The earth-orbit shuttle in 2001 looked neat-and it was run by PANAM! plus, it was shirtsleeve environment. Granted, the shuttles are built like trucks-no fancy decor. still, when space travel becomes common, i would think that designers will look at spiffing the craft up.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
why? What is the benefit of it looking better? It is not like there are two competing space programs and the tidy look is going to land you a contract or anything. What you see is what works with the minimum effort.
[/QUOTE]
Hmm… let’s see. Government funding of the space program depends to a large degree of public perception of it and of its importance.
‘looking tidy’ may not land you a contract, but it could push you up critically in the opinion polls. Of course, that might not balance out the other factors, but it’s one worth mentioning.
[QUOTE=ralph124c]
The earth-orbit shuttle in 2001 looked neat-and it was run by PANAM! plus, it was shirtsleeve environment. Granted, the shuttles are built like trucks-no fancy decor. still, when space travel becomes common, i would think that designers will look at spiffing the craft up.
[/QUOTE]
Who, in 1968, would have thought that by 2001 Pan Am would be no more? Or that spaceflight would be next to nonexistant?
[QUOTE=Tranquilis]
Um… because it’s NOT a movie set?
There’s a lot of things going on, and very little space in which to work. Real people live and work there, and that makes things… cluttered.
[/QUOTE]
Sure. Most offices that are protrayed in movies are quite tidy. Offices that are actually in use have things lying here and there. Sometimes whole piles of things.
[QUOTE=chrisk]
Hmm… let’s see. Government funding of the space program depends to a large degree of public perception of it and of its importance.
‘looking tidy’ may not land you a contract, but it could push you up critically in the opinion polls. Of course, that might not balance out the other factors, but it’s one worth mentioning.
[/QUOTE]
Opinion polls are fickle beasts. For all we know, they could be complaining about the waste of money on pretty panels. “If they want to be astronauts, let them live in a pig pen, I say”
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned and something I have not thought about. Perhaps the panels are there during take off and reentry and simply stowed away when in orbit.
I read something somewhere that looked at this kind of question from the industrial design standpoint: why all that extra material, why all that extra manufacturing, construction, maintenance, etc., for pretty panels to hide the actual workings on commercial airliners? The reason: to help people forget they’re in a big, heavy box that is, as are all things that fly, merely one or two mechanical failures away from being their coffin. If you can’t see all the hydraulic lines, electrical cables, mechanical geegaws that make everything work right, you’ll be less likely to worry about all the things that can go wrong.
Sorry, I ran out of things to say about strippers.
[QUOTE=KneadToKnow]
I read something somewhere that looked at this kind of question from the industrial design standpoint: why all that extra material, why all that extra manufacturing, construction, maintenance, etc., for pretty panels to hide the actual workings on commercial airliners? The reason: to help people forget they’re in a big, heavy box that is, as are all things that fly, merely one or two mechanical failures away from being their coffin. If you can’t see all the hydraulic lines, electrical cables, mechanical geegaws that make everything work right, you’ll be less likely to worry about all the things that can go wrong.
Sorry, I ran out of things to say about strippers.
[/QUOTE]
That makes me feel wonderful. Thank you.
[sup]grumble, grumble[/sup]
Always happy to brighten someone’s day a little, Phlosphr!
They are all wrong!
The reason 2001 had a sleek interior was that it was a years-long mission.
All that stuff was tucked out of the way because it wasn’t to be fiddled with until they landed.
It could only cause harm being left out, as when they ran exercise laps around the interior. Kicking into a knobby machine could be big trouble.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
One thing that hasn’t been mentioned and something I have not thought about. Perhaps the panels are there during take off and reentry and simply stowed away when in orbit.
[/QUOTE]
Panels to what?
Stranger
[QUOTE=Hobohob]
re: 2001
Kicking into a knobby machine could be big trouble.
[/QUOTE]
Those cold sleep capsules that malfunctioned and killed most of the crew looked pretty knobby.
[QUOTE=Stranger On A Train]
Panels to what?
Stranger
[/QUOTE]
Panels covering all interior of the cabins. If they had them… Right, that’s it.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
Panels covering all interior of the cabins. If they had them… Right, that’s it.
[/QUOTE]
And the weight of all these panels that everybody has mentioned as being the problem, does this weight disappear because the panels would get stowed later?
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
does this weight disappear because the panels would get stowed later?
[/QUOTE]
Dude … it’s space! Everything’s weightless!!
[QUOTE=Exapno Mapcase]
And the weight of all these panels that everybody has mentioned as being the problem, does this weight disappear because the panels would get stowed later?
[/QUOTE]
I understand every ounce is accounted for in take off. But how much weight would plastic panels acount for I wonder? And would that weight be prohibative?
I wish I knew an astronaut to ask.
[QUOTE=Phlosphr]
But how much weight would plastic panels acount for I wonder? And would that weight be prohibative?
[/QUOTE]
As of the year 2000, it cost about $11,000 a pound to lift things into low earth orbit with the shuttle.
$55,000 for a nice looking 5 pound panel seems a little steep to me. Of course, YMMV. 
[QUOTE=Hobohob]
They are all wrong!
The reason 2001 had a sleek interior was that it was a years-long mission.
All that stuff was tucked out of the way because it wasn’t to be fiddled with until they landed.
It could only cause harm being left out, as when they ran exercise laps around the interior. Kicking into a knobby machine could be big trouble.
[/QUOTE]
I believe the OP is specifically asking about the space shuttle, and thus we are comparing it to Kubrick’s space shuttle, the one at the beginning of the movie, with the stewardess wearing velcro booties.
Not to the long-term space exploration vehicle, with HAL-9000.
[QUOTE=Sapo]
Opinion polls are fickle beasts. For all we know, they could be complaining about the waste of money on pretty panels. “If they want to be astronauts, let them live in a pig pen, I say”
[/QUOTE]
True enough, and touche
[QUOTE=Squink]
As of the year 2000, it cost about $11,000 a pound to lift things into low earth orbit with the shuttle.
$55,000 for a nice looking 5 pound panel seems a little steep to me. Of course, YMMV.
[/QUOTE]
Come on, who can put a price onaesthetics?