Planet Descent
Community => Mess Hall => Topic started by: -<WillyP>- on February 24, 2011, 01:33:46 PM
-
In less than 10 minutes: Spaceflight Now - live streaming video powered by Livestream (http://www.livestream.com/spaceflightnow)
Edit: it's off, here's a screenshot:
-
(http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1103/discovery_iss_4256.jpg)
discovery_iss_4256.jpg (JPEG Image, 4256x2913 pixels) (http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/image/1103/discovery_iss_4256.jpg)
-
This is gonna be the last year we see these launched in all probability, is that right?
-
Last flight for that particular shuttle, the 'Discovery'. Not sure about the program. As long as the space station is up there, it's going to need a shuttle.
-
I recently got a NASA app for my iPod Touch ... and according to the schedule the last shuttle launch will be the Endeavor on (or about) April 19 with the Atlantis scheduled for June 28 if needed (but only if needed). This is Discovery's last and is the first shuttle to be retired.
Consolidated Launch Manifest (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/structure/iss_manifest.html)
Side note: Discovery is the shuttle that next launched first after each of the shuttle 'disasters' and at 38 missions and more than 5,600 trips around the Earth, Discovery has done more missions than any other shuttle to date. It was also the shuttle that carried the Hubble telescope into space.
STS-133 Discovery's Final Flight (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts133/discovery_final_flight.html)
-
I'll be there for Endeavor April 19th!!! Skipping twice-flunked college algebra and all to go see it! Wouldn't miss it for the world!
-
Wish the US had something readily available to replace the shuttles once they're all retired, so to keep up with the space flights, but for the moment, that's aways off, and depends entirely on the budget NASA gets from the government. :|
Once the shuttles are retired, the plan is, as I understand it, is that the US will get rides into space from the Russians until they have a new means of space-transportation. There's also talk about seeing if future space flights could be done through commercial companies (so commercial companies that build the crafts for the US that NASA then flies).
-
They all get retired in summer. After that the Russkies and maybe the Chinese give us a ride until private corporations take over the puddle-jumping to the ISS while NASA focuses on exploration.
-
I just have to rant about something, and I don't care if I cross the political discussion boundary lines, but I just have to express this. First of all, yes, the shuttles are old and are long overdue retirement... but that's why NASA came up with the Constellation program and the Aries spacecrafts. They looked like the old Saturn V's that took the first men on the moon on Apollo 11 and were designed to take us into deep space, specializing in radiation protection. Here's where I might offend some people. OBAMA cancelled the constellation program and told NASA it isn't cost effective enough. He has said that we've been to the moon... we need to go to an asteroid or Mars... conveniently for him, by 2035 (so he doesn't have to worry about it). Hello! We need to go to the moon to establish a "Lunar Outpost" (no pun intended). And the link between the moon and Earth? The ISS. The shuttle's mission was to complete construction of the ISS and it will be done by April... maybe June if that last Atlantis launch is necessary.
Bottom line... someone who simply isn't a "fan" of space exploration and believes that we should focus on problems on earth shouldn't sabotage the space program for everyone. Why oh why did I vote for him?? I won't in 2012, no matter WHO is running against him!
-
What we need is a mass driver, 2 miles long, that launches spacecraft into orbit using electricity. Power that thing with a nuclear reactor next to it. It'll cost LOTSA MONAY to build, but it'll be paying for itself in no time once we set up a moon base harvesting Helium 3 or Tridium and start selling power to the world.
-
Okay, in regards to Alieo's post...
First off, I'm not saying any of this to make an argument, so PLEASE, nobody go turning it into one.
Second off, I agree that Obama's choice to not fund the Constellation Program is regrettable, and not really a step forward for the good ol' US of A.
BUT...he is right. Project Constellation would be extremely expensive to pull off, and all we would've had to shown for it is a lot of rockets, maybe a bit more science learned, and the honor of having done it, but in the long run, nothing that would really help a lot of the bigger issues here on little ol' Earth, and with the country's economy being in the state it is, economically speaking, it's a logical move.
The mistake here is the fact that the shuttles are being retired with nothing really being worked on to replace them, THAT'S the problem here. :-\
-
Agreed that the Constellation Program would have been a very expensive program to pursue amongst all our other economic problems. What I don't understand is, what is so hard about building a space shuttle that takes off like an airplane, flies to the upper stratosphere, then activates thrusters to reach sub-orbit... then flip another switch to activate some other gizmo and travel further. Sure it takes a lot of fuel to get a rocket off the ground from a standstill like we currently do, but wouldn't it save that much more money and fuel if they took off like airplanes and fired thrusters in the upper stratosphere? Hmm...
-
Because it requires A LOT of fuel and momentum to pull off, and currently, there hasn't been an aircraft designed of the right dimensions that could contain enough fuel and maintain enough lift to achieve orbit with current rocket technology. New means of propulsion have been theorized, but for the moment, they are just theories that actually haven't been developed and tested, and there are still various things holding back a lot of those alternate means that need to be resolved first. Doing so would also be quite expensive.
But it probably can be done if some focus was placed on the problem. Up until now, NASA and the such hadn't been bothering too much because they already had the space shuttles, and didn't really have the budget to experiment with other types of spacecrafts that often, so now priorities can be changed...assuming NASA gets the budget it would need to do that with, which is again part of the issue.
-
It'll cost LOTSA MONAY
Money, Money, Money. It's raining money! Grab it while ya can, lads!
Anyway, on the topic of the Launch. I think it's pretty cool that SomaFM (internet radio) has a channel just for this, they play a bunch of spacey tunes to the live radio transmissions of the launch. :)
-
Alieo is also right in making a carrier ship for the space craft.
So many cost effective ways, and we decide to do the one that creates the biggest bang.
IF I became president for a day, I would personally go down to NASA and tell them either build a mass driver or a carrier aircraft and make a decision within 24 hours and go do it...... Then I would go drilling for oil in Alaska and off the coast of Florida so that Americans can be happy again at 99 cents for a gallon of gas.
EDIT: And then give Interplay some funding and help in advertizement for D4 ;D ;D ;D
-
:o You betray the Earth.
-
How do I betray it?
-
Drilling for oil! :o
-
It could be worse.
You could be defying all sense of reality by drilling for mana (http://www.nuklearpower.com/2002/06/19/episode-163-king-steve-is-stupid/)
-
Ok, so today when I went to go get 14 gallons of gas, it blasted $50 dollars out of my wallet. The Saudis keep raising their prices everytime a house fly flies past their front gate. When the US has its own drills, we can supply ourselves and then the Saudis will get screwed over because people are going to invest in our oil. Our prices will not jump the shark because there is a law that prevents that (and it is SUPPOSED to be affecting Saudi Arabia, but the US and the UN are too lazy to do anything). Not to mention that we get more jobs building the drills, building refineries, and running the things.
And most definately forget about the bunny huggers out in Alaska. All that's up there are a couple of brush pilots who get out of their airplanes every once in a while to go shoot a moose.
I'd also raise regular minimum wage by 50% and reduce government minimum wage, especially after the event where some lazy guys in congress almost literally stole the money by passing some bill that raised their minimum wage.
-
...And most definately forget about the bunny huggers out in Alaska.
What about the bunnies themselves?
I am for animal rights you know...
In any case I know your opinion is different and respect that whatever I say won't change it (or it shouldn't).
I'm still mad at BP though and any mention of oil drilling...
Sorry.
-
A better solution for the high gas prices would be to develop a means of transportation that doesn't use gas IMO, then who cares about how much it costs? :P
-
Obama wants cap and trade. I think a lot that has happened is his way to push his own agenda through. someone said "never let a good crisis go to waste."
I don't believe we should just be sloppy with such things like drilling just anywhere, and destroying nature, and the animals homes, etc. but I am all for good selected areas. Before the gas went up, I had to put $80 dollars worth of gas in my truck, every week, and I mainly just go to work and back home. I imagine now, it could be $100.
The only problem, that I know of anyway with what you said Alieo, is you'd vote for anyone but Obama. I believe a lot feel that way, like me (only thing is, I didn't vote for him), but some may just vote for anyone else, and that anyone could be worse.
-
It's all about BIG OIL and BIG MONEY. The oil companies totally run every government in the world. A guy went public about a water powered automobile in 1988 by the name of Stan Myers. He was invited to the Pentagon for dinner to discuss his invention and was apparently poisoned because he keeled over in the parking lot. There was never any big news story about him being killed. Why? Because BIG OIL controls all governments, and I don't care if this is a "free" country, they vastly control the media. That's why I get mad when I see hybrids. They're half-assed designs of something that has already been invented. The only way I see big oil getting brought down is if ALL oil gets burned up. Then what? Apocalypse? NO! Some jack wad will say "HEY LOOK! THIS ENGINE CAN RUN ON WATER! HAR HAR HAR!" Idiots! Look, I'm not a whack-job conspiracy theorist, but I'm not stupid. Something larger is at work here.
Look at this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0dhwlhTs9M&feature=related
@Vanguard: Well, true is the statement, "better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't know." I just don't feel like feeding his "own agenda" anymore. He needs to go. I want our space program back! Hmm... imagine a water powered rocket. Hehehe!
-
Agree with Alter-fox (regarding animal rights) and with Alieo.
What Alieo said makes total sense to me.
I'm not in the USA, but what Alieo says applies to all, and it's indeed a reality on all countries.
-
First of all:
A guy went public about a water powered automobile in 1988 by the name of Stan Myers. He was invited to the Pentagon for dinner to discuss his invention and was apparently poisoned because he keeled over in the parking lot. There was never any big news story about him being killed.
I'm sorry, Alieo, but Myers' "water-fueled-car" was a hoax (it defies physics, it has never been reproduced outside of shaky YouTube videos, it's easy to demonstrate how he pulled off the fakes, but most importantly there is tons of documentation about how he was profiting from sales of units which never worked).
The rumors about his death are being played up by others who are continuing to profit from sales and donations based on "free energy" marketing. Note that do-it-yourself-kits for water-fuel are all over the internet, all of which are being sold for profit, and NONE of which have ever been shown to work.
Seriously, go check out the claims by people who say they've gotten water-fueled cars to work. I have. When you ask them to demonstrate it, they'll either give you a video, try to $ell you a kit, or give one of the following answers:
1. "I would, but <organization or government> shut me down / broke my car!"
2. "I can't, they'd kill me!"
3. "Well, it WAS working, but <something about air pressure, calibration, or other techno-sounding excuse>."
None of them have EVER been able to reproduce a working "water-fuel" cell, except in marketing videos.
[Note that I'm not disputing any claims about "big oil", because some of those statements have truth to them. I'm only disputing the claims about "water fuel cells", which are absolute fraud.]
-
Well yeah, in that part Foil is right.
I totally agree with Alieo in what he said about the 'Big Oil', but yeah, the water-cell powered vehicles stuff is doubtful at best (I skipped that part :P ).
But there are also the ethanol and solar-cell alternatives, more credible than the water cell thing, that the 'Big Oil' ppl don't like at all.
-
Bottom line... there is a revolutionary solution out there. There are things people are trying to invent for the greater good of humanity that big oil is shutting down. I believe the puzzle pieces are out there... they just have to be put together... BEHIND big oil's backs.
-
Exactly...
-
Here's something I think everyone can agree on, at least this winter, a car that runs on snow ;D
dumb hybrid cars, smart cars, all fear me on the road :)
It's a nice F250 Super Heavy Duty truck.
"oops, sorry. was that your bumper I hit or half your car?"
man, do I need some evil looking emoticon.
-
Bottom line... there is a revolutionary solution out there. There are things people are trying to invent for the greater good of humanity that big oil is shutting down. I believe the puzzle pieces are out there... they just have to be put together... BEHIND big oil's backs.
We could do it! We're so small and obscure that the big oil companies will never... notice... (turns up dead the next morning).
And I can't believe we turned this into an E&C thread (though to be fair, that's partly my fault, and it does feel more respectful).
-
SO! How about them shuttles? Will I be seeing anyone there for Endeavor's final launch next month?
-
I think I'll be there. Schedule is a bit crazy, though.
And no, this derail was my fault :o
-
Not much chance of me seeing any shuttles launch on anything but the TV, I'm afraid, and I might not even be able to do that. :-\
-
@Omega: Where do you plan to view the launch from? I'm hoping to get into the Kennedy Space Center itself, but I had to register for an "opportunity" to buy tickets from the Kennedy Space Center. That window is only open from 3/2/11-3/9/11, and random people will be selected for that "opportunity" to buy tickets. If I don't get selected I'm probably going to look into Jetty Park, but Kennedy Space Center better send me a confirmation soon. I know a lot of hotspots are probably going to be sold out fast!
-
My father-in-law wants to go down there to see the launch. I hope he gets the chance.
-
@Omega: Where do you plan to view the launch from? I'm hoping to get into the Kennedy Space Center itself, but I had to register for an "opportunity" to buy tickets from the Kennedy Space Center. That window is only open from 3/2/11-3/9/11, and random people will be selected for that "opportunity" to buy tickets. If I don't get selected I'm probably going to look into Jetty Park, but Kennedy Space Center better send me a confirmation soon. I know a lot of hotspots are probably going to be sold out fast!
I just go across the water to Titusville. It's kinda crowded, though.
-
@Omega: ACK! Don't wanna hear the screaming babies!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1LOXHVdMlk
-
There are few sounds in this world that are worse torture than listening to someone's baby screaming.
-
Very true. Unfortunately that's what happens on public transit ::). Sometimes I switch busses (as long as the next one isn't coming half an hour later -- I'm looking at you, Route 20!)