In history, when a nation begins to identify a dream as a romantic fantasy, that dream is ended. In the 1800's, the French dreamed of building a canal across Panama. After suffering horrendous losses, the French gave up and called the canal a romantic fantasy. Decades later, the Americans built that canal.
Like the French, who built the Suez Canal and showed by their example that a major canal could be built in inhospitable terrains, our government has opened the door to an unknown someone that space travel could be feasible.
I am saddened by our failure that is the space program and I see the program sliding further into decay and neglect.
quote:Even though NASA's budget has been virtually flat for the past 10 years and is now less than half its inflation-corrected size at the height of the Apollo Program
There's your problem, right there. Right along with public and Congressional apathy.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
That and the engineers who designed it must have been dropping acid at the time.
It's almost like the engineers figured out the simplest, easiest, least risky, most cost-effective way to build a space station and then did the exact opposite.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
posted
There was this one website that explained that NASA could just as easily have taken its gigantic fuel tanks that are currently wasted after every launch and convert them into ring space stations. According to the web site the paliminary cost for building one would have been about 10-12 billion dollars. By the time construction gets started on a fourth or fifth ring space station the cost would have been reduced to about 1 or 2 billion. It should be noted that the thickness of the walls on these fuel tanks are about twice that of the INS' armor so you wouldn't have to worry about adding on extra armor due to solar radiation and what not.
I've often wondered why NASA never considered this possibility.
OnToMars
Now on to the making of films!
Member # 621
posted
Politics.
That idea has been floated since the dawn of the Space Shuttle. When NASA first put out solicitations to various committees or whatnot about how to build the space station they all came back and said, "Do it like Skylab." That is, use a heavy launch vehicle - in this case, the ET - and build it that way.
What'd they decide? The Erector Set way. Why? Cause it had to cost enough so they could spread some of the money around to the Russians and everybody else in the world who wanted a piece of it.
Once again, politics. Not engineering.
-------------------- If God didn't want us to fly, he wouldn't have given us Bernoulli's Principle.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
