Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Now there's some hypocrisy.
Now there's some hypocrisy.
Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a while
- Thread starter DarthTom
- Start date
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Yes I already knew this.
We're catching a ride courtesy of the Russians. $12 million bucks per person.
The most expensive 'hitch hike,' in human history.
But that's a bargain considering the shuttle was much more expensive. Nothing like the Americans being out bid on price by the former communists.
Yes I already knew this.
We're catching a ride courtesy of the Russians. $12 million bucks per person.The most expensive 'hitch hike,' in human history.
But that's a bargain considering the shuttle was much more expensive. Nothing like the Americans being out bid on price by the former communists.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Where do you get that number? The KSC FAQ says $450 million per mission.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm
(repeated by Nasa) http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html
Wikipedia amortizes the fixed costs over all missions to date, which puts it at $1.3 billion per mission. Still far less than your number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget
Where do you get that number? The KSC FAQ says $450 million per mission.
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/pao/faq/faqanswers.htm
(repeated by Nasa) http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/about/information/shuttle_faq.html
Wikipedia amortizes the fixed costs over all missions to date, which puts it at $1.3 billion per mission. Still far less than your number.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Shuttle_program#Budget
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
The link I provided, space daily. Maybe they got their facts wrong. Regardless, the Shuttle was an expensive ride compared to the Russians space program.
And it's an expensive ride compared to Virgin Galactic's efforts to put civilians in low earth orbit.
The link I provided, space daily. Maybe they got their facts wrong. Regardless, the Shuttle was an expensive ride compared to the Russians space program.
And it's an expensive ride compared to Virgin Galactic's efforts to put civilians in low earth orbit.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
This kind of commentary is not conducive to effective debate. Let's leave it outside of the thread please, guys. All this kind of commentary is going to do is escalate things to the next level.
This also goes for the rest of you.
This kind of commentary is not conducive to effective debate. Let's leave it outside of the thread please, guys. All this kind of commentary is going to do is escalate things to the next level.
This also goes for the rest of you.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
spacewalk in 1 hour, guys:
http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv
here's a viewing schedule for the rest of the two weeks: http://www.space.com/12046-nasa-space-shuttle-final-flight-atlantis-sts135.html
spacewalk in 1 hour, guys:
http://www.ustream.tv/nasahdtv
here's a viewing schedule for the rest of the two weeks: http://www.space.com/12046-nasa-space-shuttle-final-flight-atlantis-sts135.html
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Nitpicking. Virgin Galactic's own brochure in PDF format essentially describes it that way.
Nitpicking. Virgin Galactic's own brochure in PDF format essentially describes it that way.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
No. Not nitpicking. Fact.
What we consider "space" starts at about 62 miles. Low Earth Orbit's lower threshold is around 100 miles because if you get below that, you're [highlight]burning up in the atmosphere[/highlight] if you attempt to maintain an orbital velocity of 17,500 mph.
There's a reason that the ISS is at it's altitude.
And I could give two fucks what Virgin Galactic calls it. Of course they're going to call it "orbit". If they could get away with calling it "going to the moon" they would. They're a business and what they're doing is called marketing. Upselling. Lying. It's all the same thing.
Let me dumb it down:
Alan Shepard was the first American in space.
John Glenn was the first American in orbit.
There's a reason they don't share the same titles.
No. Not nitpicking. Fact.
What we consider "space" starts at about 62 miles. Low Earth Orbit's lower threshold is around 100 miles because if you get below that, you're [highlight]burning up in the atmosphere[/highlight] if you attempt to maintain an orbital velocity of 17,500 mph.
There's a reason that the ISS is at it's altitude.
And I could give two fucks what Virgin Galactic calls it. Of course they're going to call it "orbit". If they could get away with calling it "going to the moon" they would. They're a business and what they're doing is called marketing. Upselling. Lying. It's all the same thing.
Let me dumb it down:
Alan Shepard was the first American in space.
John Glenn was the first American in orbit.
There's a reason they don't share the same titles.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Well gosh Squiggy, how many people who are not NASA employees nor Star Trek fans care in the slightest about these distinctions?
How many people even are following the final shuttle flight?
These distinctions are important to you, a handful of Trek/Sci fi fans and about likely less than 5% of the population.
Arguing about this is beyond silly. The bottom line is that the Russians can launch people into space much more cheaply than the US can and will be doing so for the foreseeable future.
NASA really has zero concrete plans for the future - and from that I can tell from causal and anecdotal evidence in speaking with people - no one gives a shit that they don't.
Well gosh Squiggy, how many people who are not NASA employees nor Star Trek fans care in the slightest about these distinctions?
How many people even are following the final shuttle flight?
These distinctions are important to you, a handful of Trek/Sci fi fans and about likely less than 5% of the population.
Arguing about this is beyond silly. The bottom line is that the Russians can launch people into space much more cheaply than the US can and will be doing so for the foreseeable future.
NASA really has zero concrete plans for the future - and from that I can tell from causal and anecdotal evidence in speaking with people - no one gives a shit that they don't.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
It might be silly but YOU brought it up DT. If it was a silly argument you shouldn't have raised it as a possibility as a commercial alternative to the shuttle, should you?
Secondly if you had already determined that nobody gave a shit about it, why did you start this thread in the first place?
It might be silly but YOU brought it up DT. If it was a silly argument you shouldn't have raised it as a possibility as a commercial alternative to the shuttle, should you?
Secondly if you had already determined that nobody gave a shit about it, why did you start this thread in the first place?
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Because I think it's sad and unfortunate that the US is getting out of manned space flight. I am, like many people who are sci-fi fans on this website, a proponent of manned space flight and handing US dominance in the field to the Russians and Chinese is IMO further evidence of the over all decline of the United States.
Sad shit, quite frankly. Like Britian in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the proverbial sun is setting on our empire.
Because I think it's sad and unfortunate that the US is getting out of manned space flight. I am, like many people who are sci-fi fans on this website, a proponent of manned space flight and handing US dominance in the field to the Russians and Chinese is IMO further evidence of the over all decline of the United States.
Sad shit, quite frankly. Like Britian in the late 19th and 20th centuries, the proverbial sun is setting on our empire.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
*sigh* You're being argumentative for its sake. Moving right along.
*sigh* You're being argumentative for its sake. Moving right along.
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
[edit] ^ No, it's always been a fundamental problem with the way you discuss things, Tom. You are proven wrong on one thing, you introduce a new tangent. Your argument doesn't hold water, you start a new contradictory argument. Your position changes from one moment to the next just to keep the debate going, which is funny since you frequently complain about politicians being flip-floppers on an issue years after they first took a stance, like that's a terrible crime.
But your entire argument here and elsewhere has always been that manned spaceflight is not a worthwhile expenditure in times of recession. So you can't be that saddened by it.
Likewise, you were just making the case that no one cares about manned spaceflight except for a few space junkies and Trekkies, when I showed you polls earlier in the thread that prove that's clearly not the case. And now you've completely reversed yourself on that too and said that people do care.
Is it too much to ask for you to remain consistent with your own arguments from this very thread?
[edit] ^ No, it's always been a fundamental problem with the way you discuss things, Tom. You are proven wrong on one thing, you introduce a new tangent. Your argument doesn't hold water, you start a new contradictory argument. Your position changes from one moment to the next just to keep the debate going, which is funny since you frequently complain about politicians being flip-floppers on an issue years after they first took a stance, like that's a terrible crime.
But your entire argument here and elsewhere has always been that manned spaceflight is not a worthwhile expenditure in times of recession. So you can't be that saddened by it.
Likewise, you were just making the case that no one cares about manned spaceflight except for a few space junkies and Trekkies, when I showed you polls earlier in the thread that prove that's clearly not the case. And now you've completely reversed yourself on that too and said that people do care.
Is it too much to ask for you to remain consistent with your own arguments from this very thread?
Last edited:
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
Without writing an essay on the subject Locutus
*I think NASA's current approach to manned space flight is inept and too expensive.
*I lament the fact that the US is getting out of the program
*I lament that NASA's poor leadership in space flight has lead us to this day
*A long time ago NASA should have privatized and commercialized their programs
*I think we are exceeding dominance in the field out of ineptness to the Russians and the Chinese.
*Private industry has proven they can launch space vehicles much more inexpensively
*The Russians have proven they can launch space vehicles much more inexpensively
Without writing an essay on the subject Locutus
*I think NASA's current approach to manned space flight is inept and too expensive.
*I lament the fact that the US is getting out of the program
*I lament that NASA's poor leadership in space flight has lead us to this day
*A long time ago NASA should have privatized and commercialized their programs
*I think we are exceeding dominance in the field out of ineptness to the Russians and the Chinese.
*Private industry has proven they can launch space vehicles much more inexpensively
*The Russians have proven they can launch space vehicles much more inexpensively
Re: Final shuttle goes up - US manned missions to space over for a whi
There are reasons the Russian launches are cheaper. They lack the capabilities to launch anything else but people. 3 people. Not 7. No cargo. It's an older and less versatile design. Blah blah blah.
And it's not "for the foreseeable future". The Russian launches are until the private sector gets up and running hopefully in the 2015 time frame.
It's not NASA's fault people want to talk about the Royal family or a dead 3 year old.
Then stop arguing about it and accept it, or don't change the subject when you've been proven wrong.
Or change the subject. Fine. We'll go this route.
There are reasons the Russian launches are cheaper. They lack the capabilities to launch anything else but people. 3 people. Not 7. No cargo. It's an older and less versatile design. Blah blah blah.
And it's not "for the foreseeable future". The Russian launches are until the private sector gets up and running hopefully in the 2015 time frame.
That's simply incorrect.
It's not NASA's fault people want to talk about the Royal family or a dead 3 year old.
Similar threads
