DesertJets From United States of America, joined Feb 2000, 7907 posts, RR: 14
Reply 3, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4572 times:
This Easterbrook guy is an alarmist at best. I do understand where he is coming from. There are a lot of powerful people interested in maintain the status quo in the manned space flight program.
But I don't think a cost-benefit analysis is the best way to approach the problem. Has manned space-flight really detracted, monetarily that is, from unmannned missions? If this claim was true then there would be merit to his argument. I think the other falsehood in his argument is that NASA has made claims that space travel is safe. Anyone involved in that business knows the inherents risks involved with putting people into space using the relatively crude technology that we have. Rather I believe it is the cavalier attitude that the press and the public have towards space travel that creates the belief that it is safe.
But I do agree with him that there is a major problem. The culture at NASA, the aerospace firms, and in Washington has been supporting a far from satisfactory technology. Something needs to be done in the wake of the tradegdy, one to make the current fleet as safe as possible and secondly to meaningfully move ahead with new space lift technologies... manned and unmanned.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
EA CO AS From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 15365 posts, RR: 60
Reply 4, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4565 times:
What a total non-surprise.
I predicted we'd have this in about a week's time..the knee-jerk, reactionary crowd who can Monday-morning-quarterback themselves into a frenzy over things they know nothing about.
These people need to understand a few things:
1. Space exploration is dangerous.
2. Space exploration is expensive.
Those are two things that will never, ever change, no matter how much some people whine and wring their hands.
We cannot allow the mindset of these people who lack vision to corrupt the human race. What would have happened if Christopher Columbus and other explorers stayed home? Or if the Wright Brothers and other inventors decided that only birds should fly? Or if people listened to Bill Gates when he said that "512K is really all anyone should ever need," ?
We push the envelope in search of knowledge and understanding. We do this thanks to our innate curiosity and desire to learn and better ourselves.
Once we lose that in the name of "total safety" and "cost-effectiveness," then what have we become?
"In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem - government IS the problem." - Ronald Reagan
Jmacias34 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 380 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4548 times:
It takes 7-15 years of Reserach, Development & Production for a new Space Vehicle. Which would mean the International Space Station would be pretty much dorment except for Russian use. I don't think NASA or the taxpayers would like seeing their dollars just sit in space, unused... I classify this as a knee-jerk reaction. But that doesn't mean the writter doesn't have some valid points, I just don't agree with them.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4525 times:
Frankly, I did not read the whole article but I disagreed with the half or so I did read. I have heard these arguments before.
Yesterday, a former astronaut compared manned space travel to the ballet or symphony. Although the benefits of such things may not have direct, tangible benefits like the construction of a bridge or a school, they should be continued. I agree with him wholeheartedly.
Human space travel is still the frontier of human experience. We live through the experiences of the astronauts and our lives are richer for it. Cessation of manned space travel until it is 'safe' would be an unacceptable surrender.
I am confident that manned space travel will not be discontinued as suggested by the author.
Wingman From Seychelles, joined May 1999, 2887 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4500 times:
No Space Shuttle = No ISS = Forget the concept of space colonization. The shuttle is an incredible piece of engineering with 2 losses totaling 14 lives in 107 missions. Don't forget that ocean exploration was in its time (and still is today) another potentially deadly endeavor. I'm glad that the Vikings didn't pee themselves silly when their first boat sank and just decided to explore the bushes near their huts instead. Give up on exploration and might as well give up on life itself. The author of this article is an utter wanker.
AM From Mexico, joined Oct 1999, 600 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4466 times:
I agree with pretty much everything that's already been said. Personally, this kind of alarmist, overreacting articles make sick. Space flights have always been dangerous, and these risks exist. It is my belief, and I'm sure the belief of thousands of people, that tragedies like the Challenger's and the Columbia's can't be reason to discontinue manned space flights, but they should be reason to learn from mistakes, and work towards a more perfect manned space flight program. We have to move on. An author like the one who wrote this article is, obviously, too far from knowing half of the facts to make accusations and judgements like that.
Yes, the shuttle was built with late-70's technology, and a design more than 20 years old, but NASA just can't say "OK, we've had enough of it, let's move on to the next vehicle for our next mission". I don't know if I'm making myself clear. A new design takes time to be completed, especially with the more limited budget NASA can count on. If the government provides NASA with better funding, we could expect more rapid steps new vehicle design and completion.
I never thought I'd read an article like this on Time, I think I don't read it enough, overestimating it.
"... for there you have been and there you will long to return."
RayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8364 posts, RR: 4
Reply 10, posted (13 years 4 months 1 day ago) and read 4414 times:
Unless NASA at once puts up big money to man-rate the Atlas V and Delta IV so it can carry Orbital Sciences' small space plane the company has proposed, I still think it's better to find the cause of the breakup, then rebuild the remaining space shuttles with a new generation of thermal protection tiles that are more tolerant of FOD (foreign object damage) and redesign the insulation material on the external tank so it is less likely to fall off during the launch phase.
I remember during the late 1980's NASA did some very serious studies with a newer technology thermal protection tile that was much more tolerant of high temperatures and FOD; maybe it's time to revive that idea. And use the research into aerogels to come with with the best strong insulation material possible.
Boeing nut From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 23 hours ago) and read 4305 times:
These aurthors are the ones that annoy me the most. As others have said, he's just the monday morning quarterback.
He's also innacurate in one regard, the main engines on the shuttle are not the orginal ones that flew on Columbia in 1981. They are a newer design. I don't know when they first flew, but they are not the orginals.
Another thing, is he in the clouds about unmanned vehicles? They blow up more than the manned rockets do. In fact, correct me if I am wrong, the Challenger is the only fatality during a launch mode. So, when unmanned rockets fail, is he going to call for the end of the space program all together? What an asinine statement. If thats the case, let's ban cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, motorcycles, etc, etc, etc.
Joni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 20 hours ago) and read 4154 times:
I don't think that abandoning the Space Shuttle would mean the end of space exploration and (perhaps, eventual) colonization.
The Shuttle is a relic that has failed to do what it was designed to do (cheap access to space). It's still the only launcher that can deliver both a large cargo (albeit only to low orbit) and ferry humans. That doesn't mean it couldn't be replaces with something newer at some point in the future. It's still an awfully young century after all.
N79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 4112 times:
Money is always tight, space travel will be very risky for the foreseeable future, and life will go on. After this investigation is complete, NASA will decide the best course of action. I think the Shuttle program has life in it yet. No important human endeavor is without adversity.
Mbmbos From United States of America, joined May 2000, 2735 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 4097 times:
I agree with the article's claims about cost. Can you imagine how many experiments we could conduct, how many unmanned missions to other heavenly bodies we could dispatch and how many telescopes we could deploy if we were to shelve the manned space program for the time being?
Future colonization is a wonderful goal, but let's face it, we're got much more information to gather before we can even dream of traveling to distant planets or setting up space colonies.
In the mean time, we could make better use of the money to learn about our universe.
GDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13606 posts, RR: 76
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 4047 times:
The first great wave of unmanned probes were launched during the Apollo era, even the later Voyager missions were planned and approved then.
When Manned flight lost focus and funding, unmanned missions were cut too, when the Shuttle began flying more focussed missions in the 1990's, to support Hubble, Mir and the ISS, there was some revival in unmanned probes too, in this period for example NASA returned to the surface of Mars after 20 years, (and the original Viking landers of 1976 were an Apollo-era programme too), plus the first probes to the Asteroids.
A moribund space programme, with less focus, leads to less funding, which means less of everything.
AlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (13 years 4 months 19 hours ago) and read 4043 times:
The shuttle and ISS have one thing in common, they contribute virtually nothing to space exploration or colonization of space, and what little they contribute, comes at tremendous expense. Their "scientific experiments" are jokes, with more often than not political objectives (such as the first teacher in space, or John Glenn's free ride). We could learn a great deal more about our solar system by spending much less on automated space probes.
The space shuttle is an amazing vehicle, it can put a huge load into (very low) orbit, reasonably safe for the mission it was assigned, , but is grotesquely expensive, like a gold plated, diamond studded pickup truck. The biggest barrier to colonization is transportation costs, i.e. it costs too much (thousands of dollars) to put each pound of cargo into orbit. If these costs went from $1,000/lb down to $100/lb space colonization would become a reality.
The shuttle has not and will not lower lift costs. It would have been cheaper and better to continue developing Saturn V rockets than the shuttle. And by continuing to operate it, it sucks resources from newer space lift projects that have the potential to dramatically reduce these costs.
So don't romanticize the shuttle, it was a great accomplishment of early 1970's technologies, but it's time has passed. Cancel it and replace it with dozens of probes a year to Mars, Venus, the asteriods and every other planet in our solar system. If one fails another will just be a month behind it, and no-one will lose their life. And bid the launches all out to private corporations like Boeing and Ariane so they can compete with new technologies to continiously lower lift costs. Given enough time and effort the costs will decline dramatically, and we'll be able to build a real ISS that will be able to serve as a staging facility for additional exploration for a fraction the cost of today's boondoggle.
Keeping the shuttle around is like requiring airlines to fly nothing but DC3's, sure they were great in their day (though the DC3 actually performed as promised) but time moves on. If you disagree with me, pay for it yourself, I'm tired of being taxed up the wazoo for overpriced projects that should have been canceled years ago...
Saxman66 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 518 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (13 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 4028 times:
Why don't we just stop flying too. It's dangerous and costly. What about our cars. They're very deadly. So all in all, we should just stay home and do nothing. Its too risky to walk across the street. A car could hit you. Get my point?
MD-90 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 8530 posts, RR: 11
Reply 22, posted (13 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 4013 times:
For 20 years, the American space program has been wedded to a space-shuttle system that is too expensive, too risky, too big for most of the ways it is used, with budgets that suck up funds that could be invested in a modern system that would make space flight cheaper and safer. The space shuttle is impressive in technical terms, but in financial terms and safety terms no project has done more harm to space exploration.
He does have a point about that, however. It seems to me that the Space Shuttle has an air of Cold War American superiority about it, sort of a "damn the costs, we're doing it anyway," feel about it.
Switching to unmanned rockets for payload launching and a small space plane for those rare times humans are really needed would cut costs, which is why aerospace contractors have lobbied against such reform. Boeing and Lockheed Martin split roughly half the shuttle business through an Orwellian-named consortium called the United Space Alliance. It's a source of significant profit for both companies; United Space Alliance employs 6,400 contractor personnel for shuttle launches alone. Many other aerospace contractors also benefit from the space-shuttle program.
I also think that this makes sense. Of course, I'm biased. I live about 20 miles away from Marshal Space Flight Center (and the Redstone Arsenal) in Huntsville, AL. We're responsible for the design of the SSME (space shuttle main engine), which is the most complex engine of any sort ever designed.
I have to agree that the guy makes sense, though, although he's a little radical. I'm not sure if it's quite time to retire the Space Shuttles. I'd personally rather see them fly for a couple more years first.
FSPilot747 From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 3599 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (13 years 4 months 18 hours ago) and read 4007 times:
Our calculus teacher, a few years ago, did work with NASA. We were talking today about how old the technology is. He pulled out a graphing calculator and said, "this right here is more advanced than the computers on that shuttle."
The technology is old, the spacecraft is old. But funding is short, so the options are limited.
Magyar From Hungary, joined Feb 2000, 599 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (13 years 4 months 17 hours ago) and read 3968 times:
The only point IMHO the article has that NASA postponed
the creation of a Next Generation reusable or expandable
space vehicle for too long. Then when such catastrophe
happens they are risking being gounded and not having
Spaceflight is/was/ and will always be dangerous and accidents
will always happens. The article mentioned the failed Ariane 5
last month (fortunately nobody died). It is interesting
to recall what the flight menager (or whatever the head of the
mission called) right after the disaster. It was something like
''It is hard now. We have been here before, we overcame
failures before, we will overcome this one too.'' I think this
summarize everything that need to be said about the future
of space fligth.
: Good article: http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-simberg020303.asp
: I think AlaskaMVP and MD-90 hit it on the head. The shuttle is a great technological masterpiece, but from the 1970's. We have progressed so much fart
: well being from Houston maybe I am baised, and as an aviator, equally so, but I say, Hail Columbia and explore on!!!!! 'Dear Columbus, Magellan, Hudso
: The inflight computers on the shuttles have been updated heavily. Columbia, at least, featured a modern, all glass cockpit. I can't speak to the rest