RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,912
Posts: 5,388,216
Members: 24,718
Currently online: 504
Newest member: Tribblemaker

TrekToday headlines

IDW Publishing November Trek Comic
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Pegg/Wright Trilogy In The Works
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Star Trek: The Compendium Rebate Details
By: T'Bonz on Aug 20

Gold Key Archives Volume 2
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Takei Documentary Wins Award
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Cumberbatch To Voice Khan
By: T'Bonz on Aug 19

Shaun And Ed On Phineas and Ferb
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

New Ships Coming From Official Starships Collection
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Trek Stars Take On Ice Bucket Challenge
By: T'Bonz on Aug 18

Retro Review: Profit and Lace
By: Michelle on Aug 16


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, 05:51 PM   #91
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

it's easy WITH HINDSIGHT to say that there should have been restrictions on the launch temperatures because of the o-rings,
No hindsite was needed for Challenger. Here is an excellent link to the engineer involved in the launch/scrub decision.
http://temp.onlineethics.org/moral/b.../RB-intro.html

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.
The Dyna-soar was never ment to be side launched like the shuttle. It would have been on the top of the LV and not subject to the same conditions.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 07:18 PM   #92
Alpha_Geek
Commodore
 
Alpha_Geek's Avatar
 
Location: Central VA, US
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Sojourner, maybe. Granted it was top mount on a Titan, but some of the X-20 mission profiles seem to indicate that it was to be a sturdy little bird. I think they would have made it tougher since it was to do stuff like grab or disable Rooskie birds in addition to surveillance, intel, and more.

Dynasoar as concieved when taking the cold war to space was still in the realm of possibility. Armed craft were on everyones drawing boards, so defensive measures seem likely, including rhino-hiding your orbiter.

Shame she never flew. I'll bet we're in 100% agreement on that.
Alpha_Geek is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 08:00 PM   #93
T'Girl
Vice Admiral
 
T'Girl's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

[QUOTE]
The Dyna-soar was never ment to be side launched like the shuttle. It would have been on the top of the LV and not subject to the same conditions.

One of the reasons ARES was designed like it is, is to get the crew above the rest of the space craft.

********************************************
[QUOTE]
For God's sake the russians still use the Soyuz spacecraft. One should always be docked to the station for emergencies.

There is a Soyuz docked there at all times, has been for years now.

**********************************************
[QUOTE]
The V-2 that Von Braun brought us was pretty primitive.

The A-4 that Von Braun brought to America in 1945 was the most advanced rocket in the world.

************************************
T'Girl is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 09:18 PM   #94
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
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.

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.
Actually, Endeavour was built with the capacity for a 30 day flight [EDIT: on checking it was actually 16 days]; it was fitted with the connections to let it carry the Extended Duration Orbiter wafer at the back of the payload bay if needed for a long solo mission (Columbia was later refitted so it could also carry the EDO wafer).
Why not do the same to every orbiter and carry the EDO on every mission? Because it adds to the orbiter's weight, and every pound of orbiter is a pound off the payload (more actually, in the case of something that's being brought back like the EDo wafer, as it unbalances the centre of gravity and has to be balanced). The EDO wafer weighs 3,500 pounds, and the maximum payload to orbit of a shuttle is 55,000 pounds - but it's less on flights to the ISS, which is at a compromise inclination between the one that offers the highest possible payload for launches from KSC and the equivalent for Baikonur.
So carrying the wafer - or maybe a couple to offer 28 days? - could, paradoxically, increase the risk of an accident in the long term. If you take (say) 10% off the payload capacity, then you need 10 launches to do what could have been achieved by nine, which means an extra launch and re-entry, which as we know all too well are the really risky bits of the flight. Hence the EDO's only worth carrying if you can make good use of the extra time in orbit - fine on solo lab missions like STS-113 where doubling the flight time effectively gives you two missions for the risk of one launch; less so on a cargo delivery and maintenance mission like STS128.

As for leaving a shuttle docked to the station (assuming that's what you meant; there is always a Soyuz docked to the station if not), a) where do you get the spare shuttle? and b) the shuttle can't be powered down in orbit as Soyuz can - and Soyuz had to be extensively modified a number of times to allow this, and then extend its safe life span to 3, 6 and 12 months in turn.
__________________
"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)

Last edited by diankra; September 11 2009 at 10:14 PM. Reason: Correcting a statistic,and adding a few more
diankra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 10:29 PM   #95
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
The Dyna-soar was never ment to be side launched like the shuttle. It would have been on the top of the LV and not subject to the same conditions.

One of the reasons ARES was designed like it is, is to get the crew above the rest of the space craft.
One of the few things they got right on Ares.
********************************************

For God's sake the russians still use the Soyuz spacecraft. One should always be docked to the station for emergencies.

There is a Soyuz docked there at all times, has been for years now.

**********************************************

The V-2 that Von Braun brought us was pretty primitive.

The A-4 that Von Braun brought to America in 1945 was the most advanced rocket in the world.

************************************
^for it's time. Still far short of anything advanced enough to reach the moon.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 11:03 PM   #96
diankra
Commodore
 
Location: UK
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

sojourner wrote: View Post
T'Girl wrote: View Post
The Dyna-soar was never ment to be side launched like the shuttle. It would have been on the top of the LV and not subject to the same conditions.

One of the reasons ARES was designed like it is, is to get the crew above the rest of the space craft.
One of the few things they got right on Ares.
********************************************

For God's sake the russians still use the Soyuz spacecraft. One should always be docked to the station for emergencies.

There is a Soyuz docked there at all times, has been for years now.

**********************************************

The V-2 that Von Braun brought us was pretty primitive.

The A-4 that Von Braun brought to America in 1945 was the most advanced rocket in the world.

************************************
^for it's time. Still far short of anything advanced enough to reach the moon.
True. But the Redstone that launched Alan Shepherd on the first US spaceflight was effectively an upgraded V2/A4, and the first stage of the Saturn 1B that launched the LEO Apollo flights was (putting it crudely) eight Redstone strapped together to fire in parallel.
__________________
"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, 11:17 PM   #97
TheMasterOfOrion
Fleet Captain
 
TheMasterOfOrion's Avatar
 
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Former NASA Admin in writing
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=32351
[FONT=Verdana,Geneva,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif][SIZE=-1]From: "Michael D. Griffin" To: XXXXXXXXXX

1) It is clarifying to see a formal recognition by the Commission that, based upon budgetary considerations, "the human spaceflight program appears to be on an unsustainable trajectory". Given that the Constellation program was designed in accordance with the budget profile specified in 2005, yet has since suffered some $30 billion of reductions to the amount allocated to human lunar return (including almost $12 billion in just the last five fiscal years) this is an unsurprising conclusion, but one which provides the necessary grounding for all subsequent discussions.

2) Since NASA's budget as outlined in 2005 was hardly one of rampant growth (only a slight increase above inflation was projected even then), and since the Commission did not report any evidence of substandard execution of the Program of Record - Constellation - one wonders why the Commission failed to recommend as its favored option that of simply restoring the funding necessary to do the job that has, since 2005, been codified in two strongly bi-partisan Congressional Authorization Acts. Of all the options considered, this is the most straightforward, yet it was not recommended. The so-called "less constrained" options merely provide partial restoration of budget authority that was removed within just the last few years. The most obvious conclusion to be drawn from the Commission' report is this: put it back.

3) The continual reference to the supposedly planned cancellation and deorbiting of ISS in 2016 is a strawman, irrelevant to consideration of serious programmatic options. While it is certainly true that Bush Administration budgets did not show any funding for ISS past 2015, it was always quite clear that the decision to cancel or fund the ISS in 2016 and beyond was never within the purview of the Bush Administration to make. In the face of strong International Partner commitment to ISS and two decades of steadfast Congressional commitment to the development, assembly, and utilization of ISS, it has never been and is not now realistic to consider cancellation and deorbiting of ISS in 2015, or indeed on any particular date which can be known today. The fact that some $3+ billion per year will be required to sustain ISS operations past 2015 is, and has always been, a glaring omission in future budget projections. Sustained funding of the ISS as long as it continues to return value - certainly to 2020 and quite likely beyond - should have been established by the Commission as a non-negotiable point of departure for all other discussions. Failure to do so, when the implications of prematurely canceling ISS are well known to all, is disingenuous. The existence of future exploration programs cannot be traded against sustenance of the ISS on an "either-or" basis, as if the latter option was a realistic option. If the nation is to lay claim to a viable human spaceflight program, the requirement to sustain ISS while also developing new systems to go beyond low Earth orbit is the minimally necessary standard. If the nation can no longer meet this standard, then it should be so stated, in which case any further discussion of U.S. human exploration beyond LEO is moot for the next two decades.

4) Numerous options are presented which are not linked by common goals or a strategy to reach such goals. Instead, differing options are presented to reach differing goals, rendering it impossible to develop meaningful cost/schedule/performance/risk comparisons across them. These options possess vastly differing levels of maturity, yet are offered as if all were on an equally mature footing in regard to their level of technical, cost, schedule, and risk assessment. This is not the case.

5) "Independent" cost estimates for Constellation systems are cited. There is no acknowledgement that these are low-fidelity estimates developed over a matter of weeks, yet are offered as corrections to NASA's cost estimates, which have years of effort behind them. No mention is made of NASA's commitment to probabilistic budget estimation techniques for Constellation, at significantly higher cost-confidence levels than has been the case in the past. If the Commission believes that NASA is not properly estimating costs, or is misrepresenting the data it has amassed, it should document its specific concerns. Otherwise, the provenance of NASA's cost estimates should be accepted, as no evidence has been supplied to justify overturning them.

6) The preference for "commercial" options for cargo and, worse, crew delivery to low Earth orbit appears throughout the Summary, together with the statement that "it is an appropriate time to consider turning this transport service over to the commercial sector." What commercial sector? At present, the only clearly available "commercial" option is Ariane 5. Launching a redesigned Orion crew vehicle is a valid choice in the context of an international program if - and only if - the U.S. is willing to give up independent access to low Earth orbit, a decision imbued with enormous future consequences. With an appropriately enlightened USG policy there may one day be a domestic commercial space transportation sector, but it does not presently exist and will not exist in the near future; i.e., substantially prior to the likely completion dates for Ares-1/Orion, if they were properly funded. The existence of a prudently funded USG option for cargo/crew delivery to ISS is precisely the strategy which allows the USG to take reasonable risks to sponsor the development of a viable commercial space sector. The Commission acknowledges the "risk" associated with its recommendation, but is not clear about the nature of that risk. If no USG option to deliver cargo and crew to LEO is to be developed following the retirement of the Space Shuttle, the U.S. risks the failure to sustain and utilize a unique facility with a sunk cost of $55 billion on the U.S. side, and nearly $20 billion of international partner investment in addition. The Russian Soyuz and Progress systems, even if we are willing to pay whatever is required to use them in the interim, simply do not provide sufficient capability to utilize ISS as was intended, and in any case represent a single point failure in regard to such utilization. To hold the support and utilization of the ISS hostage to the emergence of a commercial space sector is not "risky", it is irresponsible.

7) The Commission is disingenuous when it claims that safety "is not discussed in extensive detail because any concepts falling short in human safety have simply been eliminated from consideration." Similarly, the Commission was "unconvinced that enough is known about any of the potential high-reliability launcher-plus-capsule systems to distinguish their levels of safety in a meaningful way." For the Commission to dismiss out of hand the extensive analytical work that has been done to assure that Constellation systems represent the safest reasonable approach in comparison to all other presently known systems is simply unacceptable. Work of high quality in the assessment of safety and reliability has been done, and useful discriminators between and among systems do exist, whether the Commission believes so or not. To this point, the Commission's report is confusing as regards the distinction between "reliability" and "safety", where the issue is discussed at all. The former is the only criterion of interest for unmanned systems; for manned systems, there is an important difference due to the existence of an abort system and the conditions under which that abort system can and must operate. Nowhere is this crucial distinction discussed.

8) "Technical problems" with Ares-1 are cited several times, without any acknowledgement that (a) knowledgeable observers in NASA would disagree strongly as to the severity of such problems, and (b) Constellation's "technical problems" are on display because actual work is being accomplished, whereas other options have no problems because no work is being done.

9) The recommendation in favor of the dual-launch "Ares-5 Lite" approach as the baseline for lunar missions is difficult to understand. It violates the CAIB recommendation (and many similar recommendations) to separate crew and cargo in whatever post-Shuttle human space transportation system is to be developed. Further, the dual-Ares-5 Lite mission architecture substantially increases the minimum cost for a single lunar mission as compared to the Ares-1/Ares-5 approach, a recommendation which is difficult to understand in an already difficult budgetary environment. Finally, the Ares-5 Lite is nearly as expensive to develop as the Ares-5, but offers significantly less payload to the moon when used -- as will be required -- in a one-way, single-launch, cargo-only mode. (The LEO payload difference of 140 mt for Ares-5 Lite and 160 mt for Ares-5 masks a much greater difference in their lunar payload capability.) All parties agree that a heavy-lift launcher is needed for any human space program beyond LEO. Because of the economies of scale inherent to the design of launch vehicles, such a vehicle should be designed to lift as large a payload as possible within the constraints of the facilities and infrastructure available to build and transport it. This provides the greatest marginal improvement in capability at the lowest marginal cost.

10) The use of "fuel depots" as recommended in the Summary appears to be a solution in search of a problem. It is difficult to understand how such an approach can offer an economically favorable alternative. The Ares-5 offers the lowest cost-per-pound for payload to orbit of any presently known heavy-lift launch vehicle design. The mass-specific cost of payload to orbit nearly always improves with increasing launch vehicle scale. The recommendation in favor of an architectural approach based upon the use of many smaller vehicles to resupply a fuel depot ignores this fact, as well as the fact that a fuel depot requires a presently non-existent technology - the ability to provide closed-cycle refrigeration to maintain cryogenic fuels in the necessary thermodynamic state in space. This technology is a holy grail of deep-space exploration, because it is necessary for both chemical- and nuclear-powered upper stages. To establish an architecture based upon a non-existent technology at the very beginning of beyond-LEO operations is unwise.

11) Finally, the Commission did not do that which would have been most valuable - rendering a clear-eyed, independent assessment of the progress and status of Constellation with respect to its ability to meet goals which have been established in two successive NASA Authorization Acts, followed by an assessment of what would be required to get and keep that program on track. Instead, the Commission sought to formulate new options for new programs, treating these options as if their level of maturity was comparable to that of the baseline upon which NASA has been working now for more than four years. This approach completely ignores the established body of law which has guided NASA's work for the last four years and which, until and unless that body of law is changed, must serve as the common reference standard for any proposed alternatives to Constellation as the program of record for the nation's existing human spaceflight program.[/SIZE][/FONT]
TheMasterOfOrion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 11 2009, 11:44 PM   #98
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Constellation's "technical problems" are on display because actual work is being accomplished, whereas other options have no problems because no work is being done.


That's some great dry wit.
__________________
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 12 2009, 02:41 AM   #99
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
 
Location: the Unreconstructed South
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

JustAFriend wrote: View Post
Hundreds of thousands of jobs, new scientific discoveries and another twenty-year leap in technology could be ours by the mere increase of a handfull of dollars per person per year to NASA.

.....but no.....
Or, you know, we could pour the money into R&D right here on earth at a fraction of the cost for the same gain...
darkwing_duck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12 2009, 02:43 AM   #100
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
 
Location: the Unreconstructed South
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

T'Girl wrote: View Post
Lindley wrote: View Post

Money put into the space program creates jobs, stimulates the economy, and drives technological progress. It isn't wasted money to begin with.

... what the ROI actually is ...
.
Plus it boosts national pride
T'Girl to the poor: "Let them eat 'pride'..."
darkwing_duck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12 2009, 02:46 AM   #101
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
 
Location: the Unreconstructed South
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Lindley wrote: View Post

Pumping money into NASA pumps money into the economy just as well as anything else.
No it does not. It inserts an unneeded "middle man" that wastes a significant portion of the spent money.
darkwing_duck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12 2009, 02:49 AM   #102
darkwing_duck1
Vice Admiral
 
Location: the Unreconstructed South
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.
While back on Earth the US is destroyed by nukes and bio weapons unleashed by terrorists and outlaw nations because we were so busy looking at the stars we could not see the knife headed for our backs...
darkwing_duck1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 12 2009, 03:11 AM   #103
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

darkwing_duck1 wrote: View Post
JustAFriend wrote: View Post
Hundreds of thousands of jobs, new scientific discoveries and another twenty-year leap in technology could be ours by the mere increase of a handfull of dollars per person per year to NASA.

.....but no.....
Or, you know, we could pour the money into R&D right here on earth at a fraction of the cost for the same gain...
Technically, space R&D *is* "right here on Earth".

And compared to what we're spending on most other projects, the space budget---even the one NASA *wants*, much less the one it has---is absolutely miniscule.

If you need a military justification, we don't want to let potentially problematic nations like China outpace us in space, because if they do they can drop stuff on our heads. We've got lasers and junk now that can shoot down satellites, but if we don't keep up the pressure they will surpass us technologically.
__________________
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 12 2009, 04:39 AM   #104
sojourner
Vice Admiral
 
sojourner's Avatar
 
Location: I'm at WKRP
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

TheMasterOfOrion wrote: View Post
Former NASA Admin in writing
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=32351
From: "Michael D. Griffin" To: XXXXXXXXXX
So, Griffin is still trying to slant things to the view that Ares is the best choice? I wish he would just admit that Jupiter/Direct was a better architecture. All he is doing now is muddying the waters.
__________________
Baby, you and me were never meant to be, just maybe think of me once in a while...
sojourner is online now   Reply With Quote
Old September 12 2009, 06:35 PM   #105
Squiggy
LORD SHIT SUPREME
 
Squiggy's Avatar
 
Location: Not on your life, my Hindu friend.
View Squiggy's Twitter Profile Send a message via ICQ to Squiggy
Re: Obama Space Plan: Return to Moon: "No Go"

Lindley wrote: View Post
Constellation's "technical problems" are on display because actual work is being accomplished, whereas other options have no problems because no work is being done.


That's some great dry wit.
Yup. That's Mike.
__________________
ENOUGH OF THIS TURGID BASH WANKERY!
Squiggy 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 05:22 AM.

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