Topic: Nasa stopping space flights for 5 years?

[animecyberrat]

When the hell did this happen and what brought this on?

[stevey]

Columbia

[ShyGuy]

The Mars rovers have become sentient and are now controlling NASA.

[animecyberrat]

I remember hearing about that but didn't pay much attention. I normally do but lately, like the past couple of years I kinda just haven't really kept up like I used to.

[NWR_insanolord]

I would assume they're too afraid of sending our best and brightest young astronauts to be blown to tiny bits again and rather not lose Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavor. They need them to put in museums, and if you count Enterprise (I'm still pissed it never got to fly in space) they can say only a 3rd of them blew up.

Also, since Challenger blew up during launch and Columbia blew up while attempting to land, NASA still hasn't lost a man in space, and they want to keep it that way. They recently installed the new solar panel on the ISS, and I guess that means they don't need the shuttle cargo bay for a while.

They can still use the Russian rockets to move people to and from the station. NASA doesn't get a great budget, so maybe now they can launch more probes and focus on the new capsules that are replacing the shuttles.

[animecyberrat]

Well I was glad their excuse wasn't the gas prices or the war at least. Too bad about the shuttles exploding, I somehow thought that happened a lot more frequently though. I just assumed it was all part of the risk. 

[NWR_insanolord]

NASA spacecraft don't run on a petroleum based fuel, oil prices have no effect. It's damned expensive to fill them up, but no more so because of oil prices. Only two shuttles have exploded, the first, Challenger, over 20 years ago and Columbia much more recently.

[animecyberrat]

That wouldn't stop someone from claiming that as an excuse now would it.

[NWR_insanolord]

They could claim it, then it could be easily proven wrong and whoever claimed it would look pretty stupid.

[animecyberrat]

Unless they were to argue that we need to spend more money on advancing alternative fuels research and therefore need to divert funds from space exploration. I just have heard these types of arguments a lot.

[NWR_insanolord]

Damn it, divert them from somewhere else, they've cut NASA's budget too much already. Unless they were going to give them more in 5 years and actually go to Mars.

[animecyberrat]

unless there is oil on mars, we have no need to go there ever.

Now let's set our sights on Saturn it's farther away but a lot prettier than mars.

[NWR_insanolord]

Oil there would prove there was life at one point. You can't land on Saturn, so unless you want to land on Titan and pull out a pair of Binoculars it won't work. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are all gaseus, so no landings, Mercury's way too hot, and even if you got to the surface of Venus without the corrosion killiing you you wouldn't make it out alive. Mars is the only planet that is feasible for a human landing at this point, and a moon isn't good enough.

[animecyberrat]

how would that prove anything? I thought oil came out of  the ground.

[NWR_insanolord]

Yeah, they'd have to drill for it. That's not something they'd do on the first mission, probably not until there's a permanent base there. Oh wait, you meant how would oil prove life? Oil is made up of the decayed remains of living creatures, like dinosaurs. That's why it's called a fossil fuel.

[animecyberrat]

and we proved that? I thought that was just a theory.

[RABicle]

NASA spacecraft don't run on a petroleum based fuel, oil prices have no effect. It's damned expensive to fill them up, but no more so because of oil prices. Only two shuttles have exploded, the first, Challenger, over 20 years ago and Columbia much more recently.

I think it's more. They've been using the same fuckign ship for over 20 years. 5 years later, they'll come back with something new and awesome.

Besides, bloody private companies are going into space these days. It's ridiculous.

[RABicle]

and we proved that? I thought that was just a theory.

No it's the fucking facts. Not just oil either; coal is compressed, fossilised vegetation. The earth is billions of years old.

[animecyberrat]

how do they know that though?

[RABicle]

Because they're scientists.

[animecyberrat]

I am not going to get into a debate over the "integrity" of scientists so let's say I don't care what they say nor do I believe half of the crap that spews forth from their collective mouths.

[Plugabugz]

NASA spacecraft don't run on a petroleum based fuel, oil prices have no effect. It's damned expensive to fill them up, but no more so because of oil prices. Only two shuttles have exploded, the first, Challenger, over 20 years ago and Columbia much more recently.

Isn't petroleum derived from oil anyway, so indirectly it is affected?

[RABicle]

NASA spacecraft don't run on a petroleum based fuel, oil prices have no effect. It's damned expensive to fill them up, but no more so because of oil prices. Only two shuttles have exploded, the first, Challenger, over 20 years ago and Columbia much more recently.

Isn't petroleum derived from oil anyway, so indirectly it is affected?

Try again

I am not going to get into a debate over the "integrity" of scientists so let's say I don't care what they say nor do I believe half of the crap that spews forth from their collective mouths.

Oh yes, Scientists are banded together in a massive conspiracy, pushing an agenda because they have so much to gain from research and experimentation.

[Plugabugz]

NASA spacecraft don't run on a petroleum based fuel, oil prices have no effect. It's damned expensive to fill them up, but no more so because of oil prices. Only two shuttles have exploded, the first, Challenger, over 20 years ago and Columbia much more recently.

Isn't petroleum derived from oil anyway, so indirectly it is affected?

Try again

CORN ON THE COB

[animecyberrat]

I'm glad you get it Rab.