What is Digg?101 Comments
- TheShad0w, on 10/31/2009, -0/+47Isn't this why its called a test? Look, if you want cheap and simple go look at cars. Going to the Moon is complex and has many many variables. Sure this test cost 445 million, but first its better we spot the issues NOW instead of when we have living people using the vehicle, Second for everyone that says it isn't essential you're always the people with the very short term and small view of things. The building of this rocket kept hundreds if not thousands of people employed. It validated some theories and ideas for propulsion. It provided millions of dollars in development of new technology just to accomplish this feat. It also feeds into other research projects which can lead to amazing technological advancements (go look up how many polymers and technologies have come out of such NASA missions).
Please, stop being so near sighted. Research is a game of trial and error. Sure a project may not be a 100% success, meaning it didn't tell us what we thought it would but along the path new things were discovered our views of the universe improved and in the long run we all benefit from it.
As the saying goes:
Cheap, Fast, Good. Choose two. - fragMasterFlash, on 10/31/2009, -2/+32Sucks to be you, parachute designer guy.
- futurepastnow, on 10/31/2009, -1/+24Everything they wanted to test functioned perfectly. This is a minor problem that doesn't affect anything- the SRB could just as easily have been lost after a shuttle mission. Or, to quote the TFA:
"Mission manager Bob Ess said Friday the damage is irrelevant because the booster is not meant to fly again." - mwtapp, on 10/30/2009, -8/+27FTA: The $445 million flight test was the first step in NASA's effort to return astronauts to the moon.
And now we know why humans haven't been to the Moon in a while. - TMLF, on 10/31/2009, -2/+19This failure wouldn't have caused a moon mission to fail. It would just mean that they wouldn't be able to reuse this booster.
- TMLF, on 10/31/2009, -2/+19Solid rocket boosters are very simple, compared to cryogenic rocket engines. The only moving part is the hydraulic thrust vectoring skirt.
- taibo, on 10/31/2009, -0/+17445 million is like the price of a couple fighter jets. I think you're looking at the wrong place to cut costs buddy.
- brandnewx, on 10/31/2009, -1/+16The booster was never meant to be reused, whether it is damaged or not damaged. Basically, it's not ideal for a heavy metal to fall freely back to Earth, as it would pose an impact danger to those on the ground.
- bixby1, on 10/31/2009, -3/+18'Tim, can you explain to me how the thousands of moving parts on the demo booster worked perfectly by, ya' know, not exploding, and we can't pop the hood on some parachutes?!'
- DjOverEZ, on 10/31/2009, -2/+15Because magic fairy dust is still at least 10 years off.
- postitnote, on 10/31/2009, -0/+12Seriously, it's not like it's rocket science.
- DeadpoolPHP, on 10/31/2009, -0/+12Maybe if you would have phrased your question as if you weren't a 13-year-old that just discovered the word "*****" and the exclamation, caps-lock, and question mark keys, you wouldn't have been dugg down. Next time, instead of:
"WHY THE ***** ARE WE STILL USING ROCKETS?!!??!?!???!"
Try:
"Why are we still using rockets for space exploration instead of alternative technologies?" - iheartbakon, on 10/31/2009, -0/+12Because the hamsters keep running out of oxygen after 30,000 feet or so.
- TMLF, on 10/31/2009, -1/+12Wouldn't want to hurt the ocean by falling on it...
- GorfTron, on 10/31/2009, -1/+112 parachutes, one rocket
- DrivinWest, on 10/31/2009, -0/+9NASA has had one failed manned ascent. One. Ever.
Idiot. - hawkspur, on 10/31/2009, -0/+9Not to mention all the things NASA has invented over the years. Ear thermometers, shoe insoles, Long-distance Telecommunications, charcoal water filters, the TV satellite dish, firefighter oxygen tanks, etc etc.
- bringitontimx, on 10/31/2009, -1/+10I suppose a catapult is a better idea...
.. - pepotero13, on 10/31/2009, -1/+9The fools! why didnt they build it with 4 parachutes!?!?!?! when will they ever learn?!?!?!
- apollyon, on 10/31/2009, -3/+11Oh, So, Mr. Aerospace Engineer and AstroPhysicist BenC, I suppose you have a better idea?
Rockets are the best thing we have, unless you count nuclear energy - which is much better and cleaner, but it'll never happen with the ignorant and stupid american culture and perpetually stupid congress funding Nasa. - sneaker98, on 10/31/2009, -1/+7How about that whole betterment of mankind thing? Discovering new things? Expanding our civilization?
No? Okay, fine, here's something you will understand: jobs. The space industry employs thousands of people. So shut the ***** up. - MikeEx, on 10/31/2009, -2/+8I agree, Marijuana is much more effective at getting you high.
The time to legalize is now! - sneaker98, on 10/31/2009, -0/+6You're joking, right?
....right? - awokenbymyfears, on 10/31/2009, -0/+6Not to mention the fire resistant materials that are used in Racing suits. Firefighter suits. Etc.
- CATSCEO2, on 10/31/2009, -0/+6Lasers work well moving around in space, not getting off a large lump of rock and gravity like Earth.
- breadfred, on 10/31/2009, -0/+5Oh here we go again. Go back to your caves, don't eat any processed food, don't use supermarkets or any technology, as you are obviously against scientific research which has brought you everything from said clothes to food and drinking water. Oh and your housing as well. What has NASA got to do with this? They invest in basic research, from high energy foods to filtering drinking water as mentioned above.
Please don't leave your cage, and go catch some spiders to chew on. Bon appetite. - twinklyJesus, on 10/31/2009, -1/+6I went and read your previous comment, because I felt sorry for you. Then, I discovered you might be an idiot and I was embarrassed for you, so I buried both...
Read a book. preferably a science book that has diagrams and graphs and no cartoons. - thebreach, on 10/31/2009, -0/+5Thank you from the commentary from the certified Digg aerospace engineers, good to know you're all on top of it
Not like launching a brand new type of rocket has a lot of variables that comes with a new design, and everything is bound to be perfect the first time around. The shuttle never had any of these little malfunctions when it first launched. - dhartin, on 10/31/2009, -0/+5"According to Steve Garber, the NASA History website curator, the final cost of project Apollo was between $20 and $25.4 billion in 1969 dollars (or approximately $145 billion in 2008 dollars)." wiki-
445 million is a drop in the bucket - kashk5, on 10/31/2009, -0/+5What test results are you reading? The article clearly stated that everything that they were testing functioned properly. So the results show that the rockets ARE capable.
- erkokite, on 10/31/2009, -0/+4Real men of Genius. We salute you, mr. parachute designer guy...
- twinklyJesus, on 10/31/2009, -2/+6Cheaper than a bridge
- brandnewx, on 10/31/2009, -1/+5445 million is the cost of the whole program not necessarily the cost of the metals and fuels of the rocket.
I would love to explain more, but well do your home work. Grab some macro economics book, will ya? Ignorance is not cool. - twinklyJesus, on 10/31/2009, -1/+5Cheaper than cab fare.
- hawkspur, on 10/31/2009, -2/+5Yeah, ***** that whole space exploration thing.
- letherial, on 10/31/2009, -1/+4I personaly wonder why they dont use the transporter device, all these rockets and such getting so expensive just for the show. "Beam me up scotty", thats how i get to the moon.
NASA, a bunch of morons. - brandnewx, on 10/31/2009, -0/+3Anti-gravity isn't here yet.
Nuclear thrust poses a serious fallout risk. - skipvt, on 10/31/2009, -0/+3A little bondo and some new paint and she's good as new!
- twinklyJesus, on 10/31/2009, -1/+3If they bolt it down, it won't fall out.
- Unikraken, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Poor reading ability gets you a poor troll score as well.
0.5/10 - Unikraken, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Poor trolling by a Libertard: 3/Over 9000
- endz420, on 10/31/2009, -1/+3It was sub-orbital dumbass
- DrNemo, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2What do you want them to sell? NASA can't exist without government funding. It can't produce anything marketable.
- TAGline, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Wow a whole kilogram or two! That's so useful!
- MastaQ, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Correct! 6000 hulls!
- TheShad0w, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2@Trolleyfan when you start designing and launching your own exo-orbital vehicles I think you'll have the right to claim what such hardware costs financially and time wise. Not saying there isn't room for efficiency but unless you happen to have a PhD in rocket science I'm not going to be inclined to accept your opinion as any degree of fact.
- erkokite, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2No. They didn't.
- Wildthing, on 11/01/2009, -0/+2Personally I consider anything not resembling this ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=13qeX98tAS8 ) to be a success
- TheShad0w, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2Right, because a totally new design won't have flaws. Sure its the same in principal but a truck isn't a car isn't a boat.
It wasn't a screw up. They learned from it, people didn't die, and we are one step closer. Expecting flawless from a multi-million dollar project is ridiculous at best and insanity at worse. - DeskFlyer, on 10/31/2009, -0/+2I think it's worth mentioning that the cost includes the entire Constellation program to date, not just the single piece of hardware that they launched.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 102 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is