RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 139,243
Posts: 5,406,804
Members: 24,764
Currently online: 445
Newest member: dukkbutt

TrekToday headlines

Star Trek Online Adds More Voyager Actors
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

The Wil Wheaton Project Axed
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Kurtzman’s Production Company Signs Deal
By: T'Bonz on Sep 2

Retro Review: Time’s Orphan
By: Michelle on Aug 30

September-October Trek Conventions And Appearances
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Lee Passes
By: T'Bonz on Aug 29

Trek Merchandise Sale
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek #39 Villain Revealed
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Trek Big Bang Figures
By: T'Bonz on Aug 28

Star Trek Seekers Cover Art
By: T'Bonz on Aug 27


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 11 2009, 01:14 AM   #76
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
This is going to sound mean spirited, but I disagree sir. Given what we asking of NASA, yes we should expect to have lost people and continue to lose them (hopefully in rare numbers). and for every astronaut killed, we also lose on average four or five ground personel as well.

Yes we should of re-designed the booster after the first burn thru.

Yes there should of been a second shuttle prepped.
That shuttle should have been carted off the Pad after the freeze. Plain and simple. Looking up the stability of material of the O'Ring and and tempertures it was exposed to is no brainer.

I don't expect to loose lives through neglect. That is unexceptable.

diankra wrote: View Post
Saquist wrote: View Post
[CUT TO LIMIT QUOTE]
The Space Shuttle is pretty fool proof system, unless fooled with. Both shuttle losses were due to ignorance and neglect not unforseeable occurences. What are we the USSR, Stop taking this cheap route and do the job right. Really, I don't want to see any more astronaut's name on any more Elementary Schools.

Let's fix Health Care, let's fix the economy, terrorism, a declined education system, corprate and political corruption.
[SECOND CUt]

Shuttle is not a fool proof system: it's an inherently flawed system, and those flaws are the result (in part) of Congressional and Budget Management Office budget cuts during the development phase during the 1970s, which cut costs then, and produced a flawed system that cost more to run. For every dollar saved in the 1970s, 100s of dollars have been lost in the resultant running costs, without considering the two crew losses.

As for fix Health Care, etc, the report suggests that NASA needs 3billion more each year to make Ares workable; according to President Obama's speech yesterday, fixing health care will cost 900billion, which he added was less than the cost of either the Iraq or Afghan wars (or a few other things, but that would lead to the Neutral Zone).
I don't mean to comment here on whether healthcare reform or the wars are justified; the point is that in governmental terms, they cost dollars and funding NASA costs cents.

Cap Weinberger, back in the Nixon administration, commented that NASA's budget was going to get cut 'not because it deserved to be cut, but because it could be cut.' Very true.
Every human system is flawed.
With supervision even cost cutting measures cane be tolerated. And if what you're saying is correct...then it's further fuel on the fire because Atlantis and Endeavor should have incorporated the technology.

The cameras should have been added long ago.
You're adding tot he argument of neglect. Do you really see it getting better...

These shows like the TV sereis about a Round Trip journey through the solar system... Mission to Mars, etc, these are movies and shows that try an paint NASA as something it is not....

Progressive.

Last edited by Saquist; September 11 2009 at 02:53 AM.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 01:38 AM   #77
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Saquist wrote: View Post
I don't expect to loose lives through neglect. That is unexceptable.
Yes it is, but there's not much which can be done about the past unfortunately. All we have at the moment is the future.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 02:38 AM   #78
Buck Rogers
Captain
 
Buck Rogers's Avatar
 
Location: Maryland,USA
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

timelord1010 wrote: View Post
I don't understand the Obama bashers. Regarding the space program Obama hasn't made any decisions yet on NASA's budget or future direction. Also, Obama can only recommend and submit a budget, it's up to congress to approve the budget. Instead of complaining about the money President Obama and congress are spending to repair our damaged economy why don't you complain about the Trillions of Dollars the Bush administration wasted on the war in Iraq? Can you imagine what could have been spent on the space program if we didn't have that drain on the national budget?

It was easy for President Bush to give a speech saying NASA will return to the Moon and on to Mars but without funding the speech isn't worth the paper it was printed on. I think the Obama administration is going in the right direction, starting with the cancellation of the F-22 production run with each plane costing several hundred million dollars each. Cancel a few more over cost programs and there will be more than enough money for NASA to go to the Moon, Mars, hell maybe even send crews to the rest of the planets and moons in the solar system.
You know I quite agree with your statements,about canceling other costly military programs to fund our space program its absolutely briliant I wish thought that myself.

Signed

Buck Rogers
__________________
"Roads we're going, we don't need roads"
By Doc Brown
Back to the Future part 2
Buck Rogers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 02:55 AM   #79
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Lindley wrote: View Post
Saquist wrote: View Post
I don't expect to loose lives through neglect. That is unexceptable.
Yes it is, but there's not much which can be done about the past unfortunately. .
We can learn from it...
But that doesn't happen in reality.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 03:33 AM   #80
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Yes we should of re-designed the booster after the first burn thru.
No, we should have called Senator Jake Garn a dumbass and insisted the SRBs be made in one piece and in Florida to completely eliminate the O ring problem. The only reason the O rings were there was so the SRB could be built by (then) Morton Thiokol in Utah and shipped.

Then Garn bumped McAuliff off the first civilian seat on STS-51D.

I hope I meet him one day. I have words for him. Hopefully I'll keep my temper in check and not pull a Buzz...
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 03:49 AM   #81
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[QUOTE=Saquist;3386015][QUOTE]
That shuttle should have been carted off the Pad after the freeze. Plain and simple. Looking up the stability of material of the O'Ring and and tempertures it was exposed to is no brainer.

I don't expect to loose lives through neglect. That is unexceptable.
The freezing temps were not the main problem, the design of the join between the booster segments was. The cold only exacerbated the design flaw, it wasn't the prime cause.

The accident report was online as resently as four years ago, it's a little techie in places, but the conclusion section is in plain language.

And it not unacceptably that we'll lose people from all causes. Short of shutting down, design fault, human error, weather, management fukk-ups, all wiill kill, waste and delay.

Shall we pull the fishing boats off the sea, more people die there.

The camera on the second shuttle could not of saved it, not looking at the recording right way had no impact on the deaths. Once the foam penitrated the leading edge that was it. The ISS was in the wrong orbit, the russians had nothing on the pad, another shuttle couldn't have been launched in time. Even a post launch abort to Spain most likely would have destroyed the shuttle. The crew as already dead.
T'Girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 09:16 AM   #82
USS KG5
Vice Admiral
 
USS KG5's Avatar
 
Location: England's green and pleasant land.
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
KG5, you're right. We "didn't have the technology" When Kennedy proclaimed that we were going to the frakkin' moon in less than a decade. We damn sure developed it though!
Well we had a lot of the technology didn't we or quite simply it would never have been built in ten years, a lot of the very basic research in rocketry and so on had been done by the Nazis.

Like most great technological achievements the Apollo missions were the result of bringing technologies together and adjusting them for the current need. Apollo was an amazing achievement but do not kid yourself that the technical development required to get us from where we are now to everyday spaceflight could be achieved in ten years no matter how much you throw at it.

Some of the technologies required for a Mars mission (including the ability to build very large ships with artificial gravity, quite possibly a requirement if you want sane astronauts at the other end) simply do not exist in any form.

Maybe you could build it in space, maybe in ten years we could make efficient ion engines or other advanced propulsion, but everyday space flight that us commoners could use? No way, not for a long time.

Unfortunately, the first US President to proclaim a goal of putting a man on Mars by 2030 wasn't backed by the rest of the government. That bold statement by George Herbert Walker Bush just fell by the wayside.
I don't think it is wise to go into politics here - suffice it to say if Bush had said "Lets all go for tacos" he might have had trouble finding support at that point!

It would be interesting to see where we'd be now if there had been follow through on it at that time. So many technlogies we take for granted now came from that initial push to Luna 40 years ago.
Well the most important new technology of the last 60 years was the Internet, which came from the risk of nuclear war, so it is likely there would have been other avenues for that tech to come from, but of course the whole Apollo mission plan owed a lot to the threat of nuclear war and international posturing.

Maybe it is a mistake to take Apollo out of its political context, surely if sticking it to Russia was an important motivator, then the current economic disaster is at least as good a reason to hold fire?
__________________
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 11 2009, 11:04 AM   #83
Bluesteel
Commander
 
Location: London,UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Lindley wrote: View Post
I'm not quite sure how you intend to use atmosphere to make fuel.

However, Mars gravity is 1/3rd that of Earth. This makes it easier to get off, but my bet is that you'd still need a booster stage---the onboard fuel of a landing capsule probably won't cut it.
Well flicking through wikipedia. What needs to be brought from Earth is a supply of Hydrogen and a power source. Combing the Hydrogen with the carbon dioxide would give us Methane and Water. Take the Hydrogen out from the water and you feed it back to the beginning of the process.

The advantage is that we can send people to Mars knowing that there is already fuel there waiting for them. Also saves weight.
Bluesteel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 01:15 PM   #84
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[QUOTE=T'Girl;3386472][QUOTE=Saquist;3386015]
The freezing temps were not the main problem, the design of the join between the booster segments was. The cold only exacerbated the design flaw, it wasn't the prime cause.

The accident report was online as resently as four years ago, it's a little techie in places, but the conclusion section is in plain language.

And it not unacceptably that we'll lose people from all causes. Short of shutting down, design fault, human error, weather, management fukk-ups, all wiill kill, waste and delay.

Shall we pull the fishing boats off the sea, more people die there.

The camera on the second shuttle could not of saved it, not looking at the recording right way had no impact on the deaths. Once the foam penitrated the leading edge that was it. The ISS was in the wrong orbit, the russians had nothing on the pad, another shuttle couldn't have been launched in time. Even a post launch abort to Spain most likely would have destroyed the shuttle. The crew as already dead.
I don't believe that. Another shuttle could have been prepped. (and there should be "2 minute drill" for emergencies) If not another shuttle an Araine 5 could have been launched with emergency provisions, there is always something going up somewhere in the world....It's not impossible.

The only thing that garuanteed their deaths was NASA's neglect. 2 for 2 in the neglect column and it's not something I'm willing allow or ignore. So yes get it together or shut it down because we can launch satelites into orbit without the shuttle.
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 01:18 PM   #85
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

To get into space, the manned space program developed improved heat shields & insulation, mutiplexing control signals, remote medical telemetry , scratch resistant lens coatings, thermoelectric cooling, advanced the fields of metallurgy ^ aviation technology, structural analysis, etc, etc, etc.

The V-2 that Von Braun brought us was pretty primitive. We still needed lots of stuff to get skyward.

USS KG5 wrote: View Post
Alpha_Geek wrote: View Post
KG5, you're right. We "didn't have the technology" When Kennedy proclaimed that we were going to the frakkin' moon in less than a decade. We damn sure developed it though!
Well we had a lot of the technology didn't we or quite simply it would never have been built in ten years, a lot of the very basic research in rocketry and so on had been done by the Nazis.

Like most great technological achievements the Apollo missions were the result of bringing technologies together and adjusting them for the current need. Apollo was an amazing achievement but do not kid yourself that the technical development required to get us from where we are now to everyday spaceflight could be achieved in ten years no matter how much you throw at it.

Some of the technologies required for a Mars mission (including the ability to build very large ships with artificial gravity, quite possibly a requirement if you want sane astronauts at the other end) simply do not exist in any form.

Maybe you could build it in space, maybe in ten years we could make efficient ion engines or other advanced propulsion, but everyday space flight that us commoners could use? No way, not for a long time.

Unfortunately, the first US President to proclaim a goal of putting a man on Mars by 2030 wasn't backed by the rest of the government. That bold statement by George Herbert Walker Bush just fell by the wayside.
I don't think it is wise to go into politics here - suffice it to say if Bush had said "Lets all go for tacos" he might have had trouble finding support at that point!

It would be interesting to see where we'd be now if there had been follow through on it at that time. So many technlogies we take for granted now came from that initial push to Luna 40 years ago.
Well the most important new technology of the last 60 years was the Internet, which came from the risk of nuclear war, so it is likely there would have been other avenues for that tech to come from, but of course the whole Apollo mission plan owed a lot to the threat of nuclear war and international posturing.

Maybe it is a mistake to take Apollo out of its political context, surely if sticking it to Russia was an important motivator, then the current economic disaster is at least as good a reason to hold fire?
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 03:37 PM   #86
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Saquist wrote: View Post
[QUT]
With supervision even cost cutting measures cane be tolerated. And if what you're saying is correct...then it's further fuel on the fire because Atlantis and Endeavor should have incorporated the technology.

The cameras should have been added long ago.
You're adding tot he argument of neglect. Do you really see it getting better...

These shows like the TV sereis about a Round Trip journey through the solar system... Mission to Mars, etc, these are movies and shows that try an paint NASA as something it is not....

Progressive.
First, a minor point: both Atlantis and Endeavour existed before the Challenger disaster - Atlantis had just made its first flight, while all the essential component for Endeavour had been manufactured as a full set of structural spares before the Shuttle production line was shut down. All that happened later was the NASA was given permission to put them together as a replacement orbiiter (to have restarted the production line later would have been near impossible).

Second, what modifications are you suggesting should have been made to Atlantis and Endeavour, beyond the improved escape options and added drag chute that were fitted to the entire fleet?
The problem on Challenger wasn't in the orbiter, after all; the SRBs were modified, and beyond that the only solution would have been to replace them entirely.
As for Columbia... the only modification which can avoid the punch-through danger is a fundamental redesign of the entire system - either to remove the big delta wings (which are mainly there to provide a cross range landing capability that's never been used - it was needed to fly the single orbit polar orbit missions from Vandenberg which were cancelled by the DoD after Challenger), or replace the extrernal tank/SSRB combination entirely.
Of course, it's easy WITH HINDSIGHT to say that there should have been restrictions on the launch temperatures because of the o-rings, and that the orbiter should be inspected in orbit before being Oked for re-entry. But both were dangers were considered but were were felt to be more unlikely than they proved to be.
Every spaceflight involves risk: the judgement is whetehr to guard against the one in a million dangers, or the one in ten million. As the's latter costs more, where you set the line depends on how much budget you've got. The danger comes when a 1/10million problem turns out to actually be a 1/1million one (though I'm not denying that in both cases there was an element of complacency: the problem had been noticed, but as it hadn't proved critical, it was judged acceptable).
It comes back to: the external tank/SRB/big wing orbiter design is not what NASA originally wanted. It resulted from the original fully reusueable designs with a smaller orbiter beiing changed to fit the budget awarded by congress, and the performance requirements of the DoD. And it's inherently flawed, in ways that mean it can't do the job it was designed for - reliable, easy access to low orbit, which could be launched almost weekly all year round.
__________________
"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 11 2009, 04:02 PM   #87
Saquist
Commodore
 
Location: Starbase Houston
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

diankra wrote: View Post


Second, what modifications are you suggesting should have been made to Atlantis and Endeavour, beyond the improved escape options and added drag chute that were fitted to the entire fleet?
Larger fuel capacity:
Atlantis should have been modified for power hook up to the ISS.
At the very least The station should have been fitted for an escape vehicle that may also be used to rescue or transfer supplies....by now....the station has been under construction for 11 years. Design had to be at least for 5.

(Ideally) Oxygen Capacity for 30 days.

Did they think the shuttle was going to continue indefinitely with the prepp time it needed? For God's sake the russians still use the Soyuz spacecraft. One should always be docked to the station for emergencies.

Why doesn't NASA believe in being flexible....I don't know.
The problem on Challenger wasn't in the orbiter, after all; the SRBs were modified, and beyond that the only solution would have been to replace them entirely.
As for Columbia... the only modification which can avoid the punch-through danger is a fundamental redesign of the entire system - either to remove the big delta wings (which are mainly there to provide a cross range landing capability that's never been used - it was needed to fly the single orbit polar orbit missions from Vandenberg which were cancelled by the DoD after Challenger), or replace the extrernal tank/SSRB combination entirely.
Of course, it's easy WITH HINDSIGHT to say that there should have been restrictions on the launch temperatures because of the o-rings, and that the orbiter should be inspected in orbit before being Oked for re-entry. But both were dangers were considered but were were felt to be more unlikely than they proved to be.
Every spaceflight involves risk: the judgement is whetehr to guard against the one in a million dangers, or the one in ten million. As the's latter costs more, where you set the line depends on how much budget you've got. The danger comes when a 1/10million problem turns out to actually be a 1/1million one (though I'm not denying that in both cases there was an element of complacency: the problem had been noticed, but as it hadn't proved critical, it was judged acceptable).
It comes back to: the external tank/SRB/big wing orbiter design is not what NASA originally wanted. It resulted from the original fully reusueable designs with a smaller orbiter beiing changed to fit the budget awarded by congress, and the performance requirements of the DoD. And it's inherently flawed, in ways that mean it can't do the job it was designed for - reliable, easy access to low orbit, which could be launched almost weekly all year round.[/QUOTE]
Saquist is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 04:37 PM   #88
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

I wonder if the leading edge construction for the X-20 would have been more punch through resistant. Rather than all carbon/graphite, the X-20 leading edges were to be a carbon zirconium composite.
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 04:52 PM   #89
FordSVT
Vice Admiral
 
FordSVT's Avatar
 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

SG-17 wrote: View Post
Space travel is more important than health care.
As an ardent space-funding support I would argue that no it isn't, but I'd also argue that it's not an either/or proposition and not worth arguing over semantics about.
__________________
-FordSVT-
FordSVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 05:09 PM   #90
Marc
Fleet Admiral
 
Location: An Aussie in Canukistan
Send a message via ICQ to Marc
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Saquist wrote: View Post
diankra wrote: View Post


Second, what modifications are you suggesting should have been made to Atlantis and Endeavour, beyond the improved escape options and added drag chute that were fitted to the entire fleet?
Larger fuel capacity:
Atlantis should have been modified for power hook up to the ISS.
At the very least The station should have been fitted for an escape vehicle that may also be used to rescue or transfer supplies....by now....the station has been under construction for 11 years. Design had to be at least for 5.

(Ideally) Oxygen Capacity for 30 days.
And where would they have put the extra fuel? You couldn't store in the shuttle it's self and increasing the size of the EFT would then open up another can of worms as everything would have to be designed.

Same goes for additional O2 storage.

Did they think the shuttle was going to continue indefinitely with the prepp time it needed? For God's sake the russians still use the Soyuz spacecraft. One should always be docked to the station for emergencies.
Soyuz can only carry 3 people at time.

Why doesn't NASA believe in being flexible....I don't know.
The problem on Challenger wasn't in the orbiter, after all; the SRBs were modified, and beyond that the only solution would have been to replace them entirely.
Being flexible was what got the shuttle into the mess in the first place. NASA wanted it to do one thing, the military anouther so they met half way with the end result the shuttle design was compromised
__________________
Gentlemen you can't fight in here - this is the war room.

Pres. Merkin P. Muffly
Marc is offline   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 07:04 AM.

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