They DID IT!!

a reply to: Bhadhidar

Yeah.. Pretty much all of that.
Politics.
If I remember correctly NASA didn't even want the shuttle program or at least not how they were forced to build it..

My brother lives in utah and has watched the testing of the SRB's.. Impressive.

a reply to: Bluntone22

Well, I'm not a big defender of NASA (of late), BUT...they did put a man on the Moon, and more than one too.

No other country, or space agency, in the history of the human civilization can lay claim to that! No one!

So, for that alone, they deserve honorary credit.

a reply to: Flyingclaydisk

Don’t miss understand me.
I have great respect for what NASA has accomplished over the years.
Moon landing.
Voyage.
Hubble.
All those beautiful close ups of Saturn and Jupiter.

Unfortunately they have been hamstrung by bureaucracy..

The shuttle program was a mess from the start as a result of that bureaucracy.

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk
Bob and Doug are now aboard the ISS!

Another milestone.

Lol... Bob and Doug sounds like it has a T.V. show ring to it.

**cheesy t.v. voice guy**

"This weeks space adventures of Bob and Doug... finding the missing left socks in the universe!!"

"Tune in and find out where they find them"

"Brought to you by GLONASS GPS... get lost and have an adventure! Because you're truly lost now"

a reply to: Bluntone22

The deaths of those astronauts was why the program ground to an expensive halt. The turnaround process and time became higher and higher with each new set of safety checks.

The cause of those deaths (beyond the actual physical one) can be put to external pressures taking over from proper attention to detail. You can't cross your fingers and hope with things like this.

Those deaths aside you can't call the physical reality of the shuttle program a failure. It was a workhorse that achieved exactly what it was intended to do. In its absence newer technology has allowed more countries and organisations to enter the market with smaller vehicles carrying smaller payloads to do the same jobs and that's maybe why with hindsight it seems like such overkill.

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
You can thank Congressional interference for about half of those STS-related deaths, not NASA. At least, not NASA entirely.

The STS Challenger was destroyed, killing all aboard, due to a failed O-ring that was meant to seal two fuel sections on one of the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB’s).

The original design of the STS SRB’s did not require O-rings because, instead of being cast in segments which where then joined together, they were cast as a single piece.

However, in a effort to “pass a little pork” to a Congressional representative from, Utah, if I remember correctly, the SRB contract went to Thiakol ; which would not be able to transport a completed SRB from UT to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Hence the “segmented” construction, the need for the O-rings, and, ultimately the loss of the shuttle and death of her crew.

Yes that was sad, though apparently the design worked above 53 degrees F, but that turned out to be a constraint that NASA wasn't willing to live with when they pressured Thiokol to approve a launch at a lower temperature, which their engineer Allan McDonald claims he didn't agree to but other people have different perspectives on the story.

Even after the failure, with the analysis pointing to O-ring failure, NASA had a chance to go back to the design not requiring O-rings but they stuck with Thiokol and asked them to improve the design.

originally posted by: OneBigMonkeyToo
It was a workhorse that achieved exactly what it was intended to do.

Not completely, because one of its objectives was to lower launch costs, since the orbiter was re-usable. But it actually ended up increasing launch costs, on a per-kg basis.

How SpaceX lowered costs and reduced barriers to space

Between 1970 and 2000, the cost to launch a kilogram to space remained fairly steady, with an average of US$18,500 per kilogram. When the space shuttle was in operation, it could launch a payload of 27,500 kilograms for $1.5 billion, or $54,500 per kilogram. For a SpaceX Falcon 9, the rocket used to access the ISS, the cost is just $2,720 per kilogram.

The plan for the space shuttle launch was to cost far less than $1.5 billion. Some estimates were the shuttle might launch for as little as $20 million.

In its absence newer technology has allowed more countries and organisations to enter the market with smaller vehicles carrying smaller payloads to do the same jobs and that's maybe why with hindsight it seems like such overkill.

Space-X really got the launch cost per kg down quite a bit, something the shuttle program hoped to achieve, but actually increased it instead of lowering it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I take your point, but I was referring more to the 'getting things to LEO' stuff. As I said, launch costs escalated thanks largely to changes they had to make after people died.

Gettung cost/kg down is greatly helped by not launching as many kg and not having to quadruple check everything.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Tesla has never hit a production or sales goal and doesn't make a profit.

And yet they make the worlds most awesome electric vehicles.

And once we're (as a nation) finally pursuing LFTRs in earnest, they will be truly pollution free.

They have also never developed a new technology.

Their self-driving tech is pretty nifty. And my understanding is they are pursuing a new battery tech as we speak.

What have you done?

originally posted by: Bhadhidar
The STS Challenger was destroyed, killing all aboard, due to a failed O-ring that was meant to seal two fuel sections on one of the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB’s).

That, I knew...

The original design of the STS SRB’s did not require O-rings because, instead of being cast in segments which where then joined together, they were cast as a single piece.

However, in a effort to “pass a little pork” to a Congressional representative from, Utah, if I remember correctly, the SRB contract went to Thiakol ; which would not be able to transport a completed SRB from UT to the Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

Hence the “segmented” construction, the need for the O-rings, and, ultimately the loss of the shuttle and death of her crew.

That... I did not know... wow.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Unfortunately they have been hamstrung by bureaucracy..

The shuttle program was a mess from the start as a result of that bureaucracy.

Which is why it shouldn't be in government hands in the first place.

Which is why I'm so excited by what SpaceX is doing... and the potential for the future.

a reply to: tanstaafl

You are correct, they make a pretty nice electric car.
But..
Thorium is nowhere near viable if ever.
And
Tesla uses Panasonic batteries so no, tesla doesn't develop batteries. They build batteries under licence from Panasonic.

As for their self driving technology, they are working on it... As are others.

So tell me.
Why do they not meet production goals?
Why can't they make a profit?

The only thing keeping tesla above the toilet is investors hoping for the best.


And what have I done?
Not sure what that has to do with tesla.... But..

I've managed to run my own business for 16 years and have owned up to a dozen rental properties in the past, I've reduced that to six because of the headaches.
Let's just say I know how to tell a healthy business from a not so healthy business.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: Flyingclaydisk
Unfortunately they have been hamstrung by bureaucracy..

The shuttle program was a mess from the start as a result of that bureaucracy.

Which is why it shouldn't be in government hands in the first place.

Which is why I'm so excited by what SpaceX is doing... and the potential for the future.

I do and don't agree with you here.
When you get government funding you should be subject to government inspection.
But at the same time the government shouldn't be pushing any agendas for political gain.

The government can destroy private companies with their regulations too. Ask EMD. The locomotive builder was destroyed because they failed to produce an engine capable of meeting emission standards.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

40% of the shuttle fleet disintegrated.
It also never achieved anything close to the promised mission rate.

The shuttle failed on many levels.
They did some wonderful things with it to be sure but because of bureaucracy it was doomed from the start.

We have literally been paying the Russians to take our astronauts into space... Let that sink in..
Nasa put men on the moon but today can't put a man in orbit. The shuttle program is the reason.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: tanstaafl
Thorium is nowhere near viable if ever.

Rotlmao! Ignorance is no excuse. Thorium is the solution. PERIOD.

Tesla uses Panasonic batteries so no, tesla doesn't develop batteries. They build batteries under licence from Panasonic.

Right now they do... do you know what they are doing behind the scenes?

And what have I done?
Not sure what that has to do with tesla.... But..

I've managed to run my own business for 16 years and have owned up to a dozen prenatal properties in the past,

Ok, so I guess now I'm ignorant - what is a 'prenatal property'?

Let's just say I know how to tell a healthy business from a not so healthy business.

Maybe you should stick to what you know...

originally posted by: Bluntone22
When you get government funding you should be subject to government inspection.

That, and any and all IP should be open-sourced...

But at the same time the government shouldn't be pushing any agendas for political gain.

Sounds good, but will never happen.

a reply to: tanstaafl

A prenatal property is what they call auto correct.
But I imagine you knew that.

When People have lost arguments they start name calling.

I'm out.




And here's a nice article on thorium.
It says very clearly that thorium is years away from having its issues solved and then it would be decades to construct the reactors.

www.power-eng.com...

a reply to: Bigburgh

Doug and Tony of the The Time Tunnel www.imdb.com... ?

originally posted by: Bluntone22
a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

40% of the shuttle fleet disintegrated.

That's a somewhat distorted way of saying '2'.

It also never achieved anything close to the promised mission rate.

Because 2 of them disintegrated, as I've pointed out already. The nature of their design meant a massive amount of post and pre-flight checks that rendered them impossible to turn around economically and quickly.

The shuttle failed on many levels.
They did some wonderful things with it to be sure but because of bureaucracy it was doomed from the start.

We have literally been paying the Russians to take our astronauts into space... Let that sink in..

Be careful with the use of 'we'.

Nasa put men on the moon but today can't put a man in orbit. The shuttle program is the reason.

Political decision making that hamstrings an organisation by cutting budgets and dictating goals is the reason. NASA put men on the moon with the same political decision making and budget appropriations.

a reply to: OneBigMonkeyToo

Would you prefer I said 60% remain?
Or 3 out of 5?

And I agree with you on why they didn’t preform as well as hoped.

a reply to: Bigburgh

Well, 'Bob & Doug' is the way everyone has been referring to them on the idiot box, hence my usage of the phrase.

I think someone thinks it's cute, but I don't care for it.

You know..."Bob & Doug, just a couple of hosers from the Great White North, eh?" As in, "Bob & Doug McKenzie"...and not a couple of NASA astronauts who just piloted the first manned commercial space mission to the International Space Station.

I'd be wanting to rebrand that if I was Space X.