- 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 10:10 pm to yellowhammer2098
Posted on 11/18/16 at 10:10 pm to yellowhammer2098
quote:He was given a scholarship after RL Stine's 1995 documentary piece on him. You may have even read it.
I never knew a gnome got a PhD is aerospace engineering. Tight.
0
Posted on 11/18/16 at 11:02 pm to meeple
quote:
Not entirely correct either.
I don't think we differ, you just provide additional evidence of support. This, as you say was a known failure that was addressed following each mission. Whatever analysis they did to determine probability/consequence was insufficient prior to the loss of Columbia.
From a purely non NASA perspective, this would seem to be a major failure is recognizing a real problem that needed scrutiny of a higher magnitude.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 6:46 am to OWLFAN86
This has been interesting thread because most of it happened while I was very young so I've learned a lot.
I have to say, is one of the main reasons to use a Space Shuttle because of the possibility of going to the moon or another planet, refueling, and then taking back off? Obviously the Space Shuttle doesn't take off from earth by itself, but could it have taken off from the moon or Mars on its own?
I have to figure that ultimately using rockets instead of the space shuttle is a step backwards as far as progress goes. I mean stars wars and star trek are all on Space Shuttle type vessels am I right?
I have to say, is one of the main reasons to use a Space Shuttle because of the possibility of going to the moon or another planet, refueling, and then taking back off? Obviously the Space Shuttle doesn't take off from earth by itself, but could it have taken off from the moon or Mars on its own?
I have to figure that ultimately using rockets instead of the space shuttle is a step backwards as far as progress goes. I mean stars wars and star trek are all on Space Shuttle type vessels am I right?
This post was edited on 11/19/16 at 6:47 am
Posted on 11/19/16 at 7:07 am to LucasP
quote:
We shouldn't even have space, it doesn't do anything.
Damn right. Nobody ever needs GPS.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 8:48 am to DavidTheGnome
National pride! USA USA USA
Posted on 11/19/16 at 10:42 am to baldona
quote:
is one of the main reasons to use a Space Shuttle because of the possibility of going to the moon or another planet, refueling, and then taking back off?
No the Shuttle was designed to only fly in low earth orbit.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 11:00 am to baldona
quote:
I have to say, is one of the main reasons to use a Space Shuttle because of the possibility of going to the moon or another planet, refueling, and then taking back off? Obviously the Space Shuttle doesn't take off from earth by itself, but could it have taken off from the moon or Mars on its own?
That was never part of the design nor would it have been possible (nor would wings have served any purpose on the moon). The shuttle is designed the way it is because the military stuck its fingers in the design process. NASA would have went with a more practical/efficient route.
All the downvotes I think I need to clarify, I'm not one of the nutcases that think we should get rid of NASA or anything like that. I'm all for developing space and would gladly support doubling NASAs budget if need be. Manned space flight is unnecessary at the moment (we get WAY more bang for our buck going unmanned) but I'm all for developing manned space flight too. The space shuttle was just a bad design however, very wasteful and overly complex.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 11:05 am to DavidTheGnome
quote:
Manned space flight is unnecessary at the moment (we get WAY more bang for our buck going unmanned)
Nobody gives a shite about robots and drones in space and that's why NASA's budget is so low. The most significant thing a NASA astronaut has done in the last 30 years is drive across the country in her diapers to kill her lover's side piece.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 11:13 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Nobody gives a shite about robots and drones in space and that's why NASA's budget is so low. The most significant thing a NASA astronaut has done in the last 30 years is drive across the country in her diapers to kill her lover's side piece.
Such an ignorant statement. Way more science was done by the mars rovers, the Casini spacecraft, Hubble, the soon to be James Webb Space Telescope, etc than has ever been performed on the ISS.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 11:28 am to DavidTheGnome
That's neat.
Nobody cares though.
Also JWST is like 4 years behind schedule and billions over budget so don't blow sunshine up my arse about "bang for our buck."
Nobody cares though.
Also JWST is like 4 years behind schedule and billions over budget so don't blow sunshine up my arse about "bang for our buck."
Posted on 11/19/16 at 11:54 am to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
That's neat. Nobody cares though. Also JWST is like 4 years behind schedule and billions over budget so don't blow sunshine up my arse about "bang for our buck."
And yet will still deliver vastly more science than manned space flight endevours.
I think you are looking for NASA to deliver pr feel good stories vs actual scientific progress given your nobody cares statement. ISS was a diplomatic endevour first and foremost. We could have explored all corners of the solar system in great detail with the money we've sunk into that.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 12:23 pm to DavidTheGnome
quote:
I think you are looking for NASA to deliver pr feel good stories vs actual scientific progress given your nobody cares statement
PR feel good stories get funding. Robots don't.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 1:58 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
PR feel good stories get funding. Robots don't.
With that attitude we'd never accomplish anything.
Posted on 11/19/16 at 2:05 pm to DavidTheGnome
My point of the landing on the moon and taking back off was all about the thought process back in the 70s and 80s. Obviously we know at this point thats a distance pipe dream, but at the same time that has to be some type of goal in the future. Did they know how far behind we were from doing that in the 70s?
A reusable thing like the Space Shuttle seems more plausible than something like shooting a one time rocket up and over to Mars and then getting into a new rocket on Mars to shoot back home? The Space Shuttle was never the answer but I could see the thought process being that it would be Generation 1 of 5 or whatever that eventually made that actually happen.
A reusable thing like the Space Shuttle seems more plausible than something like shooting a one time rocket up and over to Mars and then getting into a new rocket on Mars to shoot back home? The Space Shuttle was never the answer but I could see the thought process being that it would be Generation 1 of 5 or whatever that eventually made that actually happen.
This post was edited on 11/19/16 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 11/20/16 at 12:35 am to baldona
quote:
A reusable thing like the Space Shuttle seems more plausible than something like shooting a one time rocket up and over to Mars and then getting into a new rocket on Mars to shoot back home? The Space Shuttle was never the answer but I could see the thought process being that it would be Generation 1 of 5 or whatever that eventually made that actually happen
Flying the shuttle to mars was never in the thought process, and any Mars ship would look vastly different than the shuttle. The shuttle is what it is because the military wanted a payload bay, pure and simple. There were other reusable winged craft concepts that would have made much more sense, they were smaller and sat atop a rocket rather than the bizarre, inefficient configuration of the shuttle. It was just too much unnecessary mass to get to orbit with no real purpose.
Posted on 11/20/16 at 9:23 am to Sentrius
quote:
Unless you're an actual engineer working for NASA or somewhere else in the aeronautics industry, you don't know shite
This would be a dangerous thought process to follow.
Page 5 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News