The End of U.S. Manned Spaceflight Looms Ever Closer

Space Daily ^ | 7/10/03 | Jeffrey F. Bell

[El Gato]

The fact that two shuttles have been lost in 120 missions in no way predicts that we will lose a shuttle every 60 missions. Both losses were due to design deficiencies, one of which has been corrected, and the other will be.

It's true that two failure out of 120 missions (is that all, I thought there were more?..whatever) is not a good estimate, but it's all we've got and it certainly indicates that the shuttle's reliablity/safety is no where near it's design goal. As to the failures being due to design defects... two points. The second "failure" was not due to an original design failure, since the original foam didn't fall off in chuncks as the newer stuff does, so why would the wing leading edges be designed to withstand that impact? Secondly how many other design defects are there?

[Old Professer]

Kinda' makes you numb, I guess "you just can't get there from here."

[Former Proud Canadian]

bump

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the heads up!

[Cogadh na Sith]

Heck, I'm still waiting for the 'supper collider' to provide more info on the BBQ particles and squarks...

Sorry to kid you, this is a well written and researched article. I have seen the same self-fulfilling deficiencies and ever-collapsing requirements on the DoD programs I've worked on.

Space travel will take inspired individuals, not beaureaucrats or comittees. Unfortunately, those inspired individuals will either be choked to death by US regulations and PR, or they will simply not be US....

[DoughtyOne]

...not US. That's my fear. We are driving creativity away. Not only that, with manufacturing moving more and more off shore, R & D goes with it.

[strela]

Bump for later reading. Thanks for posting this.

[snopercod]

I don't have the formulas to calculate the energy required for orbital plane changes, but I know the 8000# of OMS fuel carried by the shuttle is sufficient to change it's orbital plane by 1 degree or so.

So on the back of this envelope, assuming the ISS has a mass ten times that of the shuttle orbiter, it would take 2 1/4 million pounds of fuel to accomplish that task.

[Paul Ross]

A higher orbit would complicate our rendezvous with the ISS even more. The orbital plane is kilted at variance from our optimal shuttle-launch orbital plane. As Snopercod says, it would take a huge amount of fuel to move the ISS orbital plane now that it is parked where it is. Altitude would be relatively trivial by comparison to shifting orbital alignment or 'planes'. Analogize it this way. It is like racing up to full speed in a supersonic jet, then coming to a complete stop and then reversing directions.

[waterstraat]

I really dont see where I am getting any benifit from manned space flight, or have ever gotten any benefit from any manned space flight except to fix the Hubble telescope. The Voyager space shots, which took photos of the planets were nice but other than that, very little benefit.

Space flight should be privatitized with companies allowed to mine other planets. Manned space flight should be paid for by those with an interest in it, and by those who will gain from it .

[RightWhale]

it would take 2 1/4 million pounds of fuel to accomplish that task.

How much to send it to a lunar orbit?

[Paul Ross]

I really dont see where I am getting any benifit from manned space flight, or have ever gotten any benefit from any manned space flight except to fix the Hubble telescope. The Voyager space shots, which took photos of the planets were nice but other than that, very little benefit.

You make two points which are contradictory...unless you are against ALL spaceflight altogether Manned and Unmanned alike. The latter 'Voyager' space shots were unmanned. As for manned, you acknowledge that Hubble did some good, which said good would not be happening at all without the manned service missions to upgrade and repair it. And don't forget the Apollo missions. Think how that made our nation feel. Was that worth it? I think it was.

[SunkenCiv]

Ping!