What is Digg?101 Comments
- MacBookForMe, on 10/30/2008, -0/+25It only proves how good was the initial design...well, maybe:)
- Kovalchuk71, on 10/31/2008, -1/+26If it ain't broken, why fix it? It worked the first time.
- vertigo32, on 10/30/2008, -0/+22Smart move. ~135,000 lbs lighter - if you are going to launch it vertically like a rocket, you might as well use the smallest and lightest shape possible.
Until they have true runway to orbit spacecraft, capsules just make more sense. You can't get much more efficient in size without losing stability. Hopefully NASA will take a hint and land them in the desert instead of having to divert a carrier battle group every splashdown... - tsotha, on 10/31/2008, -0/+14It looks like Apollo because Apollo had a really good design. Kudos to NASA for letting the engineers win out over the PR guys.
- inactive, on 10/31/2008, -0/+9Space rules.
- inactive, on 10/31/2008, -0/+8I've always thought they screwed up when they abandoned the Apollo/Saturn launch vehicles. Even with the almost disastrous Apollo 13, the Saturn launch rocket worked 100%. As for the design, there really isn't any other design that would do from an engineering design I bet. Conical shape with an ablative heat shield. Kind of hard to improve on that.
The Aries rocket on the other hand, sure has a lot to prove, to beat the record of the mighty Saturn V rocket. - miatafan, on 10/31/2008, -0/+8He means when it gets airborne like an airplane; from a runway to orbit.
- raptor000000, on 10/31/2008, -2/+10Will the aliens please make contact already so that we can stop using such primitive technology?
- wildest, on 10/30/2008, -8/+15Going to the moon will be so hard first time around :)
- sockpuppets, on 10/31/2008, -1/+7Chinese capsules only fit people 4'8" or under.
- erkokite, on 10/31/2008, -0/+6Actually, the capsule design is simpler, lighter (I'm assuming), more reliable, and proven. The shuttle cannot go outside LEO AFAIK. This needs to go further.
- DavidinBoston, on 10/31/2008, -0/+6We HAVE made contact. You people just didn't seem to care, so we left. We do monitor Digg alot, though.
- kennyboy019, on 10/31/2008, -3/+8Too bad they wont have anything to launch it with
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+4And that's exactly what they're doing. The crew goes up on one launch, and the lander on another.
This is Apollo on a much smaller budget, with more capability. - sockpuppets, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4CAPS LOCK KEYS ARE MOONMAN TECHNOLOGY.
- zerton, on 10/31/2008, -0/+445 years late
- sockpuppets, on 10/31/2008, -0/+4It's infinitely safer than a shuttle. Why would making it larger be safer?
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+4Don't be surprised if they cancel Ares I and launch it on an Ares V.
For the small number of launchers they're planning to make, it's cheaper to launch CEVs on the Ares V - with ballast if necessary - than to develop a second launcher. It would also solve the weight problems with the CEV/Ares 1 combination. - TxRevolutionary, on 11/01/2008, -1/+5It's a "Heh" because physics doesn't allow "free energy". It's true that there is energy everywhere, but to extract it would use more energy than you would get from it.
There's a law of physics called Conservation of Energy, that states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, only converted. Unless you can prove that false, your "free energy" doesn't exist. Until then, all we can do is harness existing sources such as wind, the sun, and nuclear (the energy from fossil fuels originates in the sun). Until we make f
Claiming that I am "scared or afraid or hypnotized" because I don't believe your claims is extremely closed minded. I would be happy to be proven wrong, but extreme claims require proof. - cubicledrone, on 11/01/2008, -0/+4You know maybe those guys were on to something in 1969. Maybe they, you know, built it right?
- AlxRymnd914, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3comment of the year.
- evilpolitians, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3Assemble in orbit??? Fixing Hubble is barely feasible with current tech. We don't exactly have factories up there.
To equate this to historical exploration (which is overdone but anyway), it'd be like saying since Chris Columbus found America, they may as well use a shipyard over there to build more ships and explore more. - zerton, on 10/31/2008, -0/+3flight floor:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/sh ...
bottom floor:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/sh ...
basically a lot more space, if the shuttle is even relevant. - equ1nt1s, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3I don't think anybody recalls how BA the aerospace engineers were back in the day. It's a shame we ever moved away from the things they did. If this design was perfect then, then it will be even better this go around.
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+3The Chinese are where the beginning of the Gemini program was 45 years ago. Except that Gemini was launching every 8 weeks or so, and the Chinese are launching only once every few years.
They won't be visiting ISS soon either: They haven't attempted rendezvous and docking yet, yet alone gotten good at it. - TxRevolutionary, on 11/02/2008, -0/+3@neveroffline:
A: The actual laws are never reshaped, only our understanding of them. However, conservation of mass and energy is one that won't be broken. You can turn mass into energy, and energy into mass, but you cannot create or destroy either.
B: I don't see what Roswell has to do with what I said. I never said anything about anti-gravity. If you want to get into a discussion of gravitational fields, I'm up for it.
C: Wow. ad hominem attacks. Real classy.
D: Kevin can believe in aliens all he wants. I'm not trying to convince him (or possibly her) otherwise. In fact, I think the likelihood of intelligent life somewhere in the galaxy is quite high. Furthermore, it is not your place to tell me where I can and cannot debate. I debate about this kind of stuff on Digg because I enjoy it.
E: I'm sorry, I don't see what you're getting at. And that is a gross oversimplification of rocketry. If you're insinuating that I think rocketry is at its technological zenith, wrong again. There are many more advances yet to be made.
P.S.: Now now, are you really going to resort to name-calling to try to make your case? And hate? Hate will get you nowhere, good sir or madam. Before I bid you adieu, I will leave you with some advice: don't make assumptions on the intellect or intentions of others. You will only make a complete and utter ass of yourself.
Good day. - fjacky66, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2They should use......... CUBE
- jgubbe, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2Seriously, why did we need a Tote Goat when we could have kept using a Universal Pod type vehicle.
I believe this will be extremely more flexible. And what will be cool is all the different designs for what ever they shoot up to connect it with like tools, other craft, telescopes, satalites, stations, ect.... - inactive, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3But who invented rocketry? *wink wink*
- inactive, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2100+ diggs for the reply
- ibenny, on 10/31/2008, -2/+4You are incorrect. The shuttle was supposed to be the first design in a long line of reusable space craft. The goal was to eventually design a craft that could take off like a plane, reach orbit and then land again. Unfortunately, budget cuts to the space program made advancement impossible and continued budget ciuts have forced NASA to go back to cheaper technology.
THIS IS A STEP BACK . - evilpolitians, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2Suing over what? The Orion capsule with Apollo roots? The Chinese copied the Russian Soyuz designs. With permission. Same with the space suits.
- bagtaggar, on 10/31/2008, -4/+6I love the folk on here who honestly think we didn't go to the moon.
It's dumber than creationism. - Jarasmen, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3@neveroffline: That's all very well mate, however, if you want to reshape science you need to have hard FACTS. Saying that antigravity is feasible because you have an "open mind" about it will not change any physics laws - not because it is - or is not - possible, but because you don't have anything to back it up. Also, you are very rude.
- MasterGrief, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2I'm sorry.
- cubicledrone, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2It will be kind of nice to put a few smart people back to work in this country. The only good thing that came out of us ***** over the space program for 40 years is the Internet. I'd say it was worth it but now it's time to get back to risk and accomplishment again.
- WELLDOITLIVE, on 10/31/2008, -0/+2Rule #1: There is no space
- Jarasmen, on 11/01/2008, -1/+3Oh God, you actually seem serious about this o_O Please put sarcasm marks somewhere...
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+2It's not a step back. The mission is to go to the moon. Bringing wings, tail, landing gear etc. beyond low earth orbit is a waste of fuel. Nor is there any need for the payload bay and much of the rest of the shuttle.
For this mission, a capsule is the correct choice. - evilpolitians, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Lots of stuff is "gonna" get killed after the elections. Tax cuts? Har. Your favorite federal program? Har. Look it up. Even the Dems are stalling on tax cuts and funding cuts (and since when did Dems propose tax cuts? Oh that's right, they learned the lessons on how to get elected = giveaways for everyone AND tax cuts). It's either no cuts or we go bankrupt in the next two years. Then say hello to WWIII since so many in the world bought our debt and relies on our economy for cash flow.
Best place to be then will be in an Orion capsule headed to an established moon base. - cubicledrone, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1This isn't about markets. This isn't about deals. This is about doing it right every time with no failures. This isn't about cutting costs and middle management rat ***** trying to siphon off a little for their ***** catered Powerpoint conference.
You get what you pay for, and when you're going seven miles a second, you don't half-ass it. You want steak for dinner, pay the ***** check. The end. - RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1He was going to. He seems to have backed away from that policy.
- inactive, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Haha nasa copied itself.
- lulzitsadigg, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Their gymnasts double as astronauts
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1No-one is planning to take this to Mars. There'll be something larger for that.
- seobro, on 11/14/2008, -0/+1Too much radiation, we never went the first time. Think where technology is now compared with 1969. We should have colonies on mars by now, but we don't. Low earth orbit is as high as we can go.
- RogerStrong, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1It IS about markets. If you don't have a market - government, commercial or science - for the launcher, you don't have a launcher. Noone will fund it.
- inactive, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Touche, Ortheos, touche.
- inactive, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that's my thoughts. Who would want to spend six months in that thing?
- evilpolitians, on 11/01/2008, -0/+1Who "invented" the Internetwebitubes? Who "invented" the Blackberry?
But let's put it this way...
Who invented the wheel versus who invented cars and trains? Big difference between colorful *roman* candles and achieving orbit and beyond. -
Show 51 - 100 of 105 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
