/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.2670110]

Are you watching this?

[Anonymous No.2670127]

yup.

[Anonymous No.2670129]

only a couple of minutes before touchdown

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts133/status.html?landing

[Anonymous No.2670137]

All the space missions are elaborate fakes and people actually believe it lol

[Anonymous No.2670139]

I heard a bang, as my house shook and felt it in my chest. At that moment I realized it might be a shuttle so I turned on the TV and was right lol.

[Anonymous No.2670136]

It's tragic. There won't be anything to replace these shuttles for a long time.

[Anonymous No.2670142]

>no explosions

;_;

[Anonymous No.2670143]

"And Houston for the final time, we have full stop."

365 days in orbit total

[Anonymous No.2670145]

>>2670136

Isn't SpaceX and Russia going to fill in?

[Anonymous No.2670146]

Fucking Obango, that loon coon.
Fuck all of them.

Those sonic booms made me jump out of my skin though.

[Anonymous No.2670151]

It sounds like they're bringing out some ammonia to help cool the shuttle. I didn't know they did that.

[Anonymous No.2670158]

>>2670151
Back in the day, we used to pee on the tiles.

[Anonymous No.2670162]

wait, what?

Did the space shuttle crash or did they just scuttle it?

[Anonymous No.2670161]

>>2670145
They should pick up the duties, but I think he means that there won't be a large, massively reusable launch vehicle for decades to come.

[Anonymous No.2670159]

>>2670145
SpaceX's Falcon 9 won't be ready to carry passengers for quite some time. Soyuz is a fucking dinosaur and its frankly embarrassing that we now have to rely on it to reach ISS

[Anonymous No.2670167]

>>2670162
er, nevermind, I get it

good job mr shuttle, you made us proud

[Anonymous No.2670169]

>>2670162
This was the final flight for Discovery. Funding for future missions has been cut, and the shuttle will go to a museum somewhere now.

[Anonymous No.2670173]

>>2670159

GLORIOUS SOVIET ENGINEERING

You can't improve on perfection.

[Anonymous No.2670174]

The ISS is nearly complete so there is no need for such heavy launch vehicle. Crews can be sent up/brought back on Soyuz and supplies sent by either progress or EU ATV.

[Anonymous No.2670177]

>>2670169
Discovery goes to the Smithsonian.

It blows my mind how we have to make cuts to the space program, one of the few good things our government has done, but we won't cut welfare, SS, or stupid DOD projects.

[Anonymous No.2670175]

[Anonymous No.2670179]

fuck off nasa, alien disclosure or gtfo

[Anonymous No.2670183]

Resurrect the Buran! It was superior to the shuttle in many ways.

[Anonymous No.2670184]

I'm mad

[Anonymous No.2670190]

>>2670174
The shuttles weren't designed for space stations only.
They're superior to Soyuz as they're reusable, and adaptive.
Besides, Soyuz and rockets are old shit technology. Using rockets is a step back for humanity. Who wants to pay the Russians to take us into space?

[Anonymous No.2670191]

>>2670177
the space program actually had a budget increase
bush cancelled the shuttle program to fund constellation which wouldn't have been ready before 2016-18 but he also underfunded it completely
this is not a cut the shuttle is just to old, too unsafe and too expensive

[Anonymous No.2670194]

so am I the only one who shed a tear?

[Anonymous No.2670199]

>>2670174 such heavy lift

They're planning a 100t lift vehicle lol

Shuttle doesn't even hold 30t payload.

[Anonymous No.2670202]

>>2670194

I did. It is such a beautiful machine.

[Anonymous No.2670203]

They should've counter-trolled and wrecked the motherfucker in the bushes.

[Anonymous No.2670205]

>>2670177
You idiot. Under Obama's presidency, NASA has gotten more money than it has in decades, both in quantity and percent of the federal budget. It is not a matter of a lack of money, it's a matter of needing to design the next generation of spaceflight technology and wanting to allow for some commercialization.

[Anonymous No.2670206]

>the shuttle is just to old
So build new ones.
>too unsafe
I'd say just the opposite. They have a monumental track record.
>too expensive
But paying for minorities to play college ball, and paying for fucking fighter jets that can't fly through rain clouds is a great business venture.

[Anonymous No.2670209]

>>2670183
>implying tacking a bus to the side of a rocket was ever not insane and unsafe.

[Anonymous No.2670215]

The shuttle is basically torn apart and reassembled during it's after flight maintenance overhaul. I bet it could fly 20 more years.

[Anonymous No.2670213]

>>2670190
The shuttle is too fucking expensive to operate and it have numerous flaws. Say whatever you want about russians and souyz, but it's a old trusted workhorse, not an overhyped specialist tools with bells and whistles.

[Anonymous No.2670214]

>>2670190
and the shuttle isn't a rocket
just because it has a plane stuck to the side doesn't mean its any better
it may be reusable but it's still at least 10 times more expensive per launch
its also lacks any abort systems so its not safe
and it can old last 2 weeks in space compared to Soyuz's 6 months so it can't be used as a life boat
just because soyuz is older doesn't make it worse

[Anonymous No.2670229]

>>2670215
and kill another 12 astronauts
or we could save a shit load of money and use soyuz
no death, and it can be used as a lifeboat
nasa already pays fore the soyuz lifeboats they may as well use them

[Anonymous No.2670232]

>>2670206
>minorities
They will one day support the economy. You need to keep the wage slaves happy.

>fighter jets
They support the economy. You need them if you're to conquer a resource-wealthy sovereign nation.

>monumental track record
2/5 exploded

[noko No.2670240]

say what you want about russian engineering, but its just functional, yes its ugly and not as fancy as other countries stuff but it is robust, easy to maintain and it just fucking works for decades

[Anonymous No.2670242]

>>2670206
> monumental track record
4 percent of crew members dead

[Anonymous No.2670243]

>>2670232
>2/5 exploded
Because of a design flaw, or because of human error?

[Anonymous No.2670253]

>>2670206
>So build new ones.
why we got rid of these ones because large winged vehicles can't withstand re-entry from anywhere other than LEO so the moon and mars are out
not to mention the cost
and what is there to gain
cargo launch doesn't need people

>I'd say just the opposite. They have a monumental track record.
considering in the last 20 years its had 2 total failures and it has no means of escape that's pretty bad compared with soyuz

>But paying for minorities to play college ball, and paying for fucking fighter jets that can't fly through rain clouds is a great business venture.
i didn't say we should spend it other things it's just why have one shuttle flight when you can have 10 soyuz missions
and as i said they can't go beyond LEO its a waste of money

[Anonymous No.2670255]

>>2670243
Both.

[Anonymous No.2670269]

It's ironic the US designed a worse spacecraft because it's design process was so politicized.

[Anonymous No.2670270]

I could see you guys supporting the retirement of the shuttle, if we were getting something superior to replace it.
But the US is going to be practically dead, space-wise. Fucking government won't even fund moon missions to get a base built on the moon. I guess killing arabs is more important.

[Anonymous No.2670278]

>>2670270

We really need to conquer our petty issues here on Earth before we can really expand outward.

[Anonymous No.2670283]

>>2670278
>conquer our petty issues
Science and exploration don't have time to wait for fucking assholes to get their shit straight.

[Anonymous No.2670293]

>>2670243
Susceptibility to human error is a design issue. So, the answer is "design flaw".

[Anonymous No.2670305]

>>2670278
>We really need to conquer our petty issues here on Earth before we can invent fire/electricity/internet/SaturnV/cancer cures/blahblahblah.

You sir, should be eating pizza, drinking xl sugar packed softdrinks while watching NASCar while blaming global warming on obama.

[Anonymous No.2670307]

How do the subjects of other "countries" feel about their lack of high technology, especially in space travel.

The Russians are quaint with their distant second place capsuels. Then you got China and India shooting shit up to the moon, like we did over 4 decades ago. And then you have Canada who contributed an antennae to the space station. Very weak shit.

And even though we are retiring our fleet of manned reusable space craft before another country could even make one of something similar, we already have the first commercial space port open.

Is that why every one is so mad at us? Jealousy.

[Anonymous No.2670319]

Man i sure wish /sci/ had country flags next to each users post like krautchan.

[Anonymous No.2670315]

>>2670307
> we are retiring our fleet of manned reusable space craft before another country could even make one
nope.jpg

[Anonymous No.2670326]

>>2670307
Your post has so much dumb in it that it's probably a trollpost.
Russians made most of the ISS and they have better spacecraft. Also, there's SpaceX. Plus, NASA is already almost dead and noone gives a single shit about them with their 100000$ budget.

[Anonymous No.2670327]

>>2670307
Because only americans born in america have contributed to the technology of your american space programms?

[Anonymous No.2670332]

>>2670315

Im sorry you lack the ability to understand how the Space Shuttle created by the USA signifigantly differs in function from the crap churned out by Russia. But then again, you live in a technological backwater so it is not surprising.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.2670359]

>>2670332

>implying the Shuttle isn't shit
>implying MOTHER RUSSIA doesn't come as close as it gets to the ideal Big Dumb Booster

[Anonymous No.2670366]

>>2670326

>better spacecraft

They have better rockets, the craft are shit. You are kinda too tarded to know the difference.

>NASA is already almost dead and noone gives a single shit about them

Except for the whole Mars thing, and the humans going to Mars thing. Yeah, you full retard.

>>2670327

Apparently, the USA is the only country that can advance such technologies. What is a brilliant rocket scientist doing in Belguim right now? Jerking off on his welfare check and speaking horrible French no doubt. Being there does him and no one else any good.

[Anonymous No.2670370]

>>2670332
Can you honestly say you prefer the US paint job over a cool sickle?

[Anonymous No.2670372]

>>2670332
how is the space shuttle superior?

it has a very low altitude restriction
can't do moon or mars
at least 10 times more expensive
no abort system and a history of failures
can only orbit for 2 weeks so can't maintain a crewed space station
and its very purpose is redundant
>lets make a manned rocket so it can launch normal satellites like any other rocket at 10 times the cost

[Anonymous No.2670373]

>>2670359

What you are not grasping is that we made that shit some 30 years ago. No one made anything like it before, and no one has made anything like it or better since.

That is how far ahead the USA is.

[Anonymous No.2670385]

>>2670373
US is so far ahead it had to give money to Russians to have them build US's first proper space station.

[Anonymous No.2670388]

>>2670372

You appear to be comapring the space shuttle to the space station.

If you don't understand how those are different, you need to just go back to your welfare checks.

[Anonymous No.2670407]

>>2670388
An upgraded version of the other is the current reality of man's presence in space while the other has been obsolete from creation?

[Anonymous No.2670415]

>>2670270

NASA will be out of the rocket industry (HSL? lol), but private industry will take up the slack. And more inexpensively because there will be less political baggage.

1. SpaceX Dragon capsule
2. Orbital Science's Cygnus and Prometheus spaceplane
3. Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser spaceplane
4. Boeing's CST-100 capsule

And it looks like the Atlas V will be man-rated to launch many of the above systems.

And when the ISS is decommissioned, Bigelow will start sending up inflatable space stations.

The 80's era Shuttle will fade into the mists of time, as the Saturn did before it, so that new technologies can grow.

[Anonymous No.2670416]

>>2670366
>What is a brilliant rocket scientist doing in Belguim right now?
meet the ariane 5 the current dominant launcher in the commercial market
you know the one that launched the largest space telescope (Herschel) and will launch its the james webb the next largest
it also launched the most advanced space craft yet the ATV the first spacecraft which can complete a whole mission (including docking) without human interventions
the ariane is constantly upgraded and has the ability to become the heavies current launcher during its mid-life evolution

thats what a brilliant rocket scientist doing in Belguim right now

[Anonymous No.2670421]

>>2670366
>What is a brilliant rocket scientist doing in Belguim right now?
meet the ariane 5 the current dominant launcher in the commercial market
you know the one that launched the largest space telescope (Herschel) and will launch its the james webb the next largest
it also launched the most advanced space craft yet the ATV the first spacecraft which can complete a whole mission (including docking) without human interventions
the ariane is constantly upgraded and has the ability to become the heavies current launcher during its mid-life evolution

thats what a brilliant rocket scientist doing in Belguim right now

[Anonymous No.2670463]

>>2670388if you can't understand the specs of the shuttle compared to Soyuz you better go back to the couch on your lawn

the shuttle has a very low altitude restriction after the shuttles retirement the iss will be moved into a higher orbit which soyuz can still reach

unlike a capsule space planes cannot go beyond low earth orbit

the shuttle least 10 times more expensive than a soyuz launch

as opposed to capsules the shuttle has no abort system so everybody dies

the shuttle can only orbit for 2 weeks so can't maintain a crewed space station which requires lifeboats for emergency currently NASA buys soyuz for this

and its very purpose is redundant as explained before

[noko No.2670471]

>>2670366

>mfw ESA and ARIANE

[Anonymous No.2670647]

>>2670463 space planes cannot go beyond low earth orbit

Bullshit.