- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Space Shuttle was a colossal waste of money
Posted on 11/18/16 at 2:47 pm to lsufan1971
Posted on 11/18/16 at 2:47 pm to lsufan1971
quote:
Hey if it wasn't for NASA we wouldn't have things like Tang, velcro and smartphone cameras. Get off your high horse!
Tang, Velcro and Teflon, were not invented by NASA as many believe. Velcro was invented by a Swiss engineer in 1941, Teflon by Dupont in 1938, and Tang was a General Food product in 1957.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 2:47 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Space Shuttle was a colossal waste of money
You sound like Obama. I bet you think Obamacare is awesome you commie bastard.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 2:49 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I just think that things like the space shuttle and ISS have other vested interest besides advancing our exploration of space
Well, you're right about the shuttle. We didn't build the shuttle because we got tired of using a Saturn launch system. We built the shuttle because the military wanted to use it to launch and RETRIEVE spy satellites, basically. Can't retrieve stuff with traditional style launch systems. To retrieve, you need a payload bay and way to bring it back. Hence, the shuttle. By the time the military gave up on bringing stuff back via the SLS and backed out of their promised launches, we'd already gone too far down the shuttle route to back away.
This post was edited on 11/18/16 at 2:51 pm
Posted on 11/18/16 at 3:58 pm to Sparkplug#1
quote:
Both parts that failed were made in Louisiana.
quote:
It was a waste of life more than money. This combination of a quest for cost efficiency, along with NASA's ingrained sense of invulnerability ("Go fever") that did in 2 heroic flight crews.
Both the o-ring and shield foam that caused those
This is not true. The Challenger disaster was a combination of a poorly designed and inadequately tested SRB O-ring (Morton-Thiokol in Utah) and launching in cold/freezing weather. Consequently, the O-ring failed to adequately expand during launch resulting in O-ring blowby right into the external tank. The external tank insulation was only designed as insulation for the cryogenic fuel, not as a shield against an O-ring blow torch. The warning signs about the O-rings and the cold were there but ignored.
LINK
This post was edited on 11/18/16 at 4:03 pm
Posted on 11/18/16 at 3:58 pm to kclsufan
quote:
This is not true. The Columbia disaster was a combination of a poorly designed and inadequately tested SRB O-ring (Morton-Thiokol in Utah) and launching in cold/freezing weather. Consequently, the O-ring failed to adequately expand during launch resulting in O-ring blowby right into the external tank. The external tank insulation was only designed as insulation for the cryogenic fuel, not as a shield against an O-ring blow torch. The warning signs about the O-rings and the cold were there but ignored.
This was Challenger
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:03 pm to MorbidTheClown
quote:
This was Challenger
Derp, you're right. Thanks
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:12 pm to DavidTheGnome
All resources should be put into the space elevator project.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:16 pm to Ace Midnight
Ace,
You are absolutely correct, Enterprise (OV-101) was nothing more that a test vehicle that ended up at the Smithsonian in '85. Was having lunch at my desk as I typed that and didn't mean to imply anything contrary. Columbia was the first flight worthy shuttle and Discovery was to be the first shuttle dedicated for military use.
You are absolutely correct, Enterprise (OV-101) was nothing more that a test vehicle that ended up at the Smithsonian in '85. Was having lunch at my desk as I typed that and didn't mean to imply anything contrary. Columbia was the first flight worthy shuttle and Discovery was to be the first shuttle dedicated for military use.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:29 pm to PurpleandGold Motown
quote:
All resources should be put into the space elevator project.
Makes more sense than the shuttle.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:56 pm to LucasP
And don't forget cars, airplanes,trains, medical clinical trials, and knives. Can't even imagine how many people have been killed by these wastes of money. (This is sarcasm for those who don't understand sarcasm).
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:56 pm to LucasP
And don't forget cars, airplanes,trains, medical clinical trials, and knives. Can't even imagine how many people have been killed by these wastes of money. (This is sarcasm for those who don't understand sarcasm).
Posted on 11/18/16 at 4:58 pm to Ace Midnight
The only thing you can sort of blame NASA for was launching the Challenger in below freezing conditions. It seems there was pressure to get the ship up.
Columbia didn't suffer from go fever but a freak incident. I think they should have tried a rescue attempt but I'm sure there are reasons as to why they didn't. The video from the Columbia crew right before re entry is haunting. I think the last words were the commander saying " were burning up"
Columbia didn't suffer from go fever but a freak incident. I think they should have tried a rescue attempt but I'm sure there are reasons as to why they didn't. The video from the Columbia crew right before re entry is haunting. I think the last words were the commander saying " were burning up"
Posted on 11/18/16 at 5:30 pm to Kcrad
I am not sure if it was a waste of money, but IMO they wanted to keep up with Russia back into the 60s and it became a contest who would get to the moon first. After that I am not sure what space travel was supposed to be about... why is there even a space station???? Is there something out there that will benefit the plant and help it last longer?????
Posted on 11/18/16 at 5:49 pm to TheLSUriot
quote:
Columbia was the first flight worthy shuttle and Discovery was to be the first shuttle dedicated for military use.
The first flight out of Vandenberg (STS-62-A) got to the point of even having a crew selected:
Posted on 11/18/16 at 5:53 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
DavidTheGnome
Unless you're an actual engineer working for NASA or somewhere else in the aeronautics industry, you don't know shite
Posted on 11/18/16 at 5:55 pm to dukke v
PeeJ, it was the ability to reuse the solid rocket boosters. We could land reuse the Solid Boosters.
Also, we could spy on Soviet satellites. To the point of sending Astronauts to Soviet satellites.
And much more.
Also, we could spy on Soviet satellites. To the point of sending Astronauts to Soviet satellites.
And much more.
Posted on 11/18/16 at 6:53 pm to DavidTheGnome
The shuttle was the equivalent of a space-going 18-wheeler built to carry large payloads such as satellites and pieces of the ISS into space. When that function was no longer needed it didn't make sense to continue using the shuttle just to ferry astronauts and small amounts of supplies to the ISS. Lots of folks complained when the shuttle program ended but it had to be done for practical reasons. There was a smaller craft, without the large payload area, that NASA had in the design stages in the 90s, but it was scrapped because the Bush administration needed the money for the war against terrorism. When Obama finally pulled the plug on the shuttle it had already lasted many years more than was originally intended and had fulfilled its purpose in helping to build the ISS.
Popular
Back to top


0










