"Mr. President we may have something else you might be interested in, a University of Illinois basketball from 1909"
"I uh, uh...that's..uh...that's a bit of memorabilia right there, Illinois isn't, uh, uh, really known for its basketball teams, more for it's science programs - ANYWAYS"
I can't believe that happened.
Bearstranaut on
You ever try and draw Falcor as a giant dong? No? It just ends up looking like a long cyclops.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
ugh, we need to figure out better way to brand spaceships. THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE SEEN BY A TRAILER PARK, VIRGIN. It needs to be subtle and cool and neat. Not bullshit like that. Jesus christ.
Honey Nut Cheerios - seriously either of those. I'm talking flush walls with hidden wiring. Sleek shiny paint jobs. Jesus goddamn christ, is it too much to ask for a space ship that doesn't look like it was put together as a school science project? Those motherfuckers don't even have proper seating.
scarlet st. on
0
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
edited May 2009
Man, what?
Just_Bri_Thanks on
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Man, this ain't no Micheal Bay movie. For a science chick Megan is pretty darn hot and I wouldn't mind being stuck in a space capsule with her for two weeks.
Also, this ain't no J.J. Abrahms movie. Shuttles are built for function before form and NASA isn't going to go build some awesome space hot rod that's 20% dead weight.
Man, this ain't no Micheal Bay movie. For a science chick Megan is pretty darn hot and I wouldn't mind being stuck in a space capsule with her for two weeks.
Also, this ain't no J.J. Abrahms movie. Shuttles are built for function before form and NASA isn't going to go build some awesome space hot rod that's 20% dead weight.
Actually one of the biggest sources of problems on the shuttle is that it was built for form before function.
Feynman on the Challenger. He talks about the liquid fuel engines in the shuttle having bad design decisions that were forced because the shape/size of their enclosures had already been decided.
Oh yes, there are certainly multiple design flaws in any of NASA's past space vehicles past or present. I guess what I meant to say is that no matter how advanced they get (at this current point) they are all going to look like a bunch of spare parts thrown together because I don't think NASA is willing to spend the extra scratch on an interior designer for something which sits atop 35 tons of rocket fuel.
That's a pretty interestingly unsettling link.
Cristoval on
0
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
I still love that we landed on the moon with analog tech.
Oh yes, there are certainly multiple design flaws in any of NASA's past space vehicles past or present. I guess what I meant to say is that no matter how advanced they get (at this current point) they are all going to look like a bunch of spare parts thrown together because I don't think NASA is willing to spend the extra scratch on an interior designer for something which sits atop 35 tons of rocket fuel.
That's a pretty interestingly unsettling link.
Yeah, I know what you meant. I had just remembered Feynman's thing and was looking for an excuse to post it.
cadmunkyOne hand on the bottle,The other a shaking fist.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
jeez, you guys are killin me. we can make space airplanes when we have a manufacturing facility in orbit.
until then, the payload sits on top of the large controlled explosion, farthest away from the hot bits not cantilevered off the side of a million-some pounds of lox and h2.
Am I the only one who thinks launching shuttle vertically is an antiquated system that wastes tons of fuel in the most inefficient launching method possible? I mean I don't know a ton about it, so maybe there's a specific reason why they do it that way, but we can get planes pretty high, why can't we make a shuttle that flies like a plane, and just fires a burn to break through the atmosphere when it's at max altitude. Watching shuttles launch to me is like watching Ford Model T's race eachother.
Am I the only one who thinks launching shuttle vertically is an antiquated system that wastes tons of fuel in the most inefficient launching method possible? I mean I don't know a ton about it, so maybe there's a specific reason why they do it that way, but we can get planes pretty high, why can't we make a shuttle that flies like a plane, and just fires a burn to break through the atmosphere when it's at max altitude. Watching shuttles launch to me is like watching Ford Model T's race eachother.
We can get a plane pretty high, but it's kinda insignificant when you're going 300 miles high.
To get to an orbit like the Hubble's, the difference between launching vertically and flying up and then rocketing up would only be a small fraction of the total fuel, and the complexity of the system would be astronomically greater.
For relatively low altitude trips to space (like Scaled Composites does) then yes, flying high before lighting off your rocket makes lots of sense and that's why they do it.
fshavlak on
0
DislexicCreepy Uncle Bad TouchYour local playgroundRegistered Userregular
edited May 2009
that would be even more inefficient because it would have to take two different types of fuel/engines. Fuel and engines meant for atmospheric flight and rocket boosters with their fuel.
I know there are a ton of other reasons, but fuck that noise, I gave you my two cents
Dislexic on
0
WeaverWho are you?What do you want?Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
Hey get on nasa tv right now
Weaver on
0
cadmunkyOne hand on the bottle,The other a shaking fist.Registered Userregular
edited May 2009
the shuttle has really just been a big supply truck. it takes a lot of energy to throw that amount into orbit. for light loads, sub-orbital stuff, a horizontal take-off is feasible. we use a pegasus for that usually, unless we can save some cash and piggyback on another program.
Posts
[tiny]err, i mean ok that's coo[/tiny]
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
Space: making the double-helicopter possible since 1961
steam | Dokkan: 868846562
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GH5rYf2Ko
steam
"Mr. President we may have something else you might be interested in, a University of Illinois basketball from 1909"
"I uh, uh...that's..uh...that's a bit of memorabilia right there, Illinois isn't, uh, uh, really known for its basketball teams, more for it's science programs - ANYWAYS"
I can't believe that happened.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
How long until we get real space ships? No more of this crap that looks like they threw it together and hoped it'd fly.
this
OR
this?
well, this is what we plan to go to the moon with
and what we plan to go to mars with will really just be a bigger version of that so
probably not for awhile
although virgin's spaceplanes look neat
Honey Nut Cheerios - seriously either of those. I'm talking flush walls with hidden wiring. Sleek shiny paint jobs. Jesus goddamn christ, is it too much to ask for a space ship that doesn't look like it was put together as a school science project? Those motherfuckers don't even have proper seating.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Also, this ain't no J.J. Abrahms movie. Shuttles are built for function before form and NASA isn't going to go build some awesome space hot rod that's 20% dead weight.
Actually one of the biggest sources of problems on the shuttle is that it was built for form before function.
Feynman on the Challenger. He talks about the liquid fuel engines in the shuttle having bad design decisions that were forced because the shape/size of their enclosures had already been decided.
That's a pretty interestingly unsettling link.
Yeah, I know what you meant. I had just remembered Feynman's thing and was looking for an excuse to post it.
More computing power than the lunar lander!
until then, the payload sits on top of the large controlled explosion, farthest away from the hot bits not cantilevered off the side of a million-some pounds of lox and h2.
"Think of it as Evolution in Action"
I suggest an elevator.
one idiot clips it with a plane and whoops I just dropped this rig down a 300mile arc
It will never break. It will only become space stairs.
Space water slide.
I propose every project NASA is working on be canceled and all resources be directed at building a space water slide.
twitterfacebooksteamsomemusicofminetoomuchgunshegeekshow
We can get a plane pretty high, but it's kinda insignificant when you're going 300 miles high.
To get to an orbit like the Hubble's, the difference between launching vertically and flying up and then rocketing up would only be a small fraction of the total fuel, and the complexity of the system would be astronomically greater.
For relatively low altitude trips to space (like Scaled Composites does) then yes, flying high before lighting off your rocket makes lots of sense and that's why they do it.
I know there are a ton of other reasons, but fuck that noise, I gave you my two cents
"Think of it as Evolution in Action"
i mean they were HUGE
i don't think she's always like that
SPACE EYES
ha lemur eyes all
"Think of it as Evolution in Action"
except she had a hat