ISS Irony

Wrong again. The shuttles (all of them) NEVER flew even a single 'sortie'.

You need to get your terms right, chump.

Oh... that's right... you cannot even figure out what they were for! Yer too damned dumb. boy! Yer one dumb sumbitch!

At what time? After the Challenger disaster, it all went downhill.

Here's none other than Wernher 'zat's not my depaartment' von Braun* saying 725 launches over 12 years = 60 per year in Nov '74:-

They were trying to get the military to use it as the main launch vehicle and convince the Europeans as well.

(Hey, a new Datsun B-210 cost only $2,579 back then.. that's about the adder for nice looking wheels on a current new car).

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

My wallpaper:

You never have.

Each repair mission cost about a billion dollars. You could build a lot of telescopes for that.

John

Name something useful. Better yet, name something that was worth the cost.

One thing NASA did was take a lot of good engineers and scientists offline, doing useless stuff.

John

Tried the dollar-bill magnet thing yet?

John

Martin Brown schrieb:

Hello,

the ceramic tiles were not water proof. If they soaked with water, the water could freeze in the orbit when a part of the water evaporates into the vacuum. The frozen water could damage the tiles. Before every launch, the tiles had to be carefully impregnated against water with a chemical also used in shoe polish.

Bye

snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz schrieb:

Hello,

the hypergolic fuel could be easily ignited in zero gravity, therefore it was used for the Apollo Command Module and the Lunar Module, also for many satellites. Starting a rocket engine using LOX and LH2 is difficult in zero gravity. Cryogenic fuels could not be stored in an orbit for longer time.

Bye

Jim Yanik schrieb:

Hello,

debris was brought into the orbit when the satellite was brought there. The upper stage of the rocket and debris from separation of the satellite and the upperstage. Bringing back old satellites does not remove this kind of debris. But all the debris in low orbits is not the problem, it would enter the atmosphere after some years. Debris in high orbits like the geostationary orbits used for TV satellites is the problem. But the shuttle was not able to reach those high orbits and get back to earth with a debris payload.

Bye

Rich Grise schrieb:

Hello,

hybrid rockets does not help very much, you combine all the problems of solid rockets with some of the problems of liquid fuel rockets.

You will need a very large pressure proof combustion chamber, it has to be fire proof too. The liquid oxidator is not useful to cool the the nozzle. You need an extra fuel for the turbo pumps. Ignition in zero gravity is as difficult as the ignition of two liquid components.

Bye

Hah!

You actually think you'll be able to get him to admit he was wrong?

Bullshit. Again, idiot, your numbers are wrong.

Stupid twits like you should be denied the right to use anything that resulted from technology or sectors of industry where you seem to think no work got done.

You'd be back to using smoke signals.

It don't get more stupid than you, Johnny.

Talking to yourself is the first sign of madness.

Johns numbers are about right but he misses the point of satellite based observatories in that they are *above* the atmosphere! That alone is worth their premium price and servicing difficulties.

The 2009 repair mission reportedly cost about $900M.

Keck I cost about $100M so you could build 9 more Kecks - but you would run out of sensible places to put them and things to look at. You also end up with large running costs for each facility that would make no sense in terms of additional science that could be done.

Semi-automated robotic scopes are making inroads for some of the routine work now and Googles former VP of Engineering is involved.

These are research grade scopes for mostly educational use and science outreach. Do not underestimate the importance of Hubble images in books and calendars in keeping the public engaged with science.

Hubble, Chandra and other less well known satellite based telescopes make observations that cannot be done from the ground.

Regards, Martin Brown

I responded to john, and to one of his comments, you retarded f*ck.

Not true. Not true at all.

He missed a lot, and it started when he was born.

You guys also have to figure payload delivery cost ONLY.

In that respect, the cost was NOT that high, as much of the cost was the hardware that got delivered, you stupid twits.

The recovery arm was a plus. So that detracts from you argument as well.

That is why it is the best telescope.

Absolutely. Now, we need a LBP put up there to replace it.

(Large Binocular Pair)

Which is also the ENTIRE cost. The mission also performed other duties, which is also how part of the costs were borne by other segments of the space program.

Again, you two idiots could not perform proper math if your lives depended on it.

The price you quoted for Keck alone were original dollars. Todays dollars would make the Kost of another Keck at least an order of magnitude higher than you number.

So do your special boys math again, boy. Since you're so special.

You are 100% lost if you do not know what the Hubble imagery proved and disproved in science for the SCIENTISTS which examined the images.

Your petty remark that they are only good to foster desire in "the public eye" is almost as pathetic as John Larkin's rant about NASA not doing anything for science.

Before Hubble and just one image set alone the "deep field" stuff alone was a "new" discovery that allowed us to imagine BILLIONS of galaxies, where before we had the number far lower.

The shuttle could have used bolt-on ablative shields that would be replaced every flight. Cheaper and safer, but the idea of replacing anything every flight was politically forbidden.

John

So, for those wavelengths, launch a bunch of medium-sized satellites, and replace them as they fail. Economy of scale for sure. That would do a lot more science without dramatic and deadly repair missions.

NASA isn't about science, it's about money and PR. NASA wouldn't even fund magtape to store data coming in from old satellites.

John