What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
Take Advantage of Ridiculously Low Holiday Airfares view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year. But move on it now.
78 Comments
- arlok789, on 12/30/2008, -2/+31Read this earlier today in the print paper, (what can I say, home for the holidays and my parents refuse to enter the 21st century).
As far as I am concerned, Nasa should get far more than 17 billion. The future survival of the human race is pretty much the best investment we can make. - goleopards1, on 12/30/2008, -1/+16Our future is in space, we would be foolish to abandon it while we bailout frauds on Wall Street!
- asgardshill, on 12/30/2008, -0/+13Wow - where to start?
1. Not even the biggest and best telescope made today can image even the big honkin' LEM descent stages left on the Moon from the Apollo missions. Telescopes simply cannot see fine detail - they're not designed for it. Using a telescope to make out any reasonable detail is like trying to perform brain surgery while wearing oven mitts.
2. There's not enough money on the planet to "feed the hungry" if the hungry's leaders are venal and greedy like they are in many countries in Africa and other places. Throwing money at the starving masses results only in making the juntas and dictators extremely wealthy.
3. The Chief Designer did a great job building the Earth, but even the best construction job doesn't last forever. I for one do not wish for humans to become extinct as a race because some random Texas-sized asteroid smacked into the planet and we had no way of getting out of its way.
Exploration for its own sake is a wise investment in our future. - Astark, on 12/30/2008, -0/+9Space travel is inherently dangerous, and people will continue to die, whether we are flying the space shuttle or the starship enterprise. The important thing is that their deaths serve a purpose. The Challenger and Columbia crews tragically died during missions that served no point other than to justify the money spent on the international space station. If we're actually going somewhere, like the moon or mars, people will line up to go regardless of the risk. America cannot give up it's leadership in space. Americans landed on the moon almost 40 years ago. 40 years from now, let's not be riding Chinese rockets to Chinese moonbases as tourists because we can't get there ourselves.
- dofe, on 12/31/2008, -0/+7It's the money. The space shuttle program was originally greenlighted on the premise that it would be cheaper to run over the long term because the shuttle and side boosters were reusable. Unfortunately, this expected cost saving did not materialize; shuttle launches were still expensive because of the time and labor that was required to prepare the shuttle for launch.
On a more basic level, the entire shuttle concept was flawed. The shuttle was useful as a design challenge, but it's not very efficient in sending satellites into orbit -- think about it, each launch carries extra baggage in the form of human support systems and the avionics structures required to allow it to function as a glider during descent. A rocket sending satellites into orbit is a lot more cost efficient because it doesn't need to carry any of these other functions. - Brassbud, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6Although I understand your point, fuel powered rockets are all we have at this point, so to not develop them would mean ceasing operations. The troubles with Orion are largely due to the fact that we have forgotten how to go to the Moon.
A skill unused goes to waste. Believe it or not, in this instance we had better technology in the 1960's than we do now. - Brassbud, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5Why feed the hungry and educate without the prospect of advancement? A human's life may be worth something, but human life won't be.
- g33b33, on 12/30/2008, -1/+6Who is digging this guy down?
"WAAAHHH we broke this planet, lets throw it away and get a new one!"
Wouldn't learning how to fix the atmosphere of THIS planet help us to colonise other planets? - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -1/+6Consensus among the scientists is that the shuttles look "totally 80's".
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4Am I the only one who thinks we should not be investing money into these fuel powered rockets but rather spend that money to research and develop cheaper means of space travel. For example spending research money on nano-tube technology in order in order to make space elevators a reality. So maybe one day your ass could get a chance to go up into space instead of these Scientist and Test Pilots!
- SiXiam, on 12/30/2008, -3/+7Get your Ass to Mars!
Get your Ass to Mars!
Get your Ass to Mars!
Get your Ass to Mars! - YEEK, on 12/30/2008, -0/+4You're half right... we should build the biggest telescope possible.
But you're half wrong, too. We should keep exploring space. - mcnees287, on 12/30/2008, -1/+5what the hell are you talking about?
Go back to your shanty in alabama, stay where you belong - Jarasmen, on 12/31/2008, -0/+4I'm no scientist, but my guesses are:
- you still would need more or less the same amount of fuel used at launch
- what we do right now is strap something we want to put into space to a big rocket, which gradually drops its parts as it goes up. In the orbit what you get is a small capsule or a shuttle without its big fuel tank, so it doesn't even have anything to store the fuel in, not to mention slow down the descent so not to burn up. Hell, the tanks aren't even reusable.
Any corrections of these are appreciated. - bentrinh, on 12/31/2008, -0/+31) Shuttle accidents happen very quickly and unpredictably
2) It's dead weight most of the time. It takes a massive amount of fuel and resources to push a space shuttle out of the gravitational pull of the entire planet Earth. Each little bit of weight really counts at that point. - justanotherday, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3The basic flaw in the shuttle design it its position on the stack and the fact that the entire thermal system is exposed. Being on the side makes it vulnerable to debris at mach speeds which is what doomed Columbia. The reason rockets with capsules are much safer is because the crew is on top and the thermal shielding is protected from debris hits.
Spaceflight will never be 100% safe, but the shuttle's real problem is not engines, avionics, or anything of the sort. It's the basic design flaw that has been present since 1972 and cannot be corrected...fragile thermal shielding and then being placed in a vulnerable area. - RogerStrong, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3The goal that has been set is to go to the moon, and eventually Mars. For that a next-generation Apollo is what we need - wings, tail and wheeled landing gear are of no use for for going to the moon.
Really, we should be doing both. - OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 12/30/2008, -0/+3What do you mean by "viable private enterprises"? So far SpaceX has only had one successful test launch with it's Falcon 1 spacecraft.
- sassafras1232, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3You're thinking about the whole thing slightly wrong. The problem with re-entry isn't coming down, it's slowing down. Most of the energy in the launch goes into giving the craft horizontal speed. Small craft, like SpaceShipOne or the old spy planes, can get high enough to be at the edge of the atmosphere, but they come back down because they don't have enough horizontal speed (i.e. they haven't reached escape velocity).
When the Shuttle or a capsule is in orbit it is moving at something like Mach 18. That's 14,000mph. A "small blast" isn't going to slow that down noticeably. The only thing around that there is to slow a vehicle down is the atmosphere. So they slow their orbital speed enough that they can skim the top of the atmosphere and use it to slow down the rest of the way. - Tiak, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3Honestly, I doubt space elevators will ever be practical (at least on earth). Carbon nanotubes are basically at the physical limits of possibility, and they just barely fit the requirements, an even then require complex solutions to keep working (special tapering, and special coatings to prevent corrosion), an even once they meet these requirements, they still can be cut rather easily by stray satellite or attack, not to mention the requirement of developing a vehicle which can climb 22,000 miles without any means of refueling other than possibly the beaming of microwave power and the means to shield individuals during the hours to days of necessary time in the van allen belts.
We'd be much better off with some of its less popular cousins like launch loops. - inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3It's time to log off.
- sassafras1232, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3There is a lot of distance between aggressively expanding our military influence and being undefended to the point where an invasion of America could potentially succeed. We could halve our military spending as the OP suggests and STILL spend more than the Chinese, the Russians, all of the nations of the Middle East, and all of the nations of Latin America COMBINED. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spend ...
The only downside to spending less on our military would be the increase in unemployment because it is such a large part of our economy. - videographer, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3>...and people will continue to die, whether we are flying the space shuttle or the starship enterprise.<
I can fix part two: Don't wear the red uniform shirt. - OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 12/30/2008, -1/+4Suppose we cut the military budget by half. Award NASA a portion of that. Feed the hungry and educate our children. Fix SS and the medical industry. And we would still have a budget surplus.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+3You're right. Hunger is not a technological or financial problem, it's a political one. And we all know what happens when you try to fix a political problem with cash.
- martinezmic, on 12/31/2008, -1/+3The $700 billion bailout would be best used for NASA
- frostbyt, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2"How exactly do you mean "food, medicine and education"?
These are the important things to life. Improvements in any of the three strengthens the foundation of humanity. - Wildthing, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2@KaseyCarbone: The Apollo spacecrafts actually returned from the moon at a significantly higher velocity than the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle would not survive re-entry into the atmosphere at those velocities, so if you want to come back down, your only real option is a capsule.
Also, the Apollo Spacecraft carried what is known as an Earth Departure Stage -- a rocket specially used to leave earth orbit. The Space Shuttle does not have this stage.
The Apollo Spacecraft also had a space ship made specifically for landing on the moon while a portion of the craft remained in orbit around the moon. So you see, the Space Shuttle is in fact a very different space craft from the ones that went to the moon. The biggest disadvantage imo is the mass of the space shuttle itself: the more you have to bring back to earth, the smaller the payload you can bring into space. - rheaume, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2It did, probably one of several
http://digg.com/space/NASA_gives_space_cargo_contr ... - rodted2, on 12/30/2008, -1/+3I don't understand the problem with the space shuttle design. Just upgrade the tech. better more powerful engines, computers, systems,etc. I haven't read much about the cost difference but it sounds like the cost will about the same. so it can't be money. Have I missed something?
- cubicledrone, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2No, we had better technology in the 1960s. We ---do not have--- the technology to land on the moon right now. We lack the facilities to even build it.
See, when you fire everyone, you don't get to build what they built any more. That's the part people don't seem to get while they're cheering stock prices built on layoffs. - frostbyt, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2"1. Not even the biggest and best telescope made today can image even the big honkin' LEM descent stages left on the Moon from the Apollo missions. Telescopes simply cannot see fine detail"
Just like people said man will never fly. Give these people a chance and I bet they will surprise you.
"2. There's not enough money on the planet to "feed the hungry" if the hungry's leaders"
There is plenty of food for everyone. We should feed the hungry stomaches and minds enough so they can help themselves. Dictators can not stand up to the masses of educated people. History has proven that.
"3. The Chief Designer did a great job building the Earth, but even the best construction job doesn't last forever. I for one do not wish for humans to become extinct as a race because some random Texas-sized"
If the Chief Designer chooses to wipe the slate clean there is nothing we can do but put faith in his decision. Like a thief in the night.Putting humans on another planet would basically be slow torture. Dwindling resources, constant night, lack of earth like environments (birds chirping, green grass, blue sky...etc) would bring out the worst in the last survivors. Ever watch lord of the flies? Like that except 10x worse.
Exploration is fine but not at such a high cost that could be better spent. Imagine having only $20 to your name for two weeks would you use it to buy a taxi ride to the desert or food? - csulok, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2spacex falcon's achievement is extremely far from a permanent moonbase or a year long visit to mars. they are about 40 years behind nasa in terms of human transportation.
to research NASA still needs the orion, because there is nothing else that could take anyone to moon or mars. - frostbyt, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2"people simply can't do"
Exactly. So why even spend all that money? Why not use it for food, medicine, and education? - Peekman, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2lol @ few million........ 1 million years is not an imaginable amount of time for a human being.
- DeskFlyer, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2The human race is not going to survive.
- ricopicouk, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2That makes a lot of sense, thanks very much to both replies.
- RogerStrong, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2>> Any attempt to change another planets
>> environment to suit us is a pipe dream
>> at best.
Not at all. - Andrewbot, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2I believe having escape pods would compromise the structural integrity of the craft as a whole, seeing as how there would be big holes needed for them to exit.
The two cited incidents (Challenger and Columbia) did not have their problems originate with the shuttle, but the rockets used to get the shuttle up. Challenger, one of the solid-fuel side rockets leaked on the side and ignited the main tank, and Columbia some foam impacted the heat shields.
It is a shame to see the shuttle go, it was a really sweet piece of technology. - ricopicouk, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Heres a question that I have in my head, - maybe someone can answer, its kind of related.
When we go up into space, why dont they keep a small amount of fuel for when they return.
Just as they enter into the atmosphere, they give a small blast in the oposite direction to their momentum, to slow the vehicle to a more appropriate speed for decent, and thus avoiding the whole burning up issue? - Peekman, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2Oh nos..... Ensign Rick :(
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -0/+2Few million? I'd say if we survive the next 200 more or less intact we'll be golden, since that will mean we've gotten a grip on the biggest problems: population growth and the overconsumption of resources that goes with it, and the spread of violent/radical ideologies and the WMD proliferation which goes with that.
- inactive, on 12/31/2008, -0/+2I dunno, might be kind of nice to be pampered and treated as a guest up there instead of doing everything ourselves.
- flamesrule, on 12/31/2008, -0/+1Not only that but NASA needs to be able to take care of the astronauts much better. Another Challenger or Columbia would be...well probably not a right way to say how bad it would be.
The astronauts are doing a job the vast majority of people simply can't do and having the money and resources to do the job is simply a must, no other way to say it.
If they want to go and conduct the experiments that will be the basis of the future of the human race then man, give them everything they need. - createcontent, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2http://www.flickr.com/photos/28817565@N03/31374188 ...
- flamesrule, on 12/31/2008, -0/+1How exactly do you mean "food, medicine and education"? Are you saying we need to make it better or better distribute it to third world countries because if it's the latter, throwing money at it is a terrible idea because it's a government issue, they are stopping people from accessing it.
If you want to make food, medicine and education better then really, only one is a government problem, education. Making food and medicine better is left to the food and pharmaceutical companies spend millions on research and development to make it better. - OnlyGirlOnDigg, on 12/31/2008, -0/+1Kasey, you sound mad. I think you should calm down and stop being so sensationalistic. You are being completely irrational.
- jsffive, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2I agree that our future is in space...
Why does the government have to be the one to do the work?
Considering that they almost always screw up everything that they touch, why would any of us AUTOMATICALLY assume that the government is the most efficient caretakers of such an important project?
In fact, the ONLY reason why I can think that we would allow the government to be the vanguard in this, is due to the military agenda. But NASA's supposed to be a CIVILIAN organization, right?
We spend a half a billion dollars to send a five hundred pound chunk of metal to SATURN, but we have homeless people on the streets? The government can't even balance a CHECKBOOK! Why again, do we assume that the GOVERNMENT is doing the job correctly?
How many of those homeless people will benefit from this boondoggle? - frostbyt, on 12/31/2008, -1/+2How can you advance as a people when you choose shooting rockets into space over feeding the hungry?
-
Show 51 - 79 of 79 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is