Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 9/8/2004 7:08:37 AM EST
Well, they couldn't catch the space capsule with the solar particles so it crashed to earth, another few billion dollars down the tubes. I had an idea from the get go that they'd have a hard time catching anything falling from the sky with a helicopter and of course the parachute didn't deploy on the space capsule so that didn't help any either. How many screw-ups does this make for NASA now. They lost the Venus probe and didn't one of the Mars probes mess up too. Now this, LOL, oh well, OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:10:55 AM EST
Doopity doop doop dupe.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:11:58 AM EST
No bigger waste than 100 billion on Iraq......
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:12:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By SOF1:
No bigger waste than 100 billion on Iraq......

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:12:39 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:25:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By SOF1:
No bigger waste than 100 billion on Iraq......



Or the oxygen that you steal from the rest of us.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 7:28:34 AM EST
FOX has a banner saying the project cost $260 million. Unsure as to what data, if any, will be salvagable.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:16:00 AM EST
I used to have alot of respect for NASA but not anymore. They've screwed up so many times that they're becoming somewhat of a joke.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:19:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I used to have alot of respect for NASA but not anymore. They've screwed up so many times that they're becoming somewhat of a joke.



+1
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:20:02 AM EST
ibtl!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:20:22 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I used to have alot of respect for NASA but not anymore. They've screwed up so many times that they're becoming somewhat of a joke.



Can YOU put 3 rovers on Mars?

Mistakes happen. At least to everybody but you.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:22:37 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:22:51 AM EST by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:22:51 AM EST
Mars has traditionally been the "Bermuda Triangle" of space.
More spacecraft have been lost without a trace or inexplicably failed there than any other
place in the solar system.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:24:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By SOF1:
No bigger waste than 100 billion on Iraq......



Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:29:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Well, they couldn't catch the space capsule with the solar particles so it crashed to earth, another few billion dollars down the tubes. I had an idea from the get go that they'd have a hard time catching anything falling from the sky with a helicopter and of course the parachute didn't deploy on the space capsule so that didn't help any either. How many screw-ups does this make for NASA now. They lost the Venus probe and didn't one of the Mars probes mess up too. Now this, LOL, oh well, OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.



The 'lost' Mar's probe was European. One of NASA's probes had software problems when it landed, it basically overloaded the memory because they weren't deleting old data. One of the NASA probes is currently having problems with a wheel motor burning out - NASA's getting around that by driving the rover backwards and not using the wheel. Of course, the rover's were designed for a 90 day life, and have FAR exceeded that.

Space is a risky buisness. Sometimes shit happens. It's unfortunate that this happened, but it shouldn't shake your faith in NASA.

Space exploration is well worth the investment.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:33:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By ColonelKlink:

Originally Posted By BigD:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I used to have alot of respect for NASA but not anymore. They've screwed up so many times that they're becoming somewhat of a joke.



Can YOU put 3 rovers on Mars?

Mistakes happen. At least to everybody but you.




Mistakes happen a lot to NASA. They need more money.



The lost 'Beagle' probe was a European attempt to put a lander on Mars 'On the Cheap'. They lost the lander. NASA spent some serious money to put their TWO landers on Mars.

It should also be pointed out that NASA launched TWO because of the probability that one would fail to survive. It's not easy to land on another planet, especially when you can't be sure exactly WHERE you will land. (Being sure would take larger and more expensive spacecraft. MUCH larger and MUCH more expensive.)
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:38:16 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:44:24 AM EST by ColonelKlink]
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:39:09 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:40:05 AM EST by ASUsax]
By 'MUCH BIGGER' I mean like this:







These are drawings of a NASA spacecraft from 'Project Orion'. NASA was to build a Nuclear powered spaceship to explore the solar system.

It didn't get funded, and was ultimately killed.

Edited to Add: Crap, images won't link. Google search it if you are interested.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:40:20 AM EST

Can you say: THUMP!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:42:19 AM EST

Originally Posted By ColonelKlink:

Originally Posted By ASUsax:

Originally Posted By ColonelKlink:

Originally Posted By BigD:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
I used to have alot of respect for NASA but not anymore. They've screwed up so many times that they're becoming somewhat of a joke.



Can YOU put 3 rovers on Mars?

Mistakes happen. At least to everybody but you.




Mistakes happen a lot to NASA. They need more money.



The lost 'Beagle' probe was a European attempt to put a lander on Mars 'On the Cheap'. They lost the lander. NASA spent some serious money to put their TWO landers on Mars.

It should also be pointed out that NASA launched TWO because of the probability that one would fail to survive. It's not easy to land on another planet, especially when you can't be sure exactly WHERE you will land. (Being sure would take larger and more expensive spacecraft. MUCH larger and MUCH more expensive.)



NASA has already lost 2 space craft going to mars. The marines climate observer, and the mars polar lander. They almost lost one of the rovers.



I'm in agreement with you that they need more money. But absent that, they've got to make do with what they have. At least we spend more $$ than most other spacefaring nations.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:44:48 AM EST
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:53:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 8:56:13 AM EST by BigD]

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
NASA spent some serious money to put their TWO landers on Mars.



Count again.

Mars Pathfinder (1997)
Mars Spirit (2004)
Mars Opportunity (2004)
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 8:56:43 AM EST
Catching particles from the sun.... yeah, I could do it better.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:01:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By SOF1:
No bigger waste than 100 billion on Iraq......



At least we get pics from Lumpy from Iraq.

From this boondoggle, all we got was a dent in the ground.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:04:09 AM EST
Hell, NASA can't even build a Saturn Rocket anymore because they don't have the plans, so much for a trip to Mars. China, on the other hand, stole our plans and can still build Saturn Rockets, guess they'll have to buy Chineese if they want to take a trip to Mars,LOL
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:08:09 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Hell, NASA can't even build a Saturn Rocket anymore because they don't have the plans, so much for a trip to Mars. China, on the other hand, stole our plans and can still build Saturn Rockets, guess they'll have to buy Chineese if they want to take a trip to Mars,LOL

Ford doesn't have the plans for the Edsel, either. Big deal.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:11:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By DzlBenz:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Hell, NASA can't even build a Saturn Rocket anymore because they don't have the plans, so much for a trip to Mars. China, on the other hand, stole our plans and can still build Saturn Rockets, guess they'll have to buy Chineese if they want to take a trip to Mars,LOL

Ford doesn't have the plans for the Edsel, either. Big deal.



It is a BIG DEAL because the only Rocket that we had that could reach Mars from the Earth was the Saturn. If we could get a moon base going we'd use a lot less fuel and need a less powerfull rocket to reach Mars but until then the Saturn was our only hope of getting there from Earth.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:16:04 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Well, they couldn't catch the space capsule with the solar particles so it crashed to earth, another few billion dollars down the tubes. I had an idea from the get go that they'd have a hard time catching anything falling from the sky with a helicopter and of course the parachute didn't deploy on the space capsule so that didn't help any either. How many screw-ups does this make for NASA now. They lost the Venus probe and didn't one of the Mars probes mess up too. Now this, LOL, oh well, OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.



You might want to get your facts straight. The cost wasn't a few billion. It was 250 million.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:18:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
By 'MUCH BIGGER' I mean like this:

www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/schematics.gif

www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/oriondesign.jpg

www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/marsdesign.jpg

These are drawings of a NASA spacecraft from 'Project Orion'. NASA was to build a Nuclear powered spaceship to explore the solar system.

It didn't get funded, and was ultimately killed.

Edited to Add: Crap, images won't link. Google search it if you are interested.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are working on a form of nuclear propulsion in anticipation of putting people on Mars. Who needs Saturn rockets then?
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:19:57 AM EST
The Saturn V would not get a manned spacegraft to Mars, at least in any timely fashion. The thing was marginally able to send ~1% of it's total liftoff weight into translunar orbit. The spacecraft required for a manned mission to Mars would be on the scale (mass-wize) of Skylab, which was built out of an S-IVB third stage and placed in LEO.

Besides, the real key to the Saturn V's success was the F-1 engine and its high-speed booster pumps. The current Russian stuff, if scaled up to F-1 proportions, would be far superior to the 45-year-old F-1 design.

The failure of the Soviet N-1, IMHO, was the absurd clustering of some 30 engines in the base skirt. Had they produced fewer, smaller engines, they may have beaten us to the moon.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:22:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
LOL, oh well, OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.



You might want to get your facts straight. The cost wasn't a few billion. It was 250 million.



A million here, a million there -- pretty soon you're talking real money.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:33:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Well, they couldn't catch the space capsule with the solar particles so it crashed to earth, another few billion dollars down the tubes. I had an idea from the get go that they'd have a hard time catching anything falling from the sky with a helicopter and of course the parachute didn't deploy on the space capsule so that didn't help any either. How many screw-ups does this make for NASA now. They lost the Venus probe and didn't one of the Mars probes mess up too. Now this, LOL, oh well, OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK. hr


dumb
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:43:28 AM EST

Originally Posted By osprey21:
Catching particles from the sun.... yeah, I could do it better.



Yeah, at the beach without the spf30.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:47:56 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 9:55:55 AM EST by ScaryGuy]

Originall posted by TNFrank:

It is a BIG DEAL because the only Rocket that we had that could reach Mars from the Earth was the Saturn. If we could get a moon base going we'd use a lot less fuel and need a less powerfull rocket to reach Mars but until then the Saturn was our only hope of getting there from Earth.



The Saturn V could've no more reached Mars than a stock Yugo could win the Indy 500.

Hell, only the tiniest fraction of the system actually reached the moon, with almost 7/8 of the gross liftoff weight being fuel alone and over half of that was consumed during the first stage ascent. The Saturn V was awesome, but it was also at it's maximum payload with manned configuration for the moon shots. No way it could've lifted the weight of the craft, fuel and supplies for three men to go to Mars and back.

I was fortunate enough when I was working at Marshall Space Flight Center and The US Space and Rocket Center in the early 90's to get to speak at length to Georg VonTiesenhausen, one of Dr. Von Braun's original German team, and they had an entirely different launch vehicle and mission plan for a Mars mission. He even let me read through his mission book and see the sketches that he had made. (What I wouln't have given for access to a color laser copier that day...)

Sorry, but the guy who helped design the thing trumps random internet guy 10 times out of 10.

SG
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:49:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By BigD:

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
NASA spent some serious money to put their TWO landers on Mars.



Count again.

Mars Pathfinder (1997)
Mars Spirit (2004)
Mars Opportunity (2004)



My bad, I was only talking about the ones in the last year. If you want to get real picky, we can count the Vikings...

mars.jpl.nasa.gov/missions/past/viking.html

I was referring to Beagle, Spirit, and Opportunity.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 9:54:07 AM EST
[Last Edit: 9/8/2004 9:55:47 AM EST by ASUsax]

Originally Posted By Alien:

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
By 'MUCH BIGGER' I mean like this:

www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/schematics.gif

www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/oriondesign.jpg

www.angelfire.com/stars2/projectorion/marsdesign.jpg

These are drawings of a NASA spacecraft from 'Project Orion'. NASA was to build a Nuclear powered spaceship to explore the solar system.

It didn't get funded, and was ultimately killed.

Edited to Add: Crap, images won't link. Google search it if you are interested.



Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe they are working on a form of nuclear propulsion in anticipation of putting people on Mars. Who needs Saturn rockets then?



I'll try another Image... (Edited to add: The ship here would have been ~240 ft long.)



From Project Orion: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth

The race to the moon, in the forms of Project Apollo and the still-shadowy Soviet lunarprogram, dominated manned space flight during the decade of the 1960's. In the United States, the project sequence Mercury-Gemini-Apollo succeeded in putting roughly sixty people into space, twelve of them on the moon. Yet, during the late 1950's and early 1960's, the U.S. government sponsored a project that could possibly have placed 150 people, most of them professional scientists, on the moon, and could even have sent expeditions to Mars and Saturn. This feat could conceivably have been accomplished during the same period of time as Apollo, and possibly for about the same amount of money. The code name of the project was Orion, and the concepts developed during its seven-year life are so good that they deserve serious consideration today.

Project Orion was a space vehicle propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the vehicle (1). The seeming absurdity of this idea is one of the reasons why Orion failed; yet, many prominent physicists worked on the concept and were convinced that it could be made practical. Since atomic bombs are discrete entities, the system had to operate in a pulsed rather than a continuous mode. It is similar in this respect to an automobile engine, in which the peak combustion temperatures far exceed the melting points of the cylinders and pistons. The engine remains intact because the period of peak temperature is brief compared to the combustion cycle period.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 10:30:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By ASUsax:
I'll try another Image... (Edited to add: The ship here would have been ~240 ft long.)

www.daviddarling.info/images/Orionspacecraft.jpg

From Project Orion: Its Life, Death, and Possible Rebirth

The race to the moon, in the forms of Project Apollo and the still-shadowy Soviet lunarprogram, dominated manned space flight during the decade of the 1960's. In the United States, the project sequence Mercury-Gemini-Apollo succeeded in putting roughly sixty people into space, twelve of them on the moon. Yet, during the late 1950's and early 1960's, the U.S. government sponsored a project that could possibly have placed 150 people, most of them professional scientists, on the moon, and could even have sent expeditions to Mars and Saturn. This feat could conceivably have been accomplished during the same period of time as Apollo, and possibly for about the same amount of money. The code name of the project was Orion, and the concepts developed during its seven-year life are so good that they deserve serious consideration today.

Project Orion was a space vehicle propulsion system that depended on exploding atomic bombs roughly two hundred feet behind the vehicle (1). The seeming absurdity of this idea is one of the reasons why Orion failed; yet, many prominent physicists worked on the concept and were convinced that it could be made practical. Since atomic bombs are discrete entities, the system had to operate in a pulsed rather than a continuous mode. It is similar in this respect to an automobile engine, in which the peak combustion temperatures far exceed the melting points of the cylinders and pistons. The engine remains intact because the period of peak temperature is brief compared to the combustion cycle period.




I'm not sure if this is the type of propulsion they were talking about in the story I read/heard. Detonating countless bombs sounds dangerous but fun though! It would be REALLY interesting if they could convert matter to energy directly though, like with fusion.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 12:32:47 PM EST

Originally Posted By pvtrunning:

Originally Posted By TNFrank:
Well, they couldn't catch the space capsule with the solar particles so it crashed to earth, another few billion dollars down the tubes. I had an idea from the get go that they'd have a hard time catching anything falling from the sky with a helicopter and of course the parachute didn't deploy on the space capsule so that didn't help any either. How many screw-ups does this make for NASA now. They lost the Venus probe and didn't one of the Mars probes mess up too. Now this, LOL, oh well, OUR TAX DOLLARS AT WORK.



dumb



NO,I"M NOT DUMB, so it was 260Million, that's still a hell a lot of money to spend on something that doesn't work. As far as the Saturn V, the program on Discorvery Ch. the other night was talking about a manned mission to Mars and said that it would take the thurst of a Saturn V to get the payload out of Earths gravity. Sure, if we build a Space Station and launch from there it'd take less thurst(per squeez,LOL) but they were talking about leaving from Earth and that'd take a Saturn V. How many failed missions is acceptable? After all, these guys ARE suppose to be Rocket Sicientist, aren't they? You know and I know that NASA has slacked off on it's program, hell, we should have a base on the Moon by now. And what about the Space Shuttle, all that money and lives down the tubes. They're not even sure if they can get the damn thing to work. This is MY money going to fund these projects, for god sake, make sure they'll work before you spend it. That's all I ask.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 4:47:55 PM EST
How did they screw this up?

The USAF used to snag parachutes a couple times a month with the old Corona Spysats and their ejectible film cartridges. This is not exactly a uncommon activity.

Link Posted: 9/8/2004 4:49:01 PM EST

Originally Posted By SOF1:
No bigger waste than 100 billion on Iraq......



That comment doesn't even deserve a reply.

. . . oops.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 4:55:26 PM EST
I watched it happen live in the sky this morning.
Very cool. Looked like a huge, bright meteorite falling while four jets side-by-side raced towards it from SE Idaho.
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:03:05 PM EST
Hahahaha!
Doah!
I remember reading a few years ago about this probe, and I thought to myself, hmmm.... This plan sounds kind of stupid.
Who came up with the idea that after a couple years in space, the probe will slam into the atmosphere and slow itself down, deploy a parachute, THEN instead of either landing it in the water like the old days, we'll use a helicopter to snag it out of the air.
Anyone got a picture of the crater in the ground? Dumb ass NASA with their crazy schemes. To pinch a few more million they increase the odds of failure drastically.
-Steve
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:04:25 PM EST
Hey mistakes happen. I mean this could have benefited us all!
Link Posted: 9/8/2004 5:05:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By stevenb:
Hahahaha!
Doah!
I remember reading a few years ago about this probe, and I thought to myself, hmmm.... This plan sounds kind of stupid.
Who came up with the idea that after a couple years in space, the probe will slam into the atmosphere and slow itself down, deploy a parachute, THEN instead of either landing it in the water like the old days, we'll use a helicopter to snag it out of the air.
Anyone got a picture of the crater in the ground? Dumb ass NASA with their crazy schemes. To pinch a few more million they increase the odds of failure drastically.
-Steve



Umm, as I said above, we used to catch payloads from space by this method all the time. We havent had to do it routinely since the early 80's as KH-11 and later satellietes beamed images back by TV but it was once a common thing.
Top Top