Which was NASA's best accomplishment? The 350ft Saturn V or the reusable 25 year Shuttle Project?

>calling it a fact
Oh boy, this is new

The Saturn V was an awesome piece of machinery that, for what it was worth, was fairly reliable. Apollo 1 was the only real technical failure. Apollo 13 was more human error because the 02 tank wouldn't have been fucked if a retard hadnt dropped a shelf and reinstalled it in the service module.

OTOH, the STS was a retarded design. Solid boosters that couldn't be shut off or withstand Florida winters, foam that shatters off it chunks easily from the DR.

The Russians had a good idea with Buran. Only have small orbital engines on the orbiter, then have the orbiter piggyback on a multipurpose rocket.

Buran was an improved Shuttle
Still completely retarded because the whole concept of a large orbiter is stupid

Imagine if something like the ITS had been built in the 80's, fully reusable 2 stage rocket...

I think the only good thing that may come from the STS is the SLS. Emphasis on "may."

I hope Orion ends up being NASA's Soyuz.

SLS is what the shuttle should have been in the first place... if you were absolutely required to use that design & equipment & technology

They have spent 13 billion dollars so far on Orion
And it's still 6+ years away from the first flight

NASA wants to do the same thing they did for the last 40 years, aka nothing at all

We have gained literally nothing from the ISS

Orion has it's first flight back in 2014 and, IIRC, did spectacular.

why is it ridiculous?

Except for a fuckton of data from studying the effects on humans, small animals and plants in microgravity.

The """""space""""" shuttle was a massive failure.

NASA's Schiapparelli was pretty neat.

fuckton of shit that didn't at all require an ISS to do

ESA not NASA

I can guess what it uses as a fuel.

Please explain to me how that is not just trivia and actually is worth the billions required to fund and mantain the ISS

Schiapparelli

you want people to go to mars? you need to know how space will affect them.
you want to know how equipment fares long term up there? you need to put it up there and have humans monitor it.
you want astronauts to not starve? you need to figure out how to grow food in microgravity.
you want to have some scaffolding on which to build an interplanetary vessel? Opsek will soon have you covered

So Buran was just a Russia-knockoff? Did someone send them the plans?

> you need to know how space will affect them.

So put solar panels on an orbiter so they can hang up there for a couple months
Then you need to do a 6 month stay on the moon to see how low gravity compares to micro gravity

>you want astronauts to not starve? you need to figure out how to grow food in microgravity.
Wrong
Why are you growing shit in microgravity, thats pointless.
Tests for growing stuff on the moon using ISRU? Could have been done in the 80's...

The ISS was pointless, made 10 times as expensive because it was launched mostly using the shuttle.

i agree with you on the shuttle part, the shuttle was fucking stupid.
but why is growing food in space pointless? growing your own food means cargo resupply missions dont have to carry food up to space, which leaves more room for experiments and modules.

the ISS wasnt pointless, it has made small, incremental improvements to our understanding of space travel. just because it didnt do anything absolutely groundbreaking like a moon landing doesnt mean its of no worth

The plans were publicly available by request from nasa. Obviously a lot was redacted but with well educated engineers filling in the gaps was more then reasonable

wat?

Why would it be any lighter then pre packaged
food which doesn't need anything but simple packaging while growing food in zero G will require an enormous pontonic machine. I can see the validation of the research for growing stuff in zero-G but to use that on a Mars mission seems kinda stupid to me.

In the case of small LEO sites like the ISS there's no point in growing anything.
Dried packaged food is a negligible cost.

>just because it didnt do anything absolutely groundbreaking like a moon landing doesnt mean its of no worth

And yet they didn't do any of the stuff that is actually important, because since its so expensive, they cannot afford to risk anything.
When people are sent to mars or the moon again, will any of the "science" derived from the ISS by used? Likely not.

I bet the 60's were great to you old man.

>doesn't understand the word "refurbishable"