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)
'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
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
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.
A shuttle derived heavy lift vehical may make sense. It's worth noting that no commercial launch vehical can lift more than ~25 tonnes into LEO. (and rather less on an earth escape trajectory) For a manned Moon or Mars mission, you need the equivalent of 100-150 tonnes to LEO, assuming that you are going with a lightweight (eg: Mars Direct) program.
>> 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
"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.
emphisis mine
Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
Actually removing the human element would be a huge benefit. That alone saves several thousands of pounds in the people, the life support systems, and the habitation area.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but the Shuttle C isn't an unmanned shuttle. It isn't a shuttle at all. It is a cargo pod strapped to the External Tank and the boosters. There are no wings, which saves a lot of weight. It's pretty much a flying cargo bay that will burn up on re-entry. The original shuttle C plan was to house the shuttle main engines (SME) in a pod that eject from the cargo container and re-enter the atmostphere for reuse. A newer design, that Administrator Griffin is interested in, would mount the cargo on the top of the ET and put engines under the ET. Only the SRBs would be reusable. The lift capacity would be HUGE.
There is nothing inherently safe about liberty. That's why so many people died protecting it.
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
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.