Slashdot Mirror
Shuttles Can't Finish Space Station
Doug Dante writes "The shuttle can't make the 28 flights now planned before it retires in 2010, according to Dr. Michael D. Griffin, the new administrator of NASA. It can only do about 15-23, leaving 5-13 planned missions to alternate lift vehicles. NASA is expected to consult space station partners on alternatives once they are approved by the Bush administration.
Should the Space Shuttle be cut loose?"
Is all I gotta say.
They need to junk those things and buy shiny brand new ones, with lot's of chrome, some bigger thumpers, and an eminem logo custom painted on the fuel pod,yo.
Why cut it loose, let it complete the missions that it can, then retire it in a timely fashion, just because it can't do all that is necessary isn't a cause dismiss it entirely.
"Plans are for fools! Oglethorpe, the plutonian (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)
I can't trust with them with space, or science, safety, finances or anything for that matter.
'm sure many will disagree, but the cost of the shuttle program is horrendous, and NASA's insistence on using it has led to some cataclysmically stupid decisions. One example: the ISS (which is an utter joke compared to Skylab or Mir) was placed into a rapidly-decaying orbit not because that was a good idea (it isn't) but because the shuttle could get there.
Most of the satellites that are "launched" by the shuttle suffer from the design constraint that they have to fit into the friggin' bay AND have room for the accompanying boosters that will put them into their real orbit once the shuttle lets them out. Again, the shuttle can't go high enough for real deployment.
The idea of capturing and reparing satellites is inherently absurd; most aren't where the shuttle can get 'em and the total cost of the program utterly dwarfs the expense that would have been incurred had they said of the Hubble "Well, we screwed it up...build another one and get it right this time."
The safety record sucks. After Challenger Richard Feynman put the probability of a fatal accident at one in fifty. So far, NASA's on the money and the nature of the shuttle is such that if someone dies, everybody dies.
Lest I be misunderstood, I understand the romantic and scientific appeal of manned space flight, of the visceral sense of satisfaction we can have as a species when we look up to the skies and say "We live there." I'm a strong proponent of that. I also recognize the complaints that the money spent on that is money not spent on (feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, inoculating the sick, fill in your pet cause). The manned space program is hellishly uneconomical and a great deal of that can be laid at the feet of the shuttle program.
It's a white elephant without a mission, a bastard child of a spacecraft and an airplane which like most gadgets that try to do two fundamentally different things does neither well. Its payload capacity compared to heavy-lift rockets is a joke, it's barely capable of crawling out of the atmosphere, it's presented a tremendous constraint to the rest of the space program by forcing many missions to be less than they could have been in order to be shuttle-doable, and it bears repeating that every fifty flights it kills everyone on board.
It's time to ground the shuttle fleet permanently. Space isn't going anywhere. Stop pouring the hundreds of millions of dollars into the shuttle program and pour them into a new design effort. Slashdot is full of niggers. Scrap the silly "space-plane" concept and develop a family of lifters and craft that _can_ be used for many things but don't back NASA into a corner that forces them to use it for all missions. Make crew safety an inherent feature (recognizing that there are tradeoffs and that getting out of the gravity well is a fundamentally dangerous activity). Stop throwing good money after bad on that trinity dies ISS as well, and use the collective resources of the two programs to start over. It's not true that the second design is always better than the first (see again ISS and Mir/Skylab) but you're wise to play those odds.
Let's do it over. And do it right.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/17/national/17nasa. html?ex=1276660800&en=add396f591fcab73&ei=5090&par tner=rssuserland&emc=rss
Slashdot says let 'em run their course!
Although someone by the handle of Goatse.cx is uurging you retire the fleet, fill the cargo bays with plastic sheeting, then call him over for a photo shoot for the next election. He's guaranteeing a 20 point difference in the polls!
Evil registration requiring link, and pretending to be googlebot doesn't work.
I am trolling
I really appreciate the Wikipedia link. Now I finally know what this "space shuttle" thing I keep hearing about is!
Perhaps this will spur quicker r&d for a better space plaform than the aging (explosive) shuttle (which wasn't much of a "shuttle" really, more like a rocket/plane/glider hybrid. By the way, the saying the more complex the plan(s) the more oppurtunity for catastophic error). Who knows. Makes me want to build my hibern^H^H^H^H^HFantatistic method for seeing my flying cars.
Seriously, the Russians must have some form of heavy-lift capability, if not currently operational then one they can get out of mothballs fairly quickly, no?
I am trolling
Is there any chance that a few (unmanned) shuttle C flights could be used to launch the remaining pieces of the ISS? Or would it take too much time&money to build a few shuttle C orbiters? =/
What we need to do is establish a base on the moon.
It would require reinvention of heavy launch capabilities, such as Saturn V rockets (which embarassingly, the blueprints for which were 'lost' in a NASA 'housecleaning' exercise) to get material and personnel onto the moon.
We will need shelter, which could be domes on the surface, or domes which could be buried or half-buried in the lunar surface to provide extra protection against Radiation. We will also need the ability to grow food, such as a greenhouse, for the personnel. While the greenhouse is being constructed they could live off of packaged food.
Or we could simply build the base by robot remote control and send people there when it is done.
The base would have two (three) primary purposes. Lastly, it would be to see if we can actually live in such low gravity well, and how to counteract detrimental effects to the human body. Secondly, research: What exactly is on the moon? What materials are there that are not present on earth (Helium from the interstellar wind for fusion), and are they useful? Fistly, however, the true purpose of a moon base would be to mine materials from the Moon itself that could be used in the construction of spacecraft which can neither be built nor launched from the surface of the earth, due to the High Gravity Well, and the manner of propulsion.
Using such a base on the moon, it would be possible to construct an Orion Class Spacecraft either in Lunar Orbit at one of the Lagrange Points (can't remember which one), or on the Lunar Surface, as it could simply blase off from there.
In other words, the moon will be the key to the Solar System.
Now if we could only get off our collective asses.
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
Jesus let this $1B a launch albatross sleep in the deepest oceans. We spend more maintaining and compensating for its way overbuilt and ancient design than we do on the missions it's sent on. That and it's starting to get the smell of the old carnival ride "death trap", which no matter how many times you hose out, still smells funny.
Please, let this abomination of attempted Reaganomics and the Cold War die and stop sucking away our already pathetic space budget. The space shuttle has been the biggest obstacle to our conquest of space for the last 25 years, and that's just sad.
p.s. what moron designs the next generation space vehicle that is so advanced it cannot go to the moon or basically do much of anything besides flop around in orbit for a few days? Do we also design submarines that can't go into the ocean?
The first rule of USENET is you do not talk about USENET.
Whatever you might think about the "Bush vision for space" the focus of that vision is from earth orbit outwards. The part of the journey from surface to earth orbit should be bought from commercial providers. This market is already waking up. Just imagine what a big client like NASA will do to launch costs.
NASA, get out of the launch business!
But no. They are now planning their own new shuttle-derived launch vehicle.
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
...this is a space station. I wouldn't mind sticking my 'finger' in a wormhole, just to watch it open and close and screw with the aliens inside.
Let SpaceX do unmanned launch services for relativly cheap and tSpace (Scaled Composites) fly the manned payloads. Even better have them both compete with each other and others for cheap space access.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
>> Should the Space Shuttle be cut loose?
Pay attention. That's been the plan for some time. It's been in all the news, you know.
The CEV will succeed, not replace, the Shuttle. When the CEV flies, the Shuttle stops flying. If ISS construction continues after that, it will need to be with redesigned payloads launched on new vehicles.
Even if the CEV was not in the works, the Shuttle is approaching the date at which the entire system would need to be requalified for flight. That would be very expensive. the Administration has no intention of asking for those funds and Congress has no intention of providing those funds for a vehicle that is considered fundamentally flawed.
Don't lament the future of the Shuttle of the ISS. Both served to justify the existene of the other. Now that NASA has a real mission with real targets, the Shuttle isn't very relevant.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The blueprints for the Saturn V were *NOT* lost. They are on micro-film at Marshall Space Flight Center. They're not going to be terribly useful: rocket-science has come a loooong way since the 70's, courtsey of a few other sciences (materials/manufacturing).
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
Also, I think the moon is fairly low in metals, so mining it to build spacecraft isn't a great plan unless you want to build them out of rock. Building a moonbase by remote control would be pretty awesome though.
Slashdot - Mutual Assured Discussion
The story that NASA lost the Saturn V blueprints is an urban legend.
yeah cut it loose, and if it lands on the taco bell logo then everyone gets a free taco! Seriously though, is the ISS actually doing anything practical? I know its allowed scientists to do this that and the other, and grow new things, but is this actually having any effect on manufacturing and industry? Blow it out the sky. Like a giant expensive fire cracker.
"What we need to do is establish a base on the moon."
Because, as you all know, building an orbital station with the collective strengths of many nations has been a roaring success. Oh wait.
...and kill the shuttle too. Seriously. The international space station is useless pile of orbiting pork. It represents how the US subsidizes industry. No real science gets done up there. The last few years it had only a skeleton crew, barely sufficient for maintenance work.
Kill it. Kill it now. It will free up tens of billions. The shuttle flights alone are $500-800 million a pop. Put the money into real space science and development of cheap launch systems.
Oh wait! Looks like http://www.spacex.com/ is already doing the latter. With private money. Why not go with them? Well, cause that robs the US of an instrument of industrial policy: order way-too-expensive space systems from Boeing and blame the Europeans for subsidizing Airbus.
And get someone else to do the job.
Deleted
Look at the US states were NASA has a large presence. Count the electoral votes they represent. Do you really thing the US Congress or President is going to slash and burn that much federal pork until a substitute is found. What the hell do you thing this new trip to the moon and beyond is about? Washington has no interest in exploration, just protecting their power.
Manufacture 4 energya rockets. Each capable of handling cargo+smaller stearing truster to handle a mission that would of taken 3 shuttle launches.
Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
Are you sure?
I can already see it: "With our nation at war it is in our best interests to promote continuity and guarantee strong leadership for years ahead..."
Earthlings, up here we are running a book on whether you will manage to establish human life off Earth, before an asteroid or solar event,your own ability to waste huge sums on weapon systems or your depletion of your current resources renders Earth completely unihabitable. Your inability to correctly respond to your situation is very amusing to us. We don't think you will make it with the space prrogram you have now. However, if you do please bring a few of those ipod thingys with you. They are cute.
So, we're going to build a base on the moon with non-existent transport, when we can't even finish the ISS with transport we actually have?
The moon base will never happen. The trip to Mars as currently conceived won't ever happen. All we've got now is a faith-based space program to go along with our faith-based anti-missile defense, our faith-based homeland security plan, and our faith-based social security plan. Our national decision makers are completely out of touch with reality.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Energia was largely a Ukrainian project. Once the locomotive of Soviet industry, this "independent" country is now struggling with African levels of poverty, being one of the poorest nations in Europe.
In little less than 15 years, Ukraine has been thoroughly demodernized. The "Russians" (in the narrow sense) cannot build Energia without Ukraine. Ukraine cannot build a bycicle as it stands right now. The only thing that the "orange revolution" changed is that now they are proud of it and even less likely to cooperate with Russia on any issue. They're back to the middle ages.
The space shuttle program was ruined in its early days by too many government/military/nasa requirements, in short they wanted it to be a "jack of all trades", but because most of the shuttles functionality and specifications are rarely used, it turned out to be "a master of none" because of all the bloat. each flight costs in the order of $500 million rather than initial projections of $10 to $20 million!
e hicle Congress/US Defence force, don't stuff this one up, k thnx
The Crew Exploration Vehicle appears to be on the right track, just as the shuttle concept was, lets just hope they dont make the same mistakes again! oh well, if they mess this one up too we can always look forward to the future European EADS Phoenix reusable launch vehicle!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_shuttle Read how the shuttle designers were forced to compromise because of poor funding, and how that initial 'saving' has turned into another allmighty cost blowout. Those near-sighted politicians!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EADS_Phoenix What the shuttle should have been. Leave it up to the Europeans to get it right!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_exploration_v
How does partisan ranting earn you +5 insightful?
NASA should dump the shuttle program and launches, and focus on satellites. Leave space travel and shuttles to companies that can do it for much less money, and much more efficiently. Also, this will give that Backstreet boy his shot at being a spaceman!
The ISS is just a big waste of money. First of all they don't seem to be capable of making any good use of it. Besides the whole architecture and design seems pretty flawed. The ISS is an international waste of money, that's what it is. If Bush plans to go to Moon and Mars, I recommend to get to it right away and forget the useless piece of junk in the orbit. Nice place for tourist but not very valuable for anyone else, the amount of science commited on that station could have easily been done some other way. They're throwing away all the good stuff but keeping the trash funded. STUPID! If you have to have a spacestation then it would be real nice if you had the guts to make the most of it.
Completely idiotic placement of post but I agree.
Seriously, they have a solid space program. What's the exchange rate like these days?
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52
Maybe we could have a lottery to be the guy who pulls the switch
That's not true, Energia was developed in TsAGI (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TsAGI), see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energia . Moreover, I can't remember any Ukrainian space project.
> Should the Space Shuttle be cut loose?"
Perhaps...but there's a better solution: cut the STATION loose.
ISS has been a big hole in the sky into which we pour money that would be better off spent on alternative manned programs and pure science. With two people onboard, essentially zero science is being done up there, or was being done prior to shuttle flight delays.
NASA ought to return to its strengths: scientific exploration and exploratory manned programs (Mars, Moon). Sitting in low Earth orbit, watching seeds sprout in microgravity while being fed by expensive Soyuz and SST flights is simply a waste.
No gods, no demons, and no masters. Secular Humanism!
What we need is something like a Crew Entry Vehicle, but really more like the Shuttle EXCEPT it cannot carry much in the way of cargo. Of course, the Russians are already working on a similar replacement for their aging, though practical, Soyuz ferry, so maybe this is an opportunity for Russia and the US (nay, more international partners) to chip in together on a common crew ferry.
There are plenty of light and medium-lift boosters. The ESA has it down with their Ariane rockets, though they haven't much to do with them. Again, why reinvent the wheel? Borrow the design (or buy them off the ESA or invite them here as an alternative launch site), slap a ferry to it for manned flights, or a cargo pod for others.
I would prefer reusability rather than pitching more metal in the oceans and debris in space. I would love, personally, to see the Space Ship One concept molded into low-Earth orbit use (it's that flaky bit of accelerating the vehicle to gravity escape velocity, meaning it would be much larger, carry more fuel, and need much better computer controls and thermal protection.
But, hasn't NASA done all that homework already, too, in the form of the early Shuttle concepts? The only thing that's needed is to NOT combine cargo AND crew areas, nor simply make a dumb booster with a crew pod.
Keep the humans in the loop with a flyable, steerable, versatile vehicle that can also be used on a larger booster for use as a true spacecraft that can also ferry crews to and from the Moon.
After all these years, is this really that hard?
Vos teneo officium eram periculosus ut vos recipero is.
it seems they figured out where the problem is. i / ... have you seen the ... the goverment and stuff have nothing ...
wonder if they can come up with a solution to the
problem. kindda sad they won't be able to finish
the ISS on time or even.
of course it costs money to go to space. expensive
because so far there's no return in money / goods
/ materials. the problem, i guess is, that
there's just not alot of gold, aluminium, uranium,
etc. in earth orbit. we have to go to some other
planet/moon for that.
also the iss is acctually a very good experiment
project. look how many countries where able to
agree to have a big dollar barbeque. just having
russians and americans working together is pretty
amazing. i mean for 50 years the world was in
terror some red button might accidentlly get
pressed in one country and the world going to
hell.
anyways it seems the big pictures is limited to
the size of the space craft or rocket or the
amount of zeros after the 1. the earth space
program is lacking a long term big picture. i
guess the discovery of aliens or something really
wierd a la the movie contact would help boost
a working long term big picture. "what do you
really want?" some scientific excursion to the
moon -or- mars? sure 50 billion and 5 years should
do it. any returns on that? yeah some numbers and
maps. colonialization? sure 500 billion and 15
years. any returns? why sure
newspaper lately? web-hosting on mars for
2$/month. 1 kilo gold for 50 bucks. monster.com is
looking for gardener for martian-vegetable.com,
etc.
okay so
to say anyways. 90 % of all money belongs to 500
people anyways. i mean if i was king of some
island inhabited with retards that believe it's
all about the amount of green leafes in a hut that
makes you powerfull, sure it tell them that
there's just this one island and that there's no
other palce you might get these "valuable" green
leafes. i mean let's use up all the resources
(oil, gas, wood, water.etc so everything get's
more expensive). i mean if everything expensive
everybody can make a lot of money, right? if
everything costs zero nobody could make money,
right? okay so we don't have the technology
game over. it's not a issue about working
together. humans just don't get old enough and
don't have enough brain processing power yet for
such a super large scale project as going to
another planet. after all, after passing the moon,
the big space monster are gong to get you anyway,
-IF- you don't fall over the edge first.
"pr0n is the solution to everything(tm)"
The ISS is most definitely not useless. It is essentially the world's only permanent microgravity laboratory. In addition, if the station reaches assembly-complete, it would have low-g capabilities a la the Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM). Not only should we have the CAM installed, but we are obliged to. The Japanese agreed to fabricate the CAM only if the USA would provide its lift to the ISS. As of now, the completed CAM is sitting in Florida collecting dust. It would be an international gaffe to not send the CAM up.
Now, the science aspect of the CAM is quite significant, as it allows long-term biology experiments at lunar- or martian-level gravity. Therefore, it would be possible to study the effects of low gravity on plants or small animals without requiring an expensive trip to the moon or mars.
Going private is nice and all, but the governmental infrastructure is already in place. The costs of replacing that in the near term is simply not cost effective.
PS: this "stuff" is not way too expensive. Every flight-certified piece of equipment needs a ridiculously high MTBF. Preventing the expense of on-orbit replacement is simply applied before the unit flies. You don't want stuff just breaking in outer space (see: Russian-made O2 units).
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
... is how can the shuttle even think of retiring with the social security system the way it is right now.
MoM++ - A Classic Expanded - [Master of Magic 1.5]
http://mompp.sourceforge.net/
How about Russia-Ukraine-Norway-USA Sea Launch project? Ukraine is still building Zenit boosters.
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is. - Yogi Berra
A collosal waste of money on a poorly conceived project with even worse execution.
These anti-shuttle discussions are always so enlightening! I especially like the "What moron designed, thought of... etc, notions. The Space Shuttle Orbiter was designed in the very early 70's before many of you were even born. You only understand the technology and political climate back then from a hindsight position. Some of you're best ideas and work will be called stupid one day by somebody "smarter" than you.
I won't argue that the Shuttle is past its prime, too expensive to maintain and at end of life now. But, don't further embarass yourselves by saying it was a dumb idea or those involved were stupid.
That is just wrong and indicative of how screwed up the technically aware 20 somethings are in this country.
Okay, this is going to sound a little odd, but just roll along with me on this for a second. So the shuttle can only complete 15-23 ISS construction misssions by the 2010 end-of-flight deadline. Fine. Finish those 15 or 23 or however many missions that the STS can actually get under its belt with the existing manned shuttle system. Then finish the ISS using unmanned shuttles, a la the Soviet Buran http://www.astronautix.com/craft/buran.htm/.
Buran launched, orbited, and landed on its single completed mission without a crew onboard. The Space Shuttle was built with such a capacity in mind, and the components of this system have been tested on several occassions, but it has never undergone an all-up test: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10518 . Maybe I'm naieve, but perhaps we should refurbish and fully test this capability on the existing STS system before we rush into building a Shuttle-C or drop mucho $$$ on launching ISS components with Delta/Atlas EELV's or a foriegn booster. Once auto-shuttle components were in orbit near the ISS they could be retrieved and attached to the station by the station crew or cosmo/astronauts sent up in a Russin Soyuz.
The Folly of Our Age
The space shuttle.
June 16, 2005, 7:49 a.m.
Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant -- 14 deaths in 113 flights -- is the grandest, grossest technological folly of our age. If the shuttle has any reason for existing, it is as an exceptionally clear symbol of our corrupt, sentimental, and dysfunctional political system. Its flights accomplish nothing and cost half a billion per. That, at least, is what a flight costs when the vehicle survives. If a shuttle blows up -- which, depending on whether or not you think that 35 human lives (five original launchworthy Shuttles at seven astronauts each) would be too high a price to pay for ridding the nation of an embarrassing and expensive monstrosity, is either too often or not often enough** -- then the cost, what with lost inventory, insurance payouts, and the endless subsequent investigations, is seven or eight times that...
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?r ef=/derbyshire/derbyshire200506160749.asp
Space is not for humans, in case no one realized. It would be far better to try to build AIs that would need no life support or food, only electricity in order to function, and send them out there.
Thinking about how to grow food in space is comparable to researching into the possibilites of using eagles for propelling aeroplanes.
Of what use would be a base on the moon containing lots of lifesupport just to allow barely sentinent sacks of meat and bones to live there and feel miserable?
Yeah, and using Saturn V rockets is so inelegant.
Why not build an orbital elevator, and send rockets from its terminus?
Everybody who is interested in space and *thinks* they understand the space shuttle costs and risks should read the linked article by Derbyshire. Agree or disagree, but do so based on all the facts...
"Lord, grant that I may always be right, for Thou knowest that I am hard to turn" -- A Scots-Irish prayer
He sent Halliburton into Iraq without a competitive Bid. Even after several years and no less than 6 financial issues, no bid.
He wasted money on O'Keefe. O'Keefe's people were responsibile for the shuttle loss (read between the lines of the report; who do you think is the upper management that was pushing with total disregard to safety?)
With that said, While I do not trust Bush (or his earlier hench man), I am hopeful that griffen is the man to set things right. In addition, with the X-Prize, and now the Y-prize, it is almost certain that we private enterprise is going to help lower the cost of space.
Manned exploration in general, and the Shuttle specifically, just isn't practical as long as the flight technology depends upon Newton's Third Law.
As long as we are using any form of propuslion employing the Third Law manned missions will NEVER match the economies and returns, financial, technical or scientific, for robotic explorers.
Adding a human to the payload of the missions to Jupiter, Saturn, or the asteroids would have put those missions out of reach for even the American economy even if there were no expenditures for the "War against Terrorism".
The Shuttle, like the Saturn, was poltically motivated in response to the space achievments of the USSR. It has now become a pork barrel project on which the economies of several states, and the re-election of their politicians depend. It wil be replaced by another pork project in order to preserve those jobs and political careers because a large chunk of voters want it that way.
The problem is that the science of propulsion won't benefit as long as researchers only explore Third Law technologies or variations of it like the Orion Project, or the Ion engine.
Warp drives aren't real and probably never will be, but until something capable of FTL travel, if that is possible, is invented, man won't be traveling to the Moon or Mars, to say nothing of the stars. Especially when we begin to feel the pinch of fossil fuel exhaustion, which in now in the early stages.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
It's a space station...
Just 12 actual assembly flights are planned by NASA. The Administrator lumps supply flights into the total. He also ignores the Russian resupply and crew flights. The US Congress has stopped NASA from buying Russian supply and crew flights for some political reason. I think they are linked to the Chechen war or the Iranian nuclear contracts. I forget.
Congress has prohibited NASA from buying Russian resupply and crew rotation flights, for US/Russian political reasons (e.g. Chechen war, nuclear sales to Iran). The administrator is IMHO just turning up the heat on Congress to both fund the new CEV and to buy more Russian flights in the interim.
The Shuttle can be used to build out the rest of the Station with hardware/construction flights.
Studies have shown that high quality concrete can be made from lunar soil with the addition of water. The researchers used actual moon rocks brought back in the 1970's to validate their work. Near-surface water was found near the lunar north pole a few years ago. I seem to remember both Japanese and European follow-up missions being planned and funded.
If that water proves to be a usable resource, then construction won't require materials from Earth. Machines-yes, materials-no. Small rovers and the like are on the drawing boards.
Water will supply oxygen. The lunar soil is mostly Silicon (oxides) and Aluminum (oxide), so metals are available as well. What hasn't been found is Nitrogen (for breathing) and Carbon (for use by plants). Neither of those is hard to get to the moon, given the relatively small quantities needed in a manned moon base.
Not to mention the things NASA has brought to American Technology. TANG alone is worth cost of three shuttles. However on a serious note, NASA works on practical engineering. Their ideas are pirated by every Defense contractor and many other industries. This is the goose that lays golden eggs. Now I am going to go lay down on my Temperpedic bed and drink some TANG.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I don't know the formula for success, but the sure formula for failure is to try to please everyone!
(That's not an exact quote, but you get the idea)
ALL spacecraft, and launch vehicles, are the result of private enterprise. NASA is a CONTRACTOR. Boeing, McDonnell-Douglas, TRW, Rockwell, Grumman,General Dynamics/Convair, SPAR Aerospace, and a whole host of other companies are what made space travel possible. NASA merely controls the purse-strings. The SA in NASA stands for Space Administration.
"I'm not impatient. I just hate waiting." - My Dad
The Russians can provide cheap flights with proven hardware. Resupply flights with the unmanned Progress ships have been flawless. So have the manned Soyuz crew replacement missions. Congressional politics is the problem.
Once the CEV flies, it will be used for crew transfeer to and from ISS. That's one of the requirements.
The Shuttle can certainly become the basis for a heavy-lift vehicle capable of orbiting hardware and new components for the ISS, but no without modification. Griffin's statement prior to becoming administrator indicate he favors taking this shuttle-derived vehicle approach. (You can strap the payload on the side of the tank where the Orbiter goes today, or you can put it on top of the tank. Both approaches have advantages and disadvantages.)
Th vehicle that launches the CV to LEO doesn't need to be a heavy lift vehicle. Griffin seems to favor using one of the Shuttle's solid fuel boosters (man-rated and very reliable) with a liquid fuel second stage. The Soyuz flights aren't that expensive an Congress will fund them as necessary until the CEV flies. Griffin doesn't need to pressure them on that. They don't want to take the heat for letting the station go vacant.
I've never been a big fan of ISS. Nothing against space stations, but they need to be there to fulfill a real need. We put truck stops on hightways so truckers can eat and refuel. We didn't stick a truck stop out in the middle of nowhere and claim that people would now build highways and trucks just to go there.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
I have seen reports of new designs based on these two rocket motors. The reports conclude that unmanned derivatives can loft 100,000 lb into low earth orbit, rather than 60,000 as the shuttle does. The risks in schedule, cost, and performance would be very low.
I have seen reports of new designs based on these two rocket motors. The reports conclude that unmanned derivatives can loft 100,000 lb into low earth orbit, rather than 60,000 as the shuttle does. The risks in schedule, cost, and performance would be very low.
I'm not a fan of ISS either, but given that it's up there, I do favor it's continued use.
I'd like to see it added to by commercial ventures.
the guy is a boob
[2001]---->
In 1996 with 1996 dollars, NASA was spending 15 Billion / year. But Apollo was more than 25 Billion / year in 1996 dollars Now, GWB is spending 15 Billion but with 2005 Dollars.
So, GWB is spending less than Clinton, and Clinton certainly spent less than Kennedy/Johnson.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
The Space Review has an article by Dwayne Day, titled "Twenty-five gigabucks of steel: the objectives of the International Space Station." Basically, it discusses the objectives of the space station, and whether or not it has met those objectives.
Although NASA of course never directly stated it like this, here are the ISS (official and unofficial) objectives the article mentions:
# demonstrating leadership in space
# forging international cooperation with Cold War allies
# conducting human biological research to benefit biology and medicine on Earth
# conducting materials research to benefit Earth
# serving as a construction platform for Lunar and Mars missions
# supporting ex-Soviet aerospace workers and institutions, and symbolizing post-Cold War US-Russian cooperation
# learning how to construct large structures in space
# learning how to operate in space
# providing an engineering testbed for space equipment
# conducting human biological research to support future long-duration space missions
# pork barrel politics
Some of these it's succeeded at, but for most of them it hasn't.
Ukraine's east is an industrial region, so lots of parts for rockets/airplanes/cars/... are produced there, but the actual development of rockets and airplanes was always done in Russia (mostly in Moscow and Moscow region).
This is like Intel: most of development is done in USA, but most of chips are manufactured in Asia.
If someone nukes Asia tomorrow Intel can rebuild chip-producing factories somewhere else.
I saw Storey Musgrave on TV last week saying that he would have rather flown Apollo or Gemini, because they were simple and safe.
Don't blow all your money getting into space, blow it once you are up there.
Considering that the moon has minerals very rich in Titanium on the surface (So much so that it's significant...) and that the industrial byproduct of the extraction of the Titanium from said minerals is Oxygen, I'd say that there's metals up there- usable ones. http://www.permanent.com/l-minera.htm
6 30.html
Also worth noting is that there's enough He3 up there trapped in the regolith that can be easily and controllably fused into other isotopes and elements to be bothered with mining it out of the surface as well. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/helium3_000
Not everything is QUITE as the detractors of the space program would have you to believe it to be.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
Ukraine lacks not sound engineering, but sound management. So we, here in Ukraine, have best launchers (SeaLaunch), best transport planes (Mria, AN-70), but only a few of them, not in production. So, get back home with your flamebaits and let's us fix our management.
We could string a big spidey web between all our remaining old rockets we want to get rid of and fire them all at once, do the 28 missions in one jump... and pray all that firepower doesn't affect Earth orbit. Or also, we could consult inventors OUTSIDE THE AGENCIES. Maybe uhm there's someone OUT HERE who has some "new ideas": http://tinyurl.com/8kc3l or http://tinyurl.com/b6sel . Bio Fat, pretty good idea eh?
No. "Pivdenmash" ("Yuzhmash") develops and produces it ("Zenith").
i see u know a lot. Think deep.
with such knowledge u r not more than a fool.