Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

It would do us a world of good to just develop Soyuz-like capsules that can be used on ELVs until a much cheaper and useful design for an RLV can replace it. I used to defend the shuttle but I'm beginning to agree with much of the crowd that's it a tragedy that we ever developed it. Sometimes it's good to just stop doing things the old way and take some time off to build a better mouse trap. I get the feeling that scrapping the shuttle is the only way we can achieve more economical space access, otherwise NASA might just keep fighting to keep its welfare machine alive.

Posted by X at May 10, 2003 04:23 PM

Thank God that these people were not in charge in Europe in the 15th and 16th centuries. We would all be living in ??(enter GG-Grandparents country of origin here) After all someone might have died crossing the ocean to get here.

Posted by Steve at May 11, 2003 08:02 AM

Well, one way to say it is that it's too unsafe given the amount that's spent keeping it alive and the meager benefits it provides. Improve those other things and the tolerance for danger might increase-- risk is more understandable in the name of something worth doing.

Posted by Matt McIrvin at May 11, 2003 06:40 PM

The Planetary Society's member directory allowed each member to suggest an image that they believed should be sent across space to some alien intelligence. People suggested the old gold Voyager plaque and DNA, but the shuttle was one of the most common responses.

The shuttle was the very symbol of what we accomplished as a race. With its life science package it was in essence a very adaptable space station. It's ability to carry up to seven astronauts for two weeks in relative comfort was well beyond any Gemini-Soyuz capsule and it really did bring back a lot for reuse: including the service module for its crew, the airlock, and docking ring. It established a benchmark, generated a lot of public interest, and proved that long EVA’s were indeed very possible.

Even before the accident there were signs that NASA just couldn’t support it. Cracks were found, wires frayed…. The list of problems just kept growing while the workload skyrocketed. I’m sure the remaining vehicles themselves could enjoy a substantial future carrier, but can NASA keep critical mission people up-to-snuff for the next year until the next launch. With fewer launches – will support people forget to do critical things? Would another failure right off the bat end our Space Program all together?

I like the shuttle, but I am in favor of dropping the anchor here – unfortunately I don’t believe NASA or the Gov. would know what to do next.

Posted by Chris Eldridge at May 13, 2003 10:06 AM

Wondering Why the shuttle is old and Failing?

The gross difference between the NASA budgit and the military budgit (20 times greater) is aptly demonstrated by the number of weapon systems deployed since NASA's current STS Colombia-Class Space Shuttle landed the drawing boards in late 1973. Since then, the military has deployed: the E-3 AWACS, the J-Stars AWACS, the F-15A-E, the F-16, the F-18A-D, F-18E/F, the F-22, the A-10, the S-3, the AH-64 and AH-66, the UH-60, the C-17, the KC-10, the AV-8B Harrior, the T-45, the B-1B the B-2, the V-22, and has deployed twice as many Nimitz Class Nuclear Aircraft Carriers than space shuttles! Since the begining of Shuttle’s development, the US has developed and developed five (5) long range, hydrogen-bomb-tipped nuclear missiels:

(Trident I: 8 100kt MIRVs - 384 deployed - Total=307,200kt.)
(Trident II: 8-14 300kt MIRVs - 384 deployed - Total=1,267,200kt.)
(The Peasekeeper: 10 300kt MIRVs - 100 deployed - Total=300,000kt. Pershing II: A 50kt) (Warhead - 247 deployed Total=12,350kt.)
(ALCM No. A 200kt warhead - 1739 deployed - Total=347,800kt.)

who's total warhead yield is 2,234,550kt: or 97,154 times greater than the Fat Man Atomic Weapon droped on Nagasaki in 1945. All this....all this, and we have the nerve to talk about "Weapons of Mass Distruction?"

Posted by Chris Eldridge at May 14, 2003 06:31 AM

Rand, I'm sorry, but you are wrong to condemn the idea of flying the Shuttle with no people aboard.

This is an excellent idea, which was in the hopper before the Columbia tragedy.

Why is flying the Shuttle umanned a good idea?

(a) Because the Shuttle is needed for some heavy cargo launches of new space telescopes and similar large payloads during the next few years. ... Non-ISS paylaods, by the way.

(b) Because flying the Shuttle unmanned is quite feasible.

(c) Because doing so is an exvcellent end-of-life plan for the three remaining Shuttles. There's less to worry about if the trip is only one way, OK?

...

As for an American Soyuz-type thang: that gets my vote only if it's done to cut the Russians out of the ISS business because of their duplicity in Iraq and Iran. This may not be a bad idea.

In terms of cost effectivness, though, it's quicker and cheaper to pay the Rooskies for additional Soyuz launches, instead of developing an American capsule. Why duplicate the Soyuz, except for the aforementioned geopolitical reason?

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by David Davenport at May 14, 2003 10:36 AM

Rand, I'm sorry, but you are wrong to condemn the idea of flying the Shuttle with no people aboard.

This is an excellent idea, which was in the hopper before the Columbia tragedy.

Why is flying the Shuttle umanned a good idea?

(a) Because the Shuttle is needed for some heavy cargo launches of new space telescopes and similar large payloads during the next few years. ... Non-ISS paylaods, by the way.

(b) Because flying the Shuttle unmanned is quite feasible.

(c) Because doing so is an exvcellent end-of-life plan for the three remaining Shuttles. There's less to worry about if the trip is only one way, OK?

...

As for an American Soyuz-type thang: that gets my vote only if it's done to cut the Russians out of the ISS business because of their duplicity in Iraq and Iran. This may not be a bad idea.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by David Davenport at May 14, 2003 10:36 AM

Rand, I'm sorry, but you are wrong to condemn the idea of flying the Shuttle with no people aboard.

This is an excellent idea, which was in the hopper before the Columbia tragedy.

Why is flying the Shuttle umanned a good idea?

(a) Because the Shuttle is needed for some heavy cargo launches of new space telescopes and similar large payloads during the next few years. ... Non-ISS paylaods, by the way.

(b) Because flying the Shuttle unmanned is quite feasible.

(c) Because doing so is an exvcellent end-of-life plan for the three remaining Shuttles. There's less to worry about if the trip is only one way, OK?

...

As for an American Soyuz-type thang: that gets my vote only if it's done to cut the Russians out of the ISS business because of their duplicity in Iraq and Iran. This may not be a bad idea.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by David Davenport at May 14, 2003 10:36 AM

Rand, I'm sorry, but you are wrong to condemn the idea of flying the Shuttle with no people aboard.

This is an excellent idea, which was in the hopper before the Columbia tragedy.

Why is flying the Shuttle umanned a good idea?

(a) Because the Shuttle is needed for some heavy cargo launches of new space telescopes and similar large payloads during the next few years. ... Non-ISS paylaods, by the way.

(b) Because flying the Shuttle unmanned is quite feasible.

(c) Because doing so is an exvcellent end-of-life plan for the three remaining Shuttles. There's less to worry about if the trip is only one way, OK?

...

As for an American Soyuz-type thang: that gets my vote only if it's done to cut the Russians out of the ISS business because of their duplicity in Iraq and Iran. This may not be a bad idea.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by David Davenport at May 14, 2003 10:36 AM

Rand, I'm sorry, but you are wrong to condemn the idea of flying the Shuttle with no people aboard.

This is an excellent idea, which was in the hopper before the Columbia tragedy.

Why is flying the Shuttle umanned a good idea?

(a) Because the Shuttle is needed for some heavy cargo launches of new space telescopes and similar large payloads during the next few years. ... Non-ISS paylaods, by the way.

(b) Because flying the Shuttle unmanned is quite feasible.

(c) Because doing so is an exvcellent end-of-life plan for the three remaining Shuttles. There's less to worry about if the trip is only one way, OK?

...

As for an American Soyuz-type thang: that gets my vote only if it's done to cut the Russians out of the ISS business because of their duplicity in Iraq and Iran. This may not be a bad idea.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by David Davenport at May 14, 2003 10:37 AM

[ Wondering Why the shuttle is old and Failing?

The gross difference between the NASA budgit and the military budgit (20 times greater) is aptly demonstrated by the number of weapon systems ...]

Noipe, Mr. Left Lib. NASA had $980 M-plus to develop the X-33 during the Clinton years, and NASA blew it. Lack of money is not NASA's problem.

If a new OSP is to be developed, the DoD will probably have to do it.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by at May 14, 2003 10:38 AM

[ Wondering Why the shuttle is old and Failing?

The gross difference between the NASA budgit and the military budgit (20 times greater) is aptly demonstrated by the number of weapon systems ...]

Noipe, Mr. Left Lib. NASA had $980 M-plus to develop the X-33 during the Clinton years, and NASA blew it. Lack of money is not NASA's problem.

If a new OSP is to be developed, the DoD will probably have to do it.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by at May 14, 2003 10:38 AM

[ Wondering Why the shuttle is old and Failing?

The gross difference between the NASA budgit and the military budgit (20 times greater) is aptly demonstrated by the number of weapon systems ...]

Noipe, Mr. Left Lib. NASA had $980 M-plus to develop the X-33 during the Clinton years, and NASA blew it. Lack of money is not NASA's problem.

If a new OSP is to be developed, the DoD will probably have to do it.

-- david.davenport@mindspring.com

Posted by at May 14, 2003 10:39 AM

Post a comment