NASA on verge of collapse?

[Mifletz]

http://www.rense.com/general16/NASAsucked.htm

[GrapesOfWrath]

Yep, "privatisation" is the answer.

Anyone want to buy an ad on the next shuttle?

O yeh, and who else wants to go?

This could be bigger than the internet.

[ToSeek]

On 2001-11-04 19:50, GrapesOfWrath wrote:
Yep, "privatisation" is the answer.

Anyone want to buy an ad on the next shuttle?

Advertising on the shuttle

And the ISS

[MHS]

About this pic:



I once read that the main rocket isn't painted because of weight-issues. I know the pic is meant as a parody, but how would they solve this problem?

> Michiel <

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MHS on 2001-11-05 12:36 ]</font>

[The Bad Astronomer]

Just so's y'all know, the Rense website is loaded with all sorts of pseudoscientific babble, including UFOs and the like. In this case he is quoting a real newspaper, but he is also far more likely to quote a story that goes along with his beliefs than otherwise. Take everything you see there with an asteroid sized piece of salt.

[Hat Monster]

Reports that the flag is also to be changed are apparently unfounded.

[Wiley]

On 2001-11-05 14:25, Hat Monster wrote:
Reports that the flag is also to be changed are apparently unfounded.

I assume that the 15 states that could not get corporate sponsorship were removed from the flag. And had their statehood revoked retroactively.

[SeanF]

On 2001-11-05 14:50, Wiley wrote:

On 2001-11-05 14:25, Hat Monster wrote:
Reports that the flag is also to be changed are apparently unfounded.

I assume that the 15 states that could not get corporate sponsorship were removed from the flag. And had their statehood revoked retroactively.

I wonder what additional five states you're completely ignoring?

[ToSeek]

On 2001-11-05 12:35, MHS wrote:

I once read that the main rocket isn't painted because of weight-issues. I know the pic is meant as a parody, but how would they solve this problem?

> Michiel <

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: MHS on 2001-11-05 12:36 ]</font>

The external tank is left unpainted to save weight - it's not essential to have it that way, however; It was painted on the first few missions:

STS-1 liftoff

[Hat Monster]

Is it to save weight? I am unsure.
I'd say it's to save money; That much paint must cost quite a bit, and is also unnecessary.

[David Hall]

On 2001-11-05 16:47, Hat Monster wrote:
Is it to save weight? I am unsure.
I'd say it's to save money; That much paint must cost quite a bit, and is also unnecessary.

Is there any reason it can't be both? I would think that it's a given that if you leave off the paint to save weight you are also not having to pay for the paint or the labor involved to apply it. Two birds with one stone. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

I suppose your comment though is about what the main reason behind not painting it was. Did they decide to save weight and got the added benefit of saving money? Or did they decide to to save money and get a lower weight in the bargain? Personally, I vote for the lower weight. The cost of painting would be minor compared to the total cost of the shuttle, but weight considerations can have far-reaching effects. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[ToSeek]

During Space Shuttle Missions STS-1 and STS-2, the ET's were painted white. NASA quickly determined that hundreds of pounds of weight and thousands of dollars in preparation work would be saved if the ET's remained unpainted, and so all ET's flown from STS-3 onward remained unpainted, sporting an orange-brown color.

From http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/external-tank.html

Doesn't really answer the question, but implies that both were factors. I'd bet on weight ahead of cost, though.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2001-11-06 10:45 ]</font>

[SeanF]

On 2001-11-06 10:44, ToSeek wrote:

During Space Shuttle Missions STS-1 and STS-2, the ET's were painted white. NASA quickly determined that hundreds of pounds of weight and thousands of dollars in preparation work would be saved if the ET's remained unpainted, and so all ET's flown from STS-3 onward remained unpainted, sporting an orange-brown color.

From http://www.spaceline.org/rocketsum/external-tank.html

Doesn't really answer the question, but implies that both were factors. I'd bet on weight ahead of cost, though.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2001-11-06 10:45 ]</font>

Sure, they wanted to reduce the weight, but why? So it takes less fuel to launch it. Why reduce the amount of fuel? To save money!

So, really, cost was the only factor, just not necessarily the cost of the paint/painting itself.

[img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]

[Edited for grammar - dang "to"/"too"!]
_________________
SeanF

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SeanF on 2001-11-06 11:25 ]</font>

[Kaptain K]

For every kilo of paint not used, there is one more kilo of payload that can be boosted into orbit. Or X thousand kilos of fuel not needed to boost paint into sub-orbital fiery destruction.

[Bob]

There is not a one-for-one correspondence between weight saved on the external tank and payload weight deliverable to orbit. Every kilo saved on the et allows another fraction of a kilo for payload.

[ToSeek]

On 2001-11-06 13:14, Bob wrote:
There is not a one-for-one correspondence between weight saved on the external tank and payload weight deliverable to orbit. Every kilo saved on the et allows another fraction of a kilo for payload.

Yes, but it's a very sizeable fraction (approaching unity) since the tank is carried almost to orbit.

Reference:

http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/Shuttle/About/et.html

[Wiley]

On 2001-11-05 14:58, SeanF wrote:

On 2001-11-05 14:50, Wiley wrote:

On 2001-11-05 14:25, Hat Monster wrote:
Reports that the flag is also to be changed are apparently unfounded.

I assume that the 15 states that could not get corporate sponsorship were removed from the flag. And had their statehood revoked retroactively.

I wonder what additional five states you're completely ignoring?

Oops, I missed a finger.

[jkmccrann]

Well, given it all comes back to cost, isn't the point of advertising to make money? For both sides.

So wouldn't that mean that whatever the weight issues were any companies that were wanting to advertise were simply not offering NASA enough financial equity to pay off all the weight issues, the labor issues, the materials issues etcetera to make it cost - effective for both sides? So yeah, I would assume it would all come back to money and the fact that at the end of the day, advertising on the shuttle is simply not cost effective for advertisers.

If an advertiser threw $5billion at NASA to put their logos on all the Shuttles (let's forget for the minute about the bad image created when a company is associated with a disaster - another reason not to want to advertise) then NASA would be crazy not to find away to incorporate the logo and take the money, but I think talking about a figure of that magnitude is obviously not in the same state as the ballpark.