Zamboro: i63.photobucket.com

Calcium and magnesium, so it would make a good nutritional supplement? No? Got me then ;)

One of the reasons NASA's designing a new launch platform is to get the humans back on top of the rocket stack, where it's generally safer to launch them. The Shuttle does a pretty good job of getting big things into orbit, all things considered - but the risk has worked out to be higher.

Remember, the Shuttle is a '70s design (and with mainly '70s technology), and we had a different understanding of risks and issues back then. 25 years of operation has shown us that strapping a big fragile winged vehicle onto the side of a big foam-covered tank and two SRBs isn't an ideal design.

Constellation should ultimately be able to boost a lot more tonnage into orbit and provide a better platform for human spaceflight. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane.

ORBITER (new window)

Not a space shoot-em up game but a space flight simulator for rocket scientists and wannbe rocket scientists.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the point of the new moon missions to try to eventually establish a permanent US/International presence?

If it was just "sending some dudes up there to poke around" I could see reusing our existing technology. But if they are going to attempt to build any new structures then we are most likely going to need a better launch vehicle in order to ferry materials (and return our astronauts in one piece).

Honestly, 36 billion seems like an astonishingly low price tag for a new space vehicle series. After all, back in the 80's it cost us twice as much money to develop the F-22 raptor program and even today getting a new one costs about 180 million per plane.

Personally I think we're getting it pretty cheap because people and companies want to work on a new space vehicle. It's basically advanced R&D on the governments dime. I run a company that is a defense contractor and I'll be the first to admit that government money for new programs amounts to about 70% of our research and development budget. Heck, we've been running a program for 2 years now sub contracted for General Atomics (who are contracted to the Air Force), that when we're done is going to provide us with a nice civvy version of the product we're developing.

So like yeah... I'm pretty keen on stuff like this. I don't particularly care for the government spending hojillions of dollars on buying copies of 20 or 30 year old technology, but I can certainly get behind them funding development of new technology.

eqtworld: jht: Constellation should ultimately be able to boost a lot more tonnage into orbit and provide a better platform for human spaceflight. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane.

We would have been better off building Saturn Vs in the 80s and 90s IMO

This, imagine what we could do know with our current technology-lighter metals, more powerful processors etc.

Tofu: acanuck: (China, India, USA, Russia) are not spending a good chunk of their GDP, or risk going broke, to bring back material to make lighter bicycle pedals

A common misconception is that when someone says "we spent $X on space" that people think it means we either just burned the money or actually somehow spent it in space (like there's a Walmart on the moon or something).

In actuality, most of that money goes to pay scientists and engineers to design things, and even goes to a lot of blue-collar workers on assembly lines and so on. The rockets themselves are aluminum cans and rocket motors are glorified fuel pumps. You personally are only paying pennies per day for all of this, and most of what you're buying with your pennies is people.

And creating a market for engineers results in more engineers going to school, more kids taking an interest in science, and so on. Basically, a space program is like a big public works project. You're creating a lot of jobs and a lot of economic activity and helping the economy quite a bit. A lot of spin-off technologies come out of it too, you can google that if you're interested.

It actually is a pretty good investment, but the point is the journey, not so much the destination. In 100 years or so, we may find an asteroid on a collision course, and a rush to develop space infrastructure then is likely to fail. If it's already in place, we have a much better chance of survival. In 200 years or more, we may be able to live on the moon or Mars. We may be able to get every natural resource we need from space (consider for example, that one moderate-sized asteroid contains more iron, more nickel, more of a lot of metals than has ever been mined on Earth - image a future where Earth is a nature preserve, people live here and vacation here, but there are no mines, no factories, no power plants). So in the future, in the distant future, there may be a worthwile destination. But for now, the economic benefits are sufficient justification.

Just think, if we had developed follow-ons to the Saturn V instead of going with the shuttle, then right now (now that solar panel technology is improving exponentially) we might be able to loft entire power stations into orbit. But we can't, because we didn't. And in the future, we'll continue to miss opportunities like that unless commit to an ongoing program now.

So tell me, why haven't they put you in charge of NASA's PR?

(and I mean that as a compliment!)

/here's hoping many more people share your vision

hasty ambush: eqtworld: jht: Constellation should ultimately be able to boost a lot more tonnage into orbit and provide a better platform for human spaceflight. Even if it doesn't look like an airplane.

We would have been better off building Saturn Vs in the 80s and 90s IMO

This, imagine what we could do know with our current technology-lighter metals, more powerful processors etc.

I think that was how they ended up at constellation.

With the factory tooling for Saturn dismantled and its engineers long since moved on to other jobs, it would have cost serious money to restart that program.
For similar price you could build new rockets that are even bigger.

If we don't want to pay the high price of doing business in space then there's no sense in going halfway. Go back and finish the work of the X-15 and X-33, bring the costs down to reasonable levels.

We need to think of what we want to have in forty years time.
An RLV airline to orbit or the worlds biggest moon/mars rocket are both outcomes we can be proud of.
A half thought abortion from the long shuttered shuttle program... not so much.

johnny_vegas: I mean really, 1/5th the cost? How much does it cost to build a movie set in the desert anyway?

Trolling?

eqtworld: TwistedFark: people and companies want to work on a new space vehicle. It's basically advanced R&D on the governments dime.



I love that picture, but it doesn't really make much sense in the context of my post, or even the part that you quoted.

Maybe something like this would make more sense...

I thought that one of the big safety drawbacks to the shuttle launch design was use of the SRBs. Once they're lit, they can't be shut down.

So, here we are, talking about keeping one of the most dangerous aspects of the shuttle launch platform intact for the foreseeable future in order to save some bucks? I wonder what prospective astronauts think about that.

I'm all for creative thinking and coming up with less expensive ways to push our space exploration agenda along, but I also think that we need to push forward with the technological aspects involved in updating our launch equipment and making it safer for human payloads. Using existing technology where practical makes sense, but at the same time we should also be eliminating as many of the known safety risks as our technology and resources will allow us to, especially given our loftier goals of interplanetary travel in the not-to-distant future.

/perhaps we should ask NK for help?
//they seem to have some serious rocket scientists over there these days

Why do we need to go back to the Moon? If there was some reason other than cold-war propaganda to go there in the first place, we'd still be going there.

Zamboro: Before anyone gets snarky about the safety record of the shuttle, note that this plan uses only the fuel tank and solid rocket boosters, not the orbiter itself. The jist of it is to use the existing shuttle launch platform except with the orion capsule or an unmanned cargo vehicle in place of the orbiter.

It's no longterm solution but it should be considered as a stopgap solution for the five or so years that we'll be without the shuttle.

Just remember the two fatal faults of the shuttle haven't been caused by the orbiter, but came from the additional sections of it. A frozen over o-ring on a solid rocket booster and a large chunk of foam coming off of the external tank and hitting the orbiter.

So you want to re-use the two pieces that caused problems for the US space industry and hope like hell that it will get outside of LEO, even though the SRB and ET wern't made for helping the shuttle reach beyond LEO.

eqtworld: We would have been better off building Saturn Vs in the 80s and 90s IMO

Well, hindsight is 20:20. I mean yeah, it'd be great if we still had Saturn V class heavy launchers, but I promise you, if we did, people would complain about how expensive it is and how we throw away an entire rocket on every launch. And people would say, "NASA had the plans for a cheap reusable shuttle in the '70s but they blew it. Imagine if we had that technology today."

I wish that we could have just cut our military budget by say 1/4 and had both Saturn and the Shuttle. Then we could have used the shuttle for what it was really good at - let's face it, since they've actually been building a space station, it's been great. The shuttle is a giant space SUV. If you're actually using it for SUV-stuff, that's fine. Challenger was lost taking a teacher into space. WTF? Columbia was on its own too - doing experiments in the spacehab module that could have been done on the space station. It's like if you buy an SUV and then you only ever use it to commute to work by yourself, that's stupid and wasteful. The shuttle can do things like the HST repair/upgrades, and bringing the LDEF back to Earth that no other spacecraft can do. But politicians cut NASA's budget so low that they couldn't afford any place for the SUV to go. It's really quite sad.



(the numbers for education are state+federal)

So yeah, I don't think the shuttle was a failure. I just think that we failed to set our priorities right. On the other hand...

hasty ambush: imagine what we could do now with our current technology

consider this: The ISS (when it's finished) will weigh in at 400 tons (according to wiki). How long, and how many launches has it taken to build a 400 ton station? A lot, but now that it's built, they're doing important scientific work, so it was worth it. Well get this, the Saturn V could loft 180 tons into orbit on a single launch. So basically, the entire ISS in just about two launches. We all love the hubble right? Everybody sees that as like a national treasure. It weighs about 13 tons. News reporters love to say, "and it's the size of a city bus." Imagine an HST that weighs in at 180 tons and is the size of a tractor trailer!

That's the kind of stuff that you can do with a real heavy launcher. And there were plans for even bigger launchers - Nova could have put 500 tons (1 million lbs) into orbit in a single launch. You ask what we could do with that technology today? How much power could you get from 500 tons of solar panels? People say space-based solar power isn't going to work because it'll be too hard to maintain the stations. lol. just dump the station into the pacific if it stops working. We can launch another one on Tuesday.

So anyway, the shuttle is currently the heaviest launcher in service but the Saturn V is the heaviest ever built (by heavy I mean most payload). We have a chance to finally built something bigger, and finally see all the rewards that would go along with that. Please president Obama, make sure the Ares V gets built. We need it. We can't even imagine the stuff we'll do with it. We just need it.

tag007: Just remember the two fatal faults of the shuttle haven't been caused by the orbiter, but came from the additional sections of it. A frozen over o-ring on a solid rocket booster and a large chunk of foam coming off of the external tank and hitting the orbiter.

50% of the fatal fault is that for the first 8:30 of flight, there is no way between the ignition of the SRBs and pretty much all the way to MECO to remove the crew safely from the stack. RTLS is a fairy tale. Sliding out on a pole with a parachute while the out-of-control orbiter is doing an end-over-end spin isn't too damn likely, either.

Add to that the inability of the orbiter to survive ditching at sea, and it's pretty much in the realm of Stupidest Spacecraft Design Evar.

Fark Me To Tears: one of the big safety drawbacks to the shuttle launch design was use of the SRBs. Once they're lit, they can't be shut down.

How is that a safety drawback? The reason you think it's a safety issue is that it's something that the news people say on every single launch. It's a little shuttle factoid that they've latched onto and it's easy for them to remember so they just keep repeating it. And you've filed it away under "safety" when really it's not.

Yeah, once the SRBs are lit, they can't be shut down. What exactly does that mean? Would you do the countdown, get to zero, then change your mind about launching? You're going to bring up STS 68 were the main engines famously shutdown right before launch. We've all seen the video. But do you know why they shut down? See, the thing is, a rocket motor is basically just a glorified fuel pump. Problem is, like all pumps, they sometimes sputter. Remember all those (sort of funny) videos of early rockets lifting off, then settling back on the pad and exploding? The pumps sputtered, or weren't working quite right in some way. You don't see that happening anymore, right? Ever wondered why? It's because someone had the bright idea to bolt the rocket down on the pad. You ignite the engines and let the pumps work out all their kinks. When everything is running smoothly, you release the bolts and away you go.

Well, an SRB doesn't sputter. There are no fuel lines to clog, no valves to fail. As you said, you light it and away you go. So my question is, how exactly is this a problem? I really don't think it is. Besides, once a liquid-fueled rocket gets one inch off the pad, you can't shut it down either or it'll crash back into the pad. The only thing is, and it's not really a safety thing, the launch escape system on Ares I will have to be more powerful. Because if they have use it, it has to outrun the SRB. The figure I heard was something like 17 Gs. It wont be a comfortable ride, that's for sure. But it's safe (for a rocket anyway)

eqtworld: Tofu: So yeah, I don't think the shuttle was a failure. I just think that we failed to set our priorities right. On the other hand...

It is a failure if you look at the the objectives of the program at the time it was implemented. It has been more expensive and less reliable on almost every measurable specification.

It was designed to launch between 12 and 24 times per year. That would put us at 325 launches at the low end of promised minimum missions and 648 on the high end since 1981.

We have had about one third of minimum intended launches.

The cost per pound of getting to orbit is not cheaper than with an expendable vehicle.

And of the 5 build, 2 were destroyed by nothing more than design flaws and or negligence: killing all on board.

If we had listen to Von Braun we would have built an orbital space station first, Then learned to build a decent reusable orbital vehicle. After which we would have colonized the Moon.
/Just sayin'

tinfoil-hat maggie: If we had listen to Von Braun we would have had Nazis build a V-3 capable of hitting New York City built an orbital space station first, Then learned to build a decent reusable orbital vehicle. After which we would have Nazis colonized the Moon.

FTFY

DarthBrooks: tinfoil-hat maggie: If we had listen to Von Braun we would have had Nazis build a V-3 capable of hitting New York City built an orbital space station first, Then learned to build a decent reusable orbital vehicle. After which we would have Nazis colonized the Moon.

FTFY

Me thinks you've has to muchIron Sky (new window)

If we manufactured an ecosystem on another planet, would we still have hippies harassing us about killing whatever we plant there?

Fark Me To Tears: I thought that one of the big safety drawbacks to the shuttle launch design was use of the SRBs. Once they're lit, they can't be shut down.

there aren't many rockets you want to shut down when they've just left the ground.


Befuddled: Why do we need to go back to the Moon? If there was some reason other than cold-war propaganda to go there in the first place, we'd still be going there.

there aren't many places that we can reach in space besides the moon and mars.
Mars is going to take some prep work. With things like isru and an understanding of how to stop dust from damaging our machinery, the job gets alot easier.
Understanding other worlds also helps us to better understand earth.

Tofu:

How much power could you get from 500 tons of solar panels?

Wrong question.

Correct question: how much power-per-dollar can we get from space-based solar using Saturn V launch tech, relative to the power-per-dollar we can get from other energy sources?

Answer: not enough.

For space-based solar to be economical, it's generally accepted that you have to push launch costs below about $500/kg. While Saturn V-type heavy launchers have lower launch costs than the Shuttle, they're still far above that price point.

Put a lander in the shuttle bay and use the shuttle as the transit vehicle to the moon - then leave it attached to the ISS in between trips for servicing and stuff, sort of an on orbit garage.

Stupid suggestion probably but then I'm stupid too so hey!!

How cool would it be riding the shuttle to the moon?

RobertBruce: If the space shuttle can land like a plane, why can't it take off like one, at least in low gravity like the moon? (i pretty much understand why it can't on earth) If it's really impossible, could it be modified in its current state to BE possible?

I'm assuming you're being snarky, but just in case you really are an idiot: There is no atmosphere on the moon.

Veeoh: How cool would it be riding the shuttle to the moon?

How do you plan to actually get the shuttle to the moon? It doesn't have nearly enough delta-V. It can't even make it to geosynchronous orbit, let alone the moon. Scroll up to hasty ambush's post and click the link, download the simulator, and have fun trying this out for yourself.

sgilman: johnny_vegas: I mean really, 1/5th the cost? How much does it cost to build a movie set in the desert anyway?

Trolling?

ummm...joking

/poorly, obviously

I'll bet if they just steered the Space Shuttle at the moon and launched it, it might work, instead of curving it around the earth, when it launches.

Sometimes the answers to seemingly complex questions are quite simple, if you take the time to think about them.

if there are any rocket fanboys left in this thread, check out this video of a Saturn V launch set to music from Battlestar Galactica. The raw power of that thing is so starkly beautiful, it actually gets me choked up.

acanuck: The reason for this all-of-a-sudden scramble is that the Indians and Chinese are ahead of the US program's schedule to get there and return weapons-related He3, for those too lazy to read my prior link on what material we are going to mine.

Given the HUGE economic cost of going there to mine, you can bet (look at history) it is of MILITARY significance ONLY. You purists need to wake up and look at history.

Safety of astronauts is a calculated bet on their lives, just as deploying soldiers to steal others' resources is/was. If you are a pansy worrying about astronaut safety, you don't understand the game, or the thrill.

I'd go up there on a 50% bet....

you're an idiot...we don't need help for fusion fuels, not at all, weapons grade nuclear materials and easy to come across, especially for fusion bombs, He3 is ideal for fusion reactors, not for bombs, because of the ways it behaves during a fusion reaction, just as you don't use the same kind of fuels for a bomb as you do in fission reactors

Why can't the shuttle just keep going to the moon once it is in earth orbit?

Use the cargo bay to hold the lander.

Pick: I'll bet if they just steered the Space Shuttle at the moon and launched it, it might work, instead of curving it around the earth, when it launches.

Sometimes the answers to seemingly complex questions are quite simple, if you take the time to think about them.

Only that you're dealing with gravity wells, and space in which the only thing that alters your direction/velocity, is solar pressure, basically you're in a frictionless universe trying to get from one basketball at the center of an ice bowl to the golf ball at the center of another much smaller ice bowl at the point where the bigger bowls slope becomes almost flat.

Doing a figure eight means you can do it slower and let the natural curves of the wells + slight thrust adjustments take you down to the target, with less energy than doing a straight shot that'll leave you going too fast flying at a target orbit or just target small whose mass leaves you with an equally small escape velocity.

Shooting straight leaves for much less forgiveness as well it requires more fuel to stop, or in the case you literally go straight there think about NASA's recent experiments with kinetic energy bombs, if you don't get this play orbiter the simulator/game linked to above, you'll come to understand the problem pretty quickly.

At least that's the problem as I understand it.. .

sip111: Doing a figure eight means you can do it slower and let the natural curves of the wells + slight thrust adjustments take you down to the target, with less energy than doing a straight shot that'll leave you going too fast flying at a target orbit or just target small whose mass leaves you with an equally small escape velocity.

Without precise calculations, we'd fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

greenapple2step: Why can't the shuttle just keep going to the moon once it is in earth orbit?

Use the cargo bay to hold the lander.

Short answer, not enough fuel to get it out of earth orbitinto lunar orbit, and not enough to get it out of lunar orbit and on its way back to earth. You know that big orange fuel tank that fuels the shuttle's main engines? It's empty by the time the shuttle gets into orbit.

DarthBrooks: sip111: Doing a figure eight means you can do it slower and let the natural curves of the wells + slight thrust adjustments take you down to the target, with less energy than doing a straight shot that'll leave you going too fast flying at a target orbit or just target small whose mass leaves you with an equally small escape velocity.

Without precise calculations, we'd fly right through a star or bounce too close to a supernova and that would end your trip real quick, wouldn't it?

Not unless we allow for two free tilts.

here's a few NASA spinoffs


1. The most accurate topographical map of the Earth. This data is used to develop safer navigation techniques and better communication systems.
2. Ultraviolet protection suits for people with rare intolerance to UV light, known xeroderma pigmentosum.
3. Heart pump based on technology of space shuttle's fuel pumps. It's two inches long, one inch in diameter, and weighs less than four ounces.
4. Efficient autos and planes benefiting from NASA wind tunnel and aerodynamic expertise.
5. New metal alloys based on research for the space station program.
6. Thermal protection blankets used in everything from fire fighters suits to survival gear for cold environments.
7. Robots and robotic software with wide-ranging uses that include auto-assembly plants, hazardous material handling, monitoring in dangerous environments, distribution and packaging facilities, etc.
8. Lightweight composite materials that benefit cars, airplanes, camping gear, etc.
9. Perfect protein crystals grown in zero gravity; used for more pure pharmaceutical drugs, foods and an assortment of other crystalline-based products including insulin for diabetes patients.
10. Better understanding of the Earth and its environmental response to natural and human-induced variations such as air quality, climate, land use, food production as well as monitoring quality of our oceans and fresh water.
11. Commercial space communication systems for personal phones, computers, video transmissions, global positioning satellite systems, etc.
12. Improvements in energy use efficiency.
13. More responsible use of air and water in private and commercial buildings.
14. Automated maintenance functions for buildings and new lower-cost building construction techniques.
15. Smoke detectors for homes and commercial buildings.
16. Air purification systems used to by hospitals to provide pure oxygen for patients.
17. High-bandwidth and optical communications systems.
18. Technology for cordless tools such as drills, shrub trimmers and rechargeable flashlights.
19. Growth of zeolite crystals that have the potential to reduce the cost of petroleum and to store new types of fuels like hydrogen, which is abundant and pollution-free. This technology could be used in hydrogen-powered cars.
20. Fire-fighting systems that battle blazes with a fine mist, rather than environmentally harmful chemicals.
21. Sunglasses that block certain types of light - blue, violet, and ultraviolet - that could hurt the eyes. These sunglasses block the hazardous light, while allowing light that is good for vision to pass through the lens.
22. Solar power collection.
23. Air filtration systems that can kill all types of harmful bacteria - even anthrax -- and remove allergens from the air with better than 90 percent efficiency.
24. Ultralight solar concentrators that gather power from the Sun and efficiently convert it into electrical power. Applications for this technology on Earth are limitless.
25. Water purification methods using ions (an atom or group of atoms carrying a positive or negative electrical charge). Used in water filtering systems to remove lead, chlorine, bad taste and odor. Newer purification systems also remove contaminants such as perchlorate and nitrate.
26. "Power Pads" to cushion a horse's hooves, protecting against injuries and helping ease discomfort associated with brittle hooves or arthritis.
27. Disposable diapers.
28. Devices for collection and real-time analysis of blood, and other bodily fluids, without the need for centrifugation. Huge potential for hospitals and for remote units to monitor individuals with health problems.
29. Lighter artificial limbs that are virtually indestructible; based on foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's external fuel tank.
30. Computer-aided tomography (CATScan) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for imaging the body and its organs.
31. Light-emitting diodes used in photodynamic therapy. These diodes are used in a form of chemotherapy that kills cancerous tumors.
32. Infrared sensors used in hand-held optical sensor thermometers. These devices can measure temperature in the ear canal in two seconds or less.
33. Devices used to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and disorders of the central nervous system.
34. Compact laboratory instruments for hospitals and doctor offices that analyze blood in 30 seconds what once took 20 minutes.
35. Land mine removal using flare device and leftover fuel donated from NASA.
36. Technology which allows vehicles to transmit a signal back to a home base. Used to track and reassign emergency and public works vehicles; also track vehicle operations such as taxis, armored cars and vehicles carrying hazardous cargo. Now used to recover stolen vehicles.
37. Cutters using small explosive charges used by emergency rescue personnel to quickly extract accident victims.
38. Image-processing technology used remove defects due to image jitter, image rotation and image zoom in video sequences. Used by law enforcement agencies to improve crime-solving videos; doctors in medical imaging; scientific applications and even home video cameras.
39. Gas leak-detection system used by Ford in natural gas-powered car.
40. Method of labeling products with invisible and virtually indestructible markings - used on electronic parts, pharmaceuticals and livestock -- in fact it could be used on just about anything.
41. Fire resistant foam used as thermal and acoustical insulation in aerospace, marine and industrial products. Also used as for fire barriers, packaging and other applications requiring either high-temperature or very low-temperature insulation. Used by Boeing, Lockheed-Martin, and Airbus for for major weight savings in aircraft.
42. Hand-held camera which firefighters use to pinpoint the hotspots of wildfires.
43. Safer soldering base for jewelers using torches in jewelry assembly. Based on heat-shield tiles of shuttle instead of hazardous asbestos bases previously used.
44. Quick-connect fasteners used by firefighters and nuclear power-plant repair technicians.
45. Game-controlling joystick for computers and entertainment systems.
46. Spray lube used for rust prevention; loosening corroded nuts; cleaning and lubricating guns and fishing reels; and lubricating and reducing engine friction.
47. World-wide television broadcasts.
48. Home insulation system which provides significant savings in home heating and cooling costs - uses technology of aluminum heat shield developed for Apollo spacecraft.
49. Laser technology used in artery catheters to spot areas of blockage and fire short bursts of laser beams to vaporize them - a "cool" laser providing thousands of patients with an alternative to heart bypass surgery.
50. New charged coupled devices (CCDs) used in breast examinations (mammographies) which images breast tissue more clearly than conventional x-rays. Doctors then use a specially designed needle to extract a tiny sample (instead of a scalpel) saving time, money and pain.
51. "Smart" forceps made of composite material, with embedded fiber optics. These obstetrical forceps allow doctors to measure the amount of pressure being applied to an infant's head during delivery.
52. Small pill-shaped transmitters Used to monitor intestinal activity; blood pressure and temperature of infants still inside the womb; body functions of athletes and high-stress professionals such as firefighters and soldiers.
53. Technology to quickly arrange and analyze human chromosomes and detect genetic abnormalities that could lead to disease in infants.
54. Image processing software used in dermatology analysis to "decode" the shadow patterns and provided accurate heights and depths.
55. Roofs based on moonsuits that look stiff, but are flexible and expand in heat and contract in cold. Used as covering of malls, stadiums and new airports like Denver International.
56. Padding in helmets, shin guards, chest protectors and aircraft seating.
57. Golf balls with greater accuracy and distance.
58. Lightning protection systems for aircraft.
59. Windshear detection and warning system for aircraft.
60. Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System (TACS) now used by virtually all passenger aircraft.
61. Monitoring system which scans important documents at certain times and compares the differences between the images. The system detects changes in contrast, shape and other features. Used by museums and the National Archives to monitor historic documents and plan a way to stop any damage.
62. Landsat imagery to discover unknown archeology sites; reveal ancient coastlines; manage the harvesting of fish in the world's oceans; calculate how well crops are doing, etc.
63. Robotic mother pigs which keep piglet formula (milk) cool until it is needed then heats and delivers the right amount at feeding time.
64. Improved spray nozzles for crop dusters.
65. New breathing system for firefighters made up of a face mask, frame and harness, warning device, and air bottle. Weighs one-third less than old gear.
66. Virtual reality simulators for medical operations, flight training, truck driving, etc.
67. Hydroponics used by vegetable farmers to grow crops without soil.
68. Fluorometer instrument used to monitor plankton in the world's oceans. Instrument measures amount of glow given off by plankton and other marine life that consume sunlight in their photosynthesis process. Much of the world's oxygen comes from plankton.
69. Oil spill cleanup using beeswax microcapsules. The beeswax balls absorb oil and keep water out. Absorbed oil is digested by microorganism enzymes inside the ball. When the balls get full of digested oil, they explode and release environmentally safe enzymes, carbon dioxide and water.
70. Software to match and track whales.
71. DirectTV.
72. Satellite radio.
73. Fire-Resistant Aircraft Seats.
74. "Cool suit" which helps to improve the quality of life of multiple sclerosis patients.
75. Pacemaker that can be programmed from outside the body.
76. Instruments to measure bone loss and bone density, without penetrating the skin.
77. Implant for delivering insulin to diabetics that provides more precise control of blood sugar levels and frees diabetics from the burden of daily insulin injections.
78. Device for growing ovarian tumors so that tumors can be studied outside the body, without harm to the patient.
79. THE LIST GOES ON AND ON! Want to read about more benefits? See our "Related Links" section below or go to Google and enter a search for "Benefits of the Space Program". You will be overwhelmed with information.