Russia and US agree on a new space station after ISS, possible joint Mars mission. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=confinedUser;47411507]but then at the same time a lot of innovation would stagnate[/QUOTE] NASA has proven quite capable of innovating without intentionally* blowing people up, thanks. *in reference to all the testing done during the Mercury/Apollo/shuttle missions where shit went south.

Didn't need no damned commies to get to the moon we don't need em now. last thing the red planet needs is even MORE red!

[QUOTE=RedBaronFlyer;47412554]It would work fine until the moon's and earth's rotatations snapped it in half[/QUOTE] You lack vision

[QUOTE=smurfy;47412351]Why not build an elevator to the Moon[/QUOTE] I've always hated the "elevator to the Moon" idea. It sounds boring and antiquated. Motherfuckin' portals yo

[QUOTE=Zero-Point;47412660]NASA has proven quite capable of innovating without intentionally* blowing people up, thanks.[/quote] innovating by relying on the largest most dangerous solid rocket boosters ever developed for the bulk of their manned space flight for some 30 years the shuttle SRBs and the ones for the SLS are freeking monsters and are dangerous as all hell, the shuttle had no choice in the matter, if they had a malfunction the whole stack was going down, the SLS has escape systems but still with all that, the only real time NASA woefully caused an accident was the challenger disaster, the apollo 1 fire was really an accident [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=smurfy;47412351]Why not build an elevator to the Moon[/QUOTE] why not build an elevator ON the moon? its actually perfectly achievable with today's tech and would basically be the easiest way to colonize the surface

[QUOTE=kweh;47413159]I've always hated the "elevator to the Moon" idea. It sounds boring and antiquated. Motherfuckin' portals yo[/QUOTE] Well, portals arent real at least an elevator would work

[QUOTE=Sableye;47413326]innovating by relying on the largest most dangerous solid rocket boosters ever developed for the bulk of their manned space flight for some 30 years the shuttle SRBs and the ones for the SLS are freeking monsters and are dangerous as all hell, the shuttle had no choice in the matter, if they had a malfunction the whole stack was going down, the SLS has escape systems but still with all that, the only real time NASA woefully caused an accident was the challenger disaster, the apollo 1 fire was really an accident[/quote] All a rocket basically is, is a big, "slow" explosion where all the force is directed out of a nozzle in order to provide thrust in a desired direction, no shit they're dangerous. Solid boosters are just more so because once you start, you can't stop. Challenger was more a result of ignorance/tight scheduling/budget constraints. They knew of the problem, the engineers TOLD them of the problem and what it could do, but they went through with the launch anyway. I also pointed out those programs because they did extensive testing on the Saturn V rockets before they put anyone in them, but there were a bunch of spectacular failures during these tests.

I really hope they also incorporate the ISS in their plans either pushing it out to the L1-Moon-Earth lagrange point as a waypoint or something useful instead of letting the structure burn up in atmo.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;47414836]I really hope they also incorporate the ISS in their plans either pushing it out to the L1-Moon-Earth lagrange point as a waypoint or something useful instead of letting the structure burn up in atmo.[/QUOTE] Yeah, they could try and land it on the Moon using a sort of "sky-crane" system involving a mothership, gently lowering it into a metallic cradle onto the lunar surface to sit forever as a historical monument. Hell, it'd make space tourism even more desirable, since I imagine a lot of people would want to travel to see the ISS Memorial AS WELL as the old Apollo landing sites, and the money could go on to fund the colonial infrastructure of the first Moonbase.

[QUOTE=LoneWolf_Recon;47414836]I really hope they also incorporate the ISS in their plans either pushing it out to the L1-Moon-Earth lagrange point as a waypoint or something useful instead of letting the structure burn up in atmo.[/QUOTE] It's falling apart, outdated, moldy, and nearing it's intended life expectancy. Keeping it around when we want to build a new one would be a waste. Though the Russians were talking about keeping their side for a new station. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=ironman17;47414865]Yeah, they could try and land it on the Moon using a sort of "sky-crane" system involving a mothership, gently lowering it into a metallic cradle onto the lunar surface to sit forever as a historical monument. Hell, it'd make space tourism even more desirable, since I imagine a lot of people would want to travel to see the ISS Memorial AS WELL as the old Apollo landing sites, and the money could go on to fund the colonial infrastructure of the first Moonbase.[/QUOTE] If you really wanted to keep it, and knew a multibillionaire willing to invest, it would just be easier to shuttle it back down to earth part by part. But we don't have anymore shuttles to do that.

I can't think of any good reasons why we discontinued the shuttle program without R&Ding a new generation of modern shuttles to replace them. There are a few reasons that spring to mind, yes, but no good ones...

[QUOTE=OvB;47414873]It's falling apart, outdated, moldy, and nearing it's intended life expectancy. Keeping it around when we want to build a new one would be a waste. Though the Russians were talking about keeping their side for a new station. [editline]28th March 2015[/editline] If you really wanted to keep it, and knew a multibillionaire willing to invest, it would just be easier to shuttle it back down to earth part by part. But we don't have anymore shuttles to do that.[/QUOTE] Not necessarily the pressurized sections, but more of the girder superstructure and maybe the solar arrays.

[QUOTE=OvB;47414873]It's falling apart, outdated, [B]moldy[/B], and nearing it's intended life expectancy.[/QUOTE] oh god the experiments have gone space resistent

[QUOTE=ironman17;47414903]I can't think of any good reasons why we discontinued the shuttle program without R&Ding a new generation of modern shuttles to replace them. There are a few reasons that spring to mind, yes, but no good ones...[/QUOTE] Shuttle was unsafe and had no launch abort system. It was limited to LEO, and the reason we never go past LEO. It did the same job rockets do, except for hundreds of millions of dollars more. It had to be torn apart, and engines replaced each flight so it wasn't really truly reusable. We have no need or use for a shuttle like it. Rockets and capsules are better for LEO and deep space. Shuttle was a supermodel. The thing it did best was look good. We should've built an evolved Saturn V instead.

I hope this is true. I mean, fuck, you can't even see borders and shit from space. If anyone would understand the insignificance of our lines in the sand it's the space agencies. I could totally imagine NASA and Roscosmos being like "Seriously fuck the shit between our countries. Let's go to Mars, Roscosmos you bring the vodka and stroganoff, we'll bring the sweet tea and bbq." I honestly don't understand the Ukraine thing. I mean, I do, but at the same time I don't. Pissing off like 75% of the world for a few tens of thousands of square kilometers of land, god knows costing how much, when the return on pulling a SINGLE ASTEROID back from the asteroid belt to harvest the metals within would dwarf the GDP of just about every developed country in the world.

Is there a reason to start from scratch instead of continuing to expand on the ISS? Seems like a bit of a waste considering it's the most expensive thing humans have ever built.

[QUOTE=laserpanda;47415826]Is there a reason to start from scratch instead of continuing to expand on the ISS? Seems like a bit of a waste considering it's the most expensive thing humans have ever built.[/QUOTE] Because as technology progresses and new discoveries are made it will eventually become more economically feasible to replace the ISS with a newer, better, more efficient station than to continue to repair and update it.

Sorry to burst your bubbles here, but NASA has confirmed that there is no partnership [I]yet[/I] for anything new... [url]http://www.engadget.com/2015/03/28/nasa-is-working-with-russia-on-a-new-space-station/[/url]

[QUOTE=ironman17;47414865]Yeah, they could try and land it on the Moon using a sort of "sky-crane" system involving a mothership, gently lowering it into a metallic cradle onto the lunar surface to sit forever as a historical monument. Hell, it'd make space tourism even more desirable, since I imagine a lot of people would want to travel to see the ISS Memorial AS WELL as the old Apollo landing sites, and the money could go on to fund the colonial infrastructure of the first Moonbase.[/QUOTE] I doubt the joints on the ISS could survive a landing like that, plus its the size of a football field, not easy to land, plus the whole thing is designed with free fall in mind, the moons 1/6th gravity would mess with systems in unknown ways such as the water recyclers or air humidifyer systems and the carbon scrubbers I like the idea of landing the whole thing but really its final mission will probably be making the biggest fireball we've ever seen [editline]29th March 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=OvB;47415127]Shuttle was unsafe and had no launch abort system. It was limited to LEO, and the reason we never go past LEO. It did the same job rockets do, except for hundreds of millions of dollars more. It had to be torn apart, and engines replaced each flight so it wasn't really truly reusable. We have no need or use for a shuttle like it. Rockets and capsules are better for LEO and deep space. Shuttle was a supermodel. The thing it did best was look good. We should've built an evolved Saturn V instead.[/QUOTE] Actually one of the funnier early shuttle plans was essentially called the shuttle-saturn and used a Saturn V lower stage with the shuttle stack on top of it, no pesky srbs just 5 f1 engines with the shuttles own engines kicking in at the end, kinda funny because it would have kept the biggest bit of the Saturn V in production, but really by the time the shuttle was eventually built the plans and specs for the Saturn V were all scattered amongst thousands of sub contractors

[QUOTE=Code3Response;47416192]Sorry to burst your bubbles here, but NASA has confirmed that there is no partnership [b]yet[/b] for anything new... [/QUOTE] So there is still hope.

[QUOTE=OvB;47415127]Shuttle was a supermodel. The thing it did best was look good. We should've built an evolved Saturn V instead.[/QUOTE] The Shuttle had a few advantages. As much as it was a failure, it was not an [I]unambitious[/I] failure. The Shuttle was about halfway to an SSTO. Another generation or two of work on that design could have gotten us an SSTO, and that's something worth doing. The Shuttle was actually quite reusable. Those "disposable" boosters were actually the most reusable part - there was literally a cylinder piece on STS-135, the last flight, that was used on STS-1, the very first. And while there was a lot of maintenance done between flights, it was still cheaper than rebuilding them every flight. And much of the failings of it came from solving the wrong problem. NASA assumed their budget would remain about the same - and thus assumed they could run many more missions, and planned for economies of scale that failed to materialize. They expected to use so much LH2 that an industry would appear to produce it, in bulk, for cheap. They expected the cost to orbit would be so low that it would be cheaper to de-orbit, repair, and re-orbit broken satellites, rather than launch new ones, so the Shuttle was built sturdily enough to be able to do that (it never did so). Not even all of the mistakes surrounding the Shuttle were made by NASA. The DoD expected to use it for launching military payloads into polar orbit - they built a launchpad at Vandenberg, and were getting crew training started when they just gave up. And finally, it just kept getting used well past its time. The Saturns were used for 15 years. The Shuttles lasted thirty, because the potential replacements kept getting cancelled. OSP, PLS, Constellation... we should have had a successor ready by 1995. We didn't even get one ready by the time it was too late to even keep the Shuttle running.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;47419520]The Shuttle had a few advantages. As much as it was a failure, it was not an [I]unambitious[/I] failure. The Shuttle was about halfway to an SSTO. Another generation or two of work on that design could have gotten us an SSTO, and that's something worth doing. The Shuttle was actually quite reusable. Those "disposable" boosters were actually the most reusable part - there was literally a cylinder piece on STS-135, the last flight, that was used on STS-1, the very first. And while there was a lot of maintenance done between flights, it was still cheaper than rebuilding them every flight. And much of the failings of it came from solving the wrong problem. NASA assumed their budget would remain about the same - and thus assumed they could run many more missions, and planned for economies of scale that failed to materialize. They expected to use so much LH2 that an industry would appear to produce it, in bulk, for cheap. They expected the cost to orbit would be so low that it would be cheaper to de-orbit, repair, and re-orbit broken satellites, rather than launch new ones, so the Shuttle was built sturdily enough to be able to do that (it never did so). Not even all of the mistakes surrounding the Shuttle were made by NASA. The DoD expected to use it for launching military payloads into polar orbit - they built a launchpad at Vandenberg, and were getting crew training started when they just gave up. And finally, it just kept getting used well past its time. The Saturns were used for 15 years. The Shuttles lasted thirty, because the potential replacements kept getting cancelled. OSP, PLS, Constellation... we should have had a successor ready by 1995. We didn't even get one ready by the time it was too late to even keep the Shuttle running.[/QUOTE] Saturn's were used for barely 8 years, I wouldn't say the shuttle was a failure, it was a fault of the time, it only ever came into its own once we started going to MIR and building space stations with it, it is an exelent vehicle for space station repair construction and maintinence because it was a mobile work platform, and for really big things like Hubble it was the only thing that could have serviced it. The problem was for most of its life it was used as a space station instead of a work platform for one. Even with NASAs small fleet, they built the ISS in 9 years, four years earlier than estimated, and it could bring a years worth of supplies up with it, it was an exelent vehicle for station keeping, not really good for LEO duration motions but the problem was it was all we had at the time so we used it in ways it shouldn't have been