DS Forums

 
 

Space and Astronomy Thread


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 27-10-2009, 15:09
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
Yes but will it ever be built?
I think one thing is for sure is that some very heavy lift rocket will be built.
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 27-10-2009, 15:09
*marv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lichfield, Staffs
Posts: 8,642
Yes but will it ever be built?
Hopeso, we do need to move on from the shuttle, though with Obama its anyones guess.
*marv* is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:09
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
Ready to resume count, but no go for weather.

Love it if they launched and it veered off course crashing in to the white house lawn. The would do their chances good for Obamas decision.
...

Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:10
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
Hopeso, we do need to move on from the shuttle, though with Obama its anyones guess.
Who is "we?"
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:18
*marv*
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Lichfield, Staffs
Posts: 8,642
As in the people of this planet, the shuttle is getting outdated and starting to look unsafe. If we are to ever startexploring space without using Hubble or a probe then we need some new more powerful rockets.
*marv* is offline Follow this poster on Twitter   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:19
ItJustMyOpinion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,494
Yes it is the American space program not ours. As a European, I'm more interested in increasing the life span of the ISS.

Aries1.x launch is interesting but Obama's decision is much more.
ItJustMyOpinion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:23
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
As in the people of this planet, the shuttle is getting outdated and starting to look unsafe. If we are to ever startexploring space without using Hubble or a probe then we need some new more powerful rockets.
The "people of this planet" do not own NASA or any of their equipment. The Americans do.
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:24
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
The launch has been scrubbed for today!
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 15:25
raptorz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 3,334
The weather did look like it was getting worse so I'm not surprised its been postponed.
raptorz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27-10-2009, 16:17
Assa2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Solihull
Posts: 7,274
The Ares V lift capacity is all the more impressive when you compare it to heavy lift capacity aircraft. The not-yet-produced A380F has a lift capacity of 150 tonnes. Ares V will supposedly loft 188 tonnes into LEO. It could have lifted the whole ISS in 2 launches (assuming the ISS had come as a neat flat-pack/home assembly design).
Assa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 14:14
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
Yes it is the American space program not ours. As a European, I'm more interested in increasing the life span of the ISS.

Aries1.x launch is interesting but Obama's decision is much more.
The Americans also shoulder the vast majority of the cost of the station.

Personally, I think it was a waste of money. Many scientists and astronomers agree.
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 15:34
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
Aries launched successfully.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 16:39
ItJustMyOpinion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,494
The Americans also shoulder the vast majority of the cost of the station.

Personally, I think it was a waste of money. Many scientists and astronomers agree.
I do not think its important from a science perspective, but rather from a destination perspective.

Europe needs a place to go, that is realistic, if it is to move in to manned space flight and currently that's the ISS.

NASA will benefit from an independently developed European system, as it offers valuable redundancy and backup rescue capacity for theirs.

I agreed with NASA's decision to have separate human and cargo vehicles. Every other form of transport, does that. What I disliked was using a solid fuel engine for launching humans.

Also like Saturn IV the Americans tend to try and do everything in one go and wonder why they run out of momentum.

If their was a habitation, refuelling and docking mini space station in Earth, Moon and Mars orbits, then NASA, ESA etc could build interplanetary craft and let the private sector develop ground to earth orbit craft.
ItJustMyOpinion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 17:14
Inky Binky
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 2,089
Yes it is the American space program not ours. As a European, I'm more interested in increasing the life span of the ISS.
I'm not sure how much "influence" NASA has on the ISS. I do remember hearing that it's scheduled to be abandoned in 2016. I honestly don't think NASA is all that interested in the space station at this point. Seems more like a thorn in its side than anything. But the Russians are certainly benefitting from the ISS. Afterall, they turned the ISS into a "tourist" attraction for millionaires.

My advice to NASA is give total control of the ISS to the European, Russian & Asian space agencies around the globe. Let them sort out the costs and its use between them. NASA can then concentrate on Space Travel & Exploration without worrying about financing the ISS or its upkeep (After the USA sorts out its economic mess!) .
Inky Binky is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 17:50
ItJustMyOpinion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,494
I'm not sure how much "influence" NASA has on the ISS. I do remember hearing that it's scheduled to be abandoned in 2016. I honestly don't think NASA is all that interested in the space station at this point. Seems more like a thorn in its side than anything. But the Russians are certainly benefitting from the ISS. Afterall, they turned the ISS into a "tourist" attraction for millionaires.

My advice to NASA is give total control of the ISS to the European, Russian & Asian space agencies around the globe. Let them sort out the costs and its use between them. NASA can then concentrate on Space Travel & Exploration without worrying about financing the ISS or its upkeep (After the USA sorts out its economic mess!) .
The Augustine committee have recommended extending it to 2020, in their report to president Obama.

I guess therefore its his decision. I wonder, now that its built, won't all the expense be resupply, which ESA does with its ATV, along with Russia and Japan.
ItJustMyOpinion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 18:28
Lunatic Dreyfus
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Running around like Tom Cruise
Posts: 3,778
The Ares needs more engines. One solid fuel booster just doesn't cut it.

Nasa also needs some guys who can add some drama in to the countdown, like the good ol' Apollo days.



The Nasa footage of the launch was rather good though.
Lunatic Dreyfus is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 19:24
Assa2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Solihull
Posts: 7,274
The Ares needs more engines. One solid fuel booster just doesn't cut it.

Nasa also needs some guys who can add some drama in to the countdown, like the good ol' Apollo days.



The Nasa footage of the launch was rather good though.
Looked a bit wobbly coming off the lauch pad and sure shot off like they told to expect - a ferrari to the shuttle's truck. Wanted to see the the SRB 'kick' after seperation into it's descent spin but the footage I saw cut off at seperation.
Assa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 20:11
BeethovensPiano
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: ♫ At The Keyboard ♫
Posts: 11,556
Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter has re imaged the Apollo 17 landing site from its operational orbit giving 50cm per pixel resolution

http://lroc.sese.asu.edu/news/?archi...o-17-Site.html
BeethovensPiano is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 23:04
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
I'm not sure how much "influence" NASA has on the ISS. I do remember hearing that it's scheduled to be abandoned in 2016. I honestly don't think NASA is all that interested in the space station at this point. Seems more like a thorn in its side than anything. But the Russians are certainly benefitting from the ISS. Afterall, they turned the ISS into a "tourist" attraction for millionaires.

My advice to NASA is give total control of the ISS to the European, Russian & Asian space agencies around the globe. Let them sort out the costs and its use between them. NASA can then concentrate on Space Travel & Exploration without worrying about financing the ISS or its upkeep (After the USA sorts out its economic mess!) .
They have the most influence since they have paid for most of it and most of the hardware is American.

The Americans shouldn't "give" anything away without a price, after all they have spent.
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 23:12
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
I do not think its important from a science perspective, but rather from a destination perspective.

Europe needs a place to go, that is realistic, if it is to move in to manned space flight and currently that's the ISS.

NASA will benefit from an independently developed European system, as it offers valuable redundancy and backup rescue capacity for theirs.

I agreed with NASA's decision to have separate human and cargo vehicles. Every other form of transport, does that. What I disliked was using a solid fuel engine for launching humans.

Also like Saturn IV the Americans tend to try and do everything in one go and wonder why they run out of momentum.

If their was a habitation, refuelling and docking mini space station in Earth, Moon and Mars orbits, then NASA, ESA etc could build interplanetary craft and let the private sector develop ground to earth orbit craft.
The Saturn system wasn't meant to last any longer than accomplishing the mission of going to the moon.

They haven't lost "momentum" on any project that I know of.

NASA can and should develop it's own "back up" systems. NASA should not be depending on a foreign space agency that increasingly, and arrogantly, seems to think they should have a place in more and more NASA projects.
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28-10-2009, 23:21
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
The Saturn system wasn't meant to last any longer than accomplishing the mission of going to the moon.

They haven't lost "momentum" on any project that I know of.

NASA can and should develop it's own "back up" systems. NASA should not be depending on a foreign space agency that increasingly, and arrogantly, seems to think they should have a place in more and more NASA projects.
That is not true. The Saturn V was going to be used in a number of projects. For example in the original plan Voyagers I and II were supposed launched by Saturn V's. Eventually they were much scaled down and were launched by Titan IIIE/Centaurs. It was only after the Apollo XI landing that the whole space programme lost momentum.


At one point Nixon announced a plan to go to Mars but it was never serious given his other difficulties.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2009, 10:46
Assa2
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Solihull
Posts: 7,274
That is not true. The Saturn V was going to be used in a number of projects. For example in the original plan Voyagers I and II were supposed launched by Saturn V's. Eventually they were much scaled down and were launched by Titan IIIE/Centaurs. It was only after the Apollo XI landing that the whole space programme lost momentum.


At one point Nixon announced a plan to go to Mars but it was never serious given his other difficulties.
There was a whole host of proposed uses for the Apollo hardware along side the Moon missions under the Apollo Applications Program. Many bear a more than passing resemblence to the goals of the Constellation program. Skylab was the only real outcome of AAP although Apollo-Soyuz was a by-product.
Assa2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2009, 10:53
HenryGarten
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 19,567
There was a whole host of proposed uses for the Apollo hardware along side the Moon missions under the Apollo Applications Program. Many bear a more than passing resemblence to the goals of the Constellation program. Skylab was the only real outcome of AAP although Apollo-Soyuz was a by-product.
Yes you are right. It is impossible to believe how much things changed after 1969. The "next steps" being written about in 1969 bore no resemblence to what actually happened.
HenryGarten is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2009, 11:49
ItJustMyOpinion
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London
Posts: 21,494
The Saturn system wasn't meant to last any longer than accomplishing the mission of going to the moon.

They haven't lost "momentum" on any project that I know of.
I would call landing on the moon in 1969 and 40 years later, still not achieving any thing better, a loss of momentum.

NASA can and should develop it's own "back up" systems. NASA should not be depending on a foreign space agency that increasingly, and arrogantly, seems to think they should have a place in more and more NASA projects.
They can't afford the main system they are building. Plus if like some people might want, they simply sell their system to the Europeans, if it go's wrong and their people get stranded, the back up will be no good as its the same technology.

America has refused to cooperate with any other agency on their constellation program. They are only doing it for Mars robotic science because their broke.

A lot of ESA / NASA joint projects are simply cancelled half way through by the American administration at the time.

ESA has always tried for international cooperation, so the whole human race can go in to space together. If any one is arrogant it is the Americans.

Now at this point in the NASA space flight forums I would get permanently banned for outrageous comments.

ESA has even tried to work with the Russians and Japan. The Russian just wanted our money in return for a few seats as usual. They would build it and launch it from Russia.

ESA is the most cooperative and efficient space agency going in the world and Britain should have a single agency of its own to play a much bigger part in ESA's missions.

Americas main contribution to ISS has been the shuttles cargo capacity. I am all for Europeans having their own capacity to provide their fair share, in the same way they should militarily in their defence.
ItJustMyOpinion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 29-10-2009, 12:39
Scrolllock
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 4,378
That is not true. The Saturn V was going to be used in a number of projects. For example in the original plan Voyagers I and II were supposed launched by Saturn V's. Eventually they were much scaled down and were launched by Titan IIIE/Centaurs. It was only after the Apollo XI landing that the whole space programme lost momentum.


At one point Nixon announced a plan to go to Mars but it was never serious given his other difficulties.
The main goal was simply to go to the moon.

It didn't lose momentum as it was well known that such an expensive program could not continue indefinitely.
Scrolllock is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply




 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 18:34.