NationStates Jolt Archive

Do you think this is going to be the end of the space shuttle program? Seems like it's been one problem after another lately and this could see an end to the program. Pretty serious stuff.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070811/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle_101

""What does this mean? I don't know at this point," said John Shannon, chairman of the mission management team. If the gouge is deep enough, the shuttle astronauts may have to patch it during a spacewalk, he said.

Columbia was destroyed during re-entry four years ago because of a hole in its wing, the result of a large chunk of foam insulation that broke off the external fuel tank and slammed into the wing at liftoff. Ice is heavier than foam, however, and would cause more damage to the thermal cover that protects the shuttle from the intense heat of re-entry at flight's end."

"If the gouge is deemed serious and cannot be fixed, the shuttle astronauts would have to remain at the space station. They have more than two months of supplies with them, and a rescue shuttle could be launched by early October, Shannon said.

The astronauts have three methods for repairing tile damage, if necessary: They could apply black paint, screw on a protective plate, or squirt in goo."

This isn't a kind of thing that hasn't happened before... but because of the Columbia (was that the name of it? EDIT: Yes! got it w/out looking) event this kind of thing has become more news-worthy. It'll take another day or two than they planned to get back on the ground, but things should go as planned.

As for the shuttle, that's already being phased out. I've heard of plans on the drawing board years ago, so I suspect a replacement is already in testing or further.

As for the shuttle, that's already being phased out. I've heard of plans on the drawing board years ago, so I suspect a replacement is already in testing or further.

No a replacement isn't in testing because of a lack of funds. Is the space program worth all the millions/billions being spent on it? Especially in light of the condition of our roads and bridges here on earth.

's a better idea than all those war things.

No a replacement isn't in testing because of a lack of funds. Is the space program worth all the millions/billions being spent on it? Especially in light of the condition of our roads and bridges here on earth.

Federal funds have nothing to do with our infrastructure and, yes, a replacement is on the way because everyone is worried that another space shuttle will blow up...

other than that and running on antequated technology, they're fine.

Federal funds have nothing to do with our infrastructure and,

You don't know much about funding of our federal highway system do you?

You don't know much about funding of our federal highway system do you?

Yes, I do. Federal highways are bonded, but the funding of them comes from the state transportation authority.

They bond the project, design it, then put it out to bid for general contractors.

No a replacement isn't in testing because of a lack of funds. Is the space program worth all the millions/billions being spent on it? Especially in light of the condition of our roads and bridges here on earth.

Are all of the advancements made due to the space program worth it?

I think...

Yes?

I think they're just noticing things that routinely happen. You can't make everything perfect...

Yes, I do. Federal highways are bonded, but the funding of them comes from the state transportation authority.

They bond the project, design it, then put it out to bid for general contractors.

And pay 90% of the cost. :rolleyes:

Oh give it up. Space programs and aeronautics are for advanced countries with intelligent people.

And pay 90% of the cost. :rolleyes:

No, you're wrong. Federal bonds are quite similar to loans... only the repayment period for them is much, much longer.

By the by, it's good to see California spending more money on its highways, what with the infrastructure bill Schwarzenegger managed to pass through legislation.

Seeing how the Shuttle Program is just an money pit with no real scientific importance hopefully it is the end.

When China walks on the moon, the U.S. will step up its space program again.

LET'S GO CHINA!

Seeing how the Shuttle Program is just an money pit with no real scientific importance hopefully it is the end.

Seeing as how you are wrong, and many advancements have been made which have brought great benefits to our economy, I have a hard time believing that would be the best choice of action.

When China walks on the moon, the U.S. will step up its space program again.

LET'S GO CHINA!

No. It won't. It will spend a lot of money on it no doubt. But it will be more of the same expensive nothing. The country just isn't set up for that type of effort anymore.

Please. China has plans to build a base on the moon, and use that as a stepping stone to Mars. You really think the U.S. government, who just HAVE to be best at everything (compensation methinks), will want to put a team on Mars first.


It'll be the space race all over again.

X-WINGS ARE COMING!

>.>

<.<

<.>;

I should hope we withdraw all our funds from NASA. It is a gigantic waste of tax-payer money and its condition, after some initial successes, has been steadily deteriorating. The program itself was ill-conceived and futile; there was no realistic and practical goal that could be attained through it. In fact, we only got dragged into allowing the program to continue because of scare tactics employed by the Kennedy administration, frightening us with the bogey-man that was the USSR.

Do you have any reason for this other than we "used it against teh Soviets?"

I should hope we withdraw all our funds from NASA. It is a gigantic waste of tax-payer money and its condition, after some initial successes, has been steadily deteriorating. The program itself was ill-conceived and futile; there was no realistic and practical goal that could be attained through it. In fact, we only got dragged into allowing the program to continue because of scare tactics employed by the Kennedy administration, frightening us with the bogey-man that was the USSR.

There are plenty of uses for a space program. Satellites, for one, need the space program to be maintained, especially since said satellites are a very important part of our military in terms of intelligence, communications, and the like.

We also need resources. Fact is, we've used up most of the metal resources this planet has by now. Good thing is, there is an entire asteroid belt out there ready to be mined for metals and other resources, and that doesn't even take into account Mars, Venus, Luna, Mercury(though I wonder if Mercury or Venus could actually be tapped for anything) the Kuiper Belt, the various moons of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune, and the Oort Cloud.

Space is not a wasted expense. It is extremely useful for a vast variety of ventures.

The only question is whether Peak Oil will make space travel extremely hard to achieve...if it does we might have serious problems when it comes to recovering from Peak Oil.

I should hope we withdraw all our funds from NASA. It is a gigantic waste of tax-payer money and its condition, after some initial successes, has been steadily deteriorating. The program itself was ill-conceived and futile; there was no realistic and practical goal that could be attained through it. In fact, we only got dragged into allowing the program to continue because of scare tactics employed by the Kennedy administration, frightening us with the bogey-man that was the USSR.

You do realize that every dollar the Government has spent on NASA, it has gotten about $7 back.

In other words, NASA has payed itself back and then some.

You do realize that every dollar the Government has spent on NASA, it has gotten about $7 back.

In other words, NASA has payed itself back and then some.

Wait, seriously? NASA has managed that much of a profit? (Hardly best word to use, but it seems apt.)

NASA has to realize that their shuttles are almost thirty years old. Would you want to fly on a thirty year old airplane, or even drive a thirty year old car? In almost all cases, the answer is a big no. Why anyone would even concieve of going into space in a thirty year old piece of machinery is beyond me. The shuttle has been needing replacement for a good ten years now, and I just hope seven more people don't have to die for NASA to wake up to the idea.

NASA has to realize that their shuttles are almost thirty years old. Would you want to fly on a thirty year old airplane, or even drive a thirty year old car? In almost all cases, the answer is a big no. Why anyone would even conceive of going into space in a thirty year old piece of machinery is beyond me. The shuttle has been needing replacement for a good ten years now, and I just hope seven more people don't have to die for NASA to wake up to the idea.

With proper maintenance, a thirty year old car and/or a thirty year old airplane will be just fine. This culture of replacement over repair we've developed over the past twenty years or so is ridiculous.

Still, the shuttles are far more complex machines, and they aren't exactly designed as well as they could have been...they were forced to have larger cargo bays than they were originally designed for because the military wanted to ensure its satellites could be held by the shuttles.

and I just hope seven more people don't have to die for NASA to wake up to the idea.

They've already started. I heard about the idea to replace the antequated shuttle on the news years ago, which means they're a good ways into R&D now.

There was some kind of model that NASA placed on a rocket to test its aerodynamics, but I can't remember the name of it or when it was used.

With proper maintenance, a thirty year old car and/or a thirty year old airplane will be just fine. This culture of replacement over repair we've developed over the past twenty years or so is ridiculous.

Still, the shuttles are far more complex machines, and they aren't exactly designed as well as they could have been...they were forced to have larger cargo bays than they were originally designed for because the military wanted to ensure its satellites could be held by the shuttles.

Kyr, you must also realize that American space shuttles are running on technology from the 70s and 80s. It's Soviet-era technology, and with the problems we've experienced lately, it's not a bad idea to replace our space shuttle system.

For one, the vertical takeoff is highly inefficient.

Wait, seriously? NASA has managed that much of a profit? (Hardly best word to use, but it seems apt.)

That's a conservative estimate, apparently.

Really, it shouldn't surprise anyone considering that NASA has turned such a profit. Not only jobs used through contracting for the government, but many many more jobs created through companies which have used and produce products based on technology produced by NASA. Not mentioning, of course, the actual products. All of these have corporate and income taxes coming from them, and many(If not most) of these jobs would not exist if it weren't for NASA.

And that's not considering the medical applications of technology NASA has produced which has greatly increased the well being of many people.

So...

How NASA is a money pit when it actually has turned a rather large profit for the government is beyond me.

Kyr, you must also realize that American space shuttles are running on technology from the 70s and 80s. It's Soviet-era technology, and with the problems we've experienced lately, it's not a bad idea to replace our space shuttle system.

For one, the vertical takeoff is highly inefficient.

I know that, Christma. I was attacking the notion that replacement for replacement's sake is foolish and his analogies were flawed.

The space shuttles should definitely be replaced, I agree. What I'd really like to see is for some private companies to get into the mix as well. Obviously we'd need some regulation, since the last thing we want is for an asteroid kept in Earth orbit to be sent into a reentry course because the idiots who brought the thing into orbit contracted to the lowest bidder, but private companies wouldn't hurt. It would create a lot of jobs, certainly.

That's a conservative estimate, apparently.

Really, it shouldn't surprise anyone considering that NASA has turned such a profit. Not only jobs used through contracting for the government, but many many more jobs created through companies which have used and produce products based on technology produced by NASA. Not mentioning, of course, the actual products. All of these have corporate and income taxes coming from them, and many(If not most) of these jobs would not exist if it weren't for NASA.

And that's not considering the medical applications of technology NASA has produced which has greatly increased the well being of many people.

So...

How NASA is a money pit when it actually has turned a rather large profit for the government is beyond me.
Wow. I knew the argument from idiots who don't know anything about NASA that NASA is a money pit were bunk...but I had no idea NASA was THAT effective, profit wise. Amazing stuff.

They have. I know it's for commercial purposes, but anyone remember that Shuttle One (or whatever the devil it was called)? It won the prize for being the first privately owned aircraft to fly into orbit and return to earth.

I know that's not the answer you're looking for, Kyr, but you're right, and I think the US govt. is starting to get that.

They have. I know it's for commercial purposes, but anyone remember that Shuttle One (or whatever the devil it was called)? It won the prize for being the first privately owned aircraft to fly into orbit and return to earth.

I know that's not the answer you're looking for, Kyr, but you're right, and I think the US govt. is starting to get that.

Oh, yes, I'm aware of the private ventures into the area, but right now they're focused on:

A. Getting craft into space for short trips

B. Space tourism.

A was first achieved fifty years ago and shouldn't be that hard, and B, while potentially profitable, is really not what they ought to be focusing on.

But people tend to be short sighted no matter what their focus.

Wow. I knew the argument from idiots who don't know anything about NASA that NASA is a money pit were bunk...but I had no idea NASA was THAT effective, profit wise. Amazing stuff.

The thing is, it's not profit in the same sense as a business profits from direct sales. It's corporate taxes, income taxes, economic stimulation, and in many cases sales taxes and such. When all of that is figured in, NASA has, like I said, made a lot of money.

I'm thinking the naysayers didn't really think about that part.

I'm thinking the naysayers didn't really know about that part.

*fixed.

Or the effect of space-grade materials on our daily livelihood. It's like saying the phrase "Guns were only meant to kill" before realizing that the age of guns brought along serious technological leaps in the field of metallurgy.

ever have something really bad happen to a vehicle you own or drive? something that may of cost alot of money and could of been prevented if you had been paying attention to the warning signs?

then you get it fixed or you do a good enough fix on it. then you become really paranoid about every little whining noise or every bump you feel. as i see it, has become a lot like that.

It won the prize for being the first privately owned aircraft to fly into orbit and return to earth

If it had reached orbit it would've been big news, alas a hop into space is *nowhere* equal to reaching an orbit.

btw. Space tourism, while extremely profitable, could also become highly destructive to our environment: Each liftoff not only causes CO2 emissions like there's no tomorrow but also punches a hole in the ozone layer....If space tourism enters mass market with current technology (read: rockets) then we can kiss our planet good bye.

The problem with commercial spaceliners would also be innovation: Doing things cheaply - with minimum investement for maximum profit - rather than efficiently and in environmentally friendly way like, say, 100 km accelerator rail :D

NASA has to realize that their shuttles are almost thirty years old. Would you want to fly on a thirty year old airplane, or even drive a thirty year old car?

The B-52 and KC-135 aircraft that are still flying are way over 30 years old. It isn't how old they are, it's how they are maintained.

The space shuttles should definitely be replaced, I agree. What I'd really like to see is for some private companies to get into the mix as well.

There are several private companies working on space projects. Virgin Galactic is just one of them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8963138/

If it had reached orbit it would've been big news, alas a hop into space is *nowhere* equal to reaching an orbit.

btw. Space tourism, while extremely profitable, could also become highly destructive to our environment: Each liftoff not only causes CO2 emissions like there's no tomorrow but also punches a hole in the ozone layer....If space tourism enters mass market with current technology (read: rockets) then we can kiss our planet good bye.

The problem with commercial spaceliners would also be innovation: Doing things cheaply - with minimum investement for maximum profit - rather than efficiently and in environmentally friendly way like, say, 100 km accelerator rail :D

Because you have no idea what the heck you are talking about, I provide you this link so you can learn something about how Spaceship 1 and Spaceship 2 work. http://www.scaled.com/

Because you have no idea what the heck you are talking about, I provide you this link so you can learn something about how Spaceship 1 and Spaceship 2 work. http://www.scaled.com/

Hasn't reached orbit yet - Sub orbital flight is 'easy', reaching orbit is the key here.

It uses rocket power - Harmful to environment and ozone layer...even if it was 'clean' in comparison to shuttles or conventional rockets which it almost inevitably is because it uses less power, doesn't reach orbital velocities and is reusable.

Even the SpaceshipTwo is designed for suborbital flight....nothing special there, just cheap access to "space" - All in all, more a marketing trick than an achievement.

SpaceshipThree and orbital flight is still a long way in the horizon, possibly a decade or so away.

Nasa do have a replacement for the space shuttle with the proposed development of the Ares launch vehicle.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html

Nasa do have a replacement for the space shuttle with the proposed development of the Ares launch vehicle.

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/ares/index.html

And believe me, the development is proposed. It won't be ready for a while.

No a replacement isn't in testing because of a lack of funds. Is the space program worth all the millions/billions being spent on it? Especially in light of the condition of our roads and bridges here on earth.
Sending people into space probably isn't worth it. Sending probes and telescopes certainly is.

Funny how a bridge collapses and all of a sudden everyone cries that "more money must be spent on infrastructure!" These spending priorities come and go like fads.

Sending people into space probably isn't worth it. Sending probes and telescopes certainly is.

Have you not read what I've been pointing out? We cannot just send up probes and telescopes and expect them to do the mining and resource gathering for us. Even advanced robotics will probably only go so far. Unless you want to invent robots with human level intelligence(which I have no problem with so long as they're given full rights that any sentient beings deserve) then we would have to go up there ourselves to perform maintenance on these probes and telescopes, to gather resources, to mine, and so on and so forth.

You're not thinking far enough ahead Dakini.

Funny how a bridge collapses and all of a sudden everyone cries that "more money must be spent on infrastructure!" These spending priorities come and go like fads.

Of course. The American Society of Civil Engineers determines that 37 percent of America's bridges and overcrosses are "structurally deficient" and no one pays heed, until a bridge collapses and, suddenly, infrastructure is a "fad" and all of a sudden a spending priority.

Funny how that works.

Of course. The American Society of Civil Engineers determines that 37 percent of America's bridges and overcrosses are "structurally deficient" and no one pays heed, until a bridge collapses and, suddenly, infrastructure is a "fad" and all of a sudden a spending priority.

Funny how that works.

Sad how that works. If both the Federal and State government had been placing the gasoline tax in a lock box to be used only for roads and bridges instead of putting it in the “general fund” we wouldn’t have this problem. L

Have you not read what I've been pointing out? We cannot just send up probes and telescopes and expect them to do the mining and resource gathering for us. Even advanced robotics will probably only go so far. Unless you want to invent robots with human level intelligence(which I have no problem with so long as they're given full rights that any sentient beings deserve) then we would have to go up there ourselves to perform maintenance on these probes and telescopes, to gather resources, to mine, and so on and so forth.

You're not thinking far enough ahead Dakini.
I agree on maintainance issues for sending people up there, but that's about it. You're going to expend far more resources gathering resources from space and mining up there. Doing manned missions costs much more than unmanned missions because machines can be made much smaller than people and nobody cares too much if you smash an unmanned probe into the side of a planet due to some miscalculations, but try doing that with people... generally it's impractical and unnecessary.