Scuttle the Shuttle! Space Shuttle is a Dangerous Waste of Taxpayer Funds

Space Frontier Foundation ^ | 07/11/05 | Rick Tumlinson

[lame_internet_name]

"What was needed was a small orbiter only big enough to shuttle the crews to and from space and a seperate, much larger UNMANNED rocket for delivering cargo into space and instead"

And that is exactly what NASA is now working on. Finally. In fact, that's what the shuttle started out as before the Air Force got involved.

[lame_internet_name]

"1. Give the responsibility to the Marine Corps;
2. Tell them that many people will die;
3. Tell them that they will have very little money to do the job; and
4. Tell them that it is impossible.
We will be on Mars by 2015 or 2020, guaranteed."

You mean the same Marine Corps that still can't get tiltrotors fielded after 40+ years of development? Nothing against the Marines, they are good at what they do. NASA is good at what it does. They are two different things. BTW, a number of the senior leaders in NASA right now are former Marines, so you sort of already have what you wish for.

[lame_internet_name]

The moon offers a near endless supply of rocks with a huge potential energy relative to the surface of the Earth. Throwing rocks may be low tech, but lots of mass + lots of velocity = lots of hurt.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[lame_internet_name]

"You can place a satellite in ANY orbit you want, fool. Geosynchronous ones are 23,000 miles out. NASA has/had several space probes that operates in the lunar orbit - 250,000 miles out. You can make a satellite MORE massive than any moonbase (because of zero G and no need to land) and you can place it ANYWHERE in ANY ORBIT and it can MOVE.
Why do you persist in playing a losing hand?"

It's not the mass of the moonbase itself that is important, it's the mass of the rocks it can dig up and throw back at the Earth that are of strategic value. There is simply no way you can ever launch as much mass from the Earth to has high a potential energy relative to the Earth's surface as you can dig up on the moon. Period. Ever. End of story. If you don't get it already, go relearn junior high physics. Also, making significant orbital changes for large satellites in a short time requires VAST amounts of energy.

He persists in playing his hand because he is right and you are wrong. Honestly, by this point I realize there is no hope of educating you, but I persist in correcting you and bever-fever only as a warning to other casual readers of this thread not to believe anything you say.

[jammer]

That was tongue in cheek. I have no idea about tiltrotors or anything else--my ignorance is abysmal in military matters. But it is by no means apparent that "NASA is good at what it does." That is one of the two major objections on here. Could they be good? Maybe. But low-earth orbit as a goal for 30 years doesn't demonstrate much but bureaucratic inertia (and the result of a stupid strategic decision by Nixon to use the shuttle).

[lame_internet_name]

"What makes me mad is they haven't (from anything I've seen) been planning for post-shuttle space travel. There are 2 shuttles left, they are OLD!!! and what's next?
Let private companies do it."

There are 3 shuttles left.

NASA's primary focus became 'planning for post-shuttle space travel' a year and a half ago at the direction of President Bush. That's all anybody in the industry has been talking about for the past year!

NASA has never tried to stop any private company from doing anything in space.

This thread is doing an awful lot to destroy FR's reputation for informed dialog. I don't know if I've ever seen so many tongues wagging in such ignorance of easily obtainable facts.

[lame_internet_name]

"And burn up in the atmosphere in 15 seconds."

Ever seen a meteorite? How do you think it got here? Care to stand under it when it hits?

[lame_internet_name]

"In short, NASA, get out of the way..."

NASA is not and never has been in anybody's 'way' in any manner. I challenge all of you people making this argument to provide one single concrete example of NASA ever getting 'in the way' of any private space flight effort. Even just a little example?

[lame_internet_name]

Columbus's discovery of the New World was a government funded research project.

[Paul_Denton]

Yawn whatever. Insult me and you whine when I retaliate, thats how it works. If you dont like it, go shoot yourself or somthing or go back to the DUmp.

[Paul_Denton]

Nah you were hoisted by your own petard. The moment you came in defense of the whiner you became just as much of a target. You dont like it shove off LUDDITE.

[Paul_Denton]

I am still waiting for somebody to find where the Constitution enables and authorizes the Federal government to operate a non-military space agency for the entertainment of dupes and fools who think it's "cool" to spend a hundred billion bucks to see a guy float in orbit for the 11,294th time since 1962.

Simple. Like Mt. Everest we do it because it is there :)

[Paul_Denton]

What exactly is the "strategic value" of the Moon - I'd love to hear your big plans for a naval base on the Sea of Tranquility. You people are truly moonbats!!!! -Taipanenigma

Stop defending whiners Jammer and you wont get flamed. Simple :)

[lame_internet_name]

"Rotary Rocket - scuttled through NASA FUD.
DC-X - killed by NASA in favor of more Space Shuttle missions."

Rotary Rocket died because their potential investors ran away when the market they were chasing collapsed. There was no NASA FUD on this. In fact, the basic concepts that Rotary wanted to use were invented partly at NASA in the 1959 - 1962 time frame. Go read the Roton patents if you don't believe me. There were also significant technical problems with Roton that would have been enormously expensive to overcome and which RRC had not really addressed. However, some of the basic concepts may well prove to be the most cost effective solution for manned space flight in the current time frame, with appropriate modifications. It just so happens that those necessary modifications were recently invented and proposed by somebody within NASA. At least one private company is interested in putting the modified technology to use in a private space flight effort, but they are waiting for NASA to do the basic research to develop the technology as they can not justify the risk of expenditure themselves. WHICH IS THE VERY REASON Congress founded NASA (initially NACA) back in 1915!

DCX / Delta Clipper was never a private effort. It goes back to design proposals from government contractors that date to the earliest years of shuttle concept development. In late 1980's it was revived by the military as a means for launching SDI elements. When the military backed out, NASA continued development as a shuttle replacement. Eventually it was entered in a competition for building a shuttle replacement but lost out to an alternate design, the X-33, which was eventually canceled. NASA continued to operate the DCX as a basic research project until it crashed. The concept is currently being revived by a very secretive company funded by an internet billionaire. They are not being hindered in anyway by NASA, but it remains to be seen if the investor has the stomach to put up enough money to see it through.

[eccl1212]

good point.

[eccl1212]

I want space based aircraft carrier groups that can submerge into the upper atmosphere as needed and launch troops, weapons, ordnance and whatever is needed anywhere on the planet, in about what? 30 minutes or less?

Dominate space.
Militarize the moon, mars and some of the other planetary systems larger moons.

If we are NOT alone in the universe, I want us to stake out OUR territory. If we are, I would just as soon expand our frontiers.

[lame_internet_name]

"But low-earth orbit as a goal for 30 years doesn't demonstrate much but bureaucratic inertia "

NASA's goals are set by the President and Congress, not the agency itself, however much those in the agency wish they could set their own goals.

[RadioAstronomer]

Didn't ya know? All of us who work or worked for NASA are just white collar welfare bums who just want a fat paycheck and our government grants.


At least thats what many folks here on FR believe.

[The_Victor]

Private industry can send humans to space at a cheaper rate...

Then why aren't they? < /rhetorical question >