this post was submitted on 12 Jan 2024
32 points (100.0% liked)

Movies & TV

22866 readers
145 users here now

Rules for Movies & TV Discussion

  1. Any discussion of Disney properties should contain a (cw: imperialism) tag. If your post isn't tagged appropriately it will be removed.

  2. Anti-Bong Joon-ho trolling will result in an immediate ban from c/movies and submitted to the site administrators for review.

  3. On Star Trek Sunday only posts discussing how we might achieve space communism are permitted. Non-Star Trek related content will be removed and you will be temporarily banned until the following Sunday.

Here's a list of tons of leftist movies.

AVATAR 3

Perverts Guide to Ideology

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Wow. Did this ever just turn to hot garbage.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 14 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (2 children)

Yes, and even if you could make it go further, by not dropping the EFT and refueling it in orbit somehow, it would still be a stupid fucking idea to push around all that useless wing and heat tile mass in space.

That's why the original plan for the STS before Nixon cut it to the bone was for the shuttle to dock at a low earth orbit station where crew and supplies would transfer to a completely different vehicle, a nuclear engine wingless lightweight vehicle never intended to enter an atmosphere, which would take them to a station in lunar orbit, where they would transfer again to a dedicated lander vehicle.

Also, the Shuttle was supposed to have smaller wings, a fully reusable EFT, and no solid boosters. The recognizable Shuttle profile we see in For All Mankind was directly a consequence of the cuts to the Shuttle program because NASA had to go to the DoD for funding to complete the project at all, and the Air Force demanded enough wing area to glide back to US territory after a single polar orbit in order to snatch Soviet satellites out of space, as well as a much larger cargo space than NASA had originally designed for.

And the SRBs were a grift giveaway to one Congressman who had the SRB manufacturer in his district. They should never have been part of a human-rated launch system.

So seeing the familiar Shuttle design in the For All Mankind timeline is already incoherent, but seeing that familiar design in lunar orbit is completely ridiculous.

[–] Sinistar@hexbear.net 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Dream Chaser is what the shuttle should have been all along, and if our government hadn't gutted its own ability to do things in the 1970s and 80s we could have replaced the Shuttle in the 90s or 00s with something like it.

Can we have Spaceplane?

We have Spaceplane at home.

Spaceplane at home.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

The North American DC-3 is what the shuttle should have been all along. Fully reusable, no solid boosters, reasonable size wings.

And most importantly, intended to be only one part of a larger space infrastructure so it's not a bus to nowhere.

[–] Sinistar@hexbear.net 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Yeah that's the most realistic one, although I want to live in the universe where we got the VentureStar.

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Earth SSTOs are bazinga bullshit tbh. Even skyhooks are more plausible.

[–] Sinistar@hexbear.net 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Nonsense! You just need a large enough fuel tank!

[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 1 points 10 months ago

That VentureStar engine has a lower Isp than the SSME

[–] TankieTanuki@hexbear.net 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)
[–] buckykat@hexbear.net 4 points 10 months ago

External fuel tank, the big red bottle of rocket fuel the shuttle is strapped to