What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
All-time Low Fares for Thanksgiving, Christmas & New Year view!
travelzoo.com - Flights $52 and up. Nifty all-airline calendar identifies absolute cheapest dates to fly.
80 Comments
- tipdog32, on 02/08/2008, -3/+35Is it just me, or do other people find space freaking amazing?
"Oh we're just going to haul this 2 billion dollar Lab into space now with one of the most powerful machines humans have ever created..." - listrophy, on 02/08/2008, -0/+22C'mon guys, it took this long to hit front page? I thought the digg crowd cared about this kind of stuff. Instead, "Dude has an insanely huge tongue (video)" gets dugg up first.
- Wildthing, on 02/08/2008, -1/+23The thing that amazes me about traveling to space is that 90+% of the mass is fuel. Fuel is needed to lift the fuel that lifts the fuel that lifts the fuel. While I love rockets and the shuttle, I hope someday someone comes up with a viable, cheaper and more efficient way of putting things into orbit so that dreams of gigantic space craft and space stations to live in can be realized.
- nicksargeant, on 02/08/2008, -0/+20Nope. Not now, not ever.
- jphicks, on 02/08/2008, -3/+21The problem is that the Shuttle is an aging system and funding for the more advanced design is not there. The entire space program is not in good shape at all.
- joot2112, on 02/08/2008, -1/+11I hope you're kidding. Whence came the technological developments you use to even make this stupid comment? Do you know how many people NASA and its contractors employ, and how much scientific knowledge is gained through space research? 2 Billion is a bargain and a drop in the bucket compared, for example, to the 9 billion PER MONTH we're spending on Iraq.
- DrivinWest, on 02/08/2008, -0/+10If we wait until all the problems on Earth are fixed before we go into space, we'll be waiting forever.
- DrivinWest, on 02/08/2008, -1/+10Most of what you've said is wrong.
Yes, the Shuttle is aging, but it remains effective in its goal. It is the Swiss-Army knife of space vehicles and nothing else has anything near its capabilities. All the Shuttles are well below their designed number of life cycles. The only problem with the Shuttle is the maintenance cost - most of which involves inspecting but rarely actually repairing or replacing (a political, not technical, decision).
Funding for a more advanced design isn't only available, the design is in work. Google "NASA Orion Constellation" and learn all about NASA's next generation vehicles. I should note that it hardly just on the drawing boards, Lockheed is actually cutting metal.
"The entire space program is not in good shape at all." - Really? There are two Mars rovers who've been trucking around the planet for the last 4 year (exceeding their expected lifetimes by 700% - so far. The ISS is the largest and most successful manned orbital platform ever. Thanks to ISS, humankind (well, Americans and Russians) have had a permanent presence in space for almost 9 years (think about that for a second - this is Sci Fi turned reality). As stated above, funding and plans for the next generation, including permanent human habitation of the moon and ultimately human exploration of Mars, are already under way.
If you're harking back to the heydays of NASA then that's another argument entirely. Put it this way: Apollo got 9% of the US federal budget every year for the better part of the 1960s. Compare that to today where NASA gets a fraction of 1% and most of that doesn't go to manned spaceflight. - OhFrak, on 02/08/2008, -0/+9Here is a fantastic MIT course with video lectures online on the design and development of the Space Shuttle with some of the actual managers and engineers from the program:
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Aeronautics-and-Astronau ... - DrivinWest, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Well, that's the regular media for you. It really boils my blood when I think about how the media covers NASA and spaceflight in general. As I mentioned before, two NASA rovers are scooting around Mars. Mars! They've exceeded their mission by 700% so far. When do you hear about them in the news? When one of the wheel motors finally dies...
Or how about the failure of the Russian computers aboard the ISS in July of 2007 of the concern over the thermal tile in STS-114? The media latched on to these events merely because there was a component of fear and the crews were at risk (guess what, they're at risk all the time - they're in space!). This is becoming a rant against the media who treats news as a commodity - I'll stop :)
Honestly, it is to NASA's testament that the media doesn't cover missions more deeply. NASA, on the whole, does exceptionally difficult things remarkably well - so well that people consider it routine despite it being very far from that. - sgtbutterscotch, on 02/08/2008, -0/+5Aren't they phasing it out in 2010?
- petard, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4probably labor
- RogerStrong, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4“If nothing else had come out of [the space program] except the knowledge we've gained from space photography, it would be worth ten times what the whole program has cost. Because tonight we know how many missiles the enemy has and, it turned out, our guesses were way off. We were doing things we didn't need to do. We were building things we didn't need to build. We were harboring fears we didn't need to harbor.”
- Lyndon Johnson
The space budget is tiny compared to what's spent on organized sports or alcohol. - RogerStrong, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Apollo 13 couldn't even get press coverage GOING TO THE MOON until they were suddenly in danger.
- LtCarter47, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4"NASA was anxious to get Atlantis flying as soon as possible to keep alive its hopes of achieving six launches this year. The space agency faces a 2010 deadline for finishing the station and retiring the shuttles. That equates to four or five shuttle flights a year between now and then, something Griffin considers achievable"
Sweet, new shuttles soon? - noahhoward, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4The Orion program is an effort to return to the moon and later go to Mars, it is not a shuttle replacement.
- brutimus, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3$2 billion can build a lab to put into space... it still takes a lot more money to get it there.. but either way...
- Panda200x, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Needs moar Xenu
- markp93, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3maybe if carbon nanotube tech can be made cheaply, a space elevator would be feasible, however outlandish it sounds...
- RogerStrong, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Actually, the large NASA budget lasted only a small part of the 1960s. The committment to go to the moon was largely a knee-jerk reaction to Sputnik, Gagarin and other Russian firsts. But once the Gemini program got going - with long-durations flights, rendezvous and docking, etc. - the Americans were demonstrably ahead. And that was it for funding.
NASA's budget was chopped and Saturn V production capped even before the first moon landing. NASA coasted on fumes through the moon landings and Skylab, with hardware already in the pipeline. - Hauk2004, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3God I love the space programme. This is where cutting edge science is :)
I didn't realise how nerdy my first line was until I read it...
It's a healthy interest, I swear. But the Mars missions are going to be friggin' cool. Whats scary is I won't be 20 when they go to Mars, more like 30 :O - MSP1, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3There's always some retard ready to make a stupid statement like that when space exploration is mentioned.
- BigBallistix, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Rail guns / spacecraft projectiles = on their way.
- Manhigh, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Its all about the specific impulse (i.e. exhaust velocity). Nuclear thermal rockets (fire up a fission reactor, pass hydrogen gas over it to cool it, in the process superheating the gas, shoot said gas out the nozzle) has an Isp about twice that of the shuttle's LOX/LH2 engines (900 sec vs. 450 sec), but there are issues with using NTR in the atmosphere, for obvious reasons.
Ion engines (2000-9000 seconds Isp) are much more efficient than chemical engines, but the wont work in an atmosphere. Not to mention the fact that they would require a colossal amount of power to be used in a launch vehicle capacity.
I honestly think that a space elevator is the best hope for a revolutionary way to get to space. That said, its probably at least 30-40 years out. - listrophy, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3I'm with you.... to the point that I blog about applying to be an astronaut. Hit up my profile for the link (not posted here to avoid "spam" stigma).
- MSP1, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2An "Apollo lookee likeee " system that uses shuttle style engines and boosters!
- forgiste, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3Sadly the world has a talent for suppressing true innovation.
- jaybol, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3hope columbus finds the west indies this time
- TVarmy, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2For the record, Ron Paul is vocally against Nasa. Cognitive dissonance, much, digg?
- aoru, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2What has come out of the shuttle program except products for late night infomercials and a couple disasters? Think of the money that could of been used for a moon base or a trip to mars.
- TVarmy, on 02/09/2008, -0/+2So, you're thinking outside the box and planning to kill life outside of Earth?
- listrophy, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3The only candidate (correct me if I'm wrong) who wholly, and vocally, supports NASA and its mission is John McCain. Hell, most of the candidates don't even reference the space program on their websites, although McCain's stance is somewhat buried on his site.
I'm not going to claim that anyone should vote for one person based on a single issue, but it is something to consider.
This post is not meant to indicate my endorsement of McCain. At this point, I endorse no one. All of them are disappointing to some degree. - RogerStrong, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2There's nothing "wasted" about it - it's a fine investment.
The space budget is tiny compared to what's spent on organized sports or alcohol. - RogerStrong, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Fuel is cheap. Compared to the other launch costs, fuel is way down there in the noise.
This is the main reason we don't use supersonic aircraft and other air-breathing schemes for the first stage - the added complexity just isn't worth it to save cheap fuel.
As for the space elevator, it makes sense when rocket payloads cost 10K/lb to launch. However, it's been observed that when we get the materials technology to build one, we also get the materials technology to revolutionize conventional rockets. The very act of making a space elevator possible may destroy the business case for it. - fearlessfrog, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Nope, it's back to the future with an Apollo lookee likeee
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_(spacecraft) - Schmich, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Would be interesting to see what essentially builds up the total cost to $2 billion.
- DrivinWest, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Kinda. Rockets look like... rockets. The Space Shuttle is a space plane and looks like space planes (Google "Buran"). For the most part, the intended task drives the design, and looks, of these vehicles.
The big difference between Apollo and Orion/Constellation, is that the big booster is unmanned. Crews are launched separately on Ares I, a smaller vehicle which will be multipurpose (service the ISS, mate with the moon/Mars modules, etc.). The big booster, Ares V, also benefits from the Shuttle's massive Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) which have an extra section attached - the lift capability will be incredible. - 15charmaxwtf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1Private space flight is only getting cheaper and cheaper, making NASA increasingly irrelevant. Before they had to hire the best machinists and use incredibly expensive materials---now, with computers and new materials a bunch of people can do it in a warehouse in the middle of the desert and it will only become easier.
- kkDonut, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1I was there. And assure you, I'll never forget it.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1With socialised space adventure you won't get that anytime soon.
- 15charmaxwtf, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1I'd say funneling money from the private economy into a bureaucracy probably doesn't do that much for innovation. Except if you mean by innovation, new, brilliant ways to waste money :)
- jpowell180, on 02/10/2008, -0/+1..And just think of the billions that have been spent, on computers and TV's and airliners, personal automobiles, etc...all of which could have gone to the poor, etc...wahh, wahh, wahhh...folks like you always like to piss in the cereal of those who are doing something to contribute to the progress of the human race...
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1I want more potent Viagra...Make that 2B$ lab worth it NASA.
- cookingboy, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1"I've lost about 500 grams (about 1 pound) so far, and that's just been tears."
wow....they even measure tears in grams? - paullyjunge, on 02/08/2008, -0/+1just think of the vinegar and baking soda volcanoes they could make in that lab
- Barbrady, on 02/09/2008, -0/+1NASA is one of the few things I really like seeing my tax dollars being spent on.
-
Show 51 - 84 of 84 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is