It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
I did not feel the need to impress anyone with my gramatical skill
Originally posted by CirqueDeTruth
reply to post by g2v12
Precisely. It is all reduced to conjecture at this point. There is nothing to be done in a coherent way.
Which is relevant in how unique minds attempt to approach the topic.
Therefore, panoramic views are the only benefit to our contemplation at this conjecture of time....
I mean they even stopped making shuttles cause of how expensive it is to burn all that fossil fuels.
The main engines in the orbiter burn liquid hydrogen and oxygen pumped from the external tank by very powerful turbo pumps that burn some of the propellants to feed the orbiter's engines. Before entering the combustion chambers, the liquid hydrogen at -420 degrees Fahrenheit is used to cool the nozzles and combustion chambers so they won't start melting, then explode and destroy the spacecraft. Liquid hydrogen and oxygen is the most energetic combination of fuels for a rocket but the extremely low temperatures and low density of the liquid hydrogen required huge and heavily insulated tanks. The solid rocket boosters burn a mixture of aluminum powder, ammonium perchlorate, iron oxide and other chemicals combined with a binding agent. Each booster holds more than a million pounds of what amounts to high explosives. The external tank holds 500,000 gallons of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, which weighs about 1.5 million pounds, more than 20 times the weight of the tank itself. So far no better chemical fuels have been found.
The byproduct of its combustion with oxygen alone is water vapor (although if its combustion is with oxygen and nitrogen it can form toxic chemicals), which can be cooled with some of the liquid hydrogen. Since water is considered harmless to the environment, an engine burning it can be considered "zero emissions." Liquid hydrogen also has a much higher specific energy than gasoline, natural gas, or diesel.
Nice, but is it me or was I the only one that read in the paper that NASA has stated they they will no longer use shuttles as they strained current funding for other maybe more effective projects?
The resources derived from recent launches are still no where near economical, and this type of propulsion is still expensive to obtain and use at mass, which again makes you think why haven't they used a fuel that is derived literally at almost no cost already?
Are they implying that they don't have the technology at all, even after contact with other beings from this world?
Or is it just a hobby really, run the shuttles once in a while to make you think they are still using the old technology?