What is Digg?130 Comments
- L0NER, on 11/07/2008, -2/+52MORE NASA BUDGET!
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -5/+47We should have never abandoned the X-33 program, which was intended to become the predecessor of our aging and increasingly obsolete fleet of shuttles. Until we develop a replacement, we should allow the shuttle program to continue functioning. Ideally, we should develop a TSTO (two-stage-to-orbit) or SSTO (single-stage-to-orbit) spaceplane, something like the shuttle but more efficient and sophisticated, something like the X-33, DC-X, or (still-classified) X-41. Until then, it's going to be either the shuttle (if we're "lucky"), paying Russia or private firms for trips to orbit, or waiting for the archaic (and monumental step backward in terms of engineering) Orion Capsule.
- JasonCox, on 11/07/2008, -0/+35Here's what I say we do. Let's round up all the Astronauts in a room and by a show of hands ask if the Shuttle is safe to fly. Then let's round up all the engineers, flight controllers and everyone else who works on the Shuttles and do the same thing. I don't know about anyone else, but I'd say they're more qualified then the politicians in Washington to decide if we should keep flying the Shuttle or not and I have a feeling that by an overwhelming majority they'll say we should keep flying the Shuttle fleet. Until a *suitable* replacement (i.e. NOT Orion) is ready.
- Pixelante, on 11/07/2008, -1/+24We know you're bitter about flunking school, but do you really need to make it that obvious?
Go back to your shovel and dig, kid. Leave science to the experts. Take your meds. - yngtimmy, on 11/07/2008, -0/+17Bah - x-33.....what we need is a X-302 program.
- akeldama, on 11/07/2008, -0/+14Wow, I don't even know where to begin with you...
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+14rabble rabble rabble the earth is flat rabble rabble
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -1/+15...Sounds like they briefed him on what is really going on up there...
- RogerStrong, on 11/07/2008, -3/+15Did Sarah Palin tell you this?
- zippy757, on 11/07/2008, -0/+12Don't bother debating this..Narut0 is just some 15 year old kid trying to provoke you....
- user14, on 11/07/2008, -3/+15$4 Billion per year to research, implement, and test new technology...what are we waiting for...that is a bargain. Probably the only place I don't have a problem increasing spending :) Just take the money away from education or IRS. Space really is for the childeren :)
- bwjacket, on 11/07/2008, -0/+11Only if they can retro-fit the shuttle to haul millions of toxic mortgages into space.
- OrangeTide, on 11/07/2008, -0/+11Doing that will create more bureaucracy. In the end you might end out ahead, but the issue is not as cut and dry as you are making it seem.
Competitive programs and a space economy would also encourage cross pollination of ideas between teams. There are several plausible solutions other than the one you present. - Glassmentality, on 11/07/2008, -0/+11Um...it's not like they go out into space naked.
- protodon, on 11/07/2008, -1/+11People don't really realize how important for the progression of the species as well as a backup for anything that might happen here on Earth. A colony on the Moon would prevent the Human Race from going extinct. A colony on Mars would pretty much guarantee it. We just need a reliable method of traveling to these places. And whichever country makes it to these places first is really going to lay the groundwork for the culture of these new worlds.
- OrangeTide, on 11/07/2008, -0/+10Almost anyone is more qualified than Washington politicians at making almost any decision. Our society has gotten very complex, and the technology changes so fast that it is hard to keep up with what is current.
The issue has to be a joint decision between politicians and engineers. We have to compare risk and cost and value and time to make an informed decision. We want a valuable program that gives back lots of useful research data, and possibly gives back money in terms of savings or revenue. We don't want to spend a lot of money on maintaining a costly program.
We don't have a lot of time to waste on making a decision and building a new program because there are people up on ISS, and we need some technology to ferry them in a safe and cost-effective manner while we build a new program without a resource sucking intermediate program. - FeartheKnighted, on 11/07/2008, -1/+10I agree completely. NASA currently only receives less than .1% of the national budget.
- RennyB, on 11/07/2008, -0/+8quantumcipher,
Why do you call the Orion Capsule "archaic"? It seems to me that a capsule is a much more efficient design for a vehicle designed for interplanetary travel. Why add the complexity and mass of a lifting body when it will only be in the atmosphere for a shot time? - bitweever, on 11/07/2008, -0/+8The Constellation program is not a step backwards. In all actuality, the Shuttle program was a step backwards. Instead of a vehicle to take us further in space, the shuttle was a schoolbus to take us and random payloads into orbit. We don't always need payloads, and we don't always need astronauts with our payloads. The Constellation project is using technology we know works, to take up a program we should have never abandoned.
Just because we're planning rockets now, and used rockets in the 70's does not make it a "monumental step backward in terms of engineering". - prosayik, on 11/07/2008, -0/+7It's not like we have $700 billion lying around in an "ooops" account.
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+7That's because they're too tied up with bureaucracy circle jerks.
- utnow, on 11/07/2008, -0/+7You're exactly right, but because it looks like the apollo era capsules, it's going to get the 'old tech' label.
The part they're missing is that it's the best tool for the job, and it's a known quantity that can be easily (read: cheaply) expanded on and developed. - Gr1nch, on 11/07/2008, -1/+8i think 1% of the federal budget would be sufficient enough. if not more.
- DeFex, on 11/07/2008, -0/+6Just get MASA to do it for $200
- dcmjzero, on 11/07/2008, -0/+6I think you meant successor.
- KMartSheriff, on 11/07/2008, -0/+6Does your mom know you're up past your bed time?
- MacParrot, on 11/07/2008, -0/+6That's one small step for...OW OW oooch OW OUCH!
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/07/2008, -1/+7You need a propulsion/launch system first, and collaborating across boundaries/languages to develop a new launch system is an added expense/difficulty that we don't need.
- garryw, on 11/07/2008, -1/+7Orion is on the books for 2015. If you reject Orion dont expect anything new for the next 15 years. And Shuttle was designed in 1970. Imagine driving a car that old. Imagine driving a 1970 car in 2025. That's what you are asking.
Now on the other hand, Orion can leave earth orbit (shuttle cant) and the Ares lifter has a 6x larger cargo bay than the space shuttle. That means telescopes that put hubble to shame can be placed. - garryw, on 11/07/2008, -0/+5Keep in mind NASA (like the Pentagon) does not design things. They simply hire a contractor. So you are now asking them to hire foreign contractors and make them work with US contractors. That can really slow things down to be honest.
- OrangeTide, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4The money won't have any impact on the national debt or economy. It's just one small sliver of the budget. If we don't sustain NASA with projects, then the smart people that work there will go elsewhere. When we later decide to start up the program again, it will be like starting over from scratch. Gutting an effective and working organization because you have a temporary budget crisis makes no damn sense.
Raising taxes, stopping the bail out plan, leaving iraq, cutting spending across the board, etc. those would have an effect on our debt. - basex, on 11/07/2008, -1/+5the biggest problem in that all those agencies, except ESA, is that they are military organizations so they have many restrictions on information sharing
- jjamminjon, on 11/07/2008, -1/+5All these code words make me feel like I'm watching an episode of Gundam....
- OrangeTide, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4I'm so glad you have an informed opinion and are willing to share it with the rest of us.
- Pixelante, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4If they can't cooperate, the ISS will become a fiery streak across the sky and that will be the end of it.
- Lucky14, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4Perhaps we should turn to the private sector to cut costs. Spacex is currently working on the Falcoln 9 Rocket which when used in conjunction with the Dragon spacecraft, could dramatically lower the cost of getting people/things to the space station. http://www.spacex.com/dragon.php
- Andrwmorph, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4Although due to the instability of the naqahdriah, the ship's hyperspace generator is only capable of short, unguided jumps
- BigManOnCampus, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4It was sooo stupid to abandon that, especially when 3-4 years later they solved the two problems that were causing all the delays. I was so upset that they decided to just abandon all the money they spent on it. We essentially now have TWO SSTO technologies that are ready for full-scale development/testing in X-33 and DC-X, and we've abandoned them both... WE-TODD-IT
- OrangeTide, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4the space program has led to lots of amazing strides in material science, communications and orbital systems. We should consider NASA as a form of applied research, and fund the programs as a way to maintain our position in the world as a technology hub.
Because the US manufactures less and less, we have NO CHOICE but to be a center for intellectual "products". Many of you laugh, but the US is an engineering leader along with Germany, Japan and a few others. Without continuous advancement of scientific and engineering knowledge, I see no other outcome than the collapse of US. - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+4No, it would be a bureaucratic nightmare with all the trade secrets trying to be protected not to mention spy/defense issues
- scabbers, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3I think if the US and Russia can't co-operate over this, the ISS is basically going to become a disputed territory up there anyway.
- Veni_Vidi_Vici, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3I agree with Konrad. The thing that we all forget is that the space shuttle is was originally intended to be developmental, not operational. That was one of the problems that came about in the Columbia Accident Investigation report. We only intended to use the shuttle to learn when we first designed it, and there were concerns voiced about using it to build the space station. Besides, it's useless beyond low earth orbit. We can't even go to the moon with it.
Anywho, for those interested in this sort of thing: http://www.spacepolitics.com/ - inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3"Almost anyone is more qualified than Washington politicians at making almost any decision."
You are 100% correct. - 2Bnor2B, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3Both the X-33 (Lockheed Martin) and DC-X (McDonnell Douglass) where results of the bid to replace the space shuttle.
The X-33 was a traditional gliding design and the DC-X was more like a flying pyramid. The X-33 ultimately won the shuttle bid but many of the DC-X concepts may be incorporated in an interplanetary vessel. As the previous posted said, we all loose if we do nothing to replace the shuttle. There are several pictures of the DC-X prototype on YouTube. - subliminalurge, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3The tiny amount we spend on NASA wouldn't even make a dent in either of the alternative places to spend it that you suggested.
- elemming, on 11/08/2008, -0/+3He changed his position on delaying Constellation.
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2008/08/obama_re ... - worldnick, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3hey that money is to keep rich people in their lifestyles... not for the pursuit of all human endeavor as a species.
- brainflakes, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3I say we bring back *Project* Orion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclea ...
- thenutty1, on 11/07/2008, -1/+4Not anymore anyways...
- inactive, on 11/07/2008, -0/+3True, but maybe Taco Bell will give out free tacos again.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 131 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is