Amiga.org
Coffee House => Coffee House Boards => CH / Science and Technology => Topic started by: PMC on February 03, 2005, 09:51:01 AM
-
The shuttle Discovery is to fly again in May, the first shuttle launch since the ill-fated Columbia flight exactly two years ago.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4231121.stm
Conceived in the 1970s as a low(er) cost reusable spacecraft, each shuttle was designed for 100 spaceflights. However, it's proved to be much more expensive than originally anticipated and the three remaining vehicles are all ageing rapidly. Columbia itself flew for the very first time on 12 April 1981 and the remaining fleet of Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour are having to compensate for Columbia's loss. The shuttle is also the only vehicle able to carry the components for the ISS into orbit.
Where will NASA go next for a reusable launch platform?
-
Hell no! NASA, ESA, and the Russians all have other veichles for sending ISS-components into orbit, it's just that it's too bloody expensive!
I think that if the U.S. truly are going to aim for mars, then there have to be made investments in some alternative for the shuttles; a craft capable of going to Mars would have to be built in orbit either around Earth, or around the moon.
-
whabang wrote:
I think that if the U.S. truly are going to aim for mars, then there have to be made investments in some alternative for the shuttles; a craft capable of going to Mars would have to be built in orbit either around Earth, or around the moon.
That's the point, we need a cheap and reusable system for getting components from Earth to orbit in order to construct a craft to get to the moon. The moon is but another stepping stone (the energy needed to lift raw materials from the moon to lunar orbit is much lower than that required to lift off Earth), but whatever system is adpoted will have to fight for funding and development time with NASA's other grand projects - remember that funding isn't going to be significantly increased.
-
PMC wrote:
whabang wrote:
I think that if the U.S. truly are going to aim for mars, then there have to be made investments in some alternative for the shuttles; a craft capable of going to Mars would have to be built in orbit either around Earth, or around the moon.
That's the point, we need a cheap and reusable system for getting components from Earth to orbit in order to construct a craft to get to the moon. The moon is but another stepping stone (the energy needed to lift raw materials from the moon to lunar orbit is much lower than that required to lift off Earth), but whatever system is adpoted will have to fight for funding and development time with NASA's other grand projects - remember that funding isn't going to be significantly increased.
I've never understood why the American public is so against paying national insurance to pay for a free health service for all, but they don't seem to mind paying a hell of a lot more tax dollars on sending fireworks up in the sky.
-
lol,
The millions and millions that they spent/spend on space technology and research has already paid for itself.
Think about the internet, or television or non stick frying pans; and I’m sure that it’s a tiny fraction of the cost of not being able to predict hurricane or weather systems…and while I’m ranting :-) I may as well mention that the total cost of all those fireworks are a tiny fraction of the cost of just one weapons system…
Money and politics aside/
i for one want to know...
it’s like `built into` us humans;
To explore and seek out new world and boldly go where no one has gone before; that is what brought us here, and that’s our destiny…
but then again , some people are sheep...
-
i for one want to know...
it’s like `built into` us humans;
I agree.
Still doesn't explain why the average American hates the idea of paying a few extra dollars a month to make sure the whole nation is as healthy as possible, but doesn't mind paying lots more to send rockets into space looking for the answers to where we came from. Especially as 51% of them "KNOW" we didn't come from anywere, and God just created us! ;-)
-
mdma, please don't be so silly.
as Blob has correctly pointed out, the "space program" more than pays for itself and contributes to new and contining technology for years and years.
it may not seem as sexy as starting a freaking war, but it certainly kills a hell of a lot fewer people.
it also affects all kinds of "small" things people have in everyday life. including, oh, people's pacemakers. or their blankets and clothing. computers on thier cars.......the list is so huge I don't even know half of it.
the biggest problem for NASA is simply that no one has bothered to compile this list and present it in some entertaining way to the public so that morons can FINALLY understand why it's more important - and evolved - to seek knowledge than destroy for fun and money.
what NASA is trying to do is ultimately the best thing truely intelligent life is supposed to do.
-
mdma wrote:
I've never understood why the American public is so against paying national insurance to pay for a free health service for all, but they don't seem to mind paying a hell of a lot more tax dollars on sending fireworks up in the sky.
I am already paying over $600/month in health insurance premiums, you cannot convince me that paying even more for far worse service is a good thing. :pissed:
We need to stop the bizzare testis like the effects of weightlessness on ants and the effects of copulation in space. Us the whole budget to fund a new shuttle designs for far ranges. Head straight to Mars now!
-
mdma wrote:
i for one want to know...
it’s like `built into` us humans;
I agree.
Still doesn't explain why the average American hates the idea of paying a few extra dollars a month to make sure the whole nation is as healthy as possible, but doesn't mind paying lots more to send rockets into space looking for the answers to where we came from. Especially as 51% of them "KNOW" we didn't come from anywere, and God just created us! ;-)
A few extra dollars!? :lol:
We have the worlds best health care. It's true that many arn't covered by it, but changing the paragon of excellence would destroy it. The solution is in demanding health insurance from employers.
It's your employer that you should look to for what you need to supprt yourself and your family. if they can't do that, find another employer, the one you have isn't worth working for. The government can't fill that gap, as it's only funded from money skimmed from what your employer pays you anyway, with some skimmed off the top as well.
You can't expect to take a low paying job and be satisfied with it expecting a government to make up the difference, when ultimately the governments ability to make up that difference is directly proportional to what it can take from the middle. it's a mathematical formula that just doesn't work.
-
T_Bone wrote:
mdma wrote:
i for one want to know...
it’s like `built into` us humans;
I agree.
Still doesn't explain why the average American hates the idea of paying a few extra dollars a month to make sure the whole nation is as healthy as possible, but doesn't mind paying lots more to send rockets into space looking for the answers to where we came from. Especially as 51% of them "KNOW" we didn't come from anywere, and God just created us! ;-)
A few extra dollars!? :lol:
We have the worlds best health care. It's true that many arn't covered by it, but changing the paragon of excellence would destroy it. The solution is in demanding health insurance from employers.
It's your employer that you should look to for what you need to supprt yourself and your family. if they can't do that, find another employer, the one you have isn't worth working for. The government can't fill that gap, as it's only funded from money skimmed from what your employer pays you anyway, with some skimmed off the top as well.
You can't expect to take a low paying job and be satisfied with it expecting a government to make up the difference, when ultimately the governments ability to make up that difference is directly proportional to what it can take from the middle. it's a mathematical formula that just doesn't work.
Until recently i paid roughly US$380 dollars every month for my healthcare, and US$13 for each item on a prescription. At the moment I am a student teacher, so I don't pay anything for my health care, but I've more than paid for any health care I have recieved through my past NI contributions.
"Best healthcare in the world"? Possibly the best standard, but not the best system by a long shot. I may add the USA has a disgusting infant mortality rate too, and that is purely down to the (lack of) healthcare system.
-
what NASA is trying to do is ultimately the best thing truely intelligent life is supposed to do.
Protect and survive?
-
I'm with La Blob & La Cecilia on this one. It's built into us to know, and the more we learn, the more cool stuff we realise is out there worth learning about. To me sending a rocket to the moon is far more of a noble achievement than building a missle who's only purpose is to take life on a massive scale.
-
Long live NASA. We get a lot of benefits from the materials science alone.
Ironically, there are benefits to be had from military research too. Here's one example:
A certain fighter jet manufacturer was perplexed by the recurrent failure of a radar component in the fighter's nose. This happened on all the planes, and affected a very specific set of components in the nose. Once the plane went beyond a certain velocity, the components in the nose were trashed.
:-?
Just for giggles, they changed the mounting of those components and it just so happend that the components were rearranged in the nose. But: when the plane went beyond a certain velocity, components got trashed, but this time not the same components as before. To cut a long story short, there was a very small focal area within the jet's nose where they couldn't place any components because they would be trashed once the plane hit a certain velocity. This phenomenon is sound wave convergence and is now the basis for ESWL (extra-corporeal shockwave lithotripsy) which is a cone-shaped device attached to a sound generator used for breaking kidney stones without operating on the patient. The focus of the ESWL is determined by X-ray. By the way, one of the jokers in the operating theatre told me to check the vibrations within the cone while the ESWL was running, and it felt like someone was peeling my fingernail off!!
-
@ Cecilia
The pacemaker was a Swedish invention, not a NASA one! Besides that, I agree with you. :-P
-
That's an amazing story x-ray.
Thing is that the space programme is primarily about exploration and discovery, in an age where bigger and better exploding things get all the funding, it's good to see that there's still a place for our more noble instincts.
And it pays dividends in all sorts of ways too. If it saves one life, then it's got to be worth the investment.
-
whabang wrote:
The pacemaker was a Swedish invention, not a NASA one! Besides that, I agree with you. :-P
you misunderstood.
I didn't mean NASA invented everything. I mean that science encourages the attitude that makes such inventions possible. It's not that NASA is the only source of all good things in the universe. simply one example.
and, yeah for the Swedes! :-D
-
I think science is a mandatory incentive for our ever-growing economy
-
Hi
IMO NASA should develop advanced robotics / AI technology for unmanned space explorations into various planets, moons etc.
Robots / exoskeletons are also useful for operating / servicing Space telescope, ISS, satellites etc.
It's better and cheaper to send unmanned missions to various planets, because the same knowledge can be obtained using robots than risking human life.
Perhaps NASA can develop advanced Recycling Technology for capturing and recycling "Space Garbages". The unused materials in the orbit can be used to build future spacecraft.
NASA should develop advanced Earth Environment Monitoring technology for detecting Global Warming, Tsunami, Weather Prediction etc.
The spinoff / result of the above researches will be useful for various applications on Earth.
=====================================================
SPACE GARBAGE
When fragments of satellites and space shuttles separate, what happens to those chunks, floating in space? They just keep floating. One of the things the UN worries about when it talks about space issues is:
What are we going to do with all that space junk! What if it hits a spaceship? What if it lands on a planet?
You might think it's strange, but until now, a lot of people thought it would be OK to just leave junk in space!
Even though the Universe is expanding infinitely, should it be dotted with floating pieces of Earth-generated waste? How do you think space garbage could be detected? How IS it detected? Should space technology be able to pick up after itself before it's allowed out of our atmosphere?
More than 8500 objects which could be classified as "space debris" can be detected through ground-based surveillance and radar
-
"What a piece of work is man! in form how like an angel; in
comprehension how like a God!"
To discover, to learn, to teach, to heal, to love. I can only applaud such actions, and welcome the proceeds of such endeavours.
I only wish that more of the world was dedicated to such nobel ideals.
-
Perhaps they could take some inspiration from the craft built for the x-prize?
Im hoping for a moon base though, Im quite surprised they havent built one already to be honest.
-
Turambar wrote:
Perhaps they could take some inspiration from the craft built for the x-prize?
Im hoping for a moon base though, Im quite surprised they havent built one already to be honest.
Maybe because it's impossible for man to land on it? :-P
/me runs for cover!
-
Heh i was waiting for that conspiracy theory to surface.
-
@Cecilia
True! Science leads to progress, and space exploration is all about science.
-
What amazes me is that it's now nearly forty years since we walked on the moon. In that time we've seen the appearence of the digital watch, the mobile telephone (with more processing power than those old Apollo computers), carbon fibre, the desktop PC, the Hubble telescope, Huygens and are even about to soft land a probe on a comet.
Yet we've never sent a human beyond Earth orbit, or indeed returned to the moon.
Where is our spirit of adventure? Is designing ever more inefficient ways of mass extermination more of a noble passtime? It speaks volumes about humanity that we'd rather spend out taxpayers money on an aircraft carrier instead.
-
PMC wrote:
Where is our spirit of adventure?
Guess it's gone with Yuri Gagarin :cry:
-
I sincerely hope not... We've people like Steve Fossett, Ellen McArthur, Richard Branson and Sir Rannulph Fiennes all proving that mankind hasn't quite lost it's sense of adventure, so hopefully the 20th century obsession with making bigger and more spectacular bangs will prove to be the abherration rather than the rule.
For me it's the Saturn 5 rocket and not the ICBM that remains the 20th Century's most impressive piece of engineering.
-
I was rather talking about the technological competition during the cold war
-
There are theories abounding that this whole mission to mars thing is simply a setup for them to fail at, and when they do fail, due to lack of funding and being not the most efficient thiing ever to come out of the US, the Bush Administration will shut NASA down... The money then moves on to more "deserving" causes.
I don't know what to think about it, part of me wishes it to simply believe its just a conspiricy theory, but part of me does wonder...