Rookie Question Thread: Space Business and Tech.

Status
Not open for further replies.
V

votefornimitz

Guest
Have a burning question that needs to be answered, but want it to get paid attention to without being labled as trolling. Post it here and we'll answer it ASAP. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <span style="color:#993366">In the event of a full scale nuclear war or NEO impact event, there are two categories of underground shelters available to the public, distinguished by depth underground: bunkers and graves...</span> </div>
 
G

grooble

Guest
Yes, if the Shuttle was cancelled, why couldn't the money be put directly to the new CEV system? I keep hearing that if the shuttle was cancelled, NASA would lose all that money.
 
R

rubicondsrv

Guest
Because NASA must spend the money for the purpose that is indicated in the budget or give it back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
G

grooble

Guest
Ok so they may lose one years money, but the next year NASA could have a new budget for the same $16b except that it would have funding for the CEV and not shuttle, that can happen right? <br /><br />It will happen in 2011 NASA budget anyway, when the shuttle program is fased (phased - uh too much time gaming) out.<br />
 
D

drwayne

Guest
In the dog eat cat world of budget politics, it is easier to get money for an ongoing program that to get the same number of dollars for a new program.<br /><br />You never want to have a schedule that has a clean point at which one program begins and another ends. That is practically an invitation to have money taken away from you. That is why you schedule overlaps in tasking, as this does not give that clean "breaking point" at which your program can be cancelled, and dollars go elsewhere.<br /><br />This is true for small potatoes work like I normally do, and also for big ticket items.<br /><br />Every year is a fight for dollars, and no matter how big a commitment was made to an idea last year, that is last year, and not much of a factor this year.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Don't go there.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
V

vogon13

Guest
I have access to a truly frightening array of advanced, exotic alien weaponry.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
J

jetman1

Guest
Rookie here. <br />Could it be possible and practical to use the Space shuttle as a moon base? <br />Seems it would be a better use for a retired shuttle then having it sit in a museum somewhere and the cost savings would seem to be large. <br />
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Maintenence of the shuttle systems on the moon would be difficult.<br /><br />The shuttle can absorb nearly infinite amounts of maintenance effort.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
P

propforce

Guest
<img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
N

nexium

Guest
Would a tether one mile long at an altitude of 240 miles, fliping end over end (cartwheeling) every 30 seconds = one RPM accelerate a payload fast enough to coast to the moon? Either way, what would be the average g that the pay load would experience during 1/2 rotation? What would be the mass of a tapered kevar tether, with a generous safety factor, for a 4 ton payload? Can we do this with today's technology? This has been discused in several threads about the space elevator, but specs have been lacking. Neil
 
N

nexium

Guest
I tried the link on about page 6 of space business and technology. This rotating tether tip travels 2.5 kilometers per second = 150 kilometers per minute = 9000 kilometers per hour, and takes 3? hours per revelution (90 minute attachment oportunities).<br />3 hours means the circumfrence is 3000 kilometers/ divide by 6.28 = 478 kilometers long = 956 kilometers in diameter. If the low end dips to 94 kilometers altitude, when an attachment is desired, the top is at 1050 kilometers altitude. My guess is tether gets shorter and crooked (S shaped?) without a pay load at the tip. 1050 - 478 = 572 kilometers for the altitude of the mass center, assuming the tether is tapered and symetrical. The center orbits at about 27,000 kilometers per hour = 7.4 kilometers per second - 2.5 = 4.9 kilometers per second - 0.4 (Earth's rotation relative to a semipolar orbit) = 4.5 kilometers per second which is the speed of the delivery vehicle, if I didn't make a wrong assumption or arithmetic error. We likely need some technology advances to make this tether, which can likely flip 4 tons anywhere in the inner solar system. The tip speed relative to Earth's surface needs to be reduced to avoid large air friction losses at less than 94 kilometers altitude. Lower and slower is better for the attachment vehicle, but puts more strain on the tether and payload. Neil
 
A

annodomini2

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ok so they may lose one years money, but the next year NASA could have a new budget for the same $16b except that it would have funding for the CEV and not shuttle, that can happen right? <br /><br />It will happen in 2011 NASA budget anyway, when the shuttle program is fased (phased - uh too much time gaming) out. <br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />There's another problem with this, NASA & The US have committed to launching several parts of the ISS which only the space shuttle can lift atm.<br /><br />The initial designs of the CEV call for effectively a small crew transfer and cargo vehicle. No where near the current lifting capability of the shuttle.<br /><br />If the US was to break these agreements they would incurr significant costs and charges. Not to mention political embarrassment, in addition to the money moving out of US hands (bad for economy).<br /><br />While from a simplistic view wasting money on the costly and inefficient shuttle appears pointless, there are many other factors to consider (the above is only a small sample).<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

V
Replies
3
Views
1K
Cosmology
votefornimitz
V
V
  • Locked
Replies
4
Views
935
Cosmology
heyscottie
H
V
  • Locked
Replies
9
Views
930
D
V
Replies
11
Views
1K
Cosmology
garfieldthecat
G
V
Replies
7
Views
741
D

Latest posts