, and the opportunity cost of spending money on healthcare, domestic infrastructure and basic necessities for desperate people.

You're better off arguing that it is "cool", which it is. But claiming it benefits mankind in very many practical ways is tenuous ground.

It's a safe bet that anyone arguing that government space industrial complex benefits the overall economy is, in fact, suckling the government teat in one form or another themselves, much like 1/3 of the American population.

[Edited on March 27, 2012 at 1:10 PM. Reason : .]

3/27/2012 1:07:04 PM

Quote :

"But claiming it benefits mankind in very many practical ways is tenuous ground."

Are you kidding me? Do you have any idea how much technology (both cutting edge and every day use) was originally developed as a solution to a problem that the science, engineering, and research behind manned space flight solved? Sure, we as humans, would have eventually figured things out but some things could have otherwise taken decades longer to develop. EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC FIELD has seen some kind of practical contribution from the development of manned spaceflight.

3/27/2012 1:48:39 PM

My uncle worked at IBM during the Apollo missions and was very involved with the space program

He believes IBM and the microprocessor would not be where it is today if it wasn't for the investment and push of the space program

3/27/2012 1:52:41 PM

^^For all future posts, will everyone please list their respective government teat that they drink from?

Example: Smath/teacher
Wraith/nasa
DoubleDown's Uncle/peon of company whose biggest customer is US Government

Thanks for your participation! It helps the rest of us understand your biases.

3/27/2012 3:20:29 PM

Just listing the facts, there no need to be so disrespectful. It's fine if you disagree but I don't see why you have to attempt to demean us.

Yes I happen to work for a federal agency but claiming that Smath is biased because he is a teacher and public schools happen to get federal funding is kind of a stretch. So you are saying that every public teacher out there that supports manned space flight is doing it solely because their school received federal funding? How do you explain the teachers that don't support it?

And why again is DoubleDown's uncle a peon? Because he used to work for IBM? So is it all IBM employees that are peons or just all software/hardware engineers?

3/27/2012 3:51:30 PM

Yes.

3/27/2012 4:05:11 PM

Obvious troll is obvious.

3/27/2012 5:26:17 PM

If you stop making false statements, I'll stop correcting them.

3/27/2012 5:45:42 PM

Right well you are obviously being a huge troll here. You apparently have no desire to engage in any form of healthy debate or conversation on the topic and you have resorted to childish name calling and outright lies. I'm just going to ignore your posts from now on.

If anyone else has any conflicting opinions on the subject I'd be more than happy to discuss it with you, please just keep it respectful.

3/28/2012 8:37:21 AM

Wraith... question about the SLS... From everything I've read, it seems the flight rate is very low... like once every few years... Is this simply a budget thing or is it technically infeasible to have a higher flight rate for these beasts?

Also, how is the work on the "disposable SSME's" coming? (I think it's the RS-25E as opposed to the current RS-25D "SSME"... am I using this terminology correctly?) It doesn't seem like they will be needed for quite a while considering the amount of RS-25D's we currently have available... will the E's come into use with Block 1A SLS? (the 105ish metric ton version?)

3/28/2012 8:47:48 AM

It's mainly budget. The SLS vehicles aren't really that much different in size to the Saturn launch vehicles but those would launch all the time. Back in the Apollo days though, NASA had something like 4-5% of the national budget (as opposed to the 0.4% that we have today) and we were racing to beat the Soviets to the moon.

SSME (Space Shuttle Main Engine) is in fact the correct terminology -- it is just a term to describe any configuration of the RS-25. I don't work in the propulsion side so I don't know too much about the RS-25E but the earliest it will be used is for the Block1A vehicle in 10 years. We'll be sticking with the RS-25D's for the first two flights in 2017 and 2019.

3/28/2012 9:34:49 AM

Ready to be burned up...



It's my understanding that they won't be trying to recover the SRB's any more either, they're just going to let them sink. Why is that?

I wonder if it would be feasible to burn the main stage longer and just put it in orbit too. Those shuttle fuel tanks are cavernous, you could make a huge space station or vehicle by strapping a few together.

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 11:25 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 11:11:28 AM

ATTN EXPERTS:

Space X is apparently planning on having stages that will break off and then do a precision landing on a pad. People on the internet who say they know what they're talking about (why of course I believe them) say this is a terrible idea.

If you load up the rocket with weight of propellant that will be used to land the equipment, having nothing to do with the mission, then you'll drop your payload size dramatically. But at the same time, reusability is key to lowering cost of space travel. So what's the deal?

This is very important stuff only experts answer kk

3/28/2012 11:27:18 AM

Seriously, what's wrong with parachutes?

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 11:32:49 AM

Quote :

"It's my understanding that they won't be trying to recover the SRB's any more either, they're just going to let them sink. Why is that? I wonder if it would be feasible to burn the main stage longer and just put it in orbit too. Those shuttle fuel tanks are cavernous, you could make a huge space station or vehicle by strapping a few together."

True... it has to do with the budget... with the lower launch rates of the SLS compared to the shuttle, I think it was more economical to design the new 5 segment SRB's to NOT be recovered.

I've heard a lot about the "wet workshop" idea with the fuel tanks... true it would require just a little more thrust to get them into orbit, but the expense of then converting them into anything useful would be far outside of NASA's budget. They floated the idea of a wet workshop for skylab... basically refitting the inside of one of the saturn 5 stages after launching it, but decided that a dedicated module retrofitted on the ground pre-launch was much more practical and economical.

Quote :

"Seriously, what's wrong with parachutes? "

in regards to the SpaceX thing, agreed. but hey, it's their money to try to develop what they want.

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 11:51 AM. Reason : ]

3/28/2012 11:50:37 AM

Quote :

"http://www.startram.com/"

this looks awesome

3/28/2012 11:51:59 AM

^^^Honestly that is the truth.

It is a terrible idea because it adds a shit load more complexity to something that is already ridiculously complex. Aside from the additional onboard propellant that would be required, a whole new control algorithm, actuator set, and reaction control system would be necessary. The stability and control issues alone are mind boggling. Think about balancing a pencil on your fingertip -- if you accelerate your hand upwards it is a lot easier to balance. Now think about lowering your hand very slowly and think of how much more difficult it would be to keep it upright.

The only time I can think of anything even similar to that is the lunar lander and that was designed to operate in zero atmosphere (no wind), 1/6th earth gravity, was pilot controlled, and only worked in optimal conditions. Parachutes are far more feasible. Although not as accurate they weigh less, are cheaper, and take up a lot less space.

I was watching some of the concept videos that SpaceX published on their precision landing vehicles and it is almost laughable that they would consider something like this. If they pull it off then kudos to them but I think that they will end up scrapping the idea.

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

3/28/2012 12:02:23 PM

Haven't the russians been landing by rocket...forever?

Nevermind, it's parachutes+rocket. Looks baby smooth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=G0zLrenizWE#t=40s

[Edited on March 28, 2012 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

3/28/2012 12:40:36 PM

Landing a crew capsule with rockets is a lot more feasible. Mainly because capsules are small points of mass, can easily be controlled by a pilot, and are stable from a gravity and aerodynamic point of view.

The stages of an actual launch vehicle (like SpaceX is trying to do) would have considerably more mass and due to the long slender design would be very top heavy.

3/28/2012 2:16:19 PM

https://info.aiaa.org/Regions/Western/Orange_County/Newsletters/MarkBentonSSD%20LM4%20Small%20Moon%20Lander%20Paper%20%28AIAA-2010-0795%29.pdf

3/28/2012 2:42:49 PM

neat...I guess?

Jeff Bezos Unveils Plan to Recover Apollo 11 Rocket Engines
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402377,00.asp

3/30/2012 2:49:21 PM

^I saw that the other day. I'm surprised it took this long for some rich person to do such a thing.

^^With things like asteroids or moons that often have little or no atmosphere your only real option for landing is chemical rockets. Obviously you can't use a parachute if there is no atmosphere.

3/30/2012 2:54:18 PM

oh yeah no doubt... that link i posted wasn't a response to the parachute debate... it was just a "hey this is a neat "powerpoint vehicle" article!"

3/30/2012 7:57:22 PM

Tyson talking about some of the advancements made in the medical field as a result of space technology... even something like the Hubble lenses being misaligned led to developments in early detection of breast cancer:

http://www.cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2012/04/01/gps-neil-degrasse-tyson-case-for-space.cnn

4/2/2012 10:03:04 AM

he is one of the best speakers on the planet. and not just because i agree with most of what he says

4/2/2012 2:42:31 PM