Space Shuttle to re-launch in May

Goeland86 writes "CNN reports that NASA is on it's way to prepare for a shuttle launch in may. Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season, I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year altogether."

Comments

By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed them

[postbigbang]

How many times do we have to watch a NASA tragedy before they do it right? How many NASA rockets have to end up in the ocean after an abort before they re-consider their methods? I pray they get it right this time. It's not the embarrassment, it's not the loss of life, it's not the billions in the drink that make me sad, it's the BAD ENGINEERING!

Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Kazrath]

I thought they were scrapping the shuttle? This might of been interesting if it was 20-30 years from now and they were taking their "restored 57 Chevy" out into space. Personally I am to the point where these shuttle flights are a big waste of money "if" they are not doing anything innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[mikesmind]

Any more, the shuttle is a waste of time and money. The main problem is that NASA has all their eggs in one basket. Where is the funding for development of the next generation shuttle? Let's take what we learned and improve upon it, rather than trying to keep this aging program going.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Smoo_Master]

I don't see those options as being mutually exclusive. Temprarily continuing the space shuttle program while a new vehicle is being developed seems to be a good idea. Otherwise, NASA might succumb to pressure to rush the design, and the effects of that seem far more disasterous in my opinion.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[applemasker]

I haven't seen anything "official," but someone's running a website for Project Constellation as a Shuttle successor.

If we still need the heavy-lift and reboost capacity of the Shuttle, an unmanned version (it's highly automated through ascent, docking and re-entry anyhow) might be a worthwhile alternative if the landing can also be done remotely.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[SenatorOrrinHatch]

I agree 100% I mean, how impressive is it to do almost _anything_ when you have billions of dollars to burn?

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

I though the point of this shuttle was to be more economic cos they can re-use it. But in practice thing asplode each time. So it cost extra for a one time shuttle.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

""if" they are not doing anything innovative"

I assure NASA's manned space program is doing nothing innovative to help the next breed of space capable crafts. NASA has set like 10 different dates for the Shuttle's return to service. The don't deserve praise for setting another one they probably wont deliver on. When they announced this date they couched it in all the same rhetoric about how aggressive it was and all the excuses for why they may not make it. The key thing about NASA's manned program, they get paid pretty much the same whether the do anything or not. They have no incentive to stick their necks out to be successful or innovative, they are just trying not to fail and preserve their budget. They have reached the point they aren't going to launch unless its "safe" and they are never going to make shuttle launches "safe".

If you want a new manned space vehicle turn part of NASA's manned space program budget over to Burt Rutan in no strings attached grants. I'm willing to bet in a couple years you would have the next generation SpaceShipOne doing weekly runs to the ISS, for a fraction of the price of the Shuttle, and you would actually be able to fully man the ISS with seven or so people and actually do something up there instead of having 2-3 people who spend most of their time just maintaining it. If nothing else you could actually turn it in to the first space hotel and get people excited about space again, maybe charge the wealthy an arm a leg for a one week stay and let a few ordinary folks go for a week at $59 a night.

If you had just given Rutan all the money NASA has spent doing nothing since the last accident you would probably soon have a whole new fleet of truly economical and reusable vehicles.

If you want to restore your faith in manned space exploration look for the Discover Channel's multipart documentary on Rutan's successful run for the X Prize, "Black Sky: The Race For Space". They ran it in early October and I haven't seen a rerun. It is a great documentary, a great story and they look to be a great group of people doing amazing things on a shoestring and they clearly really care about what they are doing as opposed to the people at NASA.

Burt does have concepts for a next generation ship to go in to orbit. If he had the money he just might make it happen.

You need to be careful to not give Rutan to much money because you would risk turning them in to a completely corrupted oversized bureaucracy that doesn't do anything but spend money.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[_Sprocket_]

The main problem is that NASA has all their eggs in one basket. Where is the funding for development of the next generation shuttle?

I'm sure NASA is asking the exact same question. Where exactly IS their funding to develop next generation craft? Note the cancelation of even the X-38 project just two years before it completed flight testing.

Also, keep in mind NASA doesn't get a pile of money to spend on anything it wants. It does get a sizeable budget (a fraction of the value of its budget during Apollo era). But a large chunk of that budget is tied directly to specific programs - abandon the program and lose the ear-marked funds.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Rei]

> I assure NASA's manned space program nothing
> innovative to help the next breed

You assure wrong. NASA has done a *huge* amount of R&D in the last decade - in fact, they're the biggest space R&D spender in the world. They've developed dozens of kinds of ion/plasma propulsion systems (and are working on getting a better power/mass ratio). They've developed dozens of new fuels, lightweight alloys, and new structural materials. Heck, even without changing the shuttle's basic design, they've notably upped its payload even while adding in more safety features due to their advances. They've lowered the cost of shuttle maintinance (although its still very expensive, because - cue the "they don't do enough safety work!" people - they go so far as to dismantle the SSMEs each time for inspection, and SSMEs are very complex beasts). Just last month I was reading about a new method they developed for using CVD to deposit a liner on the engine nozzles so that there's no clear surface break for it to erode at.

Here - here's a google search for NASA's site just for the word "novel" (it occurs a lot in publications):

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-88 59 -1&q=site%3Anasa.gov+novel&btnG=Search

Note the 9,980 results for this search alone. NASA does a *TON* of research, on all aspects of space.

> they get paid pretty much the same whether the
> do anything or not

Apparently you've never heard of something called "budget cuts". Or "change of administrators", for that matter.

> Burt Rutan

Please excuse me while I go outside to laugh... ... back. :)

Please tell me you were kidding in your suggestion that someone who built an unscalable craft out of epoxy and didn't even make his own engine has accomplished much of anything toward getting craft to orbit and back. Please address the issues of delta-V, reentry heating, and manufacturing of the materials involved.

> "Black Sky" ... was deceptive concerning what was actually accomplished. SS1 is a manned sounding rocket. That's it. It didn't even go that much higher than the V2 did, for YHVH's sake (and had a lower payload even when you add in the ss1's weight of the pressurized cabin).

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

I'll grant you the do some good research especially if you get away from their manned space program. JPL does great work, they rock. I should reiterate I am slamming the nearly worthless "manned space program" only here, the shuttle and the ISS in particular. They are the ones that are wasting tons of money, bleeding the rest of NASA white, and not doing anything useful. Anyone in the rest of NASA my apologies if I though I was criticizing you, I wasn't.

Yes many people at NASA do innovative research. None of it is anywhere close to putting people or cargo into orbit or propelling them back to the moon or Mars. I assure you it will be decades before NASA even attempts to actually apply any new technology in a new manned vehicle, it will cost a fortune and it will more likely be canceled, delayed or fail than succeed. During Apollo NASA manned space flight division was a can-do organization. Now they are a can't-do organization and once big bureaucracies go bad they are nearly impossible to fix.

NASA can't even get people to LEO and the ISS safely at present. I'm sorry but the $1 billion+ price tag for a shuttle launch is unforgivable. So you say its expensive because of safety, well IT ISN'T SAFE. TRY AGAIN. They've lost two vehicles and two crews in like a hundred launches. Give it up. The shuttle was a failure. Nice idea, really bad execution, MOVE ON.

Its a lot easier to do experiments than it is to actually go in to production. NASA does some good R&D. They completely suck going in to production and have since the Space shuttle and ISS became their reason to exist.

"Apparently you've never heard of something called "budget cuts". Or "change of administrators", for that matter."

When NASA is squandering a billion plus dollars on a single launch whining about budget cuts is about as lame as it gets. You are just retreating to the standard set of lame excuses bureaucracies use when they waste lots of money and fail/ They blame everything on everyone but themselves.

Easy solution, get rid of the lame bureaucracy and let Burt Rutan do it instead. You give him 1 billion dollars, one shuttle launch's worth of money and he wont be whining about budgets or politicians. He will just come back in a couple years with a new, economical, reusable launch vehicle (though not a heavy lifter most probably).

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

"Black Sky" ... was deceptive concerning what was actually accomplished. SS1 is a manned sounding rocket. That's it. It didn't even go that much higher than the V2 did, for YHVH's sake (and had a lower payload even when you add in the ss1's weight of the pressurized cabin)."

Forgot to answer this one. You work for NASA? I'm guessing so. I hate to point this out but SpaceShipOne currently surpasses NASA's current manned space program. NASA can't currently get a man off the ground.

SpaceShipOne matched and passed the X-15 which Uncle Sam spent a small fortune and years on. That is an amazing achievement for a small privately funded group.

Rutan's group were successful in achieving their goal and they did it on schedule and on budget. When is the last time NASA's manned program has done that? Did they put someone in orbit, no. That wasn't their goal this time. I think it is on their list of milestones once they get space tourism going and have a revenue stream.

Does NASA have a space tourism strategy, no. They actually tried to kill the Russian space tourism program.

Rutan can't expect billions from Uncle Sam. They have to work with donations or pay their way as they go. They were working with $25 million dollars this time. So I guess to satisfy you they needed to put someone in orbit for $25 million?

How long does it take NASA to spend $25 million, like a half hour. NASA spends $25 million on coffee breaks in a week. $25 million is like 1/40th of a single shuttle launch, assuming it ever does launch again and that was their entire budget for their entire program.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Rei]

> I hate to point this out but SpaceShipOne
> currently surpasses NASA's current manned
> space program

I'm sorry - when did NASA get into the joyride business? I must have missed that memo.

> Rutan's group were successful in achieving
> their goal ... of creating a joyride. Many other companies make pleasurecraft on schedule, too - could I interest you in a yacht?

> Did they put someone in orbit, no

Did they put anything in orbit? No. Did they accomplish anything useful beyond a joyride? No. Would they have to scrap 90% of their craft and invalidate 90% of their experience building this to do anything useful beyond a joyride? Yes.

> They were working with $25 million dollars

Actually, they have refused to disclose their full accounting; let it suffice to say that they built their joyride with "at least" $25 million.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Rei]

I find it kind of silly how you're criticizing NASA for failing when applying a new technology, and then comparing them to Rutan. Of course new technologies fail; that's what happens when you try new technology. Rutan, on the other hand, applied essentially no new technology. It was an epoxy craft made just like he makes his other craft, sent on a mission that something built like an aircraft can survive (unlike a real space mission), using rocket engines developed by someone else. His craft had about the innovativeness of a rock (and advanced about as much technology) in comparison to even a "routine" new craft by NASA (let alone an experimental one, like the X-33).

> NASA can't even get people to LEO and the ISS
> safely at present

Ironically, the shuttle has one of the best track records out there. 98% success? You rarely find those numbers in serious (orbital) rocketry. Are you seriously unfamiliar with the fact that 98% is an astounding success rate? Start to browse around astronautix.com for a while, then come back here. For example, the Ariane V, the ESA's prized rocket, has about a 20% failure rate.

> When NASA is squandering a billion plus
> dollars on a single launch whining about
> budget cuts is about as lame as it gets

What a nasty straw man that was, for two reasons.

1) I was responding to someone saying that NASA isn't held accountable by anything. This is distinctly not true. There are tons of Cut-NASA's-Budget attack dogs in congress looking for any excuse. I was hardly "whining about budget cuts".

2) The cost of a single launch is irrelevant. The relevant number is price per kilogram. The shuttle is only about 35% more expensive than an Ariane-5 launch, and has a far better safety record. It's a lot more reliable than the Proton and Long March rockets, for which it is about 80% more expensive than, which benefit from cheap labour.

> let Burt Rutan do it instead

Even Burt would laugh at that one. He runs a small aircraft development shop that doesn't even make their own engines. He could no more build an orbiter than he could an atomic bomb.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

So you didn't answer the question. You do work for NASA don't you?

Maybe you should spend a little less time being petty, vindictive, making excuses, denigrating people who are actually doing something useful, achieving their goals, etc. Maybe you should get off your duffs and try to do something useful with those billions of dollars us tax payers are wasting on your paycheck every years while you sit on the ground scratching your asses.

Its more than a little silly on your part to slam Rutan's group because they didn't go from standing start to an orbital vehicle with $25 million. At least they are doing something new. NASA isn't doing anything they haven't been doing for the last ten years, which is mostly just trying to prevent a catastrophic Shuttle failure as the scope of their missions continually shrinks. NASA can't even send a mission to service the Hubble now. NASA can't even do missions its already done anymore. In my book that is a sign of failure, not the success that would justify your arrogance.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

Its kind of goofy to compare safety records of the Shuttle to unmanned expendable launch vehicles. Like it or not the Shuttle was sold on and entirely dependent on a safety record much higher than the one that its achieved. When the shuttle fails 7 people die and you lose a now irreplaceable vehicle. Its really sick to come out after two catastrophic failures that have destroyed the program and say 2% is really a great safety record. We should be proud.

"The shuttle is only about 35% more expensive than an Ariane-5 launch"

What is the source for this number? The one I find in a quick google search:

Shuttle $10,000/pound,
Arian 5 $3500-$4500/pound

For the last couple of years the shuttle cost is actually infinity since its launched zero pounds and its still devouring billions of dollars each year. Apparently next first two missions are going to be test flights and I don't think they are actually lifting any useful cargo either. You have to lie and forget the massive overhead of failure to even get close to your rather optimistic number.

I assure you using a billion dollar space shuttle mission to ferry a couple astronauts to the ISS and a couple thousand pounds of cargo up and trash back doesn't make a case for cost effectiveness.

The shuttle was sold as being economical and making access to space routine. It has obviously failed on every one of its original design criteria. It gets nothing but worse as the shuttle flight rate gets worse and it gets worse every year. Maybe they've cut costs but the payroll and overhead stay the same as the flight rate declines.

"Even Burt would laugh at that one. He runs a small aircraft development shop that doesn't even make their own engines. He could no more build an orbiter than he could an atomic bomb."

I assure you Rutan is working on plans for an orbital vehicle. I think they call it either Level 2 or Level 3. Its a tall order I'll admit but I wager if he gets enough funding he'll do it. If I had to place a billion dollar bet on NASA building a new manned vehicle or Rutan building one, Rutan wins hands down. NASA might be able to do one but the price tag and the schedule is going to be so prohibitive that even if they do eventually manage it would still be a failure.

Really if you keep up the arrogance it will just make you look more silly when he proves you wrong. Were you shoveling the same crap saying he couldn't win the X prize?

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Rei]

Perhaps you should take the time to answer a simple bloody question. And no, I don't work for NASA, nor any of their contractors.

And perhaps you should stop with the outright lies:

> NASA isn't doing anything they haven't been
> doing for the past 10 years

Did you completely ignore the link to 10,000 research papers that I provided which simply use the word "novel" in them? NASA does a *HUGE* amount of new research every year; just because you're ignorant isn't an excuse to make stuff up.

> which is mostly just trying to prevent a
> catastrophic Shuttle failure

Complain to the public about expecting perfection, not NASA. The shuttle has one of the best safety records of any rocket in history with a statistically relevant number of launches under its belt. 98% is incredible in the rocketry world.

> because they didn't go from standing start to
> an orbital behicle with $25 million

1) With >25 mil$ - they refuse to disclose just how much, however.

2) They simply built a joyride. Ooooooh! Why on earth should anyone be impressed with a vehicle whose constraints are little more than those met by an aircraft, and not even remotely like those like a real rocket? The situation is "an aircraft builder builds an aircraft powered by someone else's rocket engine". Oooohhh!

As I've pointed out, their craft CANNOT SCALE. 90% of it would have to be tossed. You can't make an epoxy craft get to orbit - the heating is just too extreme (but Rutan doesn't have the experience of working with much in the line of advanced metal alloys - he builds mostly epoxy craft). You can hardly get a heavy tank/low ISP craft to orbit from the ground, let alone build a carrier for it (it would dwarf the Cossack). And I haven't even touched reentry yet.

It is not a stepping stone - little of what he did can be used. It's not anything but a joyride. I know you'd like to pretend it's more, but it's not. 1/20th of the necessary delta-V with a high exponent on the scaling rate and none of the materials challenges have been addressed.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Rei]

We *should* be proud of 2% failure rate. Soyuz doesn't meet that record. Nothing does that has had a significant number of launches.

No. The shuttle is a little over 13,000$/kg. Your Ariane numbers are correct. Its LEO payload is 24,400 kg. The cost varies, but its running average is between 300k and 350k$ per launch in modern dollars - *Including Overhead*. Shuttle launch costs are determined by comparing the shuttle's annual budget to the number of shuttle launches.

> a couple thousand pounds of cargo

For God's sake, look at a payload registry before you lie next time.

> The shuttle was sold as being economical and making access to space routine.

Yes, it failed to cut costs (although it *DID* deliver on safety, compared to almost all other series out there). So sue them that their experimental rocket failed. It's congresses fault for continuing to mandate its use instead of funding a new one.

> I think they call it either Level 2 or Level 3

Tier 2. And they haven't touched it, nor announced plans to do so.

> Rutan wins hands down.

Very, very, very amusing. The guy who builds little planes out of epoxy and rockets that fit into the same flight envelope is suddenly going to learn how to deal with superalloys and going to double his ISP while halving his tank mass. And his rocket company which made a rocket engine that basically sprays gas into a rubber-lined tube is going to be able to get the needed ISP out of an engine. Suuuuuuuure. :)

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[florescent_beige]

Burt Rutan has done very interesting things over the years, but none of it (so far as I know) has met with large scale economic success.

I think of the Beech Starship, which despite being right down the middle of Burt's canard/composite paradigm didn't sell and was cancelled. The performance simply wasn't the leap forward that people hoped for. I also couldn't help but notice White Knight isn't a canard (neither is the Global Flyer)...a decade ago Burt had a lot of people convinced canards were a quantum leap in efficiency.

Burt's a clever designer, but I'm not convinced he's particularly smart about economics or practicality.

I also have to agree with the parent about SS1..by my rough calculations it develops about 2 or 3 percent of the energy required to reach orbit. Getting up there is actually the easy part. The real barrier is spooling it up to 5 miles a second. If Burt knows of a propulsion system available today that will allow for airline type operations to orbit then he knows something nobody else does.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

"Did you completely ignore the link to 10,000 research papers"

Uh, yea. Dont think those research papers are going to put men in space. You can try lighting them on fire and try. Research papers are stuff academics churn out to expand there rep, sometimes they are valuable, much of the time they are just a ticket to a convention and some partying.

I'm betting a small fraction of this total has anything to do with manned space flight. There is a percentage of them that have useful research which, when implemented, will move forward our space program. Until and unless they are implemented they don't count for anything.

"98% is incredible in the rocketry world."

You are repeating yourself. Again after two catastrophic failures both of which were due to known problems which could have been prevented saying 98% is incredible isn't saying anything. After the Challenger accident the whole promise of the Shuttle program collapsed, and the military pretty much abandoned it. After the second accident the program is relegated to finishing the ISS, another complete failure and NOTHING else. But we are still going to waste billions of dollar a year on it for years and its doing nothing useful.

Anyway you slice it it is program which failed, and the ISS failed. NASA's manned space program
has failed twice in a row with an enormous price tag. There is no reason to expect a different outcome if you give them a third chance.

Rutan has been successful in his last two high risk endeavors, a round the world, non stop flight and the first private launch to put a man in space. Success breeds success. He knows how to succeed.

Hence I vote my tax dollars go to try something new and a little risky. Maybe Rutan can't do it but I wager he can assemble a small team that can. I want another Kelly Johnson skunk works kind of team that doesn't list all the reasons they can't do something but figures out ways they can, a team that doesn't constantly whine for more money to waste but succeeds with what they have. Rutan has the two ingredients for success, he is can-do and he subscribes to the KISS principal. NASA has lost both of those characteristics.

What exactly have we to lose. Cancel one of the two, waste of time shuttle return to flight test flights, and give Rutan's team a billion dollars, no strings attached except that he build a reusable spacecraft that will get a couple thousand pounds of cargo or people to an ISS orbit and repeat the trip a week or two later.

"They simply built a joyride"

As for your derision of joyrides and space tourism your tight NASA should thumb its nose at this....if they want the public to continue to turn on them and lose its interest in space exploration. As the public support dwindles so does the political support. When the political support goes so does the budget. Earlier you were whining about NASA budget cuts and politics. Budget cuts are correlatable to declining public interest in and support for space exploration. So you are correct if NASA doesn't want any money it should continue to diss space tourism and joy rides.

As best I recall the SpaceShipOne flights are the only thing thats happened in manned space flight in nearly forever that actually excited the public again. JPL's unmanned mission are way ahead of NASA's manned space program in exciting the public and they spend a fraction of the money. Most people really cant stand seeing billions a year be spent on people riding bicycles and playing with bugs in space.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[demachina]

"Burt's a clever designer, but I'm not convinced he's particularly smart about economics or practicality."

So NASA is? Economical and practical aren't words I would ever associate with NASA at least since the end of the Apollo era. In the Apollo era there were definitely not economical but they were practical.

I kind of doubt Rutan is out to get rich. He is funding his hobby which appears to be tackling engineering challenges and doing things in cool new ways. He appears to have been quite successful in getting his projects funded, succeeding, on a shoestring budget, and then starting on the next thing he wants to do. Most geek, engineer types like me would trade my career for his in a heartbeat.

Again he has been successful in his last two high risk ventures:

- Around the world non stop flight
- First private group to put a man in space using the same vehicle in the space of a week. It may be they are the first ever to do it though I suspect the X-15 probably did it depending on the turn around time and altitude between missions with the same vehicle. Dont think anyone since the X-15 has done it private or government.

By contrast NASA's last two manned space programs have cost hundreds of billions of dollars and:
- The space shuttle is now a complete failure, all its going to do is finish the ISS and then be abandoned
- The ISS is a complete failure and the U.S. is apparently going to abandon it as soon as they finish building it very reduced configuration, leaving the Russians and Europeans to try and salvage it.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Rei]

> Uh, yea. Dont think those research papers are going to > put men in space.

Those papers that you demean are research. They're what makes space travel cheaper and more reliable. Try reading them.

> Research papers are stuff academics churn out to
> expand there rep

Lets just look at the first one on the list, shall we?

"Novel Laser-Melt Process Created For High-Temperature Piezo Electric Material Development"

You'd hardly be one to argue that being able to move elements of a spacecraft is unimportant, now would you? Unfortunately, linear, pneumatic, and hydraulic actuators are rather unreliable devices in the extreme conditions of space - fluids freeze, leaks are easier, oil freezes, etc. For small tasks, piezoelectric actuators are a good way to resolve this. But what about during high temperatures? Most piezoelectric actuators will fail at above 100C or so. Well, they developed two methods to grow single crystal fibers of Lanthanum-Titanate which function for this role.

Is this "worthless"? Lets take the next one, shall we?

"A novel solution-technique applied to a novel WAAS architecture"

The FAA is looking to upgrade their ability to track aircraft. The paper develops a method of encorporating GPS data from a custom satellite designed to provide the needed level of reliability, into a nationwide networked system. They then develop the statistical reliability model, critical for applications like FAA work.

Worthless? How about the third? "A NOVEL SURFACE TREATMENT FOR TITANIUM ALLOYS" - or do you think that stopping titanium alloys from corroding is "worthless"? How about the fourth? What about the fourth, "A Novel Approach for Reducing Rotor Tip-Clearance Induced Noise In Turbofan Engines" - is reducing turbofan engine noise (and furthermore, drag) "worthless"? The fifth? The

In fact, why don't you *name* what ones are worthless, instead of just asserting?

> Again after two catastrophic failures both of which were
> due to known problems which could have been
> prevented

Anything could have been prevented with psychic powers. While Challenger was due to a known risk, concerns about the falling foam were only raised by one engineer, and that was after the collision. You'll get more complaints about the shuttle's toilet than that.

> saying 98% is incredible isn't saying anything.

Present a manned rocket that has done over, say, 20 launches, that has a better success rate. Or shut up. Your choice.

> After the Challenger accident the whole promise of the
> Shuttle program collapsed, and the military pretty much
> abandoned it.

Wrong once again (stop it!). About half of all shuttle payloads are military. Want some payload manifolds?

> NASA's manned space program has failed twice in a row
> with an enormous price tag.

Yeah, it's not like it's been the most successful space program in the world or anything, and sent people to the f-ing moon. ;) Or like it launched several thousand satellites which make our everyday lives easier, developed most of the superalloys used by the world (and many conventional alloys), sent probes all across our solar system, or anything remotely related to that....

> There is no reason to expect a different outcome if you
> give them a third chance.

Third? You mean over 100th. The shuttle hasn't flown only twice.

> Rutan has been successful in his last two high risk
> endeavors

The idiot nearly killed his pilot twice by launching in high wind conditions to satisfy a waiting crowd, and never resolved his roll problems. Pardon me if I don't admire his judgement much.

> a round the world, non stop flight and the first private
> launch to put a man in space.

None of which he has done, or even come remotely close to doing!

> Success breeds success. He knows how to succeed.

Re:Scrapping the Shuttle?

[Anonymous Coward]

blah...

Is huold porfraed bfeore I psot

I thought...

[gandell]

I was under the impression that NASA may be considering a move away from the Space Shuttle projects. Could this be one of the last missions, or are the rumors greatly exaggerated?

Re:I thought...

[pointyhairedmba]

NASA is moving away from the Shuttle... but not for anouther 20-28 missions. There simply is not enough lift capability that can support the current design on the various ISS modules. They were built to fit in the Shuttle and not in another heavy lift booster. My guess is the net present value of the science + ecomonic gain will dip below 0 if the remaining components have to be redesigned. So we need to keep the Shuttle active for most of the remaining build out time of the ISS.

Hey, on the bright side, the Shuttle was built specifically to go to a space station (space station Alpha, then Freedom, etc) which never materialized until well into the Shuttle's life. So at least it's doing what it was supposed to do (hence the name Shuttle)...

What we need to do...

[rearl]

...is finish the research/testing and build the damned elevators. And put up a base on the Moon. And one on Mars.

Re:What we need to do...

[TheClassic]

They should build an escalator too. That way you could just stand and enjoy the ride, or if you're in a hurry walk fast; you can pick your own pace. The elevator would definitely be better for moving in and out, though.

Re:What we need to do...

[Ironsides]

I'd personaly like to several at each lagrange point, a couple in earth orbit, and a few around some other planets and on some of the major moons as well.

Re:What we need to do...

[rhsanborn]

I really don't think the space elevator concept will work. You have a massive ball and chain attached to a most likely ocean going platform that is mobile. This mobile platform is all that is connecting this giant ball that is trying to hurl itself away from the reaches of gravity to the earth. I see a couple problems with this. One, the platform getting picked up, two the platform getting pulled along the worlds oceans out of control by a giant ball on a cable. Finally three, what is to keep this giant ball directly above the platform. They want to use centripital force to keep tension on the line so that thing doesn't fall to earth. I can only see this little ball going faster or slower than earth's rotation and the cable pretty much trying to wrap istelf around earth.

Re:What we need to do...

[Macgruder]

Then you have no idea how the space elevator works.

It's not anchored (structually) to the surface of the Earth. It's connected, but that's only to keep the lower end from moving around do to the effect of the atmosphere (wind)

The anchor is a point in geo-synch orbit, the midpoint of the full length of the elevator. The lower terminus is at Earth's surface, but its upper end is as far away from the midpoint as the lower end is (think equal mass). The whole thing actually orbits the Earth just like a geo-sync satellite.

Re:What we need to do...

[TheClassic]

I can just see it now: (from Red vs. Blue)

Simmons: Seriously though, why are we out here? As far as I can tell it's just a box canyon in the middle of nowhere...no way in or out.

Grif: uh huh...

Simmons: The only reason that we set up a red base here is because they have a blue base over there. And the only reason they have a blue base over there is because we have a red base over here.

Grif: Yeah, that's because we're fighting each other.

Simmons: No, no, but I mean, even if we were to pull out today and they were to come take our base they would have two bases in the middle of a box canyon. Whoop-dee-fucking-do.

Re:What we need to do...

[Tackhead]

> ...is finish the research/testing and build the damned elevators.

"elevators"?

You misspelled "suspension bridges".

Build me a suspension bridge out of carbon nanotubes, and I'll be first in line to invest in the space elevator. But not until then.

Re:What we need to do...

[cjameshuff]

The counterweight, if there is one (a long enough cable can be its own counterweight, and provide a very useful launch point to the rest of the solar system), will simply be small enough not to break the cable or pull the anchor point loose. That's not difficult to engineer. This isn't even on the list of problems to solve to make the space elevator possible...if you can build the cable, you can anchor it.

As for the "little ball" going faster or slower...if it does so, tension on the cable will increase and the forces will pull it straight again. Yes, if you send payloads up at too high a rate, it'll stretch "backward". It won't wrap around the earth, though, it'll just break somewhere and head into a slightly higher than geosynchronous orbit. It'd be a bit of a pain to retrieve and reattach it, but not a worldwide or even local catastrophe. And it's easy to prevent...don't send payloads up so often. It's not difficult to plan this kind of thing. The space elevator doesn't require new mathematics or engineering, just new materials strong enough for the cable.

The other responder was incorrect...if the elevator was built to be in perfect equilibrium, it wouldn't be able to lift any payloads. It is in tension, with a higher than GEO "natural" orbit.

taxes...

[zxflash]

how about nasa gives the tax payers a break... or at least uses the money to conduct some "useful" reasearch.

Re:taxes...

[Rei]

Yeah, because NASA isn't doing useful research. Suuure....

And they're able to fund a lot of their research from the shuttle's budget, at that (if it can have applications for the shuttle, they do so). The shuttle gets them money from congress. They need a new public darling if they want to replace it.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[quigonn]

IMHO it was never bad engineering, but bad quality management. All the big catastrophes, be it on NASA's or ESA's side, could have caught by a rigorous net of quality management processes. But these net don't seem to exist in either of the two organization, at least not the extent where it makes them find errors.

The Shuttle is Dead...

[gandell]

The Shuttle is dead...Long live the Shuttle.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[rearl]

RE: the Columbia - I don't think the QC was missing - I think the QC'ers were suppressed.

NASA has no choice

[ghoul]

They may hate the shuttle but due to the short sightedness of the last few administrations they have no other viable space lift vehicle available. And they have contractual obligations on the International Space Station. The poor Russians (bankrupt as they are) are pulling more than their share and might get fed up soon if NASA doesnt start pulling its weight. After all the Russian part of the ISS is built independently. They can just close the doors and jettison all the US modules.

Re:NASA has no choice

[kegon]

The poor Russians (bankrupt as they are) are pulling more than their share and might get fed up soon

Right, so the Russians have never been late in their delivery of sections of the ISS or sending Soyuz resupply modules. NASA never had to prod them to make important contracted ISS deliveries instead of trying to make "side money" with space tourism. Right.

Re:NASA has no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

jettison all modules? how would the russian parts be held together without US connection nodes after they are jettisoned (among other things). how would those russian parts be powered without the US solar arrays? etc, etc, etc...no, they can't just close the doors and jettison all the US modules...it's called an ISS for a reason - without the parts from at least one other country, the thing wouldn't work.

Re:NASA has no choice

[mattdm]

And you know, why *would* they jettison the US modules? I mean, if the problem is that we can't get there to do anything, how are we going to argue if they're using them without us? Stand on the ground and yell really loud?

Re:NASA has no choice

[JJ]

The poor Russian modules have been late and paid for with US tax dollars. Built independently? Perhaps. But seperating them now would be futile.

Re:NASA has no choice

[LooseChanj]

Not exactly. Russia probably wouldn't be able to sustain their section for very long (and definately not anything better than things are now) at all. Eh, it's a bad deal all around, and I don't think anyone involved is really going to make the best of it.

Re:NASA has no choice

[igny]

As usual in capitalist world, they put monetary equivalent for the obligations. A couple of years ago Russia was behind their obligations, which put them at ~$60-70mln in debt. Since they didn't have money to compensate, they used barter. Namely, Russian cosmonauts worked on American projects aboard ISS. I don't know exact figures, but they charged $500/hour or so. Russia have also been repaying their debt in the last months by supplying their Soyuzes. Their outstanding balance became officially $0 after that work they did to fix the break circuit in American segment of the ISS (I read somewhere that they charged 500 of work hours for that job).

From then on NASA has been falling behind. Since Congress prohibited paying cash to Russia, they will use barter again. Now American taxpayers should expect astronauts to work on Russian projects.

Re:NASA has no choice

[Pxtl]

One theory I heard often espoused is that its actually all JFK's fault. Basically, the idea is that the moon project resulted in NASA becoming over-obsessed with rocketry instead of developing space-plane technology, and as a result there wasn't the space-plane background ready to design the shuttle the way it really could've been done.

The whole idea is obsurd until you think back to the incredible things they were doing with hypersonic jets back then - stuff that people are hard pressed to replicate now. Remember the SR-71?

Re:NASA has no choice

[rikkards]

I think the reason that the there has not been a successor to the SR-71 is due to the quality of optics on satellites. Plus the fact that something in orbit is more difficult to shoot down. Course this is an unedu-ma-cated observation and may be completely inaccurate.

Re:NASA has no choice

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey..... Cool down.... Of course Americans are the GREATEST and BESTEST on the whole planet if not the universe. Nobody would ever say anything different! No need to get nervous...

Re:NASA has no choice

[cjameshuff]

Hypersonic jets would still be hypersonic jets. You need rockets to get to orbit. (Well, a space elevator would also work, but you need rockets to put it up.)

Putting a rocket on a hypersonic jet to get it into orbit has its own problems...hypersonic aircraft are heavy, and you have to take all that mass into orbit where it's absolutely useless. And somehow manage to squeeze a useful cargo in there somewhere. It turns out to be a lot easier and cheaper to just launch a rocket...getting into orbit is nothing like flying through the atmosphere, and a hybrid vehicle that does both won't do either as well as a special purpose one.

Re:NASA has no choice

[ghoul]

If you look at the ISS design all the Russian modules are connected together while the US modules are added on top of them. This is because ISS is basically the hardware the Russians had produced for MIR 2
At the start of the building of ISS most of the modules were Russian and the US modules are mostly on the ground waiting for the shuttle to get up to speed.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[jmcmunn]

A lot of those failed attempts could have been avoided if the launch supervisors had just listened to the engineers. There have been times when the engineers are saying that the weatehr is too bad, or that a certain component is questionable for launch.

Let's not blame the engineers...blame the safety inspectors, or the launch supervisors if we're blaming someone. :-)

The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Smoo_Master]

From the Article:

The shuttle program has 28 flights remaining on its books before the orbiters are scheduled to be mothballed toward the end of the decade. All are in support of the International Space Station, which remains under construction.

The shuttles are back, but only temporarily. Work on their replacements is likely being done now.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[pudknocker]

Replacements for the shuttle won't be flying anytime soon. The X-33/VentureStar was canceled a couple of years ago. The X-38/Crew Return Vehicle/Space Taxi, which was being considered as a crew module atop an expendable rocket, was canceled even though development seemed to be proceeding well.

And then there is the new CLCS (Command and Launch Checkout System) a replacement for the shuttle launch consoles and computers which was also canceled after 100's of millions of dollars.

NASA should fund Burt Rutan (if he'd take the money), then something would get done.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[mrjackson2000]

i belive this is where the work being done for the X Prize falls into place, NASA could hire the designers of the various teams to work on something

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[WolfWithoutAClause]

NASA should fund Burt Rutan (if he'd take the money), then something would get done.

I imagine Burt's position would be along the lines of: "If NASA would fund Burt Rutan then nothing would get done."

The reason is that NASA runs on an incredibly high load of paperwork; you spend most of the money they give you just filling in their paperwork.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Rei]

And Rutan has done what that would enable him to get to orbit or survive reentry?

He competed for a prize for which the requirements were in the range of his experience. I.e., it enabled him to do what he always did, build small craft out of epoxy with normal control surfaces, et al. He didn't even build the rocket engine himself - SpaceDev deserves the credit for that one (although we can go into why SpaceDev doesn't have the qualifications either for the next rocket engine if you want...)

I hate sounding like a broken record, but SpaceShipOne wasn't even a tiny fraction of the effort to get to orbit, and was hardly even a step in the right direction. 90% of SS1 doesn't advance the goal of getting to orbit, because it's specific impulse is just far too low for its required tank mass. You need to scrap the tanks, the engines, and basically everything but the cabin - and that's all *before* you deal with the reentry problem.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Tackhead]

> And Rutan has done what that would enable him to get to orbit or survive reentry?

Built a new man-rated vehicle capable of powered flight, which is more than you can say for NASA over the past 20 years.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Rei]

Please explain how that answers my question. NASA doesn't fund the development of joyrides.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Tackhead]

> Please explain how that answers my question. NASA doesn't fund the development of joyrides.

But neither does it fund the development of new manned space vehicles. It develops them until they get to a point at which they might threaten the entrenched Shuttle/ISS pork barrel, and then cancels the project.

With shuttle retirement now a reality, maybe this time it'll be different, but I doubt it.

Personally, I'd like to see NASA scrap the ISS and concentrate on unmanned space science, at which they're pretty damn good. Contract out the probe launches to commercial providers, which they're doing now. And have about $3B/year to use in either doing more science or in actually seeing a next-generation project through to completion.

I don't want NASA to "fund joyrides". I want the joyriders to fund themselves. Once that happens, the joyriders will produce other joyriders, because people will be making money in space. The more meat you can put up in orbit, the more of the meat's money you make. The price drops, and someday the scientist-meat can afford to go too. (Much like the scientist-robots are flying commercial, rather than Shuttle, these days.)

NASA's manned programme is a nest of perverse incentives: a space station that does no science, but requires the shuttle, and a shuttle that does no science, and requires a space station. They're both very good at "making money" (in the sense of burning through Congressional appropriations), but so long as the money keeps coming, NASA's manned programme has no incentive either to put meat into space or do science in space.

So yeah, Burt's a hell of a long way from orbit. But because he's motivated by profit (which he doesn't get if he doesn't build SpaceShip Two/Three), and because NASA has no motivation to do anything other than preserve its current bureaucracy, I'd put even money on Burt getting to orbit before the next-generation Shuttle will. If you give me 3:1 odds, I'd even put money on Burt making at least one orbit before the next-generation Shuttle gets off the drawing board.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[TheFev]

It's been time. We're spending too much money for such an unreliable and bulky product. I'm suprised we haven't scrapped back in the 90's.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Anonymous Coward]

The Space Shuttle's purpose is to build and maintain the space station. The shuttle program hasn't come out with a new vehicle, but I'd say a lot has come out of the ISS.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Rei]

> It develops them until they get to a point at which they
> might threaten the entrenched Shuttle/ISS

No more insinuation without details. Name what you're referring to, or stop asserting.

> ... joyrides ... orbit ...

SS1 doesn't even remotely resemble getting to orbit. It is about as close to getting to orbit as someone with a snorkel is to exploring the Marianas trench.

> a space station that does no science

*sigh*. If you can't bother to educate yourself about the most basic facts of the ISS before discussing it, why should I even bother speaking with you?

http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/research_projects/ ro s/ros.html

Your concept of NASA's incentives are completely ludicrous. NASA *has* to keep putting people in space, or it loses its funding. All of its big-ticket items are congressionally mandated. So, no, you're completely wrong. People in space is the only thing that gets NASA money.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[pudknocker]

This is correct. However he did it on $20 million, NASA couldn't fund a study to do investiagate the feasibility of such a project for that amount.

Re:The Shuttles are Being Phased Out

[Rei]

So, in short, someone did a project that is 1/Nth the difficulty for 1/Nth the money (where N is a really high number). Give him a medal, why don't you? :)

Weather

[Anonymous Coward]

They need to launch in May before hurricane season starts again.

Quality is part of engineering

[postbigbang]

Design and architectural engineering can't exist in a vacuum. Quality engineering must be part of the process. Too many times I've winced when NASA screws up. The accountability is terrible.

We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[mOoZik]

The shuttles are nearly thirty years old, from the beginning of development to today. Each launch costs taxpayers nearly 1/2 billion dollars. Isn't there a better alternative? Can't we use technology to our advantage to design inexpensive machines similar to the shuttle? In my mind, the shuttle is comparable to bulky American 70's cars, while what it is really needed is the German Smart Car. Pardon the analogy.

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you think a bunch of people can just go out and build a spaceship for next to nothing? Get real!

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[Anonymous Coward]

Was he saying that?

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[JJ]

I agree. The problem is sex appeal though. The cheaper alternative is disposable rockets, but for NASA they have zero sex appeal.

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[LWATCDR]

The shuttle was a good idea. To get into space cheap you need a reusable space craft. Think how "cheap" your german smart car is if you have to replace it after every trip to the store.
The Shuttle should have been an experiment. We should have been working on it's replacement the day it first flew. The improved shuttle should have flown in 1992 and another improved shuttle in 2002. The shuttle was GROSSLY under funded from day one. The Goverment traded lower development costs for higher operating costs. Here are some of the concepts that where turned down due to cost of development http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/p219.htm

If you want to learn what the Shuttle might have been take a look at this
http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch8.htm
Ide aly there should have been two programs one low risk maybe expendable launch vehicle and one high technical risk shuttle that pushed the state of the art.
We are not going to get anywhere with Big Dumb Boosters. But we are also not going to get anywhere with the goverment cheaping out on development at the cost of operation expence like it did with the Shuttle.

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[DerekLyons]

The shuttles are nearly thirty years old, from the beginning of development to today. Each launch costs taxpayers nearly 1/2 billion dollars. Isn't there a better alternative? Can't we use technology to our advantage to design inexpensive machines similar to the shuttle?

No, we can't use technology to our advantage, as technology isn't the problem.

The problem with the Shuttle is the same chicken-and-egg problem that space acess has faced for decades; With a small market and low flight rates, prices per flight rise. With high prices per flight, the market has no incentive to grow. This is Economics 101.

It's also an issue of basic design; as Shuttle costs rose in the 1970's (partially because of development problems, partly because of inflation), NASA and Congress steadily made choices to trade reduced development costs for increased operational costs. (Under the not totally unjustified (then) assumption that the Shuttle would be gone by the late 80's, and a better product building on the Shuttle experience would be available.)

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[Rei]

I'll agree that Big Dumb Boosters only have limited applications. However, engines like SSMEs may have gone too far in the other direction. Part of the reason the shuttle is so expensive to maintain is due to those incredibly complex engines. It's kind of sad that few people ever seem to go for a compromise option - what is so crazy about the idea of part high-tech, part low-tech engines?

Thanks for posting the articles about earlier NASA designs so more people could see them; many people seem to think that the shuttle today even resembles how it was designed before budget cuts. They really should move over to titanium for the frame. Its stats are just incredible. And while it's not the strongest superalloy (not even an alloy, but lets not go there) - for example, AerMet has over twice the tensile strength and is cheaper - Titanium is half the weight of most superalloys (AerMet, Inconel, Haynes, etc), has one of the highest melting points, and still remains quite strong (especially compared to aluminum alloys). A 15% craft mass savings translates to a *huge* benefit in terms of lightening design limitations (as well as the heat benefit allowing a less effective thermal protection to be used) and offers a great payload increase.

Lowering the tech on your engines may cut your maintinance in half while costing you a few ISP; but building out of a better material (like titanium) will far more than make up for it. I'm a big supporter of "use the good, espensive alloys, but moderate your design complexity". I mean, using a cooled Haynes 230 nozzle (for example) with reasonable pressure, you'll get almost no relevant amount of corrosion despite repeated use. It's more of an up front cost, but so? We just need to give NASA the budget it needs for proper initial craft development.

Re:We need a newer, cheaper alternative...

[LWATCDR]

"Lowering the tech on your engines may cut your maintinance in half while costing you a few ISP;"
I do not feel that lowering your tech really helps you with maintinance. Look at modern jet engines. They are incredbly complex yet as reliable as a stoneaxe. It is HOW you apply the technology. One idea would be for a reusable rocket engine require the engine contract include overhual and refurbishment. It would be a win win. Nasa gets a fixed cost and the engine manufacture gets an income stream. The SSMEs have been one of the few parts of the Shuttle program that worked. None of the failures where caused by the SSMEs but instead by the low tech parts the ET and the SRBs

I believe the plan is

[Timesprout]

To tie a giant piece of string and a couple of ribbons to it and launch it like a kite in the next hurricane.

Still planning on mothballs

[Anonymous Coward]

"The shuttle program has 28 flights remaining on its books before the orbiters are scheduled to be mothballed toward the end of the decade. All are in support of the International Space Station, which remains under construction."

They have a deadline and list on what the shuttles are to do for the ISS.
*Toast*
May they have the time and technology to get their jobs completed with no more accidents.

Ohhh...The hangover...

[dnaboy]

Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season, I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year altogether.

Tell me about it. If I went through a space shuttle disaster, my liver would be pretty damaged from drinking hurricanes (or, more likely Jameson's on the Rocks) too.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not bad engineering....blame the politicians and bureaucrats behind the scenes saying, "DO IT!" when the engineers are screaming, "NO!". That's why we lost the first shuttle...

Damn editors

[CrystalFalcon]

The shuttle is on ITS way.

The shuttle is on ITS way.

The shuttle is on ITS way.

No damn apostrophe.

Why are they called editors when they don't proofread and don't edit?

Re:Damn editors

[Anonymous Coward]

who cares about grammar any more. woot.

Re:Damn editors

[Anonymous Coward]

NASA is on ITS way
NASA is on ITS way
NASA is on ITS way

Why are you calling someone out on grammar if you misquote them?

Re:Damn editors

[Anonymous Coward]

I just love the modding this comment got!!!

Starting Score: 1 point
Moderation 0
30% Insightful
20% Troll
20% Redundant
Extra 'Insightful' Modifier 0

Re:Damn editors

[sharkey]

And it would be nice if they'd explain acronyms so that those of us who are not in the know can increase our knowledge. What does ITS stand for, anyway?

Mod parent funny!

[j0kkk3l]

I already spent my mod points for today. :(

Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[Nova Express]

What does it tell you about the state of NASA when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit, while it takes NASA two years? Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.

Despite the fact that there are many extremely smart and talented people at NASA, it, like every bureaucracy, has become an entrenched special interest, more concerned with preserving its budget than in actually moving the cause of space flight forward. The Space Shuttle, no matter how many times it has been retrofitted, is still 1970s technology. It's hideously expensive to launch and requires a vast support army to operate. But that vast support army is precisely why it exists. The space shuttle exists to serve the International Space Station. The International Space Station exists to be serviced by the space shuttle. Both provide lots of aerospace industry jobs and this is, in fact, their primary function. Turf and caution have become the watchwords at the highest echelons of NASA, who are more concerned with protecting their bureaucratic empire than moving the exploration and colonization of space forward. The shuttle monopoly has strangled the development of alternative launch vehicles, something the X Prize has only partially offset. A lot of people had predicted we'd not only have launched a manned mission to Mars by now, but set up a colony. See any sign of that?

Until there's a serious shakeup among the upper echelons of NASA bureaucrats, expect for the U.S. manned space program to creep along rather than soaring.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[AndroSyn]

What does it tell you about the state of NASA when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit, while it takes NASA two years? Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.

Rutan's ship didn't go into orbit, it simply went into space and just barely at that.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[rhsanborn]

If I remember correctly, his ship never went into orbit and went about 1/7th the height. It also never gets to the shuttles 17,000+ mph speed and thus doesn't have to deal with all that heat slowing down. It also has a small fraction of the amount of fuel. I'd rather they take their time and avoid burning men because they decided they had to hurry.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[Burdell]

Burt Rutan's ship has never been to orbit and never will go to orbit
(unless someone builds an orbital vehicle large enough to carry
SpaceShip One as dead weight to an orbital museum).

The X Prize was about recreating the X-15 program, nothing more. Nobody
with a clue would call 3 test flights (two of which experienced
significant control problems) a step towards anything except more tests
to better understand what happened. If they really cared about safety,
they wouldn't have launched again after the 30 rolls without a lot more
research and test flights, but they turned it around and launched it in
4 days anyway; it was all about the X Prize and the publicity.

After all, when NASA loses astronauts (and a vehicle), they have to shut
down, get investigated by Congress, hear calls for them to be closed
permanently, etc. If SpaceShip One had failed and killed the pilot, all
we'd have heard about was what a hero he was for trying.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[angusr]

when it takes Burt Rutan 4 days to get his ship back into orbit Bit of a fallacy here - Rutan is doing nothing even vaguely similar to the Shuttle (or even later Mercury flights).

SpaceShipOne was nowhere near going into orbit. Orbit requires horizontal speed, not vertical height, and - more importantly - a way to safely bleed off that speed on re-entry without burning or breaking up.

SpaceShipOne is not capable of going into orbit, and never will be - it has neither the power to reach the Mach 25+ speeds required for orbital velocity, nor the ability to withstand the heating required to lose those speeds on reentry.

It's the equivalent of the early Mercury-Redstone flights from 1961(Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7) - short sub-orbital hops. The difference is that with a new booster (the Atlas) Mercury was capable of re-entry from orbital speeds.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[Zapdos]

Burt Rutan got his ship back into space. He did not go into any kind of orbit. Orbit requires way more energy than spaceship one could ever produce.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[logpoacher]

Granted, the Shuttles goes into a much higher orbit, and carries a lot more payload, but the difference is still ridiculous.

Other replies here have noted that S-S-1 didn't go into orbit, but it's worth emphasizing the difference between "touching space" and getting into orbit. If you do the sums, and work out just how hard it is to achieve 5 miles/sec when your propellant only leaves the nozzle at about 2 miles/sec, you'll see how staggering an achievement it is - a single stage craft would have to consist of approx 85% fuel by mass.

Burt Rutan's achievement was remarkable for the fact that he achieved what he did for less money than NASA spends on shoe care. But in terms of achieving orbit, he's going to have to solve the remaining 90+% of the problem.

Not that I don't agree with a lot of what you said! :-)

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[hemp]

Remember, the Shuttle supports 20,000 government workers and contractors. If they did it in 4 days, some been counter might start asking what they need all of those people on payroll for.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[peter303]

"The X Prize was about recreating the X-15 program, nothing more." But at a much lower cost in 2004 dollars than the massive 1950s program, due to advances in technology. Imagine a 21st century space shuttle.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[LooseChanj]

And it's the height, it's the speed. Only about 7% of the fuel expended to get the shuttle into orbit is used for gaining altitude.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[Waffle Iron]

There's a good reason that the X-15 cost more: The X-15 was more capable than SS1. Not only could it reach 100km altitude, it could also fly like an airplane at hypersonic speeds within the atmosphere. SS1 just pops up and then floats back down like a leaf. Getting up to Mach 6 in the atmosphere and controlling the flight without melting is probably by itself much harder than reaching the X-prize altitude.

Re:Burt Rutan: 4 Days. NASA: 2 Years

[yeremein]

It's the equivalent of the early Mercury-Redstone flights from 1961(Freedom 7 and Liberty Bell 7) - short sub-orbital hops. The difference is that with a new booster (the Atlas) Mercury was capable of re-entry from orbital speeds.

SpaceShipOne has much more in common with the X-15 from the early 1960s. Both are reusable rocket planes launched from an airplane, both reach the edge of space (about 100km), and both land on a runway. Neil Armstrong actually got his astronaut wings aboard an X-15, not a Gemini or Apollo flight.

The Mercury-Redstone missions, on the other hand, involved single-use capsules launched on ballistic trajectories which reached more than twice the altitude of the X-15 or SS1 before splashing down in the ocean. And, like you said, the Mercury was capable of re-entering from orbit, while the SS1 (and X-15) are not.

New tech needed

[goneutt]

The shuttles are masterpeices of engineering.... circa 1980. Unfortunatly they invested $$$ in a short production run vehicle that seems to still serve the original purpose. If you were to start building one new replacement it would take a long time and cost big bucks.

If they were to start off with a new design they could apply modern techniques/materials to create a lighter, stronger, more reliable system (i.e. a carbon monocot frame, carbon heat shield skin, computers that have more than 640k of ram, etc)

After working out the kinks on paper they could build a few dozen (price per unit should go down with increased volume) and launch more regularly. But then again, I'm just smoking crack here, NASA will never see that kind of budget again. Unless we can convience the public that Bin Laden is camped out in his secret moonbase.

Re:New tech needed

[thedillybar]

>Unless we can convience the public that Bin Laden is camped out in his secret moonbase.

And what makes you think that this is impossible? You can convince the public of anything if you have enough time.

Re:New tech needed

[RetiredMidn]

If they were to start off with a new design they could apply modern techniques/materials to create a lighter, stronger, more reliable system (i.e. a carbon monocot frame, carbon heat shield skin, computers that have more than 640k of ram, etc)

Yeah, but they should probably re-think the mission requirements, too. The shuttle had too many mission requirements for one vehicle; it had to bring reasonably large crews (seven people) to orbit and back, deliver relatively large payloads to orbit, and, by the way, be able to bring fairly large payloads (although not as large) from orbit back to earth. And they had to invent much of the technology to do it. And, unlike Mercury/Gemini/Apollo, they didn't have the budget to investigate every alternative technology as exhaustively as they would have liked to.

NASA had hoped that the shuttle would become the DC-3 of space travel, but, surprise, the first effort was more like the DC-1; in retrospect, not a big surprise. But, in spite of all the hindsight, a big accomplishment.

We have learned a lot about operating in space through operating the shuttle, and it is time to apply those lessons -- positive and negative -- with a relatively clean slate.

Re:New tech needed

[Suchetha]

actually iirc the shuttle was meant to be a PROTOTYPE run. it was supposed to be a precursors for a whole range of reuseable machines that would be configured to do different tasks. (ie a space bus, a space rv, a space truck for people transport, research/repairs, load transport respectively)

the shuttle was never meant to run for this long.

suchetha

NASA bashing: Think it through.

[Baumann]

Okay peeps:
1) Replacing the shuttle. yes we should. No we haven't. But we've got that great big investment up there called the ISS. Shall we just abandon it? Didn
't think so.
2) 'Disasters' - We've had two. Fewer than the Apollo program. They suck. Really they do. And they have been attributed to the 'make it work anyway' group. Who, I might add, are usually under $$$ pressure from those who are screaming for better "return on investment for the taxpayer". This is still, contrary to popular belief, exploration, and *THINGS WILL HAPPEN* - it is not airflight.

3) 'We should develop -insert your favorite space technology here-', Some of those technologies do need testing in space now.

4) 'what about spaceship-one' - what was the payload capacity? 200kilo? Roughly?

yes, NASA has problems - but contrary to popular belief - we really need the shuttles flying, if only to develop the replacements!

Re:NASA bashing: Think it through.

[Ironsides]

4) 'what about spaceship-one' - what was the payload capacity? 200kilo? Roughly?

Not even that really. Space Ship One can't get to Orbit and wasn't designed to. The shuttle can. The best comparison for space ship one might be to the early Gemini capsules.

Re:NASA bashing: Think it through.

[CrimsonAvenger]

The best comparison for space ship one might be to the early Gemini capsules

Except that SS1 can carry three people to the Gemini's two, and Gemini could reach orbit, and Gemini could stay up for extended periods (two weeks on Gemini VII), and....

You perhaps meant early Mercury?

Re:NASA bashing: Think it through.

[GnuPooh]

1) Abandon the ISS, it's not really that useful.

2) 'Disasters' happen, so stop trying to send people. It's much easier and cheaper to do it unmanned.

3) Nah, NASA doesn't have money for new technology, concentrate on just getting lots of simple small unmanned flights.

4) spaceship-one can't reach orbit.

Re:NASA bashing: Think it through.

[crawling_chaos]

Except that the early Mercury capsules only carried one, and they flew much higher than SS1 and led directly to an orbital craft. SS1 is essentially a stretch X-15, which was supposed to lead to the Air Force's Dyna-Soar, which was cancelled in favor of a civilian space program.

Re:NASA bashing: Think it through.

[jimhill]

"[W]e've got that great big investment up there called the ISS. Shall we just abandon it? Didn't think so."

Think again. If I take a thousand dollars in cash and throw it down a sewer drain I don't call it an "investment". The ISS has been so scaled down that even if completed its science value will be negligible. This is a pig in a poke, the countries that have pulled out have done so wisely, and only our pig-headed obstinance (or steadfast resolve, if you're on that side of the aisle) keeps us throwing billions at that turkey.

"'Disasters' - We've had two. Fewer than the Apollo program. They suck. Really they do. And they have been attributed to the 'make it work anyway' group."

I am admittedly not a space fanatic but I remember the Apollo 13 cockup -- which didn't kill anyone but really, really should have given the circumstances -- and the Apollo 1 fire, which killed three. 13 had a hardware fault, which is going to happen occasionally despite the best intentions and zero-defect policies. 1 suffered from a combination of poor engineering design (an inward-opening hatch? Oy) and the schedule-pushers whose successors killed the two shuttles.

Both shuttle accidents could have been averted if the engineers had been listened to by the managers. The Columbia report revealed that NASA didn't learn a goddamned thing from the Challenger disaster and I bet a dollar to a doughnut the Endeavour report will reveal that NASA didn't learn a goddamned thing from the Columbia disaster. (Not to pick on Endeavour, the next killemall shuttle cockup could just as well be one of the other two.) NASA's management culture is not capable of changing.

"[W]e really need the shuttles flying, if only to develop the replacements!"

Why? Not being snarky, but why will the presence or absence of shuttle flights assist in the design, manufacture, and testing of a next-generation (yet equally superfluous) orbital vehicle? Obviously NASA will _use_ the shuttle, if only to justify its continuing existence, perhaps to fly parts up and let them undergo the shake, rattle, and roll of a launch, but what makes the shuttle a _necessary_ part of the design effort?

I have made and continue to make a relatively unpopular statement. I'm not trolling or baiting or trying to be funny, but I feel strongly about this: De-orbit the ISS. Ground the shuttle fleet. Put all that money into the unmanned program and flood the solar system with rovers and parachuting probes and orbiting instrument platforms. They don't have to sleep a third of the time, they don't need air, or food, or water, or as much radiation shielding.

We won't, though. The US as a whole has an enormous amount of national ego built into its status as a space-faring nation. It's like cities that don't feel "world class" without a professional sports franchise writ large. Never mind that we spend way too much, go nowhere, do little of value, and periodically kill everyone onboard.

Perhaps things will change.

Re:NASA bashing: Think it through.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the probes and stuff would be hard to do long distances, because you have to make them transmit the pictures and info back. You can't recover a probe unless you can land the craft launching the probe out successfully and get the probe to fly it back somehow. Although this is most likely inaccurate, it seems logical enough, so don't mock me too much.

For that, we need carbon nano-tubes.

[arduous]

The biggest problem we have with making a space elevator, is making a cable/ribbon capable of supporting the massive weight of the cable.

For that, we need carbon nano-tubes

Once we can make carbon nanotubes of suffecient strength, length and quantity, then you will see the price per pound (the cost of getting 1 pound of matter into orbit) plummet. And that will open up space to many more viable uses.

And the second shuttle showed bad inherent design

[postbigbang]

Poof. Something breeches the wing skin, superheats the interior, and in seconds, the shuttle disintegrates. This isn't a political problem, or a budget problem, it's a design problem-- prima facia. It was bad thinking, bad review, bad design, flawed execution. And certainly not the first. I estimate that there's a half of a trillion dollars that NASA has botched in its history. Yes, it's driven by politics and military interests, but it's still woefully awful as evidenced by its mind boggling failures.

NASA's ability to recover

[colonist]

NASA has a good record of recovering after a tragedy.

If you take the Apollo program as an example, the very first Apollo mission was a disaster with three astronauts killed. And yet after that, the Apollo missions were great successes (although Apollo 13 was a close call, of course).

The Hubble Space Telescope was launched with a faulty mirror, but this was fixed and Hubble's become a great success, too.

The shuttle program will probably go the same way.

Re:NASA's ability to recover

[drw]

Let's not forget the Challenger accident in the 80's...

There is a pattern emerging with NASA's space program:

1. Tragic accident occurs
2. The government/committees/advisory boards institute new safety regulations and guidelines
3. Everything goes great, guidelines are followed...for a while...
4. Pressure to perform causes shortcuts to be made
5. GOTO 1

Re:NASA's ability to recover

[jafac]

. . . believe it or not, Apollo 11 was also a close call. They touched down with only a couple of seconds of fuel left, after trying to maneuver past a field of boulders.

Any other alternative is also a Libertarian horror

[gelfling]

I mean all the pooh-poohing about how old it is and how slow they are to get it running and how in the hell can Burt Rutan build a time machine that in 3 days and all that shit.

Well what's your "Jesus H. Christ this cost so much goddamn money that could be better used elsewhere" plan? How much should a very heavy reusable lifter cost and how complicated should it be?

Rutan didn't orbit, didn't carry a payload, can't dock with anything and at 20 million dollars per 175 pound man launched costs what the Space Shuttle costs.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[Anonymous Coward]

I know!! 6 fucking syllables. I hope she is burning in hell. Everyone calls it KC anyways, so pretty soon people won't even know what it stands for.

Good riddance, I say.

Altogether... and don't call me Shirley

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season, I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year.

Re:Altogether... and don't call me Shirley

[Anonymous Coward]

"I think it's quite impressive that they're even thinking of a launch next year."

Surely they can't be serious!

you've got to be kidding

[darkeye]

you mean it's a great effort that they can fly a re-usable spacecraft in half a years time? and when was it flown the last time?

it's not an effort, it's a shame. just shows how incapable the Space Shuttle program is...

Re:you've got to be kidding

[Anonymous Coward]

You obviously know nothing about engineering or politics.

Remember Challenger ?

[MosesJones]

The Engineers raised concerns but the system prevented them being voiced. Since then they have been very paranoid about any complaints and increased the level of checking.

So yes the organisation needs streamlining, but the reason for the concerns are two complete disasters where they were warned on BOTH occasions.

X-15

[Anonymous Coward]

The closest analogy to SpaceShipOne would be the X-15 test flights. Rocket Plane carried to altitude by a B-52 bomber, dropped and flew to the edge of 'space', glided back down to a landing.

Re:X-15

[_Sprocket_]

The closest analogy to SpaceShipOne would be the X-15 test flights.

With the exception that the X-15 was able to do more and broke far more new ground.

Re:And the second shuttle showed bad inherent desi

[conrius]

give the engineers a break, people out here cannot write a proper software without bugs in it and in a way a software works in a much more controlled environment than what happens to a space shuttle. Yet any software that rolls out has bugs in it. Look at it in another way, compare the security flaws/bugs/etc etc of a software .. open source or otherwise and compare it with the number of space related accidents !! Moral of the story : There is only some much you can design for, there is a thing called god and engineers are human too !!

Re:False Information

[applemasker]

Mod parent as Troll - and dont visit that site if you're at work.

May of which year?

[peter303]

No year mention could be any year :-)

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[rearl]

And of course, I mean Challenger, not Columbia. Duh!

China went "retro"

[peter303]

China cloned the ancient Russian soyez design, with a few modernizations for its manned space program. Why give up something that works? Soyez has a very limited cargo capacity, but Russians used unmanned rockets for big cargo.

Something better is on the way

[arnoroefs2000]

It is called the Crew Exploration Vehicle

Re:What does NASA stand for?

[Tet]

Need Another Set of Astronauts

No no no. If you were around at the time, you'd have known that it was "Need Another Seven Astronauts". Bad taste perhaps, but it's still one of my favourite jokes of all time.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[ckaminski]

Exactly 1 since the dawn of U.S. manned flight has ended up in the ocean before nominal mission end.

One was scattered all over the South.

One caught fire on the launchpad.

A pretty fucking remarkable record if you consider that a rocket is nothing less than a million pounds of high explosive in a tin can.

Damage?

[kzinti]

Considering the damage caused by the Hurricanes this season...

What damage? The VAB lost a number of sheet-metal panels. The tile fab shop lost a roof. Some other buildings sustained minor water damage. The OPF lost power once or twice. NO FLIGHT HARDWARE WAS DAMAGED. The schedule slip was due as much to the hurricane preparation exercises as to the repair activities. Schedule impact was measured in weeks, not months.

Re:Damage?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is true, but the launch window in March was a week because of another delta launch. so the may 12th date is the next available window

Unfair to NASA

[Rei]

Too many times I've heard many people accuse NASA of not doing good quality management. At the same time, I've heard many people say that NASA costs too much - that they spend too much on everything. Sometimes, they're even the same people.

Well, to be honest, these two issues are largely mutually exclusive. More testing costs more money. The reason that the shuttle is so expensive to launch, for example, is because they put it through such an extensive review (dismantling almost the entire SSMEs for inspection of parts, for example). One can say "Well, they should do (insert person's favorite test here) and omit (insert person's least favorite test here)". However, others among you will insist on just the opposite. Or both. Or neither.

The people at NASA aren't Gods. They don't know in advance which tests will turn out to be important or not. They don't know in advance which sorts of inspections will be important. They have to make choices.

You people can't have it both ways - you can either have more testing/inspection or less, corresponding to more cost or less. Fight amongst yourselves (quality pushers vs penny pinchers), and leave NASA out of it until you've made up your minds.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[Rei]

While one certainly can say that for the Challenger disaster (there was pretty much a universal engineering consensus that they shouldn't launch, but political pressure due to budget cuts led to a launch anyways), you can't say that for the Columbia disaster. In fact, I'm only aware of a single engineer, out of the tens of thousands who have been involved on the Shuttle in some way or another, who raised the foam issue to NASA administrators. You'll probably get more criticism about the orbiter's toilet than that.

Part of the problem was that not only does foam seem like it wouldn't do damage, but if you do the calculations, it doesn't pack very much force either, even at the speeds it was falling. The problem turned out to be its impulse. At those speeds, the foam behaved as if it were rigid, and so imparted all of its force to the RCC leading edge in a tiny fraction of a second. Few working on the project knew about this property of the foam, or even really suspected it.

A more comprehensive testing suite could have caught this. However, NASA engineers aren't gods; they don't know in advance what will be the problem. To expand the testing suite would have made the project more expensive - and people are already complaining about shuttle costs.

There's always that nasty balance between economics and safety.

When did you ever see a giant bureaucracy reformed

[rlglende]

NASA is a huge waste of $. It accomplishes very little very slowly.

The idea that it can be reformed in some way is complete fantasy.

Think of its management processes as a code base that has been hacked by a lot of untalented people over 30 years.

Abolition is the only possible reform.

Lew

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up....

I heard it straight from the horse's mouth. I attended two talks in the last week presented by Allan McDonald (although there were MANY engineers who initially called for the halting of Challenger, Allan was the head of these). The facts are:

Allan and his company at the time, ATK Thiokol, had actually given the "no go" for launch due to many concerns... cold weather affecting o-rings, high wind shear forcasted, and the SRB retrieval team was leaving their post due to high sea swells. What did the management do? They called a midnight meeting between the engineering heads and the Mission Management Team. They then would not accept "no" as an answer, and finally got a "go" after an anonymous vote among Thiokol engineers (note: anonymous meant any one individual could not be blamed). Anyone see a major problem here? The bigwigs wanted to launch at all costs. Similar problems occurred right before Columbia.

Face it people, NASA has become a "Prove that it fails or we will launch" rather than a "prove it will work or we won't launch" organization. Slight difference in wording, but huge gap in meaning.

Mars Attacks

[slumpy]

Fuck the shuttle, we need to send The Homeboys

Launch it leave it

[Anonymous Coward]

Launch the payload and leave it in orbit.

If we did that for the last 10 years we could of had 1000s of tons of infrastructure in space.

With the shuttle, we launch it put 150 tons in space. Then take most of the mass back down!

We need cargo ships and capsules for human transport.

Automate 90% of everything with robots. Let the humans piggy back on the effort.

With all the money saved, then invest in space elevator research and prototypes.

Meanwhile in Russia

[bbc]

The Russians seem to have started building their Kliper lifting body space craft.

Re:Any other alternative is also a Libertarian hor

[rujholla]

The ROI for space technology spending has been amazing. Please tell me where else this money should be spent, except maybe on boosting private space exploration alternatives.

Aurora Space plane??

[Anonymous Coward]

The Aurora strike interceptor is operational. It has been operational since around 2000 in its current form. The Aurora represents the closest thing to a 'space plane' with a absolute ceiling of around 400,000 ft & top speed of Mach 7.

If the decision had been made in March '03 to go to space with a similar design as the Aurora, It would probably be almost ready today for orbital flight.
http://www.rense.com/general31/dom.htm
http://www.fas.org/irp/mystery/aurora.htm

During a test flight in 1998, one of the Aurora's experienced engine difficulties & subsequently made an emergecy decent similar to a shuttle on recentry. The damage was minor compared to what was expected - leading the push for an orbitor based on the Aurora.

Unfortunately...

[TheTranceFan]

...it is very likely that the astro/cosmonauts on the International Space Station will need a few boxes of Pop-Tarts and a six pack or two before the elevator's ready.

May Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

Gen. Kostelnik (sp?), director of manned spaceflight, came to my job (http://stc.tamu.edu) and gave all the undergrads a little presentation, where he mentioned that they wont make their May date, and the next available launch window is i believe in July.

Re:May Launch

[Anonymous Coward]

my bad, its in june

need an alternate use

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just be happy if the shuttle were going to be used for something other than killing astronauts.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[starman97]

Any why was there such pressure?

Perhaps it had something to do with Reagan's State of the Union address to take place the next day.
The 'Teacher in Space' joyride was a centerpiece of that speech and it would have sounded pretty silly if the Challenger was still sitting on the launchpad while Reagan was talking about how great things were.

SR-71

[Mark of THE CITY]

Why bother with Mach 3.32 and all that cost, when you can orbit a U-2 over or near a hot zone? It's a lot cheaper, and with satellite data links you get real-time information. It's a good gap filler between satellites and UAVs.

Re:By the grace of God, let's hope NASA's fixed th

[carambola5]

And why was the Shuttle not launched the previous day, when it was supposed to?

Forcasters said there would be no chance of acceptable weather. And what was the weather that fine Sunday morning? Beautiful. Absolutely gorgeous. Not a cloud in the sky.

Well then... I guess we'll have to look elsewhere for a reason. Here's one: Superbowl was that night. Nobody wanted to be working during the Superbowl and the forcast was delivered accordingly.

I'm telling you people. Beaurocracy sucks. The parent is absolutely correct about the State of the Union. In addition, there was this Superbowl thing. Not to mention the enormous pressure to not delay launches... NASA's Congress-approved budget required 24--yes 24, launches each year by 1987.

Ridiculous.

Re:What does NASA stand for?

[Anonymous Coward]

And that punchline was always followed with "Need Another Shuttle Also".

new message from Bin Laden

[Anonymous Coward]

*Bin Laden is camped out in his secret moonbase*

actually i'm on my secret MARS base... you'll have to build a proper space station and grow a space program to come get me..

i mean.. you're all going to DIEEEE!!! muaaaaahaaahahhahhahaaahhh!!!!!!

thank you

O Bin Laden

Re:When did you ever see a giant bureaucracy refor

[eobanb]

Think of its management processes as a code base that has been hacked by a lot of untalented people over 30 years.

Uh, like Unix?