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.
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
And meanwhile, start building a better space shuttle.
We spend all these billions on defense... if we were to scrap 1 or 2 of the least useful weapon systems, we'd have pleny of money to build a new shuttle and either colonize the moon or send someone to mars.
The unofficial
>> 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"
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
Why not scrap 5 of the lowest success rate programs and do both at the same time. For that matter, set up a few more launch sites so we can have more than two shuttle crews in space at a time. Having more hands on deck to build ISS could never hurt.
But, it's a pipe dream. Our government has no interest in space while the war on terror is still in vogue.
"Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the President to explain to us what the exit strategy is." G.W.Bush
"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.
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