why we have a bad space shuttle

Several years ago nasa tried to create the next generation space shuttle, and had two competing designs. One involved a verticle cone shaped rocket that went up straight and came down straight with a soft landing by using its engines to slow down its descent. The other design, the one they eventually commited to, cost billions and in the end wasn't succesful. *WHY* didn't we go with the simpler cone design, does anyone know? Their prototype of the design was so sturdy that when its tanks actually blew up it was still able to land succesfullly. I loved this design, and was very angry when they chose the alternate design. A private company, rotary rockets, made an alternate version of the cone design but in the end ran outa money.

I think, had we gone with the right design, we may have been using the NEW space shuttles and this disaster would not have happened.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

i think Nasa needs to be shut itself down. that is MY opinion. space will never be conquered, let alone cultivated by human beings. it is and always will remain untouchable. quit sacrificing lives for pure whimsy. yeah...i said that. whimsy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

again

again you do another dumb post. Why don't you stay out of the science forums?


Space is exactly where humanity is headed, first we spread across all of the continents and then we'll continue that expansion into space. There may not be room for 10 billion humans to live comfortable on earth, but theres room for 100 billion in the solar system. There are thousands of asteroids in the solar system that EACH contain more metals then humany has ever used in its entire history.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The majority of the benefits from space have come from unmanned spacecraft. IMHO, the manned programs should be cut back with emphasis on the unmanned satellites. We can always use better communcations, weather, GPS and defense spacecraft. We don't see too many tangible results from sending an Israeli to space for political reasons.

 

i can think of 2 things at least that camed from the MANED space flights

plastics and velcro

 

in another thread they claimed velcro was already invented in 1940 or something in switserland. That would leave plastics, but they were also not specifically invented for spaceflight. There development might have been accelerated by spaceflight.

and the first inventor of velcro was of course evolution. Those nasty sticky seeds for instance.

 

We could have built a better shuttle the first time.

 

"i think Nasa needs to be shut itself down. that is MY opinion. space will never be conquered, let alone cultivated by human beings. it is and always will remain untouchable. quit sacrificing lives for pure whimsy. yeah...i said that. whimsy."

space will never be conquered? now that's silly. maybe not anytime soon, but never? never is a loooong time. you know lots of new technology was called whimsy when it first began, like airplanes.

maybe NASA should slow down and rethink their priorities in terms of research and whatnot. but shutting down altogether would be a waste.

 

It seems like recently public interest in the space shuttle program has gone southward. Unmanned spaceflight is cool, but come on, manned spaceflight cannot be beat. Humans in space are always more entertaining than beeping radio transmitters.

NASA needs to scrap the ISS and get a 2001-esque double-wheel in orbit now. At the same time they need to send a probe out to Europa and have a feasible trip planned for Mars. If you can garner more public interest then you can further your scientific exploits. Our government doesn't spend billions of dollars on developing a talking coffee maker because that's way more money than they think that they need. If, somehow, everyone was fanatically interested in getting a talking coffee maker from the government, then spending would increase on developing such a device. So, you need widespread attention if you're going to get anywhere in the space program.

Because I doubt that I stand alone in saying that I'd rather have a person walking on a planet orbiting another star rather than a robot.

 

Re: again

We are each entitled to an opinion. Rather than say that a post is dumb, discuss your position, as you did in the latter portion of your post. Try to educate rather than denigrate. Explaining something might spark an interest in someone else, rather than discouraging their participation.

Just my .02.

:m: Peace.

 

There's a reason NASA's not knocking down your door to ask for your advice. Can you figure out what it is?

- Warren

 

It wouldn't happen to have to do with their attention already focused on your amazing brilliance, would it, chroot?

 

Yet again I find myself in agreement. But I must not be sarcastic...I must not...I must!

Cheers,

Ron.

 

This kind of remark is better posted to the SciFi forum.

Ron.

Btw - re your website: 'The Planets' was composed by Gustav Holst, not 'Holston'. Holston make beer. O.K, Holsten.

Strictly, 'the Blue Danube' isn't classical but it is orchestral.

Not trying to show any 'amazing brilliance', just trying to get my facts right before going public.

 

I would rather define The Blue Danube as a waltz, but I didn't feel it necessary to get specific.

Regarding Holston--human error is such a terrible thing to live with! Damn my humanity!

As far as fiction goes, scifi has arguably had the most influence on our technological progress. Without having hopes for future scientific progress, there is no reason for scientific progress at all. That hope--that dream, comes from science fiction. My dream is to see or be a person stepping on a planet orbiting another star, because I feel that it would have a greater romance to it than, say, a six wheeled robot. It is merely an opinion, and one that will not forever be an implausible one, as it is now.