Comments on: Staring into the Abyss

By: Alan Hoch

Alan Hoch — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 14:51:28 +0000

Walter — It was just a matter of deduction. It was clearly a picture of some narrow straights between two distinct land masses and there aren’t many places on the Earth than might otherwise fit the picture. The only other real canidate I can think of would be the Bosporus, but that looks clearly different. That left Gibraltar.

By: Bob

Bob — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 06:25:13 +0000

That’s one of the coolest space photos I’ve ever seen. Instantly became my desktop .

By: bob allee

bob allee — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 02:01:03 +0000

Are you sure this is real? There are no stars in the picture.
nyuk, nyuk.

By: RJM

RJM — Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:07:21 +0000

From Bob Park’s newsletter:

“WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 29 Jul 05 Washington, DC

1. SHUTTLE: THE SPACE SHUTTLE DOESN’T WORK IT NEVER DID WORK.
Why is everyone afraid to say so? The real problem isn’t foam falling off the fuel tank. The shuttle was sold to Congress as a way to launch things into space more cheaply. On the contrary, it’s the most expensive way to reach space ever conceived. The problems we’re facing now result from the refusal to acknowledge that reality. Initially, anything that went into space, including commercial and military satellites, was required to be launched from the shuttle. With the total cost of the shuttle program at about $150B, the average cost/flight is about $1.3B. The shuttle was strangling space development before the Challenger disaster.
Then it was declared to be a science laboratory, but no field of science has been affected in any way by research that has been conducted on the shuttle or space station. The last scheduled research mission was the final flight of Columbia in 2003. The shuttle’s only mission now is to supply the ISS.”

What are the prevailing opinions on this? Is the US getting bang for their science buck? It seems to me that this talk of manned missions to Mars is crazy, that money could go so much further with unmanned missions.

By: Nigel Depledge

Nigel Depledge — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 20:31:26 +0000

Hey, I agree, those are spectacular photos.

Chet, apparently the launchers for the new CEV and heavy-lift cargo systems will be largely based on shuttle technology. The only slght drawback is that the most reliable engine in the shuttle programme is that of the solid rocket booster (SRB). And this has no throttle, and no “off” switch (remember ‘86, when one of Challenger’s SRBs failed, and the other one kept on going?). I’m not sure I’d want to sit on the top of one of those. Still, the new concepts have the cargo / crew on top of the rocket stack, which is a bit easier than having it strapped to the side (no problems with ice or foam striking your orbiter that way and I assume it makes the thing easier to steer).

Anyway, at least some well-know, tried and tested technology will be going into the new vehicles. So they won’t be reinventing the wheel …

By: Walter Williams

Walter Williams — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:52:29 +0000

Did you recognize that or have other knowledge? I’m been going across Google Earth for a while trying to find that, and by the angle the picture was taken, it would have taken me forever. Thanks!

By: Samara

Samara — Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:21:33 +0000

Oh my Flying Spaghetti Monster

Those are SO my new backgroud