People in Florida though, so mostly very old - so it wouldn't have been THAT bad!
Except that neither ship got back to Florida.... they broke up over the Southwest and mainly Texas.
Challenger was nowhere near Texas when it exploded.
Why didn't we design shuttles to use nukereactor
- Thread starter TEH BABA
- Start date
Challenger was nowhere near Texas when it exploded.
It was closer to Texas than 99.99999999999999999999999999999 % of the rest of the universe!People in Florida though, so mostly very old - so it wouldn't have been THAT bad!
Except that neither ship got back to Florida.... they broke up over the Southwest and mainly Texas.
Challenger was nowhere near Texas when it exploded.
It was closer to Texas than 99.99999999999999999999999999999 % of the rest of the universe!
You mean the Columbia
Perhaps we first need to ask, what the hell are you going to do with a fission reactor in the shuttle?
I mean, on a space station or a moonbase, it's nice to have a big, reliable power source. But what possible use could the shuttle have for that? It would be just so much dead weight on a vehicle that needs to shave off as much weight as she possibly can.
It's not as if anybody would really benefit from extending shuttle missions by adding onboard power tenfold or hundredfold. Even doubling the power endurance with the fuel cell extension kits they use means that the shuttle runs out of other consumables, and of things to do.
And if there's a payload there that needs that much power, odds are that this payload will remain in space and continue to do this valuable job for a long time. Integrating the power source to the launch vehicle makes no sense, then.
Timo Saloniemi
It was closer to Texas than 99.99999999999999999999999999999 % of the rest of the universe!Challenger was nowhere near Texas when it exploded.
You mean the Columbia
No, I mean CHALLENGER. It was *nowhere near* Texas when it was destroyed.
Read about it here
And I'll make it easy for you:
NASA did play around with the idea of a nuclear rocket for awhile in the 60s. See here. In theory, it would have had almost twice the specific impulse of the shuttle engines, although the prototype never performed up to spec.
Marian
...and even earlier examples exist. Behold: The ORIGINAL Orion!
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/probirth.htm
Reactors? We don' need to stinkin' reactors for NOOCLEAR power!
AG
http://www.astronautix.com/articles/probirth.htm
Reactors? We don' need to stinkin' reactors for NOOCLEAR power!
AG
Whatever. But one correct reaction to what he and you together stated is to say "Oh, I get it - you both are saying (a bit sarcastically) that it's not the Challenger that exploded over Texas, but the Columbia!". Or in other words, "You mean the Columbia".
Timo Saloniemi
No, I'm just sayin' that all of Texas AND Florida, the whole of the Earth, the Sun, the Solar System and all the dust and rocks it contains was nearer to BOTH shuttles than 99.9999999999999999999999999999999999% of the rest of the universe.
PLUTO was closer to the shuttles than most of the universe. ALPHA CENTAURI was closer . . . etc etc.
Sorry for being so subtle before.
Sorry for being confrontational - I know that's what you meant, but I also know that both of you were not merely well aware that the shuttle going kaboom in Texas was the Columbia and not the Challenger. Rather, you two were trying to point out to the rest of us that this was the case. Which is why I think it's perfectly rational and correct to answer to your efforts by saying "You mean Columbia?", in the sense of "(Yeah, I get it,) You mean (it was) Columbia (and not Challenger) that exploded near Texas".
...I know, this doesn't get any better with additional explaining. Just let's say I agree with everything you guys say, except that the response of Brolan would have been wrong or ignorant.
Timo Saloniemi
...I know, this doesn't get any better with additional explaining. Just let's say I agree with everything you guys say, except that the response of Brolan would have been wrong or ignorant.
Timo Saloniemi
I know we've had some heated discussion in this thread, and I have no problems with that because we can kept it pretty civilized, but I'm not sure I agree that Brolan's response qualifies as "ignorant." While Zachary Smith's comment about Challenger being closer to Texas when it exploded than "99.99999999999999999999999999999 % of the rest of the universe", Columbia was, frankly, closer.
I have this power!
It makes my original crack about Florida way back seem even lousier than it was - oh well...
Similar threads
