(Viewed 2,444 times)

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

The Folly of Our Age: The Space Shuttle

Washington DC (SPX) Jun 20, 2005

Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant - 14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest technological folly of our age.
If the shuttle has any reason for existing, it is as an exceptionally clear symbol of our corrupt, sentimental, and dysfunctional political system. Its flights accomplish nothing and cost half a billion per. That, at least, is what a flight costs when the vehicle survives.

If a shuttle blows up - which, depending on whether or not you think that 35 human lives (five original launchworthy Shuttles at seven astronauts each) would be too high a price to pay for ridding the nation of an embarrassing and expensive monstrosity, is either too often or not often enough** - then the cost, what with lost inventory, insurance payouts, and the endless subsequent investigations, is seven or eight times that.

Having no practical justification for squirting so much of the nation's wealth up into the stratosphere, our politicians - those (let us charitably assume there are some) with no financial or electoral interest in the big contractor corporations who feed off the shuttle - fall back on romantic appeals to Mankind's Destiny.

A lot more here: www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-05zzd.html

----------

This story is rather a stinging one for the Shuttle, but I must say, it's time to retire it and progress to the next generation of space craft.

[Maddad]

No. It's time to hold the guys head down in the toilet with the lever depressed.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Are you describing a "Shuttle Swirlie"?

[Rocketman]

I agree with Maddad. Whoever wrote that is a turd.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Grady,

I see you changed your Avatar.....quite cool...

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Scuttle The Shuttle Says Space Frontier Foundation- Space Shuttle is a Waste of Taxpayer Funds

Los Angeles, July 11, 2005
In anticipation of this week's planned return to flight of NASA's Space Shuttle Discovery, the Space Frontier Foundation renewed its call for the orbiters to be retired.
The Foundation, which for over 15 years has criticized the Shuttle system as too costly, urged NASA and Congress to announce a firm date when the last Shuttle orbiter will fly.

"If it were up to us, the Shuttle never would have flown in the first place," remarked the Foundation's Rick Tumlinson. "Far from opening space to the American people, it weighed down our space program with its bloated budgets, massive support network and tragic cost in terms of human life. Its' time has passed. We should kill that program as soon possible, before more money gets wasted."

The Foundation understands that the space agency is trapped by its need to complete assembly of the International Space Station with partners in Europe, Russia, Japan, and Canada, and this means flying the Shuttles perhaps a dozen or more times. (Many station components were designed to fly on the Shuttle alone.)

More here: www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-05zp.html

===============

Well, I don't think the Shuttle program is all that bad, but I do think it's time to proceed to the next generation of space craft...and soon!

[Rocketman]

Yep. This shouldn't even be an issue. It should have been done years ago. The shuttle has done well.

Along with a new vehicle that will carry the crew should be a suppply vehicle. Supply vehicle as in, something able to carry a fair sized amount of materials needed for the construction of lunar habitats. Why do I think this? Well we've been to the Moon, and done nothing once so there's no need to do it again.

Ok, I'm slipping off topic again, but I have some wild ideas that I just might be inspired to share. Thing is, I'm not sure where to post them...

[Centaur]

Thank you for the articles, Joe. They express my sentiments quite well. I am only saddened that some responders resorted to toilet references regarding opinions not in line with their own. It was admirable of you to insert balance into a discussion in which you may actually lean the other way.

Yes, when I was young I was a Trekkie and gung ho for the Apollo missions. But I must admit that the Shuttle and ISS programs have been little more than drawn-out make-work projects designed principally to enrich the contractors and keep unimaginative NASA officials empowered. They have been wastes of lives, money and resources that could have been far better directed. More enlightened enterprises could have moved us along more quickly in our exploration of the solar neighborhood and preparation for eventual human colonization, while freeing resources for other vital needs of humankind. Nevertheless, well-deserved credit must be granted to the innovative human scientists and engineers who have developed relatively inexpensive yet highly effective robotic spacecraft.

Yes, many proposals are possible, but they cannot all be accomplished considering the finite availability of funding and resources. They do not all involve space travel. Diseases, poverty, education, etc. all need to be addressed. There is much deserving but unfinished work to be done here on Earth. Yet at the same time taxpayers want their tax burdens reduced. Priorities must be set. Every possibility cannot and should not be handled by a federal bureaucracy. It has largely been the free enterprise system that has made our lives so different from that of our recent ancestors. Non-governmental institutions have proven to be best at getting endeavors accomplished efficiently and effectively. That includes not only commercial corporations, but also academic institutions, supportive foundations, concerned organizations and private individuals. Let's get out of the rut that NASA and its co-conspirators have dug, and move forward more creatively in the development of mankind's potentials.

[stargazer]

Ok all of you. I know the shttle is verya expensive to run nd send up. BUT we are all forgetting what the Shuttle has accomplished so far. What about all the new meds that came out of the program. What about the the everyday items we now have because of the pogram. To many people forget about that They dont want to see what is new or what we have learned just the costs of what it is to send it up. I say keep up the good work that NASA and the Shuttle does. In what Ive lerned over the ast three or four years at Triton and knowing Dean I would say NASA has done a lot of good things. I think that what we have learned so far from not only Hubble but the rest of the scopes up there and whatwere going to learn from the new ones due to go, all the techonology from the ISS, and lets not forget the Shutle itself. Yes we have lost 17 wonderful people that gave their liveds doing what they wanted. We should say Keep going and forget about all this bickering and blaming everything on one man who is trying to do is best.

Ok now that Ive said that Ill go back into my little corner of our Universe and shut up.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Chicago Astronomer members and visitors...

To properly and intelligently discuss an issue, both or more sides must be considered in a dialog. Now...I'm pro-manned space travel, and I like the Shuttle, but also quite comfortable in critical observation.

As a kid in the 70's, I remember President Nixon signing the ok to go ahead with the "Shuttle" program. A reusable transport vehicle that would take off like a rocket and land like a plane was so innovative and different. It was supposed to save millions of dollars in expendable vehicles and usher in a new era of exploration. I also recall the Skylab missions and followed it everyday, (still have news clippings).

I was quite excited and enthusiastic when the first Space Shuttles lifted off, but the Space truck is quite limited, overly expensive and not planned out well. It has kept mankind within the confines of close Earth orbit, where I'm sure some good has come out of it, but I don't think any major discoveries or research has been a product of the program. Hell, at least we got Tang out of Apollo!... ;D If any one can document a major medical or technological advancement as a result of STS missions, I really would certainly would like to know about them. The ISS, as broken down as it is, is more equipped to conduct long term experiments than the Shuttle ever can.

Now, the Shuttle has it's place, and I think that it should be kept in reserve as a emergency vehicle: to service and retrieve the Hubble and other sats, rescue craft for the ISS etc... But the grand era of the Shuttle is over...and really never was meant to be other than a cargo ship. It would be like buying a vehicle that could only be driven around the Chicago area, unable to explore the rest of the country. It just isn't progressive.

Now, the most important commodity on the Shuttles are the members of the crew. With no fault of their own, they were sacrificed as a result of poor planning and no escape provisions. Now remember...they wanted to do the same thing to the Mercury astronauts...lock them in a can with bolts from the outside. They would have none of it. But the astronauts of the Shuttle sit atop a controlled bomb, with no method of escape. Mis-placed trust and confidence has cost the lives of 17 people and set the American space program behind.

I have always maintained that the crew cabin must be independent of the rest of the machine. With it's own mini thrusters, life support and parachute. In case of dire emergencies, the cabin can detach from the orbiter, adjust re-entry angle and float to the ground. It would be a rough and raw ride, but accomplished. And it would not be much more expensive, as the necessary addition components would only be needed for, let's say, 10 or so minutes for correction into the proper re-entry angle.

The next group of post Shuttle astronauts need to regain the cockiness of the first astronauts and demand an escape option. It would make a tighter, leaner and smarter space program. But, of course, there will always be the ignorants who will do whatever they are told and fly anyway regardless...

We should be on Mars by now and with a habitat on the Moon. But the resources spent on near-Earth activities has prohibited such endevours. But let's successfully accomplish the remainder (12?), missions of the STS, and immediately move on to the next rung of space exploration.

I would appreciate different viewpoints on this matter, as it is not an argument or battle, but a opinion of facts and thoughts. Keep the chastising to a minimum, as it curtails fluid dialoge.

Always question authority...

[stargazer]

I come toay to defend NASA and the Space SHuttle. You say its a waste of tax payers money. Well now I beg to differ with you all. There is alot of good things that have come out of the Shuttle flights.

First of all here is a short list of what the Space Shuttles have given us. Yes this is coming from a NASA web site.

1. The Artifical Heart-The technology used in Space Shuttle fuel pumps led to the development of a miniaturized ventricular assist pump by NASA and renowned heart surgeon Dr. Michael DeBakey. The tiny pump -- 2-inches long, 1-inch in diameter and weighing less than four ounces -- is currently undergoing European clinical trials where it has been successfully implanted into more than 20 people.

2. Balance Evaluation Systems - Devices built to measure the equilibrium of Space Shuttle astronauts when they return from space are widely used by major medical centers to diagnose and treat patients suffering head injury, stroke, chronic dizziness and central nervous system disorders.

3. Lifesaving Light to kill cancerous tumors

Lifesaving Light - Special lighting technology developed for plant growth experiments on Space Shuttle missions is now used to treat brain tumors in children. Doctors at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee use light emitting diodes in a treatment called photodynamic therapy, a form of chemotherapy, to kill cancerous tumors.

4. Rescue Tool - Rescue squads have a new extrication tool to help remove accident victims from wrecked vehicles. The hand-held device requires no auxiliary power systems or cumbersome hoses and is 70 percent cheaper than previous rescue equipment. The cutter uses a miniature version of the explosive charges that separate devices on the Shuttle.

5. Prosthesis Material - Responding to a request from the orthopedic appliance industry, NASA recommended that the foam insulation used to protect the Shuttle's external tank replace the heavy, fragile plaster used to produce master molds for prosthetics. The new material is light, virtually indestructible and easy to ship and store.


As to one of the Shuttles being taken out of service in 2007 or 08 that will not happen until 2010 when all three remaiming Shuttle will shut down for the next CEV's. They need all three vehicles to keep running to finish the ISS. This came from a very good source that I know. SO now someone please tell me that the Shuttles are a waste of Tax Payers Money when this is just a small sampling of what we have gotten from just the Shuttles. Lets not mention what the other Space programs have given us. What about all the techonology we have from the Space Program before the Shuttles and what about what we will learn as the next flights go up and do their work. I am a supporter of NASA and all the work they do.

Yes we have lost 17 wonderful people. I am still hoping that we will fix Hubble so we can learn more about our wonderful Universe.

So in closing I will say this. Keep the Shuttles flying as long as possible, Lets fix Hubble, and lets suport NASA and the wonderful Astronuts that fly those Shuttles. I will be glued to the TV to watch and record the next Launch with my daughter wearing her cute little Astronut Suit she got for her Birthday.

Now that Ive said that I will return to my corner of the Universe and shut up for now. But beware I may return to contunie this discussion.

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

This is going around the net presently...

==========

Now that the space shuttle Discovery is back safely, we can breathe a
sigh of relief, hail the pluck and bravery of its crew, and ask: How
did our space program become so invested in such a clunker?


It's almost as if the shuttle exists so we can throw it into orbit to
see if its crew can manage to get it back down again. This is not
stuff to fire the imagination. Despite NASA's fluff about the "wild
success" of Discovery's flight, at this point about the only people
enthusiastic about the shuttle program are aerospace contractors and
the pork-barreling congressmen from those states where NASA makes its
home. For them, every half-a-billion-dollar space-shuttle launch
represents the wonderful majesty of cold, hard cash.

Defenders of the embattled shuttle program say, among other things,
that it is needed to support the international space station. Alas,
it's true. The shuttle basically exists to go to the space station,
and the space station exists so the shuttle can have someplace to go.
They are mutually reinforcing boondoggles. Together they represent
the stunted dreams and the wasteful spending of the space program 36
years after Neil Armstrong took "one small step."

The shuttle has a great future behind it. It was supposed to fly
every week — but now is lucky to go a handful of times a year and is
grounded again after NASA spent two years and $1 billion failing to
figure out how to stop foam from dangerously flaking off the fuel
tank. It was supposed to carry satellites into orbit for launching,
an impossibly costly way to get satellites into orbit. Now it's
creaky, dangerous and nearly purposeless.

Journalist Gregg Easterbrook, in a devastatingly convincing scourge
of the shuttle program, writes: "The shuttle's main engines, first
tested in the late 1970s, use hundreds more moving parts than do new
rocket-motor designs. The fragile heat-dissipating tiles were
designed before breakthroughs in materials science. Until recently,
the flight-deck computers on the space shuttle used old 8086 chips
from the early 1980s, the sort of pre-Pentium electronics no self-
respecting teenager would dream of using for a video game."

A Federal Aviation Administration official estimates that if
commercial aviation had the same accident rate as the shuttle, more
than 500 flights would crash a day. The science projects conducted
aboard the shuttle have the musty whiff of make-work. The experiments
on the doomed shuttle Columbia included examining "bacterial and
yeast cell responses to the stresses of spaceflight" and
developing "the gravity-sensing organs of fish in the absence of
gravity."

The spectacularly expensive space station is just as dismal. It was
supposed to serve as a jumping-off point for further space
exploration and provide a platform for zero-gravity manufacturing.
Nothing doing. Now, one of its main functions is to serve as a symbol
of international cooperation. The U.S.-Russia joint work on the
station is a nice bookend to the Cold War, which had fueled the space
race between the two countries. But how much do you want to pay for
your nice bookends? The bottled water that astronauts drink on the
space station costs nearly half a million dollars a day, according to
Easterbrook's calculation. It has two astronauts on board who are
focused on routine maintenance and serve as guinea pigs to test the
effects of long-term weightlessness.

The shuttle is slated to be retired by 2010. It can't come too soon.
The space program is better focused on getting astronauts to a
destination: the moon, Mars, wherever. In the meantime, unmanned
probes are the space program's stars. They explore Mars and Saturn,
deliver beautiful images of the far reaches of the universe, and
shoot projectiles at comets. NASA is nonetheless considering cutting
funding for Voyager 1 and the data it's sending back from the edges
of the solar system so the space shuttle can be kept limping along.
Time to give the shuttle an honored place in the Smithsonian.
============

Can't say that I can argue with the logic...

[Chicago Astronomer - Astro Joe]

Call For Ending The Shuttle Program Building Momentum

Washington (AFP) Aug 14, 2005
Recurring problems that have forced NASA to ground all its shuttles until further notice could persuade officials to speed up work on a new generation of space craft.
Two and a half years after the Columbia tragedy and 500 million dollars to fix the problem that caused it were not enough to prevent foam from falling off Discovery, which recently returned from space to the relief of many.

When Discovery was launched on July 26, its huge external fuel tank shed pieces of insulating foam like the one that ultimately downed the Columbia, killing all seven astronauts aboard.

On Wednesday, NASA said that the fuel tank needs to be redesigned, scratching a planned launch of Atlantis in September.

If the shuttle becomes too difficult to repair or too expensive to fly, many experts, former NASA engineers and members of Congress want to rethink current plans to retire the shuttle in 2010 - and possibly even mothball the three surviving shuttles immediately.

"When your design stinks, Engineering 101 says admit your mistakes and go back to the drawing board," said retired NASA engineer Homer Hicham.

"The space shuttle is ... never going to be reliable no matter how much money, time and engineering careers your throw at it. Let's put the shuttle on the shelf right away and give engineers the gift of designing new ships to carry humans into space," he said.

Roger Pielke, director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado, Boulder agrees.

"NASA is rolling the dice with the future of the US space program by continuing to hold unrealistic expectations for shuttle performance.

"If history is any guide, then we should expect that the shuttle will fly less and cost more than we think. It is unclear what would be gained by continuing to fly the shuttle rather than moving to the next phase of US space policy sooner rather than later," he said.

He would also involve Congress in a debate on the future of space exploration.

Legislators have been raising clear warnings.

"There is going to be no room for margin of error in terms of flying again if there is not a high level of confidence that the problems we know about are solved," said Representative Bart Gordon, leading Democrat on the House Science Committee.

His Republican counterpart, Sherwood Boehlert, who chairs the committee, said the tipping point comes when problems take too long to fix.

"Then we have to rethink everything. Maybe the shuttle will be no more," he said.

The shuttle's last flight is actually slated for 2009. To have a replacement on line by 2011, NASA wants to launch a three-astronaut capsule, reminiscent of the Apollo program that reached the moon, but launched atop a rocket derived from the one that lifts the shuttle. Cargo would launch separately.

"We have ways to construct such vehicles using shuttle solid-rocket motors and external tanks and shuttle main engines," said NASA Administrator Michael Griffin.

"We think the existing components offer us huge cost advantages as opposed to starting from a clean sheet of paper. That's what I have proposed doing," he said.

===============

Let's get to building the next generatio of manned space craft...