Posted on 02/01/2003 8:02:03 PM PST by 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.
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.
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.
"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
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.
The real advantage of unmanned flight is that you don't have to factor human safety into major decisions.
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.
I cannot imagine any private company that would attempt this for a mere 15% return on investment.
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.
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.
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.