Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line is this.  We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed. The design is FLAWWED! Sgat1r5 Many pundits have said NASA should just have churned out the simple and reliable Saturn 1B's like sausages!

Rockets aren't that efficent either.  Their payloads are a lot smaller, and look at the size of the rocket when it launches, and the size of the capsule that returns.  It's not efficent.  

Just to clarify a few things...

I never said, nor do I beleive, that the funding saved from pulling back on space exploration would sufficiently fund the DHS and magically solve our border security problem. I was making the comment in my original post to illustrate that there are other ways to spend the money on what I consider to be more pressing issues. DHS currently has a budget that trumps NASA....and clearly it isnt enough funding because our border policy is a joke...but I digress.

In asking what it is we are exploring for, I dont think that I adequately phrased the question to capture the gravity of what I am genuinely interested in knowing...

My point, what I am getting at, my question is...

How will confirming or denying the front running theories in astrophysics change life for any of us?
Scientific exploration will affect us how? Does anyone seriously believe that landing a man on the moon made a dent in the evolution of mankind? A few, select, extremely fortunate scientists, got to experience perhaps the most mind blowing experience of all time...and the few thousand folks in the supporting cast behind the mission got to say that they were a part of it all.

But so what?
Im not suggesting it isnt impressive....I certainly am not intelligent enough to calulate the effect of gravity to the extent I could navigate a space capsule accurately...but can someone tell me how they justify the cost of it all?

I find it facinating, I am deeply interested in it, I understand the value of progress, but....just playing devils advocate for a few minutes here....maybe its time to see if we can get earthlings up to date before we as a society set off to break ground in other galaxies. People on this planet are still living in tribal communities, existing as they did 10,000 years ago. We have entire societies practicing dark age religions trying to fight the crusades all over again....and we are allocating billions to see if we can find a better planet togrow food on?

He have proven a great deal...and I know that the science community is a worthy group of minds that deserve the opportunity to unravel the mysteries of the ages...but it would be nice to clean up the house before we go on vacation...that is all I am saying.

News Update from Yahoo..
news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050731/ap_on_sc/space_shuttle

This doesn't look good. What kind of Idiots are running the show anyway?

Back to Story - Help Discovery May Need Unprecedented Repair By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer 34 minutes ago A couple of short strips of material dangling from Discovery's belly may require an unprecedented repair by spacewalking astronauts, if engineers determine there's even a possibility that the problem could endanger the shuttle during descent, NASA said Sunday. Teams of experts were scrambling to understand just how serious the problem was, with heated discussions raging on what to do, if anything. The trouble has nothing to do with foam or other launch debris but rather the accidental slippage of ceramic-fiber fabric used to fill the thin gaps between thermal tiles. It will be Monday before the analysis is complete and mission managers decide whether to have the crew's two spacewalkers cut or pull the hanging material. If NASA's spacewalking specialists come up with a relatively easy solution, "Why worry? Why would you not just go take care of it?" deputy shuttle program manager Wayne Hale said Sunday evening. "Why should I lose sleep over these gap fillers if we can take care of them that easy?" Discovery and its crew of seven may be perfectly safe to fly back with the two drooping pieces in a week, officials stressed, as space shuttles have done many times before, although not necessarily with dangling pieces as large. Hale, in fact, did not think it was that big a deal when he first learned of the problem a few days ago. "My immediate knee-jerk reaction was that we can live with this," he said. "On the other hand, this is bigger than we've seen before." One piece is sticking out 1.1 inches between the thermal tiles, the other protrudes at an angle from six-tenths to nine-tenths of an inch. For those areas, far forward near the nose, the general wisdom and flight history indicate that the limit should be a quarter-inch, said flight director Paul Hill. Hill noted, however, that the quarter-inch measurement was taken following previous re-entries and the intense heat could have burned some of the material off. Discovery's flaws were spotted in orbit — a first — because of all the photography and laser imaging being aimed at normally hard-to-see spots. On a flight by Columbia in 1995, the shuttle returned with a gap filler that protruded 0.6 inches, but it was rolled up and located farther back on the belly, in an area less likely to overheat, said Steve Poulos, manager of the orbiter project office. When unrolled, the strip of material stretched 1.4 inches long. The only overheating effect was to nearby damaged tiles. The extremely thin gap fillers are held in place with glue and by the tight fit of the thermal tiles; thousands cover the shuttle. Poulos speculated that the glue may have come loose. Any repair, if deemed necessary, would most likely be performed during the third and final spacewalk of the mission on Wednesday, although a fourth unplanned spacewalk might be required. The second spacewalk, for space station repairs, is set for Monday. The astronaut would have to stand on either the shuttle or station's 50-foot robotic arm in order to reach the two hanging strips of filler. There are drawbacks to using either arm, namely clearance and time constraints. There's also the possibility, however remote, that the spacewalker or the arm might damage something. "There are pretty strong arguments for and against most of the options," Hill said. One extreme option would be to put an astronaut on the end of the brand new 100-foot inspection crane, but it would likely be a bouncy ride and that makes spacewalk and robotic specialists nervous. Poulos said Sunday evening that that option was considered, but ruled out. Anything dangling from the normally smooth bottom of the shuttle will overheat the area and downstream locations during re-entry; as it is, temperatures there typically hit 2,300 degrees. A hole in Columbia's left wing, carved out by a large chunk of flyaway fuel-tank foam, led to the spacecraft's destruction during re-entry on Feb. 1, 2003. All seven astronauts were killed. NASA has cleared Discovery's thermal tiles for landing on Aug. 8; they constitute the vast majority of the shuttle's exterior. The only remaining issues, before the final go-ahead can be given for descent, are the reinforced carbon panels that line the wings and nose cap, and the two dragging gap fillers. In a series of TV interviews from space, commander Eileen Collins and her crew said they believe Discovery is safe to come home. She expressed surprise and disappointment that a big piece of foam came off Discovery's redesigned tank during last Tuesday's liftoff, after everyone — including herself — signed off on analysis showing that the specific area did not need to be improved in the wake of the Columbia tragedy. "Was there a sound technical reason why they made that decision or was it subject to cost pressures or schedule pressures?" said astronaut Andrew Thomas. "I think we do need to address the question of why that area was not examined." ___

Meanwhile back at NASA....

www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/index.html

Discovery remains in good shape. In a press conference Sunday afternoon, mission manager Wayne Hale said “There are no new anomalies to speak of.” Inspections of the reinforced carbon-carbon panels that protect the wing leading edges and nose cap appear to show no serious threat to a safe return to Earth. Engineers and mission managers continue to look at two gap fillers, extending from the Shuttle’s underside. The ceramic coated-fabric gap fillers are used to protect against hot gas from seeping into gaps between the Shuttle’s protective tiles. The Mission Management Team announced Saturday the orbiter’s tiles are clear for a safe re-entry. In Saturday’s briefing, Discovery’s stay in space was extended one day to allow for more equipment and supply transfers. Cargo transfers dominated the STS-114 and Expedition 11 crews’ workday. The nine crewmembers unloaded supplies and equipment from the Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module and prepared for Monday’s spacewalk by Mission Specialists Stephen Robinson and Soichi Noguchi. The hatches between Discovery and Station closed before crewmembers began their sleep schedules around 3:09 p.m. EDT. The second spacewalk of STS-114 is slated to begin tomorrow at 4:14 a.m. EDT. Crewmembers took time out of their busy schedule this morning to answer questions from ABC News, Fox News and NBC's "Meet the Press" (Transcript). Later, they talked with CBS News, CNN and the Discovery Channel.

Quoted: Just to clarify a few things... I never said, nor do I beleive, that the funding saved from pulling back on space exploration would sufficiently fund the DHS and magically solve our border security problem. I was making the comment in my original post to illustrate that there are other ways to spend the money on what I consider to be more pressing issues. DHS currently has a budget that trumps NASA....and clearly it isnt enough funding because our border policy is a joke...but I digress. In asking what it is we are exploring for, I dont think that I adequately phrased the question to capture the gravity of what I am genuinely interested in knowing... My point, what I am getting at, my question is... How will confirming or denying the front running theories in astrophysics change life for any of us? Scientific exploration will affect us how? Does anyone seriously believe that landing a man on the moon made a dent in the evolution of mankind? A few, select, extremely fortunate scientists, got to experience perhaps the most mind blowing experience of all time...and the few thousand folks in the supporting cast behind the mission got to say that they were a part of it all. But so what? Im not suggesting it isnt impressive....I certainly am not intelligent enough to calulate the effect of gravity to the extent I could navigate a space capsule accurately...but can someone tell me how they justify the cost of it all? I find it facinating, I am deeply interested in it, I understand the value of progress, but....just playing devils advocate for a few minutes here....maybe its time to see if we can get earthlings up to date before we as a society set off to break ground in other galaxies. People on this planet are still living in tribal communities, existing as they did 10,000 years ago. We have entire societies practicing dark age religions trying to fight the crusades all over again....and we are allocating billions to see if we can find a better planet togrow food on? He have proven a great deal...and I know that the science community is a worthy group of minds that deserve the opportunity to unravel the mysteries of the ages...but it would be nice to clean up the house before we go on vacation...that is all I am saying.

Macro, where would this country be if Europe had said "we need to spend the money here at home, the exploration is not worth the money/danger"?
If things get REALLY bad here, where do those of of us go that can't tolerate liberalism/totalinarism gone rampant go to? If we pull in our horns, we will continue to sit here and watch our standard of living go down as less and less resources go to more and more people.
The Earth aint infinite, neither is iron, aluminum, LAND area, and other things that make life worth living. We already are watching prices on raw materials (iron, oil, etc) soar as we compete with China and India for the same stuff, and it will only get worse.

Nick

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line is this.  We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed. The design is FLAWWED! Sgat1r5 No we have a space shuttle that looks like a plane because the USAF specified a ridiculous cross-range landing ability for the orbiter.  Also, because of USAF dictates on vehicle size and weight , we had to use fragile tiles instead of a metallic heat shield. The "ridiculous" cross-range landing capabilities (and launch capabilities from the WTR) were dictated not by the USAF but by your friendly congresscritters that specified the shuttle as being the nation's sole heavy launch vehicle. The AF just translated that requirement into the range capabilities requirement that was necessary to provide service to the many satellites that needed launch support, including abort scenarios. Get your facts right before you post. CW My facts are right, perhaps you are the one who should research his facts prior to posting: www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm The USAF also wanted an 1800 to 2400 km cross range on re-entry,

So, they got their facts wrong. There was no "want' about it. It was dictated by the requirement to use the shuttle to launch and service national asset payloads. These payloads were to be placed in orbits that translated into the quoted cross-range capability requirement. If the STS wasn't required by Congress to launch and service these satellites, then that cross-range requirement would not have existed. The USAF was just flowing down the basic requirement, i.e. "If you say we have do this, it's going to require the system to have such and such capability."  No want/desire about it.

CW

ETA: Sorry about the "know your facts before you post " comment. I just get pissed off when people claim that the military/intelligence community was the reason the STS is such a lummox. The reason it is the way it is is pure politics, plain and simple.

Quoted: I don't even understand why they are still using tiles...there was GOT to be a better way.  Apollo didn't have problems like this! Is NASA stupid now? Sgat1r5

Yes, they are stupid.  BUT, Apollo used single use asbestos/laminated stuff.  Single use only.  

I've got good news about the shuttle program.

It should be scrapped and we should put alot of money into developing the next gen shuttle type craft.

But I did save a ton of money by switching to Geico.

Quoted: Just to clarify a few things... I never said, nor do I beleive, that the funding saved from pulling back on space exploration would sufficiently fund the DHS and magically solve our border security problem. I was making the comment in my original post to illustrate that there are other ways to spend the money on what I consider to be more pressing issues. DHS currently has a budget that trumps NASA....and clearly it isnt enough funding because our border policy is a joke...but I digress. In asking what it is we are exploring for, I dont think that I adequately phrased the question to capture the gravity of what I am genuinely interested in knowing... My point, what I am getting at, my question is... How will confirming or denying the front running theories in astrophysics change life for any of us? Scientific exploration will affect us how? Does anyone seriously believe that landing a man on the moon made a dent in the evolution of mankind? A few, select, extremely fortunate scientists, got to experience perhaps the most mind blowing experience of all time...and the few thousand folks in the supporting cast behind the mission got to say that they were a part of it all. But so what? Im not suggesting it isnt impressive....I certainly am not intelligent enough to calulate the effect of gravity to the extent I could navigate a space capsule accurately...but can someone tell me how they justify the cost of it all? I find it facinating, I am deeply interested in it, I understand the value of progress, but....just playing devils advocate for a few minutes here....maybe its time to see if we can get earthlings up to date before we as a society set off to break ground in other galaxies. People on this planet are still living in tribal communities, existing as they did 10,000 years ago. We have entire societies practicing dark age religions trying to fight the crusades all over again....and we are allocating billions to see if we can find a better planet togrow food on? He have proven a great deal...and I know that the science community is a worthy group of minds that deserve the opportunity to unravel the mysteries of the ages...but it would be nice to clean up the house before we go on vacation...that is all I am saying.

Well it could be the technologies developed from the effort.

For instance:

That Computer you're sitting at
The satellites that are bounceing the signals around the world
GPS
as well as inumerably other inventions

It is not possible to predict what scientific exploration will discover.  Or how it will effect you and your daily life.  One thing is certain we will never know what could have been unless we try.

Quoted: Quoted: Just to clarify a few things... I never said, nor do I beleive, that the funding saved from pulling back on space exploration would sufficiently fund the DHS and magically solve our border security problem. I was making the comment in my original post to illustrate that there are other ways to spend the money on what I consider to be more pressing issues. DHS currently has a budget that trumps NASA....and clearly it isnt enough funding because our border policy is a joke...but I digress. In asking what it is we are exploring for, I dont think that I adequately phrased the question to capture the gravity of what I am genuinely interested in knowing... My point, what I am getting at, my question is... How will confirming or denying the front running theories in astrophysics change life for any of us? Scientific exploration will affect us how? Does anyone seriously believe that landing a man on the moon made a dent in the evolution of mankind? A few, select, extremely fortunate scientists, got to experience perhaps the most mind blowing experience of all time...and the few thousand folks in the supporting cast behind the mission got to say that they were a part of it all. But so what? Im not suggesting it isnt impressive....I certainly am not intelligent enough to calulate the effect of gravity to the extent I could navigate a space capsule accurately...but can someone tell me how they justify the cost of it all? I find it facinating, I am deeply interested in it, I understand the value of progress, but....just playing devils advocate for a few minutes here....maybe its time to see if we can get earthlings up to date before we as a society set off to break ground in other galaxies. People on this planet are still living in tribal communities, existing as they did 10,000 years ago. We have entire societies practicing dark age religions trying to fight the crusades all over again....and we are allocating billions to see if we can find a better planet togrow food on? He have proven a great deal...and I know that the science community is a worthy group of minds that deserve the opportunity to unravel the mysteries of the ages...but it would be nice to clean up the house before we go on vacation...that is all I am saying. Well it could be the technologies developed from the effort. For instance: That Computer you're sitting at The satellites that are bounceing the signals around the world GPS as well as inumerably other inventions It is not possible to predict what scientific exploration will discover.  Or how it will effect you and your daily life.  One thing is certain we will never know what could have been unless we try.

Hate to put a crimp in your post, but the 3 specific things that you mentioned  were developed by the military.

CW

Quoted: Quoted: I don't even understand why they are still using tiles...there was GOT to be a better way.  Apollo didn't have problems like this! Is NASA stupid now? Sgat1r5 Yes, they are stupid.  BUT, Apollo used single use asbestos/laminated stuff.  Single use only.

And it the only reason they didn't have to worry about it was that right untill deorbit the capsule heat sheild was protected by the supply module.

Till they had that nice little explosion in said supply module on Apollo 13, then they had to worry about it...  the stuff on the Apollo might be even MORE fragile than shuttle tiles.

Lockheed and BF Goodrich had a good system for the X-33, with metal tiles that screwed on but it would ONLY work if the crafts reentry speed could be slowed by something like a third.  The shuttles engines are not powerful enough to do that, and the shuttle fusealage cannot be adapted to the aerospike engines that are efficent enough to do the job.

Quoted: It seems to me that an ablative heat shield which could be replaced after each flight would be an option, but hell, I'm no rocket scientist. Too heavy? Cost too much? too hard to replace?

It would be much heavier.  The "tiles" are mostly void volume, the bulk density of the tile is less than  .75 g/cm^3.  It floats.

The best ablative shield would require replacement after every launch and would be twice the weight.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Bottom line is this.  We have the Space Shuttle because a bunch of Star Trex nerds wanted something that looked like a plane regardless of how well it preformed. The design is FLAWWED! Sgat1r5 No we have a space shuttle that looks like a plane because the USAF specified a ridiculous cross-range landing ability for the orbiter.  Also, because of USAF dictates on vehicle size and weight , we had to use fragile tiles instead of a metallic heat shield. The "ridiculous" cross-range landing capabilities (and launch capabilities from the WTR) were dictated not by the USAF but by your friendly congresscritters that specified the shuttle as being the nation's sole heavy launch vehicle. The AF just translated that requirement into the range capabilities requirement that was necessary to provide service to the many satellites that needed launch support, including abort scenarios. Get your facts right before you post. CW My facts are right, perhaps you are the one who should research his facts prior to posting: www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm The USAF also wanted an 1800 to 2400 km cross range on re-entry,

The reason for the cross range on reentry was partially national security and MOSTLY WEATHER!!

NASA wanted Florida landing BUT this would mean weather issues would make scheduled landings less than certain.  Landing in Florida means less turn-around time and cost because the 747 shuttle transport is mighty costly, both in fuel and time.

But regardless, the reason for tiles is there is not another substitute.  What metal will survive reentry?  Tungsten?  Weight is going to be a problem.  Titanium?  It will BURN.  What did the Chinese use?  Oak WOOD with phenolic epoxy to moderate the burn and add strength.   But phenolic epoxy-impregnated wood is MORE dense than the silica foam tiles, even when coated with silicon carbide as are the underside tile.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: I don't even understand why they are still using tiles...there was GOT to be a better way.  Apollo didn't have problems like this! Is NASA stupid now? Sgat1r5 Yes, they are stupid.  BUT, Apollo used single use asbestos/laminated stuff.  Single use only.   And it the only reason they didn't have to worry about it was that right untill deorbit the capsule heat sheild was protected by the supply module. Till they had that nice little explosion in said supply module on Apollo 13, then they had to worry about it...  the stuff on the Apollo might be even MORE fragile than shuttle tiles. Lockheed and BF Goodrich had a good system for the X-33, with metal tiles that screwed on but it would ONLY work if the crafts reentry speed could be slowed by something like a third.  The shuttles engines are not powerful enough to do that, and the shuttle fusealage cannot be adapted to the aerospike engines that are efficent enough to do the job.

Not quite so fast, Einstein.  The STS would need a lot more fuel to deorbit with a metal reentry heat shield.  In orbit, potential energy (chemical) is needed to counteract kinetic energy (orbital velocity).  based on weight efficiency, a deorbit burn to decrease altitude to the upper reaches of atmosphere and subsequent thermal bleeding of energy via atmospheric drag is the way to go.  Apollo shots did not retro from orbit, they PLUNGED into reentry.  Specific energies were comparable to STS missions BUT the fuel requirement is MUCH greater for the STS.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed and BF Goodrich had a good system for the X-33, with metal tiles that screwed on but it would ONLY work if the crafts reentry speed could be slowed by something like a third.  The shuttles engines are not powerful enough to do that, and the shuttle fusealage cannot be adapted to the aerospike engines that are efficent enough to do the job. And that's the problem with the Shuttle… a better, and safer, technology has been developed but it needs the vehicle to be an actual 'space plane' not a glorified glider… ANdy

Metal will not work.  No metal has the thermal properties necessary at the weight budget.  The fuel required for such a retro plus the added weight of metal TPS makes it IMPOSSIBLE.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed and BF Goodrich had a good system for the X-33, with metal tiles that screwed on but it would ONLY work if the crafts reentry speed could be slowed by something like a third.  The shuttles engines are not powerful enough to do that, and the shuttle fusealage cannot be adapted to the aerospike engines that are efficent enough to do the job. And that's the problem with the Shuttle… a better, and safer, technology has been developed but it needs the vehicle to be an actual 'space plane' not a glorified glider… ANdy Metal will not work.  No metal has the thermal properties necessary at the weight budget.  The fuel required for such a retro plus the added weight of metal TPS makes it IMPOSSIBLE.

www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2004/7/20046723.shtml

BFG is still working on it, paid for now by the Air Force.

There was nothing in the ground tests of the aerospike engines that would indicate that they would not produce the desired thrust and they are by their nature much lighter since they do not have the big gimble mounts, providing more space and payload for fuel.  Rocketdyne had problems with the "spike" overheating and were looking for either a materials solution or experimenting with running fuel through it to cool it down.

Remember the X-33 was a drone, its purpose WAS to find solutions to the limitations of the Space Shuttle.  And when NASA arbatrairaly killed it, they killed the best chance of finding ways out of the problems we have now...

Quoted: Meanwhile back at NASA.... www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/main/index.html

Hawaiian shirt in space...

Think he's packing a full size this summer?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed and BF Goodrich had a good system for the X-33, with metal tiles that screwed on but it would ONLY work if the crafts reentry speed could be slowed by something like a third.  The shuttles engines are not powerful enough to do that, and the shuttle fusealage cannot be adapted to the aerospike engines that are efficent enough to do the job. And that's the problem with the Shuttle… a better, and safer, technology has been developed but it needs the vehicle to be an actual 'space plane' not a glorified glider… ANdy Metal will not work.  No metal has the thermal properties necessary at the weight budget.  The fuel required for such a retro plus the added weight of metal TPS makes it IMPOSSIBLE. In the world of science NOTHING is impossible. It was not that long ago that the worlds best scientists were saying that space travel was IMPOSSIBLE. ANdy

But failure of a complex engine during retrograde would make the metal tiles useless.  Dissipating the potential energy of orbit in kinetic heating using silica faom tile is much more fault tolerant and lighter than using extensive retrograde burns.  No air-breathing engine will work.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Lockheed and BF Goodrich had a good system for the X-33, with metal tiles that screwed on but it would ONLY work if the crafts reentry speed could be slowed by something like a third.  The shuttles engines are not powerful enough to do that, and the shuttle fusealage cannot be adapted to the aerospike engines that are efficent enough to do the job. And that's the problem with the Shuttle… a better, and safer, technology has been developed but it needs the vehicle to be an actual 'space plane' not a glorified glider… ANdy Metal will not work.  No metal has the thermal properties necessary at the weight budget.  The fuel required for such a retro plus the added weight of metal TPS makes it IMPOSSIBLE. In the world of science NOTHING is impossible. It was not that long ago that the worlds best scientists were saying that space travel was IMPOSSIBLE. ANdy But failure of a complex engine during retrograde would make the metal tiles useless.  Dissipating the potential energy of orbit in kinetic heating using silica faom tile is much more fault tolerant and lighter than using extensive retrograde burns.  No air-breathing engine will work.

Air breathing engine?

And obviously, no the tiles are NOT better or we would not be in this perdiciment... also the aerospike engines are less complex, with fewer moving parts than the existing shuttle engines... Overview of Aerospike Engine Theory

Quoted: Just to clarify a few things... My point, what I am getting at, my question is... How will confirming or denying the front running theories in astrophysics change life for any of us? Scientific exploration will affect us how? Does anyone seriously believe that landing a man on the moon made a dent in the evolution of mankind? A few, select, extremely fortunate scientists, got to experience perhaps the most mind blowing experience of all time...and the few thousand folks in the supporting cast behind the mission got to say that they were a part of it all. But so what? Im not suggesting it isnt impressive....I certainly am not intelligent enough to calulate the effect of gravity to the extent I could navigate a space capsule accurately...but can someone tell me how they justify the cost of it all? I find it facinating, I am deeply interested in it, I understand the value of progress, but....just playing devils advocate for a few minutes here....maybe its time to see if we can get earthlings up to date before we as a society set off to break ground in other galaxies. People on this planet are still living in tribal communities, existing as they did 10,000 years ago. We have entire societies practicing dark age religions trying to fight the crusades all over again....and we are allocating billions to see if we can find a better planet togrow food on? He have proven a great deal...and I know that the science community is a worthy group of minds that deserve the opportunity to unravel the mysteries of the ages...but it would be nice to clean up the house before we go on vacation...that is all I am saying.

Let me mention a few things that might be more "worthwhile"; learning how to go out to the Asteroid Belt (or even a NEO in a proper orbit), grab a metal-rich asteroid, refine it en-route, and deliver say, 100,000,000 tons of refined metals to Earth Orbit. You could build a helluva space station out of that, with plenty left over to use in orbit. You could even de-orbit some of it, and use it Earthside, reducing the need to mine the hell out of the Earth (and reduce the co-commitant pollution).

Or how about not having the entire human species on a world that's vulnerable to being hit by an asteroid/comet. Recent sci-fi movies not withstanding,  there's not much we could do about an incoming object. If we got on the ball and developed some long-range craft with some serious capabilities, we might have a chance to save ourselves. We've been hit many times in the past, it's only a matter of time before it happens again.  Having a significant Moon Base/large space stations would greatly reduce the risk of being knocked back into the Stone Age or even exterminated.

Many of the things you enjoy today are spinoffs of technologies pioneered during the Space Race. There's so many, I won't even waste my time mentioning them all; do your own research.

I liken this to the situation in the US, where we've poured at least a couple TRILLION dollars into social programs to eliminate poverty since the '60s. What do we have to show for that? Alot of govt drones have long-term cushy jobs, some politicians get re-elected. Society has gone down the shitter since the '60's. I don't see any improvement, frankly, for our "investment". It would have been cheaper to have given each "poor person" $50,000 cash. Voilla! They are no longer "poor". But we know what'd happen - most of them would piss the money away on cigarettes, junk food, and assorted crap.  Plus they'd breed even more "poor" people, who'd demand their free money too.

You could put 90% of the national budget into "social" programs, and it wouldn't accomplish much...it's a great hypermass is all.

I AGREE with you that we need to improve society, that we need to educate people better, etc. But just throwing large sums of money at it won't solve the problem.

I also agree with the poster who said that pure science needs to be NASA's field. They're great at pure science, no doubt. But they suck at managing their money, and attracting money. I say let private industry handle the grunt work, with some govt assistance (few if any strings attached), and reduce NASA to taking care of the exploration and science. It's what they do best.

We need a hundred, nay, a 1000 Burt Rutans. Guys who have vision, and aren't afraid to take risks. We need a way for like-minded people to gather monetary resources and help out companies who seem to be getting things done.

So why don't you guys get together and build you own damn space launch platform.  I mean everyone here seems to know they have the answer.... why aren't you working on it.  Why has NASA overlooked your genius?

If everything was approached with the hysteria that the media and the jabbering talking heads they employ seem to live in, we'd never have completed or advanced anything since they would be there to point out every flaw and why we should always be doing something different.

Quoted: So why don't you guys get together and build you own damn space launch platform.  I mean everyone here seems to know they have the answer.... why aren't you working on it.  Why has NASA overlooked your genius? If everything was approached with the hysteria that the media and the jabbering talking heads they employ seem to live in, we'd never have completed or advanced anything since they would be there to point out every flaw and why we should always be doing something different.

There have been plenty of workable ideas put out there over the years. Some could have been done with only a few changes to existing technology, some would have been more difficult. I'll tell you one of the main reasons they haven't been adopted: politics. Another is: not what the govt wants, ie, again, politics. Some would have been expensive enough that the govt would have had to reduce that golden calf, the social/entitlement program, to pay for it. Not that they weren't worthwhile, or even not doable, but politically infeasible.

I'm not smart enough to work at NASA, nor with Burt Rutan. But I can recognize a good idea when I see one. Hell, I even tried to contribute money to Burt's company shortly after the X-Prize success.  They thanked me but turned me down. I guess they didn't want the hassle associated with charities and govt regulation. If they had publicly-traded stock, hell, I'd buy some.

Quoted: Quoted: So why don't you guys get together and build you own damn space launch platform.  I mean everyone here seems to know they have the answer.... why aren't you working on it.  Why has NASA overlooked your genius? If everything was approached with the hysteria that the media and the jabbering talking heads they employ seem to live in, we'd never have completed or advanced anything since they would be there to point out every flaw and why we should always be doing something different. There have been plenty of workable ideas put out there over the years. Some could have been done with only a few changes to existing technology, some would have been more difficult. I'll tell you one of the main reasons they haven't been adopted: politics. Another is: not what the govt wants, ie, again, politics. Some would have been expensive enough that the govt would have had to reduce that golden calf, the social/entitlement program, to pay for it. Not that they weren't worthwhile, or even not doable, but politically infeasible. I'm not smart enough to work at NASA, nor with Burt Rutan. But I can recognize a good idea when I see one. Hell, I even tried to contribute money to Burt's company shortly after the X-Prize success.  They thanked me but turned me down. I guess they didn't want the hassle associated with charities and govt regulation. If they had publicly-traded stock, hell, I'd buy some.

That's my point.  There are ALWAYS other good ideas, and they may be better in some way than THIS idea.  I have no doubt of it, but my point is that THIS idea has been extremely successful and despite it's limitations has accomplished a record of successful launches that few other systems have.  The failures have been terrible when they happened but you move on and try to learn from them.  The media (and the band of tear-down junkies that follow them) however has nothing to contribute to the process.  They sit and point out every flaw that they find in everyone else’s accomplishments and pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' them.  Talking heads babble about what should have been done, and reporters nod their heads with smug expressions as if they have one clue about the subject at hand.

Do I think .gov is effective or the best solution..... no.  I think private enterprise could do better, but at the time these things were being done the capitol was not out there to do it.  And don't kid yourself.  While private enterprise does wonders at efficient operation, they don't reach perfection either.  There will be compromised designs in the name of budgets.  There will be known issues with band-aid solutions as not to spook investors.  There WILL be accidents.  Shit, they can't fly people through the air here on earth without the occasional horrible accident.  

I just get tired of the media circus of tear-down.  Focus on nothing but flaws and failures till you cast the whole endeavor as a failure when exactly the opposite is true.  You guys love to point it out with coverage of Iraq, but you buy right into it with any subject that suits your point of view.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well it could be the technologies developed from the effort. For instance: That Computer you're sitting at The satellites that are bounceing the signals around the world GPS as well as inumerably other inventions It is not possible to predict what scientific exploration will discover.  Or how it will effect you and your daily life.  One thing is certain we will never know what could have been unless we try. Hate to put a crimp in your post, but the 3 specific things that you mentioned  were developed by the military. CW

Not really CW

PCs (as we know them) are a direct results of the miniturization efforts put forth by the Space Program.  The computers the military requester were of a ridiculous size and for a limited purpose (Artillery tables).

Satellites would not have been able to happen w/o NASA and the many civilian contractors.  Military is usually slow to adopt new technology until it's been proven.

GPS - the idea was orginally conceived by civilian scientists at the lab where I now work.  The military would not have GPS if it were not for NASA and the civilian scientific world.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Well it could be the technologies developed from the effort. For instance: That Computer you're sitting at The satellites that are bounceing the signals around the world GPS as well as inumerably other inventions It is not possible to predict what scientific exploration will discover.  Or how it will effect you and your daily life.  One thing is certain we will never know what could have been unless we try. Hate to put a crimp in your post, but the 3 specific things that you mentioned  were developed by the military. CW Not really CW PCs (as we know them) are a direct results of the miniturization efforts put forth by the Space Program.  The computers the military requester were of a ridiculous size and for a limited purpose (Artillery tables). Satellites would not have been able to happen w/o NASA and the many civilian contractors.  Military is usually slow to adopt new technology until it's been proven. GPS - the idea was orginally conceived by civilian scientists at the lab where I now work.  The military would not have GPS if it were not for NASA and the civilian scientific world.

Pc's: Correct, they were an outgrowth of the minaturization need for satellites, but who do you think was producing and launching most of the satellites during this time? The DOD and the Intelligence agencies. The production rate in the mid 60's was about 1 Corona type spacecraft every 2 weeks.. NASA's spacecraft production paled next to the amount of satellites produced for the military from 1959 to 1990. The manned program didn't spawn computer technology advances, it used advances generated by the military space program.

Satellite technology: You have it completely ass backwards. The only technology that NASA developed was related to the manned program in the human factors engineering world. Name any technology you wish and I can tell you when (if not what specifically for security reasons) it was developed by the military space program.

GPS: Do youy have any idea why GPS exists and how long it has been in development? Ever since the advent of mobile artillery there has been a need for autonomous geolocation. Add to this the advent of the IRBM and ICBM/SLBM's and the need was greatly magnified. What pushed it over the edge and into reality was the height of the Cold War and the need to provide better CEP's for the Posiedon and Trident missiles. NASA had nothing to do with it.

CW

You're a negativist sadass for your mopey ''

So is MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer, for painting the negative imagery with her use of "scrambling". Nobody is "scrambling". An issue arrose. They're dealing with it like the team of technical professionals they are. And this TWAT, whose beat is reporting on aerospace, is grossly misrepresenting the situation.

SweartoGod, there is not a SINGLE AP reporter I would trust to tell me the time of day.

Who controls the GPS satellites?  What is the purpose of SA?

Just like the atomic bomb, civillians might have built it but it was built for a military contract.

Quoted: Who controls the GPS satellites?  What is the purpose of SA? Just like the atomic bomb, civillians might have built it but it was built for a military contract.

And in this case, civilians didn't build it. See this link.

CW

Quoted: Who controls the GPS satellites?  .

Last time I checked (admitedly it was a decade + ago) it was the civilians that built them.  That's why there were lasting up to 12 years in orbit instead of the 2 the military expected them to last (experienced operators use less fuel than recently trained E3 operators).  I used to work in the facilty that built and operated them, though I worked on a different spacecraft.

Quoted: Quoted: Who controls the GPS satellites?  . Last time I checked (admitedly it was a decade + ago) it was the civilians that built them.  That's why there were lasting up to 12 years in orbit instead of the 2 the military expected them to last (experienced operators use less fuel than recently trained E3 operators).  I used to work in the facilty that built and operated them, though I worked on a different spacecraft.

Don't get confused about Mean Mission Duration. MMD is a mathematical fiction that allows the .gov to assess value. Even though the MMD was 2.5 years, the design life was way over that and the expendables were sized for at least 4 times that long in a worst case scenario. A defense contractor may have built them, but it was for the military, not the civilian world.

CW

Quoted: Quoted: Who controls the GPS satellites?  . Last time I checked (admitedly it was a decade + ago) it was the civilians that built them.  That's why there were lasting up to 12 years in orbit instead of the 2 the military expected them to last (experienced operators use less fuel than recently trained E3 operators).  I used to work in the facilty that built and operated them, though I worked on a different spacecraft.

So?  I am pretty damn sure civillians make 99.9% of the hardware in use by the military.