This is topic Shuttle is go for launch! in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=004709
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-04-2006, 01:25 PM:
 
Its on both C-Span and NASA TV. If this launch doesn't go right it could very well be the last time a shuttle launch is attempted... Keep your fingers crossed!

Mark
 
Posted by Chad Souder (Member # 343) on 07-04-2006, 01:50 PM:
 
I think it went well
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-04-2006, 02:06 PM:
 
That was awsome! The camera view from the external tank was amazing.
 
Posted by Thomas Jonsson (Member # 1902) on 07-04-2006, 02:44 PM:
 
I heard on the radio today they had some problems with a piece
of isolation that had fallen off from the shuttle. Did they manage
to fix that, or are they taking a chance?

Thomas
 
Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-04-2006, 07:02 PM:
 
Aw man, I was hoping for no more shuttle launches! Hopefully this will be the last one. The shuttle is obsolete and severely outdated. Get your ass to Mars!
 
Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 07-04-2006, 07:20 PM:
 
All of those NASA cameras are HD (except the ones mounted on the ET). HD Net carried it live, and then replayed it about six times from different angles. It was awesome to see. [thumbsup]
 
Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2006, 07:31 PM:
 
Don't they have a digital shuttle now?

Steve
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-04-2006, 07:53 PM:
 
[Big Grin] Its been digital from day one... with the last upgrades its a more modern digital now.

Mark
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-04-2006, 08:24 PM:
 
YAWN... WTF cares about ANOTHER shuttle launch? How B-O-R-I-N-G...both this thread and the shuttle launch!

NASA NEEDS to move into the 21st Century like Joe alluded to!
 
Posted by Jason Black (Member # 684) on 07-04-2006, 11:38 PM:
 
Can anyone make a list of the historical breakthru's that NASA has provided over the last 20 years? All that sticks out to me is sucking BILLIONS of dollars out of economy and having, what, four shuttles blow up?
 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 07-04-2006, 11:53 PM:
 
quote: Jason Black
Can anyone make a list of the historical breakthru's that NASA has provided over the last 20 years
It made a fan out of me, thus last time I went thru Huntsville Alabama, I spent amost $100 in their gift shop [Smile]
 
Posted by Mike Heenan (Member # 392) on 07-04-2006, 11:55 PM:
 
Ben Affleck was the bomb in Armageddon! [Wink]
 
Posted by Richard Hamilton (Member # 321) on 07-05-2006, 12:34 AM:
 
When I lived in St. augustine, I saw a couple of night launches. Very cool! I could see them from my back yard. If I didn't know what it was, it would freak me out though. We were a few hours away, but we were in the flight path.
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 07-05-2006, 01:08 AM:
 
Well, they aren't just going up there and playing cards all day. Actually, alot has come from that. Various medical advancements, from findoing out how the body works in space, it sheds some light on how it works here. Crystals, semiconductors, or both. If we hadn't gone to space, we wouldn't have IC (computer chips), or at least not ones as finite and complex as the modern computers have. 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? Don't know. New plastics, new metals, or I should say, honeycombed carbon, and fiberous. But MOST of what we got from the space program wasn't singular inventions, but more like BASF. "We don't make the product you buy, we make it better." The number of refinments to existing technoligies is vast.
However, I also agree that the shuttle fleet is aging and needs to be replaced with new and hopefully more reliable ships. The current ones need to be fixed untill the new ones come out, but don't delay the new ones just because the old ones work. And yes, NASA, take us to mars! We wen't to the moon in the 60's, and haven't gone anywhere new since. America, the world, needs a new frontier. Send some regular lunar missions too. I'd love to see a Saturn V, or it's more modern equvalent launch. That'd be so awesome, I heard its like nothing else, makes the shuttles seem like bottle rockets. I saw Apollo 13 when it was in theatres, and own the collectors DVD now, I remember feeling the awe and power, my hair stood on end and I could barely stay seated.
 
Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 07-05-2006, 02:02 AM:
 
and remember... The Temperpedic bed was developed by NASA scientist!!

If I was ever offered to go up on a space mission, knowning that I had a 50/50 chance of not making it back to earth alive, I would take it in a heartbeat.
 
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 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."
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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 [Big Grin]
Mark
 
Posted by Stephen Furley (Member # 1277) on 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 [Smile]

The whole thing was a non-starter; I think TfL (Transport for London) just wanted to be seen to be doing something 'green'.
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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.
 
Posted by Leo Enticknap (Member # 534) on 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?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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 [puke] [Wink]
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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!
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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!
 
Posted by Bruce Hansen (Member # 281) on 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. [Big Grin] [beer] [Big Grin] 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.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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.
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2006, 08:35 PM:
 
I thought this little sub-argument was about NASA in general, not the shuttle program.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 07-05-2006, 08:38 PM:
 
[Confused] Please explain... Perhaps you should look at the title of this thread?
 
Posted by Chris Hipp (Member # 1788) on 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?
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-05-2006, 09:02 PM:
 
quote: Jason Black
Can anyone make a list of the historical breakthru's that NASA has provided over the last 20 years?
[eyes] Phil, We are all referring to Jason's question above and that was about NASA in general. [eyes]

quote: Phil Hill
Commercial TV, telephone, communications, mapping, etc satellites had nothing to do with the shuttle program.
You're right about it not being part of the Shuttle but allot of that was developed at NASA's subsideries and places like Bell Labs and other large research facilities listed below. When I was in High School Science Club I used to get to go to the Bell Labs location near where I lived for field trips, at that facility they plotted the basic flight path and trajectories and did all the basic math for NASA to get too and from the moon for the Apollo program flights. That was a very cool place!

Other NASA research facilities:

Ames Research Center
Dryden Flight Research Center
Glenn Research Center
Goddard Space Flight Center
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Johnson Space Flight Center
Kennedy Space Center
Langley Research Center
Marshall Space Flight Center
Stennis Space Center

There is more stuff going on at NASA that we could ever begin to believe or understand. Just the aeronautical stuff alone they are associated with is mind boggling.... All the great jetliners in use had at least some research assistance done by NASA or they utilized some aspect(s) of a NASA Spin Off(s).

Mark
 
Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 07-05-2006, 09:38 PM:
 
Right. I was busy reconstructing an edited version of the whole thread when Mark jumped in with his concise summary. Thanks Mark.
 
Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 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]

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] [sleep]

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]

I'm sick of the NASA ***hype*** and rhetoric! Oh, and did I mention the mega $$$$ our tax money spent for an obsolete technology! [thumbsdown]

Yeah, those HD cameras ARE a BIG improvement as is that BIG countdown display clock... HA! [Razz] [uhoh] [sleep]
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 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"
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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
 
Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 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.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-06-2006, 08:05 AM:
 
I definately agree Lyle. Nuclear is the way to go and with the ultra modern reactors that could be built by us today it does make the most ssnse. The U.S. has more reactor experience than anyone else and I'd bet thats the way we eventually head. Those environmentalists are a real hoot when it comes to some things but take away their electricity, SUV's, and Yachts they will be screeming like the rest of us are.

The 100 mpg carbureator... they tested that on Mythbusters a while back on an early 1980s carburated Ford and it actually gave worse milage than the stock carb did.

Mark
 
Posted by Paul J. Neuhaus (Member # 3205) on 07-07-2006, 01:01 AM:
 
Alright everybody is having a very inteligent conversation about fuel sources and all that... Let me stall that and bring you all down to my level for a moment

DID ANYBODY ELSE SEE THE PHOTOS OF BIRD SHIT THAT MADE IT THROUGH LAUNCH TO SPACE!!!!????

There is bird shit on one of the wings that made it the whole way to space.... They need to make heat sheilds out of that stuff!!!!

I hope they follow up and tell us if it makes it through re-entry!!!
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 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]

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.
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2006, 07:14 AM:
 
quote:
There is bird shit on one of the wings that made it the whole way to space.... They need to make heat sheilds out of that stuff!!!!
Yea, I read about that! Pretty wierd... It won't last through re-entry but they ought to condsider replacing the menacing foam with about 3" of that stuff on the external tank...... or at least make a decent adhesive out of it That might just work....

quote: Charles Greenlee
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.
I couldn't agree more. That is if they can fly safely. To be honest if we have one left for a museum when its all over I will be surprised. The main thing is that its paid for, has been upgraded where ever practical, and does work most of the time. A new launch system I believe is about 6 to 8 years away so we'd better hope they last that long or life at the Cape is going to be very boreing for a long time... we will also be depending on the Russians for a long time and we will have to pay for it.

The SSME's are still the most amazing mechanical device ever built... did anyone that watched the launch hear the turbo punps run up just before ignition? I've never heard that before in any audio feed. They hit just over 28,000 and 35,000 rpm in a second and a half The three engines at liftoff release the equivelent energy of 18 Hoover Dams.

Mark
 
Posted by Dick Vaughan (Member # 540) on 07-07-2006, 08:50 AM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
To be honest if we have one left for a museum when its all over I will be surprised.
You've already got one although it is Enterprise the in -atmosphere test vehicle which transfered to NASM in 1985.You can see more here
 
Posted by Andy Muirhead (Member # 712) on 07-07-2006, 06:14 PM:
 
I do love watching a shuttle launch, and wish the crew a safe mission and journey back.

I can't help thinking that if the shuttle was an 'airplane' it would be scrapped. Two fatal missions vs number of flights is a pretty apalling safety record.
 
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 07-07-2006, 08:05 PM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen

Yea, I read about that! Pretty wierd... It won't last through re-entry but they ought to condsider replacing the menacing foam with about 3" of that stuff on the external tank...... or at least make a decent adhesive out of it That might just work....
Who says it won't last? Has anyone ever actually tested BS to see whether it can survive reentry? Show me one scientific study to this effect! Maybe this is the solution to those foam problems, Just carry a supply of BS!

Regards Peter
 
Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 07-07-2006, 11:21 PM:
 
quote: Peter Berrett
Who says it won't last?
I read somplace that it happened once before and it was gone when they landed.

quote: Andy Muirhead
Two fatal missions vs number of flights is a pretty apalling safety record.
I read a couple of days ago that the Shuttle Astronaut fatality rate is 2%.

Mark
 
Posted by Peter Berrett (Member # 672) on 07-08-2006, 02:50 AM:
 
quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
I read a couple of days ago that the Shuttle Astronaut fatality rate is 2%.

Mark
Yes but the dead astronauts are 100% dead.

Regards Peter
 
Posted by Charles Greenlee (Member # 3856) on 07-08-2006, 05:04 AM:
 
Enterprise is basically just a hull, never designed to work in space. In fact I remember reading that, even if all of the proper equipment and engines were installed, it would still not be space capable. I was to field test the aerodynamic and gliding capabilities. I'd still like to keep it though, In addidtion to at least another, real shuttle. And anyone ever see the resotration of what would have been Apollo 18's rocket, the one on display at Johnson. Being outside on display in the wather sure wrecks havoc on those things.

I also hope everything goes well, and the recent foam issue turns out to either be superficial, or easily fixed with duct tape. I'd hate to see our fleet grounded for good.
 




Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2