Remember NASA's Orion capsule? It's launching on the 4th.(and you can watch the whole flight live) - Polidicks

[B]Exploration Flight Test 1[/B] [IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/LslxYlT.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] [quote]Welcome to Launch Week for the Orion Flight Test! Meteorologists issued a forecast this morning calling for a 60 percent chance of acceptable launch conditions Thursday morning for the liftoff of the Orion spacecraft atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy rocket. The concern is an expected pattern that could see low clouds and sporadic showers move in from the Atlantic later this week, possibly violating launch criteria designed to prevent the rocket from flying through precipitation. The conditions could also kick up winds too high for a safe liftoff, the forecasters said. Orion will have a 2-hour, 39-minute launch window Thursday. Forecasters are also watching conditions on the West Coast where U.S. Navy ships will gather to retrieve Orion from the Pacific following its 4.5-hour flight. Expected conditions will be favorable according to predictions with no precipitation expected Thursday.[/quote] [url]https://blogs.nasa.gov/orion/[/url] [IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/pfT31Dw.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] [IMG_THUMB]http://i.imgur.com/Eb8BvhX.jpg[/IMG_THUMB] Obligatory dramatic video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyZqSWWKmHQ[/media] Watch the whole mission live on December 4th here(basically all day): [url]http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html#.VHywzMmzHIU[/url]

On my birthday too. Best. Birthday. Present. EVER. Thanks NASA! I won't forget a thank you card this year!

7:05 AM EST is the start of the launch window.

So hype. Been waiting for this to happen for a while.

This makes me sad. I am going to take flak for this, because folks here really love space stuff and are glad for each crumb of development and flashy videos and promises of what all new things this can achieve, but I can't celebrate this as something joyful because it's nothing but reminder that we aren't really moving anywhere. [I]This is a scaled up Soyuz with freshened up materials, secondary technology, and some sweet autonomous control algorithms and computer technology from last couple decades.[/I] It's again a spacecraft where each propulsion stage is nothing but a dumb chemical rocket and lander with dumb single use abrasive heatshield. It's just bigger, relatively lighter for what it can do, and can last a bit longer. It doesn't really significantly decrease the preposterous economical and mainly energetic cost of moving stuff about, it doesn't [I]really[/I] allow us to go anywhere new or do anything that would have been unthinkable before (yeah okay maybe it can go to Mars, I bet that if there was a really good reason for it, that could have been done 30 years ago if enough resources was dedicated to it). And this is what NASA, the entity that's meant to herald the space exploration development of humanity, coming up with and trumpeting it like some sort of breakthrough. "and we are looking forward to beginning a new chapter in human space exploration" yeah you mean the chapter "haha, we don't have to ask smelly Russians to take our trash out anymore, we can do it ourselves ONCE AGAAAAINNN" We need to properly research alternate interplanetary propulsion, we need to invest into proper orbital cargo delivery that won't literally cost literally third the worth of a gold brick to get it up there. NASA has a cool new insignificant low-capability vessel. Cool. Now lets move onto something that would actually change things. Scramjets. Space elevators. Permanent space stations. Large scale ION propulsion engines. That's the stuff we actually [I]need[/I].

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46612915]This makes me sad. I am going to take flak for this, because folks here really love space stuff and are glad for each crumb of development and flashy videos and promises of what all new things this can achieve, but I can't celebrate this as something joyful because it's nothing but reminder that we aren't really moving anywhere. [I]This is a scaled up Soyuz with freshened up materials, secondary technology, and some sweet autonomous control algorithms and computer technology from last couple decades.[/I] It's again a spacecraft where each propulsion stage is nothing but a dumb chemical rocket and lander with dumb single use abrasive heatshield. It's just bigger, relatively lighter for what it can do, and can last a bit longer. It doesn't really significantly decrease the preposterous economical and mainly energetic cost of moving stuff about, it doesn't [I]really[/I] allow us to go anywhere new or do anything that would have been unthinkable before (yeah okay maybe it can go to Mars, I bet that if there was a really good reason for it, that could have been done 30 years ago if enough resources was dedicated to it). And this is what NASA, the entity that's meant to herald the space exploration development of humanity, coming up with and trumpeting it like some sort of breakthrough. "and we are looking forward to beginning a new chapter in human space exploration" yeah you mean the chapter "haha, we don't have to ask smelly Russians to take our trash out anymore, we can do it ourselves ONCE AGAAAAINNN" We need to properly research alternate interplanetary propulsion, we need to invest into proper orbital cargo delivery that won't literally cost literally third the worth of a gold brick to get it up there. NASA has a cool new insignificant low-capability vessel. Cool. Now lets move onto something that would actually change things. Scramjets. Space elevators. Permanent space stations. Large scale ION propulsion engines. That's the stuff we actually [I]need[/I].[/QUOTE] NASA is doing [B]A LOT[/B] of things, and is incredibly underrated imo. Yeah, the Orion may not be something groundbreaking, but it's not the only thing they're working on. What about the plans of a station beyond the moon, the SLS rocket that only the Saturn V can match, their probe to Pluto, their proposed missions to Jupiter and its moon, the planned manned asteroid landing and so on... Those are all project that will undoubtedly bring new technology to the table. I mean we gotta face reality here, we develop things that's based in reality and that's based on what we need right now.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46612915]This makes me sad. I am going to take flak for this, because folks here really love space stuff and are glad for each crumb of development and flashy videos and promises of what all new things this can achieve, but I can't celebrate this as something joyful because it's nothing but reminder that we aren't really moving anywhere. [I]This is a scaled up Soyuz with freshened up materials, secondary technology, and some sweet autonomous control algorithms and computer technology from last couple decades.[/I] It's again a spacecraft where each propulsion stage is nothing but a dumb chemical rocket and lander with dumb single use abrasive heatshield. It's just bigger, relatively lighter for what it can do, and can last a bit longer. It doesn't really significantly decrease the preposterous economical and mainly energetic cost of moving stuff about, it doesn't [I]really[/I] allow us to go anywhere new or do anything that would have been unthinkable before (yeah okay maybe it can go to Mars, I bet that if there was a really good reason for it, that could have been done 30 years ago if enough resources was dedicated to it). And this is what NASA, the entity that's meant to herald the space exploration development of humanity, coming up with and trumpeting it like some sort of breakthrough. "and we are looking forward to beginning a new chapter in human space exploration" yeah you mean the chapter "haha, we don't have to ask smelly Russians to take our trash out anymore, we can do it ourselves ONCE AGAAAAINNN" We need to properly research alternate interplanetary propulsion, we need to invest into proper orbital cargo delivery that won't literally cost literally third the worth of a gold brick to get it up there. NASA has a cool new insignificant low-capability vessel. Cool. Now lets move onto something that would actually change things. Scramjets. Space elevators. Permanent space stations. Large scale ION propulsion engines. That's the stuff we actually [I]need[/I].[/QUOTE] Orion is just a spacecraft. It can go anywhere in the solar system depending on what you put under it. It's not meant for low earth orbit or routine crew transport to space stations. That's what NASAs partnership with commercial providers like SpaceX is for. We need Orion because without it we can't go anywhere other than earth. Whatever is developed to put under it is a different project.

[QUOTE=Swebonny;46612980]NASA is doing [B]A LOT[/B] of things, and is incredibly underrated imo. Yeah, the Orion may not be something groundbreaking, but it's not the only thing they're working on. What about the plans of a station beyond the moon, the SLS rocket that only the Saturn V can match, their probe to Pluto, their proposed missions to Jupiter and its moon, the planned manned asteroid landing and so on... Those are all project that will undoubtedly bring new technology to the table. I mean we gotta face reality here, we develop things that's based in reality and that's based on what we need right now.[/QUOTE] Missions don't really push technology except perhaps the experimental gear mostly for measurements. Everyone knows what would a space elevator or a nuclear rocket be good for, but nobody is daring to as much as put serious fund towards developing in that direction.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46613108]Missions don't really push technology except perhaps the experimental gear mostly for measurements. Everyone knows what would a space elevator or a nuclear rocket be good for, but nobody is daring to as much as put serious fund towards developing in that direction.[/QUOTE] Because the cost and resources would require a [B]united planet with no nations.[/B] [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] Stop living in the clouds and face facts that getting space travel to be an everyday safe thing for the average Joe is going to require a lot of groundwork.

[QUOTE=Swilly;46613192]Because the cost and resources would require a [B]united planet with no nations.[/B] [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] Stop living in the clouds and face facts that getting space travel to be an everyday safe thing for the average Joe is going to require a lot of groundwork.[/QUOTE] I understand this, it's not like I am in disbelief or blame NASA or anybody else involved in current astronautic developments for incompetency. It's just that I am distraught from this reality, that's all.

There are only so many ways to get people to space, the space shuttle was terrible when it came to long duration missions, it never could break its 2 week limit, it only ever found a real good job when it came to building stations and fixing hardware. The orion may seem like a step backward but really we only have ever demonstrated two ways to bring people back from space, the capsule is the only viable way to return from deep space, and the orion only resembles Apollo in very few areas, its not your grandfathers capsule basically, where the Soyuz has pretty much been stagnant in the last 20 years, every component is built for future expansion sort of like the space shuttle as well as having much much more automation than any american vehicle has ever had

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46612915]This makes me sad. I am going to take flak for this, because folks here really love space stuff and are glad for each crumb of development and flashy videos and promises of what all new things this can achieve, but I can't celebrate this as something joyful because it's nothing but reminder that we aren't really moving anywhere. [I]This is a scaled up Soyuz with freshened up materials, secondary technology, and some sweet autonomous control algorithms and computer technology from last couple decades.[/I] It's again a spacecraft where each propulsion stage is nothing but a dumb chemical rocket and lander with dumb single use abrasive heatshield. It's just bigger, relatively lighter for what it can do, and can last a bit longer. It doesn't really significantly decrease the preposterous economical and mainly energetic cost of moving stuff about, it doesn't [I]really[/I] allow us to go anywhere new or do anything that would have been unthinkable before (yeah okay maybe it can go to Mars, I bet that if there was a really good reason for it, that could have been done 30 years ago if enough resources was dedicated to it). And this is what NASA, the entity that's meant to herald the space exploration development of humanity, coming up with and trumpeting it like some sort of breakthrough. "and we are looking forward to beginning a new chapter in human space exploration" yeah you mean the chapter "haha, we don't have to ask smelly Russians to take our trash out anymore, we can do it ourselves ONCE AGAAAAINNN" We need to properly research alternate interplanetary propulsion, we need to invest into proper orbital cargo delivery that won't literally cost literally third the worth of a gold brick to get it up there. NASA has a cool new insignificant low-capability vessel. Cool. Now lets move onto something that would actually change things. Scramjets. Space elevators. Permanent space stations. Large scale ION propulsion engines. That's the stuff we actually [I]need[/I].[/QUOTE] "Ugh, why do they make new graphics cards, they still just do nothing but dumb calculations with a dumb microprocessor just like everyone before them. Why can't they just put a quantum computer in it already" - Your logic What the fuck do you want it to do? Pour you a milk shake and give you a massage? Stop being silly. technology takes its time before it becomes viable.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46613108]Missions don't really push technology except perhaps the experimental gear mostly for measurements. Everyone knows what would a space elevator or a nuclear rocket be good for, but nobody is daring to as much as put serious fund towards developing in that direction.[/QUOTE] I beg to differ, Apollo 11 suits were marshmallows compared to the ones on Apollo 16, and the Apollo vehicles got incrementally more robust as failures popped up, notably the need for an auxiliary battery after the Apollo 13 disaster Hardware evolves rapidly from what we learn in space, Mir was built using a series of hand powered cranes, the ISS has a couple of robotic arms that built i [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] The only sad part about this is that once it returns, it'll be four years at least before we see it again in action, a sad way to start such a tremendusly versitile vehicle

[QUOTE=OvB;46612981]Orion is just a spacecraft. It can go anywhere in the solar system depending on what you put under it. It's not meant for low earth orbit or routine crew transport to space stations. That's what NASAs partnership with commercial providers like SpaceX is for. We need Orion because without it we can't go anywhere other than earth. Whatever is developed to put under it is a different project.[/QUOTE] Orion can't do very much on its own except an Apollo 8 reenactment. It has only 84 man-days of life support after all. So you're not going to an asteroid or to mars etc. without docking it to a larger spacecraft/habitat. And if you're going to that why not just use a Dragon or CST-100? They would be much cheaper and will undoubtedly be flying humans before Orion does. SLS and Orion in general confound me, what are they good for? BEO is talked about as a selling point but you can't do that without a 'third pillar', a lunar lander or deep space hab or [I]something. [/I]But there is no funding or congressional support for that sort of thing so we have to assume they won't get built. It all reeks of a jobs program, an expensive rocket with a low flight rate and only one guaranteed payload. All a waste, really, NASAs funding is far from infinite and certainly could have been better spent.

[QUOTE=Porkychop~;46613888]Orion can't do very much on its own except an Apollo 8 reenactment. It has only 84 man-days of life support after all. So you're not going to an asteroid or to mars etc. without docking it to a larger spacecraft/habitat. And if you're going to that why not just use a Dragon or CST-100? They would be much cheaper and will undoubtedly be flying humans before Orion does. SLS and Orion in general confound me, what are they good for? BEO is talked about as a selling point but you can't do that without a 'third pillar', a lunar lander or deep space hab or [I]something. [/I]But there is no funding or congressional support for that sort of thing so we have to assume they won't get built. It all reeks of a jobs program, an expensive rocket with a low flight rate and only one guaranteed payload. All a waste, really, NASAs funding is far from infinite and certainly could have been better spent.[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure if NASA weren't tied to a desk by Obamas "asteroid" mission they would be talking about the lunar lander, but don't worry they have been building that with project Morpheus an expandable scalable autonimus lander under the guise of landing probes, they will have the technology when politicians pull their heads out of their asses and seriously consider the moon, the half hearted "we've been there " excuse is the most grating bullshit rationel for not going back, we have explored a very very tiny portion of it and any long term human habitats on other planets will benefit from tech from the moon

[QUOTE=Fatfatfatty;46613829]"Ugh, why do they make new graphics cards, they still just do nothing but dumb calculations with a dumb microprocessor just like everyone before them. Why can't they just put a quantum computer in it already" - Your logic What the fuck do you want it to do? Pour you a milk shake and give you a massage? Stop being silly. technology takes its time before it becomes viable.[/QUOTE] You are spewing bullshit. As this fella says [QUOTE=Porkychop~;46613888]Orion can't do very much on its own except an Apollo 8 reenactment. It has only 84 man-days of life support after all. So you're not going to an asteroid or to mars etc. without docking it to a larger spacecraft/habitat. And if you're going to that why not just use a Dragon or CST-100? They would be much cheaper and will undoubtedly be flying humans before Orion does. SLS and Orion in general confound me, what are they good for? BEO is talked about as a selling point but you can't do that without a 'third pillar', a lunar lander or deep space hab or [I]something. [/I]But there is no funding or congressional support for that sort of thing so we have to assume they won't get built. It all reeks of a jobs program, an expensive rocket with a low flight rate and only one guaranteed payload. All a waste, really, NASAs funding is far from infinite and certainly could have been better spent.[/QUOTE] Orion isn't really advanced and doesn't have a serious advantage on the other contemporary craft. Importantly, this isn't research. It's development. It builds on well known and mostly tested technology and puts it to use (and not much better than others). [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] As I said, there's ton of technologies worth researching proper, which are getting next to no funding and are if anything ran by enthusiastic academics who live off donations and their academic salaries. Cosmic sails for instance. Mathematically proven perfectly feasible for long range mission, why haven't we tried something big with one yet? [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] And don't tell me they are working as hard as ever, because they [img_thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/09/NASA-Budget-Federal.svg[/img_thumb] don't have the money for that. [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] And you would think "hey well that's just USA, the rest of the world will surely be doing better!" Jack shit. [img_thumb]https://d28wbuch0jlv7v.cloudfront.net/images/infografik/normal/chartoftheday_2824_Space_Exploration_Expenditure_n.jpg[/img_thumb] The world's space exploration budget is peanuts. We aren't getting anywhere. We are practically in standstill, and if even the pop-sci culture stays in denial about it, it has even lower chance of ever changing.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46612915]This makes me sad. I am going to take flak for this, because folks here really love space stuff and are glad for each crumb of development and flashy videos and promises of what all new things this can achieve, but I can't celebrate this as something joyful because it's nothing but reminder that we aren't really moving anywhere. [I]This is a scaled up Soyuz with freshened up materials, secondary technology, and some sweet autonomous control algorithms and computer technology from last couple decades.[/I] It's again a spacecraft where each propulsion stage is nothing but a dumb chemical rocket and lander with dumb single use abrasive heatshield. It's just bigger, relatively lighter for what it can do, and can last a bit longer. It doesn't really significantly decrease the preposterous economical and mainly energetic cost of moving stuff about, it doesn't [I]really[/I] allow us to go anywhere new or do anything that would have been unthinkable before (yeah okay maybe it can go to Mars, I bet that if there was a really good reason for it, that could have been done 30 years ago if enough resources was dedicated to it). And this is what NASA, the entity that's meant to herald the space exploration development of humanity, coming up with and trumpeting it like some sort of breakthrough. "and we are looking forward to beginning a new chapter in human space exploration" yeah you mean the chapter "haha, we don't have to ask smelly Russians to take our trash out anymore, we can do it ourselves ONCE AGAAAAINNN" We need to properly research alternate interplanetary propulsion, we need to invest into proper orbital cargo delivery that won't literally cost literally third the worth of a gold brick to get it up there. NASA has a cool new insignificant low-capability vessel. Cool. Now lets move onto something that would actually change things. Scramjets. Space elevators. Permanent space stations. Large scale ION propulsion engines. That's the stuff we actually [I]need[/I].[/QUOTE] I'd like to point out that computer systems in spacecraft require [B]ALOT[/B] of strain testing when it comes to radiation/power/thermal/etc. Cutting edge computers in space like Curiosity are equivalent in processing power to a PowerPC 750 from 1997. Radiation hardening is a tough process because space is unforgiving. I hope to change that by having radiation hardened computer systems for spacecraft that are much closer in terms of processing power to today's standard. And to make it much cheaper (The RAD750 used on the Curiosity rover is roughly 200 grand USD, compared to its non-radiation hardened counterpart at around 50 USD on Ebay.)

My body is ready for this.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;46614503]I'd like to point out that computer systems in spacecraft require [B]ALOT[/B] of strain testing when it comes to radiation/power/thermal/etc. Cutting edge computers in space like Curiosity are equivalent in processing power to a PowerPC 750 from 1997. Radiation hardening is a tough process because space is unforgiving. I hope to change that by having radiation hardened computer systems for spacecraft that are much closer in terms of processing power to today's standard. And to make it much cheaper (The RAD750 used on the Curiosity rover is roughly 200 grand USD, compared to its non-radiation hardened counterpart at around 50 USD on Ebay.)[/QUOTE] isn't radiation hardening not so much of a problem with orion considering any level of radiation that would kill a computer would probably kill the crew? i know curiosity and a lot of space probes use very hardened computers because they sit bathing in it, year after year, but orion won't be subject to that much radiation

[QUOTE=Sableye;46614819]isn't radiation hardening not so much of a problem with orion considering any level of radiation that would kill a computer would probably kill the crew? i know curiosity and a lot of space probes use very hardened computers because they sit bathing in it, year after year, but orion won't be subject to that much radiation[/QUOTE] In LEO orbit, you're not exposed to much radiation due to Earth's B-field. However you still have about as much radiation as any high altitude flight, which is why the ISS can use a typical consumer laptop on board. However when you go beyond LEO, especially with the Van Allen belts, the radiation danger becomes exponential. The Apollo crews were lucky in the sense that they didn't spend much time traversing the Van Allen belts and solar activity was low during the Apollo program (Plus the fact that the computers at the time were larger semiconductors based off of [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening#Radiation-hardening_techniques"]ECL logic which is more robust compared to current CMOS logic[/URL]). Electronics and computers are physically robust against radiation compared to us, but radiation hardening is also important when it comes to preventing against radiation-induced data corruption. (Hell even a non-rad-hard component can last as much radiation as enough to kill five people. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening#Radiation-hardening_techniques"]Non-rad-hard: ~5000 rads[/URL], [URL="https://xkcd.com/radiation/"]Fatal dose: 8 sieverts = 800 rads[/URL]) Another reason rad hardening is so bloody expensive is the lack of semiconductor fabs supporting rad-hard processes (IIRC There are only a handful of semiconductor fabs out of the thousand out there that actually support rad-hard processes). I recommend looking at that Wikipedia page along with this nice [URL="http://www.maxwell.com/images/documents/case_study_micro_e_how_rad_hard.pdf"]PDF[/URL] if you'd like to look more into it.

[QUOTE=Awesomecaek;46614132]... As I said, there's ton of technologies worth researching proper, which are getting next to no funding and are if anything ran by enthusiastic academics who live off donations and their academic salaries. Cosmic sails for instance. Mathematically proven perfectly feasible for long range mission, [B]why haven't we tried something big with one yet?[/B] ...[/QUOTE] Because we can't make them. You seem to be talking about technology we don't have, as if we do have it but just don't want to use it. Chemical rockets are all we have to launch stuff currently, things like electrical propulsion simply don't work on Earth. We can't make tethers for space elevators either, even if that would be such a radically cheaper way to launch things, etc.

[QUOTE=Atlascore;46616057]Almost 30 billion dollars isn't peanuts, the only reason it seems that way is because the organizations responsible for space exploration are all buried under ten thousand tons of bureaucratic red rape, NASA can't even buy a bag of bolts without it being marked up 1000%.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbIZU8cQWXc[/media] This is probably what he is trying to say

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;46615083]Electronics and computers are physically robust against radiation compared to us, but radiation hardening is also important when it comes to preventing against radiation-induced data corruption. (Hell even a non-rad-hard component can last as much radiation as enough to kill five people. [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiation_hardening#Radiation-hardening_techniques"]Non-rad-hard: ~5000 rads[/URL], [URL="https://xkcd.com/radiation/"]Fatal dose: 8 sieverts = 800 rads[/URL]) Another reason rad hardening is so bloody expensive is the lack of semiconductor fabs supporting rad-hard processes (IIRC There are only a handful of semiconductor fabs out of the thousand out there that actually support rad-hard processes).[/QUOTE]To add onto this: Another approach is to take conventional electronics that are particularly robust and then run them in series, so instead of one processor you have three in a cluster that act as one (each providing redundancy) and then that cluster is paired with another three merely to make sure errors aren't happening anywhere. Individually the components are weak, but as a system they're very tough and take up less space than those big bulky coils used on the Apollo missions. [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=TheDecryptor;46615765]Because we can't make them. You seem to be talking about technology we don't have, as if we do have it but just don't want to use it. Chemical rockets are all we have to launch stuff currently, things like electrical propulsion simply don't work on Earth. We can't make tethers for space elevators either, even if that would be such a radically cheaper way to launch things, etc.[/QUOTE]Actually we have perfectly viable methods of propulsion outside the atmosphere. Things like fission fragment propulsion are currently viable and can power a spacecraft for a [i]long[/i] time with some serious thrust, the downside is you need to place the engine in orbit and it's heavy as fuck. Really, when it was researched it was scrapped more or less because "lol! chemical rockets are cheap and we'll have antimatter soon anyway!" :l

Oh sweet, I'm a local so I'll see this in person. Delta IV Heavies are my favorite because of how slow they accelerate and how brightly they burn when they lift off.

I find it hard to get excited about something that looks like a step back. The space shuttle was amazing and looked much cooler. I mean I know it's probably technically superior and makes more sense economically and whatever, it's just not as cool in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Zestence;46617473]I find it hard to get excited about something that looks like a step back. The space shuttle was amazing and looked much cooler. I mean I know it's probably technically superior and makes more sense economically and whatever, it's just not as cool in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Space shuttle couldn't leave LEO.

Those fucking dicks stole my idea. Back in high school we did these projects on space travel n' what-not that were going to be reviewed by NASA scientists, and the best ones would be reviewed over webcam with the scientists. Like, you'd get to talk with them about it n' shit. MY project got in, and I proposed circling Earth at least once before shooting off in the direction the ship needs to go... they said that's interesting but in reality, they'd have no need to do that... He said in the goddamn video that they would circle Orion once, before turning on boosters or whatever... Mother fuckers stole my goddamn idea.

[QUOTE=JumpinJackFlash;46617316]To add onto this: Another approach is to take conventional electronics that are particularly robust and then run them in series, so instead of one processor you have three in a cluster that act as one (each providing redundancy) and then that cluster is paired with another three merely to make sure errors aren't happening anywhere. Individually the components are weak, but as a system they're very tough and take up less space than those big bulky coils used on the Apollo missions. [editline]1st December 2014[/editline] Actually we have perfectly viable methods of propulsion outside the atmosphere. Things like fission fragment propulsion are currently viable and can power a spacecraft for a [i]long[/i] time with some serious thrust, the downside is you need to place the engine in orbit and it's heavy as fuck. Really, when it was researched it was scrapped more or less because "lol! chemical rockets are cheap and we'll have antimatter soon anyway!" :l[/QUOTE] Nuclear propulsion outside of maybe project orion never seriously solved the radiation problem, orion got away with it by putting so much mass between astronauts and the blast, but all other forms are so hotly radioactive that once you light it astronauts can never approach it, Plus reality wise nuclear propulsion has so many hurdles to jump through, nuclear powered ion propulsion is much more feasable even if the large scale tech hasn't been developed

Radiation in space is such a bummer. Our satellites would be capable of quite a bit more if we didn't have to worry about bit flips.

FFffuuuuu I have a 3 hour exam on the 4th. Hopefully I don't miss the launch.