Space pork ping.
Posted on 09/28/2005 9:02:35 AM PDT by anymouse
The US space agency NASA lost its way in the 1970s when it focused on the space shuttle and International Space Station, NASA chief Michael Griffin reportedly said.
"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told USA Today: "My opinion is that it was. It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."
Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."
Griffin announced September 19 that the United States will send four astronauts to the moon in 2018 in a major return to its pioneering manned missions into space.
Space pork ping.
There was one good thing from the Shuttle - USSR died trying to follow the same path.
Yeah, God forbid we take any risks or be ambitious with our space program.
Jeez, what's with this guy
Some of us have been saying that on FR for years, and all we do is get trashed for it. Let's see what the NASA worshippers will say about this (that is, if they get time away from the Dungeons and Dragons game they are playing over their HAM radios).
It's nice to know I wasted a few years of my life on a mistake. What a bonehead statement!
This is possibly true for the Space Station, especially after it morphed from the original Freedom design to "Ralpha" (Russia + Alpha) and moved from 28 deg to 51.5 deg to suit Russia, but not shuttle. We learned everything we know about reusable space propulsion hardware from shuttle. That information will be priceless if we ever get to critical mass in repeated flights to orbit.
Damn! This man is making a lot of sense! What's he doing in govt.? No doubt he will soon be fired.
Yep. I agree with the guy.
We put someone on the moon and then decided that the next step was merely orbiting the earth so we could do lab work in a reentry vehicle.
Amazingly near sighted.
Damn! This man is making a lot of sense! What's he doing in govt.? No doubt he will soon be fired.
---
Baloney. This guy is a loon.
I can see him responding to President Kennedy.. "Sorry sir, but we do not have the technology to go to the moon."
Lastly, the money we spend on the space program is microsopic compared to other programs (not even divisions) - and that is not even considering the spin offs which go directly into the market from space exploration.
The agreement on the orbit inclination was an appeasment to the Russians.
That orbit has cost us millions (and perhaps 7 astronauts) in upgrades to the shuttle components.
In order to reach that orbit the SSME's have to run at 105% (IIRC), the ET had to be redesigned to be lighter (which may have contributed to the Columbia disaster)and the SRB's had to have modifications done.
"Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."--------------------------------------------- Not so harsh! We got Tang!
ping
It is almost sad looking back to those days...... for it seems we have wasted these 40 years when they [NASA] changed directions and left the FINAL FRONTIER.
It's amazing what some people will do when tasked with spending a huge pile of other people's money.
The Shuttle was a big part of that. The mistake was sticking with it for too long.
Can we turn the Shuttles into bombers for Iraq? That payload could hold quite a few MOABs.
Yep... and a reentry vehicle that lacks the power to re-enter at sub orbital speed.
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.