Notices

View Poll Results: Is it worth it to keep the shuttles going?

Voters
11. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    9 81.82%
  • No

    2 18.18%
Results 1 to 33 of 33

Thread: Space shuttle

  1. #1 Space shuttle 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35
    What is everyones opion on the space shuttle program? I think it should be go on untill the Orion project is done.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Well, so much for cheap LEO-flights and keeping up a "shuttle". With two catastrophic events during - what?- 70 flights this is just a waste of money. Little was left from the original program. It's neither cheap nor safe so scrap this piece of junk and get over it.


    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35
    But what im concerned with is that if we drop it then we'll have to pay Russia to send supplies to the ISS. That would be costly. Not to mention stupid by trusteding an old enemy with millions of dollars of supplies.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    24
    I think it's time to really get serious about redesigning the space shuttle...maybe make it into a hybrid?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by ilikeick
    But what im concerned with is that if we drop it then we'll have to pay Russia to send supplies to the ISS. That would be costly. Not to mention stupid by trusteding an old enemy with millions of dollars of supplies.
    I wouldn't mind if we just ditched the ISS and space stations in general until there is an actual reason for having one. What is the point of the ISS? There is zero science being done on it, and it isn't at all useful as a staging platform for more advanced space missions. Let the stupid thing re-enter and burn up, and use the money that is saved to fund more useful space projects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by zizzy34
    I think it's time to really get serious about redesigning the space shuttle...maybe make it into a hybrid?
    I think the whole "reusable space plane" thing is a dead end, at least with our current technology. We would be much better off to focus on building very inexpensive disposable rockets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    By what will the shuttle program be replaced?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    By what will the shuttle program be replaced?
    Cheap, disposable rockets.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Will they carry personal to the space station? And was that a good idea long term?
    The shuttle program already replaced rockets centuries ago. Why was riding rockets
    taken back into account? Will rockets take us to moon, mars and beyond?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by ilikeick
    But what im concerned with is that if we drop it then we'll have to pay Russia to send supplies to the ISS. That would be costly. Not to mention stupid by trusteding an old enemy with millions of dollars of supplies.
    Not nearly as costly as using complicated, outdated and unsafe NASA technology. And just in case you didn't notice: NASA already pays Russia to get payload to and fro the ISS. Oh, and FYI: the US has a trade volume of several dozen of Billion Dollars with the Russians already. You should get a grip on life unlike George Dubbya. The times of unilateralism and cold war are long over. And about old "enemies"....just take a look at how much dough the Chinese already have invested in US economy. If they pulled all that money out of there US would be practically bankrupt. Do you know how much cheap gods the US already imports from China?
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    The shuttles were a politcially motivated, economically constrained, engineeringly deficient, short sighted, delusional distortion of a once noble dream.
    While a certain fatality rate is to be expected in a dangerous and experimental frontier arena, the shuttle deaths have been related to incompetence, complacency, political malfeasance and plain cowardice (on the part of NASA managers).
    That said, the shuttle program represents the height of good sense, excellent technology and astute politics, when compared with the ludicrously overpriced, underfunded, misdirected, disorganised, goal lacking farce that is called the ISS.

    You will not be surprised to learn I have voted against continuing the shuttle program.

    (Bring back the Saturn V)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    (Bring back the Saturn V)
    can't - they even destroyed the plans to make one
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    (Bring back the Saturn V)
    can't - they even destroyed the plans to make one
    The plans, the parts lists and even the tool dies. Perhaps we could dig up Werhner von Braun and try resuscitating him.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    The plans, the parts lists and even the tool dies. Perhaps we could dig up Werhner von Braun and try resuscitating him.
    why did they do that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by Ophiolite
    (Bring back the Saturn V)
    can't - they even destroyed the plans to make one
    The plans, the parts lists and even the tool dies. Perhaps we could dig up Werhner von Braun and try resuscitating him.
    Wernher Magnus Maximilian Freiherr (translated --> Baron ) von Braun was his Name, although, his first name 'Wernher' was odd. Actually the name is 'Werner', though not in his case. He was not a friend of the shuttle program and wanted to stick with rockets. I saw the story on TV. If his ghost still was haunting around?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by wallaby
    why did they do that?
    I have never been entirely clear. It was seen as obsolete technology that would be replaced by the wonders of the shuttle or other system. There are also major cost issues in maintaining records of old, no longer current, systems. I suspect, at the end, it was a simple cost cutting exercise.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    The shuttle program already replaced rockets centuries ago.
    It replaced them, yes - but it wasn't a good replacement. It ended up costing more and being less safe. Sometimes when you have gone in the wrong direction, "progres" means going backward.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    And why do you think rockets symbolize progress, while the shuttles don't. Apart from expenses let's say.
    Later technologies are clearly cost a tad more.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    let's say they slightly underestimated the costs and time involved in keeping the shuttle flightworthy + they found that cutting corners costs lives in the end
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Unless ofcourse, the nanotube space elevator actually becomes a reality.
    Multi-stage rockets with a re-entry CM were cheaper, but you couldnt really carry much of a payload + the CM's they used in the 60's & 70's could only carry 3 guys.

    Although it might be a nice idea to have say a multi-stage rocket launched from houston with personnel, and say the ESA launch supplies/payloads, then have NASA's CM dock with ESA's payload container, then dock the whole thing with the ISS.

    As far as im aware the soviets came up with a similar idea of the shuttle, and from what ive read, it was far easier to operate, far cheaper and far more relaible and could carry bigger payloads. What happened to it though, im not sure.

    The whole idea behind the shuttle was to have a re-usable space vehicle. But lets be honest; if every single nut and bolt has to be checked over once it has come back; its hardly re-usable !!...........might aswell just build another one !!!

    After all, id be really pissed if after driving to work and back that i had to spend my entire evening stripping my car down, seeing if everything was okay and then put it back together again !! :?

    I think id rather walk.

    A reusable space craft could in my opinion only EVER remain usable if it did just that; stayed in space. Trying to make something re-usable that has to go through the sheer hell of rentry is futile. They'd be better off leaving it in orbit and refuelling it up there so it could take us to the moon and beyond, but DO NOT use it for atmospheric entry !
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    35
    I see miost of you are against it but why did 80% say to kepp it? And also has technolgy and medicine come out of the program.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    A reusable space craft could in my opinion only EVER remain usable if it did just that; stayed in space. Trying to make something re-usable that has to go through the sheer hell of rentry is futile. They'd be better off leaving it in orbit and refuelling it up there so it could take us to the moon and beyond, but DO NOT use it for atmospheric entry !
    correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't that sound a bit like you need a docking station for your non-re-entry crafts, i.e. a space station ?
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Professor leohopkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Dulwich, London, England
    Posts
    1,417
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    Quote Originally Posted by leohopkins
    A reusable space craft could in my opinion only EVER remain usable if it did just that; stayed in space. Trying to make something re-usable that has to go through the sheer hell of rentry is futile. They'd be better off leaving it in orbit and refuelling it up there so it could take us to the moon and beyond, but DO NOT use it for atmospheric entry !
    correct me if i'm wrong, but doesn't that sound a bit like you need a docking station for your non-re-entry crafts, i.e. a space station ?
    Er...yes, and we have one. (the ISS) - and your point is ?
    The hand of time rested on the half-hour mark, and all along that old front line of the English there came a whistling and a crying. The men of the first wave climbed up the parapets, in tumult, darkness, and the presence of death, and having done with all pleasant things, advanced across No Man's Land to begin the Battle of the Somme. - Poet John Masefield.

    www.leohopkins.com
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    i thought earlier on someone implied that the ISS was a waste of space (excuse the pun)
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i thought earlier on someone implied that the ISS was a waste of space (excuse the pun)
    That was me. And it was more than an implication - it was a down and dirty, full steam ahead, damn the torpedoes, irrevocable condemnation of the beast. :wink:
    But leo may not have shared that point of view. Also, if the ISS were being used a rendezvous facility, rather than a faux research centre, my opinion of it would change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Ph.D. Steve Miller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Magdeburg, Saxony-Anhalt, Germany
    Posts
    782
    I read about the Orion and Ares I yesterday. You guys are sure the vehicle was not intended to be a rescue
    capsule docked to the IS, while Ares I'es are being basically radio beacons securing radio transmissions
    of the journeys to moon mars and beyond?.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Miller
    And why do you think rockets symbolize progress, while the shuttles don't. Apart from expenses let's say.
    Later technologies are clearly cost a tad more.
    How do you define "progress"? The shuttle was more "high tech" and it looked cooler, but it also cost more and was less safe. All the added technology actually made it worse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by marnixR
    i thought earlier on someone implied that the ISS was a waste of space (excuse the pun)
    I said that as well. And it is - because NASA insisted on building it with the stupid space shuttle that can't carry up much mass and costs a furtune to lanuch. The ISS has an internal volume of 425 cubic meters. It took seven separate shuttle missions to get the pieces up there. Compare that to the U.S. Skylab space station, which had an internal volume of 361 cubic meters and was launched in one piece with a single Saturn-V rocket launch.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    All the added technology actually made it worse.
    The phrases "They don't make 'em like they used to" and "Don't try and fix something that's not broken" come to mind. We always moan about the lack of funding for space research, but when you look at things from this angle, their reluctance make more sense. Maybe a management shake-up is needed?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    Maybe a management shake-up is needed?
    I think the problem goes deeper than this. There have been several management shakeups at NASA over the years. None seem to achieve anything more than a superficial improvement.
    I have always been puzzled by the contrast between the character/success etc of the manned space program compared with the unmanned program. Setting aside the odd problem with some of the Mars probes (that have afflicted the USSR, the Japanese and ESA also) the unmanned program has been a series of spectacular successes filled with first rate science and amazing discoveries.

    Edited to correct a plethora of typographical errors. Thanks to Steve Miller for drawing my attention to them.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Junior Twaaannnggg's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    248
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    How do you define "progress"? The shuttle was more "high tech" and it looked cooler, but it also cost more and was less safe. All the added technology actually made it worse.
    I got the notion that everybody thinks that the shuttle is high-tech......NOT.
    This thing is still using ye olden 80086-intel chips (for those born after 1985...... Intel used the 086, 286, 386[my first computer had one of these] and the 486es before they came up with the more flashier names like Pentium etc.) and the booohooo soooooo high-tech ceramic tiles for heat protection. Those are essentially nothing more than bathroom tiling made from a more refractory material. Never got them to stick O.K.
    And the whole concept is in my oppinion a sick joke. 90% of the thrust is provided by oversized firecrackers. Light them up and you can not stop them until they're burned out. Or explode. See back in 1986. Whoooohoooo.

    The Russians use the same old rockets and gradually improved them over time since the 1960ies. Hmmmmmm, I wonder why the Russians, Europeans and Chinese use the One-Shot-Rockets? MIght this be the more viable concept??
    Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a day, set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    it would appear that plans are on the cards again to use standard rockets to put people into space :

    No major hurdles to upgrade Atlas V rockets for people
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    5
    Well, i can say that orbital elevator project NASA is planning isn't going to work at all,

    I mean for christ sake, the thing the elevator goes on is as thin as PAPER.

    I wonder if any of them took into consideration orbital debris -___-
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •