Author Topic: The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped ? (Read 1305 times)

miko2d · « **Reply #15 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:20:41 PM »

Maverick: Their entire vehicle is a one use only deal. Oh yeah that's efficient.

It's certainly is. Instead of complicated arrangement of removable tiles attached by sophisticate joints, they have ceramic factory-applied one-piece heat shields that have no gaps and must survive reentry once.

They have a variety of vehicles for cargo instead of sending a 90-ton ship every time. And those vehicles are new every time - with latest design and material technology incorporated.

The cost of disposable elements on the shuttle exceeds the cost of the whole russian disposable ship.
Let's say Columbia would have not blown up before completing thirty flights but lived through a hundred. At 2 bil it's 20 million depreciation plus 500 million per launch. And it would have locked US into using 1970's technology for half a century. How could it be cheaper than a state-of the art disposable ship?

In fact, it is clear that original designers of shuttle program did not intend it to produce any technological dividends - instead of building one ship every five-ten years, they built five to use for 50 years with obsolete technology. How can we get any more materials research if the very shuttles prevent us from using/needing more advanced designs - by the very fact of their existance or the money they gobble. Which may not be the case for long, the way those "non-expendable" shuttles are going.

Surely, the space exploration is new and dangerous. So why the heck build five of them? Surely an improved 1990 or a 2000-year model would have been safer than 1975?

How about cars? Do you intend to drive your car for 50 years of do you use modern "disposable" ones with 5yr/200,000 mile lifespan? That's just a few orbits around around Earth in nowhere nearly as severe conditions.
Make a mental experiment, what would a car be built in 1970 to last 50 years? How good, safe, economical would it have been by now?
Use any 20-year old computers? TVs? Refrigerator? Of course you would not - you need reliability/safety, not being in space exploration business.

What is so special about returning most of the frame back that did not even have to get into space in the first place? It's not like an airplane that would fly again in a few hours or days.

I do believe that the russian space program is a money maker now. That is why they delayed their Space Station modules - they had tooo much profitable launches to do.
Of course they are cheaper becasue they do not pay their people as much as we do, but french are launching disposables too.

I am not saying we should not have a shuttle. I am saying that by going with cost-effective way we would probably have had better shuttle and better space station and better materials now.

miko

midnight Target · « **Reply #16 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:27:34 PM »

Drove a 1970 Mercedes for almost 30 years...

Could have gone 50.

400k miles and it needed a timing chain. I sold it.

Hangtime · « **Reply #17 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:28:06 PM »

Miko, you sadden me.

You compare nickels to quarters.

Both go in the slot.

What comes out is the same.

The Russians have no 'edge' in profitability, no exemplary saftey record and no claim on superiority in space.

miko2d · « **Reply #18 on:** February 03, 2003, 05:51:28 PM »

That's is a good excuse - "russians also suck"...

That is not a reason for american program to be run by incompetent crooked agency. The funding is cut - that's true. Could it be that the ineptness and reluctance of NASA to try new and cost-effective approaches has something to do with it?

You seem a bit too sensitive to constructive criticism. It's only the Catholic Pope who is infallible, not NASA or US government. I certainly do not propose to discontinue space exploratiuon - neither does the article. American companies and tourists using russian services do not do it out of spite or stupidity.

It seems that for NASA the way of getting into space was much more important that actually doing anything usefull there. They did not want to scrap ineficient design becasue it would be admitting the errors. It seems nature id doing it for them.

What would you say? Keep flying those shuttles as if nothing happened? It's not like they will find some defect on a 20 year ship that can be easity remedied. May as well lose them with a bang, right?

miko

Hangtime · « **Reply #19 on:** February 03, 2003, 06:00:51 PM »

Lets say you've got a rope, and you are facing a 15 foot high wall. On your side of the wall is a hungry lion, on the other side is anybodys guess.

Using the rope to scale the wall is exceedingly dangerous. Doing nothing means you'll be a large cat toejam a couple of hours after the lion gets hungry.

Tell me.. you gonna wait till somebody shows up with a ladder?

The Shuttle Program is our rope to space. Lets not wait till somebody invents a better rope.. lets use the one we got.. two reasons.. it works, and we have it NOW. Who knows when the freakin lion will get hungry.

miko2d · « **Reply #20 on:** February 03, 2003, 06:20:07 PM »

We have to stop using two threads at once.

Imagine the rope you have is (52 weeks / 4 times per year =) 13 times shorter than promised on a label and the guy who sold it to you charged your credit card 100 times the price.

Would you still be buying the rope from that guy or at least consider a proposal from a one selling ladders? Especially if people all around you are using ladders all the time?

miko

Hangtime · « **Reply #21 on:** February 03, 2003, 08:17:07 PM »

*sigh*

I suppose before the lion eats you, yer gonna ask him for a reciept?

Batz · « **Reply #22 on:** February 03, 2003, 08:51:54 PM »

What lion?

Do have insight into our eminent demise?

We have existed this long without needing to head to the stars.

Most of the "exploration" of space isnt coming from astronauts. Its coming from ground installations, satelites and unmanned probes.

There nothing "manned" space exploration can offer that isnt currently done better by other means.

The space shuttle is complete waste of resources. This has nothing to with "fear" of accidents. The shuttle program is on hold right now and atleast for the next year. After Challenger it was on hold for 3 years. NASA has plenty of opportunity to re-evaluate the shuttle program. They have plenty of time to come up with a better vehicle.

Sounds like the old "we must keep the battleship" arguement. Except the shuttle is not much of a "projection of power". The shuttle hasnt lived up to what NASA sold it as. It has cost more then NASA said it would. It is used less frequently then NASA said it would.

I was on Cape Caniveral for the first launch after the Challenger Accident. Even time theres a launch I walk out my porch and see the thing heading to space. When it lands my windows rattle from the sonic boom. Its an awesome site. But being "cool" is hardly a justification for its cost.

The shuttle will never be used to leave close orbit. Nothing is gained by keeping such a costly program. That money could be used else where to develope a more practical vehicle. The rest of the savings could be used for real exploration, automated unmanned vehicles.

Hangtime · « **Reply #23 on:** February 03, 2003, 09:07:35 PM »

Quote

Most of the "exploration" of space isnt coming from astronauts. Its coming from ground installations, satelites and unmanned probes.

Yah.. sure. We can get all the info we need to make correct decisions regarding space from sattelites.

Kinda reminds me of the CIA.. we don't need spies. We can take pictures!

Look.. there's no convincing the guys that wanna stay in the caves that the weather is more intersting outside. Either yah get it, or yah don't.

Just do the rest of us a favor. Stay IN THE CAVE. And let the rest of us go freakin explore. We'll take the risks.

lotech · « **Reply #24 on:** February 03, 2003, 10:08:11 PM »

is Soyuz cheaper than shuttle?

Karnak · « **Reply #25 on:** February 03, 2003, 10:46:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by lotech
is Soyuz cheaper than shuttle?

No. It costs more per pound to launch stuff into orbit using the Soyuz than it does using the shuttle. A given launch of the shuttle may cost more, but it is lifting thirty tons of cargo into orbit as opposed to the Soyuz's two tons.

That said, I'd like to thank the Russians, who have stepped up to help the ISS stay manned and in orbit by increasing their launches. On Sunday they sent up a Progress cargo ship carrying supplies for the ISS. In order for them to increase the number of launches of Soyuz and Progress ships they will need financial support for the US, EU, Japan and Canada as they are not a rich nation, but their hardware can hold the line while we resolve what went wrong.

Batz · « **Reply #26 on:** February 03, 2003, 11:23:12 PM »

Hangtime the space shuttle isnt "exploring" anything. Its using resources that could be applied elsewhere, to real projects that are exploring.

Theres nothing "to get". The space shuttle is like using a cruise ship to deliver a letter. Its a complete waste of resources.

The robot they sent to mars cost just over half of what it takes to launch 1 shuttle.

Karnak the hype around the 1st shuttle (challenger) was that a shuttle of that size was needed to carry the payloads that industry and the government would need. (satelites etc). Well the reality was the shuttle never lived up to that. Nor has the whole shuttle program. Its cheaper to deliver satelites the old fashion way.

ispar · « **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2003, 11:24:22 PM »

I haven't been here for a while, but thought I'd chime in on this one.

First of all, while the space shuttle is far more expensive than originally planned, it is far more cost effective in terms of capability than any manned spacecraft in history.

Of course, when you look at the achievements, it starts to look a little pale next to Apollo...

Second of all, the space shuttle has, statistically, a fantastic operational safety record. There have been two major failures in 113 manned shuttle missions - there were two major failures in only 16 manned Apollo missions. Of course, only one of those was in space, and it did not result in any fatalities (Apollo 13).

But then, 14 people have died on the space shuttle. When it fails, it fails spectacularly, every time. Even so, when you average fatalities to a rate, the space shuttle comes out ahead - unless you restrict it to fatalities while under way, of course. And the Command module of the Apollo spacecraft underwent a number of changes from Apollo 1 to 13.

It's worth noting that part of what saved the Apollo 13 crew was the modular design of the spacecraft. Once you get lined up in your reentry corridor, it's damn hard to make that little command capsule blow up on the way down. However, the idea of using a similar contruction for a shuttle replacement is laughable, from both a payload and financial perspective.

VentureStar as a ship concept was excellent. The economic perspective was foolish; making NASA a commercial entity will not reduce costs.

My point with all this is to point out that, when you come right down to it, what really bothers me is that it simply isn't worth it right now. We lost seven brave astronauts, and for what? - Frickin' microgravity cancer-cell experiments!

I think there are two priorities. The first is to get a good, cheap, safe spaceplane into service for actually getting astronauts into space. The shuttles should be held onto for the time being, because that payload capacity can come in handy, but they are getting older.

The second priority is for the boys in Washington to grow some balls and give NASA the money it needs to get a REAL space program running again. I think it's time to go back to the moon, but more importantly, to head out to Mars. At least if we lose seven astronauts on a Mars mission, it'll mean something.

Sorry for the long post. My $0.02.

lotech · « **Reply #28 on:** February 04, 2003, 12:24:09 AM »

is soyuz spacecraft discard after 1 use?

Hangtime · « **Reply #29 on:** February 04, 2003, 12:55:43 AM »

yep. the whole rig is kinda commie-utilitarian in design... and it's the same vehicle they used to launch Gagarian; they've used this same booster setup to hurl all their stuff into space for the last 30 years. none of it is 'reuseable' per se.

Our Titan IV outperforms it and costs less per shot.