NationStates Jolt Archive

Now that NASA (take note, I don't mean the astronauts, I mean the worthless administration that has kept the agency hobbled for a long time) has seen little bits of foam coming off of the fuel tanks again they have decided to suspend shuttle flights, again, despite the fact that this has probably occured on every single flight since they stopped painting the damned tanks. The incident with the Columbia, while tragic, was a freak accident, and halting further shuttle launches is an insult to their memory (unless they have a replacement for the shuttle they aren't talking about that is.)

C'mon NASA, no one ever got anywhere by being super-cautious! How many ships of the first hundred to sail around Cape Horn were lost? How many ships of the first hundred to sail to America were lost? How many triremes of the first hundred to sail the Meditteranean were lost? Hell, if people stopped exploring after a few accidents I'm pretty sure I'd be huddled in a tent in a barbarian village in Northern Europe right now eating a few measley bits of goat meat and some acorns!

*grumbles and rants on on the general topic for another ten minutes*

Alright I figure you've had enough, cheerio.

I don't have a beef with them for doing that.

However, I do have a serious problem with them using TILES for insulation on the space shuttles. They need to develop a hard shell skin, so any incident like the Columbia won't happen again.

Now that NASA (take note, I don't mean the astronauts, I mean the worthless administration that has kept the agency hobbled for a long time) has seen little bits of foam coming off of the fuel tanks again they have decided to suspend shuttle flights, again, despite the fact that this has probably occured on every single flight since they stopped painting the damned tanks. The incident with the Columbia, while tragic, was a freak accident, and halting further shuttle launches is an insult to their memory (unless they have a replacement for the shuttle they aren't talking about that is.)

C'mon NASA, no one ever got anywhere by being super-cautious! How many ships of the first hundred to sail around Cape Horn were lost? How many ships of the first hundred to sail to America were lost? How many triremes of the first hundred to sail the Meditteranean were lost? Hell, if people stopped exploring after a few accidents I'm pretty sure I'd be huddled in a tent in a barbarian village in Northern Europe right now eating a few measley bits of goat meat and some acorns!

*grumbles and rants on on the general topic for another ten minutes*

Alright I figure you've had enough, cheerio.



If this shuttle goes kaboom, NASA's budget and public support will go to poop. They can't afford failure this time, it's all or nothing.

nasa will be nothing more than an overpaid pork barrel within the next two decades - they won't even be trying to launch shuttles. The entire process will have been taken over by the private industry, the next thing they are after is making their current ships go to near orbit altitude, after that all they have to do is put it in orbit,

Now that NASA (take note, I don't mean the astronauts, I mean the worthless administration that has kept the agency hobbled for a long time) has seen little bits of foam coming off of the fuel tanks again they have decided to suspend shuttle flights, again, despite the fact that this has probably occured on every single flight since they stopped painting the damned tanks. The incident with the Columbia, while tragic, was a freak accident, and halting further shuttle launches is an insult to their memory (unless they have a replacement for the shuttle they aren't talking about that is.)

C'mon NASA, no one ever got anywhere by being super-cautious! How many ships of the first hundred to sail around Cape Horn were lost? How many ships of the first hundred to sail to America were lost? How many triremes of the first hundred to sail the Meditteranean were lost? Hell, if people stopped exploring after a few accidents I'm pretty sure I'd be huddled in a tent in a barbarian village in Northern Europe right now eating a few measley bits of goat meat and some acorns!

*grumbles and rants on on the general topic for another ten minutes*

Alright I figure you've had enough, cheerio.

Been ages since I have seen ya Andy... How ya been?


Oh right, well they said "the fleet" and "this fleet" which makes it sound like there are others. Although I can understand them not wanting to injure anyone else.

Been ages since I have seen ya Andy... How ya been?
By and large pretty good, somewhat sunburned, a little overworked, but nothing too bad. I've been going to sleep way too early and waking up way too early of late.

Oh right, well they said "the fleet" and "this fleet" which makes it sound like there are others. Although I can understand them not wanting to injure anyone else.
I wish to God that there was another shuttle fleet that they could just launch.

However, I do have a serious problem with them using TILES for insulation on the space shuttles. They need to develop a hard shell skin, so any incident like the Columbia won't happen again.
Agreed, or maybe a redundant system with easily replaceable tiles and a touch outer shell underneath.

I wish to God that there was another shuttle fleet that they could just launch.

I was like where the hell is this other mysterious fleet, I wanna see it. I mean its gotta be better than this crap fromt the late 80's & 90's right?

The space shuttles are really old and really expensive. So we certainly can't afford to lose anymore.
As for the "other fleet," there isn't another fleet of shuttles, but there's the Russian Soyuz spacecraft that US astronauts have been using recently. I suppose that's what they would be referring to.

I believe that we should use the space shuttles as little as possible and begin work on the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) or whatever will get us to the next stage in Bush's space plan.

Bush's space plan? As far as developments go, it looks like just that. A plan. Not enough action/funding/focus to really go anywhere.

Bush's space plan? As far as developments go, it looks like just that. A plan. Not enough action/funding/focus to really go anywhere.
just like the rest of his plans eh

As has been pointed out, the shuttles are more than thirty years old, and should have been replaced more than a decade ago. Now, I think it's just a matter of time before we send another group of astronauts to their death.

Well now the public is paranoid. You see that NASA said nothing about the bit of debris flying off the shuttle until the media began making a big fuss over it? Now NASA was forced to say and do something about it.

The admins are just looking out for their budget and their future. They can afford to lose some money to keep the public happy. They can't afford to ignore this for the sake of future missions.

Ihatevacations']nasa will be nothing more than an overpaid pork barrel within the next two decades - they won't even be trying to launch shuttles. The entire process will have been taken over by the private industry, the next thing they are after is making their current ships go to near orbit altitude, after that all they have to do is put it in orbit,
That's why this ...

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

... is so important.

Ihatevacations']nasa will be nothing more than an overpaid pork barrel within the next two decades - they won't even be trying to launch shuttles. The entire process will have been taken over by the private industry, the next thing they are after is making their current ships go to near orbit altitude, after that all they have to do is put it in orbit,

Did you, by any chance, see the article by the Cato Institute on that subject? ;)

Time to Privatize NASA

by Edward Hudgins

Edward Hudgins is director of regulatory studies at the Cato Institute.

John Glenn's 1962 spaceflight and the Apollo moon landings were inspiring achievements. Unfortunately, the recently announced plan to give the 77-year-old Mr. Glenn a seat on a space shuttle is NASA's version of bread and circuses. It is entertainment, a way to draw attention from that agency's truly astronomical costs.

Why are no regularly scheduled commercial spaceflights available for Mr. Glenn to book? Because no government agency that runs with the efficiency of the Pentagon and the U.S. Postal Service will ever realize the dream of commercially viable orbiting stations or moon bases.

A history of flight

Put the progress in spaceflight in historical perspective. The Wright brothers' first flight was in 1903, and Charles Lindbergh flew across the Atlantic Ocean in 1927. By the late 1930s, the first commercially viable aircraft, the DC-3, was flying. But 35 years after Mr. Glenn's first flight, travel into space is still an expensive luxury.

Should we have expected better? If the National Aeronautics and Space Administration had backed out of the civilian space business after the moon landing, yes.

Consider the progress in other areas. The inflation-adjusted cost of commercial air travel has dropped by about 30 percent since the late 1970s, when airline deregulation began. And the cost of shipping oil has dropped by as much as 80 percent in a little over two decades. But the government's reusable shuttle has actually made spaceflight more expensive.

In his book "Space Enterprise: Beyond NASA," space specialist David Gump calculates that even using NASA's own very low cost-per-flight figures in the 1980s, the cost to put a pound of payload into orbit on the shuttle was $6,000. That compares to an inflation-adjusted figure of only $3,800 for the Saturn V expendable launch vehicles that carried men to the moon.

But this analysis is too kind to the shuttle. Duke University Professor Alex Roland, taking into account shuttle-development costs that NASA ignores in its news releases, pegs the per-pound price at $20,000. Other overhead would mean a cost as high as $35,000 per pound. So if a 160-pound John Glenn were sent up as shuttle cargo, total postage would run between $3.2 million and $5.6 million. But as a passenger on a shuttle flight with a crew of seven, at more than $1.5 billion per flight, his ticket actually costs between $214 million and $286 million. Hardly the right stuff at the right price.

No thanks, private sector

The government has had many opportunities to turn over civilian space activities to the private sector. In the 1970s, American Rocket Co. was one of the private enterprises that wanted to sell launch services to NASA and private businesses. But NASA was moving from science to freight hauling, and planned to monopolize government payloads on the shuttle and subsidize launches of private cargo as well. The agency thus turned down American Rocket.

In the late 1980s, Space Industries of Houston offered, for no more than $750 million, to launch a ministation that could carry government and other payloads at least a decade before NASA's station went into operation. (NASA's station currently comes with a price tag of nearly $100 billion for development, construction and operations.) NASA, not wishing to create its own competition, declined Space Industries' offer.

In 1987 and 1988, a Commerce Department-led interagency working group considered the feasibility of offering a one-time prize and a promise of rent to any firm or consortium that could deliver a permanent manned moon base. When asked whether such a base were realistic, private-sector representatives answered yes -- but only if NASA wasn't involved. That plan was quickly scuttled.

Each shuttle carries a 17-story external fuel tank 98 percent of the distance into orbit before dropping it into the ocean; NASA could easily -- and with little additional cost -- have promoted private space enterprise by putting those fuel tanks into orbit. With nearly 90 shuttle flights to date, platforms -- with a total of 27 acres of interior space -- could be in orbit today.

These could be homesteaded by the private sector for hospitals to study a weightless Mr. Glenn or for any other use one could dream of. But then a $100 billion government station would be unnecessary.

As long as NASA dominates civilian space efforts, little progress will be made toward inexpensive manned space travel. The lesson of Mr. Glenn's second flight is that space enthusiasts ignore economics at their peril.

This article originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun.

Ihatevacations']nasa will be nothing more than an overpaid pork barrel within the next two decades - they won't even be trying to launch shuttles. The entire process will have been taken over by the private industry, the next thing they are after is making their current ships go to near orbit altitude, after that all they have to do is put it in orbit,

I would argue that it's been a pork barrel agency since 1976.
Since Apollo, the waste has been incredible. Waste of time, waste of money, and waste of lives. :(

Literally, barring the Hubble (after a correction) and a couple of robotic missions to Mars, what has NASA done since then? Nothing. Even the Space Station (supposedly it's primary mission) is still only big enough for 3 people and is years behind schedule.

That's why this ...

http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/

... is so important.

Not bad, but we need something more like this:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OrionProj.html

We can afford it. We can build it. Time to go into interstellar space.

Shoot. At this point, no human has gone above LEO (Low Earth Orbit) since Apollo 17's crew did in December 1971... :(

The shuttle is a shoddy piece of equipment. It shoud be replaced by another space vessel, or better yet, they should go back to using rockets. Ever since we started using these shuttle pieces of crap the whole space program has gone to nothing. We went to the moon about TEN TIMES, then they switched to shuttles and ever since then we haven't flown ANYWHERE but the space around earth. Scrap those old hunks of garbage and pull those rockets back out. To answer the topic's name, NASA does have balls, they're hanging off their rockets.

Not bad, but we need something more like this:
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/O/OrionProj.html

We can afford it. We can build it. Time to go into interstellar space.

Shoot. At this point, no human has gone above LEO (Low Earth Orbit) since Apollo 17's crew did in December 1971... :(
Interesting. I've read a bit about the Daedelus Project, which was based on fusion rather than fission. I suspect that any project involving atomic propulsion will have a rough road to travel and will probably be limited exclusively to off-world use.

Interesting. I've read a bit about the Daedelus Project, which was based on fusion rather than fission. I suspect that any project involving atomic propulsion will have a rough road to travel and will probably be limited exclusively to off-world use.

Yep. It'd not work well in an atmosphere at all.

Well, in theory you could build it on Earth, but the launch would be a mother. There are better Orion sites out there, but that one is a nice short summation.

The shuttle is a shoddy piece of equipment. It shoud be replaced by another space vessel, or better yet, they should go back to using rockets. Ever since we started using these shuttle pieces of crap the whole space program has gone to nothing. We went to the moon about TEN TIMES, then they switched to shuttles and ever since then we haven't flown ANYWHERE but the space around earth. Scrap those old hunks of garbage and pull those rockets back out. To answer the topic's name, NASA does have balls, they're hanging off their rockets.

The shuttle concept was originally sold to President Nixon on the theory that it could fly every 3 weeks. Obviously, things were slightly exagerated... (oy!)

Well, we landed on the moon 6 times. The first crew to go around it was Apollo 10. Interestingly, one of it's three crewmen was Eugene Cernan, who was also the LAST man on the moon on Apollo 17.

As for rockets: we can't. At least, not Saturns. The tooling that made the tooling that made them has been long gone for a couple of decades, as have the launch pads. If we wanted to, we MIGHT be able to build something like a Saturn V in 5-8 years if we started NOW. :(
Yes, we do have others that can house small crews, but it'd be a temproary step, and a kind of backwards one as well.

I believe that we should use the space shuttles as little as possible and begin work on the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) or whatever will get us to the next stage in Bush's space plan.

If that's what the USA and NASA are relying on, then I expect the next generation of shuttle/spacecraft/whatever to be developed will be flying "Virgin Blue" colours. :p

Here is what I do not understand about NASA. We can some how go to the moon, with out the use of computers or calculators. Thats right they use to use a slider ruler, which was not accurate. They can some how do all of this, but they cannot send a person into space today, unless hundreds of computers and all are working at 100% of their level and are reporting nothing wrong. Come on people, the old Saturn V rocket that took Americans to the moon, had maybe a very simple basic computer on it at most. Come on what happened to the good old days of doing things by hand and manual. This is one reason why I think America never went to the moon.

It can go from zero technology in rockets to going to the moon in less than 10 years, but we cannot launch a man into space today, without the help of millions of computers.

I forgot to mention our shuttle currently stinks. We had to rely on the Russians, in order to get the big living structures in space. Our shuttle or any of our rockets are too small to lift something so big into space.

Also I really think it costs more money to keep reusing the shuttle, compared to using a one time ship.

Ihatevacations']just like the rest of his plans eh

You could say bush didn't planet out very well. Earther that or it was planned that he would not and it was just a publicity thing. Perhaps he is mercuryal in his decisions? Which mars his record, and makes me want to moon him in public. I just can;t remain plutonic on the matter. Io am sure all dead scientists sat urnwise and scoffed at him. And as is always the case, us being the perpetualy uninformed (that is to say, they hide so much stuff up theiranus that we will never know of because they don't tell the public), "ve nus noosing". And will we see where the money goes? Nep. Tune in for more lack of information. We'll never know what the haley he's doing, and I fear to comet on the matter. But I wish he would get his astroid in gear and start funding some space research!
Jupiter. What the heck kind of pun can you make with such a word? Forget it.

Here is what I do not understand about NASA. We can some how go to the moon, with out the use of computers or calculators. Thats right they use to use a slider ruler, which was not accurate. They can some how do all of this, but they cannot send a person into space today, unless hundreds of computers and all are working at 100% of their level and are reporting nothing wrong. Come on people, the old Saturn V rocket that took Americans to the moon, had maybe a very simple basic computer on it at most. Come on what happened to the good old days of doing things by hand and manual. This is one reason why I think America never went to the moon.

It can go from zero technology in rockets to going to the moon in less than 10 years, but we cannot launch a man into space today, without the help of millions of computers.


...Right. We didn't go to the moon because its hard to do the math...You're kidding right?

The moon missions were increadibly risky, and many people died in testing phases and the like. Russia's space program was much the same, death paid more than visit to our rockets. Safety should be a concern, and NASA, in losing its balls SHOULD have gained a better safety record.

I think they've probably outlived their usefulness. It may be time to re-create NASA from square one, while opening up the skies to private industry.

Personally, I don't like the private industry's boastful claims of being able to everything faster and cheaper. They frequently "forget" to mention that they are building things and using parts that have already been built, tested, and shot into space by NASA.

NASA on the other hand has been bloated and rendered nearly useless by years of mishandling, shifting priorities, and the whimsical budgeting of a half-dozen different administraitons

In the end its just another beuarcratic pissing contest.

It can go from zero technology in rockets to going to the moon in less than 10 years, but we cannot launch a man into space today, without the help of millions of computers.

There was a lot more of an incentive back then during the Cold War, especially since it had ballistic missile applications. Many people these days think all space programs should be scrapped altogether, sadly.

Safety who needs it. I hate it how in cars I pay for all this crappy safety stuff, that costs thousands of dollars to have. I rather have nothing but a seat belt and save thousands of dollars.

Its a good thing I drive an Etsal. For those that do not know, Etsal was a division under Ford at one time, if I am correct it was one of Ford's sons. Anyhow it was a relative of the Ford family.

Your car my crush and deploy your air bags and all. But that will not save you, when a huge pure harden steel vechical cuts through your car like a knife through butter. And my car has no seat belts. It was created before seat belts became mandatory.

A word to the wise, safety is not important. What I find quite interesting is how an unsafe car became one of the safest cars due to technology changes.

So back to my point. NASA does not need safety. Cut out these safety programs and let the tax payers save money every year.

Safety who needs it. I hate it how in cars I pay for all this crappy safety stuff, that costs thousands of dollars to have. I rather have nothing but a seat belt and save thousands of dollars.

Its a good thing I drive an Etsal. For those that do not know, Etsal was a division under Ford at one time, if I am correct it was one of Ford's sons. Anyhow it was a relative of the Ford family.

Your car my crush and deploy your air bags and all. But that will not save you, when a huge pure harden steel vechical cuts through your car like a knife through butter. And my car has no seat belts. It was created before seat belts became mandatory.

A word to the wise, safety is not important. What I find quite interesting is how an unsafe car became one of the safest cars due to technology changes.

So back to my point. NASA does not need safety. Cut out these safety programs and let the tax payers save money every year.


Tell me, what does the steering column look like on your car? Is it a long shaft, kinda spearing out of the floorboard? Or is a compact block connected directly to the dashboard?

I ask you this because the design of cars has changed for a reason.

Sure if your car hits something, say a Geo metro, your car is made of solid steel and will be untouched as it plows out the back end of said unfortunate Metro. But what about the occupants in your car?

Unless you're a superhero or something, you're made of soft pink flesh. You bruise easily (compared to a car), and your bones break with very little pressure. Now, if your steering column is a spear made of metal and sheathed in plastic, you're in trouble when your chest impales itself against it in the accident. People died that way back in the past...a lot. 10 mile an hour accidents with fatalities were commonplace.

On the other hand...their relatives could sell the car after the funeral. NASA could save a little money here and there, testing out carboard spacesuits and seeing if people can go into space without air, but the costs are seen as somewhat practical, 'cause unlike training a car driver, astronaughts cost a LOT of money to train.

I don't think that the NASA administrator should be damned for what they are doing. I think it should be the US Congress and Senate for forcing the design of the shuttle onto NASA and their cost-cutting of any program that NASA wants to be done.
Insufficient monies were orginally granted for the shuttle design and construction. There should be a new shuttle coming off the assembly line at least every second year. The wear and tear on the shuttle system is enormous, and preventative maintenance can't stop every problem that comes up.
If you really care about the space program then tell your government that they (NASA) should be given more money to do the job that is needed to be done.

Safety who needs it. I hate it how in cars I pay for all this crappy safety stuff, that costs thousands of dollars to have. I rather have nothing but a seat belt and save thousands of dollars.

Its a good thing I drive an Etsal. For those that do not know, Etsal was a division under Ford at one time, if I am correct it was one of Ford's sons. Anyhow it was a relative of the Ford family.

Your car my crush and deploy your air bags and all. But that will not save you, when a huge pure harden steel vechical cuts through your car like a knife through butter. And my car has no seat belts. It was created before seat belts became mandatory.

A word to the wise, safety is not important. What I find quite interesting is how an unsafe car became one of the safest cars due to technology changes.

So back to my point. NASA does not need safety. Cut out these safety programs and let the tax payers save money every year.
... that has got to be one of the stupidest posts I've ever read.

Sure! Let's save money and get rid of safety! Who cares about the public screaming bloody murder at us? They're stupid, cause they spend X-amount of dollars on something that can save their pathetic lives![/sarcasm]

Anyways... NASA has lost it's balls because it has to. It can't afford to lose another shuttle, or the public is going to go berzerk on them, and they loose MORE money.

I agree though. They need to scrap the shuttle, get more funds, and wisely use them to create better space exploration vehicles.

In my opinion I think we would be better off trying to fix up this planet before we even consider going onto another one... we wouldn't want to go there, mess things up, overpopulate and end up having to move to yet another one.

Ok, but suppose this one is already screwed up beyond repair? Now with that plan we're stranded here and the human race dies out because the planet got screwed over. And besides, the resources of space are just waiting for us to tap into them, who knows what sort of technologies could be developed from the oddities to be found in space.

There is no doubt that valueable technology could be found from space but what's to say that the technology to sustain ourselves couldn't be learned from fixing our current situation?

I think NASA will accelerate more when the Chinese start catching up.

Or when they have more astronauts, because astronauts tend to take 25-40 years to make and only so many of them are astronauts.

Hmmm, Camozayo has a point. Ever since Russia gave up on going to the moon after they were beaten to it, the US kind of did the same. If China solidifies a plan to go to the moon and establish a base there, you can bet the US admin, if not the military, will be screaming bloody murder to get there first with their own base.

Frankly, I would like to see the Chinese get their base there first. The blow to US pride will force them to go for something bigger. Oh, like actually a manned mission to Mars?

Or when they have more astronauts, because astronauts tend to take 25-40 years to make and only so many of them are astronauts.

Right now the Astronaut corps is about 120. That's more than enough, given the number of missions NASA has been doing since Challenger. :(

Here is what I do not understand about NASA. We can some how go to the moon, with out the use of computers or calculators. Thats right they use to use a slider ruler, which was not accurate. They can some how do all of this, but they cannot send a person into space today, unless hundreds of computers and all are working at 100% of their level and are reporting nothing wrong. Come on people, the old Saturn V rocket that took Americans to the moon, had maybe a very simple basic computer on it at most. Come on what happened to the good old days of doing things by hand and manual. This is one reason why I think America never went to the moon.

It can go from zero technology in rockets to going to the moon in less than 10 years, but we cannot launch a man into space today, without the help of millions of computers.

The Apollo most certainly had a computer. It wasn't running Excel, but it was there, and for the 60s, was pretty impressive for it's size.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/moon/computer.htm

BTW: The slide rule, like the computer, is as accurate as you are.
http://www.hpmuseum.org/srinst.htm

As for the US not having gone to the moon: :rolleyes: .

Now that NASA (take note, I don't mean the astronauts, I mean the worthless administration that has kept the agency hobbled for a long time) has seen little bits of foam coming off of the fuel tanks again they have decided to suspend shuttle flights, again, despite the fact that this has probably occured on every single flight since they stopped painting the damned tanks. The incident with the Columbia, while tragic, was a freak accident, and halting further shuttle launches is an insult to their memory (unless they have a replacement for the shuttle they aren't talking about that is.)

C'mon NASA, no one ever got anywhere by being super-cautious! How many ships of the first hundred to sail around Cape Horn were lost? How many ships of the first hundred to sail to America were lost? How many triremes of the first hundred to sail the Meditteranean were lost? Hell, if people stopped exploring after a few accidents I'm pretty sure I'd be huddled in a tent in a barbarian village in Northern Europe right now eating a few measley bits of goat meat and some acorns!

*grumbles and rants on on the general topic for another ten minutes*

Alright I figure you've had enough, cheerio.


Wow! Do you smoke while you're filling the car up with gas? Play the radio in the bathtub? Stand on the top step of ladders? Tear tags off of mattresses and pillows?

Grounding the fleet of two is probably a good idea. After all, we know exactly why the tiles were damaged on the ill-fated Columbia. Same thing happens on Discovery, just with fewer tiles damaged. Sounds like they've made the right decision for a change.

Hell, if people stopped exploring after a few accidents I'm pretty sure I'd be huddled in a tent in a barbarian village in Northern Europe right now eating a few measley bits of goat meat and some acorns!

Just be careful with those acorns! They can become stuck in your throat. Better yet, let's forget about the acorns, ok? It's too dangerous.

Try not to touch the goat meat, it's still under review.

And, by the way, I think the tent is not that safe either, it looks like it might collapse.

That insulation that keeps on falling off and tearing holes in the shuttle is the result of cost cutting. Apparently they used a different insulation foam before then switched to some cheaper alternative (the one used now).

The shuttle is a shoddy piece of equipment. It shoud be replaced by another space vessel, or better yet, they should go back to using rockets. Ever since we started using these shuttle pieces of crap the whole space program has gone to nothing. We went to the moon about TEN TIMES, then they switched to shuttles and ever since then we haven't flown ANYWHERE but the space around earth. Scrap those old hunks of garbage and pull those rockets back out. To answer the topic's name, NASA does have balls, they're hanging off their rockets.
The space shuttle came as an offshoot of the Moon program. There were originally three strategies considered to get to the Moon. The first one was by giant rocket, the second one by sending two smaller rockets that would be joined together in orbit to form a larger one, and the third that would be using the shuttle to carry the parts to lower orbit, assemble the LM and the propulsion system there and off it would go.

The first proposition won not because it was the best one, but because it could be carried before the decade was out. But if lunar missions were to become a regular thing in the future (the plan involved having a permanent base there by the mid-80s) they needed to have an inexpensive way to lift components to Low Earth Orbit. A lot of vehicles were put on paper, but the only one that survived all the budget cuts in the 70s and 80s, after the space race stopped being a priority, was the Space Shuttle.

Unfortunately, this also meant that the SS was suddenly left with no place to go, and has been used since to launch satellites and carry out some interesting experiments, both things that can probably be made better with another kind of vehicle. Boeing was still developing a reusable HLV in the 90s that could put a few tons of material in orbit and then come back to Earth landind vertically, it could even hover and move horizontally like a helicopter, but there's not market for it.

I doubt that corporations will pick up. They're as risk adverse as NASA and almost as wasteful, plus they have no good reason to go, not enough profit not fast enough. Wouldn't look good in the quarterly results, and you know how those shareholders are.

Entrepreneurial individuals may do more. They certainly are much more interested and are willing to make the effort and wait years if necessary to see it through. But their families need to eat and they lack the monetary resources. Unless theyr're backed up by the likes of Bill Gates or Steven Spielberg, and still, their fortunes could be gobbled up withoug anything left to show for it.

I'm afraid this will mean that the ISS will also be abandoned.

EDIT: Unless China, India, or Japan want to pick it up. And they seem willing.

As for rockets: we can't. At least, not Saturns. The tooling that made the tooling that made them has been long gone for a couple of decades, as have the launch pads. If we wanted to, we MIGHT be able to build something like a Saturn V in 5-8 years if we started NOW. :(

Not only the tooling, but the minds that made them are also gone. Some just retired, but some dead, just too old.

I'm sure that an even better rocket than the Saturn V could be built. Especially with the available technology and materials, the trip to the moon could be done faster and safer than it was back then. It would still be tremendously costly. People tend to forget, but back in those days they were working with risk factors much greater than today. How many were lost in the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo programs?

Both the risk and the cost were justified then by the Cold War. No such justification exists today.

Not only the tooling, but the minds that made them are also gone. Some just retired, but some dead, just too old.

I'm sure that an even better rocket than the Saturn V could be built. Especially with the available technology and materials, the trip to the moon could be done faster and safer than it was back then. It would still be tremendously costly. People tend to forget, but back in those days they were working with risk factors much greater than today. How many were lost in the Gemini, Mercury, and Apollo programs?

Both the risk and the cost were justified then by the Cold War. No such justification exists today.

And most space rockets are really modified ICBMs anyway.

I think they've probably outlived their usefulness. It may be time to re-create NASA from square one, while opening up the skies to private industry.
That's why I don't think private industry will do it. The skies have always been open. The technology used to get to space was developed and remains property of private industry. They could have easily developed civilian versions of rockets and space ships, but they have no incentive to do it. If the government hadn't given them a lot of money to make it worth their while, they would have had no interest in space whatsoever.

The Space Shuttles are nearly 30 years old. This is yesterday's technology. They need to get to the next level of spacecraft technology. They aren't gonna get there if THIS one goes kaboom. Public support and funding will completely dry up if this one goes boom, and so they are understandably worried.

The Shuttles were marvels for their time, but it is time, now, to get to the next level in spacecraft. What would REALLY be cool is a craft that could take off AND land just like an airplane, so that the Shuttle could literally go to the moon, or somewhere else...land, and take off again.

Anyway, NASA can't afford for this one to go kaboom with six or seven astronauts aboard...the public would not stand for it, funding would go bye-bye, and with it, so would NASA, and space exploration.

Rumor has it that they are developing a replacement for the shuttle. Don't know when it'll become active however.

As for the shuttle, I do like the shuttle but NASA really does need to do something about them. They had 2.5 years to think on how to redo and fix the shuttle.

Anyway, the shuttle will fly again and again till its replacement shows up.

As to the word fleet: They are refering to the Fleet of Shuttles. We also have a fleet of rockets too.

They need a new fleet, pure and simple. The FIRST shuttle disaster happened when I was in HIGH SCHOOL -- and that was a DAMNED long time ago.

They need a new fleet, pure and simple. The FIRST shuttle disaster happened when I was in HIGH SCHOOL -- and that was a DAMNED long time ago.
And the second one happened just last year, after dozens of more missions. Not bad for what's essentially an eggshell on dynamite sticks. But people are concerned about things being totally right all the time and with immediate results and, to top it all off, cheap. So, here we are.

They need a new fleet, pure and simple. The FIRST shuttle disaster happened when I was in HIGH SCHOOL -- and that was a DAMNED long time ago.

Yeah...don't remind me, either. I was in high school, too, back then, and watched it blow up on live TV. School ended up closing early that day, everyone was in tears...it was really bad.

Then, too, one of my favorite teachers (and I'm sure he was a favorite of many other students) had been in the running, and in the final ten, to take the Shuttle mission that Christa McAuliffe ended up getting. Many of us were, of course, projecting...what if Mr. Patterson had gotten that flight?

Of all major news events of my youth, this is the one that sticks most in my mind. Then again, it is that way with many of my approximate age.

In fact, I'm gonna start a thread on that.

I don't think NASA has lost its balls, but rather its vision and enthusiasm.

NASA is trying to maintain funding for an aging fleet and is terrified that another accident or two will kill their organization - the potential of the fleet is in question as much as design flaws. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? Continued experimentation in zero-gravity? Been there. Space station is for what? To support aforesaid expirementation? Big deal.

Strikes me that everybody is getting a little bored, particularly Congress. We need to do something bold and productive. That will cost a pretty penny, but lets have NASA's best people develop and market a program with real objectives that will either take us into deep space, or permit commercialization of space or the moon. Let's work private enterprise into this where possible.

Rumor has it that they are developing a replacement for the shuttle. Don't know when it'll become active however.

As for the shuttle, I do like the shuttle but NASA really does need to do something about them. They had 2.5 years to think on how to redo and fix the shuttle.

Anyway, the shuttle will fly again and again till its replacement shows up.

As to the word fleet: They are refering to the Fleet of Shuttles. We also have a fleet of rockets too.

They were working on replacements in the 90s, too. Spent something like 1 BILLION, and came up with squat. One of the offices for the X38 project (specifically for earth-spacestation trips) was down the hall from my office at work. They killed it only 2 years short of it's first flight.

I don't know about that. I think we may endure another 1976-1980 period with no manned missions. :(

True, but few of the rockets currently in stock are capable of manned missions. Most are for satellite launches.

They were working on replacements in the 90s, too. Spent something like 1 BILLION, and came up with squat. One of the offices for the X38 project (specifically for earth-spacestation trips) was down the hall from my office at work. They killed it only 2 years short of it's first flight.
Actually they came up with plenty. Some of the prototypes that Boeing actually built are pretty impressive.

Then Congress decided that the shuttle was good enough to carry on with the job and cut NASA's funding... again.

And then they gave themselves a raise for a job well done.

I don't think NASA has lost its balls, but rather its vision and enthusiasm.

NASA is trying to maintain funding for an aging fleet and is terrified that another accident or two will kill their organization - the potential of the fleet is in question as much as design flaws. What exactly are we trying to accomplish? Continued experimentation in zero-gravity? Been there. Space station is for what? To support aforesaid expirementation? Big deal.

Strikes me that everybody is getting a little bored, particularly Congress. We need to do something bold and productive. That will cost a pretty penny, but lets have NASA's best people develop and market a program with real objectives that will either take us into deep space, or permit commercialization of space or the moon. Let's work private enterprise into this where possible.


Permit commercialization of space?? Do we REALLY have to trash the rest of space like we have this planet? Why does everything just HAVE to turn a buck to be worthwhile? Maybe there's better, purer, less greedy reasons for space exploration. Like maybe the survival of the human race when this planet, which has been so trashed...and stripped of it's resources...is no longer able to sustain us.

See how much your dollars feed you when the environment refuses to support our race any longer. Can't eat dollars. Damn I hate capitalism! Why can't we finally, once and for all, just get rid of money?

Yeah... one of the astronauts came to my school and gave us talk on space...
some Canadian guy

Permit commercialization of space?? Do we REALLY have to trash the rest of space like we have this planet? Why does everything just HAVE to turn a buck to be worthwhile? Maybe there's better, purer, less greedy reasons for space exploration. Like maybe the survival of the human race when this planet, which has been so trashed...and stripped of it's resources...is no longer able to sustain us.

See how much your dollars feed you when the environment refuses to support our race any longer. Can't eat dollars. Damn I hate capitalism! Why can't we finally, once and for all, just get rid of money?


It's not so much that money is bad in and of itself, it's just that waaaay too many people blow it out of proportion. I personally agree with you about the "better, purer, less greedy reasons" for continuing out into space, but unfortunately, most Americans (or humans in general, for that matter) can't conceive of doing something without a return. Speaking as a student in aerospace engineering, I really wish people would grow up, but I doubt it will happen for a while yet. On the other hand, going into space will eventually require the development of safe, cost-efficient, and reusable nuclear and solar technology, not to mention food production, so it might turn out for the best. Here's hoping. ;)

I agree that the environment of space should be a concern, lots of room for discussion about that. The main reason to permit commercialization, within to be agreed upon guidelines, is that it will further exploration.

The cost of space research and development is currently born by government agencies, hence the taxpayer. We can increase the rate of research by giving industry a motive to invest. There are potentially billions of dollars of R&D money in the hands of corporations that can further our needs. Billions of dollars the taxpayer isn't going to spend.

You don't like what happened with SpaceShipOne? Where did that money come from? Where did that vision come from? Not NASA. But NASA and all people can benefit from the knowledge gained by the use of non-government money.

right....

"environment" of Space??? I suppose we should be worrying about the Ecology of hte Moon, or maybe put Unicorns on the Endangered Species list with Chimerae, Dragons, Giant Sea Serpents, and institute a lobby for the preservation of Elven/Gnomish/Goblinoid Civil rights!

do you have even the slightest clue how insignificant human beings are on a scale of merely our solar system? One nickel-iron asteroid half a kilometer in diameter could provide enough steel to keep every mill in north america busy for YEARS-if you bothered to bring the ore down for processing, instead of doing it in orbit with mirrors and sunlight (instead of expensive/rare/destructive coal, oil,uranium, or gas resources.) The lunar crust is rich in aluminum oxides and titanium, and without an atmosphere you can actually do a Solar-electricity arrangement that works-without blocking sun from plant life or risking other ecological impacts.

Need water? Saturn's rings, some of Jupiter's moons, and Vesta-all packed with H2O watery goodness-one chunk of which would probably provide a city the size of Los Angeles with water for decades-and in microgravity, you can move it around, while in airless vacuum, you can boil, freeze, process, or insulate it with ease.


None of this, even providing for the needs of six billion Humans at a 21st century American lifestyle, would impact the solar system's structure-it's simply too damned big.
Raw material, energy-it's out there, and nobody to kill for it, or enslave, or oppress. All you have to do, is get at it.

Currently, our situation is keeping dictators propped up and people enslaved and oppressed to get the raw materials for our industries. Think about that. Wouldn't it be nice to do away with the god-damned dictators, because we don't need them to get what we do need?

That insulation that keeps on falling off and tearing holes in the shuttle is the result of cost cutting. Apparently they used a different insulation foam before then switched to some cheaper alternative (the one used now).
They made that switch because the old (non frangible) foam was made with eeeevvviiillll Freon. :headbang: AFAIC the Greenies & the EPA are responsible for the Challanger disaster and the current multi-million dollar Fiasco. :mad:

That's why I don't think private industry will do it. The skies have always been open. The technology used to get to space was developed and remains property of private industry. They could have easily developed civilian versions of rockets and space ships, but they have no incentive to do it. If the government hadn't given them a lot of money to make it worth their while, they would have had no interest in space whatsoever.
No, they are (were) not ALLOWED to do it. The Feds have long forbidden private space flight. IIRC There is an article by Jim Baen called "the tragedy of the moon" that explains how the federalizing of the Space Program by Kennedy destroyed all the good plans by folks like Rockwell in favor of "big boosters" in order to get to the Moon "First".

It is the contention of many in the Science and SF communities that the Space Station of Kubric's 2001 could have very well been developed had Kennedy not Nationalized everything.

(TWA flights to the Space Hilton... with a Howard Johnson's for a snack....)

Rumor has it that they are developing a replacement for the shuttle. Don't know when it'll become active however.

As for the shuttle, I do like the shuttle but NASA really does need to do something about them. They had 2.5 years to think on how to redo and fix the shuttle.

Anyway, the shuttle will fly again and again till its replacement shows up.

As to the word fleet: They are refering to the Fleet of Shuttles. We also have a fleet of rockets too.

Actually it was called the X plane or something like that, they canceled the project and said the shuttle would say in use until 2030.

You guys forget the shuttle program provides THOUSANDS of jobs across 5 states i think..they will never cancel that only expand it. Like welfare.

What NASA can do for 100 billion a private company can do with 100 million.

No, they are (were) not ALLOWED to do it. The Feds have long forbidden private space flight. IIRC There is an article by Jim Baen called "the tragedy of the moon" that explains how the federalizing of the Space Program by Kennedy destroyed all the good plans by folks like Rockwell in favor of "big boosters" in order to get to the Moon "First".

It is the contention of many in the Science and SF communities that the Space Station of Kubric's 2001 could have very well been developed had Kennedy not Nationalized everything.

(TWA flights to the Space Hilton... with a Howard Johnson's for a snack....)

Don't forget the 1967 Moon Treaty, and the 1979 OST (Outer Space Treaty) that effectively prohibits private entities from establishing/owning outposts in the Solar system, and places it all under "International" (read: corrupt appointee) jurisdiction.
Columbus may have been paid by Queen Isabella, but you'll notice that the successful colonies in the Americas were founded by private groups.

"environment" of Space??? I suppose we should be worrying about the Ecology of hte Moon, or maybe put Unicorns on the Endangered Species list with Chimerae, Dragons, Giant Sea Serpents, and institute a lobby for the preservation of Elven/Gnomish/Goblinoid Civil rights!

do you have even the slightest clue how insignificant human beings are on a scale of merely our solar system? One nickel-iron asteroid half a kilometer in diameter could provide enough steel to keep every mill in north america busy for YEARS-if you bothered to bring the ore down for processing, instead of doing it in orbit with mirrors and sunlight (instead of expensive/rare/destructive coal, oil,uranium, or gas resources.) The lunar crust is rich in aluminum oxides and titanium, and without an atmosphere you can actually do a Solar-electricity arrangement that works-without blocking sun from plant life or risking other ecological impacts.

Need water? Saturn's rings, some of Jupiter's moons, and Vesta-all packed with H2O watery goodness-one chunk of which would probably provide a city the size of Los Angeles with water for decades-and in microgravity, you can move it around, while in airless vacuum, you can boil, freeze, process, or insulate it with ease.


None of this, even providing for the needs of six billion Humans at a 21st century American lifestyle, would impact the solar system's structure-it's simply too damned big.
Raw material, energy-it's out there, and nobody to kill for it, or enslave, or oppress. All you have to do, is get at it.

Currently, our situation is keeping dictators propped up and people enslaved and oppressed to get the raw materials for our industries. Think about that. Wouldn't it be nice to do away with the god-damned dictators, because we don't need them to get what we do need?

I agree completely. We'll never achieve that unless someone has the vision and the capital to learn how to accomplish this. NASA is stuck in a rut and the taxpayer doesn't want to pay for much more, at least until someone provides the vision and leadership.

Industry has the capacity to provide what's needed in partnership with NASA. The space environment issue, as I understand it, has to do with clutter and potentially earth-hazardous debris left in near-earth orbit. Just stuff - it should be easy to destroy or send reeling into outer space where it won't be a navigation hazard.

"environment" of Space??? I suppose we should be worrying about the Ecology of hte Moon, or maybe put Unicorns on the Endangered Species list with Chimerae, Dragons, Giant Sea Serpents, and institute a lobby for the preservation of Elven/Gnomish/Goblinoid Civil rights!

do you have even the slightest clue how insignificant human beings are on a scale of merely our solar system? One nickel-iron asteroid half a kilometer in diameter could provide enough steel to keep every mill in north america busy for YEARS-if you bothered to bring the ore down for processing, instead of doing it in orbit with mirrors and sunlight (instead of expensive/rare/destructive coal, oil,uranium, or gas resources.) The lunar crust is rich in aluminum oxides and titanium, and without an atmosphere you can actually do a Solar-electricity arrangement that works-without blocking sun from plant life or risking other ecological impacts.

Need water? Saturn's rings, some of Jupiter's moons, and Vesta-all packed with H2O watery goodness-one chunk of which would probably provide a city the size of Los Angeles with water for decades-and in microgravity, you can move it around, while in airless vacuum, you can boil, freeze, process, or insulate it with ease.


None of this, even providing for the needs of six billion Humans at a 21st century American lifestyle, would impact the solar system's structure-it's simply too damned big.
Raw material, energy-it's out there, and nobody to kill for it, or enslave, or oppress. All you have to do, is get at it.

Currently, our situation is keeping dictators propped up and people enslaved and oppressed to get the raw materials for our industries. Think about that. Wouldn't it be nice to do away with the god-damned dictators, because we don't need them to get what we do need?Read "Blowups Happen" sometime for another benefit of Space Commerce (The science is 1940s but the themes are current...)

Another GREAT thing about microgravity is.... wait for it ....

Ball Bearings

Nearly frictionless, 99.9999% perfect spheres can (virtually only) be produced in 0/micro gravity.

Imagine virtually EVERY piece of mechanical engineering gaining 100% - 400% efficiency increases - simply by replacing the ball bearings. (Push an SUV with one hand anyone?) :eek: The energy savings in ball bearings alone could pay for ALL commercial Space Exploration.

Nearly frictionless, 99.9999% perfect spheres can (virtually only) be produced in 0/micro gravity.

Imagine virtually EVERY piece of mechanical engineering gaining 100% - 400% efficiency increases - simply by replacing the ball bearings. (Push an SUV with one hand anyone?) :eek: The energy savings in ball bearings alone could pay for ALL commercial Space Exploration.

I didn't know that! Talk about energy saving on a world-wide scale. I'm of the view we're missing a lot, due to lack of vision, leadership, and capital. Time to get the thumb out and do something about it. Why not have a public debate about safeguards, then get industry involved? Why should space be the sole territory of government sponsored research, a proven inefficient mechanism for progress?

<snip> Why not have a public debate about safeguards, then get industry involved? Why should space be the sole territory of government sponsored research, a proven inefficient mechanism for progress?
Because Nanny doesn't think it's safe for us chilluns to play with explosives sufficient to reach high orbit. Because if we ever did, then Nanny wouldn't have the monopoly on ICBMs then, would she? Because if we ever did, then Nanny would lose the ability to be corrupt and murderous because whoever owns the High Orbitals controlls the Planet. Don't like somebody... just throw a rock at them. Let kenetic reentry do the rest.

Space is the next great destabilizer - just like Nukes were. Thus, the Nanny approach to ensuring that "everybody" (meaning "nobody") has "better" access than any government can produce. Since Launches are so public and all, it's pretty hard for any of the "Big-3 " (plus Japan) to over-play their hand.

Letting an efficient multinational actually develop a program that has a chance of being superior to the Big-3 (plus Japan)? Not in a million years. :headbang:

That's why the Chinese might have the right idea with that vision of theirs of putting a base on the moon. Who really believes they're not going to start hauling all the minerals they can get their hands on once they get there?

The rest of the nations will probably get jealous and kickstart their programs, only to realize how far behind it is. In the end, they might start loosening restrictions on private research on transatmospheric travel.

Once the corporations get a foothold in space, you can bet they'll be trying all sorts of means to open it up even more. Uncle Sam isn't going to say no to suitcases of money if the profit is as good as it seems.