NASA's Orion Moon Craft Unveiled

Too bad it's not a real Orion by Dr.+Manhattan · 2011-03-22 06:06 · Score: 3, Interesting

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

--
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!

Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 06:13 · Score: 2, Funny

So a concept that got killed in the early 60s is more real than a current project that is actually in testing? Can we get a "get off my lawn" while you are at it?
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Dr.+Manhattan · 2011-03-22 06:20 · Score: 2

So a concept that got killed in the early 60s is more real than a current project that is actually in testing? Can we get a "get off my lawn" while you are at it?
Okay. Get off my lawn.

--
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by MozeeToby · 2011-03-22 06:31 · Score: 5, Insightful

Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program. If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly. Even the simplest nuclear rockets would have been almost an order of magnitude more effective than chemical rockets, and the preliminary tests were 100% successful. The fact that no one has even broached the subject since says a lot about the public's fears of anything nuclear.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Loadmaster · 2011-03-22 06:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

Project Orion will never be revived. However, use of nuclear power may still live in VASIMR technology. The prototype is supposed to go up this year but we'll see. If it works as planned it's a game changer for in-space travel. Unlike most revolutionary technology companies Ad Astra is actually helmed by an ex-astronaut with an actual Ph.D. VASIMR technology comes from Dr. Franklin Chang Diaz's MIT thesis.
It is a huge year for SpaceX, Ad Astra, and spaceflight in general this year.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/03/10/ad_astra_nasa_vf200_announcement/
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-03-22 06:36 · Score: 4, Interesting

Here's an interesting link about many of the nuclear propulsion systems over the years: http://www.strangehorizons.com/2004/20040112/nuclear.shtml
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by lysdexia · 2011-03-22 06:52 · Score: 2

The Ad Astra Rocket Company, headed by Dr Franklin Chang Díaz. has already built an experimental prototype version of its Variable Specific Impulse Magnetoplasma Rocket (VASIMR)
Did Robert A. Heinlein's ghost ghost write that article? :-)
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-22 07:23 · Score: 1

Not more real, but certainly more exciting. The fact that a 50 year old concept is more exciting than a new space vehicle says a lot about the failures of the space program.
I'm not sure what you mean by "failures"? Maybe it didn't meet your expectations but definitely not failures. We have what we due to politics and limitations of reality not "Failures" of concepts or of what NASA has accomplished.
Like everything else, Reality seldom matches our expectations.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 07:44 · Score: 2, Insightful

1. Orion would NEVER be used to get into orbit. Setting off nuclear weapons in the atmosphere is big no no.
2. The US does not have a big enough stock of nuclear weapons to use Orion even in space. It would need to make more, and very cheaply.
As I said... it's just not going to work.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by MozeeToby · 2011-03-22 08:03 · Score: 4, Interesting

Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
Perhaps it isn't a failure of the agency, they do, after all, get their funding and many of their mission statements from congress. But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by MozeeToby · 2011-03-22 08:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Energy density of H2: 39,000 Wh/kg (actually lower because this doesn't include an oxidizer.
Energy density of Fission of U-235: 25,000,000,000 (of course lower, because you need support machinery)
Pretty clear we aren't quite at the limits of our energy sources using today's launch technologies.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-22 08:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

While I agree with you, imagine if one nuclear powered rocket failed? If there had been nuclear derived shuttle and either Columbia or Challenger accident occurred? We are after all talking a minimum of 5GW reactors. It would have set back the space program years if not canceled it out right. Out of either type, chemical or nuclear chemical is still safer, thats why we still have them.
I do see more hope for a Scram-Jet type launcher, or electromagnetic launcher. Both are much better than either chemical or nuclear. Once we are in the vacuum of space there is plasma and engines much like VASIMER, or even nuclear thermal.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by tsm_sf · 2011-03-22 08:40 · Score: 1

But I have never heard about a high ranking NASA spokesman going to congress and saying "We need money for advanced, non-chemical launch technologies".

Isn't that precisely what killed the Ares heavy lift rockets?

--
Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by camperdave · 2011-03-22 09:33 · Score: 2

ARES was killed because it was too expensive. It was supposed to be built using off the shelf shuttle parts, but wound up being a completely new rocket. It was so heavy that they would have needed to get new crawler transporters, rebuild the launch platforms and the crawler pathways leading to them. The rocket could barely fit inside the Vehicle Assembly Building. The chosen engines had nozzles that would have melted in the predicted thermal environment. It's costs were spiralling out of control. That's why it was killed. Not because they wanted nuclear engines for it.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Shnyzx · 2011-03-22 09:38 · Score: 1

I love the fact that no one seems to remember that the whole "test ban treaty" against nukes in space is what made the funding dry up, in turn killing this project. I'm sure if we could do it today there would be money put to it. It doesn't matter if you have all the money in the world, you can't do the impossible.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Unkyjar · 2011-03-22 09:40 · Score: 2

Orion calls for specialized nuclear explosives to be developed, the weapons we currently have in stock are far too powerful for the use you want to apply them to.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by khallow · 2011-03-22 10:27 · Score: 1

Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion.
Chemical rockets already have proven you wrong here. My view is that you have the two technologies switched around. It'll be a long time, if ever, that nuclear propulsion is permitted to lift payload out of Earth's gravity well. I think there will be many decades of successful in-space operation of nuclear propulsion before it'll be allowed in that critical role. By the time, nuclear propulsion is allowed, it might not even be necessary (with, for example, launch structures like space tethers or launch loops)

Meanwhile chemical propulsion just works.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by erice · 2011-03-22 10:39 · Score: 1

I love the fact that no one seems to remember that the whole "test ban treaty" against nukes in space is what made the funding dry up, in turn killing this project. I'm sure if we could do it today there would be money put to it. It doesn't matter if you have all the money in the world, you can't do the impossible.
The treaty ban on nuclear explosives in space made Orion impossible. However, there is no issue with nuclear thermal rockets like NERVA.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Grishnakh · 2011-03-22 10:46 · Score: 2

What for? The rebels in the middle east just want to oust their own crappy leaders, they're not worried much about other countries, and certainly don't want to destroy their own cities. The rebels in Egypt and Tunisia did just fine, ousting their crappy leaders without much death and damage at all. The rebels in Libya are having a somewhat harder time unfortunately, but they're actually welcoming a limited amount of foreign intervention to keep Gaddafi's forces from slaughtering them.
The rebellions in the middle east (and northern Africa, more properly) have given me a renewed hope for humanity. Of course, Americans don't like it because they prefer having friendly dictators in power, and generally hate democratic governments, no matter how much lip service they give to the concept.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by Profane+MuthaFucka · 2011-03-22 13:58 · Score: 1

But they haven't nuked their crappy leaders from orbit and therefore they cannot be sure.

--
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by sznupi · 2011-03-22 21:18 · Score: 2

Scram-Jet / etc. "spaceplanes", when you have serious effort at costs estimation (HOTOL, for example), turn out not really better than "dumb rocket" using comparably advanced materials science (which for the "spaceplane" is required to even make it barely possible)

Electromagnetic launcher / etc. - first, remember how such proposals talk about building a megastructure (often... dynamically suspended; do you see many normal (puny) buildings like that?).
Secondly, not assuming gargantuan fantasies, the projectile still will be largely... a "dumb rocket", essentially the same tech as now (but with complexity of highly dynamic launch system; vs. stationary launch platform + more first stages as boosters, for basically the same effect - like with Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V HLV, Falcon 9 Heavy, and to a most striking degree with Angara).
Third - Pegasus rocket is basically it. It's also one of the most expensive launchers around.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by sznupi · 2011-03-22 21:59 · Score: 1

Nothing except chemical is needed, in grander picture, for launchers. LEO is already not far from Kessler Syndrome, even with our "puny" launch capabilities. You don't really want to put much more mass in there. Many interesting places have hardly any atmosphere, you really want to tread softly around them...

Outside of launching - where have you been? Many sats have electric propulsion since the 70s (reactors, too...). ISS is getting one soon. Thing is, one big crash project in the style (or grander) of Apollo is not the way for interplanetary. It will be fairly slow and expensive anyway (and we bet since some time on electric propulsion + advanced solar cells or reactor).

Then there's JIMO, something NASA evidently wanted to do... but the people want bread, circuses, and empty promises of manned missions.

An why so in a hurry? Surely you don't think socioeconomic realities from Earth to be of any significance "out there"... Especially once we master space manufacturing sometimes during the next millennium (only then the expansion will start, and it might be solar sails + ITN for all we know; or, further, gradual asteroid and comet hopping over thousands of years into the Oort cloud, and some groups eventually hitching a ride with a cloud of some passing star - that still gives very rapid colonization of the galaxy)

But there's one thing you can bet on. A continuation of what is very much the case on Earth, even with easy travel available. But much stronger. You're very likely to die near the place you were born
And vast majority of initial travel might very well be, say, mostly when you're highly miniaturized and in deep hibernation; awoken at the destination (and again, most likely dying there) - something which we already routinely do to thousands of people every year, and we can already send hundreds if not thousands on one medium chemical launcher to any place in the system (but not many people seem to realize that; their "broad" imagination seems to be ultimately quite shallow; maybe in the style of "a mind open to the point when brain falls out" saying)

(and the Saturn improvement with NERVA stage wasn't anywhere so dramatic, don't make it sound much better than it is)

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by sznupi · 2011-03-22 22:07 · Score: 1

There were a lot more "exciting" concepts... and fiction, half a century ago. Remember, such dreams gave us the cows of Shuttle and Buran (their designers and decisionmakers probably raised on scifi of ~40s, with lots of "spaceplanes", undoubtedly fueled by rapid advances in airplane technology; like those airplanes from "our" times, fueled by marine tech advancements (and we can even build them! Take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy); like nuclear age taking over culture); big grandeur projects which set us back immensely. Detracted for steady, sustainable growth.

How is that "nuclear electricity will be so cheap that it will be pointless to measure its usage" going along, BTW?

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by rufty_tufty · 2011-03-22 22:59 · Score: 2

Let me paint a possible future scenario for you.
1) There is a limited nuclear exchange between two countries, let's say Pakistan and India as a modern day example.
2) While hundreds of thousands/Millions die in the attacks radiation casualties outside of the attack are limited to a few thousand.
3) Some bright spark decides casualties could have been fewer if they had not just airspace control, but also had assets in orbit.
4) After the public accept that there could be limited nuclear exchange, nuclear weapons come back on many military planning concepts. (after all they always like to prepare for the last war)
5) Military planning moves to the concept of large scale MAD in tandem with space based area denial platforms. Again I believe it is only a matter of time before defence against ICBMs becomes practical and this is best done from space.
6) Orion drive based ships are built in limited numbers by a few governments for "defence purposes" ostensibly with no plans to use them but to protect themselves against similar threats.
Some of those steps are a little shaky, but the problem with ground launched Orion is the fear of fallout from the bombs, but in the 60s the bomb testing that was done in the US was enough to launch dozens of orion ships and civilisation didn't end so there's no reason except fear (and the odd death or two, but who's counting ;-) to not launch.
Change the situation in scenario 1 for a full on nuclear exchange and I think once civilisation recovers several centuries later they will fear not the radiation but the bomb itself. Kind of like how people who aren't used to cameras think it will steal their soul, or medieval man would think everything about modern life was witchcraft, as soon as you're used to it you no longer fear it.
Oh and given there is an infinite amount of time I believe it is only a matter of time, probably less than we think before someone does go nuclear in a confrontation. So I don't think orion is impossible, I think it's inevitable.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-23 01:38 · Score: 1

Never said it would be cheap or small. I doubt that any launch system will be cheap, but it will bring down the launch costs, something like this will be necessary for routine travel to space.

Electromagnetic launcher / etc. - first, remember how such proposals talk about building a megastructure (often... dynamically suspended; do you see many normal (puny) buildings like that?).

Well that depends, there are a few man made mega-structures around today. It's a matter of scale. And I don't envision a dynamically suspended rail, but I believe it's do-able, if pushing the limits of construction. And yes a electromagnetic launcher may have a "dumb" payload, but most likely will have some power to maneuver, ie. thrusters, small rockets engines, etc. to help once it lifts off the launcher.

Secondly, not assuming gargantuan fantasies, the projectile still will be largely... a "dumb rocket", essentially the same tech as now (but with complexity of highly dynamic launch system; vs. stationary launch platform + more first stages as boosters, for basically the same effect - like with Delta IV Heavy, Atlas V HLV, Falcon 9 Heavy, and to a most striking degree with Angara).
Yes it comparable to what we have now, after all it has to be near term to be of any use. The key is to lower launch costs and improve reliability and safety.

Third - Pegasus rocket is basically it. It's also one of the most expensive launchers around.
I would say it isn't like an electromagnetic launcher, chemical rockets are well known and pretty much at the top of it's technology curve, ie. it won't get better than it is. While an electromagnetic launcher is still relatively new and has many years of development to lower costs and be "perfected".
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by sznupi · 2011-03-23 02:43 · Score: 1

That's dangerously close to "you need to spend (butt-loads of) money to save money" fallacy (why "routine space travel" dream should be of much significance, anyway? Also, I gave one or two replies nearby, no reason to repeat large parts of them)

The question isn't what's "doable", that's beside the point. Shuttle and Buran were doable, much easier in fact... and didn't deliver on any of its main points as advertised (it was supposed to be inexpensive and reliable, with fast turnaround, remember?). Set us back around 2 decades at least. Bled their space agencies dry for cash, caused cancellation of many great projects (many fantastic science missions, always the first to the axe...)

The question is what's practical. Spending half of GDP of the planet (or more...) isn't; no exploration in history operated on such basis.

And I didn't say "dumb payload" in the case of electromagnetic launcher, but "dumb rocket" - how it requires essentially the same tech as current rockets (yes, requires - at the least, there needs to be a massive kick at the apogee, otherwise what's being launched will deorbit at perigee), how it must (not just "most likely") be very similar to current launchers was the point; the "Pegasus" needs to be there, flying out of the end!
Again, not on a nice stationary platform (maybe with some simple multiplication of first stages (again, check Angara, from ~3 IIRC to 130+ tons in essentially single design) for the same effect as a megastructure), but moving on a high-g dynamic one... are you sure it will be inexpensive and reliable, with fast turnaround? Where have I heard that before...

All while the chemical "dumb rockets" are far from showing their full potential. We barely tried with what we know to significantly reduce costs - mass production (vs. skyrocketing (puns and all) costs with one-off massive projects). Maybe not necessarily to such or even such degree, but there's definitely a space for improvement. It's most likely not a coincidence that "the most reliable means of space travel" and "the most frequently used launch vehicle in the world" (plus one of most inexpensive ones) is about one and the same launch vehicle.

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-23 04:07 · Score: 1

What you really are arguing is the way its being done (methodology), yes we have had a lot of promises that haven't come true, but they are not technical promises. Yes we could use mass productions ( although I don't think this would lower he cost drastically for launch costs, as Atlas rockets are already mass produced and don't add to substantial cost reductions, all though it is better than the shuttle cost-wise) The type of improvement I was talking about was technical, I do not see how, even with what you sited (they are still chemical rockets), that a chemical rocket can be made vastly safer, cheaper. and more reliable due to the tonnage of explosive chemicals needed. In this regard, a chemical rocket will always be large controlled (most of the time) bomb, that could could go off at any time. As compared to a electromagnetic launcher that relies on electrical power, this prevents the need to carry a lot of fuel (still need some but it will increase the safety factor) And being based on an electrical source it can be redundant and reliable.
These are all inherent in the technology itself and doesn't discuss about bureaucratic falseness that most of the issues you mention, stem from. Your pointing out issues with methodology the technologies failed or can be successful. Sure I agree with you, their can be improvements on the methodology ie. manufacturing and how a rocket is used, but not improving the technology itself.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by WhiteDragon · 2011-03-23 05:14 · Score: 1

While I agree with you, imagine if one nuclear powered rocket failed? If there had been nuclear derived shuttle and either Columbia or Challenger accident occurred? We are after all talking a minimum of 5GW reactors. It would have set back the space program years if not canceled it out right. Out of either type, chemical or nuclear chemical is still safer, thats why we still have them.
I do see more hope for a Scram-Jet type launcher, or electromagnetic launcher. Both are much better than either chemical or nuclear. Once we are in the vacuum of space there is plasma and engines much like VASIMER, or even nuclear thermal.
the parent poster was not talking about nuclear powered rockets (i.e. with reactors), but Project Orion, a plan to launch rockets using atomic *bombs*.

--
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-23 05:17 · Score: 1

Yes true, but I was answering the post by MozeeToby;

Chemical rockets are a dead end. They will never be able to put large amounts of supplies into orbit and will never be fast enough of interplanetary distances to be practical as anything more than an interesting diversion. The failure I am referring to is the failure to recognize this and invest money, time, and effort into alternatives. NASA successfully test fired a nuclear powered rocket that as a drop in replacement for on the Saturn V would have improved it's payload by 4x, using technology from the '60s. And then the funding dried up for anything experimental or paradigm shifting and we've been stuck on chemical rockets which have no hope of actually accomplishing any of the long term goals of the manned space program.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-23 05:25 · Score: 1

Also to this statement,

If funding had continued just a few years longer we might have seen simple thermal nuclear rockets like NERVA fly.
And since there was no real long term "Orion" nuclear bomb experimentation, just one experiment was done, I had to assume NERVA.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by sznupi · 2011-03-23 05:30 · Score: 1

How "electromagnetic launcher" also requires [1] a non-trivial rocket is of bigger significance. A rocket in the size range of current ones - but with much stronger structure, stricter tolerances, and more complexity (remember, not a simple stationary launch platform; also what makes Pegasus an apt analogy - also a rocket which gets a nice initial kick & height... but evidently this doesn't help much)

In other words, if the humanity would really try to get a return of investment in said megastructure, at the least we would need to start... a mass production or rockets required for slugs (even ignoring for a moment the question if sustaining such massive launch campaign would be possible from a single tube - but it does BTW put very nasty limits on the range of orbital inclinations)

So why not just do the same, but adding larger / multiplied first stage... and dropping the orders of magnitude of complexity / tolerances / megastructure costs? Gradually, in an organic & sustainable way; having already something very useful on the way there. And when a massive presence in space will become sensible by the possibility of having the infrastructure there, it will also lessen the need for launchers...

Yes, it is about methodology - too often people were willing to overlook such problems, too often willing themselves into believing bright future. Well, at least we're rather safe now from such train-wreck white elephants of rampant spending, IMHO. Partly because of past lessons, partly because each of so many very different projects (each requiring very non-trivial part of GDP...for what returns, exactly?) has its true believers, infighting with any "competition" :D

1. Not only orbital mechanics demands circularizing the orbit, or else the launch attempt will come crashing down to Earth - also, if the engine fails at the worst possible time, it might even go down near your expensive megastructure - that's a fun failure mode, eh?

PS. And Atlas... I'm not sure if you can call ~3 launchers per year, for its current incarnation (almost a reboot) "mass" anything; not even when compared to an average of ~40 per year for R-7 over the last half a century; and it shows in their relative costs. Even better: Zenit actually manages to be the least expensive launcher around... with 2x bigger version of the Atlas main engine (so there does seem to be some wasteful way of doing things in the latter). And it also isn't even mass-produced (but look at its shape). Too bad Buran (hence also STS) sucked the blood out of Zarya "Super Soyuz", meant for Zenit - for two decades we would have a reusable "Dragon-like" spacecraft on the free market

--
One that hath name thou can not otter
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by ZonkerWilliam · 2011-03-23 06:06 · Score: 1

I agree with you in most of what you say, I am fiscal conservative and don't like the way government spends our tax dollars, but I have to say $20 billion a year for NASA isn't that big a part of the rampant spending going on, and actually has more to offer in return than any Government Agency. IMHO there things that need development that can only happen if we spend some money to do it. Although I hold out hope for a market driven space program it isn't quit there yet and it definitely wasn't there yet 20-30 years ago. In this case there would be no private industry that could put men in orbit or beyond without Government program before it.
Some of these may sound "white elephants" but there are no companies willing to take the risk, only way it can be done is by a non-market driven entity, ie. Government, that has less risk if something does not work. Also private companies sadly don't look beyond the 10 year horizon, limiting the technology leap.
I would prefer it being market driven, its usually costs less and is technically better. I just don't see that happening. Now if we could convince private companies that there is a large exploitable market out there, ie. mining rare earth metals, who knows, it may open up a door.
Re:Too bad it's not a real Orion by rufty_tufty · 2011-03-29 03:24 · Score: 1

Apologies for the delay in reply, missed the email.
I'm not claiming they mutate into radiation tolerant, I'm assuming that nukes do most of their damage by being bombs rather than by their radiation. Yes this assumes in a conflict no dirty bombs are used.
However lets for the sake of argument assume a dozen or so were used, Chernobyl is often described as being equivalent to a dirty bomb and the human race survived that with at most a few tens of thousands of deaths, so it would be safe to assume that a few dozen dirty bombs wouldn't do more than kill a few hundred million. Still a catastrophe, but in terms of the human race still survivable - which was all i was trying to say was that a future civilisation would survive and move on.
Hell there's enough people these days saying that there are too many people on the planet, those of the future might welcome such a population cull. A period with increased cancer rates would probably be barely noticed during the few centuries to rebuild civilisation.
This brings me right back to the idea that at the moment fear of radiation is the biggest problem- yet for some reason we don't have people who have fear of arsenic or mercury - and that maybe a number of nuclear disasters would have the converse effect of making people less afraid of radiation.
Sorry I've been thinking about this morbid topic way too much for a short story I'm working on, I think it's getting to me...

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -

Baby puke green? by MrQuacker · 2011-03-22 06:08 · Score: 1

Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?

I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?

Re:Baby puke green? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-22 06:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Most paints applied to spacecraft are chosen due to their thermal properties. Some paints will give higher reflective indexes, while others will absorb more energy, and still others are designed to let a certain amount of energy through the paint and into whatever surface it is covering. I don't know which paint, specifically, has the "baby puke green" color that you are referring to, but I would wager that the entire body of this spacecraft was coated in that paint specifically to control the thermal pathways through the spacecraft body.

It's worth noting that one of the most difficult and most important aspects of spacecraft design involve the energy management within the spacecraft. Spacecraft are subject to high levels of radiation, high and low temperature extremes, and house multiple boxes of electronics that cannot be cooled via typical convective methods as they are on the ground. Thus, to keep a spacecraft operating effectively, a full analysis must be done to take into account all energy (thermal or otherwise) sources in a spacecraft and redirect energy to appropriately sized energy sinks (radiators, heat-pies, etc.). This is one aspect of spacecraft design that many folks fail to take into account when discussing how simple it would be to build a spacecraft that does [insert theoretical task here].

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Baby puke green? by Zandamesh · 2011-03-22 06:23 · Score: 1

I know when 16 bit colors were used, 5 bits were for red, 5 bits for blue, and 6 for green. I think it has something to do with the human eye seeing the color green the most intensely. Maybe that has something to do with it? Probably not though.

--
Lo and behold, for I am a sig!
Re:Baby puke green? by Waffle+Iron · 2011-03-22 06:28 · Score: 2

Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?
I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?
Note that the picture shows the interior structure of the capsule, not the final external panels. I assume that it's probably a yellow-green zinc chromate coating that is commonly used to prevent corrosion on aluminum parts on aircraft and spacecraft.
Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 06:43 · Score: 1

Yes, that is corrosion-inhibiting primer. It's toxic and carcinogenic, but we don't (yet) have anything better. There are several promising alternatives in the works but none that are quite mature enough to be used.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Baby puke green? by fotbr · 2011-03-22 06:44 · Score: 1

Anticorrosion coating, color helps make sure no parts are missed and un-coated.
Re:Baby puke green? by VolciMaster · 2011-03-22 06:54 · Score: 2

Offtopic, by why are the majority of aerospace projects painted in that hideous baby puke green?
I know there must be technical reason behind it, what is it?
Note that the picture shows the interior structure of the capsule, not the final external panels. I assume that it's probably a yellow-green zinc chromate coating that is commonly used to prevent corrosion on aluminum parts on aircraft and spacecraft.
Why bother coating the aluminum? Aluminum oxide does a pretty good job of preventing corrosion.

--
antipaucity
Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 06:57 · Score: 1

That's also why stealth spacecraft are effectively impossible. You can hide from radar all you want, but there's no way you can keep yourself as cool as the background of space (2K, was it?) for reasonable times.
But, in this case, the green paint is a corrosion-inhibitive primer on the internal structure. Pretty much the same stuff you'll see on aircraft.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 07:05 · Score: 2

Why bother coating the aluminum? Aluminum oxide does a pretty good job of preventing corrosion.
Not really. Exposure to salty, humid air (think naval aircraft or anything sitting on the pad at KSC), dissimilar metal contact, etc. will all cause corrosion. Plus, aluminum alloys are more susceptible to corrosion than pure aluminum (or alloy sheets with thin aluminum coatings). Stress concentrations can exacerbate corrosion.
Plus, corrosion spreads, and the more widely spread it is, the harder it is to repair.
Think about it for a minute. We've been building airplanes made of aluminum for decades. If we could leave the primer off and not have to worry about corrosion, do you think anyone would still be using it?

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Baby puke green? by cababunga · 2011-03-22 07:09 · Score: 1

Please take your baby to see a doctor ASAP! This is not normal color for baby puke.
Re:Baby puke green? by idontgno · 2011-03-22 07:12 · Score: 2

Zinc Chromate Green. Corrosion inhibition coating for aluminum. The heraldic color of the aerospace industry since the 1940s.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Baby puke green? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-22 07:23 · Score: 1

But, in this case, the green paint is a corrosion-inhibitive primer on the internal structure.
Ah, that also makes sense.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Baby puke green? by fnj · 2011-03-22 07:45 · Score: 1

Not that good. Not for most aluminum alloys under any kind of severe conditions. And zinc chromate over anodizing is much better than zinc chromate alone.
Of course, speaking of the inside of a spacecraft, it's hard to imagine the conditions would be at all severe.
Re:Baby puke green? by MacGyver2210 · 2011-03-22 07:45 · Score: 1

Exactly. It's the same protective primer they paint 747s and such with before they apply the outer-coat of paint and assemble all the pieces.
If you ever see a jetliner in the shop, it will probably be re-coated with this stuff anywhere that is sealed or infrequently maintained.

--
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Re:Baby puke green? by Chruisan · 2011-03-22 07:47 · Score: 1

Green Zinc Chromate...one of my favorite colors when making model aircraft as a kid.
Re:Baby puke green? by smelch · 2011-03-22 08:33 · Score: 2

Off topic, but the human eye has roughly twice as many green receptors as red or blue. The CCD in your digital camera is also laid out that way to get the correct vibrance. With a standard 1:1:1 ratio images would seem dull.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
Re:Baby puke green? by krnpimpsta · 2011-03-22 08:43 · Score: 1

Thus, to keep a spacecraft operating effectively, a full analysis must be done to take into account all energy (thermal or otherwise) sources in a spacecraft and redirect energy to appropriately sized energy sinks (radiators, heat-pies, etc.).

Mmmmmmmm... heat-pies.. glarggghughhhhhh *Drool*

--
New webcomic updated on Sundays: HERE
Re:Baby puke green? by imsabbel · 2011-03-22 09:18 · Score: 2

Look up the old liverys of american airlines. Thats not silver paint, thats polished aluminium.
for example: http://s3.amazonaws.com/collectapedia_prod/images/62178/American_Airlines_990_Astrojet.jpg
Nowadays that does not fly anymore, as more and more composites are used, which are
a) not as sexy unpainted
and
b) non-conductive, so need a conductive paint layer to prevent damage in thunderstorms

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:Baby puke green? by Grishnakh · 2011-03-22 11:02 · Score: 1

How much of a problem is the toxicity and carcinogenic properties really, though? As long as the material is handled carefully in a safe manner, with appropriate protective clothing and such, how much of a problem is it?
Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 11:27 · Score: 2

The bare metal scheme requires constant polishing. However, it's also in an easily-visible location without holes or corners to trap moisture like the inside of a structure would have. It's workable on the outside of an aircraft, but really not practical for the inside.
Look, I've built an airplane and work on airplanes for a living. I think I know what I'm talking about.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 12:12 · Score: 1

In space, it's not as much of an issue. But it is when your spacecraft is sitting on the pad a quarter-mile from the Atlantic Ocean, getting doused in rain showers every couple days, it becomes an issue.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Baby puke green? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 12:23 · Score: 1

It's manageable, but a big (and expensive) pain in the ass. And it causes lots of environmental issues, too.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:Baby puke green? by phrostie · 2011-03-22 13:50 · Score: 1

It's the ultimate green tail

Back to Apollo by U8MyData · 2011-03-22 06:09 · Score: 2

The Shuttle program was great for what it was and I am sad to see it go. However, I welcome the idea of an Apollo like program to inspire, distract, and encourage pushing the envelope again. I think the world needs some vision beyond what is terrestrial these days.

Re:Back to Apollo by homey+of+my+owney · 2011-03-22 06:45 · Score: 1

Yeah, but not a warmed over, super-sized Apollo capsule. Is that it for innovation out of NASA? Modernized 40 year old capsules?
Re:Back to Apollo by U8MyData · 2011-03-22 06:58 · Score: 2

I have thought long and hard about that. It also goes along the line of why not utilize the previous designs for the shuttle and improve on it rather than making a whole new launch system? But, until we have some kind of vastly improved propulsion systems, the design focus was on a series of upgrades on the proven. Just my two cents anyway...
Re:Back to Apollo by vlm · 2011-03-22 07:01 · Score: 2

Yeah, but not a warmed over, super-sized Apollo capsule. Is that it for innovation out of NASA? Modernized 40 year old capsules?
You know, my brand new tower looks exactly the same as my 386 tower from 1993. Is that innovation? Modernized 18 year old computers?
(If you look real close the power supply type has changed, and I no longer have 3.5 or 5.25 floppys, in its place I have a front panel USB hub, and no turbo button / turbo LEDs, but this all requires close examination)

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
Re:Back to Apollo by 0123456 · 2011-03-22 07:20 · Score: 3, Informative

It also goes along the line of why not utilize the previous designs for the shuttle and improve on it rather than making a whole new launch system?
Because the shuttle is a flawed design created by committee to meet numerous contradictory requirements?
Re:Back to Apollo by Ironchew · 2011-03-22 07:24 · Score: 1

For rockets, at least, I'm under the impression that the modern Soyuz is a solid design.
Re:Back to Apollo by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 07:24 · Score: 1

Well, an 80-year-old Model A Ford has four wheels, two headlights and a steering wheel, just like a new Prius. So auto innovation is just modernized Model A's right?
Let's face it, a cylinder is the most efficient shape for a chemical-fueled vehicle and strapping a big winged glider to the side of a monster fuel tank was never an "elegant" solution. The idea of a reusable vehicle was neat, but the shuttle was never going to be a long-term thing. My personal opinion is that chemical rocketry is not going to be a long-term solution--probably nuclear (if the fear-mongering media will just STFU), or a space elevator, or something not invented yet.
Re:Back to Apollo by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-22 07:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

Capsules are an extremely capable form factor when talking about spacecraft. When something is orbiting a gravity well in a vacuum or near vacuum, the geometry of that thing has some very powerful effects on the design of the system in general. Capsule are nice in that they are symmetric about one axis. This makes controlling and pointing them very easy. If you take a geometry like that of the space shuttle, the control problems become much more difficult. Those large wings and that vertical stabilizer act as moment arms about your roll axis. Any forces that act upon those moment arms turn into large, asymmetrical torques (these forces can be due to atmospheric drag, radiation gradients, thermal gradients, micro-meteor impacts, etc.). Damping out the increase in angular momentum due to torques applied to such large moment arms requires more powerful, more massive, more power-hungry momentum exchange devices (like reaction wheels, CMG's whatever). Thus, such a clunky geometric design puts some heavy restrictions on your system design space.

Now, if you take a form factor like the capsule, you find that you don't have those giant moment arms (save for the solar arrays which, if designed properly, should go a long way in canceling out each other's torques). What's more, you have a nice aerodynamic shape that can reenter atmospheres much more elegantly than, say a brick with wings bolted on. All in all, the capsule is a beautifully elegant design that solves many of the difficult space-environment design problems through passive geometry, rather than through more active systems like large control mechanisms or expensive ceramic tiles.

Just because a design is 40 years old doesn't mean it's poor. The car is the same form factor that it was back when it was design in the early 1900's, but that's because there is a lot to be said for a 4-wheel base vehicle. That doesn't mean all cars are the same as the Model T though.

Finally, you should probably realize that The Orion was built and designed by Lockheed-Martin, not NASA.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Back to Apollo by Andy+Dodd · 2011-03-22 08:04 · Score: 2

In terms of actual track record - the Shuttle failed to deliver on many of its promises. Despite being a reusable vehicle, I believe it proved to be actually more expensive to operate than one-time-use launch vehicles. Part of that was due to conflicting requirements from multiple entities - the military wanted certain capabilities that greatly increased cost.
Meanwhile, the one-time use + capsule approach worked VERY well while it was in use, and has continued to work very well for Russia.
Go with what works, not what doesn't.
Modernizing a proven design is far less risky than a revolutionary one, and in many cases, basing your design on a proven one makes certification paperwork and testing MUCH easier. Certification and paperwork testing is a VERY large part of a program like this.
I believe, though, that the article is partially wrong. It says that Constellation was cancelled but Lockheed/NASA had plans for more than what Constellation required and hence continued on. I'm fairly certain this is wrong - what I recall from the days Constellation was in trouble (at that point good friends of mine were working on Orion) is that Constellation had very ambitious scope and goals for the Orion capsule, but after Orion went away there were still needs that Orion was well suited to fulfill, and hence it was able to continue in a significantly de-scoped form.

--
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Re:Back to Apollo by Grishnakh · 2011-03-22 11:12 · Score: 1

What's wrong with capsules? They're the best, most reliable, and most efficient solution to the problem of transporting humans to space and returning them to Earth, and they're going to remain that way until the Space Elevator is built and rockets are used.
Re:Back to Apollo by CrimsonAvenger · 2011-03-22 15:14 · Score: 1

For rockets, at least, I'm under the impression that the modern Soyuz is a solid design.
Odd that you use "modern" in the context of Soyuz, when both the spacecraft and the booster are 40-year old designs.

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:Back to Apollo by vlm · 2011-03-22 23:41 · Score: 1

Odd that you use "modern" in the context of Soyuz, when both the spacecraft and the booster are 40-year old designs.
They haven't made those old designs in 40-50 years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soyuz_(spacecraft)
Theres at least 9 revisions, some pretty new, and some waiting on the drawing board.
Again, we're back to the same problem of it is externally about the same size and shape as something old, therefore it absolutely must be ancient tech.
I own a "GM car" therefore it must contain only unchanged technology from 1908 when GM was founded, correct? Its a "GM", and GM was founded in 1908 therefore the proof is self evident that my car is built entirely out of 1908 tech. Even if it was designed in the early-mid 90s and manufactured in '97.

--
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger

Choice quotes by srussia · 2011-03-22 06:10 · Score: 4, Insightful

"The spacecraft is an incredibly robust, technically advanced vehicle capable of safely transporting humans to asteroids, Lagrange Points and other deep space destinations that will put us on an affordable and sustainable path to Mars.”

Many of Orion's components can be re-used in subsequent flights, including some electronic systems, Bray said. The spaceship itself won't be reused because of the tremendous forces it endures on liftoff and re-entry, he said.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrats who pressed Obama to salvage the Orion project, said they were confident the spacecraft will fly, but neither discussed specifics in brief remarks at the dedication ceremony for the test building.

I think there's a type somewhere... seems more like the Onion Moon Craft.

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Re:Choice quotes by xMrFishx · 2011-03-22 06:17 · Score: 1

... seems more like the Onion Moon Craft.
As it flies into space, everything peels off from the outer layers one by one until you get an astronaut on space hopper in the centre. Like a kinder egg, with a really expensive toy in the middle.
Re:Choice quotes by elrous0 · 2011-03-22 06:22 · Score: 1

Rep. Ed Perlmutter and Sen. Michael Bennet, Colorado Democrats who pressed Obama to salvage the Orion project, said they were confident the spacecraft will fly
In an unrelated story, Lockheed Martin announces a $35 million training center for Orion in Colorado.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Re:Choice quotes by Martin+Blank · 2011-03-22 06:37 · Score: 1

That was mentioned in TFA, about ten paragraphs down.

--
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
Re:Choice quotes by Low+Ranked+Craig · 2011-03-22 07:42 · Score: 1

irony

--
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Re:Choice quotes by k6mfw · 2011-03-22 08:36 · Score: 1

"The spacecraft is an incredibly robust, technically advanced vehicle capable of safely transporting humans to asteroids, Lagrange Points and other deep space destinations that will put us on an affordable and sustainable path to Mars.”

Lots of luck with that unless accompanied by a larger pressurized module for exercising (ISS crews do many hours of this every day). Also need some serious radiation shielding, one big solar flare will surely ruin your day.
I just can't believe when they first unveiled this thing and say it's designed for deep space missions. Only thing I see as practical is for high speed (25,000mph or faster) entry back to earth.

--
mfwright@batnet.com
Re:Choice quotes by jafac · 2011-03-22 13:08 · Score: 1

yeah, no launch vehicle, no significant reusable structural components. . . ?
But I guess an astronaut can bring his or her cell-phone and laptop from one flight to the next, right?
I completely hate everything this design and vehicle represents. But, I still think it's totally cool. I still want to see it fly. Just not on that horrid abortion that was Ares.

--

These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.

Re:Inelegant by h4rr4r · 2011-03-22 06:13 · Score: 2

The space shuttle is not elegant, unless you think camels are elegant. Design by committee does not anything elegant make.

NASA link by Anonymous Coward · 2011-03-22 06:18 · Score: 1

Here's the link to NASA's page on the project.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/orion/index.html

Is this "it" ? by Rollgunner · 2011-03-22 06:19 · Score: 1

Am I reading this correctly? Lockheed-Martin is going ahead with the construction of the capsule even though the government isn't paying for it anymore?

Is this the moment where a private corporation risks a hundred million dollars betting on space exploration?

Re:Is this "it" ? by vekrander · 2011-03-22 06:30 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, no. Lockheed-Martin is a publicly held corporation. Going through with this would not be approved by their board of directors, vice presidents or stock holders unless it could be shown to be profitable in the long run. This capsule will be paid for, that is if it isn't paid for already. I would assume it's all been taken care of, courtesy of tax payers. I'd bet you everything I have against this being a charitable donation to the government in the name of science.
Re:Is this "it" ? by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-22 07:02 · Score: 1

There are quite a few private companies that are currently developing space capsules that the government isn't paying for. The first one that comes to my mind is Interorbital Systems. Much of SpaceX's Dragon capsule was developed with private funds. Boeing is currently developing a commercial capsule for launch cargo, and, possibly, crew. Orbital sciences is developing an unmanned capsule. There are also a handful of other, smaller contenders, but I can't recall them off the top of my head. Blue Origin has some kind of funky lander/capsule vehicle that they've tested, but I am not sure what they are planning on using it for yet.

The point is, there are many companies that are starting to invest in the space market for the sake of investing in the space market. Right now, the biggest impediment to the U.S. space program is Congress, not public will, lack of vision, lack of technology, or lack of engineering expertise.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:Is this "it" ? by Tiger4 · 2011-03-22 07:19 · Score: 1

I'd bet that part of it is the Us FY2011 budget debacle. Congress never passed a new budget for 2011. They just repassed a part of the old 2010. The 2010 budget had money to finish Orion. So basically they dropped another wad of money on LockMart marked "do it again". OK, not quite that easy really, but the extra cash probably came in handy on some of the finishing touches.

--
Behold, this dreamer cometh. Come now, and let us slay him... and we shall see what will become of his dreams.
Re:Is this "it" ? by bware · 2011-03-22 07:37 · Score: 1

They're going ahead because Congress hasn't passed a budget for 2011 yet, so under CR, they keep getting the funding profile they had last year. The government, i.e., you and me, are still paying for it. And when we stop, they'll stop.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by Revotron · 2011-03-22 06:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?

The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."

That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.

But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.

Re:Why bother? by elrous0 · 2011-03-22 06:25 · Score: 2

NASA is dead under every President since Johnson.

FTFY.

--
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.

Orion makes the shuttle look like child's play. by ModernGeek · 2011-03-22 06:25 · Score: 3, Interesting

I suggest that everybody read about Orion at the Lockheed Martin Website.

I highly recommend this video.

--
Sig: I stole this sig.

Re:Orion makes the shuttle look like child's play. by ModernGeek · 2011-03-22 11:08 · Score: 1

Private flight will take over mundane tasks like taking humans to the International Space Station. Space X has made leaps and bounds towards this goal, and I forsee us using Commercial Access to Space by 2015. It was the best approach to this. The downside of abandoning the Space Shuttle is that we will no longer have the ability to carry large payloads from orbit back to earth. That was the only niche the Space Shuttle had that others did not. While it wouldn't be able to bring back a large payload like Hubble (it can't bring back as much as it can take up), it could take failed pieces of the ISS and allow us to study the effects of space on materials.

There are talks of keeping one of the orbiters, Endeavour, and allowing it to be used for the Commercial Access to Space program.

Orion, like the shuttle, is reusable. It can also be used on different launch vehicles. The Space X Falcon 9 for LEO operations, or whatever new Heavy Lift Vehicle is used for deep space missions. The Ares I, the original manned launch vehicle for Constellation, may come back as the ATK Liberty Launch, under Commercial Access to Space.

The main wasted assets of the reshaping of Constellation are the Lunar Landers. If we get an Republican next term, there is a good chance the program will come back stronger as ever. Lunar missions, combined by the efficiency of CATS for LEO operations. Commercial Access to Space is one of the best ideas NASA ever had. I suggest everybody look into it.

--
Sig: I stole this sig.

Good to see there is some interest afterall by htcguy11 · 2011-03-22 06:29 · Score: 1

I'm relieved to see that there is interest in the space program afterall. As a big sci-fi and space fan myself, I think it is very important to learn all that we can about our solar system and beyond.

Re:Inelegant by Stenchwarrior · 2011-03-22 06:35 · Score: 1

I'm thinking Homer made some sort of contribution.

--
Loading...

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by IndigoDarkwolf · 2011-03-22 06:39 · Score: 2

Obviously the dig against him is the part where they say that instead the President urged NASA to send astronauts to an asteroid first.

Re:Inelegant by Quiet_Desperation · 2011-03-22 06:41 · Score: 1

elegance of the Space Shuttle

o.O

Re:Inelegant by Nyeerrmm · 2011-03-22 06:46 · Score: 2

A simple capsule that carries little in the way of extra weight is much more elegant in my mind. Those wings may look nice, but they are heavy and cause trouble.

And who's decided it isn't worth or time? I'm pretty sure NASA's budget is still strong despite the hatchet men in congress, exciting things are happening on many fronts, and we've got *multiple* manned vehicles currently in development and likely to see flight within 5 years. This is an exciting time for space exploration.

Re:Cancelling program a good decision? by jgtg32a · 2011-03-22 06:55 · Score: 2

It's how every gov project has worked for the last 60+ years.

misunderstanding by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2011-03-22 06:59 · Score: 3, Interesting

The Orion capsule is intended to be the baseline for both missions.

--
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

Re:Inelegant by pedropolis · 2011-03-22 07:01 · Score: 2

President Obama never said space isn't worth out time (your generalization has to hit something), but at $500m per launch, the aging shuttle fleet wasn't cost effective. It never achieved the goal of becoming our affordable pick-up truck to space. Bush's replacement solution for the shuttle was to build the biggest rocket ever, and Texas sized boondoggle that was beset by engineering problems. It was already over-budget and behind schedule. In order to provide more money for proven exploratory solutions (rovers and space telescopes), Obama sought out companies trying to become the first corporations providing LEO solutions. His aim was to reduce the cost of getting to space through free market solutions (which Republicans ironically criticized). Why should we do all the heavy lifting? This way NASA can focus on doing more of the exciting space stuff (Hubble, Spirit, Opportunity, James Webb, Pluto Express) without the cost overruns associated with big lift rockets and an aging shuttle fleet. Obama has stated a goal of a manned mission to an asteroid. Space planes are great optics, and inspiring, but NASA has been moving towards faster/cheaper/better now for years and the aging fleet doesn't meet that standard.

NASA = 3D Realms by jollyreaper · 2011-03-22 07:01 · Score: 1

Shuttle Replacement = Duke Nuke'Em Forever

The only way we're getting a shuttle replacement is if someone other than NASA's in charge.

--
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne

Re:NASA = 3D Realms by dadelbunts · 2011-03-22 07:07 · Score: 1

Or if we dig out the Buran.
Re:NASA = 3D Realms by oni · 2011-03-22 08:09 · Score: 5, Insightful

I disagree. NASA hasn't bungled anything. The reason we don't have a replacement is that it takes more than 8 years and every president cancels the last guy's program. We wouldn't have made it to the moon if JFK hadn't been a hugely popular martyr. And even then, as soon as we set foot on the moon, they canceled Apollo. And every president since has canceled the last guy's program - except Carter. Carter, being a one-term president tried but failed to cancel the shuttle and that's the only reason we ever had it.
So Regan had the shuttle. Bush #1 supported a replacement but Clinton canceled it. Clinton supported a replacement (venturestar) but Bush #2 canceled it. Bush #2 supported a replacement (constellation) but Obama canceled it.
I don't see how any of this is NASA's fault.
Re:NASA = 3D Realms by IrquiM · 2011-03-22 09:41 · Score: 1

It doesn't take 8 years, just ask Elon Musk. It takes more than 8 years if a part of the project (the biggest?) is keeping people in jobs and lawmakers demanding stupid, really expensive, unsafe stuff included in the design (read shuttle derived).

--
This is blinging

A slight bit of clarity is called for here... by DerekLyons · 2011-03-22 07:06 · Score: 1

"Lockheed Martin on Tuesday unveiled the first Orion spacecraft, a part of what NASA had planned as the sprawlingly ambitious Constellation project"

Keep in mind that while this was NASA's plan - the plan only existed because NASA was directed to create and implement the plan by the Bush administration.

Re:A slight bit of clarity is called for here... by oni · 2011-03-22 08:11 · Score: 1

which is like saying that Apollo was NASA's plan, but it only existed because NASA was directed to create and implement the plan by JFK.
You're trying to poison the well.
Re:A slight bit of clarity is called for here... by DerekLyons · 2011-03-22 09:29 · Score: 1

which is like saying that Apollo was NASA's plan, but it only existed because NASA was directed to create and implement the plan by JFK.
Well, that's pretty much like saying water is wet and fire is hot - it's the stone cold truth.

You're trying to poison the well.
Nope, just reaching for clarity here. Too many people act as if NASA were some independent entity. It isn't.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by dadelbunts · 2011-03-22 07:10 · Score: 1

Maybe presidents should be voted in for longer. But made easier to remove.

Re:Inelegant by gstoddart · 2011-03-22 07:14 · Score: 2

The space shuttle is not elegant, unless you think camels are elegant.

In terms of being highly adapted for the terrain they occupy, as well as the climate ... I'd call that somewhat elegant.

Now, cameltoe, that's a whole different story. Considered by some to be the most elegant design in nature. ;-)

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by ChronoFish · 2011-03-22 07:16 · Score: 1

If you launch from 20 miles up - basically to the point where there aerodynamics starts to become irrelevant, how much could you then save on the size of rocket/amount of fuel needed to reach orbit - or the moon? Clearly not a new or startling idea, but any numbers on what a floating launch pad would buy you? (assuming the capability having a strong enough / lighter than-air launch pad (i.e. launch pad supported by large helium / hydrogen balloons).

-CF

Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by 0123456 · 2011-03-22 07:23 · Score: 3, Informative

Fairly significant, actually. Kistler's original launcher design was an 'SSTO' which would have launched from a platform lifted to around 100,000 feet; they reckoned that made the difference between viable and non-viable for that design.
There are two main benefits: you don't have to worry about aerodynamic drag, and you can use engines optimised for vacuum operation which are more efficient than engines optimised for sea-level operation.
Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by imsabbel · 2011-03-22 10:56 · Score: 1

Depends on the concept used.
Speaking in terms of gravity, you dont gain much. But you are putting the vast majority of the atmosphere below you. This makes, for example, hydrogen engines more efficient for 1st stages (they need huge tanks for the light nitrogen, which create tons of drag in the lower atmosphere.)

--
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by rgbatduke · 2011-03-22 21:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, if anybody figures out a good answer to this, let me know. My 15 year old is trying to figure out how to put a mass into orbit for a high school science project. Since I happen to be a physicist, he keeps bugging me to help him. I try to explain the little problem of paying for energy on a budget of a couple of hundred dollars absolute max, to no avail...;-)

We can probably afford to do one of the mylar balloons that can lift a moderate payload to near space on that (like the ones used to take nifty pictures by various private citizens). Instead of a camera, we can probably carry some other payload of a few kilograms, such as "a rocket". However, getting even a payload of grams to six or seven km/sec out of kilograms of fuel seems difficult, assuming we could put together e.g. a solid fuel rocket without the department of homeland security showing up at our door (and where I am not a chemist, let alone and explosives expert).

I am not optimistic about taking our microwave oven and converting it into an ion drive (his latest idea). Anybody have a good idea for how to get anything into orbit on a budget of $200? Or heck, even $300, why not splurge?

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by icebrain · 2011-03-22 22:45 · Score: 1

Your best bet is going to be contacting some existing launch provider or microsat company to see if you can piggyback along.
I hate to put it bluntly, but an orbital launcher is a bit outside the range of a high school science project. Maybe a team of grad students (or even bright undergrads) could pull it off with sufficient funding.

--
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Re:How much savings by launching from 20 miles up? by camperdave · 2011-03-23 05:48 · Score: 1

It's irrelevant. The cost of fuel for a rocket is at the level of statistical noise relative to other costs. For example, the shuttle costs $450 million to launch. Of that, only $0.2 million goes to the price of fuel. Besides, launching into orbit is not about the altitude, but about the velocity. Lifting the rocket 20 miles up will not affect its velocity. Granted, it takes fuel to push through the lower atmosphere, but the design difficulties you face designing, building, and supplying a lighter than air launch platform will far outweigh any gains you make.

Hydrogen has a buoyancy of -1.2g/l. In other words, one litre of hydrogen will lift 1.2 grams. The shuttle stack has a mass of 2,030 metric tons. This will require over 1.6 billion litres of hydrogen to lift. This equates to 152,250 kilograms of hydrogen. Already, this is more hydrogen than the shuttle uses, and we haven't even included the mass of the lifting platform itself.

So, ultimately, it costs more than it saves.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!

not charitable by Gary+W.+Longsine · 2011-03-22 07:23 · Score: 1

My understanding is that the Obama administration's re-direction came during the middle of a fiscal year. The work described in the article was already under contract when that re-direction occurred. Best case, NASA may have had a choice between allowing the contract to continue, or canceling the contract, which would also cost money. More likely, this program was in the budget as a line item, in which case it probably requires an act of Congress (in the literal sense) to cancel the program mid-year.

--
If you mod me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

It’s a lack of vision. by alexander_686 · 2011-03-22 07:24 · Score: 2

I will disagree – It’s a lack of vision. Blame it on our Presidents [and I do use plural] or our Congress – but it’s a vision thing.

Do we want to
Build a space station?
Go to Mars?
Go to the Moon?
Go to an asteroid?

All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these ½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?

And it’s nice that the private sector is doing what it can – but the private sector responses to supply and demand – and right now it’s the government and big science which is providing the loin’s share of demand. I am not trying to marginalize space tourisms or commercial satellites – but they don’t have the big bucks like government.

Re:It’s a lack of vision. by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-22 09:10 · Score: 2

All of these are valid, but each of these requires something a little different. Instead of a clear voice [We shall put a man on the moon in 10 years] we have these Â½ measures for the past 20 years. And this leaves us with what? No replacement for the Space Shuttle?
Clear voices and tunnel "vision" are great for showing off human ingenuity (and specifically American ingenuity in the Cold War), but aren't necessarily that great for making progress. Not to knock Apollo, but seriously, what a clear voice of "We shall do [insert phenomenal but specific achievement" gets us is 10-20 years of focus on a specific task that lets us touch the place we were talking about, plant a flag, then leave with a couple samples. Great, but not what I call visionary. It was a vision, back before we had ever done it. Now it's a vision of the past.
That's why I like the current vision: Develop technologies and capabilities -- along with allowing the private sector to take over getting to LEO, which there is demand for -- so that future "visions" won't necessarily take 10 years of focused development on a one-off project.
The best part is that, assuming current development of these technologies isn't stymied by Congress' demand for a pork-rocket, when the next President comes in and cancels all the "visionary" plans, the tech will still be around, already developed.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:It’s a lack of vision. by camperdave · 2011-03-22 10:26 · Score: 1

To get funding for this, you need to fire the imagination of the people. To do that you need to put people into space. And then, when you get them into space, for Pete's sake, DO NOT show them playing in zero G. Show them working. This is probably the biggest mistake NASA ever made.

--
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
Re:It’s a lack of vision. by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-22 10:46 · Score: 1

Personally, my imagination was fired much more by Voyager, Hubble, the Mars Rovers, and Cassini, than it ever was by the Shuttles or ISS. ISS is a worthy endeavor, I'm just saying, when I think of humans in space doing science I think that's really cool, but when I think of all these instruments studying other planets, other galaxies, expanding human knowledge of our universe, it brings tears to my eyes.

--

The enemies of Democracy are
Re:It’s a lack of vision. by staghorne · 2011-03-22 17:22 · Score: 1

the government (...) is providing the loin's share of demand
As one of many disillusioned voters and citizens, I've become painfully aware that the government's loin demands a share of my rear end...

(Sorry to be a spelling/typo nazi, but this one was just too vivid to pass up. :)

--
Paddle faster, I hear banjos

Re:Calming effect by ShavedOrangutan · 2011-03-22 07:31 · Score: 2

My theory is that paints have to be made with equal quantities of each color. After consumers buy up the attractive colors, the ugly ones have to go somewhere. Might as well paint schools and government buildings with them. That must be why some military buildings I've seen are painted inside with the same awful yellow as my 3rd grade classroom.

--
Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.

Looks vaguely familiar by WaffleMonster · 2011-03-22 07:32 · Score: 1

I think I remember seeing this thing before.. but can't quite put my finger on where...

Uhm, no by Aighearach · 2011-03-22 07:46 · Score: 2

They reused the name to help people forget that the other one ever happened.

Or rather, to help people forget that the other one, which didn't actually happen, was ever planned.

Re:I can't believe it by Low+Ranked+Craig · 2011-03-22 07:46 · Score: 1, Funny

I'm sure The Huffington Post will have a hard-hitting, detailed article about it soon...

--
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by divisionbyzero · 2011-03-22 07:47 · Score: 2, Informative

Excuse me... would you mind telling me where the "dig" is at the President?

The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."

That is a statement of fact. It is in no way biased, skewed or twisted. It's just about as plain a statement as one can make.

But I guess it must be hard to notice these details when you've got to read over such a highly-held nose.

Um, you do realize that selective statement of fact is one of the best ways to manipulate people, right? But given your reaction maybe you don't.

The story could have also said that "President Obama chose to replace the Constellation program with one focused on fostering the development of the technology for accessing Low Earth Orbit in the private sector." But of course that would insinuate that our "Socialist" President actually believes in the ability of the private sector to innovate rather than handing out pork to the industries in various politicians home states. That of course would be counter to their narrative and so they didn't. Instead they give the impression the President gutted the space program. It's not about holding your nose high. It's about being able to read between the lines.

Re:Inelegant by Dachannien · 2011-03-22 08:07 · Score: 1

not like we ever got any cool technology from space tech >_>

I love Tang!

Re:Calming effect by mikael_j · 2011-03-22 08:07 · Score: 1

Yet most sane people seem to hate those bland and "calming" colors intensely. Just from asking a few friends I have come to the conclusion that I am definitely not alone in almost getting feelings of nausea when I'm forced to be in hospitals or other buildings painted in those "calming" color schemes...

Although in practice I suspect it has more to do with being "non-offensive" to a the point where the non-offensiveness becomes offensive. It's not just the colors, ever look at the paintings on the walls of a hospital waiting room? or looked at what magazines they have available? Everything there is chosen to be as neutral and non-offensive as possible, which I suppose is awesome if you're extremely easily offended by just about anything, otherwise it just makes people uncomfortable.

As for spacecraft component color choices? probably not the same reason...

--
Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4

Re:Inelegant by CohibaVancouver · 2011-03-22 08:09 · Score: 2

The space shuttle is not elegant

It sure as hell is. Pics of the orbiter in space always impress the hell out of me....

To wit:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/Space_Shuttle_Discovery_(STS-114_'Return_to_Flight')_approaches_the_International_Space_Station.jpg

Re:Calming effect by smelch · 2011-03-22 08:31 · Score: 1

You're supposed to feel uncomfortable so you are quiet and well behaved. As in you don't feel at home, won't enjoy yourself too much... it basically sucks your soul and makes you lifeless.

--
If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by Revotron · 2011-03-22 08:57 · Score: 2, Funny

I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.

There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by Chris+Burke · 2011-03-22 09:15 · Score: 1

As if we would learn all we could by going to the Moon long enough to plant a flag and tool around in a buggy.

When astronauts return to the moon, it should be to check out the fully-functional habitats that were assembled robotically for them, so they can stay for an extended period of time.

--

The enemies of Democracy are

Re:Cancelling program a good decision? by Maritz · 2011-03-22 09:40 · Score: 2

The project was critically underfunded. Bush was funding it for appearances knowing he was leaving a problem for whoever took over after him. The net effect of the Obama administration is actually a slight rise in NASA's overall budget. It's a shame to see publicly funded manned space missions fall by the wayside though.

--
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by melikamp · 2011-03-22 10:21 · Score: 1

About freaking time. Moon is perfect as the first shipyard for interplanetary craft: shallow gravity well, no atmosphere, abundant solar energy, abundant water, close to Earth, natural radiation shelters with near-constant temperature (lava tubes). Imagine also an optical telescope in a crater near the pole. Astronomy geeks would fight in an octagon to get some time on that, even without any radiation shielding.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by divisionbyzero · 2011-03-22 10:51 · Score: 1

I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.

There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".

Aw, how cute. So naive. From a "news" network whose executives provide political talking points to all of their news reporters? I don't think I'm making anything up. Have a nice day, Sunshine.

Re:Cancelling program a good decision? by Grishnakh · 2011-03-22 11:06 · Score: 1

This is exactly why China will ultimately surpass us (USA) in space exploration. Unlike us, they don't have a flawed system where the entire direction of their national space policy changes on one man's whim every 4 years. In fact, the Europeans will probably also surpass us, because they too do not have flawed systems where one man has most of the power of the nation at his command, and can basically make any decision he wants with near-dictatorial powers (it's called "signing statements").

Re:Inelegant by Kell+Bengal · 2011-03-22 11:48 · Score: 1

Without a doubt, the shuttle orbiter is one of the most beautiful objects man has created. I rate it the peer of the Mona Lisa, the Aphrodite of Milos and the Taj Mahal.

--
Scientists point out problems, engineers fix them
altslashdot.org: The future of slashdot.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by bill_mcgonigle · 2011-03-22 12:44 · Score: 1

The only passage I see that references our President is "Orion and the companion Ares heavy-lift rocket were part of Constellation, a program cancelled under President Barack Obama's 2011 budget proposal."

Dude, enough with the racism already.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)

Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered by WindBourne · 2011-03-22 13:19 · Score: 2

The fact is, that while nuke itself is lightweight, the current means of generating high amounts of power/energy from it, is not. All of the large systems are thermal and require the ability to dump waste heat. In space, you have no easy way to dump, so it is radiated outwards. That requires a LONG HEAVY BOOM. With that weight, VASIMR is just not possible. Instead, it will be NERVA that will win the day. Interestingly, with a NERVA engine, you can still add a small generator to it and use that to power the ship.

However, if we can get a fusion engine going, then at some point, we will have a means of lightweight electricity generation via beta emissions (essentially an electron). We are a LONG ways away from that.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

Re:Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered by jwhitener · 2011-03-24 08:06 · Score: 1

The article mentions that 1 or more of these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_Affordable_Fission_Engine
Would be the likely power source for the VASMIR
Re:Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered by WindBourne · 2011-03-24 15:49 · Score: 1

Yes, and yet, slim chance of that. The fact remains that you have to DUMP heat for that thermal cycle. Since you do not have a large heat sink, then you must radiate it. That adds weight. LOTS AND LOTS OF WEIGHT. Just the reactor ALONE weighs 1200 KG and will only deliver 100 KW of energy. You need 200 KW of energy to run ONE engine. One of the earlier articles said that they would need 6 engines of this side i.e. 1.2 MW. So, assume 200 kw for crew (which is still light) and you have 1.4 MW. Well using this approach, even if you ignore the radiators, will require 10,000 KG JUST FOR THE REACTOR. That is not the generators, the plumping, and esp not the radiator or the boom to push this away. Point is, that until get DIRECT ENERGY from nukes (i.e. beta particles or electrons), we will not see VASIMR being used to push humans. Instead, it will be NERVA to the rescue.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Re:Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered by jwhitener · 2011-03-25 07:25 · Score: 1

I don't understand the heat issue very well. Might be a dumb question, but couldn't the cold of space be used to effectively dump heat? Like the reactor is exposed directly to space via a hatch that opens?
There is also this company proposing a large solar array to power vasmir: http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/LunarCargo
Re:Zero chance that VASIMR will be nuke powered by WindBourne · 2011-03-25 12:37 · Score: 1

First off, the solar array will OK for Earth to the moon and More than Ok for any missions from earth to Venus or Mercury. It will sux for earth outwards.

Second, think about nuke power plants. What is the BIGGEST THING THAT YOU SEE? Thermal cooling of the working fluid (which is mostly water). We dump the heat into the stream, the oceans, OR if the plant is small enough, we simply dump the heat off as steam into the air. To transfer heat requires MASS. Basically, you have to transfer heat to SOMETHING else. Well, here on earth we have water, earth, etc. Using avo's number, we have 6x10^23 atoms in a mol. And a mol of water is only 18 grams (pretty tiny amount of water); which is 18 ml. That is about 3 TEASPOONS OF WATER, to get 6x10^23 atoms. And in space, there is 1 ATOM per sq METER (larger than a sq yard).
What that shows is that there is ZERO mass up there. Look on the ISS. Over on the russian side, you will see 2 LARGE BLACK PANELS. Those are used to dump waste heat from the ISS. They have to radiate it out. And that is just from the sun as well as the crew. Basically, radiation is the ONLY way to cool something. You will need a very long truss (read heavy) loaded with panels all around it to dump that heat.

The only system that is capable of running to mars at high speed is going to be a NERVA one, not a VASIMR.

--
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.

A Peak Inside by Mr+Bubble · 2011-03-22 14:13 · Score: 1

18 pictures and not one showing crew accommodations.

--
"The world is a construct of forceful imagination. Those who don't know walk around in the reailties of those who do"

...the harsh environment of deep space... by rgbatduke · 2011-03-22 21:28 · Score: 1

You mean like the harsh complete lack of environment in "deep space"? Acoustical and vibration testing for riding around in a hard vacuum, surrounded by nothing? Are they worried that the astronauts are going to put on smash rock at 120 decibels with overdriven bass and accidentally shake the capsule apart?

Some copy writer for the press has been watching too much Star Wars.

Or maybe, just maybe, the vibration testing is for doing things in near space, like flying through the atmosphere while landing...

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.

Re:...the harsh environment of deep space... by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-03-23 07:04 · Score: 1

Or maybe, just maybe, the vibration testing is for doing things in near space, like flying through the atmosphere while landing...
Actually the harsh acoustic and vibrational testing are done to ensure that it can survive the launch environment while strapped to what is, basically, a giant bomb with a nozzle on one end. The environmental design space for any payload that rides a rocket to orbit is intense to say the least. Don't let that stymie your rant about bad journalism though.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Re:...the harsh environment of deep space... by rgbatduke · 2011-03-23 07:21 · Score: 1

Not at all, and I certainly agree. Although I imagine that turbulence and so on are pretty important as they pass the speed of sound, if nowhere else. Enough early jets came apart right about there before they figured that one out. And "deep space" is certainly a harsh environment, too, just not in the way(s) that they suggest. But it is so boring to just point all of that out and wonder if they are doing tests of solar-flare (radiation/EMP) resistance, space-junk-moving-at-10 km/sec-resistance, damn-blew-up-our-engine-resistance, and so on...;-)

rgb

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.

Re:Like If Obama had Never Existed by rgbatduke · 2011-03-22 21:30 · Score: 1

Wow. Mod troll, evil A.C.. Alas, my points expired yesterday.

--
Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.

Re:Do we really have to link to foxnews? by divisionbyzero · 2011-03-24 12:43 · Score: 1

I bet you're the type of person who if I were to tell to "Have a nice day", you could "read between the lines" that I actually said that I hope your everyone in your immediate family gets AIDS and that you should go skydive naked into a field full of cacti.

There's a difference between "reading between the lines" and "making shit up to justify [your] viewpoint".

And in case you want some evidence:

http://www.businessinsider.com/leaked-fox-news-memo-reveals-news-division-told-to-echo-gop-talking-point-2010-12

Slashdot Mirror

NASA's Orion Moon Craft Unveiled

143 of 179 comments (clear)