Slashdot Mirror
Hurricane Threatens Shuttle Program
evenprime writes "Hurricane Frances may end NASA's space shuttle program. John Logsdon, a member of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board and the head of George Washington University's Space Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., has said: 'If there were serious damage to one or two of the orbiters or the facilities needed to
process and launch the orbiters, I think it would raise a very large question about
the continuation of the shuttle program.'"
Dammit, dammit, dammit! Right now, Bush's ideas for a new space program are simply a pipe dream with some funding. If we lose our infrastructure for a manned space program, we may lose the space program all together! While I know of several people who would be happy about that, I wouldn't. Cutting off manned travel is short-sighted. Without manned travel, we're guaranteeing that the cost of sending probes will always be high. We're guaranteeing that we'll run out of raw materials in less than a century. We're guaranteeing that we will not have enough energy to sustain our civilization. And most importantly, we're guaranteeing that we will NEVER reach another star system.
Look up at the sky! You see that big ball of bright flame? That's a fusion reactor that generates at least 8e23 watts. That's enough power to send a five year Alpha Centauri mission every second. You know how you can do the same by staying on Earth? It's simple: YOU CAN'T. To those of you who think a manned space program is a waste of resources because exploration happens more effectively with robots: You are a selfish bastard planning your own demise.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
Let's not get our knickers in a twist here, ya? The shuttle program is in its twilight years regardless but it's not the end-all be-all. There's a Return to Flight program.
Bad management trumps ideology - Show the world you want better leadership. http://www.timefornewmanagement.com
Of course it would be a disaster if the shuttle program was seriously damaged by this storm. But one positive by-effect would be that NASA would be forced to consider better booster solutions. A lot of the work done by the shuttles could be done safer and cheaper by a booster.
I doubt they (politicians and beaurocrats pulling the strings in NASA) ever planned to get it off the ground again. The direction NASA funding was going, I expect a lot of pencil pushers were relieved by the Columbia accident, since it made things a lot easier to shut down.
While i think that the space shuttle program itself is pretty ineffecient for what we need out of a space program right now. (why bring back so much of the stuff you just spent billions sending up there) I'd hate to see the space shuttles scrapped unless we had some plans to replace it with some other program.
I'm getting the feeling though, that it will not be replaced by anything for awhile to come, & this may signal the end of American manned spaceflight for a long time.
What idiot reporter came up with the idea for this story. Hasn't Cape Canaveral ALWAYS been in Florida. Hasn't Florida ALWAYS gotten hit by hurricanes. Hello McFly?
Just a little while ago an article about missing the broadband boat (which admittidly I did not read) and now the space shuttle. I realize that we have not cancelled our space program, but this is concerning to me.
We are losing our low paying jobs to other countries and supposedly replacing them with higher paying research/science positions. How can we do this with a government that is not committed to science (Shutting down a space program) and is not committed to infrastructure like broadband. If we give up on the low paying jobs don't we then need a strong commitment to the high paying jobs of the future?
I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
Finally the shuttle boondoggle would die a long deserved death, freeing up resources for real space travel. (as if). A 5-digit number of unique tiles? And they criticize software engineers for bad design. Meanwhile, look how much the Russians spend to put people in LEO!
Tsunami -- You can't bring a good wave down!
Nothing like an overreaction to get folks upset...
"Hurricane Frances may end NASA's space shuttle program."
Please.
Even if the orbiters were damaged, or the launch platforms damaged, they can always be re-built, repaired, or whatever.
Even if it looks like the eye will hit KSC dead-on, they've still got enough time to stick an orbiter on the 747 and get one of them out of there...
Besides, the launch structures withstand regular beatings from the shuttle launches, and they've survived for years...
The VAB might take some damage, perhaps some of the other support buildings, but it's going to take more than a hurricane to destroy KSC & the shuttle program completely.
/sig
The question I pose is that why werent the buildings designed to withstand a SUBSTANTIAL Huricane. It is not hurricanes are a new danger, designeing buildings not to be able to stand up to direct hit isnt a smart gamble in my books.
If I wanted water, I'd ask for DiHydrogen Oxide!
This is a very serious problem. The damage would have to fairly severe I would imagine, however it does have the possibility of ending the shuttle program.
I was lucky enough to be able to speak with one of the people in the group commisioned to investigate the columbia accident. He told me that one of the reasons they were adamant about finding the trouble behind the accident and making sure it did not happen again (beyond the paramount fact of preventing the loss of human life) was because it was a solid fact based on budgeting that NASA could not continue its shuttle program if it lost one more orbiter. He was fairly confident in the fact if one more was lost it would end program for good.
telnet://zombiemud.org:3000
I really doubt it... Do we pack up all operations in California every time there is an earthquake ? Hurricanes have been hitting the eastern seaboard and Florida for thousands of years - the Indians never left, the colonist never left, people still live in South Florida post Andrew, Nasa and CCAFS will still launch rockets from the cape after this hurricane. I live in Titusville right directly accross from the VAB and use to work at CCAFS and I can tell you that the facilites are very, VERY well constructed - the engineers who designed those buildings were thinking about hurricanes (and direct impacts from errant rockets).
Climatologists have been pointing out that weather patterns have been getting more extreme for some time now.
I'm sure we could all argue until the end of time as to why this has been happenning but I find it rather hilarious that, any time someone mentions the possible negative effects that mankind is having on his environment, hundreds of otherwise sensible people throw rational thought out of the window and refuse point blank to even concede the possibility - even the very smallest chance - that climate change for the worse might be partially our fault.
Here in Britain we've just gone from having the hottest August on record in 2003 to the wettest August on record in 2004. Climatic extremes like those experienced here, in the US and elsewhere aren't things to be taken lightly, they're things to be studied and, ultimately, acted upon. Collectively shrugging our shoulders and sticking our heads in the sand when it comes to finding out why these things are happening with ever greater frequency aren't model solutions.
But, hey, that's just my worthless point of view. Until there's more money in sorting out the problem than there is in exacerbating it, nothing's going to change. Well, at least not for the better.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
Hi,
NASA has been under budgeted, over managed, and terribly inefficient for decades. Having the government run space flight might have been a good idea during the cold war, when it was important to remind the world that everything the Russians can do we can do better. Today, it is not.
There are cheaper ways to get to LEO (Low Earth Orbit). There are private enterprises which try to get to space in a way that is economically viable. Economically viable means that you don't have to beg Congress for dollars and then use whatever contractors, locations, etc. you need to provide the right pork to the right congress-person. Instead, you can focus on doing what ought to be done.
What do we need manned flight to LEO for? It's close enough that we can remote control everything that a robot can do. Robots that are cheaper and more expendable. Let us send robots and find ways to use it to build a better mousetrap, and the world will beat a path to the skies.
Eventually, we'll need manned space flight to get to resources that are too distant for a remote controlled mission. But now is not the time. Now what we need is less public excitement and more investor excitement. Less spectacles and more value creation.
Just my 2c worth,
Ori
-- Support a free market in the field of government
And here I thought the biggest threat to the shuttle program was the shuttle program.
Essentially, the US is living beyond its means. Its deficit is unsustainable in the long term, as is the value of the US dollar. If China or Japan decides to pull the pin, your economy goes down the toilet for years to come.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
> Even if the orbiters were damaged, or the launch platforms damaged, they can always be re-built, repaired, or whatever.
...it's going to take more than a hurricane to destroy KSC & the shuttle program completely.
Sure, they can, but not without a huge expenditure that NASA really can't afford right now, especially when many politicians (and pundits, and some scientists) are already calling for the end to Human Spaceflight altogether.
> Even if it looks like the eye will hit KSC dead-on, they've still got enough time to stick an orbiter on the 747 and get one of them out of there...
It's looked like that for several days now, and they haven't done this. A good reason is that the shuttles are being retrofitted with safety improvements, and aren't really in a state to be put on a 747, let alone flown hundreds of miles away.
> Besides, the launch structures withstand regular beatings from the shuttle launches, and they've survived for years...
Sure, the launch structures, maybe. But the hangars that the Space Shuttles are housed in are only rated for a Category 3 hurricane. They might also survive a Category 4 or 5 Frances, but then again, they might not.
>
I love the shuttle, but KSC doesn't need to be entirely destroyed for NASA to decide that the program is too expensive to salvage.
Never trust any national priority to Florida.
--
make install -not war
Manned space programs take many years to develop. Even if Bush 43 had made it his biggest priority, even 4 years later we wouldn't have a new orbiter ready yet.
A replacement orbiter should have been appropriated for and begun development during the Bush 41 or Clinton administrations. If they had done that, we'd have a new class of orbiters by now.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Could it be possible there are some who are looking for a reason to shut down the shuttle program? Ala a graceful exit? I won't substitue my opinion for their judgement, but I've had the hunch for a long time they are looking to shut the program down -- for whatever reason, but most notably it might be time to re-invent the shuttle program with more current and efficient (and hopefully safer) technology.
But one positive by-effect would be that NASA would be forced to consider better booster solutions.
One of those better booster solutions is sitting on the pad right now. It is even more vulnerable to damage than the shuttle orbiters. The Delta IV heavy or derivative is a likely candidate for a post shuttle manned booster. It would be bad news if it were damaged.
an ill wind that blows no good
I wish I had mod points, but I don't. Always the way when you really want them :-(
:-(
Heat = Energy
More energy/km^3 = more phase-space for the atmosphere
more phase space = more extremes
extremes in the phase space = nasty stuff.
Premise: It's not the probability of something happening that is important, it is the product of the probability and the consequences.
Problem: humans as a species are less likely to plan for infrequent problems or long-term goals than frequent problems or short-term goals. Combine with premise and consider asteroids, global warming, oil dependence, etc.
Result: we're screwed if the weather-scientists are right
Simon.
Physicists get Hadrons!
I still don't get how anybody can even THINK of abandoning manned space travel. Sure, humans are fragile and expensive. Sure, it's cheaper to send robots. But CRIPES, people. It's an adventure! It's a new experience for the human race. That, IN AND OF ITSELF, is more than enough justification for continuing.
I know all the arguements about how we should fix our problems down here on earth before we pour $$ into space, but I've got news for those people. We're never going to fix those problems. They are caused by human beings. If we wait for the day when everything is hunky dory on this planet, we might as well give up any exploration of any kind.
Dreams are IMPORTANT. That sense of wonder you felt as a little kid looking up at the sky, that's IMPORTANT. Exploration tests us, pushes us, forces us to grow beyond what we thought possible. It seems to be the only way we do that without killing each other in the process. Keeping the mind engaged and interested is essential to who we are as a species.
That's how I feel, anyway. I know there are those who's end vision for the human race seems to be having us all sit in front of the TV while robots do all the work necessary to sustain our physical existance. Well, no thanks. I'll head for the frontier. There's a thought from one of Frank Herbert's books which I consider relevant to both our present and the more degenerate visions of our future:
"It's because there is no Dune there are no Fremen."
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
that hurricane Frances will surrender before reaching the NASA facilities.
They are saying the hurricane could be the worst thing to happen to NASA since the fall of the Soviet Union? I personally think it would be great if they were forced to re-think their strategy...after all, "necessity is the mother of invention"
Sig- http://www.dreamhost.com/rewards.cgi?ayefly
the shuttle will fly much sooner than expected
The infrastructure, personnel and procedures needed to MAINTAIN orbiters is ENTIRELY different from those need to BUILD shuttles. The shuttle building program has been shut down for over a decade.
My bet is the contractors that built the shuttles wouldn't even TOUCH a contract to try to build another set of them. The engineers and other staff involved in the shuttle building have probably retired or died by now.
"We're sorry, but the website you're trying to reach has been disconnected."
Well, I am in Hurricane Warning, and the storm is going to hit us. My shutters are up and all. At least this time, NASA didn't have a shuttle on dock. With past hurricanes, they always had to move those. NASA is already ready, but I don't think they will have much damage. They put the sattelites in plastic bags and it's original packing *insert joke here*
s p?loc=usa&seg=StormCenter&prodgrp=TrackingCharts&p roduct=HurTrack1&prodnav=none&pid=none for a Hurricane map, path, etc.
See http://www.intellicast.com/Local/USNationalWide.a
mysql>SELECT * FROM users WHERE clue > 0
0 Rows Returned
From NASAs perspective, a disaster of this scale may be just what they need to raise public awareness and get a wad of "pity cash".
"Don't waste your time or time will waste you" -MUSE
1. The Vehicle Assembly Building is built to withstand a category 5 hurricane. The accessory and newer buildings are only built against a category 3. However, nothing will save the VAB from a category 4 that tears the roof off a nearby cat3 hanger and mashes it into the side of the VAB.
2. KSC at current projections is in the worst spot possible. The eye passing overhead would be merciful if it happens - the eye passing south is worse. The N.W. corner of a hurricane is the strongest in the northern hemisphere.
3. Otherwise, there is still a (anyone?) 30 foot storm surge to contend with.
4. Does anyone know if Atlantis is still in the VAB? I haven't checked. If you do check, make sure you shut the lights off when you are done.
Best case scenario - no one is hurt, and NASA files a gianormous insurance claim Monday morning for a new manned space program.
Kulakovich
The building was constructed during the Apollo era and has a roof designed to withstand 105 mph winds, Diller said.
Even newer facilities are at risk. The immense hangar where the space station components are tested and stored prior to launch is designed to withstand 110 mph winds.
The cause of most mistakes are that when taking under consideration the requirements for [insert whatever here] is that someone made an "assumption" rather than supporting all information with facts. When these buildings were built, I'm sure somewhere in the Flordia a hurricane came through with winds in excess of 110mph. What would ever make you think it *is* impossible for one to come through the Space Center? I'm mean you spend billions of dollars and do not protect it from hurricanes on the Flordia coast?
David was only a Tropical Storm. Tropical Storms have winds 74mph. Frances is a category 4 hurricane, with potential to reach category 5. If it makes cat 5, that's over 3 times the wind speed of TS David. BIG difference.
Hurricane David was a Catagory 2 hurricane with sustained winds between 96-110 mph. Thats around the range that the area was built to withstand.
Frances is a Catagory 4 hurricane and is currently throwing around winds in the 145-155 mph range. Can you see the concern now?
Why is this even news worthy? It's always been a risk, it will continue to be a risk.
Because up until this week, it's been a theoretical risk. Now, the risk is real. A storm of this intensity has never hit the Cape dead-on, and this will come DAMNED near close to dead-on.
As of 5:00 this morning, Patrick AFB (just south of CCAS and responsible for the AF side of things on the Cape) issued a warning that the storm was to pass 60 miles away, with 100+ mph winds.
So, yeah, if the article were in June, saying "Hey, a hurricane could take us out," I'd agree that this wasn't really newsworthy. Problem is, it's not "a hurricane could take us out," it's " this hurricane could take us out. In 48 hours."
I believe one major reason that NASA's and the Air Force's launch facilities are in Florida is a combination of lots of open ocean for downrange safety and testing, and the physics of orbital insertions that put the likely launch routes over that open ocean. Supposing Challanger had been over , say, Georgia when it disintegrated, and dropped all that debris on downtown Atlanta?
Network geek with a strong affinity for Telecasters
I'm in Orlando right now. (The reason I'm on /. instead of preparing is because I'm at work. :-) ) That said, if I find a big rocket or something on my lawn after Frances leaves, I am so totally gonna put in on eBay. Or else trade it on /. for a GMail invite.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
Scrap the florida space station! WTF decided to put a launch center in the middle of hurricane heaven anyways?
pack it all up and move it to some that isnt destined to be overrun with mother natures wrath 2-4 times a year.
I follow the SDK and GDN principles.. Spelling Dont Kount, Grammer Dont Neither
The EU has a much larger combined GDP than the US to play with - and even with the (relatively) paltry "central pot" (EU budget), has plenty of money to spend on spaceflight if they wanted to (scrap agriculture subsidies anyone?). It should be noted that it's doubtful that ESA (not the same as the EU, though mostly EU members), even with more money, would '''want''' to spend it on manned spaceflight - but my point is that potentially the resources are there.
China, much of the population may not have much, but it's a tiny amount of their GDP needed to have sufficient resources for even grander manned spaceflight than they are planning. But to do so would be a gross disservice to the people, for whom the money could be much better used. (The ESA members for similar reasons are unlikely to ever spend as much on spaceflight as the US, even if combined they can spend more by using the same % GDP)
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
As much as nostalgia for the 60's counts for, publicly funded manned space exploration has been dead for a while. Heck, the way our fearless leader in the White House runs things, the only way they'll resume REAL interest in NASA is if one of their probes finds hydrocarbon deposits on the Moon or Mars.
Cynicism aside, resource hunting is going to be our only real shot to get private companies to follow in the the footsteps of the X-prize. It's a sad fact, but the 60's space race was fueled completely on Cold War fears and the simple novelty of our newfound abilities as a species. If we're really going to get off our asses and resume exploring with the same urgency we had then, it's not going to be ideology driven.
Take a look at the "Discovery" of the "New World". Do you think the Spanish, English, and Portugese would have spent all their bling on tall ships if the only result was finding an uninhabitable wasteland? No, they were convinced by the astronauts of the time that the New World contained resources galore, and the rest is history.
In Soviet Russia, all our base are belong to you!
The shuttle's wings allow a glide re-entry, which saves fuel. The tanks and various systems required for the additional fuel would mass more than the wings. RTFM.
The next stop after L5 is the asteroid belt. Resources galore, easily shoved into new trajectories for slow delivery nearly anywhere in the system.
Somebody show George Bush this post. Oh, wait, I forgot, the Bush Administration are the ones destroying the space program... first Hubble, now this moon base nonsense.
The national hurricane center has just downgraded Frncis to a category 3 (maximum sustained winds under 130mph). This means even it if hits the space center optimally, there is a good chance the Shuttle pogrom will continue to destroy the American pioneer heritage.
Seastead this.
"The space shuttle is a very expensive white elephant."
-- Story Musgrave, astronaut.
Manned space flight is about ego and politics, not science. Right now we have a lot more pressing issues in this country that money could be spent on than toy plane pipedreams. Like most other government programs, the Space Shuttle is many hundreds of times over budget. It's time to retire this white elephant and get past our Cold War masturbation fantasies.
They must really hate to lose the Labor Day weekend revenue.
But a pen isn't as inflamable as a pencil in an oxygen-rich spacecraft atmosphere.
And a pen dosn't shed conductive carbon particles into your on-board electronics either.
Which would you rather use (assuming that somebody else is picking up the tab)?
-- We don't understand software, and sometimes we don't understand hardware, but we can *see* the blinking lights
The shuttle's wings allow a glide re-entry, which saves fuel. The tanks and various systems required for the additional fuel would mass more than the wings. RTFM.
What? Why would a sphere with a parachute need more fuel than a shuttle with wings?
Pinky: "What are we going to do tomorrow night Brain?"
Brain: "I would tell you Pinky but this 120 char limi
The Florida coast allows KSC to launch into 39 to 57 degree orbital inclinations.
The one thing Florida can't do is polar and retrograde orbits. Those are launched from Vandenburg AFB on the California coast.
Originally, a single Gulf Coast area near Matagorda, Texas, was being considered to be the Shuttle launch facility, which would provide downrange safety for all types of orbit insertions, but the decision was made to go with a dual east/west coast model with existing KSC and Vandenburg sites.
After the Challenger disaster, a decision was made to end any Shuttle operations from Vandenburg.
Not true. 10,000,000 tons of water, and a near-infinite supply of radiation/meteorite shielding...at a minimum. :-)
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
Disney survived Hurricane Charley in August without much destruction other than landscaping. The rest of Orlando had more problems. Disney closed for a couple of days mainly because many employees were cleaning up at home.
From the NASA web site...
An interesting article regarding NASA preparations for Frances.
Check my journal for gmail invites!
perhaps shuttle Atlantis will make it to its namesake?
Where they shot the rescue vehicle through the eye of a hurricane. Perhaps the US should consider annexing a small portion of a land bound equatorial country in hopes of having a better launch site. Maybe Colombia, where at least they'd have good coffee.
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
It'a an urban legend. Read the real story at snopes.com.
If the -thought- that a Hurricane might cause serious damage to a program is enough for someone to publicly comment that it could halt the program ... -that- is what gives me pause. They seem to be trying at every juncture to make sure we know how fragile the Shuttle program is. Right now I have to think that NASA is -hoping- that hurricane will come by and do just enough damage to call this one.
... but if it's going to die after the shuttle, it will die after the shuttle. If that is the case, better it do it now while no one else has been killed. The Shuttle program is too far past it's prime.
... at this point I feel like Shuttle work has not been exploring for some time. Space Station to some degree yes, but that is being fueled by Russian capsules. And yes, we could go back to our own capsule programs, but that will not be for exploration, it will be for maintenance.
If things are that bad, find a new vehicle. What? No funding for a replacement? Then have the balls -halt- the Shuttle program without one. The only way NASA will ever get the budget needed to take a next step will be if everyone knows that it is that next step or get off the track. As long as the Shuttles "just work" there will not be enough consensus to keep progressing.
I'm a supporter of manned U.S. space exploration
NOTE: "exploration" is the key word there
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Essentially, just because there are more pressing issues does not mean we should abandon the less pressing issues. It's like telling the police department that they should ignore minor traffic violations because there are people being murdered out there!
What do you mean by "over budget"? They were budgeted X but took more? Their budget is higher than is really necessary? Anyway, your pointless exaggeration just makes you look dumb. "Hundreds of times" over budget? You really think a directed, manned spaceflight program (not "getting a guy into orbit for 10 minutes", an actual program) can be had for $160 million a year? Get real.Yes, I agree that the shuttle should be retired and a new, efficient, non-politicized program be put in its place (I'd also like a pony, while we're at it), but let's watch our blathering rhetoric, here.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
You complain about hauling wings in and out of orbit and yet you want to descend the moon's gravity well to make a base? That's insane! Why waste fuel hauling your stuff up and down when there are perfectly good trojan points... the moon's resources are lame and not worth the fuel costs.
So, why bother with the Lunar Trojan points for a base? Nothing there at all. Better to build a station at geosynchronous orbit, if we aren't going to the moon.
The shuttle's wings allow a glide re-entry, which saves fuel. The tanks and various systems required for the additional fuel would mass more than the wings. RTFM.
And yet...Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, Soyuz, etc. didn't have wings, and managed to get down nicely. The Shuttle's wings are an enormous waste, unless we are planning to bring large heavy things down from orbit. And they're not optimal even then.
The next stop after L5 is the asteroid belt. Resources galore, easily shoved into new trajectories for slow delivery nearly anywhere in the system.
Hmm, ~2.4Km/s deltaV to deliver lunar raw materials to Earth. ~5.5Km/s deltaV to deliver asteroidal material to Earth. So delivering asteroidal materials takes longer, and costs more deltaV. Great trade-off, don't you think?
Seriously. We need the lunar base, as a construction point for more ships, if nothing else. Build the structures on the moon, add rocket engines and control systems made on Earth, add lunar oxygen and terrestrial hydrogen for lifesupport, water, and fuel (don't want to take lunar water for this - Moon is a Harsh Mistress, remember? Using lunar water for fuel/reaction mass would be disastrous in the long term).
After we have the moon base, we move along to Mars and the outer system. Venus can wait, unless we choose to terraform the place. Mercury would be nice, but requires too much deltaV to reach easily.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Personally, I prefer having some attitudinal control during re-entry.
Personally, I'd prefer to survive re-entries after losing control.
When that happens to the Soyuz, the crew is lost in the wilderness for 10 hours until a retrieval team eventually finds them. When the Space Shuttle messes up a re-entry, the crew is scattered into a pinkish mist spread over 3 states.
unless you plan to do like the Soyuz, and just bail out the pilot and flight computer while the majority of the spacecraft smashes into the earth like a hypersonic missile.
Yep. That's the way to do it. Considering that building a whole new disposable spacecraft is less expensive (and more reliable, and even more scalable) than refurbishing a reusable vehicle, that's the prudent approach. (Building the disposable vehicle is cheaper, because the vehicle itself is a lot simpler, since it doesn't need features to survive re-entry)
Hmm... needs more maths. I suspect gliding re-entry is still going to win, though.
Wrong. It's not even close.
The shuttle's glide re-entry is a totally useless, counterproductive feature. Even if the wings did cause re-entry to need less fuel, it's not enough of the savings to make up for having needed to lift those wings into orbit in the first place. The wings were a drag on the liftoff, and a drag on all manuvering done in space. Just having them there increased the fuel-usage of every other mission activity.
The winged spaceplane is a project that justifies itself in terms of itself. The wing features allow the Shuttle to be reusable. That's good, because the Shuttle is expensive. And the Shuttle is expensive because it has wings....
However, even as a layman I can point to the weather as the single greatest reason the US Space Program needs to relocate.
Wrong. The most important factors are access to useful orbits and downrange safty. Cape Canaveral is well situated for geosynchronous launches because of its low latitude. Orbit plane changes take a lot of energy. It is also well situated for servicing high inclination orbits, like the one used by the space station, and Molniya orbits used by some intelligence satellites. The only thing you can't do well from the Cape is launch to polar or sun synchronous orbits. That is why we have Vandenberg in California. Together these launch sites provide superb access to space and unmatched range safety. The American south west is a lousy choice because so many people live along the ascent path.
an ill wind that blows no good
Nicely? I don't think I've ever heard a Soyuz landing described that way. But in any case those are non-reusable craft, if you're going to compare them to the shuttle we shouldn't even be discussing wings at all. The argument you want is reuseable versus one-use craft. Disposable spacecraft can't perform the Shuttle's mission, because reusability is a mission goal. Since we've used it to bring Westar and Palapa-B down already, it definitely works optimally enough. And the Shuttle's a pretty incredibly crappy design, incidentally; I preferred the designs with air-breathing engines that the USAF rejected... one of them was designed to carry a dozen people in shirtsleeve comfort.
Care to explain the derivation of those numbers? Seems awfully simplistic to me. What kind of trajectories are you limiting yourself to? What use are you making of other local masses for acceleration and deceleration?
Nonetheless, I will cheerfully concede that it takes much longer, and time ~= money. But the resources should be better, lots of nearly everything in the asteroid belt the astronomer boys tell me. And don't forget the trojan asteroids if you don't want to enter the belt proper.
Hands down, RAH's best book. But, anyway, I still disagree. It could be a close call (because it would be easier to construct spaceships in low gravity than floating in space) but I think the light flimsy ships that you could quickly spew out of a trojan factory would get more done for far less investment than building an industrial base on the moon capable of using the local resources.
I think you like gravity too much... why bother with planets at all? Leave Mars and Venus to the BEMs and live in rotating space habitats constructed from moonlets, asteroids and eventually comets.
You, my man, are a bona-fide American patriot! Damn, I didn't think there were any of us left since the religious fanatics and Randites redefined the word "conservative".
Yes the Russians had a lot of firsts. The trouble was they stayed with the "easy" game and that is LEO.
Whats worse is that the shuttle has put us into the LEO trap. Yeah it is easy to get there, but it is also to get stuck there. The ISS was just a compounding of that same error.
To truly advance in space including both exploration and research we need to leave orbit. That means the moon first and then out from there.
LEO is no better than kicking the dirt down here.
Who really aspires to LEO other than tourist?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Importing Earth Water to replace Lunar water makes no sense at all. Importing Earth HYDROGEN to add to Lunar Oxygen for fuel/reaction mass is a much better propostion. 1/9th the mass to be moved, and the moon has a lot of Oxygen bound up in the rock.
The factor supporting asteroidal materials is that the potentially could have high concentrations of useful metals. No proof of that, of course. But we do know that they're not common on the moon.
"Useful metals"? I happen to think aluminium is useful. And Iron. And Magnesium. All of which were found on the Moon by Apollo. Hard to extract? Perhaps, but we do have a lot of solar energy, and no atmosphere to obscure it there.
Are there other metals we'll want? Sure, lots. But we won't want too many others in large quantities. And so we can build most of a spacecraft (by mass) with lunar raw materials, once we have the base in place. WAY cheaper and easier than building it on Earth and putting it into orbit, given the original investment in infrastructure.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I know you are just speaking in generalities, but I for one as a USian am ignorant, but not arrogant. I don't care if anyone or no one wants to be like me. I just want to work hard, make a good wage, and go home and enjoy my time with my family. I don't want to kill anyone, rape or pillage the rest of the world, etc. I want to live and let live. I don't want to have to worry about people who want to live and kill others. Unfortunately, I do have to worry about them.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
But your comments about the relative saftey of Soyuz versus the Shuttle are complete bullshit.
I wasn't talking Soyuz vs. Shuttle, but disposable vs reusable (where the Soyuz and Shuttle happen to be high-profile examples of each kind).
Furthermore, the USSR skimped on safety spending, yet had similar levels of danger, because of a fundamentally safer design. The safest of all would be a Soyuz-like design (meaning unguided re-entry), with USA levels of redundant spending.
The Soyuz has killed all its passengers more times than the shuttle has - look it up.
Ok, I looked it up. The Soyuz has killed all its passengers twice, exactly the same number of Shuttle disasters. That adds up to 4 people lost on Soyuz, versus 14 killed in Shuttles. So... what was your point, exactly?
One minor part of the Shuttle's excessive risk is caused by the winged landing: To land the Shuttle, you need a aircraft pilot, who's otherwise useless. His presence onboard adds mass, and increases the number of lives that would be lost in an accident.
DRAG is not the word you want. Try again.
I wondered if you'd jump on that. FYI, the definition of "drag" is "an impediment or burden". But if you'd like it to only mean "retarding interaction with a fluid medium", then I'll rephrase: "The wings were a drag on liftoff, and their mass uselessly increased the thrust needed for both liftoff and orbital accelerations"
I don't even like the Shuttle, I wanted to build the gigantic space plane
Any kind of spaceplane is still a bad idea. "Planes", by definition, are only useful in an atmosphere. Putting any kind of plane is space is just wasteful mass and excessive complexity.
Like India? I remember reading last year they're planning on sending one of their bigger missiles on a trip around the moon instead of on a trip to Pakistan.
Global warming is neither science, nor politics. It is a religion.