Does anyone else think they should keep the shuttle flying?

[PieIsAwesome]

The shuttle is long overdue for a complete redesign. I'm 100% sure manned flight can be done cheaper and safer using more modern technology and materials. Every time I watch a shuttle take off I almost expect a massive explosion during the first 60 seconds. That's not the way it should be.

And to people saying we should keep Shuttle around until something new is built...that will guarantee that nothing new will be built for at least 10 years. Get rid of the Shuttle and we'll have no other option but to develop something new, and to do it sooner rather than later.

Don't fear progress and change. Fear 30+ year old shuttles going up into space with Intel 8088 CPU's running them.

This. Get rid of the shuttles, burn the ships at shore so that there is no going back. Only forward.

 

[DrPizza]

Right. Keep flying the shuttle until we have a working viable replacement.
Once the shuttles stop flying we will be completely dependant on the Russians to get our people and supplies to the ISS.

As far as taxes go, there are a lot more useless things the governemnt spends money on that could be cut to fund space exploration.

Just look at the report released showing that the $1Trillion we've spent on the war on drugs has done nothing.

Space exploration is needed to ensure the survival of humanity.

Why bother going to the ISS? Pretty much a waste of time there too.

 

[Pollock]

Build a rocket a day?

 

[K1052]

Except for that little problem in the fact that it didn't work, a minor technically, huh?

X-33 - Cancellation and Continued Work
Failures in VentureStar's technology demonstrator, the X-33, in particular with the composite LH2 (liquid hydrogen) tank,
led to program cancellation as a federal undertaking on March 1, 2001.

Maybe that contributed to the switching to the Constellation concept.

From what I recall the primary problem was the odd shape required of the LH2 tank and the decision to use composites to build it when metal would do. When the composite LH2 tank failed (as engineers predicted) they switched over to metal, which ended up even lighter than the composite tank. For some reason Ivan Bekey ended up testifying in front of the appropriations subcommittee to the effect that the tank problems were insurmountable when that was not the case.

 

[sandorski]

They occasionally need to Land for Refuel/Resupply, so I Vote No, do not keep them flying!!!

 

[coloumb]

No. The design they had to replace the shuttle was more efficient.

The next step should be manned flights to the moon / mars to establish a base of operations. I wanna see a Total Recall type city on Mars within the next 40 years dammit!

 

[Patranus]

They did kinda just finish (or close to) the space station.

Not really sure why they think that the multi billion dollar space station should be put on the shoulders of the Russians.

 

[BoomerD]

We need to walk away from the pile of junk that the Russians have been building (and suckering us into contributing to the cost) and build a real space station:

Use that for the platform to acclimate astronauts to the rigors of living in space, for the launch platform for interplanetary missions, and to supply our moon bases.

I'm an old fuck...older than most here. I've been around to see the first Mercury launches and the Apollo missions, and the space shuttle has just never done much to capture my attention. A large flying bus/truck combo that doesn't do anything but go up and down.

It's been over 37 years since Apollo 17 took us to the moon...the last moon mission.

There's NO GOOD REASON that we couldn't have established a moon base/colony on the moon by now. We may not have the technology to generate oxygen from moon rocks...or water, but if we'd have started into a program of establishing life in space instead of building/depending on the flying truck/bus...without giving it a realy place to go...we MIGHT have made some serious advancements in technology by now.

 

[Freshgeardude]

No, they shouldnt. the shuttles are hugely old and 2 have already failed. The replacement program should have been started years ago and have been ready to fly by next year.


We should be putting 10 times as much money in nasa than what we currently do, since it is actually a viable government group that has helped this country in innumerable ways since it was created

 

[So]

I think we need something new but keep the shuttle alive until that something new comes around. Who knows how long this gap will be before we get a new vehicle.

Are you willing to triple NASA's budget to make that happen?

 

[DrPizza]

We need to walk away from the pile of junk that the Russians have been building (and suckering us into contributing to the cost) and build a real space station:



Use that for the platform to acclimate astronauts to the rigors of living in space, for the launch platform for interplanetary missions, and to supply our moon bases.

I'm an old fuck...older than most here. I've been around to see the first Mercury launches and the Apollo missions, and the space shuttle has just never done much to capture my attention. A large flying bus/truck combo that doesn't do anything but go up and down.

It's been over 37 years since Apollo 17 took us to the moon...the last moon mission.

There's NO GOOD REASON that we couldn't have established a moon base/colony on the moon by now. We may not have the technology to generate oxygen from moon rocks...or water, but if we'd have started into a program of establishing life in space instead of building/depending on the flying truck/bus...without giving it a realy place to go...we MIGHT have made some serious advancements in technology by now.

With the technology that's available right now, and could potentially be available during the next 50 years, there's no reason for a moon base. None, nada, zip.

 

[sao123]

i agree with obama's vision that we should leave the grunt work to private firms and make nasa focus on pioneering technology

so you want private for profit coporations to do the dirty work? If you think low bid government work is bad... wait till the private companyies cut corners and eliminate safety measures to save a few bucks.

if you thought the shuttle had a high failure rate, you aint seen nothing yet.

 

[sao123]

Are you willing to triple NASA's budget to make that happen?

I'm willing to eliminate all gov funded wellfare/healthcare programs and redirect all that money to Nasa.

 

[dullard]

Hmm, something that is outdated, extremely expensive, kills people regularly, has about 1/10th its designed lifespan and that other countries can do for us far better, cheaper, and safer. Yep, sounds like something we really should keep doing!

 

[freegeeks]

I feel the opposite. The only vehicle I would trust would be the shuttle. 2 failures out of 100+ launches? Sounds good to me.

thats actually pretty bad for a manned vehicle.

The Russians have it right with the Soyuz, it's cheaper and more reliable.

 

[Freshgeardude]

thats actually pretty bad for a manned vehicle.

The Russians have it right with the Soyuz, it's cheaper and more reliable.

its also had more failures, in terms of numbers, but might be a lower percentage than with the shuttle.


The two vehicles are completely different. The shuttle can carry way more stuff, more people, and all sitting comfortably.

the soyuz, if I recall, can only fit three people and their knees are near their head for hours until they dock and open the hatch

 

[xSauronx]

I think we need something new but keep the shuttle alive until that something new comes around. Who knows how long this gap will be before we get a new vehicle.

they had a target of 3 years or something between the end of the shuttle flying and its replacement...i could do with that, though i think its crappy. i dont want to see a manned substitute scrapped altogether,a nd i dont want to see the shuttle to continue flying indefinitely

 

[NetWareHead]

Soyuz is the safest,one of the most economical and has flown far more times than any rocket system (over 1700 flights). Soyuz has claimed the lives of only 4 cosmonauts (no deaths since 1971 and none with the modern soyuz). In contrast the shuttle has claimed 14 resulting in a total loss of 2 out of 5 orbiters. Whereas the shuttle is not being modernized and slated for cancellation, the soyuz program is going strong with planned upgrades.

You are wrong about the soyuz with crew's knees being up near their head. Soyuz provides more habitable space than the apollo style capsule. During launch and reentry, they are strapped in their seats like the shuttle.

The shuttle is outdated and its heavy lift capability has been supplanted and is better served by unmanned rockets (Delta and Atlas models currently). Regarding its crew capability, except for some missions, do we really need to send 7 astronauts at a time? Why? Sure it may handy in some missions, but not always needed.

The shuttle is done and even its replacement (Orion) is returning to tried and true crew capsule technologies (like Apollo and Soyuz).

QUOTE=Freshgeardude;29840165]its also had more failures, in terms of numbers, but might be a lower percentage than with the shuttle.


The two vehicles are completely different. The shuttle can carry way more stuff, more people, and all sitting comfortably.

the soyuz, if I recall, can only fit three people and their knees are near their head for hours until they dock and open the hatch[/QUOTE]

 

[freegeeks]

its also had more failures, in terms of numbers, but might be a lower percentage than with the shuttle.


The two vehicles are completely different. The shuttle can carry way more stuff, more people, and all sitting comfortably.

the soyuz, if I recall, can only fit three people and their knees are near their head for hours until they dock and open the hatch

the Soyuz has a lower manned fatality rate then the Shuttle (1,75% against 2,02%)
It's basically a safer vehicle. The shuttle still doesn't have an escape procedure during launch. The shuttle is an amazing piece of engineering, but it's a failed vehicle, way too complicated and expensive to maintain. All experts nowadays agree that it makes no sense to combine heavy hauling with people transport in the same vehicle. The Russians also launch the damn thing in all weather conditions, blistering hot, freezing cold, they can just blast the thing into space. At one point of time our own ESA was also considering building a shuttle but luckily they came to their senses and now they are just going to buy the Soyuz and lauch it from Kourou space base.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Save Constellation Rally in Texas - Read NASA Watch:

http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/05/duelling-pro-co.html


And what I've always been saying (At the end of the article) -

Next, two leaders from the labor unions spoke. They provided details of their plan for NASA, which includes:

- Extending the Space Shuttle through 2011 (perhaps 2012) by using all available hardware
- Continuing development of the Orion spacecraft
- Using an Atlas or Delta launch vehicle
to put Orion in orbit to support the International Space Station. This can be done by 2013.
- Develop a heavy-launch vehicle by 2016
- Rebuild the long-neglected infrastructure of the Kennedy Space Center

There was hardly any mention of the commercial space initiative, but this was a save-the-jobs rally,
and a company like SpaceX that can design and build a rocket and a seven-person space capsule
in a few years with a total of only 900 people, isn't going to be real popular.

 

[Babbles]

I'm in the camp of flying the shuttle into a viable alternative is on the launch pad ready to go.

A big motivator is for me is that I think we need to keep the human capital going in terms of manned space flight. With a significant gap between vehicle technologies, I am sure there will be a loss of mental know-how (the aeronautical industry is wrecked with this I believe). So even if the shuttle loses money, keeping new groups of scientists and engineers trained in manned space flight is valuable beyond belief.

 

[imported_Champ]

I think the best thing would be to shut it down, it gives more drive to create the next space vehicles, although they should have figured those out 10 years ago

 

[CaptnKirk]

I think the best thing would be to shut it down, it gives more drive to create the next space vehicles, although they should have figured those out 10 years ago

Keeping the Shuttle going - without funding the Constellation project is what got us in this mess in the first place.

4 years have passed since the decision was made to shut down the Shuttle, but there was no
'Extra' funding allocated to get the replacement program moving - they froze the NASA budget,
and then NASA had to attempt to fly-out the Shuttle mission to it's end date,
and provide development funds from the same allocation of funds.

Without the money to advance the replacement program, everything started being delayed by Management decision,
and 4 years later they are 2 years behind . . . and people wonder why.

10 Lbs. and a 5 Lb. bag -
Obama wants to add funding to the future of NASA programs, and so far Congress hasn't stepped up.
Get serious - fund it or kill it, tax breaks won't correct the direction of the mission.

 

[Paratus]

A couple of thoughts:

The last flight, ULF6 is already being bumped until late this year possibly early next year. It depends on when they can get the alpha magnetic spectrometer ready for launch.

The ISS is going to be testing the tech we need for long duration space flight. Right now we're testing closed lopp life support systems. In 2012-13 we'll be flying and testing the VASIMR plasma thruster, which could significantly reduce flight times to Mars or other destinations.

The presidents directive shuts down ARES V but has us develop a big dumb heavy booster. Expect it to look like Shuttle C or Ares V with Saturn V or better launch capabilities.

There is some positives in the new direction. The transition is going to be messy. IMHO