Man, WTF is wrong with NASA

[ElFenix]

i'm not smarter than nasa, it seems

 

[CaptnKirk]

The primary problem with leaving the tank up there is that it's to low. At typical shuttle altitudes, there's to much drag. I read some studies on it years ago, and their just isn't enough margin to make orbit with it and have it fitted out with an engine big enough to raise & maintain the orbit, attitude control, docking facilities, etc. - all the stuff you need to make it even remotely useful.

It's not some conspiracy - the physics just doesn't work out.


At point of separation from the orbiter, it was originally to be fitted with a derivative of the OMS motor
(a hypergolic Nitrogen Tetroxide/Monomethyl Hydrozine burner), metered to burn the remaining hydrogen & oxygen that was n the tank at separation -
which would have been in excess of 10,000 gallons of oxygen and 20,000 gallons of hydrogen.
It's already in motion and just below insertion velocity, just needed an ignition system to light it off after separation.
The fuel left would have boosted it to orbital speed and placed it in orbit another 50 to 75 miles higher up, within the range of the Space Shuttle's reach.

Placement of the tanks was to be a 'ring' of six connected with junction boxes to form a belt, and another six - three on each side of the belt
(think 'bicycle rim') which would joint to form offset spoke structures - tripods from the
belt, extending to the apex - one at each end.
A spin of the platform to the belt would provide some form of low grade syntehtic gravity
and the apex points would become the docking station for vehicles.

Completed configuration would have been 12 three story buildings each 150+ feet long joined into a space station structure.

The cost would have been minimal back then (late 70's) but it was abandoned as a savings to the taxpayer, an error on the cheap.

 

[Metron]

The Soviet Union tried, flew an unmanned test flight, and then gave up... so you think it's easy?

Originally posted by: Nik

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Topic Summary: Is it really that hard to make a working space shuttle...

I don't know. Why don't you go get a PhD in rocket science, build us a rocket, and tell us how difficult it is to do.

 

[feelingshorter]

Originally posted by: werk
Their sh1t is OLD.

yep, and it wont be until 2010 when they get a new one

 

[tommywishbone]

Manned space flight is retarded. The end.

 

[So]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
Manned space flight is retarded. The end.

Gee, the vast majority of the 300 million population of the US, as well as the 150 million population of russia, and the 1.3 billion chineese must be wrong.

Sorry guys. Tommywishbone's verbose argument made me realize that there's no point to this whole 'manned exploration' thing. Let's pack it up!

 

[Fritzo]

Originally posted by: junkerman123

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
I Nominate the OP for Dumbass of the Week!

do I hear a second?

That's fine. At least this thread stimulated some sort of reasonable convo before the flaming started. Not like anyone will remember me as dumbass of the week in a few hours.

BTW- This is just a reminder of the OP's nomination

 

[SeaSerpent]

They need to put all the shuttles into a museum and build something better.

 

[lobadobadingdong]

Originally posted by: deathkoba
GOD didn't create humans for the purpose of space travel. For the ones that will try, HE will SMOTE THEM TO THE DIRTY GROUND AND MAKE THEM BURN IN THE LAKE OF FIRE!!!!~~~~~!!!!!!!!!!!!

and from a christian's point of view, god made the universe and all things in it for us to explore and name.

 

[daniel1113]

The bottom line is that NASA needs a shuttle replacement vehicle, but that will cost more money than they can currently spend on such a project. The shuttle was only designed to have a lifespan of 10 years or 100 launches. Perhaps these current events will secure NASA the funds necessary to replace the shuttle, but after watching and reading the news reports and dumbass reactions like the OP's, I highly doubt it.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Give me a 100 billion dollar budget and a pool of 100 experienced, well-trained genius scientists and yes, I believe I could.

100? Are you kidding? Try 1000+

 

[skisteven1]

Originally posted by: The Pentium Guy

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Give me a 100 billion dollar budget and a pool of 100 experienced, well-trained genius scientists and yes, I believe I could.

100? Are you kidding? Try 1000+

1000+? Keep going... That's barely enough to build a trans-atlantic aircraft.

Engineers/scientists are the lifeblood to anything of this nature. Oh, and if anyone wants to give me a job, I'm all ears

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: junkerman123
Topic Title: Man, WTF is wrong with NASA
Topic Summary: Is it really that hard to make a working space shuttle...

Yes, it is too hard.

That is why the Shuttles are being abandoned and going back to rockets with return landing by capsule with parachute.

 

[TitanDiddly]

Originally posted by: quakefiend420
could you do it?

pwnt x 10000

 

[sao123]

What is wrong with NASA?

NASA is not privatized yet. Nothing but red taped government bureaucrasy at its worst.
Privatize all space flight.