If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(ABC 15)   Possible space shuttle replacement vehicle, Dream Catcher, uses nitrous oxide as fuel. This is no laughing matter   (abc15.com) divider line 53
    More: Cool, Edwards Air Force Base, space race, Space Shuttle missions, chinook salmon, aerospace industry, shuttle program, space stations, SpaceX  
•       •       •

4570 clicks; posted to Geek » on 10 Jun 2012 at 9:44 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-10 09:51:50 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

"Hey, that's patent infringement! You owe me a lifetime supply of Ben and Jerry's!"
 
2012-06-10 10:02:35 AM
It's called Dream Chaser throughout the article; only the headline refers to it as Dream Catcher.
 
2012-06-10 10:03:52 AM
To quote the great Demitri Martin:

Dream catchers work. If your dream is to be gay.


/nttawtt
 
2012-06-10 10:06:45 AM
What do they use as fuel ? Salami ??
 
2012-06-10 10:06:46 AM

hogans: [1.bp.blogspot.com image 600x452]

"Hey, that's patent infringement! You owe me a lifetime supply of Ben and Jerry's!"


To be fair. The lifting body design was studied all the way back in the pre-shuttle era. Crichton was probably licensing the patents for his module design.
 
2012-06-10 10:10:56 AM
Don't quote me, but I'd bet on that being the oxidizer.
 
2012-06-10 10:19:51 AM

ArcadianRefugee: It's called Dream Chaser throughout the article; only the headline refers to it as Dream Catcher.


That would be the stellar proofreading skills at ABC15 at work. It is actually Dream Chaser, not Catcher.

From NASA
 
2012-06-10 10:20:40 AM

loser0: To quote the great Demitri Martin:

Dream catchers work. If your dream is to be gay.


/nttawtt


That is the only funny thing I've heard from that man.
 
2012-06-10 10:22:46 AM
Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene is the fuel. Nitrous oxide is the oxidizer.
 
2012-06-10 10:26:38 AM
At least it launches on top of the rocket as opposed to the space shuttle's side-of-rocket, anything-goes-wrong-you're-screwed configuration. But it still has that reusability albatross hanging around its neck, which is the main thing that caused the space shuttle to be such a collossal money pit.
 
2012-06-10 10:30:00 AM

Phil Moskowitz: Don't quote me, but I'd bet on that being the oxidizer.


Well, duh

/doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure that out
 
2012-06-10 10:32:50 AM
Sierra Nevada's craft should be called "Boomerang": it is based on a NASA craft that was already built and in the final phases of testing before it's contract was killed. This was supposed to be an escape system for the space station; a winged re-entry vehicle seating 7, that would fit in a space shuttle cargo bay, be hauled up and plugged into a spare docking port, and left as a lifeboat, because Soyuz can only hold 3 people, and it goes out of warranty after about 3 months up there, starts breaking down. Sierra Nevada bought the rights to the work, and modified it for rocket launch and reusability. Of course, we would have had this thing already in operation if the assholes didn't cancel it the first time.
 
2012-06-10 10:56:42 AM

BokChoy: At least it launches on top of the rocket as opposed to the space shuttle's side-of-rocket, anything-goes-wrong-you're-screwed configuration. But it still has that reusability albatross hanging around its neck, which is the main thing that caused the space shuttle to be such a collossal money pit.


It's also only lugging wings big enough to fly a 7-person capsule and some little hybrid engines, not an entire cargo bay and 3 SSMEs, so it's less dumb and wasteful than the Shuttle. It still looks like its dry mass is almost twice that of a Dragon for the same crew capacity, and I don't see the easy recovery making up for the extra booster cost.
 
2012-06-10 11:15:01 AM

BokChoy: At least it launches on top of the rocket as opposed to the space shuttle's side-of-rocket, anything-goes-wrong-you're-screwed configuration. But it still has that reusability albatross hanging around its neck, which is the main thing that caused the space shuttle to be such a collossal money pit.


Being reusable wasn't the problem (almost all of the new capsules are), and being glide return isn't either. Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

The shuttles problem was programmatic bloat caused by too many agencies trying to get everything they wanted out of one program. One plane to suit every task just doesnt work.

What made it worse was each senator trying to treat NASA like their personal cash cow, and when the milk ran out they packed it off to slaughter.
 
2012-06-10 11:17:14 AM
1.bp.blogspot.com

HA! HA!

Pocket rocket.
 
2012-06-10 11:51:20 AM

hogans: "Hey, that's patent infringement! You owe me a lifetime supply of Ben and Jerry's!"


Burt Rutan and USAF say "get in line, kid."
 
2012-06-10 11:52:50 AM

Any Pie Left: Sierra Nevada's craft should be called "Boomerang": it is based on a NASA craft that was already built and in the final phases of testing before it's contract was killed.


dl.dropbox.com

Now that you mention it, just about all the front runners from the Clinton era are back.
X-37 was taken in by the military and is on its second flight. X-38 (descendant of the X-24) became the dream chaser. The two X-34's were pulled from retirement and were supposed to be expected for a return to flight. The DC-X has been reborn as Blue origin, and SpaceX is pursuing the spiritual successor to the BDB concept while Skylon is trying to succeed the Orient express.
The only one missing was the most promising of them, the X-33.
With how much we've advanced in composites research over the years, I'd have thought that would be the shoe in for someones new commercial space program. But aside from rumors of Lockheed working on some winged booster, I haven't heard anything for it.
 
2012-06-10 11:57:03 AM
way south:

Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

Yeah, tell that to the 7 members of STS-107.
 
2012-06-10 12:05:42 PM

way south: Being reusable wasn't the problem (almost all of the new capsules are), and being glide return isn't either. Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

The shuttles problem was programmatic bloat caused by too many agencies trying to get everything they wanted out of one program. One plane to suit every task just doesnt work.

What made it worse was each senator trying to treat NASA like their personal cash cow, and when the milk ran out they packed it off to slaughter.


While the political clusterfark was huge bloat multiplier, glide return was also a big problem. Returning cargo from orbit is very seldom useful, and in the rare case that you want to return something larger than a human, doing it gently is also an unusual requirement. The great majority of stuff in orbit got there by means of a 4- to 6-g launch, so a 3.5-g reentry usually isn't unreasonable.

I'm sure there are rare occasions when you want to return something that's more fragile than when it was launched, but that's such a small market niche that it's unlikely to support its very own vehicle. And when such a vehicle weighs twice as much as its competition for every other segment of the market, they're going to have a very hard time selling the thing to anyone who doesn't have a hardon for Shuttle nostalgia.

BokChoy: way south:

Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

Yeah, tell that to the 7 members of STS-107.


To be fair, that wasn't due to glide return; conventional reentry is no more tolerant of a busted heat shield. So long as you keep the heat shield someplace where it doesn't have shiat bouncing off of it during launch, that's not much of a problem.
 
2012-06-10 12:09:26 PM

BokChoy: way south:

Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

Yeah, tell that to the 7 members of STS-107.


You can thank Linda Ham for that.

"Hey, we think a piece of foam knocked out some tile, we should take a look at that."

"LOL, nerds. No, I'm the manager and you're the peon, now get back to work."

/paraphrasing somewhat
 
2012-06-10 12:12:34 PM

Professor Science: way south: Being reusable wasn't the problem (almost all of the new capsules are), and being glide return isn't either. Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

The shuttles problem was programmatic bloat caused by too many agencies trying to get everything they wanted out of one program. One plane to suit every task just doesnt work.

What made it worse was each senator trying to treat NASA like their personal cash cow, and when the milk ran out they packed it off to slaughter.

While the political clusterfark was huge bloat multiplier, glide return was also a big problem. Returning cargo from orbit is very seldom useful, and in the rare case that you want to return something larger than a human



LOL... I stopped reading after that, as you obviously don't have a clue...
 
2012-06-10 12:17:10 PM
While significant focus of space logistics is on upmass, or payload mass carried up to orbit from Earth, space station operations also have significant downmass requirements. In fact, since the retirement of the Space Shuttle following the STS-135 mission in July 2011, and the resultant loss of the Space Shuttle's ability to return payload mass, an increased concern has been returning cargo from low-Earth orbit to Earth, or downmass, the total logistics payload mass that is returned from space to the surface of the Earth.[11]

As of early 2012, of the four space vehicles capable of reaching and delivering cargo to the International Space Station, only the Russian Soyuz vehicle can return even a very small cargo payload to Earth. None of the remaining cargo supply vehicles - the Russian Space Agency Progress, the European Space Agency (ESA) ATV, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) HTV - can return any downmass cargo for terrestrial use or examination.[11]



/quick grab from wikipedia...
 
2012-06-10 12:39:46 PM
Brb guys, huffing spaceship fuel lol.
 
2012-06-10 12:42:29 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: BokChoy: way south:

Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

Yeah, tell that to the 7 members of STS-107.

You can thank Linda Ham for that.

"Hey, we think a piece of foam knocked out some tile, we should take a look at that."

"LOL, nerds. No, I'm the manager and you're the peon, now get back to work."

/paraphrasing somewhat



It's almost better she was a coont about it, because if they had managed to detect the damage via high resolution photos, I'm not sure what they would have been able to do. Since the Columbia was an older and heavier Shuttle, it wasn't in an orbit that could get it to the ISS during STS-107, and even if it was missing the needed docking adapter (not to mention Spacehab was in the way in the cargo bay and I'm not sure if it could have been removed in orbit).

It was basically the worst possible Shuttle mission for this to have happened. With the slow turn around times of the Shuttles, a rescue mission would have taken weeks even if they rushed it to orbit, so the crew may have died from lack of oxygen, food, or water well before they could have been rescued, and we would have wound up with a Shuttle full of dead astronauts orbiting the Earth until it eventually re-entered the atmosphere. At least with the way things happened, it was over fairly quickly for them.
 
2012-06-10 12:51:44 PM
Better pics...

www.nasaspaceflight.comwww.parabolicarc.com
 
2012-06-10 12:55:19 PM
In this era shouldn't it be called "Flying n' shiat" or "Takin' Off, Gettin' Paid".
 
2012-06-10 01:14:20 PM
This is where we were heading with the Dyna-Soar (X-20) project.
 
2012-06-10 01:33:10 PM

Maul555: While significant focus of space logistics is on upmass, or payload mass carried up to orbit from Earth, space station operations also have significant downmass requirements. In fact, since the retirement of the Space Shuttle following the STS-135 mission in July 2011, and the resultant loss of the Space Shuttle's ability to return payload mass, an increased concern has been returning cargo from low-Earth orbit to Earth, or downmass, the total logistics payload mass that is returned from space to the surface of the Earth.[11]

As of early 2012, of the four space vehicles capable of reaching and delivering cargo to the International Space Station, only the Russian Soyuz vehicle can return even a very small cargo payload to Earth. None of the remaining cargo supply vehicles - the Russian Space Agency Progress, the European Space Agency (ESA) ATV, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) HTV - can return any downmass cargo for terrestrial use or examination.[11]


/quick grab from wikipedia...


Which is why Dragon is so important for NASA and Space X. Cargo isn't what the Dream Catcher is after, its designed specifically for humans and its probably a good thing to spit up cargo and human flights honestly. The Space Shuttle was an amazing spacecraft, and that they finished such a complicated spacecraft in only six years was even more amazing but it was a compromise of engineering. Human safety was compromised for example to have an increase payload size for the USAF, which in the end didn't matter much anyway because the USAF abandoned the shuttle program even before Challenger.
 
2012-06-10 01:37:59 PM

Maul555: While significant focus of space logistics is on upmass, or payload mass carried up to orbit from Earth, space station operations also have significant downmass requirements. In fact, since the retirement of the Space Shuttle following the STS-135 mission in July 2011, and the resultant loss of the Space Shuttle's ability to return payload mass, an increased concern has been returning cargo from low-Earth orbit to Earth, or downmass, the total logistics payload mass that is returned from space to the surface of the Earth.[11]

As of early 2012, of the four space vehicles capable of reaching and delivering cargo to the International Space Station, only the Russian Soyuz vehicle can return even a very small cargo payload to Earth. None of the remaining cargo supply vehicles - the Russian Space Agency Progress, the European Space Agency (ESA) ATV, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) HTV - can return any downmass cargo for terrestrial use or examination.[11]


/quick grab from wikipedia...


Um, yeah. Compare the mass delivered to the station to the mass that's brought back down, even during the Shuttle era. The majority of the stuff that gets sent up either stays up, or gets stuffed in a tin can that burns up over the Pacific. Then estimate (or look up if you have access to that data; I don't) the fraction of that return cargo that can't survive a return trip aboard a Dragon due to the 3.5-g reentry. That's where you'll find this thing's market, and I'm betting you won't find much.
 
2012-06-10 01:44:16 PM

Mad_Radhu: It was basically the worst possible Shuttle mission for this to have happened. With the slow turn around times of the Shuttles, a rescue mission would have taken weeks even if they rushed it to orbit, so the crew may have died from lack of oxygen, food, or water well before they could have been rescued, and we would have wound up with a Shuttle full of dead astronauts orbiting the Earth until it eventually re-entered the atmosphere. At least with the way things happened, it was over fairly quickly for them.


So... maybe that was the plan after it was determined that there was considerable damage to the tiles.

BRB... knock on the door. Cool... I think one of those drone thingies is circling my house!
 
2012-06-10 01:54:13 PM
mad_radhu
It's almost better she was a coont about it, because if they had managed to detect the damage via high resolution photos, I'm not sure what they would have been able to do.

I get what you're saying and that's a crap answer. It's not like NASA isn't staffed by a whole bunch of very bright and innovative engineers. And it's not like they don't have a history of mitigating disaster.

I think it would have been better to try rather than play the proverbial ostrich.
 
2012-06-10 02:00:19 PM

bbfreak: Which is why Dragon is so important for NASA and Space X. Cargo isn't what the Dream Catcher is after, its designed specifically for humans and its probably a good thing to spit up cargo and human flights honestly. The Space Shuttle was an amazing spacecraft, and that they finished such a complicated spacecraft in only six years was even more amazing but it was a compromise of engineering. Human safety was compromised for example to have an increase payload size for the USAF, which in the end didn't matter much anyway because the USAF abandoned the shuttle program even before Challenger.


I still can't see how the Dream Chaser (yeah, I typed Catcher the first time too) is competitive with Dragon for crew flights. It has the same crew capacity, weighs almost twice as much, and is a couple years behind in development. Its only relevant advantage is not having to fish it out of the ocean and ship it home, but SpaceX is already working on setting Dragon up for powered landings with the launch abort engines.
 
2012-06-10 02:05:32 PM

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: mad_radhu
It's almost better she was a coont about it, because if they had managed to detect the damage via high resolution photos, I'm not sure what they would have been able to do.

I get what you're saying and that's a crap answer. It's not like NASA isn't staffed by a whole bunch of very bright and innovative engineers. And it's not like they don't have a history of mitigating disaster.

I think it would have been better to try rather than play the proverbial ostrich.


Yeah, peacefully go to sleep after saying goodbye to your family or burning up in a terrifying fireball hurtling to Earth? I know which I'd chose.
And if detected early enough you could conserve oxygen and water by minimising activity, and I assume they'd have at least a reasonable reserve in case of bad weather or technical problem with reentry.
And even if a replacement shuttle could not be launched in time there were others, including the Russians, who might have been able to send up supplies to give them more time to wait. If they could have got to the ISS but couldn't dock then so what? They all had spacesuits? They may not have been designed for EVA but it it was that or die....
 
2012-06-10 02:07:11 PM

Professor Science: bbfreak: Which is why Dragon is so important for NASA and Space X. Cargo isn't what the Dream Catcher is after, its designed specifically for humans and its probably a good thing to spit up cargo and human flights honestly. The Space Shuttle was an amazing spacecraft, and that they finished such a complicated spacecraft in only six years was even more amazing but it was a compromise of engineering. Human safety was compromised for example to have an increase payload size for the USAF, which in the end didn't matter much anyway because the USAF abandoned the shuttle program even before Challenger.

I still can't see how the Dream Chaser (yeah, I typed Catcher the first time too) is competitive with Dragon for crew flights. It has the same crew capacity, weighs almost twice as much, and is a couple years behind in development. Its only relevant advantage is not having to fish it out of the ocean and ship it home, but SpaceX is already working on setting Dragon up for powered landings with the launch abort engines.


I agree, I think Space X and Boeing both have a good shot of flying men into space before the Dream Chaser does or any of the others. Dragon obviously having the edge since by 2015 the Dragon spacecraft will hopefully have flown several times over if only with cargo. We shall see though eh? Exciting times!
 
2012-06-10 02:18:18 PM
I think they actually DID finish Venture Star, as a black program, and it's doing recon work on the down-low out of New Mexico's White Sands.
 
2012-06-10 02:30:35 PM

Professor Science: BokChoy: way south:

Gliding is probably the safest way to return delicate cargo.

Yeah, tell that to the 7 members of STS-107.

To be fair, that wasn't due to glide return; conventional reentry is no more tolerant of a busted heat shield. So long as you keep the heat shield someplace where it doesn't have shiat bouncing off of it during launch, that's not much of a problem.


Indeed, and putting the glider/spaceplane on the TOP of the rocket (where a capsule would be) almost completely eliminates this issue. Foam shedding was a recognized danger from the beginning of the shuttle program: many flights returned with damaged tiles. Sad that it took a catastrophic failure to get NASA to look into fixing the issue.
 
X15
2012-06-10 02:37:13 PM

frankmanhog: Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene is the fuel. Nitrous oxide is the oxidizer.


And it's this that I fear will be Dream Chaser's undoing.

RocketMotorTwo is years behind schedule, having had the dubious distinction along the way of proving that it's not really intrinsically safe. Even worse is that many well respected rocket engine experts have gone on record as stating that they think it's the wrong approach for a sub-orbital vehicle, let alone an orbital one.
 
2012-06-10 02:56:29 PM

X15: frankmanhog: Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene is the fuel. Nitrous oxide is the oxidizer.

And it's this that I fear will be Dream Chaser's undoing.

RocketMotorTwo is years behind schedule, having had the dubious distinction along the way of proving that it's not really intrinsically safe. Even worse is that many well respected rocket engine experts have gone on record as stating that they think it's the wrong approach for a sub-orbital vehicle, let alone an orbital one.


Got any good reading on that? I've been curious about how they're doing with the hybrids ever since reading about Copenhagen Suborbitals' troubles (thrust oscillations and low Isp to the point that they've switched focus to liquid fuel), and never found much detailed information.
 
2012-06-10 03:29:27 PM

Professor Science: Returning cargo from orbit is very seldom useful, and in the rare case that you want to return something larger than a human, doing it gently is also an unusual requirement.


It was a selling point on the dragon to be able to return cargo, and some of the things needing gentle returns are the humans themselves when they are injured or made weak by long space voyages. Its easier to bring these things to an airport (where you can then put them on a plane or truck immediately) rather than to deposit them in a field or bay, several hours from civilization.

The shuttle was wrong in trying to deliver and return twenty tons of stuff at a time. That might have made sense if it was cheaper to operate than the cost of individual satellites, but its an ability they should have scrapped when they know they would miss the goal of sixty flights per year.

What the designers needed was for someone in authority to step back a few feet, see how badly they were missing their goals, and then break the program back into being at least two vehicles. A disposable one for cargo and a reusable one for crew.
 
2012-06-10 03:45:30 PM
cdn.cstatic.net

come on
come on
come on

build it already.

way south

What the designers needed was for someone in authority to step back a few feet, see how badly they were missing their goals, and then break the program back into being at least two vehicles. A disposable one for cargo and a reusable one for crew.

Man-rating a cargo ship was the main problem with the shuttle.

/that and the side-stack configuration that made the orbiter so vulnerable to anything going wrong on the way to orbit.
 
2012-06-10 03:54:59 PM
jimhillmedia.com

What a dreamcatcher may look like.
 
2012-06-10 04:53:45 PM

Any Pie Left: Sierra Nevada's craft should be called "Boomerang": it is based on a NASA craft that was already built and in the final phases of testing before it's contract was killed. This was supposed to be an escape system for the space station; a winged re-entry vehicle seating 7, that would fit in a space shuttle cargo bay, be hauled up and plugged into a spare docking port, and left as a lifeboat, because Soyuz can only hold 3 people, and it goes out of warranty after about 3 months up there, starts breaking down. Sierra Nevada bought the rights to the work, and modified it for rocket launch and reusability. Of course, we would have had this thing already in operation if the assholes didn't cancel it the first time.


What is it with the uninspired names of all these proposed craft like SpaceShipOne/White Knight and Dream Chaser? Blech.
 
2012-06-10 05:09:31 PM
CigaretteSmokingMan

What a dreamcatcher may look like.

If by "dream" you mean "crack rock" then sure.
 
2012-06-10 05:44:14 PM
I'm building an Me-163 in my backyard so I'm getting a kick of this.
 
X15
2012-06-10 06:27:04 PM

Professor Science: X15: frankmanhog: Hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene is the fuel. Nitrous oxide is the oxidizer.

And it's this that I fear will be Dream Chaser's undoing.

RocketMotorTwo is years behind schedule, having had the dubious distinction along the way of proving that it's not really intrinsically safe. Even worse is that many well respected rocket engine experts have gone on record as stating that they think it's the wrong approach for a sub-orbital vehicle, let alone an orbital one.

Got any good reading on that? I've been curious about how they're doing with the hybrids ever since reading about Copenhagen Suborbitals' troubles (thrust oscillations and low Isp to the point that they've switched focus to liquid fuel), and never found much detailed information.


I don't, unfortunately.

There's not a whole lot out there really, largely because SNC has released so few details about the thing and their progress. There's two issues basically; What was claimed to be a straight forward engine upgrade / development program has taken far, far longer than it should, even factoring in the usual schedule creep for these sorts of projects. And whenever the subject comes up, people that know what they're talking about tend to make little comments that boil down to "what were they thinking?".
 
2012-06-10 06:36:40 PM
Subby is the same idiot who goes to a car show and dares someone to hold a match next to the tank of nitrous oxide thinking they are being funny and not incredibly stupid.

Go away and learn something.
 
2012-06-10 06:49:57 PM
They're embarrassed - even angry - that the guys who won the Cold War space race are no longer in the driver's seat.

Ha ha! I love it when Americans think they won the space race.

You lost every round bar the last one.

That cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.
 
2012-06-10 06:56:33 PM

Suede head: They're embarrassed - even angry - that the guys who won the Cold War space race are no longer in the driver's seat.

Ha ha! I love it when Americans think they won the space race.

You lost every round bar the last one.

That cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.


Most Americans who would say something along these lines are well aware of the soviet achievements during the 'space race'.

But yes, stupid americans! I hate how every one of them all believes the same thing and generalizes like that. I don't even know why we have americans!
 
2012-06-10 07:35:09 PM

Suede head: They're embarrassed - even angry - that the guys who won the Cold War space race are no longer in the driver's seat.

Ha ha! I love it when Americans think they won the space race.

You lost every round bar the last one.

That cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.


1: The gap is not going to be much longer than the Apollo-Shuttle gap, hell it might even be a year shorter if we're lucky.

2: We didn't have a way to send humans into space during the last gap. Its nice that we have a ride this time, even if we're paying for it and we can afford it. Plus its cheaper than keeping the shuttle going, which is more dangerous and more expensive especially when you're trying to transition to something new.

3: Its called a space race for a reason, and like with any race it doesn't matter how strong you start out. Its how you finish that counts, and the Russian space program fell to pieces. Honestly, the Russian's owe us. They wouldn't have a space program even if as limited as it has been if it wasn't for us. We've effectively subsidized their space program since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

4: The end result of the space race was that the US became the world leader in all things space. Nor does that necessarily have to change, and if Musk's vision comes true we may very well be better off than ever before. It depends though, and we are certainly at a turning point. Past 2020 I have no idea whether the US will continue to lead in science, exploration, and engineering. Its frustrating, because it isn't like we can't afford to remain a leader in science and technology. I get it though, these are turbulent and uncertain times and betting on the future seems unimportant when you're struggling just to live in the now. It is important though, we can't have a brighter future unless we build it and its very much still up to us.
 
2012-06-10 07:46:14 PM

Suede head: You lost every round bar the last one.


Oh, you mean the part where we remain the only humans to have ever actually left orbit?
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report