Back to Space....

snowsprite · Post by **snowsprite** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:43

I guess they've done it in the shuttle...but what about outside? Like on the moon or floating around? Have they engineered a deep-space condom yet?

yes, I really do think about these things...

Sprite

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:49

HelmetCam wrote:complex systems require complex processes. for challenger the design limitations were known but not communicated strongly enough. in columbia's case the accident investigation committee faulted several management processes that failed. someone on the committee, sally ride i believe, said she "heard echos" between the two accidents in the failure of management.

True, but the shuttle is overly-complex. It does nothing that traditional (and much simpler) rockets can't do for a whole lot less money. To my mind the biggest problem with the shuttle is that it was designed to perform in two completely different environments, each of which has its own unique requirements. Sort of like building an airplane that can double as a submarine.

Yes there were issues with NASA's culture, but the commission also faulted the Reagan (I believe it was) administration for green lighting the shuttle given that it had no real mission.

pizzamoose · Post by **pizzamoose** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:54

snowsprite wrote:I guess they've done it in the shuttle...but what about outside? Like on the moon or floating around? Have they engineered a deep-space condom yet?

Gives a whole new meaning to the word, "decompression."

Eski · Post by **Eski** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:56

mission is postponed, fuel cost rose too much this week:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/S/ ... CTION=HOME

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:56

If they don't tell us if they have done it on the moon, we won't ask! ;-)

(Only men have been to the moon.)

DMC Freeride · Post by **DMC Freeride** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:57

snowsprite wrote:I guess they've done it in the shuttle...but what about outside? Like on the moon or floating around?

The decompression would literally suck your.. ummm.. nevermind...

HelmetCam · Post by **HelmetCam** » Jul 13th, '05, 14:58

BigKahuna13 wrote:
HelmetCam wrote:complex systems require complex processes. for challenger the design limitations were known but not communicated strongly enough. in columbia's case the accident investigation committee faulted several management processes that failed. someone on the committee, sally ride i believe, said she "heard echos" between the two accidents in the failure of management.
True, but the shuttle is overly-complex. It does nothing that traditional (and much simpler) rockets can't do for a whole lot less money. To my mind the biggest problem with the shuttle is that it was designed to perform in two completely different environments, each of which has its own unique requirements. Sort of like building an airplane that can double as a submarine.

Yes there were issues with NASA's culture, but the commission also faulted the Reagan (I believe it was) administration for green lighting the shuttle given that it had no real mission.

what other system is capable of launching and returning 7 people at a time? and landing them at a specific place (as opposed to a general unpopulated area in Kazakstan) in relative comfort?

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:00

Well, had the X-15 program not been sh*t canned to make way for Apollo, such a system might be called a 797.

BigKahuna13 · Post by **BigKahuna13** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:04

HelmetCam wrote:
BigKahuna13 wrote:
HelmetCam wrote:complex systems require complex processes. for challenger the design limitations were known but not communicated strongly enough. in columbia's case the accident investigation committee faulted several management processes that failed. someone on the committee, sally ride i believe, said she "heard echos" between the two accidents in the failure of management.
True, but the shuttle is overly-complex. It does nothing that traditional (and much simpler) rockets can't do for a whole lot less money. To my mind the biggest problem with the shuttle is that it was designed to perform in two completely different environments, each of which has its own unique requirements. Sort of like building an airplane that can double as a submarine.

Yes there were issues with NASA's culture, but the commission also faulted the Reagan (I believe it was) administration for green lighting the shuttle given that it had no real mission.
what other system is capable of launching and returning 7 people at a time? and landing them at a specific place (as opposed to a general unpopulated area in Kazakstan) in relative comfort?

First question you need to ask yourself is: is launching 7 people at a time and returning them to a specific place a requirement to meet whatever your objectives are.

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:07

As one senator put it: "we just spent $20,000,000 to fly six people from Florida to New Mexico when United will do it for $5K.... and throw in some peanuts."

Overly simplistic, as all politicians tend to be, but there is a little kernel of wisedom in there.

HelmetCam · Post by **HelmetCam** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:15

i'm not saying the shuttle is the greatest thing since sliced bread. unfortuately NASA's pursestrings are controlled by congress, and congress (people and priorities) changes constantly. but its not like the shuttle is some boondoggle that hasn't provided some return.

the hubble space telescope is a case in point. there is no other system that could have serviced that thing (twice) that the shuttle has.

ANY system we build will have problems. the shuttles replacement will have accidents and cause deaths.

one definition of an airplane (or a spacecraft): a million compromises flying in close formation.

HelmetCam · Post by **HelmetCam** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:17

yeti wrote:As one senator put it: "we just spent $20,000,000 to fly six people from Florida to New Mexico when United will do it for $5K.... and throw in some peanuts."

that might be the dumbest thing i've ever heard. no wonder a politician said it.

yeti · Post by **yeti** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:18

Actually, we are all correct. However it is time to put away the 1970 technology and build something better before more people pay the price (not to mention the preice we all pay in taxes everytime they launch the thing)!

HelmetCam · Post by **HelmetCam** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:19

yeti wrote:Actually, we are all correct. However it is time to put away the 1970 technology and build something better before more people pay the price (not to mention the preice we all pay in taxes everytime they launch the thing)!

I agree. loosen the pursestrings and let the rocket scientists loose!

Post by **Bubba** » Jul 13th, '05, 15:20

DMC Freeride wrote:
yeti wrote:It is said that Russians have.
Hot Russian chicks in space instead of in the local strip clubs...

I'm having this vision of Anna Kournikova......