Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: F22RaptorDude on June 19, 2011, 07:08:07 PM
-
Shuttle program is over and people are being laid off! What happens to the Shuttles, scrapping any of them would be a crime! This is so sad! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a061mtauxA0&feature=feedu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a061mtauxA0&feature=feedu)
-
Well, it's off to Russia, then.
-Penguin
-
1. Cost
2. Service life up
3. Better alternatives
Sucks about jobs being lost but what can you do.
-
1. Cost
2. Service life up
3. Better alternatives
Sucks about jobs being lost but what can you do.
As a single person nothing unfortunately, but I can't be the only one who's disappointed it ended can I?
-
The shuttles were cool but they aren't the most economical way to get into space anymore. The existing shuttles are old and would need to be replaced, but there are better options now so there's no sense in building a new fleet.
-
The shuttles were cool but they aren't the most economical way to get into space anymore. The existing shuttles are old and would need to be replaced, but there are better options now so there's no sense in building a new fleet.
Better options? and Does it have to do with Russia? I know they have their own space program but are their methods more economical?
-
Apparently for the time being it is much cheaper to buy trips into space from russia than do it ourselves. But apart from that, there are more modern techs to get into space at a much cheaper cost than the shuttles.
-
The shuttles were cool but they aren't the most economical way to get into space anymore. The existing shuttles are old and would need to be replaced, but there are better options now so there's no sense in building a new fleet.
The shuttles are the ONLY spacecraft in existence today that can take a heavy payload and an entire crew and support them with a re-entry capability.
-
They tried to keep costs down, everything was reusable except the main tank which burns up in the atmosphere. Its more econmic than anything else we used like the Saturn's which non of it was reusable
Edit: anything we used in the US
-
I'm not so much saddened by the shuttles retirement, though I do think they are really cool. They have far exceed their designed service life, and are ridiculously expensive to operate, they should have really been retired 10 years ago.
What saddens me is the cancellation of the Constellation program (supposed to replace the shuttle), it would have been much cheaper, much safer, and lift more then the shuttle. Also the last administrations program to return to the moon. It hits home to me, I know many people who have been laid off from ATK Thiokol (built the shuttle's SRBs), not to mention some folks at ATK spent years working on designs for the Constellation program, only to have the President say "Sorry, we changed our minds." I know the political line is that the private sector will step up and take over, but realistically the private sector is 30 years behind NASA. Branson and Scaled Composites, have just barely got the private SpaceShip one into suborbital space. Besides NASA, while being tax payer funded, has created hundreds of thousands of private sector jobs, NASA pulls it all together , but most of the components, and much of the research IS done by private firms.
I have lots to say on this topic, but most of it would get *see rule #14*
-
They tried to keep costs down, everything was reusable except the main tank which burns up in the atmosphere. Its more econmic than anything else we used like the Saturn's which non of it was reusable
Edit: anything we used in the US
You're just wrong, sorry. The shuttle costs near $500,000,000 per mission.
Just as one example, they didn't realize when they designed the shuttle that the ENTIRE heat shield would have to be replaced after each mission, to the tune of tens of millions of $$.
The Constellation program was based off the Apollo designs, with several different sized rockets for different payloads, and a small one for the crew. Sent up the heavy stuff, and let the crew rendezvous in orbit. Much more economical then the shuttle, much much safer to. If an o-ring fails like Challenger the crew capsule just parachutes back down. And with the crew capsule on the very top, no risk of debris strikes from the rocket damaging the heat shield like Columbia.
-
I am. Ever since I was little, I had worked to become an astronaut. Now I don't know what I'll do. I guess I'll have to find a job in the private space industry. I hope that the manned space program will return soon.
-Penguin
-
When I was little I told my dad I wanted to be an Astronaut.
He told me I was halfway there, I just needed to work on the tronaut part. :bolt:
-
No, I'm serious. I know, it sounds like I'll never make it, but if I shoot for the moon, even if I miss, I'll land among the stars. If I never try, I'll never make it. I love science and even if I don't become an astronaut, I'll still be doing something that I love. Fortune favors the bold.
-Penguin
-
You're just wrong, sorry. The shuttle costs near $500,000,000 per mission.
Just as one example, they didn't realize when they designed the shuttle that the ENTIRE heat shield would have to be replaced after each mission, to the tune of tens of millions of $$.
The Constellation program was based off the Apollo designs, with several different sized rockets for different payloads, and a small one for the crew. Sent up the heavy stuff, and let the crew rendezvous in orbit. Much more economical then the shuttle, much much safer to. If an o-ring fails like Challenger the crew capsule just parachutes back down. And with the crew capsule on the very top, no risk of debris strikes from the rocket damaging the heat shield like Columbia.
Sorry I figured the price wouldn't be as high if none of the boosters were reused. but dang I had no idea! and I see how that works, but the parts blast away and burn up right? So none of it would be reusable or am I wrong?
No, I'm serious. I know, it sounds like I'll never make it, but if I shoot for the moon, even if I miss, I'll land among the stars. If I never try, I'll never make it. I love science and even if I don't become an astronaut, I'll still be doing something that I love. Fortune favors the bold.
-Penguin
To get to the closest star would take billions of years, the moon a few days. Not very likely.
-
Fortune favors the bold.
-Penguin
In fairy tales, perhaps.
-
I remember when the milk delivery service went out of business. Sadly all things come to an end although for some reason my mom was really depressed for some time.
-
I remember when the milk delivery service went out of business. Sadly all things come to an end although for some reason my mom was really depressed for some time.
:rofl
-
In fairy tales, perhaps.
No, in real life. If you don't try, you've already failed. My favorite example comes from D-Day:
"There are two kinds of people on this beach, people who are dead, and people who are going to die, now let's get off this beach!"
People grossly overestimate the cost of failure; if you enjoy working in the space industry, what is the harm in trying to become an astronaut?
-Penguin
-
Sorry I figured the price wouldn't be as high if none of the boosters were reused. but dang I had no idea! and I see how that works, but the parts blast away and burn up right? So none of it would be reusable or am I wrong?
The solid rocket boosters don't go high enough to attain orbit, they fall into the ocean, the casing is recovered and rebuilt by Thiokol. The external fuel tank goes higher, but still falls in the ocean, they break up on impact and cannot be reused.
The expensive part is the shuttle itself, even though it is reused, it takes tons of preparation and maintenance between each mission. It served it's purpose well, just wish something was coming down the pipe to replace it. Without it, there is nothing that can get massive stuff like Hubble and the ISS components into orbit.
In a related story Texans are ticked off they they aren't getting one of the shuttles, in spite of mission control in being in Houston.
-
The solid rocket boosters don't go high enough to attain orbit, they fall into the ocean, the casing is recovered and rebuilt by Thiokol. The external fuel tank goes higher, but still falls in the ocean, they break up on impact and cannot be reused.
The expensive part is the shuttle itself, even though it is reused, it takes tons of preparation and maintenance between each mission. It served it's purpose well, just wish something was coming down the pipe to replace it. Without it, there is nothing that can get massive stuff like Hubble and the ISS components into orbit.
In a related story Texans are ticked off they they aren't getting one of the shuttles, in spite of mission control in being in Houston.
I knew all of that, i've seen a few launches on you tube. and I used to be all about science and space when I was a kid, then I turned into a teen and slowly lost my smarts earlier last year. :cry
-
Just thought I would throw this in here: at the bottom of this article it mentions a new American space program apparently still being planned. Perhaps there is hope?
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13829782
-
That's amazing! :O
-Penguin
-
this may be a silly question but, why would they send it back into earth's atomosphere for destruction when the sun could do a much better job without impact on the earth?
-
The shuttles are being shipped to different places for display. Some of the places really make you scratch your head. Not one was sent to NASA Houston. lol
-
I'm sure people who worked for NASA will not have a hard time finding another job.
-
To get to the closest star would take billions of years
... if you made the journey by foot. with rest breaks.
-
I knew all of that, i've seen a few launches on you tube. and I used to be all about science and space when I was a kid, then I turned into a teen and slowly lost my smarts earlier last year. :cry
:lol
If you "knew all that" then why did you ask if the SRBs and fuel tank burned up?? :headscratch:
-
this may be a silly question but, why would they send it back into earth's atomosphere for destruction when the sun could do a much better job without impact on the earth?
It always seems simple, but there is a great deal involved in shooting something off anywhere. Planning, timing, fuel management- it's very difficult to do, especially with the limited amount of time and money that NASA has. Sending into Earth's atmosphere is also a great PR move for drumming up new funds, since there's nothing that gets people to agree with you faster than a fireworks display.
-Penguin
-
this may be a silly question but, why would they send it back into earth's atomosphere for destruction when the sun could do a much better job without impact on the earth?
You're right. That is a silly question. :P
The shuttle doesn't carry enough fuel to lift the fuel tank, or SRBs into orbit, let alone break earths gravity. I don't think the shuttle could escape earth orbit, even if it wanted to, the highest it's ever gone is to place and work on Hubble, about 400 miles up, it's normal orbit is about 200 miles up where the ISS is. Think about the Saturn V, it had something like 1.5 million pounds more thrust then the shuttle, and it only needed to get a tiny orbiter, and LEM out of earths gravity, the shuttle would have to be much more powerful to do it. Maybe, with a little extra boost they could get the fuel tank into orbit... but then what, it's just a giant orbiting piece of space FOD, and if it's orbit decays who knows where flaming chunks of it will come down.
-
Just thought I would throw this in here: at the bottom of this article it mentions a new American space program apparently still being planned. Perhaps there is hope?
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13829782
Now I'm confused. :headscratch: It mentioned the multi-purpose crew vehicle, which I think is part of the Orion vehicle, which was part of the Constellation program, which was cancelled by the President over a year ago. :headscratch:
It seems like the BBC missed the memo. Or perhaps I missed some recent news, maybe they are going to fund Orion, but not the rest of Constellation. :headscratch:
I'll have to ask a guy I know who works at Thiokol, next time I see him.
-
I am. Ever since I was little, I had worked to become an astronaut. Now I don't know what I'll do. I guess I'll have to find a job in the private space industry. I hope that the manned space program will return soon.
-Penguin
You didn't plan your career very well if this "news" which isn't news at all you didn't see coming. It hasn't been a secret and it's been known for years that the Shuttle will cease to be. In fact Atlantis got one more "final launch" than originally planned which is the July 2011 launch otherwise Endeavour would have been the last.
-
Ahhhh... Wikipedia to the rescue, I dun figgered it out.
Apparently I missed the news and announcement last month about this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi_Purpose_Crew_Vehicle
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2011-05-24-nasa-orion-capsule_n.htm
Basically, they ARE going to build a new crew vehicle based off the work done so far on Orion, called the Mulit-Purpose-Crew-Vehicle (what an inspiring name). Just NOT the rest of the Constellation program. So when/if they actually build this, we'll be able to get crew into space, but nothing else... seems kinda odd. :huh
-
Sorry I figured the price wouldn't be as high if none of the boosters were reused. but dang I had no idea! and I see how that works, but the parts blast away and burn up right? So none of it would be reusable or am I wrong?
To get to the closest star would take billions of years, the moon a few days. Not very likely.
"if I shoot for the moon, even if I miss, I'll land among the stars"
is a Verse from Eminems song space bound.
-
:lol
If you "knew all that" then why did you ask if the SRBs and fuel tank burned up?? :headscratch:
The SRB's don't burn up i knew that, they parachute to the ocean and are picked up but the fuel tank burns up. To me its simple logic. I guess I just stopped caring about being smart. Whats the point of it if people cheat off of you and become successful off your work? I always get put next to the dumbest kids at my school and they always cheat off of me, and if I cover my answers they start bugging me or say crap about me.
-
It always seems simple, but there is a great deal involved in shooting something off anywhere. Planning, timing, fuel management- it's very difficult to do, especially with the limited amount of time and money that NASA has. Sending into Earth's atmosphere is also a great PR move for drumming up new funds, since there's nothing that gets people to agree with you faster than a fireworks display.
-Penguin
sorry, i was talking about the information in the bbc article serenity posted the link to.
bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13829782 (http://bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13829782)
it's not nasa's project and it's an automatic unmanned space vehicle, evidently designed to be disposable. sending it into the earth's atmosphere for destruction doesn't seem nearly as effective as sending it toward the sun would be, a lot less destructive to the earth at least.
-
I am. Ever since I was little, I had worked to become an astronaut. Now I don't know what I'll do. I guess I'll have to find a job in the private space industry. I hope that the manned space program will return soon.
-Penguin
I don't know you, but I'd bet the future Astronauts are not spending as much time on a video game message board.
-
I don't know you, but I'd bet the future Astronauts are not spending as much time on a video game message board.
when i was jobshadowing Apache pilots at fort knox back in 06. one of the first things a pilot asked me was "do you play alot of video games?"
i told him yes. and he told me that the best pilots are usually the kids who played alot of videogames in there youth.
-
Just a point of order:
The US human space programme is not 'dead', by any definition of the word. The way I see it, there are effectively two 'parts' of it now, rather than just one. Firstly, there's the more-or-less new commercial side - for example SpaceX, and SpaceDev (just to name two - here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_private_spaceflight_companies) a bigger list). There's been a lot of talk about this, but so far it seems to be going well, IMO. Secondly, you have what NASA's doing: there's the ever-present ISS - which is just casually lurking around 200 miles above the planet at about 17,000 mph at the moment - and then there are their rockets, which quite frankly confuse the hell out of me, since I haven't been following what's happening with them.
At any rate, it does suck that the Space Shuttles are being retired, and NASA itself won't have any new vehicles for a few years, but I'd be extremely surprised if they don't get something else (ok, it won't be as cool as the Shuttle - but it'll probably do whatever it's designed to do very well) in the near future.
The shuttles are being shipped to different places for display. Some of the places really make you scratch your head. Not one was sent to NASA Houston. lol
IMO, I don't think Houston particularly deserved one - just look at what they allowed to happen with their Saturn V (http://www.collectspace.com/news/news-030104a.html#030104). That is a fairly thin argument to not give them one (and just giving them two seats, IIRC, seems a bit stingy to say the least), but I have to say I can't disagree with any of the other places: Florida - of course, Air and Space Museum - of course, NYC - hard to say, but it is a massive tourist attraction, so it does make sense to have one there*, and LA - they were built nearby and it is sensible to have one on the West Coast.
*However, they are relocating Concorde to make room for it, which is a big no-no in my books. Nothing moves out of the way for Concorde. :old:
-
NYC lol oh yes lots of folks go to NY to see space memorabilia. :rofl
-
when i was jobshadowing Apache pilots at fort knox back in 06. one of the first things a pilot asked me was "do you play alot of video games?"
i told him yes. and he told me that the best pilots are usually the kids who played alot of videogames in there youth.
Yes, but you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said "video game message board," not "video games."
The video gaming aspect has been proven to be beneficial.
-
Yes, but you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said "video game message board," not "video games."
The video gaming aspect has been proven to be beneficial.
so is hanging out on the video game message board...look what you have taught him already :lol
pay attention tyrannis
-
Yes, but you didn't comprehend what I wrote. I said "video game message board," not "video games."
The video gaming aspect has been proven to be beneficial.
no, i easily comprehended what you ment, but the 2 go hand in hand.
if your on the game's forum then youve usually ether play the game, or have played the game.
(there are of course exceptions to this rule)
-
this may be a silly question but, why would they send it back into earth's atomosphere for destruction when the sun could do a much better job without impact on the earth?
Cause fuel is not free. Not mention they would need to aim it at the sun and use some kind of a booster to send it that way. Easier and cheaper to just let it (or parts of it) fall into the ocean.
-
no, i easily comprehended what you ment, but the 2 go hand in hand.
if your on the game's forum then youve usually ether play the game, or have played the game.
(there are of course exceptions to this rule)
I'll disagree with you here.
If ranking is indicative of active players in AH right now, there are over 3,000. I'd guess there are only 300 to 400 that post regularly on the forum. The other 2,600 or so may not care about a discussion board at all.
If the ranking isn't an indicator of actual subscriptions, then the point I'm trying to make is moot for AH.
But the real point I was trying to subtly make was in regards to the amount of time spent on the message board which is not spent actively working towards the goal of becoming an Astronaut.
We can discuss this in PMs if you'd like to understand my position on this. No need to derail the actual thread.
-
Cause fuel is not free. Not mention they would need to aim it at the sun and use some kind of a booster to send it that way. Easier and cheaper to just let it (or parts of it) fall into the ocean.
it won't just "fall" into the earth's atmosphere. obviously you didn't read the article, it's a disposable vehicle, whatever main engine fuel that isn't used for space missions is used for accelerated re-entry and destroyed with the vehicle and the garbage it contains. that fuel could be used to set a trajectory toward the sun instead.
-
it won't just "fall" into the earth's atmosphere. obviously you didn't read the article, it's a disposable vehicle, whatever main engine fuel that isn't used for space missions is used for accelerated re-entry and destroyed with the vehicle and the garbage it contains. that fuel could be used to set a trajectory toward the sun instead.
The booster would require more fuel then it can carry to get it out of earths Gravity field which is fairly strong and wide. Either way it would fall back to earth eventually with no fuel to aim it or however they aim them towards the ocean.
-
Dreaming to be in the Air force is enough for me :airplane:
-
it won't just "fall" into the earth's atmosphere. obviously you didn't read the article, it's a disposable vehicle, whatever main engine fuel that isn't used for space missions is used for accelerated re-entry and destroyed with the vehicle and the garbage it contains. that fuel could be used to set a trajectory toward the sun instead.
you need to take in the distance from earth to the sun.
the time of the year.
and the alignment of the planets.
dont forget there are 2 planets in between the earth&the sun.
and if you send send it at the sun, its likely it could slam into one of those 2 planets instead. and we dont want to start littering other planets.
so boosters would be needed to steer it to the sun, a trip from earth to the sun is ALOT longer than a trip from earth to the moon. it would need constant supervision as well on its trip to make sure it didnt get sucked into venus or mercurys gravitational pull on its journey. which would take up extra manpower to supervise it.
or, you can send it back to earth, destroy it here, or maybe even recycle parts.
which sounds like the easiest of the two to do?
-
it won't just "fall" into the earth's atmosphere. obviously you didn't read the article, it's a disposable vehicle, whatever main engine fuel that isn't used for space missions is used for accelerated re-entry and destroyed with the vehicle and the garbage it contains. that fuel could be used to set a trajectory toward the sun instead.
The ATV is currently moving at about 8 km/s. The escape velocity of the Earth is about 11 km/s. So you'd need enough fuel to increase the ATV's velocity by about 3 km/s to get it out of Earth's gravitational field. And then you'd need some more fuel to put it on a path which a few years later would take it into the Sun. By contrast, you need to decrease it's velocity by about 70 m/s for it to reenter a few hours later.
And if you were really, really determined to chuck it into the Sun, you'd need to launch another rocket carrying an upper stage, which would then rendezvous with the ATV and take it away.
dont forget there are 2 planets in between the earth&the sun.
and if you send send it at the sun, its likely it could slam into one of those 2 planets instead. and we dont want to start littering other planets.
so boosters would be needed to steer it to the sun, a trip from earth to the sun is ALOT longer than a trip from earth to the moon. it would need constant supervision as well on its trip to make sure it didnt get sucked into venus or mercurys gravitational pull on its journey. which would take up extra manpower to supervise it.
or, you can send it back to earth, destroy it here, or maybe even recycle parts.
which sounds like the easiest of the two to do?
Space is a very, very, very, very big place, and planets are very, very small compared to it ;) The chances of you smacking into another planet are probably near to zero, if you left orbit at a random time. Also, once you'd set it on it's final course, you wouldn't need to keep an eye on it at all - the Sun's gravity will do that for you. Not much of the ATV will survive to the Earth's surface - there's one part with some instruments that will hit the ocean, but that'll just sink. Same goes for the thrusters, since they're meant to withstand high temperatures anyway. So anything that does survive will be in an unknown location at the bottom of the Pacific...not exactly the easiest stuff to find :)
-
you need to take in the distance from earth to the sun.
the time of the year.
and the alignment of the planets.
dont forget there are 2 planets in between the earth&the sun.
and if you send send it at the sun, its likely it could slam into one of those 2 planets instead. and we dont want to start littering other planets.
so boosters would be needed to steer it to the sun, a trip from earth to the sun is ALOT longer than a trip from earth to the moon. it would need constant supervision as well on its trip to make sure it didnt get sucked into venus or mercurys gravitational pull on its journey. which would take up extra manpower to supervise it.
Actually, Mercury has no gravity. That is why it has no atmosphere.
-
^ :lol
-
it won't just "fall" into the earth's atmosphere. obviously you didn't read the article, it's a disposable vehicle, whatever main engine fuel that isn't used for space missions is used for accelerated re-entry and destroyed with the vehicle and the garbage it contains. that fuel could be used to set a trajectory toward the sun instead.
Did I say fall in the earths atmosphere? Instead of worrying about me reading an article try reading a couple of lines in a post. As the kid explained to you, not only it would need more fuel it would also need an engine (adding to take off weight, which would add to fuel costs). An for what reason? It breaks up in the atmosphere and what ever is left falls in the ocean. As you said, it was silly question :noid
-
Actually, Mercury has no gravity. That is why it has no atmosphere.
The girls must be hot there since they could never gain weight :old:
-
Actually, Mercury has no gravity. That is why it has no atmosphere.
Everything has gravity. The reason Mercury does not have an atmosphere is because the gravity is too weak to retain one.
-
Everything has gravity. The reason Mercury does not have an atmosphere is because the gravity is too weak to retain one.
That and how close it is too the sun.
-
That and how close it is too the sun.
Well yeah, that too. :lol
-
Everything has gravity. The reason Mercury does not have an atmosphere is because the gravity is too weak to retain one.
OK, so it's not completely without suckage, but at least it has less suckage than I do. Maybe. :headscratch:
-
Really theres nothing left 4 the space shuttle to do other than go back and forth to the ISS. We've been to the moon already. We cant just go anywhere for no aparent reason.
-
Really theres nothing left 4 the space shuttle to do other than go back and forth to the ISS. We've been to the moon already. We cant just go anywhere for no aparent reason.
There's a lot more to do on the Moon than what we've done there already. A colony at some point in the future would be a good idea.
-
Good riddance I say. :aok
I'm sick and tired of gazillions of tax dollars being spent just so we can have a reusable vehicle and it's crew do laps around the Earth.
I'd rather spend money on actually going places and more space telescopes.
-
Good riddance I say. :aok
I'm sick and tired of gazillions of tax dollars being spent just so we can have a reusable vehicle and it's crew do laps around the Earth.
I'd rather spend money on actually going places and more space telescopes.
You better be joking, or that is the most ignorant quote ever...
-
Not joking.
It was a groundbreaking project but I'd rather not continue to support the shuttle program. I don't see enough continuing benefits to justify the massive cost. :bolt:
-
I don't know you, but I'd bet the future Astronauts are not spending as much time on a video game message board.
Shhhhhnap............ :)
-
You better be joking, or that is the most ignorant quote ever...
+1
Yea all we've achieved from those "laps around earth" is libraries full of scientific research. The greatest telescope ever constructed -Hubble- from which we have learned more about the origins of the universe in the last 15 years then all of human history up to that point. An international space station that will continue to do groundbreaking research for decades to come. And much, much greater understanding of human physiology in zero G, that will help us in all future manned space missions to the moon, Mars and wherever.
"Laps around earth" indeed. :rolleyes:
-
Sorry I figured the price wouldn't be as high if none of the boosters were reused. but dang I had no idea! and I see how that works, but the parts blast away and burn up right? So none of it would be reusable or am I wrong?
To get to the closest star would take billions of years, the moon a few days. Not very likely.
Not exactly.. With today's technology, we could send a spacecraft/probe to Proxima Centauri using nuclear propulsion to travel the 4 lightyears in around 80 years..
However, conventional rockets would take about 80,000 years.. Not quite billions.. :)
I don't doubt that we'll have astronauts on Mars, back on the Moon and maybe a few asteroids by the time this guy grows up..
Keep those dreams up! Excel in Math, Science, Physics and Chemistry! Do the best you possibly can in school.. There's entire path you need to set up to become a pilot/astronaut.. Don't be bothered by those that ridicule you..
-
Positive news about NASA:
(http://www.csmonitor.com/var/ezflow_site/storage/images/media/images/0615-nasa-voyager-doldrums.jpg/10328828-1-eng-US/0615-NASA-Voyager-doldrums.JPG_full_600.jpg)
Voyager 1 is now so far out that could break free of our solar system by the end of next year.
here's the article: http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2011/0615/Voyager-1-encounters-the-unexpected-at-edge-of-the-solar-system
-
Not exactly.. With today's technology, we could send a spacecraft/probe to Proxima Centauri using nuclear propulsion to travel the 4 lightyears in around 80 years..
However, conventional rockets would take about 80,000 years.. Not quite billions.. :)
I don't doubt that we'll have astronauts on Mars, back on the Moon and maybe a few asteroids by the time this guy grows up..
Keep those dreams up! Excel in Math, Science, Physics and Chemistry! Do the best you possibly can in school.. There's entire path you need to set up to become a pilot/astronaut.. Don't be bothered by those that ridicule you..
the NASA is claiming they plan on having a man on Mars by 2030. :O
-
the NASA is claiming they plan on having a man on Mars by 2030. :O
We shall see.....
-
the NASA is claiming they plan on having a man on Mars by 2030. :O
Did they say anything about bringing him back? :lol
-
Did they say anything about bringing him back? :lol
It may be snide, but dedalos has a point. Given the way the planets rotate, we have three options:
- Option 1: Send a team to Mars for six days, and then send them back quickly so as not to miss the return opportunity. This is the cheapest and safest option, since a minimum of time will be spent on the Martian suface. However, its opportunities for scientific research are the most limited.
- Option 2: Send a team to Mars for a long, but not indefinite time, after which the planets will have reset and a return trip will be possible. This option will allow for a mix of safety and research, as it will allow the astronauts enough time to perform larger-scale experiments, while still allowing them to return home.
- Option 3: Colonize Mars. This is by far the most expensive, dangerous and time-consuming option, because over 500 people (250 men and 250 women) would have to go in rapid succession in order to prevent inbreeding. However, its opportunities for both scientific research and economic benefit are practically unlimited.
None of these is perfect, but if we are to make a cosmic omlet, we're going to have to crack a few eggs.
-Penguin
-
Option 3: Colonize Mars. This is by far the most expensive, dangerous and time-consuming option, because over 500 people (250 men and 250 women) would have to go in rapid succession in order to prevent inbreeding. However, its opportunities for both scientific research and economic benefit are practically unlimited.
since we dont have any problem freezing embryos, inbreeding would not be a problem, as we could just take a large and diverse genetic stock with us. by the time we have the technology to economically colonise ET planets, we should be able to raise proper test-tube babies, so we could even do without the small army of surrogate mums needed to propagate the embryos.
however, my guess is there would be problems with embryo development on ET planets because we havent evolved under their conditions, so for our local planets just sending at least adolescent age colonists would be the best solution. gravity would be the major problem for Mars, different radiation spectra might also have unexpected effects.
Also remember that someone who has grown up on Mars will never be able to visit earth, and for long term colonists it would also be a one-way trip.
-
since we dont have any problem freezing embryos, inbreeding would not be a problem, as we could just take a large and diverse genetic stock with us. by the time we have the technology to economically colonise ET planets, we should be able to raise proper test-tube babies, so we could even do without the small army of surrogate mums needed to propagate the embryos.
however, my guess is there would be problems with embryo development on ET planets because we havent evolved under their conditions, so for our local planets just sending at least adolescent age colonists would be the best solution. gravity would be the major problem for Mars, different radiation spectra might also have unexpected effects.
Also remember that someone who has grown up on Mars will never be able to visit earth, and for long term colonists it would also be a one-way trip.
We can freeze embryos? I learn something new every day. :O
However, wouldn't a year in space take its toll on them?
-Penguin
-
well the question is: is there any resources on mars to warrent colonization?
i would rather not have my taxdollars going to some colony on another planet that doesnt produce anything useful for our own.
-
On the contrary, Mars has abundant mineral resources, and mining there also wouldn't upset greenies like myself, since there isn't any ecosystem to disrupt. Furthermore, with or without terraforming it would create another 'Wild Wild West' for us expand into.
-Penguin
-
We can freeze embryos? I learn something new every day. :O
yup, there are people alive today who were born from sperm or embryos frozen for over 10yrs. another few years and we should be able to preserve them almost indefinitely.
However, wouldn't a year in space take its toll on them?
good question :) travelling outside our magnotosphere takes its toll on humans of any age. difference is that a freezer with 10,000 embryos is alot easier and cheaper to shield from radiation than 10,000 fully grown humans.
-
yup, there are people alive today who were born from sperm or embryos frozen for over 10yrs. another few years and we should be able to preserve them almost indefinitely.
Not to mention the people who are Cryogenically frozen, for now we don't know how to revive them, but soon we will have the technology.
-
All I know is that When the moon is in the seventh house
And Jupiter aligns with Mars
Then peace will guide the planets
And love will steer the stars
This is the dawning of the age of Aquarius
-
Not to mention the people who are Cryogenically frozen, for now we don't know how to revive them, but soon we will have the technology.
We dont have the tech to freeze whole people properly yet, let alone revive them.
anyone who is in cryogenic containment at this stage is sadly just a frozen dead guy :(
-
yup, there are people alive today who were born from sperm or embryos frozen for over 10yrs. another few years and we should be able to preserve them almost indefinitely.
good question :) travelling outside our magnotosphere takes its toll on humans of any age. difference is that a freezer with 10,000 embryos is alot easier and cheaper to shield from radiation than 10,000 fully grown humans.
So now the only problem would be unfreezing the embryos and implanting them, then rearing them. My only question is one of morals: wouldn't allowing people to pick and choose what their child looks like be just like Nazism all over again?
-Penguin
-
I didnt mention anything about selection/screening, no need to confuse this with ethics. its just about what is technically feasible.
-
Ah, my mistake. :)
-Penguin
-
Option 3: Colonize Mars. This is by far the most expensive, dangerous and time-consuming option, because over 500 people (250 men and 250 women) would have to go in rapid succession in order to prevent inbreeding. However, its opportunities for both scientific research and economic benefit are practically unlimited.
Penguin,
You do not need to send 250 men with 250 women over there. All you need is 250 women, a few cases of beer, and one guy in a pick up truck.
Much cheaper and also makes earth a little quieter :old:
-
... and also makes earth a little quieter :old:
:lol :aok
-
Keep an eye on SpaceX in the coming years. They've already made superb advances.
-
We dont have the tech to freeze whole people properly yet, let alone revive them.
anyone who is in cryogenic containment at this stage is sadly just a frozen dead guy :(
Not true, they expose the bodies to slow cold and use liquids to prevent cells from forming spikes when they freeze and thus reduce damage and prevent the body from decaying. Babe Ruth is frozen did ya know?
-
Not true, they expose the bodies to slow cold and use liquids to prevent cells from forming spikes when they freeze and thus reduce damage and prevent the body from decaying. Babe Ruth is frozen did ya know?
It's kind of hard to say you've properly froze a guy when no one has been unfrozen yet.
-
On the contrary, Mars has abundant mineral resources, and mining there also wouldn't upset greenies like myself, since there isn't any ecosystem to disrupt. Furthermore, with or without terraforming it would create another 'Wild Wild West' for us expand into.
-Penguin
We don't need to Terraform Mars, the colonists can all survive on those new Japanese Poopsicles :lol
Even better, you wouldn't even need a fridge, just keep em outdoors :aok
-
It's kind of hard to say you've properly froze a guy when no one has been unfrozen yet.
That reminds me of the sign the Parachute Riggers shop used to have "We've never had anyone come back claiming
a bad chute yet!" :D
-
"If you're not present say I!"
-
It's kind of hard to say you've properly froze a guy when no one has been unfrozen yet.
At the moment we have no way to revive them, the idea is freeze em until the technology to start them up again is discovered. Like I said they aren't just thrown in the freezer they are slowely frozen and pumped with liquids to do something.
In simple terms its avoiding frostbite which happens when cells freeze and form spikes on the outside(being frozen) and puncture holes in places holes don't belong and once melted the damage is done and can't be healed or un done, this I think happens with rapid freezing. But they make sure that damage isn't done by slowly chilling them and preventing the spikes from forming (Do not ask me how I just have read a few article's and made a few for school and saw something about it on the science channel.) If you don't believe me search it.
-
At the moment we have no way to revive them, the idea is freeze em until the technology to start them up again is discovered. Like I said they aren't just thrown in the freezer they are slowely frozen and pumped with liquids to do something.
In simple terms its avoiding frostbite which happens when cells freeze and form spikes on the outside(being frozen) and puncture holes in places holes don't belong and once melted the damage is done and can't be healed or un done, this I think happens with rapid freezing. But they make sure that damage isn't done by slowly chilling them and preventing the spikes from forming (Do not ask me how I just have read a few article's and made a few for school and saw something about it on the science channel.) If you don't believe me search it.
That's all good and fancy, but it still doesn't really mean anything until you're actually back up and moving around.
-
That's all good and fancy, but it still doesn't really mean anything until you're actually back up and moving around.
Which is completely possible, due to the freezing process you loose no muscle tissue and so walking after would be possible, brain would probably be dead but hell in 10-20 years you can't possibly imagine where we will be at. Being able to recreate brain cells would provide relief to car accident victims and people with dramatic head injuries or people who are paralyzed. All of this can be applied to the body to bring it back to life. The possibility of un freezing people who have been dead for 30-40 years could be just a few years ahead if not sooner. The problem is just restarting the organs and such without the body decaying, but like I said hope to the future is all thats needed now.
-
My father is an engineer with 30 years of experience, works as a maintenance technician. I've seen professors working as janitors. Perhaps its time to acknowledge foreign coledge diplomas as equal as USA's. Could be beneficial:)
-
Which is completely possible, due to the freezing process you loose no muscle tissue and so walking after would be possible, brain would probably be dead but hell in 10-20 years you can't possibly imagine where we will be at. Being able to recreate brain cells would provide relief to car accident victims and people with dramatic head injuries or people who are paralyzed. All of this can be applied to the body to bring it back to life. The possibility of un freezing people who have been dead for 30-40 years could be just a few years ahead if not sooner. The problem is just restarting the organs and such without the body decaying, but like I said hope to the future is all thats needed now.
Keep thinking big, make all A's, and do it.
-
Keep thinking big, make all A's, and do it.
I've made a B-C average my whole life, the shameful part is Everyone knows I can make straight A's if I tried, but there's mental barriers of which can't be over come. :(
-
I've made a B-C average my whole life, the shameful part is Everyone knows I can make straight A's if I tried, but there's mental barriers of which can't be over come. :(
:huh :rofl
-
My father is an engineer with 30 years of experience, works as a maintenance technician. I've seen professors working as janitors. Perhaps its time to acknowledge foreign coledge diplomas as equal as USA's. Could be beneficial:)
:lol Trust me, they are not equal!
-
I pretty much agree with this guy on the importance of exploration:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/2482-Once-Upon-a-Time-in-The-Future
-
I was testing cars at kennedy space center's shuttle landing runway this week was able to see much more of what goes on there than I ever expected.
I think the government is making a huge mistake taking apart an already functional infrastructure and putting obstacles (sometimes just not allowing at all) the facility to embrace commercial alternatives to the government contracts that keep them busy.
There are many industries that can benefit from what NASA has assembled there that would negate the need for any government funding at all............if the powers that be actually allowed access to the amazing technology and the fact that there is a dense concentration of very skilled people in one small area.
While I was there, I saw none of the waste I have seen at other goverment controlled facilities but quite the opposite in that I saw old technology skillfully maintained far beyond it's expected life span and creative alternative uses of materials that are no longer needed for thier original purpose.
If anything, the government should use this facility as an example to show other wasteful agencies how to reach the same level of efficiency and stop the wasting.........which would free up more than enough funds to keep Kennedy Space Center running.
History has shown over and over that the government cancels projects only to have a need arise for exactly what they had canceled causing a scramble as they spend 10 times the money of the original canceled project budget and end up with a substantially lower return on the investment.
That said, it was fun booming fast cars down the runway and getting visits by many of the higher managers (and other employees) there who are dedicated to high performance vehicles whether space driven or the 4 wheeled variety.
Kennedy Space Center and the other facilities/contractors are a fighting force of extraordinary magnitude.....they have our gratitude.
-
:huh :rofl
Really :huh
-
Really :huh
You're a smart guy I dont believe you.
-
:rofl
-
but hell in 10-20 years you can't possibly imagine where we will be at.
Hopefully by that time, people will no longer be saying things like "where we will be at". :bhead
-
You're a smart guy I dont believe you.
I like to think so sometimes, but my report cards show different.
Hopefully by that time, people will no longer be saying things like "where we will be at". :bhead
Cause we will all probably be dead by then. If man hasn't killed himself or the world hasn't ended for unstoppable reasons.
-
Again :rofl
-
I like to think so sometimes, but my report cards show different.
Well I think it's an effort thing because I know you to be smarter than that.
-
Well I think it's an effort thing because I know you to be smarter than that.
Its mainly stress.