What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Best Buy Employees Turn Carolers For A Day view!
www.youtube.com/bestbuy - Go behind the scenes to see real employees croon their way to star in Best Buy's holiday campaign.
145 Comments
- inactive, on 10/27/2008, -0/+46Why not just break out the plans for the old Saturn V. Slap an ipod touch on it and BINGO! 21st century moon rocket.
- evilpolitians, on 10/27/2008, -3/+46Mercury and Apollo lifted this nation's spirits and instilled a can-do attitude. Is Ares representative of America now?
- PeteBeast, on 10/27/2008, -2/+38They did it 40 years ago and they are having trouble NOW? See what the lack of practice does?
- Shogi, on 10/28/2008, -2/+27Failure is not an option.
- spiralspirit, on 10/28/2008, -0/+20its a question of how badly america wants it. The old space missions were disasters as well - Apollo 1 lost an entire crew on the pad due to ***** wiring - nobody decided to scrap the entire project due to these more serious problems that actually killed the crew in training. Kennedy wanted the moon and they decided to deliver. Everything beyond that is just naysayers who wonder if its "worth it".
- trolleyfan, on 10/27/2008, -3/+20NASA as an innovator...or even reasonably competent...pretty much went out the window back in the 70s.
(Those old enough will get a tremendous sense of deja vu from this - as it's pretty much the same sort of path the shuttle went on as it went from the original idea of "cheap, reliable, space truck" to "hugely expensive, finicky, space Yugo")
With luck, after this all fails (or worse, after all this gets built anyway and *then* fails), NASA will be able to buy boosters from someone like Space-X... - shutaro, on 10/28/2008, -0/+15That leaves Abort and Retry.
- AtraNoxVII, on 10/28/2008, -0/+13Space elevator?
How many buttons would it have? - milomilomilo, on 10/28/2008, -0/+13once you figure out how to get the carbon nanotubes (which the tether would have to be built from) tether built, let us know.
We'll surely being using space o' vators in the future but chances are it wont be this century. - appleofdischord, on 10/28/2008, -1/+12Who the hell was talking about Obama in the first pl...
Ah.. screw it.
Go ***** yourself, troll. - Fragnarg, on 10/28/2008, -1/+12okay obviously you are not an engineer, you do not know the cost of fuel and how much it takes to put a shuttle in orbit, so for know just be quiet.
- shutaro, on 10/28/2008, -0/+10We must defrost him at once!
- megamod, on 10/28/2008, -3/+13that's what she said
- suntzusputnik, on 10/28/2008, -0/+9false, some of the plans are missing, though many still remain. the problem lies in that the components aren't manufactured anymore and are of 1950's tech.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -1/+9So NASA lost their competency and ability to innovate with the Shuttle Program? Even though it was the most complex and challenging program NASA ever undertook? One that to this day no other country has been able to duplicate? Where do you get your history facts, MAD Magazine or High Times?
- penguinpc, on 10/28/2008, -1/+9What NASA needs is a Werhner Von Braun.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -1/+9Thats why it takes longer than a week to make one of these things. Nasa needs a budget, time, and JFK.
- leha, on 10/28/2008, -0/+8Because they can't build saturn 5 anymore: some plans were lost or were incomplete in the first place, knowledge of why particular solutions were used disappeared, people who knew how to assemble and test the system are either retired or dead. Such complex system as a rocket can not be restored by following blueprints, there is a lot of "knowhow" that was passed from person to person.
- futurepastnow, on 10/28/2008, -1/+9I think the Ares I is one scary-looking rocket. It just looks...wrong. OTOH, the heavy-lift rocket, the Ares V, looks 'right'.
I am not a rocket scientist (obviously), but I do believe that things that look right tend to work right. - appleofdischord, on 10/28/2008, -3/+10Maybe he is, I don't know. I'm willing to bet though that there are more important things to deal with in America right now...
I really hate saying that. - orangeguitar311, on 10/28/2008, -1/+8Some people in here bashing NASA don't know what is really going on. For one thing, the majority of the design isn't done by NASA but by other companies such as Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc. And yes, they are going back to earlier designs, but that is because they have learned from their mistakes from this generation. The days of having wings on NASA craft went out the window with the Columbia accident. Plus, the amount of man power and time spent to make sure that the foam and other parts are up to par is tremendous. By taking the "man-on-a-stick" approach they will be saving tons of time and money since they dont have to worry if foam will come off during ascent and destroy the crew vehicle.
- threepm, on 10/28/2008, -2/+9A Space elevator would solve this issue... then we could build a Mothership in a space port/space dock like we build cruise ships and then release it into the galaxy. Stop using 1970's logic NASA! The 21st century is here.
- threepm, on 10/28/2008, -0/+6"At present we have a tether which is made of carbon nanotube, and has one-third or one-quarter of the strength required to make a space elevator. We expect that we will have strong enough cable in the 2020s or 2030s,"
- deff, on 10/28/2008, -0/+6This will only work if the iPod comes pre-loaded with Peter Schilling "Major Tom"
- futurepastnow, on 10/28/2008, -1/+7I can answer that right now: "with money"
- shutaro, on 10/28/2008, -1/+7What kind of music would it play?
New Genre: Space Elevator Music. - Jektal, on 10/28/2008, -0/+6No, he reversed his position on that and said he would find some way to avoid cutting NASA's budget.
- BossKey, on 10/28/2008, -1/+7No, we can do it.
All we need is a funding level proportional to the massive amounts spent in the 1960s. Simple! So, unless anyone can identify any problem with proposing such a level of spending at the current time, they can begin.
(Even the article says the thing will work if we throw enough money at it) - Akairenn, on 10/28/2008, -0/+5Many of the companies involved in the original space race no longer exist. They took with them blueprints and manufacturing facilities which can no longer be reproduced. (Blueprints for want of knowledge; facilities for lack of profit.)
And not to Godwin the thread, but we no longer have any Nazi rocket scientists with us. Nazi science was a driving force behind getting us to the moon and NASA was chock full of the buggers. (I do not consider this wrong, mind you; at least some debt to humanity was repaid, if only by the tiniest of portions.) - belgar, on 10/28/2008, -1/+6If ever a username was more appropriate, I know not when.
- shutaro, on 10/28/2008, -1/+6Obviously you're not a golfer.
- shutaro, on 10/28/2008, -1/+6FACT: The first person Photoshopped onto Mars will be Chinese *fixed*
- rft3rd, on 10/28/2008, -1/+6I see what you did there.
- Ghostalker, on 10/28/2008, -1/+5They should have come up with a better idea for a new spacecraft rather then jumping 40 years into the past. After all the shuttle launches over the years, you'd think NASA would have reusable spacecraft concepts figured out; now they decide to go back to disposable rockets and wonder why ***** isn't working out the way they want it to. They should have kept funding the X33 (which was almost complete when they canceled it) so they would have a completely reusable spacecraft.
- gerrylazlo, on 10/28/2008, -0/+4NASA has good smart scientists and engineers, but is totally crushed by bureaucracy, politics, and bloat. It's a shame.
- shutaro, on 10/28/2008, -2/+6Bush can barely get a good grasp of his shoelaces.
- DiggyWiggy, on 10/28/2008, -2/+6They'll have to go back in time 40 years and ask how they managed to pull it off.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -0/+4If only we can channel a few billion from somewhere to fund this historical project... some thing else that can spare a few billion dollars... any ideas...?
- baldbean, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3Maybe they need to steal more scientists from Germany like they did during WWII. Or just use the old design they had and make it better. No need to reinvent the wheel, uh spaceship. Unless we never actually went to the moon in the first place...
- garryw, on 10/28/2008, -1/+4They are working with a small fraction of $$ NASA got for Saturn V, especially adjusting for inflation. Seems congress spent money re-building some middle east nation they bombed instead.
- inactive, on 10/28/2008, -1/+4I seriously doubt it. China is wealthy yes, but it still has a population that still lives in third world standards. China is much more than just its biggest wealth centers.
- skeletorcares, on 10/28/2008, -4/+7From Kennedy challenging America to make it to the moon it took 9 years. For Bush to realize that the space program isn't about massive tang distribution took 8... and he still doesn't have a good grasp on it.
- Platina, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3Why does everybody think about money all the time. We should not think about money, and just build it.
- Ghostalker, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3The guys flying the Hindenburg might disagree...
- AstronomyGuy85, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3That must be whats causing rainbows in my water!
- erkokite, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3Saturn 5: 47,000 kg in lunar vicinity, 118,000 kg to LEO, 40 years ago.
Falcon 9 Heavy: 15,010 kg to GTO, 29,610 kg to LEO, not for a few years yet.
From the SpaceX site and Wikipedia. Basically the F9H (which hasn't even been launched yet) is a far cry from what is needed to go to the moon. So I'm not holding my breath for private industry to get us there. Maybe in 20-40 years, then they might.
Also, keep in mind that NASA's budget in the 60's was 4% of GDP. It is 12 billion now, which is 0.1% of GDP. Going to the moon is not an easy task. All the free market, small government types (who admittedly have many good points) would have you believe that private industry can handle it. Clearly these people don't realize how colossal an undertaking the moon landing actually was. - pdxmike69, on 10/28/2008, -1/+4A concept similar to what you've proposed, but with the capsule on top of the main tank:
http://www.directlauncher.com/ - LonesomeFighter, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3well that's good news. and yes there are other important things out there for the next 4 years, but one could argue high paying science NASA jobs and contracting companies and all that other fun space stuff can be good for America, the world, and the economy.
- ldkronos, on 10/29/2008, -0/+3Just FYI: None of the missions before 11 were even intended to get to the moon. They were all incremental missions that each tested an additional bit of functionality needed to actually get there. They tested things like docking 2 modules together (needed after the astronauts left the moon and returned to the orbiter), maneuvering the lunar lander, etc. Essentially, they were all proof of concept missions.
- rowlodge, on 10/28/2008, -0/+3just an educated guess but they should just leave the shuttle off and replace it with this capsule, if its strong enough to lift the shuttle then a lighter space capsule would be nothing.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 147 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is