|
redshirt posted:Hardly. There's been nothing learned that would allow us to go to Mars or the like. Yeah, because we were soo versed at that already  I think not getting to space with ships we have to mostly throw away in one shot is a big step up. But yeah shuttle/buran didn't take us much closer or anything.
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Glorgnole posted:there are certainly benefits to flying with the american program But he got there in a soyuz? There's a lot of butt hurt USA goin on here. It's ok guys. You made the moon. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
Sex King Kennedy canceled Project Orion and I'm still miffed about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:31
|
|
|
We should have had bases on the moon by 1979. I blame Nixon and all the resulting crazy Republicans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:32
|
|
|
redshirt posted:Hardly. There's been nothing learned that would allow us to go to Mars or the like. eh, we developed the technology that enabled a 1-ton robot to pull off a flawless landing on Mars completely on autopilot. If you want to land a alive man on the planet at some point I'd call that a pretty important step in the right direction. I'd be super interested though to know if there's been any R&D on nuclear rockets done since the 70s. like, even just on paper / computer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:50
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:I'd be super interested though to know if there's been any R&D on nuclear rockets done since the 70s. like, even just on paper / computer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogKKjpQvfuM This has been on my 'watch later' list for a while, might be illuminating.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:eh, we developed the technology that enabled a 1-ton robot to pull off a flawless landing on Mars completely on autopilot. If you want to land a alive man on the planet at some point I'd call that a pretty important step in the right direction. How did shuttle or ISS traffic help with the Mars landers?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Glorgnole posted:there are certainly benefits to flying with the american program loving canadians, they're all the same https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipbGsHL1oZw&t=61s
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 16:15
|
|
|
numberoneposter posted:The Wiki article on space food is entertaining. kimchi in space sounds horrifying.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 16:17
|
|
|
If they kept the Saturn V instead making a dumb shuttle, the iss could more than 3 feet off the ground and made out of giant skylab sized modules. That would be wicked rad.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 16:45
|
|
|
Zippy the Bummer posted:Hulk Hogan's Delight Hulk Hogan's daughter is called Brooke. Was that so hard?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:07
|
|
|
Sam Hall posted:I'd be super interested though to know if there's been any R&D on nuclear rockets done since the 70s. like, even just on paper / computer. At the cost of some isp you could inject liquid oxygen into the propellant stream, which gives you way more thrust by making the hot hydrogen also explode when it comes out the nozzle. The Protagonist posted:I think not getting to space with ships we have to mostly throw away in one shot is a big step up. But yeah shuttle/buran didn't take us much closer or anything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:14
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Not much good when the ship you don't have to throw away is more costly and less efficient than the ones you do and is also a dead end design that won't ever lead to anything better. We should all be living on mars by now but we wasted $billions rebuilding the SSMEs after every flight
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:31
|
|
|
Elukka posted:Not much good when the ship you don't have to throw away is more costly and less efficient than the ones you do and is also a dead end design that won't ever lead to anything better. I was talking about return n' land rockets not the shuttle debacle, but probably didn't get that across very well So yeah, 
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:37
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:I was talking about return n' land rockets not the shuttle debacle, but probably didn't get that across very well
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:I was talking about return n' land rockets not the shuttle debacle, but probably didn't get that across very well
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 23:10
|
|
|
Buran was in fact a much better space shuttle. The problem was the entire concept was bad. blah blah blah blah rehashed poo poo rehashed poo poo all this and that the worst part of it is that they built something so much better than the space shuttle. the russians. when they were on the verge of total country failure. what does that say about the american space shuttle? oh yeah it sucked
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 23:29
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:Buran was in fact a much better space shuttle. The problem was the entire concept was bad. blah blah blah blah rehashed poo poo rehashed poo poo all this and that We should have bought the Buran and flown it instead. We might still have a manned space program if we did.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 23:36
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:Buran was in fact a much better space shuttle. The problem was the entire concept was bad. blah blah blah blah rehashed poo poo rehashed poo poo all this and that The soviets should have just weaponized/colonized the gently caress out of space and then aimed kenetic missles at earth. Arms race won.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 23:46
|
|
|
Sanguine posted:But he got there in a soyuz? and landed kick rear end rovers on mars, Russia just ferries people up to the ISS
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
russia sux and is bad
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:48
|
|
|
Smoremaster posted:russia sux and is bad actually, it is good
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
You joke about blowing up the moon but the United States was actually going to fire a nuke at the moon just to "See what would happen if you detonated a nuke on another object in space" but then scientists were like "don't set off a giant bomb on the thing that controls tides you dumbfucks"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Smoremaster posted:russia sux and is bad Glorgnole posted:actually, it is good I just invented a perpetual motion machine
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:You joke about blowing up the moon but the United States was actually going to fire a nuke at the moon just to "See what would happen if you detonated a nuke on another object in space" but then scientists were like "don't set off a giant bomb on the thing that controls tides you dumbfucks"
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:You joke about blowing up the moon but the United States was actually going to fire a nuke at the moon just to "See what would happen if you detonated a nuke on another object in space" but then scientists were like "don't set off a giant bomb on the thing that controls tides you dumbfucks" I'm sure it would have been fiiiiine
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:13
|
|
|
*accidentally nukes moon out of stable orbit* But don't you see the upside Mr. President? Now the Russians can never create a moon base gap!
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
The Buran actually landed, didn't it? That gives it a slightly better record than the Top Gear Robin Reliant Shuttle 
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
Alexzandvar posted:*accidentally nukes moon out of stable orbit* But don't you see the upside Mr. President? Now the Russians can never create a moon base gap! I think you just posted the plot for a 1970s science fiction TV show...
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 05:48
|
|
|
Zippy the Bummer posted:space craft have such boring unimaginative names these days. Apollo was cool, but Columbia? Curiosity? wtf is that pussy poo poo Orion is a pretty cool name for a spacecraft, so is Soyuz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzMJhOwBLqw
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
The Protagonist posted:You know the thought occurs NASA is really passing up a lot of good Spaceporn money actually if porn money got involved back in the shuttle days we'd have a half dozen working space elevators and ships capable of relativistic speeds by now
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:16 |
|
|
Sanguine posted:- Space Shuttle
|
|
#
?
Dec 20, 2014 06:59
|
|