Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Thread: Oops, there goes a quarter of a billion dollars

  1. #1

    Default Oops, there goes a quarter of a billion dollars

    SPACE.com -- NASA Climate Satellite Crashes in Ocean After Launch Failure

    Well that's a waste of taxpayer money. A failure of a quarter billion dollar science spacecraft because the payload fairing didn't separate.

    This is what happens when you use a private startup to launch satellites before they are ready. They don't have enough money for adequate ground testing or test launches, and they need contracts just to stay afloat. This is where a space shuttle that didn't completely suck would come in handy.

  2. #2

    Default

    Psh, I wipe my ass with that money.

    I would be pissed if I were in NASA. It takes forever to make those, and it costs so much

  3. #3

    Default

    Can I have some of your toilet paper? :P

    I bet NASA is pissed. Not just the organization, but the scientists, engineers, and even the workers who actually built the thing. They take great pride in putting together a spacecraft, and to see it destroyed because the damned explosive bolts didn't detonate and separate the payload fairing has got to be horribly dissapointing.

    Again, a space shuttle that didn't suck could have deployed this. But, alas, our space shuttle sucks.

  4. #4

    Default

    Not nearly as bad as congress, the senate and the president passing a bill to waste around 750 billion dollars.

    I bet NASA spends their money more efficiently then any other part of the government. Tough I bet even they still waste a percentage of it.

  5. #5

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkmaster View Post
    ... But, alas, our space shuttle sucks.
    It's not the space shuttle that sucks, it's the risk-averse bunch of pantywaists at NASA that sucks. For a device that has the honor of being "the most complex machine in the world", having had 119 rocket launches (118 sucessful), hundreds of millions of miles in orbit, and endured re-entry as many times, it has proven itself as a successful, versatile platform. Granted, when you have two very visible catastrophic losses, it doesn't look too good, but every astronaut knows it is a risk laden venture, yet they still sign up to go. The only things that are grounding the fleet in 2010 are the budget, and the age of the airframes that the shuttles are built on. Being upwards of 30 yrs old, there are mounting concerns about the remaining ability of the frames to continue enduring the stresses of launch, space, and reentry/ landing.
    Last edited by Lil Snap; 25-Feb-2009 at 14:41. Reason: spellerization

  6. #6

    Default

    well, the Shuttle isn't what blew up. It was a cheap rocket.

    Why are are ridiculing the shuttle? It was a good idea.

  7. #7

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by sparkmaster View Post
    SPACE.com -- NASA Climate Satellite Crashes in Ocean After Launch Failure

    Well that's a waste of taxpayer money. A failure of a quarter billion dollar science spacecraft because the payload fairing didn't separate.

    This is what happens when you use a private startup to launch satellites before they are ready. They don't have enough money for adequate ground testing or test launches, and they need contracts just to stay afloat. This is where a space shuttle that didn't completely suck would come in handy.
    I wonder if they had an insurance policy on that...

  8. #8

    Default

    The design stinks. Period.

    First, the Thermal Protection System. NASA got cheap and decided not to invest in next generation alloys that could be take the reentry heat generated by such a reentry. Instead, they went with brittle and maintenance intensive silica tiles and carbon-carbon panels. This caused costs per launch to skyrocket.

    Second, the launch system is unnessesary and complex. NASA, again, cut corners and decided against a fully reusable booster system. Instead, we attached a marvel of an engine to the orbiter and piped the LH and LOX from an external tank to the orbiter. Again, more costs.

    It would have made a hell of a lot more sense to follow a Energia/Buran approach. Attach the SSMEs to the central booster, and make the booster recoverable like the orbiter.

    It's a good machine, no doubt. For a first generation vehicle, it isn't bad. But it failed in it's goal. It did not become a cheap way to access space.

  9. #9

    Default

    Oh boy.. thats just what we need, more failures, we need to lose more of our hard-earned money...

    FFS.. the gov't needs to get their priorities in order.

    Seriously.. I'd like to see my money going to good use.

  10. #10

    Default



    Quote Originally Posted by timmydiaperloverboy View Post
    Oh boy.. thats just what we need, more failures, we need to lose more of our hard-earned money...

    FFS.. the gov't needs to get their priorities in order.

    Seriously.. I'd like to see my money going to good use.
    I just don't think you get how insignificant this amount of money is. More of your money is wasted in corruption and lost in the system the a measly 250 million.

    NASA's budget is huge, and they're finally getting there act together. Its a good investment.

Similar Threads

  1. Hehe.... Oops.
    By Boogeyman in forum Greetings / Introductions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 20-Aug-2008, 16:14

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
ADISC.org - the Adult Baby / Diaper Lover / Incontinence Support Community.
ADISC.org is designed to be viewed in Firefox, with a resolution of at least 1280 x 1024.