11

10/31/2012 4:32:47 PM

Hangars are 100% safe

10/31/2012 5:56:33 PM

that's like saying condoms aren't 100% safe so don't use them!

10/31/2012 6:17:51 PM

It was a joke.

10/31/2012 6:27:27 PM

so is what i posted.

10/31/2012 6:55:19 PM

Snape kills Dumbledor in the comics.

10/31/2012 7:01:42 PM

The Burans weren't all destroyed in that hangar collapse. Here are some of them today:








Such a shame that the superior vehicle has been left to rot.

[Edited on October 31, 2012 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2012 7:38:15 PM

Quote :

"The Burans "

Only the first was called Buran.

10/31/2012 7:45:00 PM

Quote :

"In addition to the shuttle Buran, four other space shuttles were being built in the Buran programme before its cancelation: OK-1K2 Ptichka (95-97% complete) OK-2K1 Baikal (30-50% complete) Shuttle 2.02 (10-20% complete) Shuttle 2.03 (dismantled)"

In many ways, the Buran program had a leg up on the shuttle program... the Buran orbiter was simply payload for the super-heavy rocket that launched it. It wouldn't have taken much for the same rocket to launch cargo instead of the rocket. (meanwhile NASA is stuck developing the "shuttle derived" SLS which will cost untold billions before all is said and done.

10/31/2012 7:58:33 PM

I thought it was like ships; the first one gives the name to the whole class. I've occasionally seen it referred to as the VKK shuttle.

In any case it was superior to the shuttle in every way. The Soviets did what they do best, steal designs and make them better. More capacity, safer for crew, jet propulsion instead of a life or death glide attempt, superior thermodynamic and aerodynamic properties, easier to launch, fully automated. Such wastes of human effort.

I think some of the photos above are of test airframes like Enterprise. I'm not sure anyone really knows how many of them still exist.

[Edited on October 31, 2012 at 8:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/31/2012 8:06:45 PM

The shuttle fleet wasn't called 'Enterprises' were they?

Also, it's really hard to tell how the program would have compared to our STS, however, on paper at least, it was very superior to the STS program. Although, it would have been susceptible to the same type of damage that destroyed Columbia (debris hit on trailing edge) and very easily an o-ring failure that destroyed Challenger.



[Edited on October 31, 2012 at 8:13 PM. Reason : spelling]

10/31/2012 8:12:50 PM

It really is hard to beat a ball on top of a rocket with some chutes. You're far away from the engines, present a tiny profile to space debris and can peace out at any moment, even during launch.

10/31/2012 8:19:44 PM

Yup, tower jets are great. I'm not an aerospace engineer or anything, but all the apollo abort modes seemed simpler than the Shuttle ones.

10/31/2012 8:29:34 PM

and the abort scenarios for the Orion/SLS stack will be simple and effective... solid rocket motors that pull the capsule away from the failing rocket.

All of the private space "taxis" being designed have similar abort systems, although the dragon will have thrusters built into the body of the capsule to take on that roll (along with powered landings)

10/31/2012 8:36:48 PM

and there really wasn't anything the shuttle COULD do in a catastrophic failure.

10/31/2012 8:38:09 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_abort_modes

The engineers wanted to practice a return to launch site orbit but John Young (Apollo astronaut) essentially told them to fuck off.

10/31/2012 8:41:06 PM

well yes... I guess I wasn't clear.

Later on during the ascent there are several options, most of which consist of making an emergency landing with the orbiter. Some involve astronauts bailing out of the orbiter which would result in a loss of vehicle, but save lives. The problem with these, however, is that they would not work early in the ascent, and were designed to be used in case an engine (or other equipment) stopped working.

Options for an explosive, catastrophic failure in early ascent were not there (like they were in apollo and will be with orion.)

10/31/2012 11:05:19 PM

Early shuttle flights actually did have ejection seats. I don't know much about them though, I can't imagine that they worked during the later part of flyout. I'm not sure what would happen to the human body if you ejected while traveling at 10x the speed of sound.

The launch abort system to be used on Orion has actually been tested quite a few times, there are tons of videos all over youtube.

11/1/2012 9:29:56 AM

^yeah only the first few... i think they were based on ejection seats from the SR-71 but they added too much weight and would only work for the 2 pilots (I could be wrong on the details but that's what i remember)

There were also plans for ejecting the entire crew compartment, but they never were implemented for a multitude of reasons (cost, complexity, weight, etc)

11/1/2012 10:10:06 AM

11/1/2012 12:28:42 PM

^I'll take "Photographs That Fuel Conspiracy Theories" for $1,000, Alex.



[Edited on November 1, 2012 at 4:45 PM. Reason : .]

11/1/2012 4:41:20 PM

^how was that picture twisted into "OMFG WE DIDN'T GO TO THE MOON?"

I'm not saying it wasn't... just not sure how it was used. I'm assuming "oh someone had to stay behind to take the picture?"

11/1/2012 5:04:05 PM

http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/5-incredible-nasa-technologies-with-goofy-secondary-uses/

11/1/2012 5:31:08 PM

^^

Quote :

"2. The second stage of the launch rocket and/or the Moon lander ascent stage made no visible flame. The Moon landers used Aerozine 50 (fuel) and dinitrogen tetroxide (oxidizer) propellants, chosen for simplicity and reliability; they ignite hypergolically –upon contact– without the need for a spark. These propellants produce a nearly transparent exhaust.[87] The same fuel was used by the core of the American Titan rocket. The transparency of their plumes is apparent in many launch photos. The plumes of rocket engines fired in a vacuum spread out very quickly as they leave the engine nozzle (see above), further lessening their visibility. Finally, rocket engines often run "rich" to slow internal corrosion. On Earth, the excess fuel burns in contact with atmospheric oxygen. This cannot happen in a vacuum"

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_landing_conspiracy_theories

11/1/2012 5:44:46 PM

In the case of the Mars rover, it's an admittedly photoshopped image(dozens of images stitched together to remove the arm holding camera from the view).

11/1/2012 8:25:20 PM

^ lol, exactly

11/2/2012 10:21:50 AM

^ hahah awesome

11/2/2012 10:47:27 AM

^^I've seen that before but it's hilarious!

11/2/2012 11:01:25 AM

What do these represent?

11/5/2012 12:36:32 PM

TARDIS
Millennium Falcon
Battlestar Galactica
Saturn 5
Discovery One (HAL)
NCC 1701 USS Enterprise
TARDIS

11/5/2012 12:43:31 PM

TARDIS
Millenium Falcon
??? (looks kinda like the Serenity but the year doesn't match up)
Saturn V
Space Shuttle
Ship from 2001: A Space Odyssey
USS Enterprise
TARDIS

11/5/2012 12:44:05 PM

fellow nerds.

except Wraith wins because actually works for NASA

11/5/2012 12:51:15 PM

yeah, ^^ and ^^^ was an impressive response

Quote :

"except Wraith wins because actually works for NASA "

That sounds like trouble. Does his employer know he can't identify The Battlestar?

11/5/2012 8:51:51 PM

ha i obviously forgot the space shuttle (the most obvious one!)

technically it's just the orbiter... the "space shuttle" refers to the whole stack including the solid rocket boosters and the liquid fuel tank.

[Edited on November 5, 2012 at 9:48 PM. Reason : ]

11/5/2012 9:47:44 PM

http://www.space.com/18380-nasa-moon-missions-obama-election.html

11/8/2012 10:27:10 AM

It sounds like there was a conspiracy to withhold this decision from the voting public until after the election, lest they be allowed to exercise their democratic rights to reject it.

It's dishonest to say the least. It's obvious that they believed announcing a massive expenditure while simultaneously running a campaign based on empathy with the poor would have been unpopular.

The line in the article that indicates that little additional funds will be required is like saying adding gold-plated doorknobs during the construction of the Taj Mahal doesn't matter, nevermind the fact that space budgets have historically been wildly underestimated.

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 1:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/8/2012 1:06:56 PM

I do somewhat agree that it was slightly shady to withhold info like that until after the election, especially since the space policies of the candidates were nebulous at best. The silver lining in Obama being reelected is a certain continuity in the space program, which even though our current path isn't ideal, it is definitely going to save some money not having to go through a lengthy review period and another possible cancellation and re-branding of our manned program (like what happened when Obama came in... not that Bush's program was on the right track anyway)

[Edited on November 8, 2012 at 3:55 PM. Reason : ]

11/8/2012 3:49:31 PM

I doubt we'll see a Kennedy-style challenge to the nation as a whole. More than likely it will just be another vague goal a decade away that keeps the cash flowing to the aerospace contractors that donated to his campaign. Mars was too costly and ambitious and they knew it.

11/8/2012 4:06:07 PM

scoop scoop scoop!



But really, I doubt the moon plans would have impacted smc's vote to begin with. The Republicans are probably trying to enslave us by his standards. A moonbase is trite in comparison.

11/11/2012 8:02:28 PM

Playing in the sand.

http://www.ibtimes.com/chinese-space-agency-announces-next-manned-space-launch-870136

11/11/2012 11:07:21 PM

Opportunity sent back new pics

11/12/2012 8:24:46 AM

I heard a huge rumor about a program in the works.

11/13/2012 10:46:48 AM

No, we will not be probing Uranus. Don't get too excited.

Sorry it was too obvious..

11/13/2012 10:49:04 AM

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/11/exploration-alternatives-propellant-depots-commercial-lunar-base/

Ok, so more details are going to come out in the next few weeks, but there is a consortium of high profile folks in the aerospace inductry (and billionaires) working on private moon missions with human landings set for ~2020. It looks like a mostly american effort (with some foreign investors), and will probably use rockets and such by SpaceX to make it happen.

A separate announcement from NASA in the coming weeks looks like they have a "gateway" station planned for the L2 point (one of the places where the gravity from the Earth and Moon cancel out... L2 is on the far side of the moon)... This would allow for fuel to be stored after being sent there from a slow but efficient trajectory. Also would allow for astronauts to practice living in a deep space environment outside of Earth's magnetic field, which will be necessary for any mars or asteroid trips in the coming decades.


[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 6:05 AM. Reason : ]

11/15/2012 6:03:10 AM

^ I don't understand your link. You reference SpaceX, but the link says the plan involves the SLS, with all the cost that implies. It seems like there's nothing to see here really.

11/15/2012 2:20:58 PM

yep i posted this at 6am pre-coffee... let me clarify.
The article I referenced is talking about two different, and non-affiliated upcoming announcements.

1. The first program discussed is NASA's impending announcement of using the SLS as the backbone for a lunar program centered around a "gateway" station & fuel depot at the L2 point. The SLS isn't a "new" program, but the implementation of an L2 station hasn't been officially announced publicly. (of course there has been much public speculation that and L2 station would be important)

2. The second program is an impending announcement from a private conglomeration of key players in the aerospace industry (and a few billionaires) to send commercial astronauts to the moon by 2020. It has been speculated that SpaceX's Falcon Heavy rocket (in development) would be used for this program, as well as eventually inflatables, likely from Bigelow.








The author of the article (Chris Bergin) is using this as a teaser, just to get out the most basic info before the formal announcements are made. There will be much more detail in the coming weeks as the information becomes available (according to him)

make better sense?


[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 2:46 PM. Reason : ]

11/15/2012 2:40:39 PM

A pessimistic rant about space exploration: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2007/06/the_high_frontier_redux.html?

I've had a lot of these concerns, but it depressed me even more. Thoughts?

11/15/2012 2:53:31 PM

Stop trolling this thread with that nonsense. Didn't you just read that we're going to have moon base soon? How awesome is that? It is our destiny to seize all space land for ourselves. We have plenty of money. We have the astronauts ready to sacrifice their lives. The time is now. This planet is doomed. We have to leave as soon as possible. It's the responsibility of enlightened people like us to spread humanity everywhere. Pessimism doesn't get people into space. Pessimism doesn't land men on the moon. What is your problem? Space travel is our DESTINY. If you don't agree with that then you're not fit to be called an American.

11/15/2012 3:17:07 PM

I fucking love pessimism.

My personal goal is to make someone cry the next time I hear it argued that faster-than-light travel might be possible.

11/15/2012 3:23:59 PM

Of course it's possible. But we'll never discover how if we don't start allocating resources to a moon base now. With a sufficient budget and concentrated national effort, we can bend nature to our command. Always have, always will. The Ottoman Empire collapsed because they didn't colonize while the rest of Europe did. We won't make that mistake today.

[Edited on November 15, 2012 at 3:27 PM. Reason : .]

11/15/2012 3:26:01 PM