Replica A Lange & Sohne
Replica Accutron
Replica Audemars Piguet
Replica Baume & Mercier
Replica Bell & Ross
Replica Breitling
Replica Bvlgari
Replica Cartier
Replica Chanel
Replica Chopard
Replica Christian Bernard
Replica Christian Dior
Replica Citizen
Replica Coach
Replica Concord
Replica Corum
Replica D&G
Replica DKNY
Replica Ebel
Replica ESQ
Replica Fendi
Replica Fila
Replica Franck Muller
Replica Girard Perregaux
Replica Givenchy
Replica Gucci
Replica Guess
Replica Hamilton
Replica Haurex
Replica Invicta
Replica IWC
Replica Jacob & Co
Replica Jacques Lemans
Replica Jaeger LeCoultre
Replica Levis
Replica Longines
Replica Mont Blanc
Replica Movado
Replica Omega
Replica Orient
Replica Oris
Replica Panerai
Replica Patek Philippe
Replica Piaget
Replica Rado
Replica Rolex
Replica Sector
Replica Seiko
Replica Skagen
Replica Swatch
Replica Swiss
Replica Swiss Army Victorinox
Replica Tag Heuer
Replica Technomarine
Replica Timberland
Replica Tissot
Replica Ulysse Nardin
Replica Vacheron Constantin
Replica Wenger
Replica Wittnauer
Replica Zenith
Replica Zodiac ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping
Rolex Sports watches
Rolex Datejusts watches
A Lange & Sohne watches
Aigner watches
Alain Silberstein watches
Audemars Piguet watches
Bell & Ross watches
Breguet watches
Breitling watches
Bvlgari watches
Cartier watches
Chanel watches
Chopard watches
Concord watches
Corum watches
Dior watches
Dolce & Gabbana watches
Ebel watches
Emporio Armani watches
Glashutte watches
Gucci watches
Hermes Watches
IWC watches
Jacob & Co watches
Jaeger LeCoultre watches
Longines watches
Louis Vuitton watches
Mont Blanc watches
Movado watches
Omega watches
Oris watches
Panerai watches
Patek Philippe watches
Philip Stein watches
Porsche Design watches
Rado watches Roger
Roger Dubuis watches
Sarcar watches
Tag Heuer watches
Technomarine watches
Vacheron Constantin watches
Zenith watches ecommerce
open source
shop
online shopping

Posted by: luxury watch at April 17, 2009 02:47 AM

I really appreciate his wisdom and philosophy of life.Haw-haw ！It is a very beaufitul writing! The moderator is really a man of

intention.
fake rolex watches replica
http://www.onestoptown.com/
http://www.watchinstyle.com/rolex-datedate-white-diamondsswiss-eta-2836-p-768.html?
replica nike shoes sale
zenid=teg6g8jtnlurrhkmbomsugkuj7
http://easyforbuy.com/002-puma-shoes-all-black-p-4029.html
http://lowestmall.com/9826-nike-king-black-sapphire-p-5367.html

http://www.rolex8u.com/

Posted by: rolexwatches at October 15, 2008 12:25 AM

Haw-haw ！It is a very beaufitul writing! The moderator is really a man of intention. I

really appreciate his wisdom and philosophy of life
replica watch

http://www.watchinstyle.com/rolex-datedate-white-diamondsswiss-eta-2836-p-768.html?

zenid=teg6g8jtnlurrhkmbomsugkuj7
http://easyforbuy.com/002-puma-shoes-all-black-p-4029.html
http://lowestmall.com/9826-nike-king-black-sapphire-p-5367.html?

zenid=iu1fq75j2cmr6534iltfb807i5
http://onestoptown.com/

Posted by: replicawatches at October 8, 2008 11:24 PM

replica rolex watches

Posted by: replica rolex watches at August 22, 2008 02:24 AM

rolex replica watches

Posted by: rolex replica watches at August 22, 2008 02:23 AM

You can choose your favourite Lineden. You can easily begin selling it to buy second life linden other residents.

Posted by: buy second life linden at August 16, 2008 09:18 PM

My friends always buy second life linden from this company. Because there are several kinds of Secondlife linden in the company.

Posted by: Secondlife linden at August 16, 2008 09:16 PM

If you want to Buy metin2 gold you can go to the company. I hope that we will become good friends in the Cheap metin2 gold game.

Posted by: Cheap metin2 gold at August 16, 2008 09:13 PM

Now I tell you that a web site http://www.gameim.com supply Cheap metin2 gold and Cheap metin2 yang.

Posted by: Cheap metin2 yang at August 16, 2008 09:10 PM

Of course the Metin2 yang can bring funs. I believed that you will love this Metin2 gold new game.

Posted by: Metin2 gold at August 16, 2008 09:09 PM

Master, I am really very think of you, what a pity that we as if already parted forever. Now, I buy Habbo gold for your come back.

Posted by: buy Habbo gold at August 13, 2008 12:20 AM

For in the game I can have a family, I was go all out to work make Lord Of The Rings Gold, so long as there were the methods which could make money I has tried.

Posted by: Lord Of The Rings Gold at August 13, 2008 12:19 AM

For in the game I can have a family, I was go all out to work make Lord Of The Rings Gold, so long as there were the methods which could make money I has tried.

Posted by: Lord Of The Rings Gold at August 13, 2008 12:17 AM

However, if it is also under the free name, charge the massive fee to blackmail us, let us buy Hellgate Palladium to continue this game, I will not play this game forever.

Posted by: buy Hellgate Palladium at August 13, 2008 12:13 AM

You said that who dares to annoy me and you will look for him to PK, and make him lose his all lastchaos money.

Posted by: lastchaos money at August 13, 2008 12:09 AM

In the hero2, I had already changed 4 regions. The hero online gold also has changed several times.

Posted by: hero online gold at August 13, 2008 12:07 AM

So I spent some mabinogi gold to study. After school study the lovable gray wolf became collapses at the first blow.

Posted by: mabinogi gold at August 13, 2008 12:03 AM

Every time, when I received the imvu credits, I always gave them to you.

Posted by: imvu credits at August 13, 2008 12:01 AM

But come to the bank, I have only known that save money will need 10% expenses, oh my god! Like that, my money also turned the cheap holic gold. I do not do it.

Posted by: cheap holic gold at August 13, 2008 12:00 AM

But come to the bank, I have only known that save money will need 10% expenses, oh my god! Like that, my money also turned the cheap holic gold. I do not do it.

Posted by: cheap holic gold at August 12, 2008 11:55 PM

This would serve to bring in, but too tough to agents, can not apply. In any case you can be adopted to achieve Xiah Online Gold!

Posted by: Xiah Online Gold at August 7, 2008 09:33 PM

The question: is it time to move beyond manned space flight altogether, at least for the next decade (except for tourists willing to shell out a multimillion-dollar check to Richard Branson, of course).

Posted by: 出会い at August 7, 2008 08:51 PM

Therefore, I diligently practiced the level to promote, only then promote only then can help me to save many cheap 2moons gold.

Posted by: cheap 2moons gold at August 5, 2008 12:58 AM

Because of her waste, her money have been became the Archlord cheap.

Posted by: Archlord cheap at August 5, 2008 12:56 AM

nice to meet you

Posted by: cheap wow gold at April 13, 2008 09:00 PM

wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow gold
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
翻译公司
rolex
翻译公司
rolex replica
wow gold
wow gold
World of Warcraft Gold
World of Warcraft Gold
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling

powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
powerleveling
powerleveling
power leveling
power leveling
wow powerleveling
wow powerleveling
wow power leveling
wow power leveling
rs Gold
rs Gold
Runescape Gold
Runescape Gold
rs powerleveling
rs powerleveling
Runescape powerleveling
Runescape powerleveling

lotro gold
lotro gold
LOTRO US Gold
LOTRO US Gold
LOTRO EU Gold
LOTRO EU Gold
buy lotro gold
buy lotro gold
cheap lotro gold
cheap lotro gold
LOTRO Powerleveling
LOTRO Powerleveling
LOTRO Power leveling
LOTRO Power leveling
SilkRoad Gold
SilkRoad Gold
SilkRoad Powerleveling
SilkRoad Powerleveling
SilkRoad Power leveling
SilkRoad Power leveling
SR Gold
SR Gold
SR Powerleveling
SR Powerleveling
SR Power leveling
SR Power leveling

Posted by: 121 at November 6, 2007 03:34 AM

Dennis,

They only painted the ET for the first 2 shuttle missions. Even on STS-1 and -2 they found tile damage on the orbiter. NASA just normalized it over the years - it hadn't led to any serious problems over a couple of decades of operation, how bad could it be? As it turns out, that was a bad assumption. The foam shedding problem is so fundamental to the design of the vehicle that there's really no cost- or time-effective fix. This isn't the only problem they've had with the shuttle design either. The Challenger o-ring failure is notorious, but then there were the problems with frayed wiring discovered on STS-99 that required a complete inspection of the fleet, ongoing issues with the SSME that were only resolved with a new turbopump design in the '90s, aging hydrazine-powered APUs, obsolete flight control computers, a borderline braking system on landing (hence the drag chute), no viable escape system, etc. etc. It's hard to blame NASA for all of this because the shuttle is such a complex system that you could fly for another 25 years without figuring out all the interactions. The focus has always been on getting it working and trying not to mess with it once it's working. From the outside, the picture always looks like NASA and contractor incompetence, but once you get involved in a real technology development program, you realize just how tough this stuff is. Not to say it couldn't be done better, but I've got more sympathy now.

Posted by: George Skinner at August 17, 2007 02:56 PM

Poor design doomed the Space Shuttle from the start.I always wondered why they didn't apply the foam to the interior of the tank, not the outside of it.That should have kept temperatures high enough on the outside of the tank to prevent ice from forming.It would then have not been subject to the dynamic pressures it does being on the outside of the tank and the integrity probably wouldn't have been compromised.
I also never understood why the RCC leading edge of the orbiter wasn't backed by the same material the shuttle tiles are made of, instead of a hollow space behind it within the aerostructure. That spaced should have been stuffed with an insulating material, like the ceramic foam, in case of a leading edge breach.That may have given the crew of the Columbia time to re-enter without a catastrophic break-up of the spacecraft.
Probably the most suprising thing to NASA safety engineers is why the turbopumps never had a catastrophic failure in 150+ flights.Those are really marvels of engineering and have held together every time.

Posted by: j house at August 17, 2007 11:21 AM

Sorry George,

"The tank on the first two missions was painted, but the paint really didn't contribute anything to foam integrity. The foam pops off due to cryopumping between the foam & tank, and structural flexing during liftoff. If something like painting the tank or wrapping it in plastic would help, NASA would've done it after the Columbia disaster."

I just don't have that much faith in NASA. I am probably wrong, but in the twenty or so years they were flying the shuttle with the tank painted I do not remember them having these issues. The removed the paint and now this foam is smashing the tiles.
My faith in NASA would be a little stronger if they did not at first shrug off the foam as being the cause of the last shuttle disaster and and the fact that they have been flying this thing for over twenty years and still haven't worked all the bugs out.
Even as corrupt as the military procurement programs are, they would have changed designs, manufacturers and did whatever they had to do to get out from under a design that did not live up to expectations.
And for the fellow that thinks we should have created a simple system that is cheap to operate, I don't disgree. But only to a point.
That thought is based on the idea that rockets are the way to go. At this point they are, but in the near future (and arguably even now) there are systems that could be cheaper, and much safer.
NASA after all, is supposed to be pushing the boundaries of technology to get us into space. As far as I can tell they are failing in that mandate.

Posted by: Dennis at August 17, 2007 08:01 AM

Certainly no expert, but did have a slight Shuttle connection when I worked as an intern with McDonnell-Douglas in the early nineties on the defunct Aerobrake project in Huntsville (which would have been launched from the Shuttle).

Here's what I would like to see:

1) A true internodal space transportation craft, something to stay in space permenantly to carry explorers between heavenly bodies. It would almost certainly need to be nuclear powered. Something fast, like a four week voyage to Mars at closest approach. Have maybe three or four of these crafts.

2) A small reusable winged craft that can reliably get from the ground to LEO and back. Something big enough to carry a pilot, co-pilot, 6 or so passengers and a couple tons of supplies. This would service the internodal vehicle and the space station. Why a reusable craft instead of a one shot deal? Just because dammit.

3) Continue unmanned exploration, especially of the outer planets.

Posted by: Ken at August 16, 2007 04:56 PM

Unfortunately, there isn't really any alternative to the tiles that wouldn't require a complete vehicle redesign. The tile construction has been upgraded over the years, but silica tiles just aren't robust. Anything more durable would be too heavy. The X-33 program was going to evaluate a metallic heat shielding system that promised to be much more robust, but I think it required a lighter design that would encounter its peak heating higher in the upper atmosphere, and may also have needed a hot vehicle structure design (i.e. titanium instead of aluminum) because it wasn't as effective as the silica tiles.

Also, the shuttle external tank was never tiled. The tank on the first two missions was painted, but the paint really didn't contribute anything to foam integrity. The foam pops off due to cryopumping between the foam & tank, and structural flexing during liftoff. If something like painting the tank or wrapping it in plastic would help, NASA would've done it after the Columbia disaster. The foam's probably going to pop off one way or another, so a better approach would be to come up with a design that tolerates it. That'd mean putting the spacecraft on top of the tank so that it can't be hit by foam or ice, rather than the shuttle design where we hang a vehicle with a non-robust TPS on the side of a tank shedding debris on launch!

Posted by: George Skinner at August 16, 2007 01:06 PM

ok first sorry murc to have offended you with my arse mouth i just feel kinda strongly about some things

heres what gets me though nasa i think kind off suffers from the same thing USAF does about aircraft this isnt against usaf or anybody just way things are

check this link out
media.armadilloaerospace.com/DCX/
just though it showed something

look at the A-10 no general wanted to touch it only the engineers so what do we get? the best ground attach aircraft ever built if ya ask me. I think nasa has the same problem try to put to much stuff into one vehicle look at todays cars there isnt a margin for error its so complex that if they messup now you cant work onem without 15 special tools.
And realy as for move beyond manned space flight
all i have to say to that.....imagine a world without tang!!!
no seriously that kinda defeats the perpose of it dosent it just turnes it into another big science experiment

one more question though isnt there a subsitute to the tiles that isnt so fragile?

Posted by: James at August 15, 2007 04:33 PM

Remember the shuttle was to be a space truck? It never lived up to the hype. A mission every two weeks? Not when you have to practicly rebuild the thing after every mission. The Saturn was far cheaper and more dependble. The Saturn was the only rocket that never had a failure in testing. You didn't even need the whole Saturn to get apollo into orbit, the second stage was powerfull enough. The whole Saturn launch vehicle could have put a space station into orbit.

Remember sky Lab and how big it was? Imagine five or six Sky Labs linked together. You might have had a spce station that would have been big enough to repair sats, and act as a way station to the moon. In fact the first sky lab was lost because the shuttle was delayed long enough and could not get to it and push it into orbit. Instead it fell out of orbit.

The new launch system will have the capsule again oon top and out of the slip stream.

The best way into orbit is to fly there, but any air breathing ship would have to get up to speeds of 17 thousand five hundred miles per hour. At that speed heat problems is one of the biggest of all.

Untill then a mass produced old time lift rockets are the safest and cheapest way to go!

Posted by: davids at August 15, 2007 08:39 AM

The original shuttle tanks did not have this problem because they were tiled. They abandoned this due to the weight. But the foam insulation was protected from the wind sheer by those tiles.

Why can't NASA come up with a lightweight plastic coating to cover the external tank with?

Just my two cents...

Posted by: Robert Chambers at August 15, 2007 06:00 AM

My 2 cents worth:

1. Should the shuttle be replaced ? YES! It is, was and will continue to be a failure. Not in the sense of blowing up or incinerating itself on re-entry (although it has done both), but in the sense of never having become what it was suppose to be: A cheap, routine access to space. Last I heard, launching a pound of mass into orbit on the shuttle is actually more expesive than any expendable launch vehicle you care to name. Conclusion: Time to move on, but don't count on NASA to do the moving. Look at NASA's "next generation" CEV! Little more than a glorified Apollo. We must do better than that, and we can, if we get private industry involved. What we need is for space to become a business rather than an esoteric government science project.

2. As for "Just use automated probes" ? No way! Space is far too exciting to leave to robots. Was it one of the Apollo astronauts who once said that "Only a human can interpret space in terms that other humans can understand", or some such thing ? And furthermore, IMNSHO, getting people into space, to the Moon, to Mars, to the outer Solar System and beyond, is the very reason we have a space program at all. Why ? Well, have you seen any Dinosaurs around recently? NO, because they got wiped out by a gazillion tons of rock smacking into the planet! That could happen to us too, you know.

So onwards and upwards.

Regards & all

Thomas L. Nielsen
Denmark

Posted by: Thomas L. Nielsen at August 15, 2007 01:37 AM

> I hate to say it but they should have a new vehicle on the drawing >board every decade.
>They could reuse parts that work well, like rockets, but come on, >with the speed at which technology is progressing any vehicle >they build is hopelessly obsolete ten years later.

Actually the opposite is true. We need a simple system that we refine over decades, but workes correctly from the start with saftey designed in. Look at the Russians...that's what they have done. Same Soyuz craft for over 30 years, while we've had two big gaps as we transitioned from Apollo to Shuttle, and soon from Shuttle to CEV.

Posted by: Sam Adams at August 14, 2007 11:44 PM

So they installed a gazillion cameras, but are still using that eco-friendly foam that Greg Katnik wrote about?

http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/journals/space/katnik/sts87-12-23.html

That's not improving safety, that's sick voyeurism.

Posted by: Piotr S. at August 14, 2007 11:25 PM

Considering the advances in computers, communication, and robotics, yes I'd say "move beyond" is not a retreat, but a realization that the machines we have made, in the vaccume of space, can far outstrip our limited capabilities.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at August 14, 2007 11:13 PM

From a retired aerospace quality engineer: O-rings were not in my baliwick. Do remember a basic warning: they do not perform well in cold weather. Should have waited for a better day? Really good--hindsight.

Spent years working on better methods of inspecting poly-foam thermal blankets on ET. Cryo-pumping and monococal vibrations are inherent in the launch process. Evaluate and fix--whatever it takes. Make sure you have a backup.

Are we suffering from the Dumbeth Syndrome?

Posted by: James Lloyd at August 14, 2007 09:00 PM

I think the author of this has diarrhea of the mouth, he is cleary rambling on and on about something he knows nothing about.

I'll keep this short and simlpe.

Th shuttle will be retired in 2010, we need it until then to continue construction on the International Space Station. By around 2012-2014 we will have the Shuttle's replacement ready for flight. And before 2020, we will be on the moon, and begin building a permanent moon base...and maybe 10-15 years beyond that.......man will finally reach Mars.

Posted by: murc at August 14, 2007 07:17 PM

wtf is wrong with nasa DCX was awsome they get it say hmmm and boom it messes up and burns so lets look at it this way

shuttle=small foam brakes off tank dooms flight

dcx9=(pre nasa screwing with it)suffers small explosion(SMALL EXPLOSION!!!!!!!!!!!!!)aborts returns to earth safly

dangit what is wrong with them shuttle was ok for the 70 maybe 80s
nasa is obbsessed with hightech future stuff high cost basicly

heres the facts space=dangerous=only way to save our planet from disaster=$$$$$$
nasa just wants to keep its head down and not worrytake it slow things might go wrong then we'ed look bad damn politicians. look at half there experiments there not worried about manned spaceflight.
ask a nasa administartor about the replacment for the shuttle hell say im sure itll be here in 50yrs or so and not to worry about so little time being tested itll be safe we think...dont quote me.

nasa needs to wake up realise it dosent have 20 or 30 yrs to find a change for the spaceshuttle we need a replacment now

hehe sorry im just a little frustrated
but hell we asked them a good way to go to the moon we get...what...an upgraded appollo spacecraft fttt nm stupid uptight nasa ppl

Posted by: James at August 14, 2007 06:03 PM

In many ways, the shuttle is still a technological wonder: the biggest spacecraft capable of atmospheric re-entry ever built, capable of carrying a huge payload to orbit or returning one to Earth, and nominally reusable. The design has got too many flaws, though, and it's time to replace it with something better. The design pushed '70s technology right to the edge, meaning that the vehicle has never been robust, making it expensive to operate. It lacks a credible escape system for the crew. It has features that were never needed and make it less efficient (i.e. big delta wing.) Mike Griffin was right in 2006 when he commented that the shuttle was a dead-end for NASA - too bad that he recanted when he got slapped with the emotional backlash from an organization that has invested years into making a flawed design work. Too bad NASA's budget has been consumed by the shuttle and station for so long. It would've been brilliant if NASA could've proceeded to prototype stage with all of the X-33 proposals instead of putting all of their eggs in one basket with the LockMart design. They probably would've had a shuttle replacement by now - the McDonnell-Douglas design had already been proven in concept form with the DC-X, and the Rockwell design was an evolutionary advancement on the shuttle that almost certainly would've worked.

Posted by: George Skinner at August 14, 2007 03:56 PM

Am I way out of line or did the problems with the foam start after they stopped painting the tank?
From what I remember, they found there was something like 80 pounds in painting the tank, so they decided to lighten up by not painting it. After all it is just going to burn up after it is jettisoned.....
Could the paint have been holding the foam together?
Just thinking out loud.......
As for giving up on the shuttle, NASA like most Federal bureaucracies cannot seem to get out of its own way.
The shuttle is a relic, no matter how much upgrading they have done. I hate to say it but they should have a new vehicle on the drawing board every decade.
They could reuse parts that work well, like rockets, but come on, with the speed at which technology is progressing any vehicle they build is hopelessly obsolete ten years later.
Instead of spending all the money upgrading parts on existing vehicles, they should just start over.
As for giving up on manned flight, that will just take all the fun out of it. NASA is a spectator sport, so I do not see that happening soon.
It would be really nice if they actually spent money on alternatives to rocket power. It is still much to expensive to go into space.
But since NASA is in charge, so I assume the Chinese will be the first to put together a non-rocket or hybrid system of getting into space. After they steal the technology from a small U.S startup that is.

Posted by: Dennis at August 14, 2007 03:37 PM

Shortly after the Columbia disaster I went to a major computer-industry tradeshow which included a lot of R&D exhibits. One company was demonstrating an automated system which monitored and evaluated multiple simultaneous video feeds and alerted ground control to potential problems.

What was interesting is that they fed it imagery from the Columbia launch and it flagged things which they claim would have indicated the O-ring failure to the ground crew, potentially preventing the disaster.

I don't know what became of that company or how valid their claims were, but I do wonder if automated monitoring of video feeds is part of the launch process these days.

As an aside, I'm laughing at commenter Nicholas Weaver's choice of words. "Move beyond manned spaceflight" makes it sound as if backing down from that frontier is somehow a kind of progress.

Posted by: Mac at August 14, 2007 02:18 PM

How is the presentation of information thats in the public realm "anti-government" or even political? Amazing! Simply Amazing!

Posted by: Solomon at August 14, 2007 01:53 PM

Aren't they to retire the shuttles in 2009.

The anti-gov't lean this site has recently taken detracks from what this site used to be.

Posted by: el mossomo at August 14, 2007 01:49 PM

Personally, I thought the X-33 should have been finished, but that's just me. The Project was supposed to have been around +80% complete. I wonder what they did with the vehicle & launch center. I recall an article stating that the Air Force was looking at taking over the project? Eh, guess not.

"Lockheed Martin X-33"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33

"Aerospike engine"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerospike_engine

"Lockheed Unveils Shuttle Replacement - A PM Exclusive"
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/1534782.html?page=1

"DC-x"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

"Crew Exploration Vehicle"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

And because so many people are killed in car wrecks, then nobody should be allowed to drive. And since the outside world is filled with scary things... maybe I shouldn't ever leave my house. j/k ;p

Posted by: Camp at August 14, 2007 12:48 PM

Since it is so dangerous to put men into space with the Space shuttle,then manned flight to mars,much less the moon,is totally out of the question.Sending more rovers like Spirit & opportunity is the answer.If they can work on robotic aircraft that can land & take off from both Mars & the moon,that would be worth it.If they can get robotic spacecraft to take off & land,then later they can discuss manned flight.Why no research & development on this?

Posted by: Roy Smith at August 14, 2007 12:32 PM

The question: is it time to move beyond manned space flight altogether, at least for the next decade (except for tourists willing to shell out a multimillion-dollar check to Richard Branson, of course).

For example, on the Columbia disaster, a "scientific" mission, the only science could have either been done by robots or presumes continued, near term, long duration spaceflight.

For the price of ONE shuttle launch ($1B+ easily), you can launch 4 Atlas V rockets in heavy lift configuration, each carrying 10 tons of payload to the LEO that the shuttle operates in, with no risk to human life. With the shuttle only carrying 25 tons, and having about a 1/50 chance of killing 7 people in the process, you do the math.

Likewise, the "Science" produced by the ISS is nonexistant, it is a creaky Motel 6 in low earth orbit, serving only as a resource for NASA contractors.

Posted by: Nicholas Weaver at August 14, 2007 11:48 AM