Yeahwell. I never claimed that it was designed to be as cheap as possible. It was however designed to be cheaper than the "single use" transports of the past.
It does take a small army to keep the shuttle program up and running (with far better than army wages). It's only a matter of time before the private sector figures out they can put their own stuff in to space -- then things will get real cheap.
"NASA's budget needs to be cut, and I think that George W. Bush is just the right man to do it. I'm not saying that space exploration is unimportant, or insignifigant, but I think we need to focus on correcting our existing problems here on Earth before we go prancing around the solar system, polluting and destroying everything in our paths. "
Here's a project for you:
Check out NASA's budget. Then compair that to our current budget for "correcting our existing problems here on earth" (read INTITLEMENT PROGRAMS (medicare, food stamps, etc). What you'll find is that NASA's current budget is a small fraction of that currently going out to solve our "problems" on earth. Obviously the "more money to fix our woes" solution hasn't worked.
Here's a better idea: Why don't we spend MORE on space so that the resulting technologic advances can further aid all us folks down here. (Check your history -- you'll find quite a bit of handy as well as life-saving technology which resulted directly from space exploration.
The shuttle wasn't designed to bring PEOPLE only in to orbit, but OBJECTS (read space station, commsats, etc). Those can be rather large. To build some type of dongle that can not only carry the same type of cargo AND be built sturdy enough survive a "water landing" AND be re-used would have added a hell of a lot of weight to the design. Added weight means more $$$ per mission as well as a greater chance for mishap.
Slashdot Mirror
What if there's some guy up in Washington state with about 1.1 million copies of Windows 2.0 stashed in some other cave?
God help us all.
-jhon
Yeahwell. I never claimed that it was designed to be as cheap as possible. It was however designed to be cheaper than the "single use" transports of the past.
It does take a small army to keep the shuttle program up and running (with far better than army wages). It's only a matter of time before the private sector figures out they can put their own stuff in to space -- then things will get real cheap.
-jhon
"NASA's budget needs to be cut, and I think that George W. Bush is just the right man to do it. I'm not saying that space exploration is unimportant, or insignifigant, but I think we need to focus on correcting our existing problems here on Earth before we go prancing around the solar system, polluting and destroying everything in our paths. "
Here's a project for you: Check out NASA's budget. Then compair that to our current budget for "correcting our existing problems here on earth" (read INTITLEMENT PROGRAMS (medicare, food stamps, etc). What you'll find is that NASA's current budget is a small fraction of that currently going out to solve our "problems" on earth. Obviously the "more money to fix our woes" solution hasn't worked.
Here's a better idea: Why don't we spend MORE on space so that the resulting technologic advances can further aid all us folks down here. (Check your history -- you'll find quite a bit of handy as well as life-saving technology which resulted directly from space exploration.
-jhon
Simple.
The shuttle wasn't designed to bring PEOPLE only in to orbit, but OBJECTS (read space station, commsats, etc). Those can be rather large. To build some type of dongle that can not only carry the same type of cargo AND be built sturdy enough survive a "water landing" AND be re-used would have added a hell of a lot of weight to the design. Added weight means more $$$ per mission as well as a greater chance for mishap.
-jhon
Should have provided some reading material. It may be a wee bit dated, but it's interesting. Maybe Pons and Fleischmann had it right after all. Sorta.
Read Me
-jhon
Too bad Pons and Fleischmann had it wrong...
-jhon