Europe Littering up the Solar System....

[HonestJoe]

I dont get it. Whats the point of spending billions to accomplish ( or try and fail ) something NASA's already done ?

Like landing a rover on Mars ?

https://www.google.com/amp/amp.space.com/34456-mars-lander-lost-contact-exomars-2016.html?client=ms-android-hms-tmobile-us

Why are you trolling the forum with nationalist flamebait? It’s been done so many times before.

 

[beefheart]

Lol......what lander ? They kamikazied it into the Mars surface.

Yes, its been done before. There have been 4 successful NASA rover missions and NASA put its first rover on Mars back in 2012.

You really don't understand much do you?

The parachute deployed, it most likely is intact.

There have also been unsuccessful NASA missions that you sure are trying to ignore.

What you understand about science could fit into a thimble...with plenty of room left.

 

[Fenton]

You really don't understand much do you?

The parachute deployed, it most likely is intact.

There have also been unsuccessful NASA missions that you sure are trying to ignore.

What you understand about science could fit into a thimble...with plenty of room left.

Why do you people always resort to perdonal attacks ?

 

[Fenton]

Why are you trolling the forum with nationalist flamebait? It’s been done so many times before.

Pot meet kettle. Your'e trolling my thread

 

[beefheart]

Why do you people always resort to perdonal attacks ?

Not personal, you don't know much about the space program, over several threads.

Do you concede that 40% of the shuttles got destroyed?:lamo

 

[Fenton]

Not personal, you don't know much about the space program, over several threads.

Do you concede that 40% of the shuttles got destroyed?:lamo

Lol........You think the shuttles were the cause of the Columbia and Challenger disasters ? How many missions did Challenger and Columbia fly before they were lost ?

How many astronauts total flew on shuttle missions compared to those who died on Shuttle missions ?

No one is paying attention to your made up,arbitrary and myopoc standards for succesful NASA shuttle missions.

 

[beefheart]

Lol........You think the shuttles were the cause of the Columbia and Challenger disasters ? How many missions did Challenger and Columbia fly before they were lost ?

How many astronauts total flew on shuttle missions compared to those who died on Shuttle missions ?

No one is paying attention to your made up,arbitrary and myopoc standards for succesful NASA shuttle missions.

Divert! The reason the shuttle program was not the way to go is that there were only 5 orbiters, and they lost 2 of them, and 14 people died. And, because of the unreliability, lots of payloads were shifted to other rockets, that took a long time. Humans should be on the top of a rocket, with an escape system, the way we used to do it, the way Russia does it, the way Orbital and SpaceX will do it, and the way NASA will do it in the future.

Only thing being made up is your inability to understand English, and math. :lamo Nowhere did I ever say the shuttles were the cause of the crash, it was the SRB on Challleger and the ET on Columbia. But....when you only have 5 craft (they built one after the Challenger disaster), and you lose 2, then you are down 40% of your fleet, and you can't do as many launches as you want.

 

[Deuce]

It's not always visible. People generally announce when it will be visible in the night sky. Duh. Are you capable of ever having a pleasant conversation? Rhetorical question, no need to answer.

If you perceived my post to be unpleasant, it's your issue, not mine.

 

[countryboy]

If you perceived my post to be unpleasant, it's your issue, not mine.

Why else would you ask such a nonsensical question about SSI sighting announcements?

 

[Deuce]

Why else would you ask such a nonsensical question about SSI sighting announcements?

Your conclusion is that I'm trying to be a dick to some random unidentified radio person?

Very strange perception. But the limitations of text communications do lead to those results from time to time.

 

[countryboy]

Your conclusion is that I'm trying to be a dick to some random unidentified radio person?

Very strange perception. But the limitations of text communications do lead to those results from time to time.

Again, why ask such an obviously nonsensical question?

 

[Hawkeye10]

Divert! The reason the shuttle program was not the way to go is that there were only 5 orbiters, and they lost 2 of them, and 14 people died. And, because of the unreliability, lots of payloads were shifted to other rockets, that took a long time. Humans should be on the top of a rocket, with an escape system, the way we used to do it, the way Russia does it, the way Orbital and SpaceX will do it, and the way NASA will do it in the future.
.

The main problem with the shuttle was that is main reason for being, this idea that reusablity would cut cost, ended up under the NASA regime to be not just wrong but way wrong. Now maybe this was NASA mismanagement, Musk sure thinks so, but maybe it is simply a bad idea. Then again Musk has yet to try to reuse a rocket, so maybe he changes his mind.

 

[Deuce]

Again, why ask such an obviously nonsensical question?

Curiosity.

Are you done being unpleasant now?

 

[Deuce]

The main problem with the shuttle was that is main reason for being, this idea that reusablity would cut cost, ended up under the NASA regime to be not just wrong but way wrong. Now maybe this was NASA mismanagement, Musk sure thinks so, but maybe it is simply a bad idea. Then again Musk has yet to try to reuse a rocket, so maybe he changes his mind.

The issue was underestimating the maintenance requirements to make a rocket actually reusable.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Yeah I remember when NASA was trying to sell the Space Shuttle program to the American public and Congress. They had it going up almost every week and it eventually would almost pay for itself. They really sold the reusable shuttle idea as a cost cutter and the way of the future in space travel.

Obviously it never came close to any of that. It did some good, lots of scientific advances, etc. But IMO the money and especially the time was pretty much wasted.

We should have been moving toward unmanned planet and space exploration. But the Shuttle had what? 7-8 people on it? IMO not the way we should have went.

 

[Deuce]

Yeah I remember when NASA was trying to sell the Space Shuttle program to the American public and Congress. They had it going up almost every week and it eventually would almost pay for itself. They really sold the reusable shuttle idea as a cost cutter and the way of the future in space travel.

Obviously it never came close to any of that. It did some good, lots of scientific advances, etc. But IMO the money and especially the time was pretty much wasted.

We should have been moving toward unmanned planet and space exploration. But the Shuttle had what? 7-8 people on it? IMO not the way we should have went.

Captain Hindsight, to the rescue!

 

[Hawkeye10]

The issue was underestimating the maintenance requirements to make a rocket actually reusable.

Partly, but also that it never made a lick of sense to use the shuttle to do routine launches, and once they finally figured that out (which happened when the military flat out refused orders to use it because of cost) the Shuttle had next to nothing to do, so then they had to invent the space station to save face, which was another $150 billion mostly down the drain so far because it is darn near useless but at least here we had some help paying the bills.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Captain Hindsight, to the rescue!

Well, not totally. I was old enough to remember NASA lobbying the public and Congress. And yeah, many people then had doubts about the program. Not just about the money, but the feasibility. And I agreed with some of what they were saying. It did seem far-fetched to expect something that big and complex to be launched every week. They were talking about giving people rides to outer space just like a vacation?!?!? Just bouncing up and down weekly? They made it sound to routine. As Hawkeye just mentioned that never made sense. Even before the damn thing was built.

 

[beefheart]

The main problem with the shuttle was that is main reason for being, this idea that reusablity would cut cost, ended up under the NASA regime to be not just wrong but way wrong. Now maybe this was NASA mismanagement, Musk sure thinks so, but maybe it is simply a bad idea. Then again Musk has yet to try to reuse a rocket, so maybe he changes his mind.

When Challenger was lost, the entire polar launch missions were scrapped. The shuttle was to fly polar orbits, launching from Vandenberg AFB, launching military missions that were specially designed to fit in the shuttle cargo bay. Had Challenger not happened, there was a huge chance that they would have had an explosion on these flights, as the SRB was made even lighter.

 

[beefheart]

Well, not totally. I was old enough to remember NASA lobbying the public and Congress. And yeah, many people then had doubts about the program. Not just about the money, but the feasibility. And I agreed with some of what they were saying. It did seem far-fetched to expect something that big and complex to be launched every week. They were talking about giving people rides to outer space just like a vacation?!?!? Just bouncing up and down weekly? They made it sound to routine. As Hawkeye just mentioned that never made sense. Even before the damn thing was built.

So was I, they wanted the shuttle on top of the rocket stack, and not using solid propellant, but they didn't have the $$, so they settled for dangerous.

 

[Hawkeye10]

When Challenger was lost, the entire polar launch missions were scrapped. The shuttle was to fly polar orbits, launching from Vandenberg AFB, launching military missions that were specially designed to fit in the shuttle cargo bay. Had Challenger not happened, there was a huge chance that they would have had an explosion on these flights, as the SRB was made even lighter.

Why in HELL were we putting 7 lives at risk to use the shuttle when we could have launched cheaper with 0 lives at risk?

This are the kinds of questions "journalists" almost never ask because the answers would be embarrassing to the regime which they support.

EDIT: this is what Wiki says:

The Challenger disaster made it clear that sole dependency on the shuttle was unwise;
SLC-6 would have generated more contaminated waste water than originally envisioned, necessitating an expensive treatment plant;
Further study showed more sound suppression water would have been needed, requiring upgraded water supply facilities;
Vehicle icing would have been more problematic than in Florida, and it was unclear how well SLC-6 facilities would handle that;
Blast protection of nearby occupied buildings was unsatisfactory and more construction would have been required to safeguard them;
Post-Challenger, the more confined SLC-6 launch area raised concerns of entrapped gaseous hydrogen causing a fire or explosion;
Large construction cost overruns, and
Independent audits found significant construction quality problems that would have been expensive to fix.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_AFB_Space_Launch_Complex_6

Another $4 billion wasted on probably a bad idea to start with and for sure poorly planned and executed work.

Typical for Washington.

 

[SenorXm/Sirius]

Why in HELL were we putting 7 lives at risk to use the shuttle when we could have launched cheaper with 0 lives at risk?

This are the kinds of questions "journalists" almost never ask because the answers would be embarrassing to the regime which they support.

That's not fair. When NASA was lobbying for the Shuttle some journalists did ask. But after the success of Apollo and the moon landings NO ONE was going to say no to NASA. No matter what or who asked the questions, the Shuttle program was pretty much a go as soon as NASA asked for it.

But you're 1st point was 100% correct. 7 people vs 0? It should have been 0.

 

[beefheart]

Why in HELL were we putting 7 lives at risk to use the shuttle when we could have launched cheaper with 0 lives at risk?

This are the kinds of questions "journalists" almost never ask because the answers would be embarrassing to the regime which they support.

EDIT: this is what Wiki says:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandenberg_AFB_Space_Launch_Complex_6

Another $4 billion wasted on probably a bad idea to start with and for sure poorly planned and executed work.

Typical for Washington.

We did get some amazing tech out of it, but I look at manned space this way.....why drive a Maserati to the corner grocer? Simple, safe and cheap is how you send people up to orbit....spend the money on the equipment once you are IN orbit.

 

[humbolt]

We did get some amazing tech out of it, but I look at manned space this way.....why drive a Maserati to the corner grocer? Simple, safe and cheap is how you send people up to orbit....spend the money on the equipment once you are IN orbit.

I'm with you, but as long as you're sitting on top of a giant Roman candle, it'll never be real safe.

 

[Hawkeye10]

We did get some amazing tech out of it, but I look at manned space this way.....why drive a Maserati to the corner grocer? Simple, safe and cheap is how you send people up to orbit....spend the money on the equipment once you are IN orbit.

We devoted 40 years of manned flight to low Earth orbit.

Sit with that for a moment.
.
.
.
.
.
.
We were supposed to be on Mars by 1980, we got told that, we believed that.


Here we are 2016, been nowhere, keep making plans....and then changing plans.....to go somewhere but we never put up the money to get-ur-done so none of these plans will ever happen. This has not changed, even the proposed 2017 budget gets NASA no where near enough money to do what we have been told they will be doing. Plus the next President will almost certainly change the plan, that is how this usually works.


We are being lied to again.