Hurricane Threatens Shuttle Program 724
evenprime writes "Hurricane Frances may end NASA's space shuttle program. John Logsdon, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the head of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., has said: 'If there were serious damage to one or two of the orbiters or the facilities needed to
process and launch the orbiters, I think it would raise a very large question about
the continuation of the shuttle program.'"
Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Look up at the sky! You see that big ball of bright flame? That's a fusion reactor that generates at least 8e23 watts. That's enough power to send a five year Alpha Centauri mission every second. You know how you can do the same by staying on Earth? It's simple: YOU CAN'T. To those of you who think a manned space program is a waste of resources because exploration happens more effectively with robots: You are a selfish bastard planning your own demise.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
The old Apollo missions were the right direction. Imagine what we could do now, or ten years from now, with better materials, infinitely better computer simulations, better communications, and a deep understanding of the conditions in space. Maybe if we start all over and reach further instead of not as far, we'll have some real progress. To quote Jerry Pournelle, "I always dreamed I'd live to see the first man walk on the moon. I never imagined I'd live to see the last."
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
My plan for the future is:
1: Scrap the Shuttles.
2: Cede LEO to the Russians. They're good at LEO: just look at their record with Soyuz, the Salyuts and Mir.
3: Build a Lunar Transfer Vehicle to move back and forth between Earth orbit and Moon orbit. Ferry crews to it on Soyuz, launch fuel on big dumb boosters (Titan, Proton, Ariane, take yer pick)
4: Construct moon base.
Why waste more of America's money building a Shuttle Plus that won't ever go anywhere? Don't reinvent the Russian wheel; instead, do something new...
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Additionally, this project would be a spectacular demonstration of US technological and economic superiority - and let's be honest here, the US's prestige has been a little tarnished lately. Let's see what America's really capable of, shall we?
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)
Dead weight? Get real. (Score:3, Interesting)
You complain about hauling wings in and out of orbit and yet you want to descend the moon's gravity well to make a base? That's insane! Why waste fuel hauling your stuff up and down when there are perfectly good trojan points... the moon's resources are lame and not worth the fuel costs.
The shuttle's wings allow a glide re-entry, which saves fuel. The tanks and various systems required for the additional fuel would mass more than the wings. RTFM.
The next stop after L5 is the
Re:Dead weight? Get real. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not true. 10,000,000 tons of water, and a near-infinite supply of radiation/meteorite shielding...at a minimum. :-)
Re:Dead weight? Get real. (Score:3, Interesting)
You complain about hauling wings in and out of orbit and yet you want to descend the moon's gravity well to make a base? That's insane! Why waste fuel hauling your stuff up and down when there are perfectly good trojan points... the moon's resources are lame and not worth the fuel costs.
So, why bother with the Lunar Trojan points for a base? Nothing there at all. Better to build a station at geosynchronous orbit, if we aren't going to the moon.
The shuttle's wings allow a g
Re:Dead weight? Get real. (Score:4, Interesting)
Importing Earth Water to replace Lunar water makes no sense at all. Importing Earth HYDROGEN to add to Lunar Oxygen for fuel/reaction mass is a much better propostion. 1/9th the mass to be moved, and the moon has a lot of Oxygen bound up in the rock.
The factor supporting asteroidal materials is that the potentially could have high concentrations of useful metals. No proof of that, of course. But we do know that they're not common on the moon.
"Useful metals"? I happen to think aluminium is useful. And Iron. And Magnesium. All of which were found on the Moon by Apollo. Hard to extract? Perhaps, but we do have a lot of solar energy, and no atmosphere to obscure it there.
Are there other metals we'll want? Sure, lots. But we won't want too many others in large quantities. And so we can build most of a spacecraft (by mass) with lunar raw materials, once we have the base in place. WAY cheaper and easier than building it on Earth and putting it into orbit, given the original investment in infrastructure.
Re:Dead weight? Get real. (Score:4, Interesting)
Personally, I'd prefer to survive re-entries after losing control.
When that happens to the Soyuz, the crew is lost in the wilderness for 10 hours until a retrieval team eventually finds them. When the Space Shuttle messes up a re-entry, the crew is scattered into a pinkish mist spread over 3 states.
unless you plan to do like the Soyuz, and just bail out the pilot and flight computer while the majority of the spacecraft smashes into the earth like a hypersonic missile.
Yep. That's the way to do it. Considering that building a whole new disposable spacecraft is less expensive (and more reliable, and even more scalable) than refurbishing a reusable vehicle, that's the prudent approach. (Building the disposable vehicle is cheaper, because the vehicle itself is a lot simpler, since it doesn't need features to survive re-entry)
Hmm... needs more maths. I suspect gliding re-entry is still going to win, though.
Wrong. It's not even close.
The shuttle's glide re-entry is a totally useless, counterproductive feature. Even if the wings did cause re-entry to need less fuel, it's not enough of the savings to make up for having needed to lift those wings into orbit in the first place. The wings were a drag on the liftoff, and a drag on all manuvering done in space. Just having them there increased the fuel-usage of every other mission activity.
The winged spaceplane is a project that justifies itself in terms of itself. The wing features allow the Shuttle to be reusable. That's good, because the Shuttle is expensive. And the Shuttle is expensive because it has wings....
Re:I actually like spaceplanes, just not this one. (Score:4, Informative)
I wasn't talking Soyuz vs. Shuttle, but disposable vs reusable (where the Soyuz and Shuttle happen to be high-profile examples of each kind).
Furthermore, the USSR skimped on safety spending, yet had similar levels of danger, because of a fundamentally safer design. The safest of all would be a Soyuz-like design (meaning unguided re-entry), with USA levels of redundant spending.
The Soyuz has killed all its passengers more times than the shuttle has - look it up.
Ok, I looked it up. The Soyuz has killed all its passengers twice, exactly the same number of Shuttle disasters. That adds up to 4 people lost on Soyuz, versus 14 killed in Shuttles. So... what was your point, exactly?
One minor part of the Shuttle's excessive risk is caused by the winged landing: To land the Shuttle, you need a aircraft pilot, who's otherwise useless. His presence onboard adds mass, and increases the number of lives that would be lost in an accident.
DRAG is not the word you want. Try again.
I wondered if you'd jump on that. FYI, the definition of "drag" is "an impediment or burden". But if you'd like it to only mean "retarding interaction with a fluid medium", then I'll rephrase: "The wings were a drag on liftoff, and their mass uselessly increased the thrust needed for both liftoff and orbital accelerations"
I don't even like the Shuttle, I wanted to build the gigantic space plane
Any kind of spaceplane is still a bad idea. "Planes", by definition, are only useful in an atmosphere. Putting any kind of plane is space is just wasteful mass and excessive complexity.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
I think we're probably going to get a moon base after ISS, and people are going to claim that it's a huge drain on our space programs' budgets like they do now with ISS, and that it's stopping us from going to Mars. So, we'll eventually afford a Mars base, and people will be complaining that it is stopping us from asteroid mining/search for life on the Jovian satellites/etc. It looks, technologically, like it will be at least a hundred years before we can make an extra-planetary colony financially self-sufficient.
Until then, people will complain, like they do today.
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)
As a former US Submariner, it really pains me to admit this, but in this arena the Russians have us beat.
Umm, no. Apollo. We had better big-dumb boosters than they did, better spacecraft, better everything.
Course, we scrapped all that in favour of four Shuttles.
Ultimate failure of Shuttle wasn't that it was badly designed (it was, to a certain extent). It was that we
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Funny)
Girl robots. This is going to be the best space program ever.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, if the rest of the world is 50 years behind us, then I guess we should start seeing the rest of the world getting ready for their own moon missions in a few years.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Both the US AND Russia were working against each other, so with the exception of some espionage, both sides were learning from their own mistakes, and learning things on their own.
If any country wants to start a basic manned-space program now, they've got one hell of a head start. First of all, both the US and Russia have figured out most of the physics. Both the US and Russia have leanred the common mishaps and "things not to do" when sending someone up and praying they come down in one piece.
Meanwhile, the technology available today is WAY more advanced than back then. We keep using those old shuttles because we don't have the money to spend on redesigning and rebulding them. Another country, starting from scratch, could have a way more advanced and possibly cheaper manned space-program if they did it right.
Russia and the US layed down the groundwork. Unfortunately, both sides wore themselves out early. Here's to hoping some nation makes it up there eventually.
Wrong - US not the only people with resources (Score:3, Interesting)
China, much of the population may not have much,
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Informative)
H2O (water for the few who may not know that...) is a very low energy state for hydrogen. In order to get usable energy from the hydrogen in H2O you first have to split off the hydrogen. This takes energy. Now when you burn the hydrogen you are probably going to burn it with oxygen, producing H2O and energy.
So the cycle would go:The energy you get back will be no more than the energy you put in. Actually, it will most likely be a lot less because of thermodynamics and inefficiencies. If you get back 50% of the energy you used to produce, store, and transport the hydrogen I would be amazed.
At best hydrogen is a fairly clean way of storing energy. You still need to get that energy from somewhere. Today that energy most likely comes from burning fossil fuels. Hopefully in the future we can use beamed microwaves from space stations or other clean methods of producing the energy, which we then store as hydrogen and burn cleanly.
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Funny)
Neo. [imdb.com]
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Informative)
I'm sure you already know this, but to clarify: Not only will you not get much energy, you will lose energy. The energy released in burning a molecule of H2 in O2 is the same as that used to split one molecule of water. Thermodynamics says you can't even recover all of it.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
There are too many layers of bullshit bureacracy to allow NASA to do anything truly amazing. The stables need to be cleaned.
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Do we really have the infrastructure for a manned space program now? I'd argue that the space shuttles are inappropriate for anything other than an emergency mission. They don't make sense. From what I understand it wouldn't cost us any more to build a couple of heavy lift vehicles than to run a couple of shuttle flights, what with the main engines having to be rebuilt after each run and all that.
At this point a manned space program is probably a mistake, unless we increase the scale of such an endeavor dramatically to the point where exploitation of space becomes commercially viable. The fact is that while space travel will always be dangerous, right now it is far too dangerous to the point where it's unnecessary.
This is all only in the case that we're not going to Mars. I just don't think we have the ability to do that convincingly however, because if you're going to send them you should be leaving them there, and putting that much mass on Mars from here would be prohibitively expensive - at least until the building of the space elevator. Unless the whole world is truly willing to get together and put a significant percentage of their money into it - and look at the ISS! never happen, in other words - it's just not feasible.
I guess basically my argument is that we should pretty much be blowing off manned missions until we manage to put the space elevator together. All space-related efforts should be spent on that research, except for your basic probes and satellites. (I'm all in favor of repairing hubble with a robot...) But let's face it, our current level of technology doesn't seem to be able to make highly reliable reusable launch vehicles. If we ARE going to keep putting people in space, let's get rid of the orbiter and just use rockets.
Why blame Bush 43? Blame Bush 41 and Clinton! (Score:4, Insightful)
A replacement orbiter should have been appropriated for and begun development during the Bush 41 or Clinton administrations. If they had done that, we'd have a new class of orbiters by now.
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Insightful)
Relax. While I am a big believer in NASA and the space agency, the problem is that every admin since Nixon have treated NASA as a play toy. Even W. currently is trying to mold it into HIS vision, and not a very good one. Worse, it requires a sustained effort (20 years) to pull it off. So no, W's plan will never work.
Instead what is needed, is a real reason to move off this planet and it has to be under private control. That means that going to the moon has only one economic reason which is nuclear fusion. But W just killed the program, which killed any economic reason for going to it (but there are military reasons for being there).
Hopefully, x-prize will create new prizes that move us to Mars (and maybe onto the moon). In particular, the space elevator is a viable idea. Or perhaps, one of the multi-billionares will fund putting a small colony on Mars. Screw bringing back ppl. Put 6 ppl there with an incoming ship every 1-2 years for supplies and expansion. That will motivate the space program better than has any politician (except possibly JFK)
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Funny)
There is no such evidence that anyone plans to launch a nuke-tipped ICBM at us.
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Insightful)
So instead of spending money on a program with a proven track record of advancing practical science, we should spend it on something with dubious odds of succeeding at its primary mission (which is itself of dubious strategic value) and little potential for useful spin-off technology. I can be swayed by the bang-for-the-buck arguments for shifting the emphasis from manned to unmanned missions, but I'm not the least bit persuaded that it's more important to indulge the adolescent urge to make things go boom.
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Interesting)
Space exploration business directly supports the advancement and the construction of new weapons systems. Maintaining a space exploration program would therefore seem to be a reasonable way to invest in future defence technologies.
Providing food to underdeveloped countries is a less than satisfactory way of
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Interesting)
While I agree with the rest of your statement, it was the Russians who almost single handedly destroyed the Germans. The US single-handedly got them out of France and western Europe, and hastened their demise, but at the time most of Germany's resources were going to their Eastern front.
The US's largest contribution to WWII was probably their defeat of the Japanese in the Pacific theat
Re:Damn! (Score:4, Interesting)
It is unlikely that the UK could have continued to fight Nazi Germany without the planes, tanks, ships, guns, food, oil, etc. we shipped them.
It is slightly more possible that the USSR could have continued fighting without the aid we sent them, but only just. Only thing the Russians built enough of were tanks. They built those at the expense of the other tools of modern war (trucks ;) ).
And while the Russians built a lot of tanks, they also lost a lot. Assuming that the Soviet Army was up to TO&E, they lost more than 2/3 of the tanks they built from 1941-1945. And they weren't up to TO&E....
Re:Damn! (Score:3, Insightful)
Feeding poor people only causes them to have more children - which are even more likely to be poor.
If you solve that dilemma - I'll join food not bombs.
In my heart I applaud the obvious generosity - but you are feeding the ducks - and you won't get happy ducks - you get obese, overpopulated, greedy aggresive competative - as in me-first-in- line-for-the-hand-out-ducks.
I suggest a simple solution - tie tubes and pipes before eating and I will contribute.
AIK
Re:Damn! (Score:5, Interesting)
Fission power is barely tapped; the main restraint is people's fear of it. If energy prices rise, people will have a clear choice, the way they do today with coal vs. solar/etc power (pay more for less theoretical risk, or pay less - which do people choose currently?). With today's inefficient fission power plants, we have enough known deposits alone to last 200 years. With advancing fission tech, that could be extended to 500 or so years. With unfound deposits (again, exploration has been largely limited by usage), you're looking at 1000, 1500, 2000, etc years worth of fission power. But it gets better! With breeder reactors, you can change U238 (normally not usable in fission power) into a usable fission power source, giving 10-50 times as much energy production from a given amount of ore.
We're looking at 10s of thousands of years of power at current rates. Even if we assume that our power consumption continues to grow (despite regular efficiency improvements in devices that consume power), we're still going to be looking at hundreds to thousands of years. If we haven't figured out fusion power by then, we don't deserve to continue on as a species
Shuttle program != Space program (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Shuttle program != Space program (Score:3, Funny)
high time. high time, indeed.
all those silly people bitching about not wanting to live in california because of the earthquakes, I just don't get it.
Re:Shuttle program != Space program (Score:5, Insightful)
Shuttle Program == USA Government Manned Space Program.
I don't see China abandoning their program if the shuttle is gone; neither do I see any other interested parties doing so.
Re:Shuttle program != Space program (Score:5, Funny)
They've got 1.6 Billion people. They can afford to lose a couple to space accidents as a trade off for having somewhere to put their next 1.6 billion people. The moon may very well be a possibility.
Might be a good thing... (Score:5, Interesting)
Maybe not (Score:5, Informative)
But one positive by-effect would be that NASA would be forced to consider better booster solutions.
One of those better booster solutions is sitting on the pad [spaceflightnow.com] right now. It is even more vulnerable to damage than the shuttle orbiters. The Delta IV heavy or derivative is a likely candidate for a post shuttle manned booster. It would be bad news if it were damaged.
Re:Might be a good thing... (Score:4, Informative)
Momentum.
No, seriously.
You see, the Earth is spinning. As we live on the Earth, we are therefore also spinning. At the poles, you are merely rotating around your axis and it is not very interesting at all. On the equator, on the other hand, you are being whipped around at about 1 circumference of the Earth per day, which is a fairly good clip. If one wants to get into space, the centripetal force pushing one outward is increased greatly the closer you get to the equator.
Naturally, NASA wants to take advantage of that, as it makes a measurable difference in payloads and fuel. You'll notice that the ESA and most private space agencies launch from places like Equatorial Guinea. The closer to the equator, the better. It's only the cold-war space programs, such as USA and Russia's, that keep their space launch centres within their own borders.
Unfortunately, they will continue to do so for now, because they've invested so much infrastructure there.
But the fact is, if they're going to move, it wouldn't make sense to move to Arizona. They would move to the equator like all the newer space programs have done.
Re:Might be a good thing... (Score:3, Informative)
Another is safety. Rockets must launch to the east (or lose the advantage of the earth's rotation). If there's a problem with a lunch from Florida, the debris crash into the ocean. Launches from western states could crash into eastern states.
I don't know... (Score:4, Interesting)
mixed feelings (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm getting the feeling though, that it will not be replaced by anything for awhile to come, & this may signal the end of American manned spaceflight for a long time.
American Infrastructure, Science falling behind (Score:4, Insightful)
We are losing our low paying jobs to other countries and supposedly replacing them with higher paying research/science positions. How can we do this with a government that is not committed to science (Shutting down a space program) and is not committed to infrastructure like broadband. If we give up on the low paying jobs don't we then need a strong commitment to the high paying jobs of the future?
US has bigger problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:US has bigger problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not worried. If that day comes, we'll just invade you.
Re:US has bigger problems... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not worried. If that day comes, we'll just invade you.
I'll bet that's what the Soviets thought, once upon a time...
Make that yesssssss dept. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Make that yesssssss dept. (Score:4, Insightful)
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (Score:5, Insightful)
"Hurricane Frances may end NASA's space shuttle program."
Please.
Even if the orbiters were damaged, or the launch platforms damaged, they can always be re-built, repaired, or whatever.
Even if it looks like the eye will hit KSC dead-on, they've still got enough time to stick an orbiter on the 747 and get one of them out of there...
Besides, the launch structures withstand regular beatings from the shuttle launches, and they've survived for years...
The VAB might take some damage, perhaps some of the other support buildings, but it's going to take more than a hurricane to destroy KSC & the shuttle program completely.
Re:The sky is falling! The sky is falling! (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, they can, but not without a huge expenditure that NASA really can't afford right now, especially when many politicians (and pundits, and some scientists) are already calling for the end to Human Spaceflight altogether.
> Even if it looks like the eye will hit KSC dead-on, they've still got enough time to stick an orbiter on the 747 and get one of them out of there...
It's looked like that for several days now, and they haven't done this. A good reason is that the shuttles are being retrofitted with safety improvements, and aren't really in a state to be put on a 747, let alone flown hundreds of miles away.
> Besides, the launch structures withstand regular beatings from the shuttle launches, and they've survived for years...
Sure, the launch structures, maybe. But the hangars that the Space Shuttles are housed in are only rated for a Category 3 hurricane. They might also survive a Category 4 or 5 Frances, but then again, they might not.
>
I love the shuttle, but KSC doesn't need to be entirely destroyed for NASA to decide that the program is too expensive to salvage.
Rebuild the orbiters? You must be kidding. (Score:4, Insightful)
My bet is the contractors that built the shuttles wouldn't even TOUCH a contract to try to build another set of them. The engineers and other staff involved in the shuttle building have probably retired or died by now.
Strength of Buildings (Score:3, Interesting)
Not good at all (Score:5, Interesting)
I was lucky enough to be able to speak with one of the people in the group commisioned to investigate the columbia accident. He told me that one of the reasons they were adamant about finding the trouble behind the accident and making sure it did not happen again (beyond the paramount fact of preventing the loss of human life) was because it was a solid fact based on budgeting that NASA could not continue its shuttle program if it lost one more orbiter. He was fairly confident in the fact if one more was lost it would end program for good.
Get Real !! (Score:5, Insightful)
Not what you want to hear but... (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sure we could all argue until the end of time as to why this has been happenning but I find it rather hilarious that, any time someone mentions the possible negative effects that mankind is having on his environment, hundreds of otherwise sensible people throw rational thought out of the window and refuse point blank to even concede the possibility - even the very smallest chance - that climate change for the worse might be partially our fault.
Here in Britain we've just gone from having the hottest August on record in 2003 to the wettest August on record in 2004. Climatic extremes like those experienced here, in the US and elsewhere aren't things to be taken lightly, they're things to be studied and, ultimately, acted upon. Collectively shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to finding out why these things are happening with ever greater frequency aren't model solutions.
But, hey, that's just my worthless point of view. Until there's more money in sorting out the problem than there is in exacerbating it, nothing's going to change. Well, at least not for the better.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:3, Interesting)
Heat = Energy
More energy/km^3 = more phase-space for the atmosphere
more phase space = more extremes
extremes in the phase space = nasty stuff.
Premise: It's not the probability of something happening that is important, it is the product of the probability and the consequences.
Problem: humans as a species are less likely to plan for infrequent problems or long-term goals than frequent problems or short-term goals. Combine with
Re:Not what you want to hear but... (Score:3, Interesting)
Your "record" extends only to a miniscule sliver of time regarding Britain's history. Nature herself has caused far, far more destruction than a million industrialized revolutions.
Are we contributing to climate change? Sure. Is the difference noticable? Outside of the Religion of Biology, we honestly don't know. So, would you honestly have us hamstring our entire economy based on
Re:Not what you want to hear but... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ever heard of risk management. You take a risk, assign it a probability and a cost then by looking at the products you can make you decision about whether to mitigate the risk.
e.g. Probability of asteroid impact = 100%
Cost of asteroid impact = 2 trillion (?)
Result = 100% * 2 trillion = 2 trillion
example 2:
Probability of nuclear war = 1%
Cost of nuclear war = 100 trillion (?)
Result = 1% * 100 trillion = 1 trillion
example 3:
Probability of global warming = 1%
Cost of global warming = 100 trillion (?)
Result = 1% * 100 trillion = 1 trillion
Now replace the words 'trillion' with the word 'millions of human lives' and decide if you want to even ATTEMPT to do something about the POSSIBILITY of a problem.
All you're suggesting is to ignore the issue until it becomes an issue or not. If it becomes an issue all indications are that it will be too late. If it doesn't become an issue then what... you bolstered the economy? Welllllll done!
Re:Not what you want to hear but... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what he's saying is don't blow all your resources trying to "fix" a problem and then have it turn out that your "fix" didn't even work. Now there's a huge problem and no money left to fix it, because you got anxious and blew all your resources before you understood what the hell you were doing.
Big Frigging Deal - it's time for it to die anyway (Score:5, Insightful)
NASA has been under budgeted, over managed, and terribly inefficient for decades. Having the government run space flight might have been a good idea during the cold war, when it was important to remind the world that everything the Russians can do we can do better. Today, it is not.
There are cheaper ways to get to LEO (Low Earth Orbit). There are private enterprises which try to get to space in a way that is economically viable. Economically viable means that you don't have to beg Congress for dollars and then use whatever contractors, locations, etc. you need to provide the right pork to the right congress-person. Instead, you can focus on doing what ought to be done.
What do we need manned flight to LEO for? It's close enough that we can remote control everything that a robot can do. Robots that are cheaper and more expendable. Let us send robots and find ways to use it to build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to the skies.
Eventually, we'll need manned space flight to get to resources that are too distant for a remote controlled mission. But now is not the time. Now what we need is less public excitement and more investor excitement. Less spectacles and more value creation.
Just my 2c worth,
Ori
Geee... (Score:4, Funny)
geography wisdom (Score:5, Funny)
Re:geography wisdom (Score:3, Funny)
Grrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
I know all the arguements about how we should fix our problems down here on earth before we pour $$ into space, but I've got news for those people. We're never going to fix those problems. They are caused by human beings. If we wait for the day when everything is hunky dory on this planet, we might as well give up any exploration of any kind.
Dreams are IMPORTANT. That sense of wonder you felt as a little kid looking up at the sky, that's IMPORTANT. Exploration tests us, pushes us, forces us to grow beyond what we thought possible. It seems to be the only way we do that without killing each other in the process. Keeping the mind engaged and interested is essential to who we are as a species.
That's how I feel, anyway. I know there are those who's end vision for the human race seems to be having us all sit in front of the TV while robots do all the work necessary to sustain our physical existance. Well, no thanks. I'll head for the frontier. There's a thought from one of Frank Herbert's books which I consider relevant to both our present and the more degenerate visions of our future:
"It's because there is no Dune there are no Fremen."
Re:Grrrr (Score:3, Insightful)
there is no doubt in my mind (Score:3, Funny)
Worst Thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Yay!!! (Score:3, Funny)
I'm in the path of it (Score:3, Informative)
See http://www.intellicast.com/Local/USNationalWide.a
Seems convenient.. (Score:3, Insightful)
From NASAs perspective, a disaster of this scale may be just what they need to raise public awareness and get a wad of "pity cash".
Some data, and "this will write NASA's ticket" (Score:5, Interesting)
1. The Vehicle Assembly Building is built to withstand a category 5 hurricane. The accessory and newer buildings are only built against a category 3. However, nothing will save the VAB from a category 4 that tears the roof off a nearby cat3 hanger and mashes it into the side of the VAB.
2. KSC at current projections is in the worst spot possible. The eye passing overhead would be merciful if it happens - the eye passing south is worse. The N.W. corner of a hurricane is the strongest in the northern hemisphere.
3. Otherwise, there is still a (anyone?) 30 foot storm surge to contend with.
4. Does anyone know if Atlantis is still in the VAB? I haven't checked. If you do check, make sure you shut the lights off when you are done.
Best case scenario - no one is hurt, and NASA files a gianormous insurance claim Monday morning for a new manned space program.
Kulakovich
Re:Some data, and "this will write NASA's ticket" (Score:5, Funny)
The first error is always... (Score:5, Insightful)
Even newer facilities are at risk. The immense hangar where the space station components are tested and stored prior to launch is designed to withstand 110 mph winds.
The cause of most mistakes are that when taking under consideration the requirements for [insert whatever here] is that someone made an "assumption" rather than supporting all information with facts. When these buildings were built, I'm sure somewhere in the Flordia a hurricane came through with winds in excess of 110mph. What would ever make you think it *is* impossible for one to come through the Space Center? I'm mean you spend billions of dollars and do not protect it from hurricanes on the Flordia coast?
my plans (Score:4, Funny)
Good !! (Score:3, Insightful)
pack it all up and move it to some that isnt destined to be overrun with mother natures wrath 2-4 times a year.
Re:Good !! (Score:3, Informative)
X-prize? Hello? (Score:3, Insightful)
Cynicism aside, resource hunting is going to be our only real shot to get private companies to follow in the the footsteps of the X-prize. It's a sad fact, but the 60's space race was fueled completely on Cold War fears and the simple novelty of our newfound abilities as a species. If we're really going to get off our asses and resume exploring with the same urgency we had then, it's not going to be ideology driven.
Take a look at the "Discovery" of the "New World". Do you think the Spanish, English, and Portugese would have spent all their bling on tall ships if the only result was finding an uninhabitable wasteland? No, they were convinced by the astronauts of the time that the New World contained resources galore, and the rest is history.
Finally! (Score:3, Interesting)
-- Story Musgrave, astronaut.
Manned space flight is about ego and politics, not science. Right now we have a lot more pressing issues in this country that money could be spent on than toy plane pipedreams. Like most other government programs, the Space Shuttle is many hundreds of times over budget. It's time to retire this white elephant and get past our Cold War masturbation fantasies.
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Insightful)
Partially true, though misleading; science has certainly benefited from manned space flight to a nonnegligible degree.
Right now we have a lot more pressing issues in this country that money could be spent on than [movies|sports|music|entertainment|basic scientific research|you can put anything in here]. An efficiently-run sp
Why is Disney World still open? (Score:4, Interesting)
They must really hate to lose the Labor Day weekend revenue.
Disney made it through August hurricane (Score:4, Informative)
shuttle Atlantis (Score:3, Funny)
A Far Cry From "Marooned" (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Worst
Hurricane
Ever
That's why they're worried. They only built their facilities to withstand common hurricanes with less power. e.g. The article states that the shuttle hangar can withstand winds of 110 mph. This hurricane could be a LOT worse.
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Informative)
Same with aircraft and spacecraft.
sPh
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sure that the area has has its share of 100+ MPH winds before, but the article stresses how the area isn't really prepared for the shelling that Frances(is) will give it.
Of course, this can all be speculative bullshit and the hurricane can end up going south and then into the gulf, thereby leaving the Kennedy Center high and dry (figuratively speaking).
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
To my knowledge Volusia and Brevard county have never been hit by a storm like this, at least not in the last 50+ years. I heard through my mother who still lives in the area that the newscasters say that this is a 100 years storm for that area.
IMHO I honestly can't see building like the VAB surviving a storm like this....
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
That idiot probably knew that the best location for a space launch is the equator, since you get the most assistence from the earth's rotation. The idiot probably thought about what parts of the US mainland were closest to the equator and had the least amount of land in the flight path (so spacecraft won't fall on people if they have a malfunction). The parts of the US that work best are the east coast of florida a
Re:Hurricane David 1979 (Score:4, Informative)
Frances [noaa.gov] is a Catagory 4 hurricane and is currently throwing around winds in the 145-155 mph range. Can you see the concern now?
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because up until this week, it's been a theoretical risk. Now, the risk is real. A storm of this intensity has never hit the Cape dead-on, and this will come DAMNED near close to dead-on.
As of 5:00 this morning, Patrick AFB (just south of CCAS and responsible for the AF side of things on the Cape) issued a warning [af.mil] that the storm was to pass 60 miles away, with 100+ mph winds.
So, yeah, if the article were in June, saying "Hey, a hurricane could take us out," I'd agree that this wasn't really newsworthy. Problem is, it's not "a hurricane could take us out," it's " this hurricane could take us out. In 48 hours."
Re:NASA = idiots (Score:4, Informative)
Re:NASA = idiots (Score:3, Informative)
The one thing Florida can't do is polar and retrograde orbits. Those are launched from Vandenburg AFB on the California coast.
Originally, a single Gulf Coast area near Matagorda, Texas, was being considered to be the Shuttle launch facility, which would provide downrange safety for all types of orbit insertions, but the decision was made to go with a dual east/west coast model with existing KSC and Vandenburg sites.
After th
Unfortunately.... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:The infamous space pen story (Score:3, Insightful)
And a pen dosn't shed conductive carbon particles into your on-board electronics either.
Which would you rather use (assuming that somebody else is picking up the tab)?
Re:The infamous space pen story (Score:4, Informative)
It'a an urban legend. Read the real story at snopes.com [snopes.com].