Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet While Probing Columbia Disaster
voanews.com ^ | 02 Feb 2003, 01:22 UTC | David McAlary

Posted on 02/01/2003 8:02:03 PM PST by Destro

NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet While Probing Columbia Disaster

David McAlary
Washington
02 Feb 2003, 01:22 UTC

Listen to David McAlary's report (RealAudio)
McAlary report - Download 583k (RealAudio)

The U.S. space agency, NASA, is suspending future shuttle flights until it knows what caused the loss of the shuttle Columbia and its seven- member crew. Columbia broke up over Texas Saturday minutes before it was to land in Florida after a 16-day research mission in Earth orbit.

Seven astronauts, including the first from Israel, went down to their deaths in a hail of shuttle debris over Texas. Dramatic videotapes from a Dallas television station show it streaking to Earth in several smoking pieces.

Shuttle officials say the first sign of a problem was the loss of readings from sensors that measure tire pressure and temperature and structural heat on the orbiter's left side as it at headed toward landing at 18 times the speed of sound. Chief flight director Milt Heflin says controllers lost all contact with the shuttle minutes later.

"We lost the data and that's when we clearly began to know that we had a bad day," he said.

News reports tell of shuttle remains strewn across a wide area of east Texas. NASA is sending technicians to Texas to collect it with help from national, state, and local emergency agencies. NASA administrator Sean O'Keefe has established both an internal and independent external review board to investigate the cause of the disaster.

"This is indeed a tragic day for the NASA family, for the families of the astronauts, and likewise tragic for the nation," said Mr. O'Keefe.

The head of the shuttle program, Ron Dittemore, says debris analysis is key to understanding what happened to Columbia. He pledged a non-stop effort to assess it and all related flight data.

"It's going to take us some time to work through the evidence and the analysis to clearly understand what the cause was," he explained. "We will be poring over that data 24 hours a day for the foreseeable future."

Pending the answer, NASA is suspending all space shuttle flights. It has stopped preparing orbiters for flight at the Kennedy Space Center launch site, including the one that was scheduled to exchange crews at the International Space Station in early March.

A Russian supply rocket, set for launch Sunday, is bringing supplies that NASA says will support the station crew through late June.

Seventeen years ago, the shuttle Challenger exploded shortly after launch, but the Columbia disaster is the first time a shuttle has been lost returning from orbit since the program began 113 missions ago in 1981.

At the U.S. Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island, space expert Joan Johnston-Freese notes that takeoff and landings are the most dangerous times for space shuttles.

"That's when the maximum pressure and velocity occur," she said. "The shuttle lands as a large glider and control is always a challenge, but under those conditions of pressure and velocity, the shuttle is so super-heated at that point that it's a very volatile situation under the best of conditions."

As part of NASA's probe, technicians will look for any signs that an unusual launch incident may have damaged critical insulating tiles on the shuttle's left wing, the side of the shuttle where the sensor readings went dead. Insulation from the rocket that helped boost Columbia to orbit flew off and hit the wing during liftoff.

Shuttle manager Dittemore says that after exhaustive analysis early in the mission, flight engineers determined that it probably would have no affect on the flight. But given Columbia's loss, he did not dismiss the potential impact to the wing.

"We're going to go back and see if there is a connection. Is that the smoking gun? It is not. We don't know enough about it. A lot more analysis and evidence needs to come to the table," he emphasized. "It's not fair to represent the tile damage as the source. It's just something we need to go look at."

When the Columbia disaster occurred, NASA administrator O'Keefe was at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida awaiting the shuttle's return with the families and friends of the astronauts. What was to be a happy reunion turned into grief-stricken moments of consolation. Mr. O'Keefe paid tribute to the astronauts, whom he said dedicated their lives to facing scientific challenges for all of us on Earth.

"The loss of this valued crew is something we will never be able to get over and certainly the families of all of them," he said. "We have assured them we will do everything, everything, we can possibly do to guarantee that they work their way through this horrific tragedy."

Security had been tighter than usual at the landing site because the presence of Israeli astronaut Ilan Ramon prompted government fears that he might be the target of a terrorist attack. However, NASA says there is no indication that terrorism is involved in the shuttle loss.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS: columbiatragedy; feb12003; nasa; spaceshuttle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last
It is time to put the shuttle program to rest. It has been a noble but flawed program for NASA in particular and space exploration-exploitation for America and for mankind in general.

The concept of the Shuttle--a reusable orbiting payload vehicle sounds like a good idea but it has never worked out with with our current technological and budget limits.

Simply put NASA has placed all its eggs in the Space Shuttle program and because of that our rocket technology and space exploration program has suffered. The Russians are still a generation ahead of us on rockets because they still produce them and rely on them.

Disposable rockets are 10 times cheaper and 100 times more structurally sound than a reusable space shuttle.

In addition the cargo bay of the space shuttle limits the payload capacity of the shuttle while on disposable rockets the payload is theoretically unlimited.

PS: A story I heard about the approach of the Russian and NASA space programs is very illuminating. The story goes like this, when a Russian space agency official was told by a proud NASA official about the expense and effort of its engineers that goes into desgining even the so called astronaut or space pen that allows it to be used in zero gravity the Russian replied "we use pencils."

It is time to start using disposable-reliable space vehicles and open up space to private industry.

For starters I would ask congress to authorize a bounty that it would reimburse any private organization that would send a manned mission to Mars and return its crew to Earth safely that would cover all expenses plus 15%.

Competition to Mars would capture and ignite the world's imagination.

1 posted on 02/01/2003 8:02:03 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
I welcome all comments-thoughts.
2 posted on 02/01/2003 8:02:32 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Destro
It is time to start using disposable-reliable space vehicles and open up space to private industry.

Open space to private industry yes .... yes disposables, absolutely NOT.

We should have an SSTO spaceplane to replace the shuttle. And nuclear rockets for ultra heavy payloads to go into orbit.

4 posted on 02/01/2003 8:07:02 PM PST by Centurion2000 (The question is not whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
I really think we all want to know what caused this but grounding the entire fleet is uncalled for. It isn't like they are going to find an inherent problem with all the shuttles that only shows up after 107 shuttle missions.
5 posted on 02/01/2003 8:08:39 PM PST by AdA$tra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Destro

7 posted on 02/01/2003 8:10:01 PM PST by Momaw Nadon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
This is from a NASA release last summer:

"Recent inspections of Space Shuttle Atlantis and Space Shuttle Discovery found cracks, measuring one-tenth to three-tenths of an inch, in one flow liner on each of those vehicles. Some of the cracks were not identifiable using standard visual inspections and were only discovered using more intensive inspection techniques. "These cracks may pose a safety concern and we have teams at work investigating all aspects of the situation," said Space Shuttle Program Manager Ron Dittemore. "This is a very complex issue and it is early in the analysis. Right now there are more questions than answers. Our immediate interests are to inspect the hardware to identify cracks that exist, understand what has caused them and quantify the risk. I am confident the team will fully resolve this issue, but it may take some time. Until we have a better understanding, we will not move forward with the launch of STS-107." The impact of the investigation on other upcoming space shuttle launches has not been determined." - - June 24, 2002

8 posted on 02/01/2003 8:10:45 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000; Privatize NASA
Listen-wishing for SSTO spaceplane to work is not the same as having it work. Nor do I care to pay for its development with a generation of testing. Disposable rockets are economical-and SAFER and WORK!!!
9 posted on 02/01/2003 8:12:50 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Momaw Nadon
Pretty pictures do not a space program make. Wishing for SSTO spaceplane to work is not the same as having it work. Nor do I care to pay for its development with a generation of testing. Disposable rockets are economical-and SAFER and WORK!!!

10 posted on 02/01/2003 8:14:56 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Lord Voldemort
Its a cute story.
11 posted on 02/01/2003 8:15:50 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Destro
It is time to start using disposable-reliable space vehicles

Here's what I would do, and I have said this repeatedly, even just yesterday: Launch cargo on BDBs [Big, Dumb Boosters.] Launch crew on separate man-rated vehicles, which means the crew can escape under any circumstances, and for crew re-entry, use something much smaller and easier to make robust. Forget the wings.

Get to work on this right now and assume the Space Shuttle is headed for mothballs as of today. If any more building is to happen on the ISS, use BDBs to launch the hardware.

It's time to rethink NASA's mission. Moonbase and Marsbase should be the goal. NOW.

13 posted on 02/01/2003 8:17:10 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Good post. We have to give credit where credit is due -- the U.S. is far ahead of the Russians in terms of technology, but when it comes to doing "ordinary" tasks in space the Russians have been doing it for so long that they're much better at it than we are. This is precisely why the ISS is a joint U.S.-Russian effort -- The U.S. does what it does best, and the Russians do what they do best.

The real advantage of unmanned flight is that you don't have to factor human safety into major decisions.

14 posted on 02/01/2003 8:19:03 PM PST by Alberta's Child
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The concept of the Shuttle--a reusable orbiting payload vehicle sounds like a good idea but it has never worked out with with our current technological and budget limits.

That is silly. Things break, shiite happens. Airliners have catastrophic failures, nobody (except the French) panics and gives up. One hundred years from now, with technology we can't imagine, people are going to die traveling to and from space.

Sure, the shuttle is a failure in many ways, but if you think space can be made affordable by throwing away millions of dollars worth of hardware with each flight, forget it.

Right now, you really can't draw conclusions and take them seriously.

15 posted on 02/01/2003 8:19:09 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
In other words do what NASA was doing before the Space Shuttle program and what the Russians are still doing and what the Chinese plan to do.
16 posted on 02/01/2003 8:19:46 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Destro
For starters I would ask congress to authorize a bounty that it would reimburse any private organization that would send a manned mission to Mars and return its crew to Earth safely that would cover all expenses plus 15%.

I cannot imagine any private company that would attempt this for a mere 15% return on investment.

17 posted on 02/01/2003 8:21:09 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Privatize NASA
Did you know that a Russian Soyuz mission carrying humans into space costs approximately $20 million, and has a BETTER SAFETY RECORD than NASA's monopolistic $600 million-per-flight U.S. Space Shuttle?

The shuttle is a much more capable and complicated system, plus the Russians pay their engineers in magic beans.

While what you say about the safety record is true, the sample size is too small to draw any statistical conclusions.

18 posted on 02/01/2003 8:22:18 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal; Privatize NASA
No what you said is jingoistic and silly, opespringseternal and shows me you know little of the facts.

In fact the French-using big dumb boosters undersell NASA in putting up satellites as do the Chinese.

I know the Space Shuttle looks good on a poster but it is not a good program.

19 posted on 02/01/2003 8:23:41 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Destro
It's possible efforts may be sped up on the development of the Orbital Space Plane. Reusability is key to reliability, the shuttle isn't that good of a design. We may see a general consensus in the coming days that the shuttle is a flawed overly-complex design. It's possible that the program could be terminated.
20 posted on 02/01/2003 8:24:31 PM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster Archive
21 posted on 02/01/2003 8:24:34 PM PST by petuniasevan (RIP Columbia crew - you were the "Right Stuff")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
Ok so I am a little cheap. Scottish genetics at work.
22 posted on 02/01/2003 8:25:15 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Disposable rockets are 10 times cheaper and 100 times more structurally sound than a reusable space shuttle.

Would you like to get on-board for this great business opportunity I'm working on? We're developing a disposable car; you *throw it away* after one trip. Imagine all the savings ... no oil changes, no expensive repairs, typically you don't even need to visit a gas station (we sell it with a full tank of gas). And it only costs 40% of what a reusable car costs! Amazing! We think we'll revolutionize the automotive industry. What do you think?

The only way space travel is going to become routine or efficient is through the development of reusable vehicles. The shuttle is a first-generation reusable vehicle flying 30-year-old technology that cut some questionable corners (for budgetary reasons) when it went up the first time. Like most first-generation techologies, it has quite a few problems. The solution is to develop the second-generation technology, not retreat back to a technology that is ultimately a dead end.

The Russian Soyuz vehicle is 40+ year-old technology for the most part, by the way, not at all "a generation ahead" of anything.

23 posted on 02/01/2003 8:25:50 PM PST by Campion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: hopespringseternal; Privatize NASA
The shuttle is a much more LESS capable and complicated system (COMPLICATION IN SPACE IS DEADLY), plus the Russians pay their engineers in magic beans. --- And they out perform NASA where it counts.
25 posted on 02/01/2003 8:28:33 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Privatize NASA
Funny I was just thinking maybe we should give this to the Skunkworks.

After all look at there last interesting aircraft.

Of course if auroa is ready to be unvieled that technology could easily be transfered to a space vehicle.

26 posted on 02/01/2003 8:31:48 PM PST by dts32041
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Campion
The Russian Soyuz is still a generation ahead of any American booster rocket no matter how old it is. We have nothing with that payload capacity.

Space exploration is only possible with disposable vehicles.

I love Star Trek too, but we ain't there yet.

27 posted on 02/01/2003 8:32:10 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: AdA$tra
107 missions and two lost ccraft.

any other public paid for conveyance with that miserable of a safety record.

28 posted on 02/01/2003 8:33:39 PM PST by dts32041
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Right. Rocket technology is getting better every day. You have a choice of environment-friendly kerosene or hydrogen for fuel, Atlas or Delta, and manrating isn't just a matter of getting to a level of reliability for the booster and saying it is safe to ride. I would sure like to see the old escape tower on top of the rocket I would ride. NASA could build and launch an old-fashioned Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo style capsule by the end of the year with no problem at all.
29 posted on 02/01/2003 8:34:05 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Destro
It just looks more and more like the shuttle is an idea whose time has come and gone. NASA seems to evolved into a classic bureaucracy just trying to keep everyone employed.
30 posted on 02/01/2003 8:35:15 PM PST by NoControllingLegalAuthority
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Listen-wishing for SSTO spaceplane to work is not the same as having it work

If Bush wanted a spaceplane, all we have to do is offer a 1 billion dolar bonus plus an order for 20 spaceplanes @ 300 million each.

Boeing and McDonnel-Douglas would be all over that in a heartbeat.

It's beats funding AIDS to the tune of 15 billion dollars that's for sure.

31 posted on 02/01/2003 8:36:59 PM PST by Centurion2000 (The question is not whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Destro
In fact the French-using big dumb boosters undersell NASA in putting up satellites as do the Chinese.

Yes. And? Claiming economy in comparison with the shuttle is like claiming compassion in comparison to Stalin.

I know the Space Shuttle looks good on a poster but it is not a good program.

Actually, it is not a good launch system. It is a jack-of-all-trades, and master of none.

32 posted on 02/01/2003 8:39:03 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: dts32041
Oh, come on, you can't compare a spacecraft with an airliner! Apples and oranges -- space flight is so much more complicated than airline flight which is more complicated than automobiles which are more complicated than trains which....
33 posted on 02/01/2003 8:39:04 PM PST by jude24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
Boeing owns McDonnel Douglas so it is one company Boeing!
34 posted on 02/01/2003 8:41:11 PM PST by PhiKapMom (Bush/Cheney 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts
For starters I would ask congress to authorize a bounty that it would reimburse any private organization that would send a manned mission to Mars and return its crew to Earth safely that would cover all expenses plus 15%.

I cannot imagine any private company that would attempt this for a mere 15% return on investment.

I could .... can you imagine how much other large companies would pay to have their corporate logos and flags planted on Mars??? Then think of advertising and other marketable factors of the landing / voyage et cetera.

You could also put all the spare seats up for bid .... Microsoft Computer specialist ... err .. Sun MicroSystems Computer Specialist. Exxon geologist, Proctor and Gamble biologist ... ad nauseum.

The return from the feds should be cost + 50% and NO corporate income taxes for 10 years for the companym (and employees) that does it. THAT would get results.

35 posted on 02/01/2003 8:42:23 PM PST by Centurion2000 (The question is not whether you're paranoid, but whether you're paranoid enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Destro
These are very convincing arguments. I agree, the space shuttle is now an anachronism.
36 posted on 02/01/2003 8:42:35 PM PST by Palladin (Proud to be a FReeper!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Centurion2000
The cost of putting the first human on Mars will probably exceed the net worth of Microsft and Sun combined. People do put all of their eggs in one basket, however, the return on such a gamble must be huge to entice this kind of investment. 1,500% maybe - 15% - no way.
37 posted on 02/01/2003 8:49:45 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: jude24
Oh, come on, you can't compare a spacecraft with an airliner! Apples and oranges -- space flight is so much more complicated than airline flight which is more complicated than automobiles which are more complicated than trains which....

From autos to trains to planes, they all have one thing in common: practicality. These things were dreamed up and built by individuals to be useful.

Spacecraft are developed by government and practicality and economics are never considerations. The overall shuttle design is not a product of engineering or necessity, but politics. Once the bureaucrats were finished, they handed the engineers a list of requirements that looked like they were strung together by sugared up third graders after watching cartoons all day.

There are ways of making spaceflight safer and more economical, and that should be the goal.

38 posted on 02/01/2003 8:50:06 PM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Privatize NASA; Centurion2000; AdA$tra; Lord Voldemort; Momaw Nadon; Lancey Howard; RightWhale; ...
New Russian Rocket to Take Off by 2003

"Having overcome a major engineering hurdle, local space engineers have begun designing a low-cost rocket that will launch satellites into low-Earth orbits after having been dropped from a transport plane.

Blueprints for the rocket will be completed this year and the new two-stage Polyot rocket is to be manufactured and launched into space as soon as mid-2003, said Anatoly Karpov, president of the Moscow-based Air Launch Corp.

Karpov said the corporation will charge as little as $5,000 for each kilogram of payload, just 40 percent of what Western launch companies charge.

Robert Ivanov, Air Launch`s deputy general designer, said Tuesday that designers had solved a key problem on how to drop the 100-metric-ton rocket from a transport plane.

Initially, the corporation`s engineers had planned to build an 80-ton rocket and drag it out from the hold of an An-124-100 Ruslan cargo plane using a set of special parachutes, he said at a news conference.

However, it turned out that the largest parachutes available could pull only 20 tons out of an airborne plane, the designer said. Also, the corporation decided last year to increase the lift-off weight of the rocket from 80 tons to 100 tons to boost its cost-efficiency, Ivanov said.

``We were in a dilemma of whether to use five parachutes and face the risk of them getting caughtup in each other or to find a safer way of dropping the rocket,``Ivanov said.

Rather than struggle with parachutes, the corporation chose to develop a new technology to push the rocket out of the plane, he said.

This boils down to having air pressure push the rocket out of the plane, Ivanov said. He said the rocket will be put in a special container that will be integrated into the plane.

Ivanov said air pressure will be swiftly raised inside the container to literally push the rocket out into the sky at the appropriate time. Simultaneously, the plane will reach the top of a swift upward maneuver, when gravity is minimal, to ease the dropping of the rocket, he said.

The rocket will be able to deliver a payload of up to 3 tons to polar orbits of about 200 kilometers and up to 4 tons to equatorial orbits also of about 200 kilometers. Ultimately, the rocket will also be able to launch up to 400 kilograms to geostationary orbits, Ivanov said.

Air Launch vice president Sergei Mashurov said in a recent interview that his corporation needs some $120 million to complete the Air Launch project. He said his company is negotiating with U.S., European and South Asian investors to have them shoulder the costs, but would not provide any names.

Mashurov said each Polyot launch will be priced at around $20 million with a potential demand for up to 11 launches every year. Mashurov said the costs of the project will be recovered in as little as four years if 11 launches are sold annually.

The corporation, which was set up in May 1999 by Polyot airlines and the Design Bureau of Chemical Automatics, which are both based in Voronezh, central Russia, has just sent out technical requirements to its contractors and the latter are already at work on the project, Ivanov said.

Among these contractors is rocket space corporation Energia of Korolyov, outside Moscow, which is to design and assemble the entire rocket and the launch container, Ivanov said. Energia is also to provide a low-temperature engine for the launcher's second stage, he said. The first-stage engine will be provided by the Kuznetsov Scientific Technical Complex of Samara, central Russia, Ivanov said in a telephone interview.

The Antonov design bureau of Kiev, which designed the Ruslan plane, is responsible for converting two of these cargo planes to accommodate Polyot launch containers, Ivanov said.

Also the Pilyugin Scientific Production Bureau of Automated Engineering of Moscow is designing and will manufacture control systems for the rocket, he said. TsSKB-Progress of Samara will integrate spacecraft into the rocket, Ivanov said.

Mashurov said he expects the would-be Air Launch system to win a decent share of the market for light-weight spacecraft launches. He said some 1,800 of such craft are expected to be launched between 2000 and 2015 for a total of anywhere between $10 billion to $15 billion."

(source: Moscow Times, May 24, 2000)

39 posted on 02/01/2003 8:52:28 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: dts32041
any other public paid for conveyance with that miserable of a safety record.

The only thing that comes quickly to mind are the Navy dirigibles Akron and Macon. The Akron crashed 4 April 1933 on her 74th flight. The Macon's final flight also ended in a crash on 12 February 1935, on her 54th flight.

The Macon's flight ended the Navy's rigid airship program, though they continued to fly nonrigid blimps until 31 August 1962 with a much better safety record.

41 posted on 02/01/2003 8:53:55 PM PST by Denver Ditdat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts; Centurion2000
The advertising--TV rights etc would pay a lot and for example 15% of a billion dollars is still 150 million dollars bonus profit. My proposal is to cover all expenses and offer a 15% bonus. So the 15% would be pure profit will all expenses of the Mars trip payed off.
42 posted on 02/01/2003 8:56:31 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Russians seem to enjoy building gargantuan hardware. Their 58 megaton nuke they set off in the 60s was dropped from a bomber. That was a huge contraption.
43 posted on 02/01/2003 8:57:48 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RightWhale
As the article I just posted shows-they can also build small cheap stuff too.
44 posted on 02/01/2003 8:59:14 PM PST by Destro
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: silverlizzard
shut it down

That isn't in the cards; a fresh, new program to explore and develop outer space with renewed American determination is. International cooperation will be welcomed. Foreign astronauts will be encouraged to participate.

Israel was very proud of their astronaut and happy to participate with the American space program. They will be more than pleased to continue, especially considering the sacrifices made by all parties. The bond is stronger than ever.

45 posted on 02/01/2003 9:03:21 PM PST by RightWhale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Privatize NASA
Gee, how original; what does this make, 10 or 12 times you've posted that same rant today?
46 posted on 02/01/2003 9:04:48 PM PST by Howlin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Destro
. So the 15% would be pure profit will all expenses of the Mars trip payed off.

You can make 15% selling toothpaste. Further, a billion dollars won't even get you started. The R & D alone would cost many times that.

Imagine yourself sitting in front of the board of directors proposing to put all of the assets of the company on the line for a 15% profit if you succeed. Now imagine convincing a bunch of bankers to finance this project.

Boeing is having some dificulties getting financing for its next generation passenger jumbo jet because of the huge costs. There is simply no company which can or would take this kind of risk.

47 posted on 02/01/2003 9:07:50 PM PST by CharacterCounts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Destro
The Russians have built boosters that only cost around $800/lb. to LEO. Of course we negotiated a deal with them that artificially raised launch costs.

Open the Space Frontier, Buy Russian

48 posted on 02/01/2003 9:11:12 PM PST by Brett66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Lord Voldemort
Plus powdered graphite is corrosive. Doesn't make that great a difference in your home or office, but in a weightless atmoshpere with thousands of moving parts it could make a difference.
49 posted on 02/01/2003 9:11:39 PM PST by Hillarys Gate Cult ("Read Hillary's hips. I never had sex with that woman.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Destro
Bump for a later read
50 posted on 02/01/2003 9:12:43 PM PST by Brad C.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-141 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson