End of an Era: Shuttle program coming to a close

[Danoff]

^^ That's one of the things that is so great about the Shuttle, the fact that we could take a single vehicle out into space and do things like repair Hubble.

It's only great if you don't consider cost. We could have built another Hubble and launched it for the price of the repair. All the development was done, all we had to do was build it. Shuttle weighs a lot more than hubble... Without shuttle, hubble costs a billion dollars less.

So... the great thing about shuttle is also absolutely ridiculous. You'd have to be out of your mind to spend a billion dollars for no reason - but that's what we did.

You list positives for other programs (which are un-manned, by the way) but the Shuttle program has just as many, if not more positives about it as well.

Go for it. I'm listening.

Sure, it works, but it's not the direction we should be going.

We should be going in the direction of "it doesn't work"? Because that's kinda what the shuttle was - a money pit. It's an image. The shuttle is a facade. It's a huge money sink to pretend that we've been efficient and cheap. In my mind, even though only a couple have exploded, that's not "working". Actually being efficient and cheap would have been "working".

 

[CodeRedR51]

Go for it. I'm listening.

I don't want to debate it any more than I am now.

We should be going in the direction of "it doesn't work"? Because that's kinda what the shuttle was - a money pit. It's an image. The shuttle is a facade. It's a huge money sink to pretend that we've been efficient and cheap. In my mind, even though only a couple have exploded, that's not "working". Actually being efficient and cheap would have been "working".

That's not what I meant.

What I mean it going back to the 60's designs works, but it's not the direction we should be headed. We should be building vehicles like the shuttle, that are more efficient and can take us further into space. Doing that in a capsule is going backwards.

What's "ridiculous" is thinking we can travel through space "cheap" as you seem to be putting it. You want cheaper, then you may get more disasters than what the shuttle program had. Space travel isn't cheap and never will be.

 

[Moot]

A shuttle system lives on with the "black project" X-37.

 

[Stevisiov]

What are peoples thoughts on a space elevator?

Pipe dream?

Future of transportation to space?

 

[Mike Rotch]

I have a question for those glad to see the back of the Shuttle, and with it, the effective stalling of the US space program. I say the last bit as the Constellation project started by the Bush administration to create a new generation of manned space transportation was canned by the Obama administration via funding chokes.

The question: How will the American psyche cope with India or China superceding the US as the leaders in space exploration? If China wheel out a fleet of shuttles next week (entirely possible with their enormous wealth) and basically replicate the shuttle program for their own purposes - and with no international astronautical involvement to see what they are up to - are you still going to be so willing to consign the shuttle program to the scrap heap?

 

[Hollidog]

When did Hubble cost half a trillion dollars?

 

[ExigeEvan]

Guys arguing the pros and cons of the Shuttle with Danoff, take a sentence to ask him what his area of expertise is. Go on, dares ya!

What are peoples thoughts on a space elevator?

Pipe dream?

Future of transportation to space?

I did my diss' project on graphene sensors, so I'll tell you what I briefly came across.

It's a pie-in-the-sky idea. Graphene, and to similar effect, nano-tubes are currently lab-based only. And current graphene production is claimed at best to be 30 inches at the diagonal sheets and nano-tubes a bit more than 6 inches long. So first we've got to be able to produce something even in the right order of magnitude before anyone even looks at the practicalities of doing it.

Bonding carbon-based products is going to be difficult, as will be the failure mechanisms and stress-cycles. I personally don't see graphene/nanotubes being used as materials in their own right for most applications, I see them being used more as composite components.

But hey, someone's going to try, and maybe if we see a bridge demonstrating fullerene based cables I'll start to believe a space elevator is possible.

But want I really want to see is a vacuum airship, now that would be cool.

 

[Stevisiov]

Guys arguing the pros and cons of the Shuttle with Danoff, take a sentence to ask him what his area of expertise is. Go on, dares ya!


I did my diss' project on graphene sensors, so I'll tell you what I briefly came across.

It's a pie-in-the-sky idea. Graphene, and to similar effect, nano-tubes are currently lab-based only. And current graphene production is claimed at best to be 30 inches at the diagonal sheets and nano-tubes a bit more than 6 inches long. So first we've got to be able to produce something even in the right order of magnitude before anyone even looks at the practicalities of doing it.

Bonding carbon-based products is going to be difficult, as will be the failure mechanisms and stress-cycles. I personally don't see graphene/nanotubes being used as materials in their own right for most applications, I see them being used more as composite components.

But hey, someone's going to try, and maybe if we see a bridge demonstrating fullerene based cables I'll start to believe a space elevator is possible.

But want I really want to see is a vacuum airship, now that would be cool.

Okay that's fair enough, when I read about it, I got the impression nanotube manufacture was not nearly on a large enough scale. From what I have seen though, NASA are taking it very seriously as a concept, that perhaps thats because of the potential cost saving of transporting weight into space.

 

[Sharky.]

When did Hubble cost half a trillion dollars?

It didn't, Danoff's exaggerating his numbers a wee bit Present-day estimates for the total cost for Hubble - including construction and in-orbit maintenance - are around 6 billion dollars.

 

[ExigeEvan]

Okay that's fair enough, when I read about it, I got the impression nanotube manufacture was not nearly on a large enough scale. From what I have seen though, NASA are taking it very seriously as a concept, that perhaps thats because of the potential cost saving of transporting weight into space.

Currently there's been several research studies and competitions using the name "space elevator", but what is really coming out of these competitions at present is the aim to produce viable nano-tube based rope for general use.

 

[canderson19]

I have a question for those glad to see the back of the Shuttle, and with it, the effective stalling of the US space program. I say the last bit as the Constellation project started by the Bush administration to create a new generation of manned space transportation was canned by the Obama administration via funding chokes.

The question: How will the American psyche cope with India or China superceding the US as the leaders in space exploration? If China wheel out a fleet of shuttles next week (entirely possible with their enormous wealth) and basically replicate the shuttle program for their own purposes - and with no international astronautical involvement to see what they are up to - are you still going to be so willing to consign the shuttle program to the scrap heap?

I think it will hurt the US. Hitching a ride like we do now into space will hurt the US. However the cost is far outwheighing us ever getting back in the space race. Probably more likely we will join other countries (sort of like the International Space Station) and attempt to burden everybody with the costs.

Personally I will miss the space shuttle launches. They where great fun, watching them take off. You could see the trail for miles and miles away.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Guys arguing the pros and cons of the Shuttle with Danoff, take a sentence to ask him what his area of expertise is. Go on, dares ya!

I don't care really, doesn't make him right.

 

[ExigeEvan]

I don't care really, doesn't make him right.

“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.”

 

[Tornado]

I don't care really, doesn't make him right.

Perhaps not. But what makes him wrong?

The question: How will the American psyche cope with India or China superceding the US as the leaders in space exploration? If China wheel out a fleet of shuttles next week (entirely possible with their enormous wealth) and basically replicate the shuttle program for their own purposes - and with no international astronautical involvement to see what they are up to - are you still going to be so willing to consign the shuttle program to the scrap heap?

What China or India feel the need to waste money on really doesn't bother me that much, especially if all it manages to do is bring them up to snuff with what the U.S. has been doing for 30 years now.

 

[Danoff]

What I mean it going back to the 60's designs works, but it's not the direction we should be headed. We should be building vehicles like the shuttle, that are more efficient and can take us further into space. Doing that in a capsule is going backwards.

The capsule took us further into space and cost less. So why should we be building vehicles like shuttle if our goal is to be more efficient and go further into space?

What's "ridiculous" is thinking we can travel through space "cheap" as you seem to be putting it. You want cheaper, then you may get more disasters than what the shuttle program had. Space travel isn't cheap and never will be.

The capsules are safer and cheaper (for very real engineering reasons - like inherent dynamic stability during re-entry. The shuttle actually wants to turn around and burn up during re-entry, thrusters have to keep it in an unstable orientation to prevent that. Capsules are inherently stable in a safe orientation)

I have a question for those glad to see the back of the Shuttle, and with it, the effective stalling of the US space program. I say the last bit as the Constellation project started by the Bush administration to create a new generation of manned space transportation was canned by the Obama administration via funding chokes.

The question: How will the American psyche cope with India or China superceding the US as the leaders in space exploration? If China wheel out a fleet of shuttles next week (entirely possible with their enormous wealth) and basically replicate the shuttle program for their own purposes - and with no international astronautical involvement to see what they are up to - are you still going to be so willing to consign the shuttle program to the scrap heap?

The shuttle is not our space program and is not our space exploration. Unmanned missions are our space program and our space exploration and will continue to be. India and China are unbelievably far behind us in space exploration and will continue to be for the foreseeable future. Shuttle was contributing virtually nothing on that front.

When did Hubble cost half a trillion dollars?

Sorry, I meant $400 million, not $400 billion. So hard to keep track of the zeros. My point was that hubble cost less than a shuttle launch. I certainly didn't mean to say that it cost 800 times more. Thanks for the correction.

Two shuttle launches pays for all the development, launching, and operating of the MER rovers on mars since 2004!

 

[CodeRedR51]

Two shuttle launches pays for all the development, launching, and operating of the MER rovers on mars since 2004!

Still un-manned. Machines can only do so much before a human being has to step in.

Whether or not anyone here likes it and I don't really care if they don't, is that true space exploration is NOTHING without a physical being actually stepping foot somewhere besides our own planet.

In my opinion, money is no object when it comes to stuff like this.

 

[Stevisiov]

While iconic, I'm glad to see NASA dropping the white elephant shuttle. In my mind, I want to see space exploration developing, reaching further, understanding more. We have the technology and expertise to do a lot more than we are doing in space, we just don't have the funds. Slashing the costs is vital for this to occur, and if that means saying goodbye to the shuttle, then I am all for it.

 

[Danoff]

Still un-manned. Machines can only do so much before a human being has to step in.

Whether or not anyone here likes it and I don't really care if they don't, is that true space exploration is NOTHING without a physical being actually stepping foot somewhere besides our own planet.

This is a very narrow view of exploration. Telescopes are exploring the cosmos looking for planets around other stars, and gazing at distance galaxies. Whether or not you categorize it as such, this is exploration, and it's an essential component of science. We don't explore the cosmos just because we're curious about it, we explore it to better understand our reality so that we can put that knowledge to use here.

To a very real extent, having a human presence is NOTHING without the robotics and instrumentation needed to acquire real data.

In my opinion, money is no object when it comes to stuff like this.

This is almost never correct. There has to be a price on what we spend on space exploration. We cannot bankrupt ourselves spending for it or we'll never explore anything. Within that price, you have to determine the best usage of resources - the most bang for the buck. Right now (with shuttle) the manned exploration program is content with hanging out in low earth orbit (practically an airplane), while unmanned exploration has left the solar system. Manned exploration has been content with experimenting with the only things low earth orbit gives you access to - a big view of the earth and weightlessness. Robotic exploration is learning about the composition, formation and evolution of our solar system. Manned exploration looks back down at life on earth and waves hello while robotic exploration looks for life elsewhere.

Ok, so all of that being said I'm still in support of a manned space program. I just don't like the way we've been doing it. I think for now, and for many years to come, manned space exploration will be a technology development endeavor rather than a scientific one. But shuttle hasn't been either one of those for decades.

We need a manned program that continues to move forward if we're ever going to have a physical presence outside of the earth. I'm very happy with continuing to push the envelopes of human exploration. I'd like to see us building a staging point on the moon. I'd like to see us building a staging point on mars (that's the only way we're ever going to land people there). There is so much we could be doing, so much we could have been doing to push manned exploration into the future for the last few decades. Instead we've been burning up a half billion dollars per launch to put a big piece of metal just outside of our atmosphere and bring it back down.

Shuttle was in the way, and as long as we kept spending money on it, it was going to be an obstacle to progress.

 

[sumbrownkid]

Manned missions will return to prominence in the future again. For now, we have to rely on satellites and robots to do the exploring for us.

The shame is though that even if the Shuttle is useless, as Danoff has for some reason declared it to be, it has that romantic notion of the man/woman going out to unexplored areas and marking it as human triumph.

As amazing as all the images that the satellites and robots send us are, they still don't have that "magic" of a human being present over there.

NASA is kind of moot now though, doesn't the Air Force carry out a lot of research in space also? And not just for military, but for civilian also?

 

[CodeRedR51]

Shuttle was in the way, and as long as we kept spending money on it, it was going to be an obstacle to progress.

Well I guess we'll just agree to disagree on this then. I'm done with this debate.

Looking forward to the shuttle launch, even though I'll have to watch the replays as I'll be in surgery during the live launch. Sucks to see her go.

 

[Danoff]

NASA is kind of moot now though, doesn't the Air Force carry out a lot of research in space also? And not just for military, but for civilian also?

The air force does some space research, but most of it has to do with earth orbit. NASA is still responsible for essentially all space exploration. Killing shuttle doesn't diminish NASA one iota. There is no reason to declare it moot. NASA is launching a mission to Jupiter next month. This mission is 100 times more important than any shuttle launch, and nobody knows about it.

 

[Dotini]

With the highest of respect for my friend R1600Turbo, I'm constrained to agree with Danoff and Stevisiov.

With the end of the Apollo program, the US and NASA were forced by budgetary concerns to choose between the shuttle and a battleship-sized (booster 600' length by 100' diameter?) heavy-lift rocket designed by America's foremost rocket scientist, Robert Truax, better known to motorsports enthusuasts as the designer of Evel Kneivel's Skyrocket.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/us/30truax.html

While the accountants and the astronauts (who liked forward facing windows and the 'airplane' looks of the shuttle) were pleased at the time, America really lost out in science terms, as well as financially, in the long term.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[FoolKiller]

Still un-manned. Machines can only do so much before a human being has to step in.

Whether or not anyone here likes it and I don't really care if they don't, is that true space exploration is NOTHING without a physical being actually stepping foot somewhere besides our own planet.

Here is the big hole in your desire for the shuttle program.

You are arguing that it is a benefit for manned exploration. But the farthest reaching manned exploration, the only time someone actually stepped foot somewhere other than Earth, was without a shuttle.

You are correct about the role of manned missions as we explore, but you are incorrect about the shuttle's role in that, as it has had none. And with the ISS there is nothing the shuttle did that we can't do now.

And considering the shuttle's safety record vs pods you have to ask if a shuttle is the best way to go. Danoff gave a rough explanation of the physics issues behind re-entry alone. You may not consider money an option to be considered, but there is a cost issue here that goes beyond that, particularly if you are, at the heart of it, arguing for manned spaceflight.

 

[Danoff]

You are arguing that it is a benefit for manned exploration. But the farthest reaching manned exploration, the only time someone actually stepped foot somewhere other than Earth, was without a shuttle.

...there's an excellent reason for that.

The shuttle boosters are enormous. It's one of the largest rockets ever made, not quite as much as the Saturn V, but pretty friggin huge. It takes almost the largest rocket ever built in the history of mankind to get the shuttle to low earth orbit... it would take so much more than that to get the shuttle to the moon.

Mass is everything for space missions. Every last bolt matters. 1 kg of mass costs $10,000 in launch costs (for shuttle) to get to low earth orbit. 1 kg of mass costs $50,000 to get to a geostationary transfer orbit... it takes more than that to get to the moon. You want the lightest system possible for a trip to the moon. That means nothing is built to be used twice and nothing is built for convenience (like landing on a runway).

 

[Grand Prix]

Think if the Pioneer and Voyager programs were scrapped in favour of manned missions for the "Grand Tour." You'd essentially be sending a crew of humans on a one way ticket to doom, just to take measurements and photos of a few planets. So if we didn't find probes to be useful, we may not even have photos of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune, because the cost would be too high.

I think probes are great personally. They can be sent on one way trips to interstellar space if needed, they can land on Venus, they can orbit Mercury, they can even fly by the Sun because there is no danger involved. They can even orbit the Jupiter system and then be directed towards Jupiter's atmosphere to burn up at the end of the mission (shame they didn't think of putting a video camera on the Galileo before doing this, that would have been an interesting view).

So why do we even need humans for exploration at all? All they do is introduce complications like return trips to worry about, because human life is at stake. Not to mention the engineering costs are far greater, and development is much longer than probe missions. I suppose I can see the appeal of manned missions if you want to see a bunch of astronauts jumping around and collecting rocks to return. So far probes seem to have accomplished much more though.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

I'm not going to respond to that post other than to say, if you're not a true fan of the space program, you'll never "get it".

I just LOL-ed. A lot.

 

[Joey D]

While I have a huge interest in space, space exploration and all things astronomy related, I never really could see the justification for the government shelling out billions of dollars to put a handful of people into space each year. I really, truly think the private sector could do much better at funding a space programme then the federal government. Think about the amount of jobs it would create? Well assuming the company actually used American worker for the development and operations of it.

I do think it's important to explore space and generally figure out how the universe works and what's out in it though. I'd ideally like to see some of the world's billionaires step in and start a public company that specialises in space freight and scientific missions. I'm sure they'd get investors and I could easily see it working.

 

[FoolKiller]

It takes almost the largest rocket ever built in the history of mankind to get the shuttle to low earth orbit...

Wouldn't that be two of almost the largest rockets ever built?

 

[CodeRedR51]

You are correct about the role of manned missions as we explore, but you are incorrect about the shuttle's role in that, as it has had none. And with the ISS there is nothing the shuttle did that we can't do now.

I disagree. The Shuttle was a step in the right direction for a space craft that can carry more than 3 people outside of earth's orbit. Sure the Shuttle couldn't do that itself, but it was a stepping stone to something that could have. That's progress. Going back to Capsules is definitely not progress.

I just LOL-ed. A lot.

I do think it's important to explore space and generally figure out how the universe works and what's out in it though. I'd ideally like to see some of the world's billionaires step in and start a public company that specialises in space freight and scientific missions. I'm sure they'd get investors and I could easily see it working.

They're trying to do that now. So far....not working.

 

[Mrs. Famine]

Ooooh. An eye roll

Care to explain that response?