RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 137,791
Posts: 5,325,472
Members: 24,548
Currently online: 590
Newest member: wrestlefreak36

TrekToday headlines

Seven of Nine Bobble Head
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

Pegg The Prankster
By: T'Bonz on Jul 9

More Trek Stars Join Unbelievable!!!!!
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

Star Trek #35 Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 8

New ThinkGeek Trek Apparel
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Star Trek Movie Prop Auction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

Drexler: NX Engineering Room Construction
By: T'Bonz on Jul 7

New Trek Home Fashions
By: T'Bonz on Jul 4

Star Trek Pop-Ups Book Preview
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3

Cho: More On Selfie
By: T'Bonz on Jul 3


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 15 2009, 06:35 PM   #136
USS KG5
Vice Admiral
 
USS KG5's Avatar
 
Location: England's green and pleasant land.
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

diankra wrote: View Post
There was indeed a fire, though that makes it seem more dramatic than it was (smouldering and smokey, not sheets of flame). The main life support system could only support so many crew, so when more than one crew was aboard at the same time, it had to be supplemented with oxygen generating 'candles' - oxygen producing chemical packs that can overheat and smoulder if not monitored well.
Those the same ones that finally offed the crew of the Kursk? Poor bastards.
__________________
I believe in a better world, so I love Star Trek. I have to live in this one, so I love Battlestar Galactica.
USS KG5 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 07:49 PM   #137
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

USS KG5 wrote: View Post
Those the same ones that finally offed the crew of the Kursk? Poor bastards.
I don't think the candles are what did them in, eventual they ran out of them. The russian's weren't equiped to deal with the rescue.

darkwing_duck1 wrote: View Post
Not that I'm in favor of us doing so, but as a matter of technical curiosity, wasn't a 1g contstant-thrust engine developed for Apollo? They abandoned it in favor of the Sat-V because the fuel it required was considered too volatile.
If the saturn five only developed one constant gee of thrust, wouldn't it just sit on the launch pad?

Hober Mallow wrote: View Post
Unless those pesky WMD are actually in a crater of the moon, Saddam was all talk and no threat.
Government released a list of twenty-eight reasons to go to war with Iraq, WMD was just one item on the list.

And while we didn't find warehouses packed with them, hundreds of WMD's (chemical and biological) were found, so you can't say no WMD's.

Al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq still use them (chemicals) in conjuction with regular explosives in bombings of civilian targets.
T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 08:05 PM   #138
Hober Mallow
Commodore
 
Location: The planet Terminus, site of the Encyclopedia Foundation on the periphery of the galaxy
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
And while we didn't find warehouses packed with them, hundreds of WMD's (chemical and biological) were found, so you can't say no WMD's.
From the final report of George Bush's own Iraq Survey Group (ISG):
Saddam Husayn ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the Gulf war. ISG found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter.

In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW [biological warfare] weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes.
And from factcheck.org:
Q: Were there really weapons of mass destruction in Iraq when the U.S. invaded in 2003?

A: No. The Iraq Survey Group determined that Iraq had abandoned its quest to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons and that it had already destroyed all of its existing stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons
__________________
"Beep... beep!" --Captain Pike
Hober Mallow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 08:46 PM   #139
SilentP
Commodore
 
SilentP's Avatar
 
Location: is in a very lonely Corner of the Circle
Send a message via Windows Live Messenger to SilentP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
darkwing_duck1 wrote: View Post
Not that I'm in favor of us doing so, but as a matter of technical curiosity, wasn't a 1g contstant-thrust engine developed for Apollo? They abandoned it in favor of the Sat-V because the fuel it required was considered too volatile.
If the saturn five only developed one constant gee of thrust, wouldn't it just sit on the launch pad?
True, unless they meant:

-1G of overall acceleration i.e. generates 2G, one of which is countered by Earth's 1G in the opposite direction.

OR

-1G when the vehicle was effectively 'free' of Earth's Gravity.
SilentP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 15 2009, 09:36 PM   #140
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Saturn V *peak* acceleration was 6G, which was very brief in duration. Apollo astronauts were subjected to 4 G for longer periods of acceleration.
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2009, 05:42 AM   #141
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

For anyone interested, ULA has published what they think is a good alternative to the current space plan. Pretty good reading. I like the depot strategy and the high launch rates (high launch rates mean high construction rates which introduces economies of scale).

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/public...ecture2009.pdf

There is also some neat spacecraft eyecandy.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2009, 02:51 PM   #142
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

sojourner wrote: View Post
For anyone interested, ULA has published what they think is a good alternative to the current space plan. Pretty good reading. I like the depot strategy and the high launch rates (high launch rates mean high construction rates which introduces economies of scale).

http://www.ulalaunch.com/docs/public...ecture2009.pdf

There is also some neat spacecraft eyecandy.
Promising, but... once-bitten, twice-shy on high launch rates. That was what the Shuttle was supposed to achieve - I'm old enough to have mid-1970s era books on manned spaceflight that include flight manifests that build up to 30+ flights a year by 1984-ish.
It only works if it actually works, as it were!
__________________
"Some days are better than others. They say that where I come from."
"Loudly, I imagine, on the day you left."
(Blake's 7 - Rumours of Death)
diankra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2009, 04:33 PM   #143
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

^well, the shuttle was supposed to achieve those launch rates with only 4 orbiters and a huge ground crew for servicing. EELV's would be mass produced and require a fraction of the ground crew the shuttle does.

And if you read the report, they admit that they couldn't do it alone. Other companies (SpaceX?) in the industry would get contracts for the fueling launches as well.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 16 2009, 08:45 PM   #144
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

sojourner wrote: View Post
^well, the shuttle was supposed to achieve those launch rates with only 4 orbiters and a huge ground crew for servicing. EELV's would be mass produced and require a fraction of the ground crew the shuttle does.

And if you read the report, they admit that they couldn't do it alone. Other companies (SpaceX?) in the industry would get contracts for the fueling launches as well.
Five orbiters if NASA had got its way, but yep.
I just hit the bookcase and have come back rather gobsmacked - checking Reg Turnhill's Observer's Book of Manned Spaceflight (1978 3rd edition, and yes, it's a bit of a kid's book, but a solid one), I find I'd actually under-remembered: the flight manifest it prints, starting with OFT1 in June 79 with the Skylab rescue on the second flight, actually ramps up to a projection of 58 flights in 1988 (40 from KSC, 18 from Vandenberg).
Even then I suspect that might have been a tad optimistic... but it's an eye-opening reminder of how high hopes once were. (Quick addition: pages 347-349 of Heppenheimer's Development of the Space Shuttle have some intersting stuff on how the flight manifest affected the number of orbiters built, quoting a 1977 General Accounting Office memo that 'NASA's five orbiter fleet is based on the assumption that the number of payloads will more than double during the 1980s, from 40 a year to over 90 a year'. Gulp!).
__________________
"Some days are better than others. They say that where I come from."
"Loudly, I imagine, on the day you left."
(Blake's 7 - Rumours of Death)
diankra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2009, 01:57 PM   #145
BCI
Rear Admiral
 
BCI's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Squiggy wrote: View Post
Johnny Rico wrote: View Post
So who wouldda thunk that 'Dubya' was the "space/science-friendly" President?
No one who actually knows what's going on. Bush told NASA to to back to the moon but didn't give them any more money to do so. So NASA not only has to complete it's mission to finish the ISS but also operate the shuttle fleet AND develop the next generation spacecraft with the same amount of money.

But next time you want to start a thread like this, man up and bring it to another board in here and let me really school ya.
I think it's really a shame. There is the STS, and it's such a wonderful peace of technology. From the seventies up to now, it has cost as much as a handful of B2 bombers.
__________________
At least the handle is one of us said the trees when the axe came into the wood...
BCI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2009, 03:15 PM   #146
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Well, each orbiter costs about the price of 2 B-2's and each launch of the STS cost about .6 of a B-2, so rough estimate, you could buy about 50 B-2's for the price of the orbiters and all launches to date. That's a little more than a handful.

B-2 price grabbed from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
Shuttle prices from
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#311
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 17 2009, 11:38 PM   #147
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Five orbiters if NASA had got its way, but yep.
--- The way I heard it was promised in the late seventies, with a four shuttle fleet, there was to be a launch every two weeks, with each shuttle going up once every two months. I'm a big NASA booster, and even I wouldn't of bought that.

A story my uncle from boeing told me, that went around the areospace industry years ago. The shuttle and B-1 bomber proto-type were being built by Rockwell at the same time. Shuttle's contract was cost plus, the B-1 was fix price. Whenever the B-1 went over price for any given month, they would order things against the shuttle, and then quietly transfer them across.


Breitbart had a small interesting article on Chinese space ambitions

www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.d250ad11b26dc10b20fcd37105b9e55 2.71&show_article=1
T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2009, 04:08 AM   #148
Marc
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: An Aussie in Canukistan
Send a message via ICQ to Marc
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

sojourner wrote: View Post
Well, each orbiter costs about the price of 2 B-2's and each launch of the STS cost about .6 of a B-2, so rough estimate, you could buy about 50 B-2's for the price of the orbiters and all launches to date. That's a little more than a handful.

B-2 price grabbed from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-2_Spirit
Shuttle prices from
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html#311

I suspect the B-2's had a slight economy of scale advantage when it came to their production costs.
__________________
Gentlemen you can't fight in here - this is the war room.

Pres. Merkin P. Muffly
Marc is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2009, 04:43 AM   #149
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

^and illustrates what's wrong with the shuttle. It could never reach economy of scale. You had to build half the system for each launch, the other half of the system was in limited supply, and the whole damn thing required a standing army to operate.

It is a wonderful machine and I love it, but NASA was crippled when it was designed by outside forces that lead to extreme compromises.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 18 2009, 05:32 AM   #150
Marc
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: An Aussie in Canukistan
Send a message via ICQ to Marc
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

sojourner wrote: View Post
^and illustrates what's wrong with the shuttle. It could never reach economy of scale. You had to build half the system for each launch, the other half of the system was in limited supply, and the whole damn thing required a standing army to operate.

It is a wonderful machine and I love it, but NASA was crippled when it was designed by outside forces that lead to extreme compromises.

Do you have any details on what would of been different with the Shuttle is it hadn't been the bastard child of NASA and the Military?
__________________
Gentlemen you can't fight in here - this is the war room.

Pres. Merkin P. Muffly
Marc is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:27 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.