Courtesy of: Edgar Choueiri
Caption: A grad student wearing a protective suit works on a tank — designed to simulate the conditions of outer space — to test lithium thrusters.
Posted on 09/14/2004 6:57:41 PM PDT by KevinDavis
Space Ping! This is the Space Ping List! Let me know if you want on or off this list!
Anyone know what this one is?
It's a Segway with booster rockets.
I think if I were going to Mars, I'd be more comfortable with Warp Drive instead of a rocket :P
Yes. Unfortunately I am not one of them. I admit to being completely intrigued nonetheless. Perhaps my partner in crime can explain (if it does not fall under the "loose lips" umbrella).
Anyone that doesn't want to be part of Uranus should be wiped out.
Courtesy of: Edgar Choueiri
Caption: A grad student wearing a protective suit works on a tank — designed to simulate the conditions of outer space — to test lithium thrusters.
Non thermal engines do much better on a power-to-thrust basis. The problem is that you still have to haul Three Mile Island along with you to make significant amounts of thrust. This tends to slow things down a bit.
Many have tried--and are still trying--but it is starting to look like the Almighty, wearing His Rocket Scientist suit, made things that way...
--Boris
Did you have a point?
This is the second thread where I've seen you jump in, squat, and dump you BS all over it.
Nope NASA is not at all perfect, and I'm not happy with their performance, that I'll grant you. But that's the way R&D works, and most of what NASA does is R&D ops. Very few, if any, of their missions are considered "operational". It's always been that way, but the spotlight shines brightly on each and every failure, with much rending of clothes and gnashing of teeth.
As far as the parachute not opening, that was a supreme screwing of the pooch, there's no denying that. However, it seems that the scientists will be getting copious and valid data from Genesis afterall. The NASA engineers bust their humps to build tough systems, and it sometimes saves the day. It appears this may be the case here.
As far as the tech discussed in the article goes, I've seen something very similar in operation here around JSC, and it's impressive, and is on track for real application someday.
Didn't intend to go off on you like I did, but it seems there is always someone who like to jump in and basically say "NASA sucks!" then run along to the next thread. Please don't do that.
just kidding about the mars rover not being NASA :)
Let me say: GO Burt GO!
Light Years ahead, well, no. Actually, it's a simple approach that worked before, and is working again. Burt and his ilk might even make it profitable.
13 - I agree. However, Fester does have a point.
One of the things I noticed over the years, working with high powered, very intelligent engineers, who can do all kinds of fantastic, wonderful, calculations, was that uniformly,
Engineers 'can't add'. (I found most engineering errors were in simple addition - while fancy calculations worked)
And it seems NASA has those problems.
Look at the 'failures' over the past few years.
1. they forgot to translate metric and standard numbers, and missed the Mars landing.
2. The anti-missile failed because they couldn't separate the stages right.
3. The colombia was destroyed because a piece of insulation fell off.
4. The parachute didn't open.
etc, etc, etc.
The impossible just takes a while, and the simple is forgotten.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.