NASA Grounds Shuttle Fleet While Probing Columbia Disaster

voanews.com ^ | 02 Feb 2003, 01:22 UTC | David McAlary

[isthisnickcool]

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.

Your post brought this Urban legend to mind.

[withteeth]

You remind me of how FR used to be. Excellent post.

[eclectic]

The only thing that comes quickly to mind are the Navy dirigibles Akron and Macon

True, if sad, analogy. One time is a chance, two times is a system...

I am all for human space exploration but I do not think that shuttles should be flown ever again. The Space Shuttle is obsolete. The fact that NASA has no alternative now does not speak kindly for their planning abilities. It looks like human space flight is set back by decades as a result of the NASA approach.

I've heard that O'Keefe has reputation of a "bean counter". Not exactly the right qualifications for a leader of space exploration. He is the guy who scuttled X-33 BTW. They planned to fly the shuttles for 15 more years! This disaster was bound to happen...

[Regulator]

For a "tin can on a bunch of bottle rockets" it does just fine. The Soyuz line now has in excess of 1000 launches and miniscule failure rate. Nothing like building a thousand or so of something to get it right.

The Russian philosophy on space vehicles is build them simple and strong, and test the crap out of them. That is very similar to the old American attitude as exemplified by the Boeing development of the B-29, the B-47, and the B-707.

The Soyuz rocket and capsule system does its job just fine: it gets people into space and back down again reliably. That's it. That's all you need to do. They don't try to fly an incredibly complex machine operating near the edge of its capability. There's a lot to be said for that.

[Destro]

NASA and the Space Shuttle program have a hold on people that is more emotional than logical. The facts are America only competes with its promise. We have no equal, but measured against what should have been and what is--we failed ourselves (if I could use the royal we in this way). The truth is the Russians as crippled as they are can outperform us in many respects and many can't buy into that.

[Destro]

Thank you. I try and be jingo free. I consider FreeRepublic a problem solving and anger venting forum.

[Alberta's Child]

LOL. I saw that somewhere earlier today.

[lavaroise]

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 all depends on the mission and what you want to do. If you want to commercialize space, you use the shuttle and technologies. If you want to make survival missions, then you use rockets and simplicity.

It is like choosing between being a survivalist or a surgeon. The missions are different and the tools of surgery are markedly different. You are comparing Apples and Oranges.

[Destro]

If you want to commercialize space, you use the shuttle and technologies.

That is pure garbage. The shuttle makes satellite placement what 100 -- 200 percent more expensive than disposable rockets?

[El Gato]

current technological and budget limits

The most important of those limits are not the current ones, but the one imposed by Presidents Nixon and Carter, when the shuttle was designed. Lots of factors led to a "spend money later during operations rather than during design and production" attitude. One major example, directly related to the Challenger disaster, was that the Shuttle was originally to have a fly back booster, rather than the solid rocket motors that they ended up with. The shuttle is th only manned spacecraft to ever use solid rockets, and it uses the largest diameter ones every made (for production at least). Even then, logistical considerations meant that the SRBs are not as large in diameter as the designers might have wished.

[El Gato]

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

Indeed, it was "a generation behind" when the first one flew, and like the rest of the Soviet/Russian space program, doesn't have all that great a safety record either.

[El Gato]

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.

The Soyuz is a capsule, not a booster. The Russians do have some big boosters, although nothing in Saturn V class, not that works that is.

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

And if you and Lamar Smith (Rep. Texas) get your way, we never will be, now will we?

The only way something "disposable" makes any sense at all is if it leaves the booster on the ground. Say using a great big ass laser for example.

[El Gato]

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

Umm, Boeing bought MacDac about 4-5 years ago, it was in all the papers. Perhaps you meant Boeing and LocMart? Those being about the only games in town when it come building things that fly, not counting things that beat the air into submission with Rotors, although many of those are Boeing birds too,and none are LockMart)

[Destro]

Lets just call it Russian rocket and be done with it?

[El Gato]

Russians seem to enjoy building gargantuan hardware.

Well they really didn't have any choice, their first H-bombs were big suckers and so they had to build big rockets to carry them. Some of that they did by simpley stacking together lots of (relatively) small rocket engines.

I mis-stated above, the Soyuz is a rocket as well as a capsule, the design goes back to the early Soviet ICBMs, IOW to the late '50s early 60s.

[ganesha]

The Russians have the largest payload capacity boosters period. Larger cargo payloads than the space shuttle. I do not know the name of this rocket off hand though.

It's called Energia

[widgysoft]

The Energia carries the space shuttle Buran. The russians should make it a priority to get them working again.

[I_dmc]

Of course if aurora is ready to be unveiled that technology could easily be transferred to a space vehicle.

I was under the impression that the X-30 and the Aurora where vastly similar.

[George W. Bush]

Keep an eye on Energia. They still have the big Energia boosters (launchers for the giant Buran space shuttle). Those launchers can put hundreds of tons into orbit in a single lift. In just 3 launches, they could put up the entire space station instead of our 38 shuttle trips. These boosters could put 30 tons in Mars orbit on a single launch.

The Russians are making $100 million a launch now, sending Western satellites into space. And they're plowing the money into development of Energia. Personally, I'd like to see them succeed. The grounding of our shuttle just helps them even more.

[George W. Bush]

Original estimates on shuttle safety were that we'd lose one shuttle every 75 flights. So, it turns out the real figure is one shuttle and crew lost about every 50 flights. That isn't cause to cancel it.

We should look for immediate causes and do thorough inspections but maintain our launch schedule. Our astronauts know the risks. Space is dangerous. We need to continue the manned exploration of space and establish a permanent manned presence in space. We need to build a new and better fleet of manned space transports. And we need to develop (or buy from Russia) the heavy boosters needed to launch large unmanned craft to carry space station parts more economically.

Maintain the launch schedules with volunteer astronauts. And prepare a diverse new generation of more cost effective and safer space vehicles.