|
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Shuttle is go for launch!
|
|
|
|
|
Phil Hill
I love my cootie bug
Posts: 7595
From: Hollywood, CA USA
Registered: Mar 2000
|
posted 07-05-2006 10:09 PM
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
Phil, We are all referring to Jason's question above and that was about NASA in general.
Mark, ummmm... OIC... BUT! It would be nice if some "follow-up poster" would reference what said so as to avoid the confusion. DUH! ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
AS far as your "in bed with NASA companies", even IF I believe it is current, "list"... I revert back to my original comment. YAWN! WTF CARES? That was then, this is NOW! Get in the 21st century! ![[thumbsdown]](graemlins/thumbsdown.gif) ![[sleep]](graemlins/sleep.gif)
NASA NEEDS to get with it, get MODERN! They sure have had PLENTY of time (YEARS!) to know the OLD shuttle should have been retired years ago and the NASA jerks should have planned for a NEW spacecraft and FRONTIER to conquer instead of licking eachothers butts to save the shuttle...oh, AND their jobs!
NASA needs to STOP being the "oldboy-engineer-and-manager-place-for-the-old-farts-to mooch-off us-taxpayers-'til-retirement" They NEED some new blood there! ![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
I'm sick of the NASA ***hype*** and rhetoric! Oh, and did I mention the mega $$$$ our tax money spent for an obsolete technology!
Yeah, those HD cameras ARE a BIG improvement as is that BIG countdown display clock... HA! ![[uhoh]](graemlins/uhoh.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 07-05-2006 10:26 PM
Lyle is right, Hydrogen must be manufacured, and usually from hydrocarbon sources like natural gas, petrolium, and others. Good point. A hydrogen fuel cell system would operate much like a battery. Simply storing and using energy produced elsewhere. Electrical power isn't an energy source either. It also must be produced at a plant, which can use any number of methods to make it. There are electric cars, that run from batteries which you can charge at home. Grant that range is limited, you won't want to make a road trip with it, but it is perfectly acceptable to drive about town in it. And as far as speed and strength? There are electric cars that can peel out, and keep up with most gas cars, at least for their shorter range. Which brings about another question, why have we had electric cars since before the 1890's, and none now? Oh sure, there's golf carts, mail trucks, and some technophile's and specialty vehicles, but not many mass produced electrics. Electrics all but died out during the high time of Standard Oil, and the other oil monopolies that T. Roosevelt was so adamant in breaking up. Also, I might add you should google about alternative fueled vehicles. You'll run across some articles describing how someone would come up with a working design for one, and either they would sell out to a rediculous offer from an oil company, or, when they appy for a patent, it'd get jumped by an oil company or a subsidiary. No, I know there are other forms of energy we can be using that are being quashed by the oil companies. And why? Controlled market, and limited supply. Ever notice that almost all diamonds all trace back to the DeBeers mines in africa? And it is publically known that that is a controlled market, they limit the production of diamonds to control the price of them, to keep proces high. Sound like OPEC doesn't it? Anyways, it's a market they can control, should I develop a solar car, they can't charge me for it, they can't control it. Electrics, same here, though price there is controlled too, it's not by the oil companies. Hydrogen production, mostly made from natural gas, which can be derived from oil, but mostly is pumped from underground deposits, and controlled by other companies, not by oil companies. Anyways, back to our regularyly scheduled program, "Nasa, when will we see warp drive"
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mark Gulbrandsen
Resident Trollmaster
Posts: 16657
From: Music City
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 07-06-2006 03:14 AM
quote: Phil Hill
They sure have had PLENTY of time (YEARS!) to know the OLD shuttle should have been retired years ago and the NASA jerks should have planned for a NEW spacecraft and FRONTIER to conquer
Oh and don't forget to remind all the airlines that the planes they bought just last year are obsolete too. Ya know, instead of all the upgrades and advances in technology given to the existing Shuttle launch platform a few years ago I agree that there should be a new model year spacecraft and launch system designed and ready on pad 39B by September 1 every year. That would leave little money for congress to pilfer away on really stupid things. Heck this much design competition might even be noticed by GM and Ford and they might actually be forced to produce a decent vehicle for the first time in 50 years. On the down side they too might also decide to build rockets for NASA since NASA they would need alot of them to get anyplace... but at least those two giant automakers ould survive and have access to NASA's secret fuel cell prints. Nasa really has nothing in the works. at present.
Absolutely... a new frontier is a great idea... lets visit one of the gassious planets instead of some place our long away decendents all might have to move to and inhabit some day... Once all those 23 year olds are at the gassious planet at least they won't have to worry about landing on any surface so they will never crash. Gee and those extra funds left over that would have been used for landing guidance, engines, and gas can be put towards those 23 year olds retirement funds.....
quote:
I'm sick of the NASA ***hype*** and rhetoric! Oh, and did I mention the mega $$$$ our tax money spent for an obsolete technology!
Yea, I was sick of the hype long,long,ago in another galaxy.... The hype level heightened to an all new hype level with the last director... ole whats his bucket... ole whats his bucket finally left Hypesville FL. and became a College Dean in a southern state and is hauling in the mega $$ now... no more late night hours or hype meetings for him. I don't think the new director will unhype the place much either but at least the hype seems to have leveled off for now. You're right, instead of those old farts most of whom have forgotten more than ALL of us here ever knew combined NASA might just be better off with a bunch of 23 year olds running that place instead of those old farts waiting for retirement... what do those old farts know anyway and those 23 year olds don't yet know the meaning of the word hype! We would certainly see those youngsters taking alot more risks to get the job done and they would need those new model year spacecraft pretty regularly for a number of years before one went anywhere sucessfully. Instead of different hype levels there would be lift off thrill levels.
Unfortunately we need to keep the shuttle going to finish the mega $$$, mega hype ISS so millionaires can have a place to go take a vacation. I read someplace that we do have agreements to other countries to uphold and finish the ISS job. If we don't we will be called Bastard Americans by everyone else whose mega $$$ ISS parts are still sitting around collecting dust.... Hey... don't they all call us that anyway, lets let em collect dust! America is never good for her word anyway....
Really, I still just find it absolutely amazing that we can get 4.5 million lbs airborne and on a pin point trajectory without making those crew members pea in their suits, er perhaps they do... humm. The next spacecraft will need to blow this one away in size to impress anyone enough to go watch its lift off attempts and I vote that it needs to be at least 16 million pounds minimum T.O.W.! I need to be able to hear those 1st stage engines rumble all the way to Utah!
Mark
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyle Romer
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1400
From: Davie, FL, USA
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 07-06-2006 07:42 AM
quote: Charles Greenlee
Also, I might add you should google about alternative fueled vehicles. You'll run across some articles describing how someone would come up with a working design for one, and either they would sell out to a rediculous offer from an oil company, or, when they appy for a patent, it'd get jumped by an oil company or a subsidiary. No, I know there are other forms of energy we can be using that are being quashed by the oil companies.
All of these stories are urban legend BS like the infamous 100 mpg carburator. What other form of energy could we be using? Biofuel? Even if it was net energy positive to produce (which is debatable) to fuel all of our transportation needs would take a ton of farm land we have (probably 1/3 of it) so where will we grow food? Brazil has been tweaking ethanol production for years and only get something like 6000 gallons per acre anually.
Since the US consumes over 300,000,000 gallons PER DAY and ethanol contains less than 70% of the energy of gasoline we need to produce 1,562,220,000,000 gallons of ethanol which would take 260 million acres. And that is based on sugar cane that brazil uses which we cant grow here anywhere but Florida and probably the gulf coast.
Solar power? Not unless a much more efficient solar cell is developed.
Wind power? You need lots and lots of windmills. Then the enviros complain that they chop up birds.
Water power? Very limited sites are viable to dam and produce power and are pretty much all taken.
There is a great source of energy out there that is being supressed. It's not the oil companies doing the supressing, it's the environmentalists. Yes my friends, nuclear power. It's safe (only major accident EVER was Chernobyl and that was a poorly designed reactor). France produces 70% of their power with nuclear. It's environmentally friendly. As long as you properly contain the waste the only environmental effect is warm water poured into waterways. It is abundant. With new technology breeder reactors (that Clinton shut down research on for no apparent reason) there is enough energy in our existing nuclear WASTE to power the US for possibly 100 years or more.
Once you produce electric power with nuclear, then you can use that electricity to produce hydrogen from water. At that point, hydrogen will make sense.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Charles Greenlee
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 801
From: Savannah, Ga, U.S.
Registered: Jun 2006
|
posted 07-07-2006 01:44 AM
"It's safe (only major accident EVER was Chernobyl and that was a poorly designed reactor)." Don't forget Reactor 2 on 3 mile island. But yeah, Fission is waay safe with today's control technologies. And yeah, i heard about the breeders, sure with they'd come out. And about passive means of generation, solar, wind, water, etc. I agree, they're underpowered. Except the solar ones where they use mirriors to heat water, and run a turbine, those are pretty nice, but still weaker, and requires sunlight, wich isn't always available 24hrs and 365. So nuclear is the way to go. The only I'd worry about is the spent fuel, we can only store it, no way of true disposal. Fortunatly the spend rods don't take up too much space, last a long long time, and hopefully we'll find something better to do with them.
Maybe use bird crap as a fuel source? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
And I have a friend who's old school mechanic. He says that back when he was doing custom engines, he could get a carburated engine to run, I think in the high 40's, and still get as much power as stock cars. But he said you'd pretty much have to build the whole engine yourself from the ground up. If true, It'd keep up with the hybrids and out power them, but still falls short of a miracle engine. I get 21 with my 27 year old car. But it's EFI. And why does a car with 27 yr old technologies run with equal effeciency as the current cars (barring hybrids)? Might I mention, in addition to it haveing 27 year old tech, it is 27 years old, meaning it can't be running as good as it did brand new (after break in). There have been patents for more efficient cars, and alternate fueled vehicles. And working models have been built. But they never seem to get off the ground.
But anyways, oil conspiracy 101 is in the other class room. Lets hope the shuttle mission continus to be smooth. They may be old, but I'd still like to see them running till we get another vehicle, which hopefully should be soon. Anyone remember what happened to the model Lockheed proposed? I remember it being turned down, but I forget why.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1 2 3 4
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
![[eyes]](graemlins/eyes.gif)
Phil, We are all referring to Jason's question above and that was about NASA in general. 
Printer-friendly view of this topic