Space Shuttle Theory

[B-52 GUNNER]

The only obstacle is money. And, if we weren't wasting money torturing Iraqis and getting our soldiers killed by suicide bombers, we'd have money to spend.

Every time the subjects of Military or Nasa programs come up someone has to talk about budget.

Money is irrelevant.

The Government doesn't pay its bills like the average citizen.

All it does is print more of these green things we call dollars and gives it to someone who thinks these pieces of paper are cool and they like it that they can take those green things and buy stuff. (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

If the US Govt. wanted to go to Mars we could. If they wanted a new Shuttle it would be built as soon as they wanted it.

The problem is that you have these democratic bean counters that cry to the public that the Govt. is spending too much money on these things and that they need to spend more on the poor or other liberal tree hugging programs. (Which reminds me, the foam issue is because of the environmentalists.)

If we said HECK with the environmentalists and just use the original foam we wouldn't be in the boat we are in.

Sorry Nighthawk, this was not directed at you, just the bleeping BEAN COUNTERS!!!!

Scot

PS. If it wasn't for our Peanut President we would have had the Shuttle sooner and still have been in the lead on the Space Station with Skylab.

Edited July 31, 2005 by B-52 GUNNER

[JELEINEN]

I think it's time to unshelf project Orion: http://www.projectrho.com/rocket/rocket3c2.html#orion

[JB0]

I don't believe in space elevators... one crash at the end in space and it's snapped on the bottom..

Or a freat leak will cause all the air of earth to flow into space and suffication.. maybe so big that the suction will cause some sort of a tornado.

315938[/snapback]

Fortunately we arne't Ringworld. We have gravity holding air down.

A hole in a space elevator will just leave it with air pressure equal to its surroundings down the entire length. 1 atmosphere at sea level, 0 atm at orbit.

...

You know, unless you forget to turn the air pumps off.

[Kin]

well... probably the best and safe solution I have encountered so far is using magnetism. Ans ofcourse the existing testrail that can reach 9800km/h with missile testing.

[The Nighthawk]

The only obstacle is money. And, if we weren't wasting money torturing Iraqis and getting our soldiers killed by suicide bombers, we'd have money to spend.

Every time the subjects of Military or Nasa programs come up someone has to talk about budget.

Money is irrelevant.

The Government doesn't pay its bills like the average citizen.

All it does is print more of these green things we call dollars and gives it to someone who thinks these pieces of paper are cool and they like it that they can take those green things and buy stuff. (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

If the US Govt. wanted to go to Mars we could. If they wanted a new Shuttle it would be built as soon as they wanted it.

The problem is that you have these democratic bean counters that cry to the public that the Govt. is spending too much money on these things and that they need to spend more on the poor or other liberal tree hugging programs. (Which reminds me, the foam issue is because of the environmentalists.)

If we said HECK with the environmentalists and just use the original foam we wouldn't be in the boat we are in.

Sorry Nighthawk, this was not directed at you, just the bleeping BEAN COUNTERS!!!!

Scot

PS. If it wasn't for our Peanut President we would have had the Shuttle sooner and still have been in the lead on the Space Station with Skylab.

315959[/snapback]

You must be Bush voter. And since I'm a Democrat I have no choice but to take it as a shot across the bow.

There are plenty of bean counters on the Republican side of things too, my friend. Remember back in '94 when the GOP took over the House on the platform of a balanced budget? How they forced welfare reform down our throats, and now millions are either unemployed or underemployed? (yes I know they say unemployment is down BUT-since you only get unemployment for 5 years max, once you drop out of the system you're no longer counted, and that skews the numbers.) Yes, we want to feed the poor, yes we want to take care of our planet because it's our HOME and it's the only one we have. And yeah, I even want some kind of universal health care. But you can't blame this stuff only on why the Shuttle program is in shreds, and the space program along with it. Money IS still an obstacle, because despite your rather childish description of how procurement works, there's still a whole huge process involved in making the federal budget work. Who gets what, who does without, and who has to do the same job with less or no money. Right now there's a big fat energy bill being passed that hands billions to big oil, nuclear power, and some of the world's worst polluters, that will have NO effect on gas prices or our dependence on foreign oil. Our only real solution is alternative energy and we're abandoning it because YOUR bean counters need their kickbacks from their wealthy and powerful friends at the tops of these companies.

If you want NASA to be effective they have to be funded properly. And despite this president's big ideas about the Moon and Mars, that funding still ain't there. Since YOUR boys on the right wing are in firm control of all three branches of the federal government right now, maybe you should ask them why???

[Lightning]

(ok guys.....let's knock off the political stuff before it gets nasty)

anyhow, If y'all want alternative fuel for cars, here's the answer: RUN 'EM ON ALCOHOL!!! (it's a hell of a lot cheaper to make with less emissions too)

EDIT: my spelling REALLY sucks...

Edited July 31, 2005 by Lightning 06

[Lindem Herz]

Republicans, Democrats, whatever, take it to PM before they lock us, will ya?

On the other hand... I'm still wondering why the hell doesn't Boeing or Lockheed just take a licence for building Energiya, improve it, and present it as an EELV - the concept behind it was pretty much similar, a core module that can be adapted to a variety of missions just using plugins.

Need some low weight up there, grab a Energiya core, swap the lower end with 4 engines with the 1 engine one, and strap two Zenit instead of four, you got a Energiya-M

Need heavy duty lifting? Get a core, strap eight Zenits on it and a Energiya-M core as a second stage, instant Vulkan, 175 tonnes to orbit

And hell, Zenits, at least the Energiya strap on versions, are supposed to be reusable. Those gray boxes all over it, parachute covers.

The work has been done already, to pay the manufacturers, build most of it here, to keep russia happy build some of it there, to pay the engeneers, put the think tanks to work on improving it - instead of spending a lot of money working from zero.

Heck, Lockheed is already importing part of it (the engines), why not import most of it?

Edited July 31, 2005 by Lindem Herz

[B-52 GUNNER]

Nighthawk,

Good comeback, I enjoyed your view point.

Yes I am a Republican but no, I was basing my point on my years of both being a Military Brat and a NASA enthusiast.

Like I said in my original post about this:

Sorry Nighthawk, this was not directed at you, just the bleeping BEAN COUNTERS!!!!

No matter what side of the isle they are on.

We can have a Strong Military and Space Program as well as have all these special interests.

It's all Public Perception (With a little Political spin) that keeps things like this from advancing.

I wish that the public would realize that space exploration isn't safe and the astronauts know this. Otherwise we wouldn't have a space program because no one would take the risk.

Space exploration should not be based on Public Opinion, We should just do it.

Scot

PS. No offense taken

[B-52 GUNNER]

I like how Duce and a half's work.

They run on Alcohol, Propane, gasoline, diesel fuel, and kerosene

The only bad thing about alcohol is that it causes rust.

(ok guys.....let's knock off the political stuff before it gets nasty)

anyhow,  If y'all want alternative fuel for cars, here's the answer: RUN 'EM ON ALCOHOL!!! (it's a hell of a lot cheaper to make with less emissions too)

EDIT: my spelling REALLY sucks...

315979[/snapback]

Edited July 31, 2005 by B-52 GUNNER

[B-52 GUNNER]

I'm still wondering why the hell doesn't Boeing or Lockheed just take a licence for building Energiya, improve it, and present it as an EELV - the concept behind it was pretty much similar, a core module that can be adapted to a variety of missions just using plugins.

This is a great idea, just like how we are using Russian Rocket Engines on out Titans right now.

[kalvasflam]

The shuttle program really ought to be phased out. It's been a long time coming, the replacement program for it should've been really locked in place by the mid 90s. And the first replacement should've been there a few years ago.

It's an expensive and somewhat inefficient program to run back in the 90s, and now it's just a waste of time. But unfortunately it's still needed because no credible alternatives that can be put in place tomorrow. If you have to cast blame, blame poor management at NASA, and frankly, it transcends beyond politics, because both sides need to share the blame for the state of NASA today.

There is also a very core question that needs to be asked on what NASA's mission really is: Is it a fundamental/scientific research mission or is it an operational mission focused on servicing (by which I mean servicing satellites, supporting ISS, etc) and exploration.

To me, there are fundamental differences that has to be resolved. Fundmental/scientific research means essentially doing research that may not have immediate benefits. From what I know, NASA in the 90s had a very large fundamental research mandate that had very little to do with operations of spacecraft. But I think it's something absolutely necessary.

Then there is the servicing/exploration, which is quite different, missions to repair satellites, bringing up food to the space station to replace crew, etc, these are unglamourous missions, but essential to things like keeping the ISS running. I think the way ISS is set up is supposed to be R&D focused, but it doesn't seem to be run well that way.

The best solution, and this goes beyond the shuttle, is to split NASA into two components. One focused exclusively on pure engineering matters and exploration, i.e. building new space crafts, sending people to Mars/Moon, and more mundane tasks such as support missions for ISS or launching satellites etc. And another arm focusing on research, i.e. running the ISS as what it really should be, an orbital laboratory. As well as a bunch of Earth based R&D projects. The two element has to cooperate well, but they each need their own separate charter.

By the way, from what I know now, there are people in NASA who love the concept of going to Mars, it's a gigantic engineering challenge, and there are people who thinks it's an absolute waste of time. For the latter group, you guessed it, they're a bunch of scientists engaged in fundamental research, and for the most part don't even have any remote dealings with space related exploration They're also the ones who are getting their funding cut, so, it's all about the money in the end.

Sorry about the tangent, but the bottom line with the shuttle program is it needs to be replaced just as soon as possible. But I can tell you now that there will be a bunch of people who will oppose the idea as well as the idea of the shuttle itself, and you got it, those guys are the R&D guys on Earth who will get their budget cut for what will essentially be a new engineering program. Using heavy lifters like Energia is a good short term solution, but in the long term, things like the X34 is the way to go.

[JELEINEN]

Okay, so the Orion is a bit over the top (actually, it's a great idea for a spaceship as long as you don't try taking off from a planet), how about the Phoenix:

www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

Edit: sorry about the long URL. This board's software blows goats, so I couldn't post a direct link.

Edited July 31, 2005 by JELEINEN

[Kin]

I really wonder... does the atmosphere really burn... or is it purely the highspeed friction? What will happen if u send a huge helium baloon high in the sky and then use light rockets runnin a few mph when in thin air? What will happen if the baloon just touches the atmosphere?

Edited July 31, 2005 by Kin

[JB0]

I really wonder... does the atmosphere really burn... or is it purely the highspeed friction?

Purely friction.

What will happen if u send a huge helium baloon high in the sky and then use light rockets runnin a few mph when in thin air? What will happen if the baloon just touches the atmosphere?

Well... you're still within the atmosphere well after the balloon ceases to be an effective lift device. Remember, the balloon only lifts because helium is less dense than air, not because it is a magical negative-gravity source.

As you get higher, the air gets thinner. Eventually it's the same desnity as the helium balloon. And then your balloon starts expanding, and eventually pops.

And there's not a whole lot of lift there to start with. Balloons only work with relatively light objects.

Of couse, going up isn't the fun part.

It's coming down that matters, and no balloon in the world is gonna help that.

[Stamen0083]

All it does is print more of these green things we call dollars and gives it to someone who thinks these pieces of paper are cool and they like it that they can take those green things and buy stuff. (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

315959[/snapback]

You do know how inflation works, right?

Edited July 31, 2005 by Stamen0083

[B-52 GUNNER]

All it does is print more of these green things we call dollars and gives it to someone who thinks these pieces of paper are cool and they like it that they can take those green things and buy stuff. (Sorry for the run on sentence.)

315959[/snapback]

You do know how inflation works, right?

316025[/snapback]

Yes I do, by printing more money it causes inflation.

My point was that there isn't a bank account that the govt. uses.

They can set the amount the dollar is worth, make more money if need be, and if they so choose can forgive debt that other countries owe us.

There was an individual on the radio talking about what the national debt is and also mentioned how much time it takes for the govt. to spend a given amount of money.

Let's say the govt. was $10,000,000,000 over budget.

It takes less than a day for the govt. to spend that much money.

My point is mainly that we have the ability as a nation to do what ever we want.

Money isn't a issue if the govt. is serious about a goal.

[Stamen0083]

Money IS an issue.

Each country only has so much natural resources. The ones it doesn't have, it has to buy from others. No matter how much more money the government prints, if it doesn't have the gold to back up the currency, the money is worthless, and no country in the world is going to sell the resources to the country that has no money.

[Kin]

I think the government rather spend their money on things where they create profit... like developing and selling weapons n stuff.

[JB0]

Money IS an issue.

Each country only has so much natural resources. The ones it doesn't have, it has to buy from others. No matter how much more money the government prints, if it doesn't have the gold to back up the currency, the money is worthless, and no country in the world is going to sell the resources to the country that has no money.

316037[/snapback]

The hell? We haven't been on the gold standard for decades, at least.

Fact: In the modern world, MONEY HAS NO ACTUAL VALUE. IT REPRESENTS NOTHING.

That's why there's exchange rates. Because the only "value" it has is the ability to buy products in the nation that issued it. And that only works because the nation that issued a given currency passed laws making said currency "legal tender for all debts public and private." Which it had to do because no one wanted to take the non-gold-standard money.

The modern dollar/peso/yen/whatever is little more than monopoly money, the only REAL diffrences being the quality of the paper used and who owns the presses.

[The Nighthawk]

Actually the idea of a US-built Energia isn't a bad one. In fact, we could build a second-generation Shuttle using the same general size and airframe design, but simplified by eliminating the main engines and using the Energia and its side boosters to provide all the thrust--that's exactly what the Russians did with Buran (which also had conventional jet engines for controlled atmospheric flight, rather than a controlled fall/glide... they did design the thing partially to be a bomber, cuz that's what they thought the Shuttle was at the time). Results: Weight savings for missions that require a heavier payload, or, extra fuel for orbital maneuvering on maintenance/repair/recovery missions. Could even use that weight and space savings for more powerful orbital maneuvering engines, allowing for greater orbital altitude.

As for the reentry problem, I believe that problem has been licked. Just slow down enough before you enter the atmosphere and you won't build up the heat. Works for Rutan.

[sabretooth]

nasa summed up in a quick point.

(i think i got this from someone one this board, if not then neato)

nasa realizes that pens don't work in space, spend assloads of cash and resources (in the millions-i think)and we get the wonder nasa pen, a wonderfully great little piece of stationary that can even write underwater - it was an issue on an episode of seinfeld-

neat huh.

the russian space agency (forget the name) encounters the same thing and they use a pencil. which can be purchased in packs of 10 for a little over a dollar- and unexplicably have the same abilities of the nasa pen but also could be easily erased...

the bigger ticket item does not make it the best for the job. a fork is a fork. if you were to purchase a fork from a thrift store and then another fork from say a fork specailty shop dealing with only the world's finest forks that cost in excess of $500 a pop, you will still be able to eat with both of them as they are used for the same purpose and contain the same design principle and function the same. you get to eat your spagetti.

too many brains overthinking a situation results in completely overengineered and impractical solution, that has a near endless supply of variables that escalate and result in disaster.

the delivery system for space bound objects is as it stands lacking the benefits of current aeronautical advancments and improvments and needs a major overhaul.

if the space shuttle computer is less powerful than my gameboy or home game entertainment center then there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Edited August 1, 2005 by sabretooth

[Uxi]

Good analogy with the pen/pencil thing.

Bad analogy with the computer thing. Can you gameboy and/or entertainment system take extreme environmental change, including radiation? The reason they use dinky computers in the Shuttles isn't by chance. Not that they couldn't be using something better...

Budgetary considerations are VERY much a factor as has been proven with the procurement of every weapon system the US DoD uses... and has been proven with the defeat of many weapon systems the DoD wanted but were denied. That said, it's not entirely what most people think (even considering Operations Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom and the general global war on terrorism) as we're almost always in deficit spending. That this should be blamed on unrestriected growth in entitlement spending is another issue...

The Shuttle? Another one should be built as a temporary replacement. Enterprise conversion possibly as long it's to spec. Possibly with incremental and peripheral upgrades on the fundamental platform/paradigm. Begin the permanent replacement program now (X-33 derivative). I definitely thing we should bring back the Saturn Rocket in a next generation as well as finish the ISS (and our own US only stations) and get an increased permanent presence in space, including an eyeball to the moon.

At the cost saved by the elimination of the tree-hugging and social programs no less.

Edited August 1, 2005 by Uxi

[Skull Leader]

I'm all for an upgraded shuttle program (IE, new orbiters under the same basic design, with newer stuff in them). As has been stated, it may not do EVERYTHING that the program set out to achieve, but it's a proven platform. It gets the job done and in relative comfort. An upgraded model with more modernized computers and other systems would definately be an effective platform.

The simple fact is that spacetravel is STILL the safest method of travel available to man. Take 100 random people on their trips to work in the morning, and compare that to the first 100 STS flights. There was only ONE accident out of the first 100 shuttle trips.... NINETY NINE PERCENT EFFECTIVE. That's not to say some missions weren't aborted because of some reason or another, but in those cases no one was injured. Compared to the 100 car trips? You're bound to have at least 15 automobile accidents, if not more... some injuries, possibly fatal. Even if you compared fatality rates, that's still a damned impressive record.

Likewise, I blame the budget constraints (and it's gotten a lot worse... it can't ALL be going to the war effort, so just where the hell is it going!?), it's forcing NASA to do more for a hell of a lot less. The Govt (and I don't care WHICH party is in control) Needs to give NASA the funding it needs to solve their problems or start offering incentives for private organizations to pick up the slack. What's more, it's just f-ing RETARDED to retire the Shuttle fleet (and as JB0 has said "Endeavor" is still a pretty new machine by comparison) before it's replacement is even truly concieved.

[B-52 GUNNER]

Who is the guy who makes modified photos in this group.

He needs to turn a photo of the Shuttle into a bomber.

If you absolutely, positively have to bomb a country from orbit NASA is for you.

Actually the idea of a US-built Energia isn't a bad one.  In fact, we could build a second-generation Shuttle using the same general size and airframe design, but simplified by eliminating the main engines and using the Energia and its side boosters to provide all the thrust--that's exactly what the Russians did with Buran (which also had conventional jet engines for controlled atmospheric flight, rather than a controlled fall/glide...  they did design the thing partially to be a bomber, cuz that's what they thought the Shuttle was at the time).  Results:  Weight savings for missions that require a heavier payload, or, extra fuel for orbital maneuvering on maintenance/repair/recovery missions.  Could even use that weight and space savings for more powerful orbital maneuvering engines, allowing for greater orbital altitude. 

As for the reentry problem, I believe that problem has been licked.  Just slow down enough before you enter the atmosphere and you won't build up the heat.  Works for Rutan.

316055[/snapback]

[B-52 GUNNER]

The sad thing about the Enterprise is that NASA used parts of its wings leading edge to test the foam theory.

Besides, they would have to disassemble it and rebuild it in order for it to be flight worthy.

It's been sitting on the ground WAY TOO LONG.

Also; Rockwell International and McDonald Douglas were bought by Boeing and Fairchild Republic went belly up.

Who knows how many other companies are gone that were involved in the shuttle program.

Good analogy with the pen/pencil thing. 

Bad analogy with the computer thing.  Can you gameboy and/or entertainment system take extreme environmental change, including radiation?  The reason they use dinky computers in the Shuttles isn't by chance.  Not that they couldn't be using something better...

Budgetary considerations are VERY much a factor as has been proven with the procurement of every weapon system the US DoD uses... and has been proven with the defeat of many weapon systems the DoD wanted but were denied.

The Shuttle?  Another one should be built as a temporary replacement.  Enterprise conversion possibly as long it's to spec.  Possibly with incremental and peripheral upgrades on the fundamental platform/paradigm.  Begin the permanent replacement program now (X-33 derivative).  I definitely thing we should bring back the Saturn Rocket in a next generation as well as finish the ISS (and our own US only stations) and get an increased permanent presence in space, including an eyeball to the moon.

At the cost saved by the elimination of the tree-hugging programs no less.

316078[/snapback]

[Stamen0083]

Fact: In the modern world, MONEY HAS NO ACTUAL VALUE.  IT REPRESENTS NOTHING.

That's why there's exchange rates. Because the only "value" it has is the ability to buy products in the nation that issued it. And that only works because the nation that issued a given currency passed laws making said currency "legal tender for all debts public and private." Which it had to do because no one wanted to take the non-gold-standard money.

The modern dollar/peso/yen/whatever is little more than monopoly money, the only REAL diffrences being the quality of the paper used and who owns the presses.

316051[/snapback]

I see. So you're saying that the US can print lots of bills, trade them for natural resources, and everyone wins?

Say those bills make their way around the world, then another country can use their equivalent of those bills to trade for the US' resources. What if the US has no resources of any worth whatsoever to trade for those bills, heaven forbids? Would not those bills ultimately be worthless?

Currency has to be backed by something, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Am I missing something? My background in economics is rather weak, afterall.

[JB0]

nasa summed up in a quick point.

(i think i got this from someone one this board, if not then neato)

nasa realizes that pens don't work in space, spend assloads of cash and resources (in the millions-i think)and we get the wonder nasa pen, a wonderfully great little piece of stationary that can even write underwater - it was an issue on an episode of seinfeld-

neat huh.

the russian space agency (forget the name) encounters the same thing and they use a pencil. which can be purchased in packs of 10 for a little over a dollar- and unexplicably have the same abilities of the nasa pen but also could be easily erased...

Actually, the pen was freely developed by an independent company.

And was developed to solve major problems with penccil shavings and eraser turds in a 0G environment.

Rather than staying in teh sharpener, or falling politely to the floor, they drift through the air, until they A. are inhaled, B. get stuck in someone's sye, or C. drift into electrical parts and cause a short.

That's why Russia and NASA BOTH bought space pens once they were available.

the bigger ticket item does not make it the best for the job.

The average item often doesn't work in space.

a fork is a fork. if you were to purchase a fork from a thrift store and then another fork from say a fork specailty shop dealing with only the world's finest forks that cost in excess of $500 a pop, you will still be able to eat with both of them as they are used for the same purpose and contain the same design principle and function the same. you get to eat your spagetti.

Except only one fork is properly equipped to keep the spagetthi from floating off it between your plate and mouth.

For that matter, only one plate is properly equipped to keep spagetthi on it.

...

Actually, I think spaghetti in and of itself is not available in space.

too many brains overthinking a situation results in completely overengineered and impractical solution, that has a near endless supply of variables that escalate and result in disaster.

And underthinking it results in a lot of problems because you neglect to consider that things don't alway swork the same once you remove gravity.

if the space shuttle computer is less powerful than my gameboy or home game entertainment center then there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Has your GameBoy undergone a decade of testing to ensure long-term reliability in extreme environments including, but not limited to, rapid temperature shifts and irradiation?

Is your home theater system quadruple-redundant so that if there's a catastrophic failure it continues to function normally?

Is EITHER device something you would trust with your life?

If you cannot answer yes to all three of the above, than the shuttle computer is superior to whatever it's being compared to for the task at hand.

Furthermore, the shuttle computer has more than enough power to do EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO DO.

You do not upgrade a computer merely because you can. You upgrade because you NEED MORE POWER THAN YOU HAVE.

Could they be running quad dual-core Opterons with the latest and greatest 64-bit OS in the shuttle?

Sure.

Would they use even a fraction of the available power?

Not a chance.

Are the odds good that the system could fail during a mission, leaving the crew up the proverbial creek?

You bet your ass they are.

[B-52 GUNNER]

He said eraser turds

nasa summed up in a quick point.

(i think i got this from someone one this board, if not then neato)

nasa realizes that pens don't work in space, spend assloads of cash and resources (in the millions-i think)and we get the wonder nasa pen, a wonderfully great little piece of stationary that can even write underwater - it was an issue on an episode of seinfeld-

neat huh.

the russian space agency (forget the name) encounters the same thing and they use a pencil. which can be purchased in packs of 10 for a little over a dollar- and unexplicably have the same abilities of the nasa pen but also could be easily erased...

Actually, the pen was freely developed by an independent company.

And was developed to solve major problems with penccil shavings and eraser turds in a 0G environment.

Rather than staying in teh sharpener, or falling politely to the floor, they drift through the air, until they A. are inhaled, B. get stuck in someone's sye, or C. drift into electrical parts and cause a short.

That's why Russia and NASA BOTH bought space pens once they were available.

the bigger ticket item does not make it the best for the job.

The average item often doesn't work in space.

a fork is a fork. if you were to purchase a fork from a thrift store and then another fork from say a fork specailty shop dealing with only the world's finest forks that cost in excess of $500 a pop, you will still be able to eat with both of them as they are used for the same purpose and contain the same design principle and function the same. you get to eat your spagetti.

Except only one fork is properly equipped to keep the spagetthi from floating off it between your plate and mouth.

For that matter, only one plate is properly equipped to keep spagetthi on it.

...

Actually, I think spaghetti in and of itself is not available in space.

too many brains overthinking a situation results in completely overengineered and impractical solution, that has a near endless supply of variables that escalate and result in disaster.

And underthinking it results in a lot of problems because you neglect to consider that things don't alway swork the same once you remove gravity.

if the space shuttle computer is less powerful than my gameboy or home game entertainment center then there is a SERIOUS PROBLEM.

Has your GameBoy undergone a decade of testing to ensure long-term reliability in extreme environments including, but not limited to, rapid temperature shifts and irradiation?

Is your home theater system quadruple-redundant so that if there's a catastrophic failure it continues to function normally?

Is EITHER device something you would trust with your life?

If you cannot answer yes to all three of the above, than the shuttle computer is superior to whatever it's being compared to for the task at hand.

Furthermore, the shuttle computer has more than enough power to do EVERYTHING IT NEEDS TO DO.

You do not upgrade a computer merely because you can. You upgrade because you NEED MORE POWER THAN YOU HAVE.

Could they be running quad dual-core Opterons with the latest and greatest 64-bit OS in the shuttle?

Sure.

Would they use even a fraction of the available power?

Not a chance.

Are the odds good that the system could fail during a mission, leaving the crew up the proverbial creek?

You bet your ass they are.

316087[/snapback]

[JB0]

Fact: In the modern world, MONEY HAS NO ACTUAL VALUE.  IT REPRESENTS NOTHING.

That's why there's exchange rates. Because the only "value" it has is the ability to buy products in the nation that issued it. And that only works because the nation that issued a given currency passed laws making said currency "legal tender for all debts public and private." Which it had to do because no one wanted to take the non-gold-standard money.

The modern dollar/peso/yen/whatever is little more than monopoly money, the only REAL diffrences being the quality of the paper used and who owns the presses.

316051[/snapback]

I see. So you're saying that the US can print lots of bills, trade them for natural resources, and everyone wins?

Not quite. But to a degree.

Say those bills make their way around the world, then another country can use their equivalent of those bills to trade for the US' resources. What if the US has no resources of any worth whatsoever to trade for those bills, heaven forbids? Would not those bills ultimately be worthless?

Yes, they would be.

Of course, we have little companies like Intel ensuring we've got something worth trading for.

Currency has to be backed by something, otherwise it wouldn't work.

Am I missing something? My background in economics is rather weak, afterall.

Not really.

Economics = witchcraft.

[Lynx7725]

My 2 cents.

1. The space program must go on. Yes, it's risky, yes, the ROI is hideously long term, but it's the logical way to go -- Earth's only so big after all, and as a race we are literally having all our eggs in one basket. So no question, the space program must proceed.

2. The Space Shuttle.. well, the design is pretty ancient by aviation standard, and most of the airframes are pretty old already. Time to bring in a successor -- which private enterprise is trying to do.

Honestly, I think the risk of using the Space Shuttle is only going to increase exponentially from this point. Unless you build new airframes, the existing airframes are just going to have more and more problems. Even though the risk of space exploration is there, I think it is still necessary to minimize the risks to the people who are willing to put their lives on the line to help push the boundaries.

As for budgetary concerns.. it's a given constraint that NASA must work with. Regardless of what some of the people here might think, any government must be fiscially responsible.. and to many people in the US, the space program is a luxury when compared to other problems like social security, defense, legal system, education, health care etc. Want more funding to the space program? Then be prepared for cuts in industry or defense or education, or healthcare, or...

So which has priority, the immediate solutions to problems, or the long-term solutions to problems? For various reasons, including politics, most governments would opt to put money into the immediate solutions.

(Aside: I think I will restrict the political discussion to the above two paragraphs.)

Coming back, if NASA can come up with more creative ways to send payload into space and reserve the shuttle strictly for fundamental research trips, that would probably be the best compromise between funding and fulfilling its (supposed) mission. NASA probably should start production of a new generation of "shirtsleeves" vehicle, as the Shuttle is in all probability reaching the end of its useful life cycle.

[Pat S]

Wow this topic is political!

I never knew that the foam was changed for environmental concerns. It's funny how the media doesn't dig this stuff up, and raise any questions. I say put some safe foam on the thing, and seal it up or whatever. Keep the missions going until there is a replacement, but the replacement program needs priority and a budget allocation.

[Druna Skass]

So I take it some of the problems with the shuttle is wear and tear?

What ever happend to the scramjet? I vaguely remember some concept thing I came across that used a jet engine to get to the upper atmosphere then a rocket to get into space from there.

[JB0]

So I take it some of the problems with the shuttle is wear and tear?

Not really.

Neither of the shuttles we've lost died due to age.

One was a rocket being flown in an out-of-spec environment that failed to operate properly(hence why it wasn't spec'ed for that weather).

The other was a chunk of foam that hit the heat shield at a relatve velocity of something like mach 20 and ripped a hole right through it. Stopping that chunk of foam would've been a major accomplishment for high-quality tank armor, never mind a heat shield that was never intended to take impacts at all.

What ever happend to the scramjet? I vaguely remember some concept thing I came across that used a jet engine to get to the upper atmosphere then a rocket to get into space from there.

A. Scramjet is a kind of engine, not a ship.

B. Like all the other replacement concepts, it got scrapped at one point or another.

[Druna Skass]

A. Scramjet is a kind of engine, not a ship.

B. Like all the other replacement concepts, it got scrapped at one point or another.

316172[/snapback]

A. I know that. It's some kind ramjet on steroids.

B. Anyone know where I can find any info on that concept. It seemed like an interesting one, but I don't know what that idea is called.

[Kin]

Some radical ideas of mine...

1. I'm sure there is some way to reverse the gravity of something against the earth?

2. Instead of blasting a rocket... how about using imploding force?

I know it sounds crazy but just a thought..