Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: 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 (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030210-418518,00.html)
miko
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
your right they need to scrap the shuttle program , and get the funding to reinstate the x-33 venture star program asap.
-
I'm pretty sure there are still occasional military tasks for which there is not currently a substitute for the shuttle.
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
Maverick, you missed the point , there are better ways to get into and out of earth orbit than the shuttle
-
It's time to build the Nanuki Skyhook, and go to space in an elevator. (A Rather fast one).
-
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.
-
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'?
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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
-
Drove a 1970 Mercedes for almost 30 years...
Could have gone 50.
400k miles and it needed a timing chain. I sold it.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
*sigh*
I suppose before the lion eats you, yer gonna ask him for a reciept?
-
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.
-
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.
-
is Soyuz cheaper than shuttle?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
is soyuz spacecraft discard after 1 use?
-
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.
(http://www.starsem.com/soyuz/images/soyuz_family.gif)
Our Titan IV outperforms it and costs less per shot.
(http://www.ast.lmco.com/gallery/72dpi/titan_040999b_72.jpg)
-
lol no wonder its cheap to make a soyuz ($20 million, i think)
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
NASA spent 2 million dollars developing an ink pen that would work in space. The Russians used a pencil.
-
Originally posted by udet
safer, cheaper vehicle. [/B]
Isn' this an oxymoron?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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. :p 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.:rolleyes:
-
Bingo, Mav.
Gents, not one instance of government spending or intent or activity is going to unanimously inspire the populace no matter what the result.
It's exceedingly clear in this instance that polarity exists, and both sides of the argument have 'unshakable' points.
I fall in solidly on the side that favors a renewed and very energetic approach to continuing manned space missions using the equipment at hand while simultaneously funding and developing a newer more effective and efficent manned method of delivering and recovering payloads to orbit.
Tossing the baby with the bathwater ain't the way to approach NASA's problems.
-
They projected 7 years to get a new vehicle into operation.
The shuttle maybe grounded for sometime. It was grounded for 3 years after Challenger.
Even at 7 years there no real ergency to keep the shuttle flying. It certainly wont cripple space exploration. Most of that exploration doesnt involve the shuttle anyway.
A 1 shot rocket is cheaper then 1 shuttle launch. 350-500 million dollars for 1 shuttle launch. The robot they sent to Mars was cheaper. That was a 1 shot deal.
Private industry doesnt send its satelites up in the shuttle because its too expensive. They use the "one shot" rockets.
NASA should take the time now to get a better system up.