- Status
<i>I see spend more money on robots just to take pretty pictures.. </i><br /><br />Yes, that's all robotic exploration has produced - pretty pictures. It's not like we've actually learned anything from it.
"It's not like we've actually learned anything from it."<br /><br />We did find evidence of water on mars with the rovers, that is learning something. But then again, if we had sent people we would have learned that and more.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
<i>I think vt_hokie's comment was loaded with sarcasm. </i><br /><br />I'm glad someone was able to pick up on that. I figured that was pretty obvious, but apparently not to some.
"I figured that was pretty obvious, but apparently not to some."<br /><br />If you wanted to show sarcasm you should have said something like, "Wow, we sent two multimillion dollar rovers to mars and look at all the pretty pictures that we have now. We didn't learn a thing, but at least we have pretty pictures."<br /><br />That would have shown sarcasm better.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy
Boeing 707 & Airbus A340: Broadly similar shape and job description, but the Airbus clearly has 40+years of improvements in it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!! LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>
the aerodynamics and performance improvements are fairly minimal, the speed is nearly the same.<br />but I guess the market demands comfort and range and safety so that's what the manufacturers will focus on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
How many more generations will live with Mach 0.85 commercial air travel before aviation really starts to advance again? Yes, the A340 is a totally different animal than the 707, just as the steam locomotives of the 1930's were well ahead of steam locomotives built in the 1830's. But eventually, we stopped tweaking existing technology and took some major steps forward. Imagine the kind of steam locomotive we would be building today if we had kept improving the technology! But no matter how many bells and whistles you put on a steam engine, you can't turn it into the French TGV! <br /><br />It seems to me that we should have the technology today to build a modern SST that would be much more commercially viable than the Concorde.<br /><br />Here's yet another cancelled NASA program. But hey, at least the money saved can help pay for beefed up Apollo capsules! <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />
Perhaps if you invent a jet engine that runs on happy thoughts, plus an airframe that does not generate sonic boom, then maybe Concordish transport becomes cheap layman's hobby.
Why did no one ever build ships out of bronze? Bronze has been around for thousands of years. Its stronger than wood. Its technically feasible to build a ship of it. So why didn't we have any bronze ships? Because it made no economic sense that's why. Even for a warship it would have been a crazy idea. While you bankrupt your country and devote all of your resources to smelting and casting enough bronze to build your ultimate warship your enemies come and conquer you with a fleet of old fashioned wooden ships. Metal ships didn't become reality until the price of steel fell low enough (after the Bessemer process was discovered) to make the good points of steel worth the cost. People knew perfectly well that metal was strong and durable but if the goal of sailing ships is trade or defense--building a metal ship just to prove it can be done would have been economic suicide.<br /><br />Get it through your head: Just because something is technically possible and more "advanced" does not mean it is preferable!!!! <br /><br />The ONLY reason diesel locomotives supplanted coal fired steam ones was because diesels required far less expensive maintenance and lasted much longer than steam engines (I used to commute to NYC on a train hauled by a General Electric F3 diesel that had to be about 50 years old at least). Electric locomotives are even more "advanced" but they only make sense in dense, heavily trafficked areas because of the cost of stringing power lines.<br /><br />We don't deliver loads of gravel in 200 mph formula one cars. We don't use SR-71s as crop dusters. And we don't need spaceplanes and von Braun space stations to go to the moon and mars. There is no possible way that developing a new space plane will make going to the moonor mars any cheaper--none whatsoever. That's the reality. So take your pick. Develope a "cool" space plane with all of the bells and whistles just to say you can do it and fly it back and forth to LEO (when you can scrape together the launch cos
there's two possibilities:<br />Either the private industry develops the 'cheap capsule', in which case everyone will laugh at NASA and the CEV...or the private industry fails and we remain stuck with the 'expensive' capsule which proves that the capsule cannot be improved further. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
"The way the public sees it is this. If we don't leave, we are idiots. If we do leave but don't succeed in our mission, we are incompetent. But if we do succeed, it's because it was easy and anyone could have done it."<br /> -- Bertrand Piccard <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>
Yes. As much as I was a fan of following the X-33 development and all its exciting hardware I'm even more excited for NASA's new capsule CEV architecture, despite it looking like something "old." Looks like something that WILL WORK to me! Plus I know all the guts will be modern. <br /><br />"boohoo, where's my warpdrive??" Guys and gals, we're getting a modern spacecraft here! Quit your whinin'. We'll all be smiling when we see some fresh footprints up there again. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br /><br />ps. tomnakid: I was distracted from SDC for two hours when I decided to wiki Bessemer Process and ended up making my way from Pig Iron to Steel, pretty much taking all the off ramps along the way. Soo... thanks!
Why would everyone laugh at NASA and the CEV? If the pure private interests (with the possible help of NASA funding) can develop capsule vehicles to go between the Earh's surface and LEO. Capsules that would indeed quite probably be cheaper than the CEV. So for that use NASA should indeed purchase either the capsules themselves or the services of the capsule developers.<br /><br />But none will be laughing at the CEV because the principle purpose of the CEV is to go back to the moon, and eventually to help in going on to Mars! Is that perfectly clear here? The pure private interests are not going to be develping vehicles and systems to go to the moon or Mars for quite some time. It is too expensive for them at this time. It requires the kind of resources and funding that only entire governments like the US, Russia, and China can afford to give such efforts.<br /><br />This is NOT to say that such efforts of a pure private nature will not eventually happen, but by that time the efforts of governments should be going out to the asteroid belt and beyond with human exploration.<br /><br />The CEV is not just the Apollo like capsule, it is an entire system. It is going to take the capsule , its launch system, a heavy lift lauch vehicle, and a lunar lander, just to return to the moon. Going out to Mars which is upwards of a thousand times further away is going to reuire even far more efforts and equipment! <br /><br />The pure private efforts are going to follow the government efforts here, not lead them. It is too expensive and not directly profitable for them to do so. <br /><br />Of course, there are still great profits to be made by such private efforts in the meantime, as NASA does not build any of its own hardware for such large projects. Heck, even most of the robotic probes are built by the like of LM and Boeing. Just in case you didn't realize it, these companies are trading on the NYSE, and that makes them pure profit making private companies also!
Entering this conversation 4 pages in ...<br /><br />The way I see it, NASA is not re-doing what they have already done so much as finishing what they started. NASA has unfinished business on the moon and beyond and I think that they just want to pick up where they left off 35-ish years ago. Keep in mind that just because we've already been there doesnt mean that the moon has ceased to be useful. And for all you science people, since you've all been so cooperative, once we have our moon base, we'll build you a far-side telescope. A really nice one. And since you all seem to hate humans so much, we'll even make it automated 
Least, that's what I would do, if I ran the moon base *sigh*
Least, that's what I would do, if I ran the moon base *sigh*if the small firms gain access to LEO, we're going to the Moon in Bigelow modules, being first launched in T-Space or SpaceX or SpaceDev spacecraft.<br />We're going to land on the moon in the SpaceDev rocket chair .<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Thats fine <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> but how is the geology lab getting there? Oh right, on the back of a LSAM.
Considering somethign like a rocketchair, it's just occuring to me how unwilling I would be to engage regularly in travel that is made possible by expeling high velocity gases through a nozzle... there are too many things that could go wrong in that system and leave you literally dead in space. <br /><br />Imagine if you were on lunar surface and embarking on your daily commute to the LSS. No way I would jump into a rocketchair, I definately think a lunar space elevator needs to be a high priority. But that will be done privately. Mabe I'm just a bit afraid of heights.. hehe. Nothing like the feeling of something you know is connected to the ground and that you can hold onto.. compared to just incorporeal imparted impulse. <br /><br />btw, i don't even know what the rocket chair is! I"m jsut typing this quick at work!
Rockets vs. space elevators (or tethers, or laser launch systems or any other large permanent infrastructure) is analogous to ferries vs. bridges. A bridge is not economical until there is a lot of traffic going both ways. Also you have to factor in the difficulty of building the bridge and available technology as well. No matter how heavy and dangerous the ferry traffic was a bridge linking Brooklyn and Manhattan could not have been built until deep water caissons and steel cables were perfected.
That's true, and interesting. I realize that SpaceDev's rocketchair proposal is designed to be innovative with cost in mind, and is certainly not for the faint of heart. I just started thinking about how not-reliable a device such as Rocketchair would be for routine transportation and then... yeah, basically I started thinking how I'd say "No, thank you," if someone suggested I hop to lunar orbit on one of those. I'm definately going to wait for a nice space elevator... which won't be built until there's a lot of potential traffic which is when the cost will be low enough that I could even consider going. ...looking far down the road, i know....
think about it this way:<br />3 people in 3 rocket chairs or 3 people in one lander. something goes wrong...at least in the first case 2 can make it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<i>Get it through your head: Just because something is technically possible and more "advanced" does not mean it is preferable!!!! </i><br /><br />However, if we rely on a private sector focused on short term profits and immediate returns to give us major breakthroughs, we'll never get anywhere. That's why programs like NASA's now defunct high speed research effort are so important. How is technology supposed to advance if nobody tries to make things such as SST's economically viable? Or would you rather see 707-style Mach 0.85 airframes for the next 500 years?
yeah, right. not if it were your own behind. <br /><br />How many times have we heard people pointing out that rocket-based travel is and will always be dangerous. My point is really that rapid acceleration in a frictionless environment will always be dangerous.<br /><br />At least on earth when you get going too fast you've always got friction from some substance that's going to slow you down. Even if you're falling you COULD have a parachute. For all practical matters, nothing in space will slow you down besides what momentum exchange you can muster. I think most people, if given the choice, would choose a means of space travel which ensures a physical connection to the ground, wherever that may be. Of course, this only works from ground to some height. Interplanetary you'll need to let go and make sure you're in a craft with a lot of redudancies and reliability.<br /><br />So, to try to tie this (ohh!!!) back into the thread, I'd much rather be in a CEV resulting from a 10 billion dollar program than some lawn chair with rockets.
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 34
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 12
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram