T-minus: Page 2

Quote :

"Can someone remind me what is to be gained by going to the moon again, now? We're so far away from colonizing or anything like that, why not wait until we get better technology to make the trips cheaper?"

[Edited on May 12, 2009 at 4:48 PM. Reason : -]

5/12/2009 4:47:50 PM

how are we going to get anywhere closer to colonization without exploration missions?

5/12/2009 4:49:15 PM

5/12/2009 6:14:44 PM

Boldly going where man has gone before.

Also, lunar regolith is high in helium 3, as I recall thats useful for something.

5/12/2009 7:06:53 PM

party balloons?

5/12/2009 7:08:25 PM

Party balloons the likes of which you cannot imagine.

5/12/2009 7:11:13 PM

Quote :

"these new old style shuttles look sucky, we're going backwards"

ROCKETS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN PART OF THE PLAN

5/12/2009 7:16:19 PM

how come some of them have to wear helmets and some don't?

5/12/2009 7:17:34 PM

space pills

5/12/2009 7:21:59 PM

of course! what was I thinking?

5/12/2009 7:28:04 PM

5/12/2009 7:47:56 PM

if we had got on that shit in the 70s, that movie could have been science FACT

5/12/2009 7:52:59 PM

^^ROFL

^I agree. If we had kept going after the Apollo program, we would have been on Mars years ago. Hell, 2001: A Space Odyssey could have been real.

5/12/2009 9:09:43 PM

My problems with the shuttle:
1) We put men on the moon, then took a step backwards and limited ourselves to low earth orbit with the shuttle.
2) The external tank is carried 98% of the way to orbit and then dumped. If we'd utilized just a few of those as wet workshops on the ISS we'd have a supremely baller space station right now.

5/13/2009 4:41:18 PM

^I don't think they took a step backwards after going to the moon that was just more of a "HA HA! We're better than you are Soviet Union!" political move.

5/13/2009 4:57:44 PM

What would it have taken to make the shuttle capable of entering lunar orbit?

5/13/2009 8:56:37 PM

WHAT DOES GOD NEED WITH A STARSHIP?

5/15/2009 12:26:20 PM

^^ more thrust. A lot more thrust.

http://beyondapollo.blogspot.com/2009/01/space-shuttle-to-moon-1971.html

[Edited on May 15, 2009 at 12:29 PM. Reason : a]

5/15/2009 12:27:08 PM

to pwnt the other god

5/15/2009 12:27:25 PM

IT IS NOT A TUMMA

[insert Arnold voice]

5/15/2009 12:39:27 PM

Quote :

"The report then presented a "typical" cislunar orbiter mission. The cislunar orbiter would first launch to a 100-mile-high polar Earth orbit, then 10 to 12 additional Shuttle flights would refuel it with 444,000 pounds of propellants. The last flight would deliver a 45,000-pound lunar lander measuring 10 feet in diameter by 47 feet long and its three-person crew."

Well goddamn.

5/15/2009 12:50:52 PM

Well aside from thrust issues, a current orbiter is not designed to stay in space for the length of time it takes to get to the moon and back.

5/15/2009 2:53:23 PM

Wasn't the standard Apollo mission around 11 days?

5/15/2009 3:03:23 PM