NASA TV - 6 1/2 hour spacewalk !

[Moochy]

Neat stuff!

http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

They are replacing the gyroscope on the space station. Pretty amazing video!!

[Deep13]

1. I can't drive for that long ...

... without hitting a can on the way!

[Oreo]

2. What makes you think they don't?

I'm pretty sure they have some kind of "waste disposal system" in their suits.

Here you go.....

http://vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov/er/seh/suitnasa.html
Suiting up

The EMU comprises the spacesuit assembly, the primary life support system (PLSS), the display and control module, and several other crew items designed for spacewalks and emergency life support. The EMU accommodates a variety of interchangeable systems that interconnect easily and securely in single-handed operation for either normal or emergency use. When preparing to work in space, the astronaut goes into the airlock of the space shuttle orbiter and puts on the following parts of the EMU:

* A urine-collection device that receives and stores urine for transfer later to the orbiter waste management system.

Reminds me of the scene from Dirty Rotten Scoundrels when Steve Martin asks to go to the bathroom

[Deep13]

6. Can't take a dump in the suit.

I heard an Gemini/Apollo astronaut describing the procedure for that. Ick!

[oscar111]

3. robotics can do it for 1/1Oth the cost: end manned flight

we cant afford manned missions with their massive safety measures.

1OO OOO die from homelessness/yr.

we need the money for them first.

Michio Kaku , top physicist, says robotics are favored choice of most scientific observers.

6 billion for a year of manned flights.. robotics save 5.4 B of that.. enought to end all homelessness... need four billion for that.

The shuttle costs lives in its manned form. Enough lives to fill another a football stadium every year.

The current shuttle is great foolishness.

[Maple]

4. If you don't

have humans on board, you won't have public interest...and therefore support.

No actual cash money goes into space. It stays right here on earth as salaries.

If you want more money for other causes, stop fighting wars. That's a trillion dollar a year business

[Capn Sunshine]

5. Sorry. No Buck Rodgers, no bucks

The public wants men in space, not R2D2.

Right or wrong, it is the particpation of humans that makes this resonate.

I guess you never read "The Right Stuff"

[Moochy]

7. doesnt mean its not cool to watch it

Luddite :)

I fully agree with the cheap space movement, but dont be a debbie downer!

[Deep13]

8. Generally, I agree with the proposition.

Nevertheless, the only reason this budget is available is because it is for manned spaceflight. With STS cancelled, that money would not be diverted into buying homes for poor people. In truth you can say that about any scientific endevour.

Having said that, STS (the space shuttle) costs half a billion bucks everytime the fuse is lit. That does not include the cost of the actual mission. Why do we need it? For the space station. Why do we need that? Uhhhh. :shrug: Basically, we have each to justify each other and to justify NASA's existence.

Robots like the barely-funded Horizon mission are not limited by human consumables and frailties. Further, they do not need to return. Horizon is going to Pluto for $500 million (the cost of one STS launch). We can't even send humans back to the moon. Sending them to Pluto is inconceivable. Think of all the discoveries made by robots since the 1970s. None of it would have been possible with manned flights because of human limitations.

STS has proven itself a huge white elephant. It is too expensive to be routine. It is too limited for any real exploration. Its only purpose seems to be to keep NASA in business.

[Maple]

9. The space shuttle program

itself is a waste of time and money, I agree.

From the moon's surface to a mere shuttle bus was a step backwards.

Space exploration, with humans aboard, is not though.

[Deep13]

10. What is the advantage of human exploration?

[Maple]

12. Well

a) for one thing you won't get funding without it. No one's likely to want to spend tax dollars on putting robots in space. We don't identify with robots.

b) human beings can, at least at this stage, do far more than robots can.

c) the idea is for humanity itself to become space-faring, so sooner or later someone has to go up

d)it's a risky place to be, and it's a good thing we're learning how to protect ourselves at this stage instead of getting used to 'machines' doing it.

e) more people are killed in traffic accidents in one day than have ever been killed in space

[Massacure]

13. How many more people have died without manned space flight?

NASA developed fire resistanct materials to protect astronauts that now protect firefighters.

NASA developed air purification systems. These air purification systems were then later adapted so that researchers could safely handle many infections diseases and make vacines that save lives.

NASA developed water purification systems that save lives after large storms.

NASA improved portable heaters/coolers which again save lives after large storms.

NASA's space suits need to be able to stop objects that are traveling at 20,000 miles an hour. The material had a hand in developing bullet proof vests.

NASA's developed technology to better diagnose cancer.

NASA developed portable radiation sensors that weight only four onces.

Would NASA have needed these devices on robotic missions? The answer is no.

[paineinthearse]

11. Technical question

What happens if an astronaut has to "go" while wearing a space suit?

Do they wear high tech disposable diapers?