NASA’s new fleet of spacecrafts

800px-Saturn-V_Shuttle_Ares-I_Ares-V_comparison_(06-2006).jpg (44 KB)

NYT Animated


Send to Facebook | Send To Twitter
  • Leave A Comment

    Please Login to comment
    16 Comment threads
    0 Thread replies
    0 Followers
     
    Most reacted comment
    Hottest comment thread
    14 Comment authors
    PhyrebladenyokkialephLukeV1-5wookie_x Recent comment authors
      Subscribe  
    Notify of
    MalcoveMagnesia
    Member

    Didn’t look at the animation, but from everything else I’ve read, the upcoming vehicles are smaller, boring and uninspired when compared to the ambitious shuttle program.

    Sticky
    Member

    See, the problem with NASA is that we keep on trying to make small smart computer-controlled rockets. Look at the Russians. What do they use? Big, dumb rockets. Have they had a space shuttle explode on re-entry recently? No. Because they use the right type of rockets. It’s the same reason that the Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury missions were successful. They used big, dumb rockets, instead of that high-tech computer controlled shit.

    TheLotusEater725
    Member

    No, the problem is that humans die to easily. I mean seriously, sheets of proteins? WTF IS THIS SHIT. I demand we evolve into either pure energy beings or we develop a metal covering.

    Lorfmachine
    Member

    aaaaaaaahahahahhahaha ! 😀

    SumoSnipe
    Member
    SumoSnipe

    NASA (and the pentagon) lost the design commandment: Keep It Simple, Stupid. There will be less that can go wrong.
    @thelotuseater725: But I like the sensations that being sheets of proteins offers me.

    WistfulD
    Member

    @MalcoveMagnesia- the shuttle program was more than ambitious, it was also horribly designed. They combined their crew delivery lauch vehicle with a heavy lifter design. Why? Because the military wanted it that way. Does it make any sense? Heck no, that means you have to lauch a heavy lifter every time you want to resupply or reman the ISS.

    Flickerdart
    Member

    @Sticky: Except the Buran completed an unmanned space flight and landing. In 1974. And didn’t explode.

    Then the Soviet program ran out of money and a hangar collapsed on it in 2002.

    Camiam321
    Member

    thank you nyokki

    KommissarKvC
    Member

    The Russians win because they keep thing simple yet effective

    one thing the USA will never live down, is that they spent $$$ making a pen that would work in space, and the russians just took pencils, cheaper and does a comparable job

    wookie_x
    Member

    The problem with NASA started in 1969. Prior to 1969, they had a clear mission: put men on the moon. Then they did it. They did it FAST. It took 7 years to do it. But after they did it, what was their mission? They didn’t have one. “to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new civilizations, to boldly go where no man has gone before” is NOT

    wookie_x
    Member

    a mission statement, damnit.

    Luke Magnifico
    Member

    @KommissarKvC:
    Lies

    aleph
    Member

    @KommissarKvC: ‘There is a well-known anecdote about the effort that NASA put into solving the problem of writing in weightlessness, where ink does not flow spontaneously toward the tip of a pen. NASA’s approach, it is claimed, was to spend millions of dollars to invent a pressurized pen. The proverbially simple-and-straightforward approach of the Russian space program was to use pencils. The anecdote is amusing and certainly points out authentic differences in the technical mindset of the two space administrations, but is not true. Both Russian cosmonauts and American astronauts used pencils. The pressurized space pen was invented by Paul… Read more »

    aleph
    Member

    @KommissarKvC:

    search better

    Phyreblade
    Member

    @KommissarKvC: Indeed, I hate to add to the list of posts decrying your comment, but I think the truth of the matter is that there are pros and cons for each way of thought. If you ever compared the complexity of early Russian nuclear subs to early American nuclear subs you’ll see that while the Russians did make vastly simpler machines, they also did not have the redundancy that American subs had. They worked, and worked simply, but that was about it. If you look at the evolution of automotive industry as late as three decades or so ago, you’ll… Read more »



    Advertisements Alcohol Animated Images Architecture Art Awesome Things Batman Cars Comic Books Computers Cosplay Cute As Hell Animals Dark Humor Donald Trump Fantasy - Science Fiction Fashion Food Forum Fodder Gaming Humor Interesting LOLcats Military Movie Posters Movies Music Nature NeSFW Politics Religion Sad :( Science! Sexy Space Sports Star Trek Star Wars Technology Television Vertical Wallpaper Wallpaper Weapons Women WTF X-Mas