-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
NASA grounds shuttle fleet
- Thread starter ManaByte
- Start date
- Status
MrAngryFace
Banned
THAT ABOUT WRAPS IT UP FOR SPACE BEING INTERESTING IN MY LIFETIME!
Spastic Colon
Member
To the rescue!
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Us fleet = civilian space endeavors?
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Duct tape, NASA!
Squirrel Killer
Member
Too bad the shuttle is about the least interesting thing about space. Except when it blows up. It's like NASCAR that way.MrAngryFace said:
Aruarian Reflection
Chauffeur de la gdlk
The interesting thing is that, for all we know, foam could have been breaking off in every single space shuttle launch prior to this one. It's only with the new system of cameras they set up this time that they've been able to actually see that happen.
Spastic Colon
Member
whytemyke said:
Yeah...In all the hoopla, never actually heard what exactly this shuttle mission was supposed to accomplish.
Spastic Colon
Member
Ok, now what are the objectives of the people they're bringing supplies and equipment to?
Squirrel Killer
Member
Am I serious about the shuttle not being interesting? Most definitely. It's "Been There, Done That" at a half a billion to a billion and a half a pop.Desperado said:
Am I serious that it's only exciting when it blows up? Of course not. It's a joke, people, laugh. Thank goddness I didn't ask what color Christa McAuliffe's eyes were. ("Blue" for those that want to know, you'll have to finish the joke yourself given the delicate sensibilities of fellow GAFers. But here's a hint... What's a homonym for "blue"...)
Am I serious when I say that NASCAR is only exciting when it blows up? Well, who am I to disagree with a million rednecks who rebel yell "Hell yeah!"
Aruarian Reflection
Chauffeur de la gdlk
Spastic Colon said:
* rolleyes *
Silent Death
lemme get one or two licks
The shuttle is superfluous. The Russians built 3 space stations and kept them running without one. It's a lot cheaper and less likely to fail using rockets, the Shuttle is just too damn complicated to get back and then service afterwards. The shuttle has been a big waste of money and resources that should have got to building planning a space station in the 70a/early 80s.
For what it's worth, the Nasa guy at the briefing said, "It could be a month, it could be three months" when asked about not launching until the tile problem is fixed. So calling the fleet "grounded" is really kinda like saying you wont drive your car until you change your flat tire.
Phoenix
Member
Spastic Colon said:
To the rescue!
When they build ships that can get us up to the space station and back, then we can have that discussion. Right now they are to low, too slow, and can't reenter earths atmosphere so they are a novelty compared to the shuttle.
Silent Death said:
Rockets blow up on and off the pad all the time. They fail to make orbit all the time. They also fail to be able to perform some of the missions that the shuttle has performed which is the primary reason the shuttle has a bay in the first place. The shuttle has been a success - the problem now is that its old and dated and needs to be replaced.
Silent Death said:
Uh, okay?
Phoenix said:
Rockets blow up on and off the pad all the time. They fail to make orbit all the time. They also fail to be able to perform some of the missions that the shuttle has performed which is the primary reason the shuttle has a bay in the first place. The shuttle has been a success - the problem now is that its old and dated and needs to be replaced.
Sigh
andthebeatgoeson
Junior Member
ckohler said:
Except, they just sent one of those overpriced SUVs into orbit with, apparently, irony waiting to give it a flat tire at 21,000 MPH on re-entry. Will I be waking up on another sunday to Pick-Up-Astronauts-Across-America?
Phoenix
Member
heavenly said:
Its a big lab in space for doing experiments that can only be done.... in space
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2005/return.to.flight/
Flash movie on the right with the space station on it, click on it.
Ultimate cocktease. Damn you Discovery Channel. :xManaByte said:
Sigh
That said, it's good they're grounding this piece of shit. Honestly, the shuttle is an outdated piece of hardware. I'd rather the money go to education, but if they're gonna continue funding NASA, it's time to start ramping up the next-gen of shuttle development. That fucking thing's been in development for over a decade, and we've got jackshit right now. Private industry woulda been at fucking Pluto by now with the kind of funding NASA gets. I know that's hyperbole, but you get my point. NASA is a cash sink. And the backpatting needs to end sometimes. They ain't doing shit. PEACE.
happyfunball
Member
ManaByte said:
Sigh
What a badass looking machine...damn. So they got rid of scramjet designs?
dskillzhtown
keep your strippers out of my American football
Any new space vehicles on the drawing board? I mean, NASA was thinking of a near-term future replacement, right?
Phoenix
Member
Pimpwerx said:
Uh, no because see there is no business in going to space so no business is going to spend jack shit to go beyond launching satellites into orbit to overcharge you on XM Radio and Satellite TV so that point was sad and useless
Furthering our understanding of the solar system and planet on which we live... you're right, that's aint worth shit
You lose. Thank's for playing.
Phoenix
Member
dskillzhtown said:
There is ALWAYS new stuff on the drawing board. NASA has had designs for the replacement of the shuttle while they had the shuttle flying. The shuttle program was only supposed to last 10 years and the space plane was designed to replace that. The space plane has been scrapped and now they are looking at more small multi-config vehicles to fill the void.
lo escondido
Apartheid is, in fact, not institutional racism
Here a couple of proposals of the new CEV
Here's Lockheed's
And here's Boeing and Northrop Grumman's
Here's Lockheed's
And here's Boeing and Northrop Grumman's
Squirrel Killer
Member
Seeing as you said that I "suck", "really suck", I'm assuming I'm one of the aforementioned fucktards of which you speak. All over a little joke. A joke which highlighted the fundemental uninterestingness of the science being performed on the shuttle/ISS, which is a basic truth of the shuttle program that even supporters will occassionally admit to. Something tells me you need to untwist your panties.ManaByte said:
(No smiley 'cause Mana's mad as hell and he isn't gonna take it anymore.)
happyfunball
Member
ApopkaATM said:Here a couple of proposals of the new CEV
Here's Lockheed's
And here's Boeing and Northrop Grumman's
My Star Wars fantasies are CRUSHED!
Damn that scramjet was one sexy bitch, and it's replaced by these monstrosities.
Silent Death
lemme get one or two licks
Phoenix said:
Rockets blow up on and off the pad all the time. They fail to make orbit all the time. They also fail to be able to perform some of the missions that the shuttle has performed which is the primary reason the shuttle has a bay in the first place. The shuttle has been a success - the problem now is that its old and dated and needs to be replaced.
Dude your too smart for crap like this. Notice I said cheaper and less complicated. Yes rockets have failed, fail and will fail in the future, but the price of each failure is far cheaper than the loss of a space shuttle. The Russians have proven this time and time again. Most of the shuttles missions could have been completed using unmanned rockets that includes the Columbia and Challenger missions. No one needed to die on either one of those missions. The missions that absolutly had to have a people in space could have been completed using different methods.
Phoenix said:
Uh, okay?
Yeah and it served us well all the way through the 80s and 90s...oh wait. The point I was making was that we should have been constructing a permanent station during the 70s to the present not screwing around playing Star Wars with a ticking time bomb.
Phoenix
Member
Silent Death said:
Well considering that far more rockets have failed compared to the number of shuttles I think you'd be hard pressed (when considering the payloads that also went up in smoke) to say that one programs cheaper (and more often actually) failures were better than another one's failures.
Most of the missions that COULD be done without the shuttle WERE done without the shuttle by using 3rd party launching facilities to put the payloads into orbit the same way commercial entities do.
Unless you're arguing for NO people going into space your argument isn't sound. Astronauts have died in several rocket incidents as well. The Russians have learned these lessons as well, having lost far more than we have.
It served us well for the amount of time we planned for it to stay out there. But some of the lessons we learned about stellar effects on skylab drag resulted in it coming down sooner. We didn't have any plans to keep anything in orbit, neither did the Russians. The ISS is the first project either government had for a permenant establishment in space. But if you think the program is a failure, I doubt seriously if any rational discussion is going to change your mind.
the ancient space shuttles should have been replaced by no later than the early 1990s.
we're dealing with 1960s and 1970s technologies, even with the newest shuttle that was built, Endeavour, to replace the Challenger, which blew up in 1986.......
for FUCKS sake... the Shuttles are expensive flying coffins and should never go up again.
we should have had Lockheed's proposed single-stage-to-orbit X-33 / Venture Star, a replacement for the shuttle, a decade ago
the X-33 / Venture Star btw would've been a lot cheaper and more feasable than that X-30 / National Aerospace Plane (aka 'the Orient express') proposed by Reagan
we're dealing with 1960s and 1970s technologies, even with the newest shuttle that was built, Endeavour, to replace the Challenger, which blew up in 1986.......
for FUCKS sake... the Shuttles are expensive flying coffins and should never go up again.
we should have had Lockheed's proposed single-stage-to-orbit X-33 / Venture Star, a replacement for the shuttle, a decade ago
the X-33 / Venture Star btw would've been a lot cheaper and more feasable than that X-30 / National Aerospace Plane (aka 'the Orient express') proposed by Reagan
happyfunball
Member
xexex said:btw, almost forgot, since we're on the subject of the space shuttle, i wanted to show some pics of the Soviet shuttle, called 'Buran' from the late 1980s
have to click it.
this puppy made at least on flight, in 1988, if i recall.
Why does it look like somebody stole the Shuttle Building Book for Dummies from NASA?
- Status