Nasa to be choosing new Spaceship CEV.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Dont Hurt Me, May 27, 2006.

  1. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #1
    Nasa will decide between Lockheed-Martin or Northrop Grumman-Boeing Designs for a new CEV. Crew Exploration vehicle. Looks like Apollo to me and is more about handing out the pork rather then a real exploration program. I agree with Burt Rutan that its like archeology. :D This is the best we can do? Guess it doesnt matter who wins. Chemical capsules from the 60s.http://space.com/businesstechnology/060526_cev_competition.html
     
  2. iGary Guest

    iGary

    Joined:
    May 26, 2004
    Location:
    Randy's House
    #2
    You're never happy.

    With anything.

    You bitch about the space shuttle and you bitch about this.
     
  3. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #3
    35 years after Apollo and this is the best mankind can offer? Its sad as hell and Shuttle is allways years behind schedule let just hope it doesnt kill anymore. CEV it will be weeeeeeeee, maybe long hair and hippies will be back in style.
     
  4. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #4
    Well, of course I reserve final opinions till I see the final offerings and NASA's choice, but tentatively-speaking - I think this is good.

    I agree with the seemingly utilitarian ethic of NASA - of just "getting the job done" - using more advanced existing technology for the short-term, instead of gambling with untested tech.

    The use of smaller, reusable pods seems smart - but ultimately, I wouldn't care if they used a Pinto, as long as we get the exploration of near-space back on track...
     
  5. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #5
    Nasa needs to design a spaceship. You arent going to Mars,Saturn,Jupiter or anywhere else but the moon in a capsule because it will take way way to long before your bones turn to Jelly. This is a 60s redo that offers little over apollo except its untested. We need a spaceship with some horsepower, not more chemicals and capsules with no vision. We arent going to any planet until we have a ship that can go a lot faster folks. This is pure Apollo.
     
  6. elfin buddy macrumors 6502a

    elfin buddy

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2001
    Location:
    Tuttlingen, Germany
    #6
    Utility is necessity

    Just curious here, but do you have any better ideas? I mean, have you seen any other designs that might get the job done and keep costs down?

    As I currently see it, the only benefit of putting a hot-rod in space is the "OMG thatz so COOOOL!!!!1!1one" factor. You can't always throw more money at something to make it vault o'er it's own performance. Take cars for example...they haven't gotten exceptionally faster (or exceptionally more efficient, until recent years) since the 1960's. Why do you think that is? Are automotive companies spending less and less on R&D these days?
     
  7. LethalWolfe macrumors G3

    LethalWolfe

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2002
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    #7
    Did you ever see the doc called "Black Sky: The Race for Space & Winning the X Prize"? It introduced me to Burt Rutan and is a really good doc (and I'm not just saying that 'cause a friend of mine edited it :)).


    Lethal
     
  8. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #8
    Read between the lines of that article. I don't think NASA was happy with a winged shuttle. Though the advantages of landing like a plane seemed like a good idea at the time, the overall design was, obviously, unnecessarily fragile upon re-entry. One or two degrees off-axis, and the damn thing started flipping until it flew apart.

    I can see the logic behind the Apollo-like design. Though any space vehicle can tumble, these seem designed to provide a bigger margin for error and better correction capability when they do pitch a bit.

    I'm no aerospace engineer, so I could be full of **** for all I know. That's just the way it looks to me. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
     
  9. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #9
    They never went out of style, baby!

    :)
     
  10. blackfox macrumors 65816

    blackfox

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    PDX
    #10
    Wouldn't NASA designing a spaceship be somewhat analgous to the FAA designing an airplane?

    Look, the way things are going, I am just glad the prospective design wasn't a giant glowing crucifix powered by Jesus.

    As much as I'd love us to explore and perhaps colonize our solar system (and beyond), the fact remains we haven't really even been to the moon too much - and that's right next door. Don't put the cart ahead of the horse here...
     
  11. calebjohnston macrumors 68000

    calebjohnston

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2006
    #11
    We're not getting past the moon in our lifetime. Just suck it up, and shhhh. I'm trying to watch TV :).
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    I think you are correct, apollo style capsules puts us right back to the 60s and in reguard to blackfoxes comment,Nasa did do a design it was called shuttle, cost billions more then it was sold for,had much less capability then we were told, and never flew even close to its schedule,killed 2 crews.
    Russia's new Klipper they are working on shows a lot more promise then these 60s era capsules and iam certain will cost billions less.
    This is another example of our govt with Billions of our dollars being squandered away. So here we are redoing what we did then for what? A better plan is again like i said build a real spaceship,and a way to intercept and deflect the next comet/asteroid with Earths name on it. On top of that they now are rethinking about using a lot of that shuttle stuff that again was suppose to speed up things and cost less but now they dont think they will workhttp://www.space-travel.com/NASA after a 30 yr failed shuttle program still wants to use those shuttle parts,its not about getting us into space its about pork for congressional districts. Our Space plan is total disarray even to the point of giving automatic contracts to both lockheed & boeing so whoever is prime the others becomes the sub. Everyone else was locked out! This is Pork, not Space exploration.
     
  13. Thanatoast macrumors 6502a

    Thanatoast

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2002
    Location:
    Denver
    #13
    I'm gonna have to agree with DHM on this one. Aren't Boeing and Lockheed getting enough cash from us for the war in Iraq?

    Nasa budgeting is way more about districts and politics than actual science or space exploration. Bush's moonbase has killed half the science funding. The shuttle doles out millions to different districts and is highly protected.

    I say stop shuttle flights, put the money into renting Soyuz's and plow the savings into the new vehicle. (cuz we all know B & L will find a way to spend it - why no new companies? didn't a third company actually put forward a design? how'd that go?)
     
  14. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    Reality
    #14
    I don't know how much safer Russian craft are. I can't recall the mission and/or space vehicle, but I remember being horrified a few years back at the number of oxygen leaks they seemed to be unable to contain. I feared for their cosmonauts' lives.

    NASA does need to make sure that they do not do this on the cheap. Columbia was a real eye-opener in terms of how much can go wrong, and how easily, really. You want a space vehicle that is as hardy and forgiving as you can make it.

    Oh, for a spaceship that can maneuver as easily and survive crashes as often as the Jupiter 2 used to!
     
  15. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #15
    I watched a special on the Voyager missions the other day on the science channel. It was launched in 1977, and was able to explore four planets (Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune, Uranus) and a ton of moons. Wow! Nothing we've done since really compares. Maybe Hubble comes close. This doesn't even get on the radar.

    NASA has become more risk adverse - which is understandable, because they're want to avoid human tragedy and the worst PR possible. But being risk adverse in the space program just doesn't make those major breakthroughs happen. The best answer is probably to use more robotic probes and remote control, and test things in automated systems, like they did with DS1. They should be lanching a probe a month and our solar system should be teeming with satellites. Then humans follow in the robots footsteps.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    I actually think that a return to the capsule design will be a good thing. What we need now is a people and material mover, a system designed to get lots of stuff into orbit. You can't launch a space-ship from Earth easily, instead you build it in orbit and to do that requires material and manpower that must be sent up cheaply and safely. If that requires an old design so be it, except that with today's technology we should be able to make a much better design.
    Our space plan is in disarray partially because of the shuttle and the inherent complexity of the design (not to mention the various management fubars).
    We need a freight-train not a Ferrari.
     
  17. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #17
    What about Cassini-Huygens or Gallileo? These have been fantastically sucessful projects that have given us huge amounts of information while being very complex.

    But, we also need people in NEO, we need to be looking at creating a real human presence in space that is beyond the ISS, we need a permanent home from which to launch greater achievements. Probes are fantastic for exploration, but the human element is necessary.
     
  18. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #18
    Four planets man! Voyager went to four planets in the 70s. :D

    NASA just can't handle the human costs of space exploration I think, which stunts risk taking and technological advancement. So probes are good for testing new technologies and systems that could conceivably kill someone. Then once the systems are very reliable you put a man in the can.
     
  19. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #19
    Isn't Nasa's biggest problem that it's filled with old farts and there's no new blood there? I read somewhere recently where the vast majority of employees will be retiring with in the next ten or so years. It's actually a problem with all government agencies but Nasa has been affected more than most.

    There won't be any real change until there are employees with a view towards space instead of their retirement accounts.
     
  20. Dont Hurt Me thread starter macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #20
    Nasa's biggest problem is the shuttles pork barrel politics that run this program, its about Pork to congressional districts its not about exploration of space. Like everything in the U.S. Govt these days everything is political, space travel is now just a side benefit to all the pork.

    Anyone like to make a wager that the 30 yr old shuttle doesnt lift off on schedule?:D
     
  21. tristan macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Location:
    high-rise in beautiful bethesda
    #21
    Pork with space travel as a byproduct... eliminating the human risks... hmm, how can we design a mission to support all of these objectives?

    Pigs in Spaaaaaaaaaaace!
     

Share This Page