[ARCHIVED THREAD] - I hate the space shuttle (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/24/2007 6:32:35 PM EDT
|
It just went up again today, and now they're looking at the heat shields. Is that the purpose of the shuttle? To launch, then look at itself for damage? Or maybe to conduct high school type science, but in space. Breeding of fruit flies, in zero G ! At a cost of $500 mill per flight. 120 flights, 840 man-flights, 14 fatalities. That's 1 fatality for every 60 man-flights. Pretty abysmal. Probably worse then the Ruskies. What a joke. And I love the idea of space exploration. But, I'd still go up tomorrow, if offered the chance. |
I was extremely disappointed they did not try a second Skylab  I think the shuttle is a great shuttle but not a space vehicle per se. |
Look, I said I am very fond of space exploration. And all those astronauts, and the many more who live, are brave. But their bravery does not alone justify the shuttle program. Did Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon really have to be there to push a couple of buttons on the Mediterranean Israeli Dust Experiment, the payload package he died to accompany to space? Article on shuttle So, you can't criticize a wasteful ill-conceived government program because a brave man dies? I guess you think fondly of Boston's big dig? For the vast majority of the shuttle's work, unmanned rockets would be equally effective, cheaper, and safer. We use it for simple satellite deliveries cause MCI doesn't really have to pay its true payload cost to send up its satellite. You and I do. I applaud the astronauts, commend their bravery, but I refuse to not call a spade a spade. I guess we need manned missions to repair the international space station. Which exists insofar as I tell solely to be repaired by the space shuttle. Let's use the bravery of our astronauts more wisely. Nat'l Rev. op/ed on shuttle |
That's SOP now, after reaching orbit. It's not the "purpose of the shuttle."
Just because you can't tell the difference between cutting edge research and a high school science experiments that simply teach already well-established concepts, does not make it NASA's fault. |
I would love to see the entirety of my tax check go to the military and to space exploration. But this vehicle, and the missions we choose to use it for, are becoming pointless. |
We have lost 2 shuttles in 120 flights. If a shuttle only carried 1 person, would that make them 7 times more reliable? NO!
How are you defining "space?" IMHO once the the atmosphere is BELOW you, and the "sky" elsewhere is black, you are in "space." Why are astronauts called astronauts would be a more valid question. Their mission has never been to travel to other stars. |
So, identify some useful science we're really getting out of this old dog, that's worth the extravagant costs and dangers, and in light of the fact that it could probably be done on a cheap unmanned vehicle. I am for manned space flight. But not for no good reason. I cite to you, mentioned in the above post, the Mediterranean Israeli dust experiment. Israeli dust experiment website This experiment didn't need a live Israeli on the shuttle to conduct it properly. |
We all have that dream and it never ends as well as we would like. BTW, One of Your Hot Green Women wants your child support check so we can go out and party like it's 1994. 
|
Yup, space begins 60 Miles up. The shuttle routinely goes up to 300 miles up. SpaceShip One cleared 60 Miles. The X-15 has cleared 60 miles. The Shuttle definitely goes 'into space'. |
:
Why 60 miles and not 59 or 61? Oh I know because some smart guy said so. When it can travel through space to another rock then I'll call it a space ship. YMMV |
No shit. Fuck that "environmentally-friendly" crap. I'd be in favor of cementing baby seals to the fuel tank with whale blubber if it ensured our astronauts came back safely. |
Preach it my brother. Quoted for posterity. |
|
A wise friend and I were talking about this topic some time ago. He made a darn fine point Once you get atoms into space, Leave Them There. Pretty smart. This idea of lifting them only to bring them back to be lifted again, is foolish beyond words (remember this pig in a poke was green-lit under the carter admin). While we tinker with this toy, the Ruskie heavy lifters are kicking our butts. |
| The problem with the shuttle is the worthless crap hanging on the sides. Yes, the wings. They are useless for 99% of the flight, and in space that means dead weight. If we had stayed with the Saturn V we could have lifted a seven person capsule and still be to carry twice the payload of the shuttle. There would be no foam issues, and the heat shield would avoid the costly tile system. |
I agree. I think an evolutionary Saturn V would have been cheaper, safer, bigger, better. It put a huge space lab up in one shot. The new programs are all heading back to similar technology anyway, with the exception of shuttle derived solid rocket boosters. |
If Shuttle loads kept the Soviet generals awake at night, Saturn V loads would have given them instant heart attacks. |
|
I understand why people are attracted to the idea of, "we should have evolved the Saturn V" but the reality of the matter is that would have been both unsustainable and would have eventually lead to a loss of crew accident, just like that space shuttle. The F-1 engines suffered from combustion stability problems from day 1, you should see some of the footage from accidents while they were testing those things on the stand! Nearly every S-V flight had a malfunction during ascent. The better course of 'what if' is if we hadn't gutted the military space program and high speed X-planes. The X-15-A-2 if it the program was completed, the X-20, the X-24x, and the USAFs Manned Orbiting lab would have through the 60s provided a frame work of experience with dealing with hypersonic flight and reusable vehicles and would have allowed us to work up to an actual TSTO RLV, not the abomination that is the space shuttle. I could go on for pages about whats wrong with the shuttle program but suffice it to say I'm glad it's going to be gone in three years and that we will finally be leaving LEO again, if to the wrong destination. Oh, and for fun here if you're interested try heading over to www.astronautix.com and check out the Lockheed Starclipper proposal, that's what should have won the contract for the space shuttle. It has a very interesting external tank design that reminds me of some of the saddlebags tanks used on the latter X-15 flights. |
The idea was that things like engines, flight computers and such were/are very expensive. Traditional rockets are wasteful in that respect- you build an enormously expensive engine only to run it for 120 seconds. The idea of being able to reuse rocketry has always been attractive. The STS was an attempt to do just that. Of course it hasn't worked out quite as well as we had hoped. While the SSME is a fantastically powerful and light engine with excellent throttle control and computer management, it's expensive and complex. They do get reused, but must first be refurbished at a high cost and long downtime. There have been numerous fleet wide problems with them. While the engines have certainly 'matured' to the point that they are quite reliable, they are still expensive. The SRB's are also a high tech high power item. Easily the most powerful solid fuel rockets ever they are reliable and reusable. While challenger failed because of a problem with the SRB this only happened because NASA operated them outside of known limitations. Other then that they've been the most successful aspect of the STS. The US is unmatched in it's expertise with solid fuel boosters, and we use it to good effect. The orbiters are also amazing machines. But again, they are expensive to turn around after a mission. But even that isn't their greatest failing. They were finished to late to save skylab. NASA's official position is that Skylab was always to be a temporary station. But the truth is that, had the shuttle been finished in time, NASA had planned on lofting Skylab higher and maintaining it long term. But that never happened, and the shuttle was left with nowhere to go. It's served as a pretty good laboratory after all but it's 2 week mission limit kept us from really learning to live in space like the Russians have. The combination of a space station and the shuttle would have been fantastic. The high cost of the shuttle program isn't a big concern to me. Space exploration is always going to be expensive, and it's worth it. What's always gotten me down about the shuttle is that it's never had anywhere to shuttle to. and now that the ISS is really getting built, it's been nerfed and the shuttle fleet slated for retirement. It's a shame because the STS is really a capable one and no one is interested in making a true replacement. |