Author Topic: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped ? (Read 1282 times)

miko2d · « **on:** February 03, 2003, 02:13:53 PM »

I am on a roll today...

Somebody did not believe that government and it's agencies would prefer political expediency to safety, frugality, scientific advance and common sense?
How much progress could have been achieved on that money wasted for shuttles, or rather political pork?

The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

miko

Batz · « **Reply #1 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:32:37 PM »

Quote

It's costly, outmoded, impractical

I totally agree.

As for it proving to be "deadly again" its a high risk venture and I would not, until the facts are known, label the shuttle program anymore "deadly" then other manned programs.

A whole other arguement would be why push manned space flight at all. If this is about research, science and exploration then its far more practical to develope better unmanned vehicles.

The cost and weight of putting systems on a vehicle to support a human increases over an unmanned, automated vehicle.

miko2d · « **Reply #2 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:44:13 PM »

Even despite the miracles of modern automation and remote-control there are probably reasons to send a couple of people into orbit every year or two.

For that a dedicated, multiply-redundant specialised vehicle must be developed with safety as it's utmost concern - which probably would not cost too much since it will be of a tiny size - a small space plane or disposable unbreakable capsule.

In the orbit they can rendevous with a cargo delivered by cheap cargo vehicle like current shuttles or soviet disposable cargo modules but not burdeneed with life-support or or extra safety measures.

miko

CyranoAH · « **Reply #3 on:** February 03, 2003, 02:54:23 PM »

I said it before, I know, but:

X-33 Venture Star
X-38 Automated Transfer Vehicle

The answer is there, just waiting to be properly funded.

Daniel

Frogm4n · « **Reply #4 on:** February 03, 2003, 03:07:31 PM »

your right they need to scrap the shuttle program , and get the funding to reinstate the x-33 venture star program asap.

funkedup · « **Reply #5 on:** February 03, 2003, 03:18:29 PM »

I'm pretty sure there are still occasional military tasks for which there is not currently a substitute for the shuttle.

udet · « **Reply #6 on:** February 03, 2003, 03:21:41 PM »

the shuttle was a half bellybutton attempt to make a cheap and reusable space vehicle. The Shuttle must be stopped-AND replaced by a fully reusable, safer, cheaper vehicle.

Maverick · « **Reply #7 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:09:25 PM »

I dissagree that the shuttle must be stopped. I do so for a couple of reasons.

One, the world is full of small minded nebishes who think that ANYTHING that is not "perfectly safe" is therefor undesirable. If you give into them now the space program will simply die. They will claim all the "savings" (just like the so called "peace dividend") could be spent elsewhere. The lack of movement will cause a societal innertia until some major event happens to kick humanity in it's oversized bellybutton to get it moving. The author of that article wants to see everything shut down including the space station as he can't see the benefits from it financially. That is a classic isolationist idea. He can't see the benefit so there must not be one. It's better to crawl into his nice safe little hole and do nothing. So much for dreams.

The second issue is the fact that the globe IS getting smaller. We need to find other real estate to expand into. One asteroid could remove our species (and all the others as well) from existance at this time with no hope of starting over. This small planet is our only ride through space now. Only a fool cuts their options to one or nothing if they have anything to do about it.

The third situation is that there is no alternative to the shuttle in the short haul at this time. Yes, we have some experimental option but they are unproven. If we stop now all space movement will be only more expensive until the new system reaches it's operational level. Keep in mind the old style rockets and capsules have fewer options and far less cargo capacity than the shuttle did. We need to keep using them until the newt generation of space vehicle is ready to take up the load.

Finally to be a real human, not just a nebish, you need to have a drive or dream to follow. Anything less is not living it's only existing and taking up space. Sitting on our clooective planet bout tulips is not living, it's decaying slowly until you simply fall over.

<--- gets off soapbox

Flame away

miko2d · « **Reply #8 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:28:29 PM »

Nobody proposes to stop space exploration.

What is proposed is stopping wastefull pork-barrel projects done by incompetent people so that resources could be freed for more productive work.

If any one of us miscalculated by so much as NASA did, we would be fired right away. Hundred times higher launch expence? Four launches per shuttle a year instead of every week? 98% success rate? Dragging 90 ton monstrocity with a large crew for every little bit of work?
Surely with 5 mil launches once a week by five shuttles there would already have been cities in orbit. Maybe if such cities were set as a goal instead of shuttle program, they would have been there years ago.

If the true numbers were known in advance, the shuttle and space station would have never been allowed by congress. The whole thing was based on a huge lie.

Meanwhile hundreds of satellites are launched every year by private companies - mostly on russian rockets, some on french - and they are making money and real progress. If russians get over their mismanagement, they will accumulate so much experience with their business that their space science will advance further than american one.

There are/were several private outfits designing reusable space veicles. Some are probably open to investors. In 16th century private companies opened way into India which was a great deal bigger than a hop into space is now.

NASA should be privatised and/or split into competing entities and compete with private companies for aerospace projects. The government can set a goal but how to accomplish it should be up to them. Any cost overrun will be out of their pocket - so it will probably rarely happen.

Plenty of people are willing to fly int space for 20 mil. Russians are making money on that but NASA does not accept such passengers - because it costs them way more than 20 mil to put a man into space.

miko

john9001 · « **Reply #9 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:31:01 PM »

Maverick, you missed the point , there are better ways to get into and out of earth orbit than the shuttle

bounder · « **Reply #10 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:37:51 PM »

It's time to build the Nanuki Skyhook, and go to space in an elevator. (A Rather fast one).

Maverick · « **Reply #11 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:39:02 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by john9001
Maverick, you missed the point , there are better ways to get into and out of earth orbit than the shuttle

You missed the point. I didn't say there were no other ways. I said there are no viable alternatives right now. The experiments aren't even to the functioning prototype stage and none have even been to orbit.

Miko, the same for you. Think, why IS a Russian launch vehicle so cost effective right now. Do you mean to tell me that the Russian space agency running the launches is a PRIVATE venture?!?!?!?! I don't think so. Their method of launch is hardly as efficient as the shuttle is. What exactly does the Ruussian or Chinese system use repeatedely from launch to launch other than the launch stand? Their entire vehicle is a one use only deal. Oh yeah that's efficient.

Dowding · « **Reply #12 on:** February 03, 2003, 04:43:27 PM »

Quote

It's time to build the Nanuki Skyhook, and go to space in an elevator. (A Rather fast one).

Heh... I don't suppose you've read Kim Stanley Robinson's 'Red Mars'?

Skuzzy · « **Reply #13 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:09:58 PM »

Making NASA privately owned will not work. They could not afford the insurance and subsequent lawsuits.

NASA has been hampered by the government for as long as it has been an entity. Much of the cost NASA endures is directly related to our government's own agenda.

The shutttle would not have happened at all and NASA did not want it to happen, but our government did.

Before the shuttle was forced down NASA's throat, they wanted to start to prepare for Mars and the space station.

NASA has always been caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to funding. The government will not allow it to go private as they need it for 'special' missions.
The private sector could not afford it due to many factors completely unrelated to space travel.

The only reason other countries are used for lauches of satellites, is due to the government cutting funding for the rockets needed to launch satellites. This is not NASA's doing.

To be sure, NASA, like any other group that requires government funding will play the political game to get the money. They have to. The only other option is to shutdown.

Hangtime · « **Reply #14 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:14:32 PM »

R&D for space programs means FUNDING. FUNDING is what has been lopped every damn year in NASA..

Damn straight we should restart X33 and similar projects.. damn straight the Shuttles should be retired or turned over to the Military when newer more efficient platforms are brought on line.

Deal is, thanks to buget cuts we ain't got a fall back vehicle yet. So we need to keep what we have flying. Hopefully, this gawdamned disaster will get that funding pipe opened back up.

The nay sayers bark "unmanned space exploration... thats the ticket!!!" Horseshit. Unmanned vehicles are a nice complement for manned missions, but no way in hell are they even remotely capable of returning to us the info needed to expand humankind into a permananet or semi-permananet space habitat.

Man needs to go.. see.. touch.. feel.. exist in and become competent in space. That can't happen with robots and cameras exclusively.

"Too dangerous"? Kewl.. give up your car, never leave your house, step into a bathtub or get off your couch again.. because living life is dangerous. Never mind exploring.. which by it's very nature is exceedingly dangerous.

If the REAL issue is safety.. ask the astronauts. It'sTHEIR lives at risk.. so go ahead.. ask 'em! "There's a 2% chance, based on the actual historic numbers that your mission will end up with you toasted like a cheesepuff. You still wanna ride on that 'deathtrap?" You can bet not one will back out of his/her mission slot.

If the REAL issue is your perception of YOUR safety.. "hey, I don't want one of them things landing in MY backyard in a ball of fire".. Well, boyo, you got a much better chance of winning the lottery in all 50 states simultaneously without buying a ticket in one of 'em than you got of having a space shuttle land on your head.

Whats this all really boil down to?? It's a bunch of pissy panzie bellybutton pinheads gleefully finding fault with something they can't even grasp the magnitude of.. a Space Shuttle.. 5 million tons of technology hurled into the sky by Mans VIGOR and SKILL and DARING.. and they just can't come to grips with something they cannot fathom... they'd rather grovel in the dirt, grasping at straws instead of stand up and forging ahead thru adversity towards something BETTER.

Keep 'em flying.. fly the damn things till there's something better to hurl out there.. as long as men and women want to go, lets make it possible for them TO GO!

ONWARD! UPWARD! Go, BABY; GO, GO GO!!