my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film-Yak   » Shuttle is go for launch! (Page 2)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: Shuttle is go for launch! Peter Berrett Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 602 From: Victoria, Australia Registered: Nov 2000 posted 07-05-2006 04:34 AM                        Mars? Hey Man still hasn't walked on Cruithne! Lets walk before we run! Here is a suggested speech for George Bush to make. (see below) Regards Peter "... I therefore ask the Congress, above and beyond the increases I have earlier requested for space activities, to provide the funds which are needed to meet the following national goals: First, I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on Cruithne and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space; and none will be so difficult or expensive to accomplish. We propose to accelerate the development of the appropriate Cruithne space craft and We propose to develop a replacement for the Space Shuttle, much safer than any now being developed, until certain which is superior. We propose additional funds for other engine development and for unmanned explorations -- explorations which are particularly important for one purpose which this nation will never overlook: the survival of the man who first makes this daring flight. But in a very real sense, it will not be one man going to Cruithne -if we make this judgment affirmatively, it will be an entire nation. For all of us must work to put him there. Secondly, an additional 23 billion dollars, together with 70 billion dollars already available, will accelerate development of the Crew Exploration Vehicle. This gives promise of some day providing a means for even more exciting and ambitious exploration of space, perhaps beyond Cruithne, perhaps to the very end of the solar system itself. We shall boldly go where no man has gone before. Third, an additional 50 billion dollars will make the most of our present leadership, by accelerating the use of space satellites for interplanetary communications. Fourth, an additional 75 billion dollars - of which 53 billion dollars is for the new satelite development-will help give us at the earliest possible time a satellite system for early meteorite detection. Let it be clear-and this is a judgment which the Members of the Congress must finally make-let if be clear that I am asking the Congress and the country to accept a firm commitment to a new course of action-a course which will last for many years and carry very heavy costs: 531 billion dollars in fiscal '07 -- an estimated seven to nine hundred billion dollars additional over the next five years. If we are to go only half way, or reduce our sights in the face of difficulty, in my judgment it would be better not to go at all. Now this is a choice which this country must make, and I am confident that under the leadership of the Space Committees of the Congress, and the Appropriating Committees, that you will consider the matter carefully. It is a most important decision that we make as a nation. But all of you have lived through the last fourty years and have seen the significance of space and the adventures in space, and no one can predict with certainty what the ultimate meaning will be of mastery of space. I believe we should go to Cruithne. But I think every citizen of this country as well as the Members of the Congress should consider the matter carefully in making their judgment, to which we have given attention over many weeks and months, because it is a heavy burden, and there is no sense in agreeing or desiring that the United States take an affirmative position in outer space, unless we are prepared to do the work and bear the burdens to make it successful. If we are not, we should decide today and this year. This decision demands a major national commitment of scientific and technical manpower, material and facilities, and the possibility of their diversion from other important activities where they are already thinly spread. It means a degree of dedication, organization and discipline which have not always characterized our research and development efforts. It means we cannot afford undue work stoppages, inflated costs of material or talent, wasteful interagency rivalries, or a high turnover of key personnel. New objectives and new money cannot solve these problems. They could in fact, aggravate them further-unless every scientist, every engineer, every serviceman, every technician, contractor, and civil servant gives his personal pledge that this nation will move forward, with the full speed of freedom, in the exciting adventure of space."  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 07-05-2006 07:19 AM                     quote: Charles Greenlee The hydrogen fuel cell was created for the gemini, and apollo programs, though I do find it kinda odd that it still hasn't been commecrialized, oil company conpiracy? Ahhhhhhhhhhhhh......... When I see a statement like this, it always drives me nuts. HYDROGEN IS NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY!!!! Unless somebody has recently found a big pocket of hydrogen or has developed the technology to run a pipeline to the center of the sun hydrogen is not an energy source. In order to use hydrogen as a fuel you have to make it. It can be made by splitting water (which takes energy) or by reforming a petroleum based fuel (which requires the original fuel and energy). In either case you end up with less energy then you started with. Hydrogen is an energy storage device, like a battery. The reason that hydrogen fuel cells are good for spacecraft is that you can store a good amount of energy for a given mass and the byproduct of getting the energy out is water which can be used on board. As for why they use hydrogen fuel for the main engines? I assume that once they decided on liquid fuel, they determined that for the equivalent energy content, the liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen combo weighed less than any other liquid fuel/oxidizer combination. There is no "Big Oil" conspiracy holding back alternative fuel technology. If it was viable, why wouldn't they just invest in it and make billions off the alternative fuels?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2006 07:42 AM                     quote: HYDROGEN IS NOT A SOURCE OF ENERGY!!!! Humm, It is dam flammable and to me things that are flammable can certainly produce energy. NASA has a stack at the pad that they use to burn off the excess hydrogen when they are fueling the shuttle. Don't tell this to the guys that split Hydrogen Atoms in them big bombs! Fuel Cells are being developed that will be able to power vehicles... I believe that GM has had a prooject like this for some time. The main thing about fuel cslls are that they are VERY touchy to operate. Something for the near future.... quote: Can anyone make a list of the historical breakthroughs's that NASA has provided over the last 20 years? There is a magazine printed yearly by NASA called "Spin Off" that lists these breakthroughs and how they apply to other sciences or medical purposes. I think some libraries have copies of it. So you'd have to go back through all those magazines which I believe go back to the Gemini or Apollo days to read about all the breakthroughs.... SOme of them are at the link above... Read to your hearts content Jason Mark  |  IP: Logged Stephen Furley Film God Posts: 3059 From: Coulsdon, Croydon, England Registered: May 2002 posted 07-05-2006 07:54 AM                     Somebody (Lyle Romer) saying something sensible about fuel cells for once! A handful of fuel cell powered buses were introduced in london about three years or so ago. I never travelled on one, though I did see them a couple of times on route 25; a route which I use from time to time. They were transferred to another route, and I never saw them again; I don't know if they're still in service. One of them was pouring out so much steam that it would have been difficult for drivers behind the thing to see where they were going. The buses and the hydrogen were both expensive, but I think the maintenance costs were lower than Diesel. The hydrogen they were using was made by steam reforming of natural gas. What happens to the carbon from the natural gas in this process? Maybe they could use it for making projector carbons The whole thing was a non-starter; I think TfL (Transport for London) just wanted to be seen to be doing something 'green'.  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 07-05-2006 08:46 AM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen Humm, It is dam flammable and to me things that are flammable can certainly produce energy. I didn't say hydrogen didn't contain energy, just that it is not a source of energy (here on earth). Once you have hydrogen, it can produce energy but on earth we have to make it first. There are no hydrogen deposits. If they ever develop controllable nuclear fusion, then you will get a lot more energy out than it took to make it. Without nuclear fusion, it doesn't work. If you take a gallon of water, split it into H2 and O2 and then use the resultant H2 to fuel a generator, less electricity will be output from the generator than then amount you had to put in to split the gallon of water.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 07-05-2006 05:58 PM                        In other words, it's a way of storing and transporting energy rather than a raw source of the energy itself. The $64m question is, I guess, whether or not you suffer a net loss of energy creating the hydrogen, such as to knock out its benefits. There was a feature piece on The World Tonight a few evenings ago about biofuel, and its growing popularity in parts of the US and South America as a means of reducing the need for oil imports. One of the more sceptical scientists who was interviewed pointed out that growing oil seed rape (or whatever it is you brew the biofuel from) involves farmland which has been enriched by nitrogen fertiliser, and to make nitrogen fertiliser you need to burn fossil fuels. He admitted that the amount of fossil fuel burnt per mile driven or kilowatt generated was significantly less than if you simply burnt coal or oil in your car or power station, but stuck to his guns in questioning whether or not biofuel was truly carbon neutral. There again, to take that argument to its logical extreme, how much energy do you burn building the components of a wind turbine or a photovoltaic panel? And is the energy you burn manufacturing a new model of car which is 3mpg more efficient than its predecessor really 'paid for' in fuel efficiency over the new car's operational lifetime?  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2006 07:22 PM                     No, I understand what Lyle is talking about... In the bomb the atoms of hydrogen have to be super heated and under extreme pressure in order to release the energy contained. Natural gas is basically the same although it just doesn't store or transport as much energy. No Hydrogen deposits anyplace... just vsit my bathroom every morning before I leave for work  |  IP: Logged Lyle Romer Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1400 From: Davie, FL, USA Registered: May 2002 posted 07-05-2006 08:01 PM                     quote: Mark Gulbrandsen No Hydrogen deposits anyplace... just vsit my bathroom every morning before I leave for work I didn't need to read that after I just finished dinner!  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-05-2006 08:08 PM                  quote: Allison and remember... The Temperpedic bed was developed by NASA scientist!! ..and don't forget ***THEEEE*** single most important NASA spin-off... TANG!  |  IP: Logged Bruce Hansen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 847 From: Stone Mountain, GA, USA Registered: Dec 1999 posted 07-05-2006 08:11 PM                     Since the shuttle was to be launched on July 4th, instead of starting it with the push of a button, NASA stuck a big fuse out the bottom of it, and let some half drunk hick light it with a red white and blue cigarette lighter. Hay, wait, that was me they let do that. I guess that is way my hair is a little singed. Some of the things we have gotten from the space program, but most people seem to forget are satellites. Those pictures from space you see on the weather report would not be there if not for the space program. Just knowing when a hurricane was on the way can save countless lives. Then don't forget that just about everything you watch on TV is sent over a satellite link.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2006 08:22 PM                        We wouldn't have XM Satellite Radio either. But then we also wouldn't have satellite TV, that'd be an improvement for the world.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-05-2006 08:30 PM                  Commercial TV, telephone, communications, mapping, etc satellites had nothing to do with the shuttle program. They were a spin-off of the military "spy" satellite technology and conventional rocket programs.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-05-2006 08:35 PM                        I thought this little sub-argument was about NASA in general, not the shuttle program.  |  IP: Logged Phil Hill I love my cootie bug Posts: 7595 From: Hollywood, CA USA Registered: Mar 2000 posted 07-05-2006 08:38 PM                  Please explain... Perhaps you should look at the title of this thread?  |  IP: Logged Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 07-05-2006 09:00 PM                     I remember hearing about a hydrogen car that had on onboard deisel engine that converted water into hydrogen that could be used in a fuel cell. Does anyone know anything about that? Any idea how many miles you could travel on the amount of hydrogen converted from one gallon of diesel? Did I even hear it correctly?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.