Turns out Obama was right about the Space Program.

[Intense]

New spaceships should be safer than shuttle - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

NASA says private-sector spaceships will have to satisfy safety standards that the space shuttle can’t meet — and the companies building those spaceships say they'll rise to the challenge.

Over the past year, the White House and NASA decided to go with a different approach, with the space agency purchasing services from commercial spaceship ventures. NASA is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of cargo ships such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which passed its first flight test last month. If the spaceships work as advertised, commercial companies would be in line for billions of dollars worth of contracts.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters led risk analysts to estimate that flying the space shuttle carried a roughly 1-in-100 chance that the crew and the spaceship would be lost during a given mission. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA and the White House decided to retire the shuttle fleet and move on to a simpler, safer launch system.

Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences."

The space shuttle has no launch escape system. If it did, there might have been a chance of saving Challenger's crew.

Also, a pusher abort system on a reusable spacecraft would have to be positioned to minimize the risk of damage during re-entry. Despite those drawbacks, SpaceX and other companies (such as Boeing, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin) are hard at work designing pushers with NASA funding.

--------------------------------

The right wing goes on about "commercial companies being able to do it best". But when the development is moved to a commercial company, they whine.

Then the obvious split between the left and the non-scientific right. The right says, "Let's go to the moon" using existing technology. The logical question, which they can't seem to answer is, "Then what?"

Obama and the left says, let's develop technology that will allow us to go to Mars and beyond. The right says, "What's a Mar's?"

So what should the Government Privatize next RDean??? Amtrak??? Highways and Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels??? Welcome to Conservatism.

 

[rdean]

New spaceships should be safer than shuttle - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

NASA says private-sector spaceships will have to satisfy safety standards that the space shuttle can’t meet — and the companies building those spaceships say they'll rise to the challenge.

Over the past year, the White House and NASA decided to go with a different approach, with the space agency purchasing services from commercial spaceship ventures. NASA is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of cargo ships such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which passed its first flight test last month. If the spaceships work as advertised, commercial companies would be in line for billions of dollars worth of contracts.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters led risk analysts to estimate that flying the space shuttle carried a roughly 1-in-100 chance that the crew and the spaceship would be lost during a given mission. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA and the White House decided to retire the shuttle fleet and move on to a simpler, safer launch system.

Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences."

The space shuttle has no launch escape system. If it did, there might have been a chance of saving Challenger's crew.

Also, a pusher abort system on a reusable spacecraft would have to be positioned to minimize the risk of damage during re-entry. Despite those drawbacks, SpaceX and other companies (such as Boeing, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin) are hard at work designing pushers with NASA funding.

--------------------------------

The right wing goes on about "commercial companies being able to do it best". But when the development is moved to a commercial company, they whine.

Then the obvious split between the left and the non-scientific right. The right says, "Let's go to the moon" using existing technology. The logical question, which they can't seem to answer is, "Then what?"

Obama and the left says, let's develop technology that will allow us to go to Mars and beyond. The right says, "What's a Mar's?"

So what should the Government Privatize next RDean??? Amtrak??? Highways and Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels??? Welcome to Conservatism.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Conservatives are like Midas, only everything THEY touch turns to "shit". It's conservatives who have worked tirelessly to introduce "mysticism" into science, thereby undermining the importance of education with such phrases as a degree is merely a "piece of paper". Introducing the occult into public schools confuses children who should be seeking real knowledge. This is why the right wing southern states have such high drop out rates.

Instead of taking responsibility, which we can all agree, they will never do, they go on about, "but look at blacks in the inner city" as if that somehow excuses their own failings. Blacks in the inner city have more to overcome than right wing whites. Many blacks are in the mess they are in because of circumstances outside their control. Ignorant right wingers joyfully created their own mess. I'm sick of hearing that "leftist have corrupted science with their ideology". The same argument the right use about all their failed delusions.

 

[boedicca]

Considering that the Obama Administration thinks NASA exists to enhance Muslim Self-Esteem and to study the defects of GM competitors, the Obamanoids' assessment of private company capabilities is rather suspect.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Nasa should be absorbed into the DoD.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Sadly, if we only had kept going with even half of the Apollo budget, then, now, we would we texting each other from a base on Mars, or at least the Moon. Sad, really. And the development of FTL on our near horizon would then open up a world unimaginable at this time.

I am saddened at where we are at and thought when I first got involved with NASA that my fellow countrymen would see that space is the most important thing we could and can do. The off shoots of same alone are astounding. But the ability to plan for a back up Earth for all of us is essential.

Perhaps, if we hear first from someone else, that would change everything.

Just some thoughts. Welcome everyone's ideas as well.

Robert

The space program has been the single biggest contributor to mans well being on this planet by far. We are mired in debt yet if the government wanted to get us out of the mess the only possible way is by massive investment in a new space program. The wealth generated by that would pay off the national debt in a decade or so if it weren't pissed away first.

Amen!!! Awesome post. Thank you!!!

Robert

 

[boedicca]

We need to start building evacuation ships before the Big Meteor hits the earth in 2036.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

I support the continued exploration of space.

And just so long as the private companies pay for the technology that they are getting that was developed by pulbically funded NASA studies, I also support private enterprize in space.

But for the average man, the person whose ricebowl is not with NASA, it is certainly not demanding too much that our problems on earth are ALSO taken care of.

Sadly they're not.

NASA cost you, as a tax player, $.031 a week. Can you swing that?

Robert

 

[Trajan]

New spaceships should be safer than shuttle - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

NASA says private-sector spaceships will have to satisfy safety standards that the space shuttle can’t meet — and the companies building those spaceships say they'll rise to the challenge.

Over the past year, the White House and NASA decided to go with a different approach, with the space agency purchasing services from commercial spaceship ventures. NASA is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of cargo ships such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which passed its first flight test last month. If the spaceships work as advertised, commercial companies would be in line for billions of dollars worth of contracts.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters led risk analysts to estimate that flying the space shuttle carried a roughly 1-in-100 chance that the crew and the spaceship would be lost during a given mission. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA and the White House decided to retire the shuttle fleet and move on to a simpler, safer launch system.

Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences."

The space shuttle has no launch escape system. If it did, there might have been a chance of saving Challenger's crew.

Also, a pusher abort system on a reusable spacecraft would have to be positioned to minimize the risk of damage during re-entry. Despite those drawbacks, SpaceX and other companies (such as Boeing, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin) are hard at work designing pushers with NASA funding.

--------------------------------

The right wing goes on about "commercial companies being able to do it best". But when the development is moved to a commercial company, they whine.

Then the obvious split between the left and the non-scientific right. The right says, "Let's go to the moon" using existing technology. The logical question, which they can't seem to answer is, "Then what?"

Obama and the left says, let's develop technology that will allow us to go to Mars and beyond. The right says, "What's a Mar's?"

The shuttle program is scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2011, in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued in the Vision for Space Exploration. The shuttle's planned successor was to be Project Constellation with its Ares I and Ares V launch vehicles and the Orion Spacecraft; however, in early 2010 the Obama administration asked Congress to instead endorse a scaled-back plan with heavy reliance on the private sector.

Space Shuttle program - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Robert_Stephens]

As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is a shame to stop STS at this time. Endeavor, Atlantis, are new, basically, only 1/4 of their operating life used. Discovery, the old work horse, has 38 more flights till EoVP-- "End of Vehicle Program".

Sad waste of amazing technology. And still so much to do up there.

Robert

 

[Quantum Windbag]

New spaceships should be safer than shuttle - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

NASA says private-sector spaceships will have to satisfy safety standards that the space shuttle can’t meet — and the companies building those spaceships say they'll rise to the challenge.

Over the past year, the White House and NASA decided to go with a different approach, with the space agency purchasing services from commercial spaceship ventures. NASA is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of cargo ships such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which passed its first flight test last month. If the spaceships work as advertised, commercial companies would be in line for billions of dollars worth of contracts.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters led risk analysts to estimate that flying the space shuttle carried a roughly 1-in-100 chance that the crew and the spaceship would be lost during a given mission. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA and the White House decided to retire the shuttle fleet and move on to a simpler, safer launch system.

Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences."

The space shuttle has no launch escape system. If it did, there might have been a chance of saving Challenger's crew.

Also, a pusher abort system on a reusable spacecraft would have to be positioned to minimize the risk of damage during re-entry. Despite those drawbacks, SpaceX and other companies (such as Boeing, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin) are hard at work designing pushers with NASA funding.

--------------------------------

The right wing goes on about "commercial companies being able to do it best". But when the development is moved to a commercial company, they whine.

Then the obvious split between the left and the non-scientific right. The right says, "Let's go to the moon" using existing technology. The logical question, which they can't seem to answer is, "Then what?"

Obama and the left says, let's develop technology that will allow us to go to Mars and beyond. The right says, "What's a Mar's?"

So what should the Government Privatize next RDean??? Amtrak??? Highways and Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels??? Welcome to Conservatism.

I bet this goes right over his head.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Conservatives are like Midas, only everything THEY touch turns to "shit". It's conservatives who have worked tirelessly to introduce "mysticism" into science, thereby undermining the importance of education with such phrases as a degree is merely a "piece of paper". Introducing the occult into public schools confuses children who should be seeking real knowledge. This is why the right wing southern states have such high drop out rates.

Instead of taking responsibility, which we can all agree, they will never do, they go on about, "but look at blacks in the inner city" as if that somehow excuses their own failings. Blacks in the inner city have more to overcome than right wing whites. Many blacks are in the mess they are in because of circumstances outside their control. Ignorant right wingers joyfully created their own mess. I'm sick of hearing that "leftist have corrupted science with their ideology". The same argument the right use about all their failed delusions.

I love being right.

 

[DiveCon]

New spaceships should be safer than shuttle - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

NASA says private-sector spaceships will have to satisfy safety standards that the space shuttle can’t meet — and the companies building those spaceships say they'll rise to the challenge.

Over the past year, the White House and NASA decided to go with a different approach, with the space agency purchasing services from commercial spaceship ventures. NASA is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of cargo ships such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which passed its first flight test last month. If the spaceships work as advertised, commercial companies would be in line for billions of dollars worth of contracts.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters led risk analysts to estimate that flying the space shuttle carried a roughly 1-in-100 chance that the crew and the spaceship would be lost during a given mission. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA and the White House decided to retire the shuttle fleet and move on to a simpler, safer launch system.

Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences."

The space shuttle has no launch escape system. If it did, there might have been a chance of saving Challenger's crew.

Also, a pusher abort system on a reusable spacecraft would have to be positioned to minimize the risk of damage during re-entry. Despite those drawbacks, SpaceX and other companies (such as Boeing, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin) are hard at work designing pushers with NASA funding.

--------------------------------

The right wing goes on about "commercial companies being able to do it best". But when the development is moved to a commercial company, they whine.

Then the obvious split between the left and the non-scientific right. The right says, "Let's go to the moon" using existing technology. The logical question, which they can't seem to answer is, "Then what?"

Obama and the left says, let's develop technology that will allow us to go to Mars and beyond. The right says, "What's a Mar's?"

So what should the Government Privatize next RDean??? Amtrak??? Highways and Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels??? Welcome to Conservatism.

I bet this goes right over his head.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Conservatives are like Midas, only everything THEY touch turns to "shit". It's conservatives who have worked tirelessly to introduce "mysticism" into science, thereby undermining the importance of education with such phrases as a degree is merely a "piece of paper". Introducing the occult into public schools confuses children who should be seeking real knowledge. This is why the right wing southern states have such high drop out rates.

Instead of taking responsibility, which we can all agree, they will never do, they go on about, "but look at blacks in the inner city" as if that somehow excuses their own failings. Blacks in the inner city have more to overcome than right wing whites. Many blacks are in the mess they are in because of circumstances outside their control. Ignorant right wingers joyfully created their own mess. I'm sick of hearing that "leftist have corrupted science with their ideology". The same argument the right use about all their failed delusions.

I love being right.

hell, his link in the OP went over his head
his linked source said they were willing to meet the challenge, but he claimed they were whining

he's a clown

 

[DiveCon]

As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is a shame to stop STS at this time. Endeavor, Atlantis, are new, basically, only 1/4 of their operating life used. Discovery, the old work horse, has 38 more flights till EoVP-- "End of Vehicle Program".

Sad waste of amazing technology. And still so much to do up there.

Robert

just like when they scrapped the saturnV tech
it was the most powerful launch system ever created and they scrapped it

 

[Robert_Stephens]

As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is a shame to stop STS at this time. Endeavor, Atlantis, are new, basically, only 1/4 of their operating life used. Discovery, the old work horse, has 38 more flights till EoVP-- "End of Vehicle Program".

Sad waste of amazing technology. And still so much to do up there.

Robert

just like when they scrapped the saturnV tech
it was the most powerful launch system ever created and they scrapped it

Agreed. The only plus was STS- (Shuttle) was the world's first true space ship. Much more payload and so much cheaper as well.

Robert

 

[DiveCon]

As stated elsewhere in this thread, it is a shame to stop STS at this time. Endeavor, Atlantis, are new, basically, only 1/4 of their operating life used. Discovery, the old work horse, has 38 more flights till EoVP-- "End of Vehicle Program".

Sad waste of amazing technology. And still so much to do up there.

Robert

just like when they scrapped the saturnV tech
it was the most powerful launch system ever created and they scrapped it

Agreed. The only plus was STS- (Shuttle) was the world's first true space ship. Much more payload and so much cheaper as well.

Robert

the shuttle has more payload than a Saturn V?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

just like when they scrapped the saturnV tech
it was the most powerful launch system ever created and they scrapped it

Agreed. The only plus was STS- (Shuttle) was the world's first true space ship. Much more payload and so much cheaper as well.

Robert

the shuttle has more payload than a Saturn V?

Yes, Shuttle can carry upwards of 10 tons, Apollo-6 tons

Robert

 

[DiveCon]

Agreed. The only plus was STS- (Shuttle) was the world's first true space ship. Much more payload and so much cheaper as well.

Robert

the shuttle has more payload than a Saturn V?

Yes, Shuttle can carry upwards of 10 tons, Apollo-6 tons

Robert

i thought the Saturn V had a payload of 100,000 lbs(50 ton)?

 

[Robert_Stephens]

Payload vs. dry weight is different. Payload is actual cargo. Dry weight is vehicle, plus stowage.

Shuttle can carry, up to 25 tons of weight in its 15'x60' cargo bay. Depending how it is configured, it can carry more. It weights 100 tons empty, on the pad, before loading, less tank and both boosters. Columbia was the heaviest, Endeavor the lightest. A 6th orbiter was planned, Phoenix, and would have been the lightest at 94 tons, dry.

Apollo's 3rd stage could carry orbiter, lander, crew compartment and return module, for a weight of about 50 tons total, into Lunar Orbit from Earth, but could be configured heavier if need be, but never was.

These are the weights, gross, as deployed, not stacked.

Hope that is more helpful.

The lower numbers in the first post are strictly deliverable weight, on orbit.

 

[Robert_Stephens]

BTW- the Space Shuttles are named after famous sailing ships of exploration.

Robert

 

[rdean]

New spaceships should be safer than shuttle - Technology & science - Space - msnbc.com

NASA says private-sector spaceships will have to satisfy safety standards that the space shuttle can’t meet — and the companies building those spaceships say they'll rise to the challenge.

Over the past year, the White House and NASA decided to go with a different approach, with the space agency purchasing services from commercial spaceship ventures. NASA is paying out hundreds of millions of dollars for the development of cargo ships such as SpaceX's Dragon capsule, which passed its first flight test last month. If the spaceships work as advertised, commercial companies would be in line for billions of dollars worth of contracts.

The Challenger and Columbia disasters led risk analysts to estimate that flying the space shuttle carried a roughly 1-in-100 chance that the crew and the spaceship would be lost during a given mission. In the wake of the Columbia tragedy, NASA and the White House decided to retire the shuttle fleet and move on to a simpler, safer launch system.

Some space veterans think the commercial companies can't do it. Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan — who was the last man to walk on the moon back in 1972 — complained to Congress last year that the new players in spaceflight "do not yet know what they don't know, and that can lead to dangerous and costly consequences."

The space shuttle has no launch escape system. If it did, there might have been a chance of saving Challenger's crew.

Also, a pusher abort system on a reusable spacecraft would have to be positioned to minimize the risk of damage during re-entry. Despite those drawbacks, SpaceX and other companies (such as Boeing, Sierra Nevada, Orbital Sciences and Blue Origin) are hard at work designing pushers with NASA funding.

--------------------------------

The right wing goes on about "commercial companies being able to do it best". But when the development is moved to a commercial company, they whine.

Then the obvious split between the left and the non-scientific right. The right says, "Let's go to the moon" using existing technology. The logical question, which they can't seem to answer is, "Then what?"

Obama and the left says, let's develop technology that will allow us to go to Mars and beyond. The right says, "What's a Mar's?"

So what should the Government Privatize next RDean??? Amtrak??? Highways and Roads, Bridges, and Tunnels??? Welcome to Conservatism.

I bet this goes right over his head.

What is the point you are trying to make?

Conservatives are like Midas, only everything THEY touch turns to "shit". It's conservatives who have worked tirelessly to introduce "mysticism" into science, thereby undermining the importance of education with such phrases as a degree is merely a "piece of paper". Introducing the occult into public schools confuses children who should be seeking real knowledge. This is why the right wing southern states have such high drop out rates.

Instead of taking responsibility, which we can all agree, they will never do, they go on about, "but look at blacks in the inner city" as if that somehow excuses their own failings. Blacks in the inner city have more to overcome than right wing whites. Many blacks are in the mess they are in because of circumstances outside their control. Ignorant right wingers joyfully created their own mess. I'm sick of hearing that "leftist have corrupted science with their ideology". The same argument the right use about all their failed delusions.

I love being right.

Over my head?

The problem with right wingers such as yourself are the delusions that are your reality. For some strange reason, right wingers feel the US government is some shadowy cabal that wants to "reach into your life and control your thoughts" and "own everything". Now, what make this all especially strange is right wingers want to bomb and invade other countries to force them to have the type of government they apparently hate here.

It seems that they have to live in constant terror or they're not happy. Well, I hate to shatter another delusion, but the government is made up of the people we vote into office. Other Americans who actually live here.

Now, why are they so terrified? Because the right wing votes "nuts" into office. People like John Beohner, a man who was videotaped passing out bribes on the House Floor. Darrel Issa, a man who, on the first day he was sworn into office, sent out an email to a hundred and fifty companies asking them what Republicans should do first. Then there are such gems as Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Tim Pawlenty, Eric Cantor. The list is endless. True originals.

Their leaders have sent millions of jobs to China. Apologized to BP. Passed on getting Bin Laden and invaded the wrong country. Exploded the deficit. If I looked to morons, such as the Republican leadership, I would be terrified too.

So yes, most things rightwingers say go over my head. And I'm glad for that. Because according to them, they have all the answers and none of those answers are based on such things as "data, research or study". With them, it all comes down to a "feeling".

 

[rdean]

Yes, I can.

90% of all technology we are using today, from cell phones to this very medium you are typing on, is from NASA technology. Medical, science, communications, internet, computers, and 1000s more items. NASA cost you $0.31 a month, as a taxpayer. Can you swing that?

Personally for you, an education would help you.

Robert

Uh oh, you just lost the right wing. If you spend any time on this board, you will find right wingers calling scientists lazy elitists who don't contribute a thing to the country. Education is "just a piece of paper". PEW Poll results pegs the number of American Scientists identifying as Republican at 6%.

I did spend two weeks at NASA some years ago when they bought a "Cone Calorimeter" from the company I was working at, at that time. This Calorimeter was specially developed with a high O2 content vitiated system after the tragic fire that killed several astronauts. The purpose was to test flammable materials at a higher O2 content.

The location was at White Sands. It was an amazing two weeks. Several scientists stopped by to view the Cone Calorimeter at one time or another and invited us to witness some of the tests they were conducting. A couple we were allowed to watch, a couple we weren't.

Being a lowly engineer, talking to these guys was a true eye opener. The ones I talked to impressed me as brilliant and totally unaware of that fact. One surprise was the number of foreign scientists working there. The manager of the area we were working in was from "Transylvania" and yes, he did talk like Bela Lugosi.

you are such an idiot

The problem with you is you are a silly turd. You just call names. You don't have a position on anything. Just name calling and stalking. You really are pathetic.