What is Digg?189 Comments
- Bobby1978, on 12/30/2008, -4/+76Mars at this point is too ambitious a project to take on. What space agencies around the world needs to do is focus on creating a vast Lunar base, perfecting every aspect of daily living on an alien environment, just as we are currently doing with the ISS. Once the basics are perfected, the base should expand underground for safer and longer duration stays.
Only when these are accomplished will going to Mars be a feasible project. - yngtimmy, on 12/30/2008, -2/+53I cant believe we are going back to capsules. Where the eff is our scramjet space plane shuttling people to and from the Space Hilton?
- Formaldehydex2, on 12/30/2008, -15/+64Ollie?
…………………..„-~”:::::::::::::::::::::::::”~,………………………………………….
……………….„~”\,:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::”-,………………………………….......
…………….../;;;;;;|::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\……………………………............
……………..|;;;;;;;/:::::::””~~--::::::::::::::-~~”::\……………………………...........
……………./”~,;;/:::::::/¯¯¯¯¯’\:::::::::::/’¯¯¯¯’\…………………………………….
…………….\ º: ¯::::::::\ . . • . ,/:::::::::::::\ „ . • . ,/………………………………...
……………/’::::::::::::::::”~~~”:::::/””~::::’\”~~”::’\,…………………………………
………….../:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::’\,__„„/’::::::::::’\…......................................
…………..|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::„----„_„---,:::::::::::\………………………...........
…………..|:::::::::::::::::::::::::::„~"----„__„„-“::::::::::::|………………………….......
…………..|::::::::::::::::::::::::::/’;;;;;;;;;/::::::::::::::::::|………WE GOIN' TO THE MOON!....
………..„~”\:::::::::::::::::::::::::\__;;;;;;\--„::::::::::::::/…………………………........
……..,-“;:;\ .\,::::::::::::::::::::::::’\„_¯¯¯„-“:::::::::::::/………………………….........
….„~”;:\;:;:;\, .”~„::::::::::::::::::::::::¯¯¯:::::::::::::,-“;\………………………...........
.,~”;:;:;:;\;:;:;:”-, . ”~--„:::::::::::::~--„„___„„~“::::„-‘ . |;:'\”~-„…………………………
“;:;:;:;:;:;:\;:;:;:;:;”-, . . .”~~---„„„„_______„„„--~” . ./ |;:;:’\;:;”-,……………………...
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;\____;:;”-, ~-„ . . . . . . . . /;;;;;’\, . . .,/ . |;:,~”;:;:;”-,……………..........
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;/;:;:;:;”~, “~-„_ . . . /„;;;;;;;/”-„~” . . |;:;”~„;:;:;:;’\……………….....
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;:;:”~„ . .¯”~-’ . “~,;;;’\ . . . . .|;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;’\…………….....
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”~--„;:;:;:;:;:”~„ . . . . . .|;;;;;;’\ . . . |;:;:;:;/;:;:”~,;:;:\………………
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~--„;:;:;:;:”~„ . . . |;;;;;;;;’\, . .|;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;’\;:;:\………........
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;:;:;:”~„ .|;;;;;;;;;;;”~,|;:;:;/;:;:;:;:;:;:\;:;:\……………
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;:;:”~„;;;;;;;;;;;;/;:;,/’;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;\;:;:\…...........
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:”~-„;”~„;;;;;;/;:,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;\;:;:'\……......
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;”~-„’\,;/ ,/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:\;:;:|…........
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:¯\„/;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:|……….
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:o;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::;:|;:;:|...........
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|……….
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|……….
_;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;:|...........
;:;¯””~~--„„_|_;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:|;:;o;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|-~/…….....
;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:¯””~~----„„„__;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|~“…………
„_:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;¯¯”""”~~~~------„„„„„__|_;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;|……………
;:;¯¯¯””””~~~---„„„__:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;:;¯¯¯””””~~~~~----|…………...
Thanks, Ollie. - Jazzzzz, on 12/30/2008, -2/+50I would love to live long enough to see man land on mars, but I'll take the moon again.
- PhoenixAvatar2, on 12/30/2008, -1/+36That's some damn good animation there.
- msu4life, on 12/30/2008, -0/+31Thank you for using the flash slide show instead of those stupid page by page ones... yeah I'm talking about you Forbes.
- Dawggoneit, on 12/30/2008, -1/+25Enough of these capsules, and shuttles, where is my damn Space Ship?!?
- UselessTrivia, on 12/30/2008, -0/+22I think you're probably right about using the moon to perfect techniques needed to live on Mars.
We probably have most of the "technology" that we need to do it, but we lack the actual equipment, and going to the mars with untested long-term survival equipment isn't practical or safe. All that stuff needs to be built, tested and proven. The moon is the perfect place to do it because if anything goes wrong NASA is only about 1.3 seconds away via radio, or you just hop into your return craft and fly back in a few days. No such thing as a quick return-trip from mars. - MacEnvy, on 12/30/2008, -0/+17Why should it sadden you? Capsules are both cheaper and more reliable. I'd rather be able to do more launches than have to service a space plane (shuttle) just because it looks cool.
- LordRahl72, on 12/30/2008, -1/+18Imagine what NASA could have done with a trillion dollars of bailout money? lol
- kingofinternet, on 12/30/2008, -0/+16i have to say, the times's online content is getting better and better.
- dhughes, on 12/30/2008, -3/+18 Welcome to 1969! I guess the motto is "go with what you know" and don't try to be too fancy.
I wonder though even though the vehicles look retro I'm curious as to how much modern materials are used to make them and how much better they perform compared to their 60's counterparts. For example the Lunar Lander from what I understand the original one had walls so thin you could poke your hand through it, is the new one carbon-carbon, some sort of metallic glass or an even more exotic material? - Dawggoneit, on 12/30/2008, -0/+14Ares = Greek God of war
Mars = Roman god of War
Ares rocket is the rocket that will eventually bring us to the planet Mars.
That or it's a secret plan to develop a super rocket that can rain thermonuclear war on half of the planet with one rocket. - joegibes, on 12/30/2008, -0/+14I was expecting the standard multipage slideshow, but boy was this different.
A+++ WOULD CLICK AGAIN - cplusplus, on 12/30/2008, -1/+15You probably won't have to wait to long to see a Chinese or Indian man work on the moon.
- MacEnvy, on 12/30/2008, -0/+14No way, GM has way more money for R&D than NASA gets.
- inactive, on 12/30/2008, -1/+14The plural of "spacecraft" is "spacecraft."
- thcobbs, on 12/30/2008, -1/+14Tansparent... ALUMINUM!?!?!
- jba68, on 12/30/2008, -0/+13The shuttle is obsolete. We need a series of modular rockets that we can change components relatively easy.
This will enhance the missions and cut cost and turn around time.
Or if we can get a station upstairs that we can launch missions from, then we can design spacecraft that will not need to worry about reentry - adamdigg, on 12/30/2008, -0/+12I am surprised how many people are saying that this is a step backwards from the shuttle. The only way we have at present to escape the earth is rockets, and the most effective way to use them is to throw away any mass you don't need as early as possible, which is what multistage rockets do. The shuttle system is a multistage rocket, but it has been a disaster in terms of safety and efficiency because it's ridiculously complicated and carries far more mass than necessary. (having wings to glide onto a runway is not a particularly useful capability in a spacecraft.) Until we have some major propulsion breakthrough, the best we can do is to keep improving our multistage rockets.
- emptyo, on 12/30/2008, -1/+13Seriously? Where's the warp drive?
- carbonfilament, on 12/30/2008, -0/+11http://letmegooglethatforyou.com/?q=gravity
- MacEnvy, on 12/30/2008, -0/+11@doorki
The space shuttle itself could never have been modified for SSTO (single stage to orbit) flight. The thrust:mass ratio just isn't available with current (or even emerging) tech to allow it to ever take off like a plane and attain orbit.
We're better off using a strategy that works better with the technology we have at our disposal, which is what Project Constellation attempts to do. - kingofinternet, on 12/30/2008, -3/+13you can see it in iraq's infrastructure.
- thcobbs, on 12/30/2008, -0/+9its called CAD....
- jblack15, on 12/30/2008, -0/+9Shuttles offer no emergency escape system, which imposes a very large risk. Once the SRB's on the shuttle ignite, there's absolutely no way of shutting them off. During the first missions with Columbia they fitted SR-71 Blackbird ejection systems for the pilot and commander, but they had strict limitations on when they could be used (roughly the first 2 minutes of flight).
With the capsule designs, there is a much greater safety for the astronauts since they can abort at any moment during the launch or while in orbit. The space shuttle has abort procedures, but these are dependent on whether or not the SSME's are working after SRB separation and whether or not the orbiter has sustained damage to the heat tiles. Although both of the Ares rockets are using SRB's, the capsule design is still much safer for the astronauts. The main reason NASA is using SRB's vs. liquid fueled engines is because of cost and re-usability. Although SRB's are incredibly dangerous, they are much cheaper than liquid fueled engines.
Hopefully that helped you understand what their plans are. It's depressing to think of how much money has been wasted from the bailout and war. Just think of what NASA could do today if they had the same funding as they did in the Apollo era? We would have at least been back to the moon already. - cyrusuncc, on 12/30/2008, -1/+10Glad to see that NASA is making improvements to it's fleet. Those shuttles are getting very old
- eth3l, on 12/30/2008, -3/+12unlikely under the Obama administration. Sorry.
- jboitnott, on 12/30/2008, -4/+13Incredibly ambitious stuff. Something's gotta replace the space shuttle... these look good enough.
- hobbitontherock, on 12/30/2008, -1/+9I know they're working with the limited resources that they have, but I'm pretty skeptical about the return to the Saturn-esk rockets. Doesn't it seem like a step in the wrong direction?
And srsly, bailout money and Iraq -> Science and Education = Win. - wilhoitm, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8The guy running NASA right now wont talk to the Obama Transition team and he is going to be fired!
- sanguinekane, on 12/30/2008, -1/+9OK, enough with this rockets are backwards stuff. The shuttle was a mistake, it is unreliable, dangerous, expensive, and sitting in a hangar being repaired more often than it is in space. Rockets such as these are more reliable, safer, cheaper, and will allow us to launch many more missions a year than the shuttles ever did. Thats why the Russians never gave them up. It's not like they're just taking the Saturns they had rusting in some scrapyard in the desert, are gonna give them a paintjob and them slap back on the pad. These are newly designed, newly built models which should allow us to achieve our goals of returning to the moon by 2020, as well as maintain our commitments to the ISS. Rockets are not primitive, even the shuttle you seem to worship was actually brought into orbit by "primitive" rockets.
You want NASA to accomplish some miracle sci-fi fantasy you think you're entitled to? Then call your rep and tell him to support any bill giving NASA a bigger budget, because right now this is the best NASA can do with the ever dwindling amount of resources it has, and it will still be better than the ***** that is the shuttle program. - Chairboy, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8I felt like I was really there. Who needs a holodeck?
- Maddoktor2, on 12/30/2008, -0/+8Back to you, Diane.
- Troy64, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7Maybe Zephron Cochran can help you out.
- ihate2regist, on 12/30/2008, -0/+7computer?
- Jektal, on 12/30/2008, -2/+9Elevator into SPAAAACE? Please?
- richlizard24, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6Also, a rocket design all but eliminates the danger of foam strikes.
- doorki, on 12/30/2008, -1/+7Not because it looks cool but rather because the shuttle once held the promise of being able to get into space from a standard airplane takeoff as opposed to riding on top of a missile that is left to burn up in orbit. It now appears that NASA has abandoned that path. That saddens me.
- richlizard24, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6I did vote for Obama, but I am very disappointed if he cuts the Ares rocket program. NASA can do amazing things if it is properly funded. Just look at the Apollo program. We went to the money in less then 10 years because NASA got the money it needed to succeed. NASA inspired a generation of engineers and space enthusiasts and it can do it again. If Obama properly funds NASA, many new jobs would be created in the public and private sectors. Also, NASA created an overwhelming feeling of civic pride in the 60s. Great successes from NASA would most certainly do the same today. Civic pride is something this country is severely lacking in right now.
- MacEnvy, on 12/30/2008, -4/+10Haha, Obailout.
See, it's funny because Obama has to spend a lot of money to help pull the country out of the disasterous policies of the last 8 years of Republican *****, and now people like amightywind, Hannity, and Limbaugh get to go back to sniping from the shadows about the "evil Democrat Party".
But the rest of us will not forget what you've done to this country. - adamdigg, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6I realized I didn't really answer you. As it falls to earth, the capsule is slowed by air friction against it's large curved bottom surface. The surface has an ablative covering which prevents the capsule from burning up by cooling the surface as it evaporates. Once the capsule is sufficiently slowed, it descends on parachutes. I think it may use airbags to cushion the landing.
- carbonfilament, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6more like 40 years dude. And the shuttle never lived up to its promises the first time around. All hail the modular heavy lift rockets. While not as versatile in low earth orbit, they will finally free us from the earth and allow us to go further than any man has gone before.
- pe5t1lence, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6A trip to the moon was too ambitious in 1960, but we did that in nine years by funneling 135 billion (2005 dollars) into the program.
Mars could be done in a similar time frame, but as a country we are no longer willing to pump that much into a single domestic science program. According to whitehouse.gov the Constellation program has been funded 10 billion over '07-'09, no where even close.
Basically I'm saying it is completely doable in the short term for the right price, but we aren't wiling to pay. I guess it's a choice between "Cheap, Quality, and Speed" pick two. In 1960 they picked Speed and Quality, now we are picking Quality and Cheap. - richlizard24, on 12/30/2008, -0/+6He should be fired. He is wasting money on developing technology that NASA has had for 40+ years. NASA is inventing the hammer when the hammer already exists.
- carbonfilament, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5@wilhoitm - "I think Rockets are obsolete."
ummm....you do realize that the only way the shuttle was able to get to orbit was by strapping it to the largest solid rocket motors ever invented right? The fuel for for the SRB+Inert weight make up over 60% of the lift off weight. Also the SME are ROCKET engines. - carbonfilament, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5These comments are silly. Heavy lift rockets are more capable as far as getting large machinery into orbit, and launching man outside of Earth's orbit. Sure they look old, but as someone pointed out to me the other day they are WAY more advanced than the previous rounds of rockets. The space shuttle was a great machine but its 40 years old and it never quite delivered on its promise anyway. Every major component is either completely rebuilt or thoroughly overhauled between launches.
I single stage to orbit solution is, along with a fully reuseable craft, unfortunately too far away for us to use now. I personally want us to go to the moon NOW. Lets stop messing around with x-planes and get out there! I'm all for the experimentation, but I don't want to see us condemned to earth orbit while we wait for the next big thing. Send folks to Mars, and if some genius thinks of a way to get there faster while we are on our way than great! - kero552, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5That "spaceship" you talk about can't go beyond orbit. It comes down to the mass, distance, propulsion and fuel. Currently, capsule is the most economic thing we have.
Feel free to pay more taxes for cool look (or force them to use some propulsion system with better power to thrust ratio like (maybe VASIMR? Not sure)). - adamdigg, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5My understanding is: Two launches are required for a moon mission. One to deliver the lunar lander into lunar orbit, and one to deliver the crew module and crew. They dock in lunar orbit and go down to the lunar surface in the lander. They return using the ascent stage and come back to Earth in the crew module, which is basically the same as they used in the 60s, but somewhat bigger. Someone correct me if I have it wrong.
- wilhoitm, on 12/30/2008, -0/+5Yes, and those robots will turn into Replicators!
-
Show 51 - 100 of 191 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is