The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped ?

[lotech]

lol no wonder its cheap to make a soyuz ($20 million, i think)

[CyranoAH]

There's an agreement being signed to launch Soyuz from French Guiana, allowing for a +20% bonus in payload.

Right now the cheapest launcher is the Ariane 5, the only one capable of launching 10 Tons.

As for the "there's nothing the space shuttle can do that an unmanned probe can't" statement, it's not correct.

Studying the effects of microgravity in the human body or animals requires actually being there.

I've done experiments in Zero-G (Thanks ESA!) and I can tell you some of the experiments onboard could not have been done without someone standing there.

Same thing goes for the Space Shuttle and the ISS.

Daniel

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Hangtime

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

37 years of Soyuz disposable spaceships, 2 accidents, 4 crew members lost.

Vladimir Komarov - a parachute system failure in 1966 on Soyuz-1, then Dobrovolskiy, Volkov and Patsayev - a landing capsule depressurized on reentry, the crew died from suffocation in stratosphere. Since then crew always wears light pressurized suits ("rescue" model) on active stages.

Last accident happened in 1971.

2 times manned launches had problems on takeoff, both times crew survived (both times mission commander was Vladimir Titov) - an explosion on launch position (emergency rescue system jerked the capsule right out the explosion, a fantastic scene, the SEA of flame!) and a second stage failure (capsule was dragged away from launch vehicle at about 100km altitude and landed in the mountains on ballistic trajectory). Happened in early 80s.

Once a spaceship main engine failure on orbit, IIRC 1977, crew - Rukavishnikov and Ivanov (Bulgarian), mission to Salyut abotred,  emergency landing on secondary engine several days later, the guys landed on a lake.

Pretty small list for 37 years and hundreeds of launches. Compared to incredible things like the Spacelab story Soviet space program was extremely reliable.

Soyuz launch vehicle is based on R-7 first generation ICBM first tested in 1956. The technology is perfected during almost 50 years of production.

In the 80s USSR had more launches every two weeks then USA made each year.

Unlike Space Shuttle, Soyuz is constantly improved. The last model had a first flight after ISS project was started.

Russia is so far the only country that can make long-time life support systems. Please, no offences, but Russian cosmonauts who flew Shuttle missions said that Shuttle stinks. That's why they can't stay in orbit for more then 2 weeks.

[CyranoAH]

With all due respect, Russians still have the edge in space energy management/generation and life support.

The US pumped so many millions into the construction of the Russian modules of the ISS because, at the same time, they were buying VERY expensive technological know-how.

There are three languages right now in the Space Sector: English, French, and Russian.

I speak the first two... learning russian now.

Boroda, ia nie gaviriu russki...vse ye

Daniel

[Boroda]

Originally posted by Karnak
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.

It is obviously wrong.

Soyuz spaceship (the typical payload for that launch vehicle) weights almost 7 tons. Or even more now, I remember the digits for first Soyuz series. Damn, or was it 9 tons?

Cost per kilogram at the same orbit is about 10 times cheaper for Soyuz compared to Shuttle.

And how do you think did we launch Salyut and Mir stations? Up to 25 tons? Proton launch vehicle is also cheaper per kilogram then Shuttle.

In fact Shuttle is the most expensive space delivery. But it's great advantage is that it's the only system capable to RETURN up to 14 tons (IIRC) from orbit.

[CyranoAH]

Originally posted by GScholz
When the Americans would use huge amounts of funds to develop a highly technologically advanced solution to a problem, the Russians would develop a low-tech solution that was more reliable and only cost a fraction of the US alternative.

Buran.

Had the Russians had the money, they would have gone with the reusable vehicle design.

Even ESA was designing the Hermes vehicle.

It's a matter of money.

Still, I think X-33 is a good solution... sturdier than the shuttle, cheaper to operate, AND 85% of its development was complete before it was cancelled.

At least X-38 goes forth...

Daniel

Daniel

[miko2d]

midnight Target: Drove a 1970 Mercedes for almost 30 years...
Could have gone 50.
400k miles and it needed a timing chain. I sold it.

 Good reply. Not apt, though.
 1970 Mercedes is a product of over 70 years of massive competitive private research and construction.
 Shuttle is a product of just emerging materials and microprocessor science implemented in a single research closed to competition.

 How would you like to drive Model T or earlier for the past 30 years?

 miko

[Batz]

Studying the effects of microgravity in the human body or animals requires actually being there

Cyrano why are we helping to building the space station? A "Skylab" or a "Mir" or something similiar would be a better and cheaper research vehicle then the shuttle.

There are cheaper alternatives to study the effect of micro gravity and the biological effects of weightlessness on humans then the shuttle.

FYI they can test animals on an unmanned vehicle.

This thread is about the "shuttle" not about lions chasing you up a rope or  necessarily about manned space flight. The current limit of manned flight is at best the moon. But even so remote automated vehicles would be cheaper and better. The same with mars.

The sum of the manned space program in recent times has been close orbit. The experiments done on the shuttle could be done on an orbitting station much cheaper then in the shuttle. A better and cheaper delivery system could be built to get the astronauts and experience to those stations.

The shuttle is a complete waste of money. It hasnt lived up to what NASA said it would. Scrap it or sell them off and build something better.

One other thing its not a question of if they could build a better alternative to the shuttle. From watching the news and interviews even the most die hard shuttle proponents agree that a better vehicle could be built.

Its seems of a few of yas would like to use the recent tragedy to justify new spending. Its shame really but it doesnt change the facts. The shuttle has been a waste of resources before last saturday and will continue to be in the future.

[Skuzzy]

Well, not sure why NASA is getting pegged for the shuttle anyways.

Werner Von Braun argued in Congress against the shuttle in the early 60's as well as others from NASA, but Congress gave them the, "It's that or nothing" line.
Congress also claimed the shuttle would be cheaper to operate, even though NASA said it would not be.

Check the Congressional records, circa the late 60's (67 or 68, if I recall) about this.  NASA had its back against the wall.  They wanted to go a completely different route than what Congress wanted, but Congress would not fund any route other than the shuttle.
The Congressional advisors of the day were the ones that said the shuttle would be more efficient and less costly to operate.  NASA was force fed that and had to capitulate or forego any more funding.  
Politically, it was believed the shuttle would be a more prominent way to get attention to the space program.

[2Slow]

NASA spent 2 million dollars developing an ink pen that would work in space.  The Russians used a pencil.

[Dingbat]

Originally posted by udet
safer, cheaper vehicle. [/B]

Isn' this an oxymoron?

[Boroda]

The ONLY advantage of the Shuttle, that makes it a UNIQUE vessel, is the ability to bring cargo back from space. You can catch a sattelite and bring it down for maintenance or exploration.

Buran can be 10 times better and 20 times more reliable (that I doubt), but it was economically ineffective compared to old LOX/kerosene or LOX/UDMH "disposable" rockets. That's why it was launched only once in 1988, and never flew again before the launch facility was destroyed in 1992. Energiya launch vehicle was a nice idea, it could carry huge cargos (up to 200-250 tons!!!) to orbit, but it was too expencive compared to mass-production small rockets like R-7 or even Proton.

Buran project was the last effort that probably overstrained the USSR and was one of the reasons of the economical collapse of the late-80s.

[Maverick]

Miko,

I own and fly a 1958 Piper Comanche. It is all based on 1940's technology except for the "modern" radio and my 1994 hand held GPS. I suppose that you would consider my bird "disposable" even though it is still an efficeint mode of transportation, particularly considering airline rates for trips under 2000 miles.

I am not and never did say the shuttle was the end all and be all method of transportation. It isn't. It was a space going truck for low to mid orbit insertions. It was the FIRST attempt to use a  reusable vehicle. It is outmoded ONLY when a better vehicle passes prototype and production status. So far there isn't one. I am not faulting NASA for this.

I AM saying space exploration and shuttle flights shoiuld NOT stop because we suffered an accident. We should continue to use the tools we have now and develope new ones. Funding needs to be increased for space exploration and for development. Space exploration is expensive and like the development of individual transportation (cars / trucks) won't get cheaper until better technology IS developed.

We lost some good people and a vehicle. We did not, and should not, lose the exploration of space as well out of fear.

[miko2d]

Maverick:
 I own and fly a 1958 Piper Comanche.

 But not an Eindecker.

It was the FIRST attempt to use a  reusable vehicle. It is outmoded ONLY when a better vehicle passes prototype and production status. So far there isn't one.

 Because building and flying the five built consumed the money.

I am not faulting NASA for this.

 Me neither. They are a government agency, so performance is in line with my expectations.

I AM saying space exploration and shuttle flights shoiuld NOT stop because we suffered an accident. We should continue to use the tools we have now and develope new ones.

 Alternatively we could scrap the shuttles and use freed money and resources to accelerate the new developments. Throwing good money after the bad is rarely a good option.

Funding needs to be increased for space exploration and for development. Space exploration is expensive and like the development of individual transportation (cars / trucks) won't get cheaper until better technology IS developed.

 Or that's what NASA would like you to believe. But when they had funding for a Mars mission drastically cut, they came up withn an ingenious cheap and effective design.
 The best general way to have whatever cheaper is to open it to the competition. Let anyone submit projects for evaluation, like in military or some other areas.

We lost some good people and a vehicle. We did not, and should not, lose the exploration of space as well out of fear.

 It's a low blow to misrepresent your opponent's position and exploit victims of disaster allowe to happen as a distraction from the substance of the argument.
 Nobody here says exploration of space should be abandoned or even kept constant - quite the opposite. But the biggest barrier that stands on the way is the Shuttle program itself. Mars mission cost way less than one shuttle flight.
 My preference for private rather than government metods reflects my expectation that it would be more productive, not less.

 miko

[Maverick]

Miko,

 The lost time doing what you propose would in effect cripple the space agency. I still see no reason to stop using the shuttle. It is already paid for and no more are being built so no development money is being taken from any other vehicle by the shuttle.

You claim using a one shot rocket is less expensive and wastefull and I disagree. I think using the shuttle as a base experiment transporter makes it more usefull than a smaller rocket based capsul (ps?). Particularly as there is nothing else as capable flight ready at this time. When there is, then the shuttle should be retired from active service just like the eindecker was.

Please don't tell me about privatisation being a viable alternative for NASA. If all it took was a private company it would have been done by now. The only private organization I can think of that MIGHT be able to handle it financially is microsoft. We already have problems dealing with that monopoly as it is now. For all their money they still haven't improved windows THAT much. Can you imagine the potential for monopolization of space travel??

Im not going to spend any more time arguing with you on this. You can claim privatization will save the world for all I care.

Me and my 43+ year old plane will still go flying even though there are "better" planes out there.