Slashdot Mirror

Nope. NACA was an independent agency. It may have been created through a Naval appropriations bill, but in 1917, the comptroller of the Treasury ruled that it was independent. 10 Jan 1917.

NASA, which suceeded NACA, was created as an Independent Agency
The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201(e).
Space Act of 1958

Nope. NACA was an independent agency. It may have been created through a Naval appropriations bill, but in 1917, the comptroller of the Treasury ruled that it was independent. 10 Jan 1917.

NASA, which suceeded NACA, was created as an Independent Agency
The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 201(e).
Space Act of 1958

Agreed, there are very good reasons why they use older hardware with "known" problems rather than newer hardware with "unknown" problems.

James Tomayko has written an excellent book entitled "Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience". It appears to be available online - Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience.

Of particular interest would be Chapter Four: Computers in the Space Shuttle Avionics System

Agreed, there are very good reasons why they use older hardware with "known" problems rather than newer hardware with "unknown" problems.

James Tomayko has written an excellent book entitled "Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience". It appears to be available online - Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience.

Of particular interest would be Chapter Four: Computers in the Space Shuttle Avionics System

If your homeowner's insurance doesn't cover it, NASA is compensating for damages caused by the disaster: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/spacenews/releases/200 3/03-041.html

They have tested an EVA helper like you describe, it is called Sprint. It flew on STS-87, ironically this was a Columbia mission and also the only other flight for Kalpana Chawla.

They have tested an EVA helper like you describe, it is called Sprint. It flew on STS-87, ironically this was a Columbia mission and also the only other flight for Kalpana Chawla.

They have tested an EVA helper like you describe, it is called Sprint. It flew on STS-87, ironically this was a Columbia mission and also the only other flight for Kalpana Chawla.

Of course, if that were the moment at which, say, the wing separated from the fuselage, then the remainder of the craft would have immediately yawed severely to the left, exposing the antenna systems, crew cabin and everything else to the ungentle mercies of the plasma field, which would account for the nearly simultaneous loss of all comms.

To continue this line of speculation, the aerodynamic forces that the remainder of the craft would have been exposed to in this unplanned manuever probably would have been sufficient to cause it to break up further within a very short period of time.

The fact that scorched human remains have been recovered suggests that the crew cabin was compromised at high enough altitude and airspeed to expose its contents to re-entry heating, but that it stayed relatively intact until some later point in its trajectory. The recovery of the nearly-intact nose cone adds further possible details to this scenario.

Of course, if that were the moment at which, say, the wing separated from the fuselage, then the remainder of the craft would have immediately yawed severely to the left, exposing the antenna systems, crew cabin and everything else to the ungentle mercies of the plasma field, which would account for the nearly simultaneous loss of all comms.

To continue this line of speculation, the aerodynamic forces that the remainder of the craft would have been exposed to in this unplanned manuever probably would have been sufficient to cause it to break up further within a very short period of time.

The fact that scorched human remains have been recovered suggests that the crew cabin was compromised at high enough altitude and airspeed to expose its contents to re-entry heating, but that it stayed relatively intact until some later point in its trajectory. The recovery of the nearly-intact nose cone adds further possible details to this scenario.

Actually, though, hybrid engines can be relatively clean, and are especially safe.

Science@NASA put up an article last Friday about a hybrid rocket under development that uses paraffin as fuel. The technology is presented as a potential throttleable replacement for the Shuttle SRBs.

Um, you can't get 100% hydrogen peroxide. It exists in equilibrium with water; above a certain critical point it spontaneously (and slowly) decomposes to produce water and dissolved oxygen.

In fact, peroxide is a really great rocket fuel. It's cheap. It's easy to handle. It's environmentally friendly. It can be used in monoprop and biprop engines, depending on what you do with it. It's hypergolic, which means it's trivial to build restartable engines (the shuttle's engines aren't restartable; they can only start with assistance from the ground). It's safe, too --- much safer than hydrazine, the most common hypergolic fuel, which is horribly poisonous, carcinogenic and can be unstable, to boot.

Yes, hydrogen peroxide can be nasty. It's a rocket fuel, for gods' sake --- it's supposed to decompose violently. You just have to be careful, and it's a hell of a lot easier to manage than stuff like liquid oxygen. Now, that stuff really is painful to handle.

Peroxide isn't the best fuel; it's got a specific impulse of only about 160-190 seconds when used as a monoprop, but so does hydrazine. And, if you use it as a biprop with kerosene, it goes up to 200-230, which means your ship can have one small tank of kerosene for the main engines and one large tank of peroxide which runs the main engines plus the thrusters. Compare with the shuttle, which uses loads of different fuel types, each with their own storage and delivery systems.

(The best fuels on the referenced page are in the region of 300 to 385. Hydrogen and flourine. Ack!)

But hydrogen peroxide is the perfect choice for a small setup like Armadillo. All you need are a few simple safety precautions --- bleeder valves, non-reactive storage facilities, some basic technical expertise in handling the stuff --- and you're fine.

It seems like the preponderance of the evidence that we have is pointing to the latter -- too much yaw leading to complete disintegration.

WRT yaw, the RCS thrusters are capable only of a very limited amount of yaw authority at the altitude, speed and attitude the ship was at prior to the point where it broke up. The yaw authority of the rudder is much greater, but unfortunately it was still shrouded by the fuselage at this altitude due to nose-high pitch and not yet in the slipstream, and isn't even allowed to be controlled until the ship slows down to about Mach 3.5 ( See this NASA webpage for details )

And why the heck have we accepted fuel tanks that shed chunks of insulation during launch, anyway?

Well, the ice buildup in and on the insulation is what makes chunks of it susceptable to tearing off, plus the ice is very heavy and does the lion's share of the damage. I bet we can see a re-design here to make insulation that is vastly more resistant to tearing away, even when loaded down with lots of ice. We might also see new limits on operational parameters forbidding launch when temperature and humidity levels are outside a much more narrowly defined envelope from now on too. That one will be tough, since the launch location is a naturally extremely humid place. Maybe we should move the launch site to the driest desert in Nevada or California instead.

Why, yes I can.

Educate yourself on u-g and then I'll answer your second question.

"The foam is fragile enough to have been damaged once in a hailstorm...

Does it make anyone else just a tad uncomfortable that such critical systems, exposed to such extreme temperature and pressure stresses, are so bloody delicate? In a way, it's remarkable that the shuttles made it through as many flights as they did without serious re-entry damage.

Details about the personal rescue Enclosure

What ever happened to it

Since when does the National Aeronautics and Space Agency mean Space Agency? Take a look at the descriptions of their centers. And tell me how many mention space. Or look at their budget .

For all I know, the space shuttle was just an advertising and publicity event to give NASA a good view in the public. Looks like it worked pretty well.

Since when does the National Aeronautics and Space Agency mean Space Agency? Take a look at the descriptions of their centers. And tell me how many mention space. Or look at their budget .

For all I know, the space shuttle was just an advertising and publicity event to give NASA a good view in the public. Looks like it worked pretty well.

As of September 2000,
"There are currently 138 US Astronauts and 17 candidates in the program. 129 astronauts have retired, resigned or been reassigned, and 27 are deceased." source (pdf).

I wanted to vent a bit about ABCNews.com's coverage of the shuttle disaster. In this story, the fourth from the last paragraph reads (note about challenger, not columbia):

Challenger's nose section, with the crew cabin inside, was blown free from the explosion and plummeted 8.7 miles from the sky. NASA learned from on-board voice recorders that the astronauts lived through much of the capsule's death plunge. The capsule shattered after hitting the ocean at 140 to 180 mph.

Now, for those of you that are aware, the second sentence refers to a weekly world news article, which as you know, is america's second finest news source. A google search quickly found a debunking article. There are no audio tapes suggesting that the pilots survived "much of the ... death plunge." The correct information can be found here.

Anyway, I just wanted to vent, because ABCNews has a responsibility to print facts, and, AFAIK, they didn't even announce the correction, although subsequence stories with the same content did fix it. What's with internet news services and not announcing corrections (again AFAIK)?

If they can't get history correct, how can they fairly report on the present?

-Sean

Wow! 62000 miles is long. Consider the fact that the radius of earth is about 6371.01 km (3981 miles), I seriously wonder the necessity for a shaft almost 8 times the diameter of the earth hanging off into space. I know it's a typo on their part but they really shouldn't let something like this to appear twice in one page.

This was actually the second flight since the refit (the third one) in 1999. The development flight instrumentation was removed in the first refit in 1991.
Columbia Info

Now, there used to be a different foam they used. One that worked, and didn't flake off. In 1997-98 they changed to a new foam and have had continual problems with chunks of it breaking off. Why didn't they stick with the foam that stuck ? Because the new foam had fewer CFCs, thus being friendlier to the Sierra Club. The director of the EPA explicitly exempted NASA from having to comply with those regulations, but the lure of fuzzy warm PC-ness was too grate and NASA killed another 7 anyway.

Expect to see very little of that mentioned in our wimpy controversy-phobic media.

Proof that NASA new the new tree-hugger friendly foam was flaking of can be found in the press release for these experiments to determine why:

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewsReleases/199 9/99-01.html

In the 1950s a mental disease among intellectuals made them more likely to sympathize with the theories and propaganda of Stalin's world wide mafia; strict measures had to be taken to filter out of offices of power any college-educated people who had dabbled in communist party meetings in school or afterwards. Similarly, in the world of engineering today, strict measures will have to be imposed to remove those to show the dangerous prediliction to subordinate the safety of their fellow man to some ivory tower creed.

I don't like to break this to you, but nanotubules simply do not have the tensile strength to support a space elevator (the studies carried out on this were in New Scientist about 3 years ago, I don't recall the exact date). The only substance strong enough to build a space elevator with is neutronium,

What are you talking about? According to this article, the tensile strength needed for a space elevator is 62GPa. Which is fucking insane for anyone who understands stress and strain of materials. And according to this site, carbon nanotubes have a tensile strength of 150 to 200GPa. Which is even insaner (if I can use that word!)

Now, the process for producing nanotubes is expansive, and the nanotubes that are produced are very small. To make miles of nanotube cable (to the knowledge) is not possible, but they are working on it. Well, not miles of nanotubes, but longer strands.

Carbon nanotubes can definitely support the weight, as well as the temperatures needed to support a space elevator.

I know this is way at the end of the discussion, but it doesn't look like anyone's saying it. To my mind, the problem with re-engaging human exploration of the solar system is that it all needs to be done a little bit at a time: we can't just say "build the Mars transit vehicle, here's the money" and expect it to be done directly.

I think a case can be made that the most interesting activities of the current space program are the Hubble space telescope, followed by the Voyager missions. And when I think that they launched the Voyager craft 30 years ago, with only planetary objectives, I just feel lucky that they're out there.

So what I think should be done is to re-fund something along the lines of the Pluto Kuiper Express mission, but equip the craft for some serious extra-solar science. And an energy source and transmission capabilities appropriate for a very long distance/time. Shoot, screw Pluto, maybe just send it out of here as fast and direct as possible.

Honestly, I want to send something up that makes my son say in 2040, gee, dad, I'm so happy your generation decided to launch that, we're getting such cool data and it's so far away...

I know this is way at the end of the discussion, but it doesn't look like anyone's saying it. To my mind, the problem with re-engaging human exploration of the solar system is that it all needs to be done a little bit at a time: we can't just say "build the Mars transit vehicle, here's the money" and expect it to be done directly.

I think a case can be made that the most interesting activities of the current space program are the Hubble space telescope, followed by the Voyager missions. And when I think that they launched the Voyager craft 30 years ago, with only planetary objectives, I just feel lucky that they're out there.

So what I think should be done is to re-fund something along the lines of the Pluto Kuiper Express mission, but equip the craft for some serious extra-solar science. And an energy source and transmission capabilities appropriate for a very long distance/time. Shoot, screw Pluto, maybe just send it out of here as fast and direct as possible.

Honestly, I want to send something up that makes my son say in 2040, gee, dad, I'm so happy your generation decided to launch that, we're getting such cool data and it's so far away...

I know this is way at the end of the discussion, but it doesn't look like anyone's saying it. To my mind, the problem with re-engaging human exploration of the solar system is that it all needs to be done a little bit at a time: we can't just say "build the Mars transit vehicle, here's the money" and expect it to be done directly.

I think a case can be made that the most interesting activities of the current space program are the Hubble space telescope, followed by the Voyager missions. And when I think that they launched the Voyager craft 30 years ago, with only planetary objectives, I just feel lucky that they're out there.

So what I think should be done is to re-fund something along the lines of the Pluto Kuiper Express mission, but equip the craft for some serious extra-solar science. And an energy source and transmission capabilities appropriate for a very long distance/time. Shoot, screw Pluto, maybe just send it out of here as fast and direct as possible.

Honestly, I want to send something up that makes my son say in 2040, gee, dad, I'm so happy your generation decided to launch that, we're getting such cool data and it's so far away...

I know the general public finds thrills in both robotic and human missions; the real problem has been the ultra-cautious and pork-laced patterns in which NASA has been forced to play by congress for the last few decades.

because the O-rings in its solid-fuel boosters leaked

because the boosters are made in two pieces

because the boosters have to be transported by rail and barge

because the boosters are manufactured in Utah

because the money to run the Shuttle has to be sprinkled across as many Congressional districts as possible (see here and here, especially the list of subcontractors at the bottom of the second one).

Before Challenger, the Air Force was planning to have a Shuttle fleet of its own, operating out of Vandenberg AFB. The Air Force Shuttle's boosters were going to be made all in one piece, on site, and would have been stronger and lighter than the reusable Shuttle SRBs, allowing more payload to orbit. They wouldn't have been reusable, but I doubt they would have been a lot more expensive when you factor in the costs of recycling SRBs (recovery, transport to and from Utah and refurbishing).

As usual, when you show Congress an engineering versus safety decision, it will choose the option that spends the most money in the most districts.

You're totally right, except maybe on the Wallpaper thing (I use a Mac and we called them "Desktop Pictures" first -- what the heck is this "wallpaper" thing anyway? It's a desktop, not a wall. :) I thought of Voyager later. A lot of Voyager was overshadowed by the Shuttle, both its successes and, directly, the Challenger catastrophe.

Viking had more of that "defining moment" quality with the actual landings (two!). The idea of these robotic human-designed craft setting down on MARS was amazing to me in a way I suppose Apollo touchdown to have been. I thought the Pathfinder "hard landings" were cheating a little. :)

Yet I don't have any real interest in sending humans to Mars, not because I'm older and wiser but because the inefficiency and mortal risk are just too huge for a "gee whiz" moment. Apollo can be described uncharitably as a "stunt" -- a damn cool one but also a damn lucky one for loss of life. Apollo 13 wasn't the only close call; Apollo 12 avoided total breakup when it was struck by lightning because of accident of design. Look at the extremely expensive double failure in 1999 -- at least no one was killed. Even NASA's unmanned plans for Mars are stumbling badly.

Voyager -- that those things are still functioning 25 years later! -- and doddering Galileo -- also well past its design life -- are what draw my attention. The brilliant Galileo tape recorder repair is mentioned here.

Manned spaceflight, specifically the Moon landing, is an amazing accomplishment that will always symbolize so much, but it can't compete now with the performance of the engineers in these ingenious probe projects. I don't want the the program gutted, I want it refocused and improved with modern sensibilities adn technologies.

Even ISS can be serviced mostly by "dumb" rockets, as was Mir, if we must go the route of a space station. (Yes, the Mir resupply vehicle had a fender-bender, but humans could have done that, too.) The shuttle's role there has been overemphasized so that the shuttle would have a role as all.

You're totally right, except maybe on the Wallpaper thing (I use a Mac and we called them "Desktop Pictures" first -- what the heck is this "wallpaper" thing anyway? It's a desktop, not a wall. :) I thought of Voyager later. A lot of Voyager was overshadowed by the Shuttle, both its successes and, directly, the Challenger catastrophe.

Viking had more of that "defining moment" quality with the actual landings (two!). The idea of these robotic human-designed craft setting down on MARS was amazing to me in a way I suppose Apollo touchdown to have been. I thought the Pathfinder "hard landings" were cheating a little. :)

Yet I don't have any real interest in sending humans to Mars, not because I'm older and wiser but because the inefficiency and mortal risk are just too huge for a "gee whiz" moment. Apollo can be described uncharitably as a "stunt" -- a damn cool one but also a damn lucky one for loss of life. Apollo 13 wasn't the only close call; Apollo 12 avoided total breakup when it was struck by lightning because of accident of design. Look at the extremely expensive double failure in 1999 -- at least no one was killed. Even NASA's unmanned plans for Mars are stumbling badly.

Voyager -- that those things are still functioning 25 years later! -- and doddering Galileo -- also well past its design life -- are what draw my attention. The brilliant Galileo tape recorder repair is mentioned here.

Manned spaceflight, specifically the Moon landing, is an amazing accomplishment that will always symbolize so much, but it can't compete now with the performance of the engineers in these ingenious probe projects. I don't want the the program gutted, I want it refocused and improved with modern sensibilities adn technologies.

Even ISS can be serviced mostly by "dumb" rockets, as was Mir, if we must go the route of a space station. (Yes, the Mir resupply vehicle had a fender-bender, but humans could have done that, too.) The shuttle's role there has been overemphasized so that the shuttle would have a role as all.

NASA did not invent Tang. General Foods marketed it to NASA which they used for the astronauts. Add water, and you have a nice drink.

However, there are plenty of other space technology "spinoffs". I believe WD-40 was.

To learn more check out NASA Spinoffs. There is also a link to examples of spinoffs from Space Shuttle technology. The first link has many back issues.

NASA did not invent Tang. General Foods marketed it to NASA which they used for the astronauts. Add water, and you have a nice drink.

However, there are plenty of other space technology "spinoffs". I believe WD-40 was.

To learn more check out NASA Spinoffs. There is also a link to examples of spinoffs from Space Shuttle technology. The first link has many back issues.

I've never bought into the nanotech religion. We already have the functional equivalent of large-scale robotic assembly. We call these labor units "people". Maybe they are a pain to support in space, but they do function correctly - er, most of the time. ;-) Also, who or what ends up controlling nanotech gets to control space exploration. Not necessarily a good thing.

It's entirely possible that... (Score:2) by constantnormal (512494) on Wednesday February 05, @04:21AM (#5229999) ... until we achieve practical nanotechnology or large-scale robotic assembly (both here and in orbit), that making space travel practical will simply be too expensive. However, that having been said, making expensive incremental advances is the best we can do until then -- so we must keep plodding along. But what I want to know is WHY haven't important advances like the linear aerospike engine developed for the X-33 been put to use? I thought NASA's job was to push technology forward, not to bury it. For those unaware of what a linear aerospike engine is, here's one small tidbit that helps explain its value: conventional rocket engines lose effectiveness as the ambient air pressure changes and must use expensive and complex nozzle geometry changes to minimize this. The linear aerospike maintains a near-constant efficiency from surface to orbit.

I started to whine about the lack of real information contained in the above link. However, when I google for aerospike engines, I find that all the information is being dropped from the internet. For now, here's a couple of links that work - the FAQ on aerospikes and the remnants of the aerospike homepage. Googling on the USENET proved to be much more valuable in that I actually saw comparisons of aerospike technologies with regular nozzles.

The technology indeed looks interesting (and more important seems to work!), but the problem can also be solved by getting the craft out of atmosphere ASAP. Now that's done with a first stage optimized for performance in this region. Ie, it's much more compelling a feature for a SSTO (single stage to orbit) than the usual multistage rocket.

I've never bought into the nanotech religion. We already have the functional equivalent of large-scale robotic assembly. We call these labor units "people". Maybe they are a pain to support in space, but they do function correctly - er, most of the time. ;-) Also, who or what ends up controlling nanotech gets to control space exploration. Not necessarily a good thing.

It's entirely possible that... (Score:2) by constantnormal (512494) on Wednesday February 05, @04:21AM (#5229999) ... until we achieve practical nanotechnology or large-scale robotic assembly (both here and in orbit), that making space travel practical will simply be too expensive. However, that having been said, making expensive incremental advances is the best we can do until then -- so we must keep plodding along. But what I want to know is WHY haven't important advances like the linear aerospike engine developed for the X-33 been put to use? I thought NASA's job was to push technology forward, not to bury it. For those unaware of what a linear aerospike engine is, here's one small tidbit that helps explain its value: conventional rocket engines lose effectiveness as the ambient air pressure changes and must use expensive and complex nozzle geometry changes to minimize this. The linear aerospike maintains a near-constant efficiency from surface to orbit.

I started to whine about the lack of real information contained in the above link. However, when I google for aerospike engines, I find that all the information is being dropped from the internet. For now, here's a couple of links that work - the FAQ on aerospikes and the remnants of the aerospike homepage. Googling on the USENET proved to be much more valuable in that I actually saw comparisons of aerospike technologies with regular nozzles.

The technology indeed looks interesting (and more important seems to work!), but the problem can also be solved by getting the craft out of atmosphere ASAP. Now that's done with a first stage optimized for performance in this region. Ie, it's much more compelling a feature for a SSTO (single stage to orbit) than the usual multistage rocket.

The older generation remembers Apollo 11 as a defining moment. I was 2. For me, it was the wildly successful twin Viking landings in 1977

I really did not give this any thought until this last weekend. I always thought that NASA's odds of another disaster were a bit optimistic, but I thought that NASA had a handle on it.

Then after the disaster I heard NASA administrator O'Keefe say "We will find out what is wrong, fix it, and continue flying."

I found this particularly saccarhin (esp. as it was the same thing they said after Challenger - like a script), and I started asking myself, what is it we are trying to accomplish here?? Certainly, it's not good science.

It's like the the little thread on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing comes unravelled.

The whole NASA organization seems to be so self-deluded that it feels that it needs to continue manned space exploration (specifically shuttle flights), even though they are not accomplishing anything important (certainly not science), other than a public relalions campaign. At $3 billion a year on shuttle flights, not including the ISS, it's an expensive PR campaign. I too think the idea of a teacher in space is ridiculous (and they are even now promising to press on with it). Richard Feyman said at the end of his report on the Challenger disaster;

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

I came to the same exact conclusion you did, and am grateful that there is another slashdot poster of like mind, admist the irrational chorus of "manned spaceflight must go on."

BTW, I too think that the Viking missions was a hight point.

The Russians were able to keep a space station in orbit for years, while only using 'capsule' technology. Until we get a new generation of reusable spaceship going, let's go back to that. It was good enough to get us to the moon and back 30+ years ago. Imagine what they could do now. Safer, cheaper, etc.

You actually hit on a very interesting point. As far as the reusable Shuttle Program was designed to make space travel more common and more efficient, I don't know (1) what was the end purpose of this, and (2) how well it achieved this efficiency.

Some would argue that during 60s when Apollo program was being developed, it had a clear purpose of putting manned mission on the Moon. That mission was achieved, and very successfully at that, U.S. seemed to slam the Soviets back with "Aha! Take that!" answer to Soviets' first man in orbit.

After that, it is my opinion, that NASA had a general lack of guidance towards such a specific goal as before. The Shuttle Program was being developed during 70s. Since the U.S. didn't at that time have or plan to operate a space station, why was there such a need to take extensive cargo and operate regularly in the orbit? Some would argue that, this happening during the heat of cold war, it was going to be used to easily lift heavier cargo into space, possibly with defense and military implications. Hence, Soviet response to the Shuttle Program was the development of their own reusable vehicles in the same period.

A very interesting website describing this program, its achievements and failures is located here. Buran was the name of the first of several vehicles Soviets planned to make and operate. It was designed to take more cargo, more people into space, and operate in conjunction with the Mir space station, and future Mir2. They did manage to make and test Buran with the test flight in the orbit in 1988 before the cash-strapped program was cancelled in 1993; in addition, of course, to the break-up of the USSR and other major political events at that time.

The interesting part are the differences between the U.S. Shuttles and Buran:

- Buran is taken to space by the heavy lift system "Energyia", able to lift more weight into orbit than any existing system;
- Buran does not have the main engine, like Shuttles. The main engine is part of Energyia system; this provides for a safer design while allowing the vehicle to lift more into space;
- Energyia uses 4 (I believe) liquid rocket boosters, rather than NASA's solid rocket boosters, also providing for a safer method;
- Most of Energyia system, other than the main tank (I believe), is reusable;
- Buran is totally automatic, including re-entry and landing are controlled from the ground.

In fact, Buran's only test flight in 1988, even in NASA's words, demonstrated much promise. The unmanned orbit flight, return and landing were a success. They say there were 5 tiles missing, but there were actually 6 missing on Buran. Russia can not operate Buran after its funding problems. They have stuck with Soyuz capsules.

This raises some questions as well as opportunities. First questions:

- Since both Shuttle Program and Buran(s) were designed during cold war for (at least) partly military purposes, are they still the best way to operate orbital flights and research?
- Many argue Shuttles have an undefined purpose within the space program. What are space program's mid and long term goals?
- Does ISS, or any such multi-national alliance provide NASA the tools with which it can achieve its goals?

Depending on the answers above, I am wondering if it could be a possibility, at least in the short to mid-term to revive the Buran program and/or to use the heavy lift system like Energyia as a transition to a newer, safer, more efficient, and more reliable spacecraft like NASA has planned for future.

1) Send a robot to Mars with empty tanks, a reactor, a pump, and telemetry. Let it mine the Martian atmosphere for a year or so to extract oxygen from C02 in the thin air, and H2 from the water vapor in the thin air. Check on it to make sure there are plenty of both before sending the people, and then you don't have to carry your return fuel and oxygen all the way there. The savings are astounding! Here is one plan.

2)Put a base on the north pole of the Moon. There 's water there (as ice) so with energy from a reactor you can make a livable place much cheaper than at a space station. It lots easer to get rocks to protect your living quarters too! Melt the rocks down to make the equivalent of fiber glass, concrete, etc. It's very much cheaper to take off from the Moon, (even at its north pole) than it is from the Earth at its equator.

3)Talk to Burt Rutan about making an airbreather plane that converts to a rocket after it leaves the atmophere. Most of the weight of a rocket now is oxidant.

Here's another linkdetailing the booster improvements.

Here's a link to some SRB technical documentation, very good reading for the engineer types.

There is much more documentation available at this site pertaining to all of the shuttle's systems for the those interested.

The last (successful) big project they had was the unmanned Pathfinder mission. It was a great success for them, but was followed by two failures (Mars Global Surveyor and it's sister lander).

By what measure was MGS a failure?!!

Uh, no. Nobody's figured out how to keep a scramjet lit. The Australians did it for about six seconds, which is a record for a free-flying vehicle.

Last semester my classmates and I wrote a draft for the AIAA design paper competition for a reusable, air breathing single stage to orbit "rocket" plane.

Bottom line? Unless we get a lot better fuels, or radically lighter structures, it's not going to work. That's even assuming that you can keep the scramjet lit. (which would get you a PhD, if not a Nobel prize)

X-30 is not the way. Venture Star was much closer. A shuttle-oid with Boeing's fly-back boosters might be a really good short term solution.

You know, the Hubble Telescope has to be the brightest gem of the Space Shuttle. And the science that it produces is wonderful and worthwhile.

But how much did this cost? From this FAQ;

"Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit."

Then from this budget FAQ;

"For fiscal year 2000, the Shuttle budget is $2.98 billion."

So using NASA's own numbers you could nearly replace the Hubble Space Telescope twice over every year for what it costs to fly the space shuttles yearly. So if you need different equipment in a space telescope, you could just send up a new telescope for what it costs to fly the shuttle a couple of flights.

That's why commercial satellites are replaced outright rather than retrieved and repaired. It's just not worth it.

In fact, NASA's next generation space telescope doesn't use a space shuttle to get it into orbit nor will it use a space shuttle to service it.

There will probably be other missions like HST, missions that for whatever reason will require human intervention if they are to succeed. Maybe they will be faulty in some regard, and in need of repair; maybe they'll just need maintenance or upgrading or whatever. But they'll need something, every great once in a while

The space shuttle is only accomplishing a small fraction of it's original designed mission. The space shuttle truly fits the cliche' of "being able to do all things, but is good at none of them." The space station seems created as an afterthought to give the shuttle something to do. If a manned spaceflight "is needed every great once in a while" then have manned spaceflight as needed "every great once in a while". But using the shuttle as a commuter to space is not wise From that report "...this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner."

I am sure that the need for manned spaceflight may appear. But in light of this recent disaster, one has to ask at what cost that the need will be met at.

There are other, less tangible benefits to human spaceflight; but they are appeals to the soul, not the mind, and it is for each of us to decide how much weight they can hold. That is a topic for another post; this one is long enough.

I stayed up all night and watched in wonder and awe as the Coulmbia first launched into space. I really believed in NASA and the space shuttle. Even after the first Challenger disaster I was able to believe that it was a "one-off" and that the problems were really fixed.

Up to this last weekend, I towed the NASA line and thought the space program was on track. I always thought the chances of a disaster, while high, would not be seen in the shuttle's lifetime.

But after this disaster, something was bothering me. It was like a quiet voice down deep that I wasn't listening to. Hearing the statements by everybody sounded just the same as after the Challenger disaster. The more I thought about, the more I asked "what is it we are trying to do here???"

It's like the little string on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing becomes unravelled

The more I looked, the more I realized that the space shuttle is a deluded effort, and delusions were what driving most of the decisions made at NASA. The more I researched it, the more it became apparent that it was "the less tangible benefits" that was driving the space program, not the search for quality science. NASA is not being honest by saying otherwise. Otherwise they would give up the PR stunt of getting a teacher into space.

As Richard Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

I think that perhaps that is my rub. NASA is not being honest with the public as to the real costs of continuuing to fly the shuttle. Not just the risks to human life, but what missed opportunites that are lost because the funds are spent on trying to keep the shuttle flying.

It's the "less tangible benefits" that is preventing real science from moving forward. And I do not think they are worth having to pick up pieces of shuttle and astronauts over three states either.

The need for manned spaceflight at the costs (both human risk and fiscally) just is not apparent to me at this time. And pursuing the "less tangible benefits" while noble can not be justified with current shuttle technology.

You know, the Hubble Telescope has to be the brightest gem of the Space Shuttle. And the science that it produces is wonderful and worthwhile.

But how much did this cost? From this FAQ;

"Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit."

Then from this budget FAQ;

"For fiscal year 2000, the Shuttle budget is $2.98 billion."

So using NASA's own numbers you could nearly replace the Hubble Space Telescope twice over every year for what it costs to fly the space shuttles yearly. So if you need different equipment in a space telescope, you could just send up a new telescope for what it costs to fly the shuttle a couple of flights.

That's why commercial satellites are replaced outright rather than retrieved and repaired. It's just not worth it.

In fact, NASA's next generation space telescope doesn't use a space shuttle to get it into orbit nor will it use a space shuttle to service it.

There will probably be other missions like HST, missions that for whatever reason will require human intervention if they are to succeed. Maybe they will be faulty in some regard, and in need of repair; maybe they'll just need maintenance or upgrading or whatever. But they'll need something, every great once in a while

The space shuttle is only accomplishing a small fraction of it's original designed mission. The space shuttle truly fits the cliche' of "being able to do all things, but is good at none of them." The space station seems created as an afterthought to give the shuttle something to do. If a manned spaceflight "is needed every great once in a while" then have manned spaceflight as needed "every great once in a while". But using the shuttle as a commuter to space is not wise From that report "...this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner."

I am sure that the need for manned spaceflight may appear. But in light of this recent disaster, one has to ask at what cost that the need will be met at.

There are other, less tangible benefits to human spaceflight; but they are appeals to the soul, not the mind, and it is for each of us to decide how much weight they can hold. That is a topic for another post; this one is long enough.

I stayed up all night and watched in wonder and awe as the Coulmbia first launched into space. I really believed in NASA and the space shuttle. Even after the first Challenger disaster I was able to believe that it was a "one-off" and that the problems were really fixed.

Up to this last weekend, I towed the NASA line and thought the space program was on track. I always thought the chances of a disaster, while high, would not be seen in the shuttle's lifetime.

But after this disaster, something was bothering me. It was like a quiet voice down deep that I wasn't listening to. Hearing the statements by everybody sounded just the same as after the Challenger disaster. The more I thought about, the more I asked "what is it we are trying to do here???"

It's like the little string on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing becomes unravelled

The more I looked, the more I realized that the space shuttle is a deluded effort, and delusions were what driving most of the decisions made at NASA. The more I researched it, the more it became apparent that it was "the less tangible benefits" that was driving the space program, not the search for quality science. NASA is not being honest by saying otherwise. Otherwise they would give up the PR stunt of getting a teacher into space.

As Richard Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

I think that perhaps that is my rub. NASA is not being honest with the public as to the real costs of continuuing to fly the shuttle. Not just the risks to human life, but what missed opportunites that are lost because the funds are spent on trying to keep the shuttle flying.

It's the "less tangible benefits" that is preventing real science from moving forward. And I do not think they are worth having to pick up pieces of shuttle and astronauts over three states either.

The need for manned spaceflight at the costs (both human risk and fiscally) just is not apparent to me at this time. And pursuing the "less tangible benefits" while noble can not be justified with current shuttle technology.

You know, the Hubble Telescope has to be the brightest gem of the Space Shuttle. And the science that it produces is wonderful and worthwhile.

But how much did this cost? From this FAQ;

"Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit."

Then from this budget FAQ;

"For fiscal year 2000, the Shuttle budget is $2.98 billion."

So using NASA's own numbers you could nearly replace the Hubble Space Telescope twice over every year for what it costs to fly the space shuttles yearly. So if you need different equipment in a space telescope, you could just send up a new telescope for what it costs to fly the shuttle a couple of flights.

That's why commercial satellites are replaced outright rather than retrieved and repaired. It's just not worth it.

In fact, NASA's next generation space telescope doesn't use a space shuttle to get it into orbit nor will it use a space shuttle to service it.

There will probably be other missions like HST, missions that for whatever reason will require human intervention if they are to succeed. Maybe they will be faulty in some regard, and in need of repair; maybe they'll just need maintenance or upgrading or whatever. But they'll need something, every great once in a while

The space shuttle is only accomplishing a small fraction of it's original designed mission. The space shuttle truly fits the cliche' of "being able to do all things, but is good at none of them." The space station seems created as an afterthought to give the shuttle something to do. If a manned spaceflight "is needed every great once in a while" then have manned spaceflight as needed "every great once in a while". But using the shuttle as a commuter to space is not wise From that report "...this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner."

I am sure that the need for manned spaceflight may appear. But in light of this recent disaster, one has to ask at what cost that the need will be met at.

There are other, less tangible benefits to human spaceflight; but they are appeals to the soul, not the mind, and it is for each of us to decide how much weight they can hold. That is a topic for another post; this one is long enough.

I stayed up all night and watched in wonder and awe as the Coulmbia first launched into space. I really believed in NASA and the space shuttle. Even after the first Challenger disaster I was able to believe that it was a "one-off" and that the problems were really fixed.

Up to this last weekend, I towed the NASA line and thought the space program was on track. I always thought the chances of a disaster, while high, would not be seen in the shuttle's lifetime.

But after this disaster, something was bothering me. It was like a quiet voice down deep that I wasn't listening to. Hearing the statements by everybody sounded just the same as after the Challenger disaster. The more I thought about, the more I asked "what is it we are trying to do here???"

It's like the little string on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing becomes unravelled

The more I looked, the more I realized that the space shuttle is a deluded effort, and delusions were what driving most of the decisions made at NASA. The more I researched it, the more it became apparent that it was "the less tangible benefits" that was driving the space program, not the search for quality science. NASA is not being honest by saying otherwise. Otherwise they would give up the PR stunt of getting a teacher into space.

As Richard Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

I think that perhaps that is my rub. NASA is not being honest with the public as to the real costs of continuuing to fly the shuttle. Not just the risks to human life, but what missed opportunites that are lost because the funds are spent on trying to keep the shuttle flying.

It's the "less tangible benefits" that is preventing real science from moving forward. And I do not think they are worth having to pick up pieces of shuttle and astronauts over three states either.

The need for manned spaceflight at the costs (both human risk and fiscally) just is not apparent to me at this time. And pursuing the "less tangible benefits" while noble can not be justified with current shuttle technology.

You know, the Hubble Telescope has to be the brightest gem of the Space Shuttle. And the science that it produces is wonderful and worthwhile.

But how much did this cost? From this FAQ;

"Initially Hubble cost $1.5 billion to build and put into orbit."

Then from this budget FAQ;

"For fiscal year 2000, the Shuttle budget is $2.98 billion."

So using NASA's own numbers you could nearly replace the Hubble Space Telescope twice over every year for what it costs to fly the space shuttles yearly. So if you need different equipment in a space telescope, you could just send up a new telescope for what it costs to fly the shuttle a couple of flights.

That's why commercial satellites are replaced outright rather than retrieved and repaired. It's just not worth it.

In fact, NASA's next generation space telescope doesn't use a space shuttle to get it into orbit nor will it use a space shuttle to service it.

There will probably be other missions like HST, missions that for whatever reason will require human intervention if they are to succeed. Maybe they will be faulty in some regard, and in need of repair; maybe they'll just need maintenance or upgrading or whatever. But they'll need something, every great once in a while

The space shuttle is only accomplishing a small fraction of it's original designed mission. The space shuttle truly fits the cliche' of "being able to do all things, but is good at none of them." The space station seems created as an afterthought to give the shuttle something to do. If a manned spaceflight "is needed every great once in a while" then have manned spaceflight as needed "every great once in a while". But using the shuttle as a commuter to space is not wise From that report "...this has had very unfortunate consequences, the most serious of which is to encourage ordinary citizens to fly in such a dangerous machine, as if it had attained the safety of an ordinary airliner."

I am sure that the need for manned spaceflight may appear. But in light of this recent disaster, one has to ask at what cost that the need will be met at.

There are other, less tangible benefits to human spaceflight; but they are appeals to the soul, not the mind, and it is for each of us to decide how much weight they can hold. That is a topic for another post; this one is long enough.

I stayed up all night and watched in wonder and awe as the Coulmbia first launched into space. I really believed in NASA and the space shuttle. Even after the first Challenger disaster I was able to believe that it was a "one-off" and that the problems were really fixed.

Up to this last weekend, I towed the NASA line and thought the space program was on track. I always thought the chances of a disaster, while high, would not be seen in the shuttle's lifetime.

But after this disaster, something was bothering me. It was like a quiet voice down deep that I wasn't listening to. Hearing the statements by everybody sounded just the same as after the Challenger disaster. The more I thought about, the more I asked "what is it we are trying to do here???"

It's like the little string on the sweater, once you pull it the whole thing becomes unravelled

The more I looked, the more I realized that the space shuttle is a deluded effort, and delusions were what driving most of the decisions made at NASA. The more I researched it, the more it became apparent that it was "the less tangible benefits" that was driving the space program, not the search for quality science. NASA is not being honest by saying otherwise. Otherwise they would give up the PR stunt of getting a teacher into space.

As Richard Feynman put it "For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

I think that perhaps that is my rub. NASA is not being honest with the public as to the real costs of continuuing to fly the shuttle. Not just the risks to human life, but what missed opportunites that are lost because the funds are spent on trying to keep the shuttle flying.

It's the "less tangible benefits" that is preventing real science from moving forward. And I do not think they are worth having to pick up pieces of shuttle and astronauts over three states either.

The need for manned spaceflight at the costs (both human risk and fiscally) just is not apparent to me at this time. And pursuing the "less tangible benefits" while noble can not be justified with current shuttle technology.

Aside from the no-immediate-use stuff like "How do ants behave in space?" (answer: they dig like crazy), sooner or later we are going to have to send humans off-planet on a permanent/extended trip. Maybe we decide to start mining asteroids, or whatever, but it will most certainly require a human to be present.

Until we decide specifically why we need a human in space, we shouldn't be throwing humans up to space in outdated dangerous technology just for the sake of "sending men to space". That seems to be the overiding purpose of NASA right now.

A far more reliable and economical vehicle than the space shuttle needs to be developed. $500 million (low end estimate) per launch is not reasonable.

There is only so much that a probe can do. A human geologist on-site could learn more about Mars' geology in a short while than a probe could over the course of its entire mission.

And how many trillions of dollars should we spend on this?? Giving the history of NASA to vastly underestimate the cost of a project, to trust any budget numbers from them would be foolish to the extreme. I think that until we have technology that we can trust to safely and cost effectively carry humans to earth orbit (let alone the moon or mars) we should stop the shuttle program and use the billions to send probes to mars and bring back rocks and pictures for the Geologists to analyze on earth. I bet we could bring back alot of rocks for the cost of a single years worth of shuttle flights alot sooner. Sending a geologist to mars is not just decades away, but more likely a century distant. Or are you suggesting that we retrofit the shuttle to go to mars???

You're forgetting that if you landed a probe on Mars, it would be extremely difficult to maneuver it, because of things like a 20 minute communications lag, the fact that you can only communicate with the probe for part of the day, and the limited computing power of the probe's computer

Most of these problems have been overcome with the pathfinder missions. Incidentally, the cost of the pathfinder mission is one-half the cost of a single shuttle launch.

The onboard computer is limited because it has to not only be extremly reliable, but it also has to be rad-hardened (maybe not once on Mars, but to survive the trip), which means using slower technology (it's slower because, in order to decrease the odds of cosmic radiation flipping bits, the gates and transistors have to be larger).

So are you saying that by having a human in a space vehicle that the computers will then have to be less complicated??? Humans aren't rad-hardened either. Your statement makes no sense.

Computer technology is evolving so extremely fast, they will be able to think in a few years. Computers are sufficently powerful enough and rad-hardened enough to accomplish sophisticated tasks now. Look at the computers they use in present day communications satellites and the Galileo probe.

How far has space-shuttle technology evolved in the past few years?? It hasn't evolved a drop. It's the same 70's apollo-era technology. There is nothing about the space shuttle that is going to get people to mars other than it's a rocket.

I will put my money on computers evolving to the point that a probe can bring back mars rocks (the technology is ready now actually). And if anything does happen to an unmanned probe, a human doesn't die.

Besides all that, there is the "being there" aspect of it. Seeing what the earth looks like from the moon, school children communicating with astronauts (and even thinking up experiments to try in space, like the ants thing I mentioned above), and things like that, which may not have a direct and immediate scientific value, are no less important.

We already know what the earth looks like from the moon. People already stopped caring what it looks like before the apollo program ended. Having children talk with the astronauts and the kid's experiments are really neat. But it really is hard explaining to the children what happened to the astronauts after their vehicle exploded on launch or re-entry. Flying the dangerous/outdated shuttle to accomplish great PR is short-sighted beyond belief.

I think Richard Feynman put it best at the end of his report after the challenger disaster;

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Or we could listen to you and just sit here, think small, look up at the stars and planets, but never visit them, because you think it's too expensive and dangerous.

Please take the time to read my post. I did not call for the end of space exploration. I do call for the end of shuttle flights immediately, because they are expensive and dangerous. We could accomplish alot more unmanned exploration for what we spend on shuttle flights. Who is really thinking small here???

When NASA can present an honest solution to safe and economical manned space travel (not the one in thirty odds of catastrophic failure we apparently have now) perhaps a return to manned spaceflight could be undertaken if there is a specific rational goal to accomplish. But NASA in its current incarnation will have to be dismantled to accomplish this. To throw many billions on another orbiter to accomplish the same marginal (at best) science is a useless goal also.

When people say we need a man in space "for the romance of it all" and saying that we need space shuttles to do it, people might as well say "it is romantic to die in a billion dollar explosion". People's infatuation with the space shuttle needs to end, otherwise they will again have to pick up pieces of astronauts over three states.

Your post reminded me of something someone once said: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
-John F. Kennedy

Your only logical reflection. It would be hard to reorganize NASA.

Aside from the no-immediate-use stuff like "How do ants behave in space?" (answer: they dig like crazy), sooner or later we are going to have to send humans off-planet on a permanent/extended trip. Maybe we decide to start mining asteroids, or whatever, but it will most certainly require a human to be present.

Until we decide specifically why we need a human in space, we shouldn't be throwing humans up to space in outdated dangerous technology just for the sake of "sending men to space". That seems to be the overiding purpose of NASA right now.

A far more reliable and economical vehicle than the space shuttle needs to be developed. $500 million (low end estimate) per launch is not reasonable.

There is only so much that a probe can do. A human geologist on-site could learn more about Mars' geology in a short while than a probe could over the course of its entire mission.

And how many trillions of dollars should we spend on this?? Giving the history of NASA to vastly underestimate the cost of a project, to trust any budget numbers from them would be foolish to the extreme. I think that until we have technology that we can trust to safely and cost effectively carry humans to earth orbit (let alone the moon or mars) we should stop the shuttle program and use the billions to send probes to mars and bring back rocks and pictures for the Geologists to analyze on earth. I bet we could bring back alot of rocks for the cost of a single years worth of shuttle flights alot sooner. Sending a geologist to mars is not just decades away, but more likely a century distant. Or are you suggesting that we retrofit the shuttle to go to mars???

You're forgetting that if you landed a probe on Mars, it would be extremely difficult to maneuver it, because of things like a 20 minute communications lag, the fact that you can only communicate with the probe for part of the day, and the limited computing power of the probe's computer

Most of these problems have been overcome with the pathfinder missions. Incidentally, the cost of the pathfinder mission is one-half the cost of a single shuttle launch.

The onboard computer is limited because it has to not only be extremly reliable, but it also has to be rad-hardened (maybe not once on Mars, but to survive the trip), which means using slower technology (it's slower because, in order to decrease the odds of cosmic radiation flipping bits, the gates and transistors have to be larger).

So are you saying that by having a human in a space vehicle that the computers will then have to be less complicated??? Humans aren't rad-hardened either. Your statement makes no sense.

Computer technology is evolving so extremely fast, they will be able to think in a few years. Computers are sufficently powerful enough and rad-hardened enough to accomplish sophisticated tasks now. Look at the computers they use in present day communications satellites and the Galileo probe.

How far has space-shuttle technology evolved in the past few years?? It hasn't evolved a drop. It's the same 70's apollo-era technology. There is nothing about the space shuttle that is going to get people to mars other than it's a rocket.

I will put my money on computers evolving to the point that a probe can bring back mars rocks (the technology is ready now actually). And if anything does happen to an unmanned probe, a human doesn't die.

Besides all that, there is the "being there" aspect of it. Seeing what the earth looks like from the moon, school children communicating with astronauts (and even thinking up experiments to try in space, like the ants thing I mentioned above), and things like that, which may not have a direct and immediate scientific value, are no less important.

We already know what the earth looks like from the moon. People already stopped caring what it looks like before the apollo program ended. Having children talk with the astronauts and the kid's experiments are really neat. But it really is hard explaining to the children what happened to the astronauts after their vehicle exploded on launch or re-entry. Flying the dangerous/outdated shuttle to accomplish great PR is short-sighted beyond belief.

I think Richard Feynman put it best at the end of his report after the challenger disaster;

For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.

Or we could listen to you and just sit here, think small, look up at the stars and planets, but never visit them, because you think it's too expensive and dangerous.

Please take the time to read my post. I did not call for the end of space exploration. I do call for the end of shuttle flights immediately, because they are expensive and dangerous. We could accomplish alot more unmanned exploration for what we spend on shuttle flights. Who is really thinking small here???

When NASA can present an honest solution to safe and economical manned space travel (not the one in thirty odds of catastrophic failure we apparently have now) perhaps a return to manned spaceflight could be undertaken if there is a specific rational goal to accomplish. But NASA in its current incarnation will have to be dismantled to accomplish this. To throw many billions on another orbiter to accomplish the same marginal (at best) science is a useless goal also.

When people say we need a man in space "for the romance of it all" and saying that we need space shuttles to do it, people might as well say "it is romantic to die in a billion dollar explosion". People's infatuation with the space shuttle needs to end, otherwise they will again have to pick up pieces of astronauts over three states.

Your post reminded me of something someone once said: "We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard."
-John F. Kennedy

Your only logical reflection. It would be hard to reorganize NASA.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewsReleases-bak /1999/99-01_pf.html

So in addition to the high rate of auto deaths because of dangerous, light cars; the overcrowded traffic jams that plague every American city because of lack of road construction; the nuclear waste that sits out in the open air because Yucca obstructionists; the dependence on Mideast Oil because we haven't built any new nuclear power plants or exploited reserves in Alaska; we can now also lay the death of our manned space program at the feet of the Southern California Sierra Club Enviro-Nazis.