Skip to comments.Freep a Poll! (CNBC. should space shuttle program be continued?)
Posted on 07/08/2011 3:46:57 PM PDT by dynachrome
Should the space shuttle program be continued?
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
FREEP THIS POLL ***PING!*** FRmail me if you want to be added or removed from the Fearless Poll-Freeping Freepers Ping list. And be sure to ping me to any polls that need Freepin', if I miss them. (looks like a medium volume list) (gordongekko909, founder of the pinglist, stays on the list until his ghost signs up for the list)
Only if it goes green and gets powered by windmills...
It should be discontinued ASAP — AFTER we have a cheaper, more efficient American space vehicle in operation.
Total Votes: 7032
It’s a stupid question. It’s not possible to “continue” it. At best, if we spent a few billion, we could restart it in two or three years.
I think the better question is whether or not Obama should have canceled the next generation rocketship?
Obama already canceled the replacement program
No. Or perhaps only until it can be replaced by a more modern program. The space shuttle is based on technology from the 60s and 70s. Surely we can do better than that.
And on a related note, the EPA and all other nuisance agencies should be barred from meddling in the space programs.
Just another piece in BO’s plan to isolate the US and make us a dependent nation. Next thing you know we won’t have any satellites. I never imagined that in my lifetime I would not only see our astronaut walk on the moon but also see the last shuttle flight.
We need it Now—until we can put together a new system—a space plane of some sort—something cheaper in any case. We might need the shuttle for National defense.
That answer is a definite yes!
Should free enterprise be doing a manned space program that answer is a definite yes!
Should a USG space program,that's more qualified yes!
USG should be doing the high risk basic science stuff both manned and manned.
Having both a private and a USG program would be beneficial to all in the long run.
For all its waste the public gets more bang for it's buck from NASA then it does from most USG non-DOD activities.
And NO I don't work for NASA or any contractors affiliated with it!
I think this is a trick question.
To start with, space shuttles are very large, intended to carry large satellites as cargo. However, technology has changed somewhat, and most satellites are either smaller, or much larger.
While the shuttle could carry a fairly heavy cargo to low earth orbit, it was limited to a little over 4 tons for a geostationary orbit, which is far more useful. An unmanned Delta IV rocket *starts* at 4 tons for a GEO, and can carry three times as much that high.
Okay, so what are future missions? If you want to send a major vehicle to Mars and beyond, not just some light probes, you almost have to have a modular spaceship, assembled and fueled in orbit.
If you want an interstellar spaceship, that leaves our solar system and ventures into deep space, it not only has to be very large, but have two different propulsion systems: one to take it to the edge of the solar system, and a completely different type to take it beyond.
Such a vessel would take two dozen Delta IV launches, or hundreds of space shuttle launches.
Oh, and as far as small satellites are concerned, private enterprise is stepping up to the plate to put those in orbit.
So, our dipshit chief executive’s plan is for the private sector to do space, while the public sector will create jobs.
The Shuttle was essentially a “proof of concept prototype” vehicle. It was supposed to identify technology needing development in order to produce a viable reusable working vehicle. This was horribly demonstrated with the loss of Challenger.
NASA never performed the second phase. This was not all NASA’s fault, as Congress “converted” an engineering prototype to a production vehicle with the stroke of the budget pen.
Its kinda sad when one recalls when NASA was given control of America’s space program the USAF was already verging upon the fringes of space. When JFK issued his now famous challenge the USAF had a viable “space plane”, lacking only fuel capacity to achieve orbital ability, (they were already performing sub-orbital flights and returning to the lauch point.) something NASA’s Germans couldn’t do.
Nah, kill the program. Let private industry take over. It can hire the best of NASA’s engineers. Let the drones die.
Too much infrastructure is gone.
Facilities, Suppliers, manufacturers, labor pool, etc.
It would take 3 years and that is IF the Orbiters could be sufficiently refurbished.
Should Obama be continued?.....
Yes. Don’t you know that many of the innovations that make our lives easier came from the space program?
No. I want my obama money, and there’s no point giving it to rich shuttle pilots.
Total Votes: 7385
Too late. The other shuttles have already been disassembled for the various museums. Atlantis is the last one.
I really think the 30 year old shuttles should be retired and a newer technology replace them. But we should not have abandoned the 1981 Cadillac to rent an expensive Zil.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.