wrote:
K4YZ wrote:

nobodys old friend wrote:


did you chatch the Head of NASA condeming the shuttle and the ISS as failures

Funny...no one else is saying that.


I'd like to see a quote of what was actually said.

Me too. I did a web search, and didn't find anything. Mark, can you
give us a source?

Of course those programs have had failures. Heck, Apollo had two
spectacular failures, one of which cost the lives of three astronauts
without ever leaving the ground. But no one with any sense would
describe Apollo, the shuttle or the ISS as "failures" because they did
not reach every goal set for them.

The shuttle is our attempt to do a job with 1970's (and some earlier)
technology. As such, it was a huge task that we were barely able to
produce to do some of the goals that were set.

The good news is that we were able to get it off the ground and into
space. The bad news (and I don't really consider it that) is that it is
an expensive and finicky bitch. Would we produce it that way today? Not
even. Time moved on, technology advanced, and I have no doubt that that
a machine produced with 2000's technology would be much safer, less
expensive to produce and maintain, and much more capable.

But to call it a failure is absolutely wrong, and misses the whole point.

We DID make several machines that DID ride to orbit, DID perform their
missions, DID return to earth, and DID outfit for many return trips to
space. It is interesting that the failures in the system that led to the
loss of two of the orbiters were due to peripheral systems that failed
largely to human error.

Some failure.

Seems everyone else is STILL using the shuttle AND the Space
Station...Which I had a chance to observe at 05:36CDT Wednesday
morning...spectacular. (www.science.nasa.gov) And they intend to do so for many years to come.


Not too many, though...

Keep trying to "score one", Mark. One day you'll actually do it.


You really think so?

I HAVE read about numerous persons saying that the "mission" has
outgrown the shuttle...That the Shuttle,
esentially 1970's technology,
should be updated...


Agreed!


Just like the automakers bring out new model years.


More like the automakers rethink the basic design.

Remember when most cars were body-on-frame, longitudinal-front-engine,
rear-wheel-drive, with V8s and bias-ply tires? Now most of them are
unibody, transverse-engine, front-wheel-drive, with V6s and inline 4s,
and radial tires.


No one ever expected the Shuttle to the "end all" of the manned
space program.


Yes, they did. The Shuttle was supposed to be a "space truck" that
would totally replace and outdate the "spam in a can" one-shot capsule
systems used for Mercury/Gemini/Apollo. But in fact the complexity of
the shuttle system and other design features (like having the
heatshield tiles exposed for the entire mission) have limited its
success and performance.

I thing there is some confusion here, Jim. I doubt that the shuttle was
designed to be the last "space truck" we ever designed!


It's just time to go on to bigger and better.


I'd say "smaller and smarter".

I dunno. I think that we might be at the point of vehicle specialization
now. I can envision a heavy lift vehicle that is just that- a minimalist
vehicle that provides basic life support and maneuvering, then returns
to earth after delivering its cargo. It could be a reusable vehicle.
Wouldn't be quite like the shuttle in that it wouldn't have that
expensive main engine on it.

Of course some of what is said is all about getting funding. Bush wants
to go back to the moon, which NASA says will cost $100 billion.
Probably double or triple that in real life. Funding such an effort
will require convincing a lot of folks that it's worthwhile, and part
of that is showing them that the shuttle's time is past and we need new
systems. The shuttle is therefore portrayed as "last year's model"

If people are *not* going to be in space, I support a NASA budget of
$0.00 dollars. I support great sums of money going to them if people are
going to go to space. And there are plenty of people that feel the same
as I do. All the scientists who make the claims about how space science
is so much cheaper and safer just don't get it. Their work is cool and
all, but they are the tail of the dog....

Of course one has to ask why we need to spend $100 billion to get a few
folks to the moon, when we couldn't even evacuate two cities
effectively here on earth.

I wouldn't, because the two things aren't related. Reminds me of the
old "We can put a man on the moon, so why can't we cure the common cold"
questions that used to make the rounds.

The failures of the latest hurricane disaster responses are the logical
end game of placing people in charge more because of their political
connections, and less because of their competency.

- Mike KB3EIA -