bets on 3rd shuttle tragedy, or program is grounded before?

[bonzelite]

what will it take, then? the 3rd tragedy, or a grounding of the fleet due to obsolescence? they seem raring to go to get her back up there and flying, regardless of the sentiments.

 

[qso1]

A third tragedy would ground the shuttle permanently. But a third tragedy could occur on the very next flight, or it may not occur at all. Consider how many flights were made between Challenger and Columbia.<br /><br />The fleet wont be grounded due to obsolescense. Contrary to popular opinion, the shuttle fleet is not obsolete as a function of age. Each orbiter was originally planned to make at least 100 flights. Nobody else in the world but Russia ever developed one, so technically, shuttle is still an advanced albiet aging vehicle/system. We have not succeeded in developing a replacement so its the most advanced aerospacecraft in operational use.<br /><br />I think the idea that they seem to be rarin to go back is a reflection of the fact that if we don't, manned spaceflight is dead in America. We've been stringin it along for decades on small budgets driven by a false argument. IMO, the lunar effort now being planned is gonna have a very tough time getting developed once a new Presidential Administration takes office. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[dragon04]

From what I see, NASA is pretty committed to hauling remaining ISS components up to orbit, and Congress would like to see Hubble fixed.<br /><br />Although I think that anything that would cause yet another 12 month (or more) delay would pretty much end the STS program. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

I think the aging problem is more serious than the obsolecence issue. As you correctly point out, the Orbiters are far from obsolete. Sure, there are vastly more powerful space-capable computers available today. (My company manufactures some. They make the Orbiter general-purpose computers look like pocket calculators.) But it is not neccesary to upgrade; they do the job they were designed to do, and they do it very well. Newer computers may outperform them in bench tests, but would not outperform in flight. The gains would be insignificant.<br /><br />The SSMEs are cutting edge; that technology advances very slowly, and unlike the computers, they actually have been upgraded. The Block 2 SSMEs are wonderful machines.<br /><br />The cockpits have all been upgraded to EFIS ("glass cockpit") systems, bringing them up to the current state of the art. This upgrade was a huge improvement in useability for the commander and pilot, but should not need upgrading again for a good long while.<br /><br />Go through all the systems, and this is the trend you'll find. What needed upgrading has already been upgraded, and the rest is either perfectly adequate for the job, or is still cutting edge thirty years later. But all is not copacetic. Time takes its toll, just as flights take their toll, and testing takes its toll. There is corrosion, there is wear, there is fatigue. Eventually, these things will dictate the retirement of the system, if money or politics doesn't dictate it first. And there's what will really end it, in my opinion: money or politics.<br /><br />A third tragedy would probably kill the program; for one thing, with only three Orbiters they are hard pressed to turn them around quick enough. For another, it would be grist for anyone who wants the program shut down (for one reason or another). I'm inclined to doubt a third tragedy will occur, although realistically there is always the chance of one. In that case, it will be money and/or politics that does <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

CalliArcale:<br />if money or politics doesn't dictate it first. And there's what will really end it, in my opinion: money or politics.<br /><br />Me:<br />What I call the cost barrier where human space flight is concerned. You stated very well, as always, the points I had in mind with regard to orbiter upgrades etc. And to add one other thing to the possibility of a third tragedy, even shuttle supporters (I being one of them) would have to ask if its really worth continuing when it would probably be better to end it and move on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[3488]

I agree. The Shuttle is far from obsolete, & I personally think that the system still has a useful life of many years yet. True, Challenger & Columbia were tragically lost, but think of the number of successful & safe missions between them (loads). The foam problem has to be fixed. I cannot beleive that it is beyond NASA to sort this. <br /><br />NASA are geniuses at this sort of thing, putting men on the moon, sending probes to the planets, sophisticated hardware in Earth orbit, etc. I fail to see how a bit of foam can thwart them. <br /><br />True the Shuttle will have to be retired at some point, but I do not think it is for a while yet. I doubt very much that there will be a third trajedy. Lessons have been & are being learnt all the time.<br /><br />Keep it up NASA, you are doing a SUPERB job. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[minotast]

"NASA are geniuses at this sort of thing, putting men on the moon, sending probes to the planets, sophisticated hardware in Earth orbit, etc. I fail to see how a bit of foam can thwart them."<br /><br />Fake atleast two missions to the moon, when the Soviets were obviously ahead at the time in terms of technology. <br /><br />Make you such a strong believer of their "Good" work. <br /><br />Spend so much money that could have been used to promote better education or better medicine or the construction of more hospitals and clinics. <br /><br />Yeah... NASA has done wonders for our society. Just pure wonders.

 

[sponge]

Minotast:<font color="yellow"> Fake atleast two missions to the moon, when the Soviets were obviously ahead at the time in terms of technology. <br /><br />Me:<font color="white">The Soviets are great engineers, but at this time I must say they were not ahead of the Americans. as history can quite clearly prove. After WWII, when Germany surrended, the Americans took most of their V2 Rocket Technology, as well as thier leading Rocket Scientist Wernher vonbraun, the Russians came in later and got the scraps, but I must admit with what little info the Russians got, they back engineered the rocket beautifully, However at the tme of the moon missions, id say that technology wise, the Americans were a step ahead, in introducing electronics. <br /><br /><br /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[sponge]

Minotast :<font color="yellow">Spend so much money that could have been used to promote better education or better medicine or the construction of more hospitals and clinics. <br /><br />Me:<font color="white"> Maybe, but IMO thats not coming from you that is political slogan, where would the world be now if there were not any explorers like James Cook , Marco Polo, Chris Colombus and so on and so on, bet people said that to them aswell, and just look at all the benefits to mankind in doing so. Imagine what we could come across out in the vast cosmos, seems like ive forgotten about the hospitals already.</font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[3488]

Could not agree more. I do not think that Space Exploration has caused any funding crises anywhere at all. The same old tiresome 'Faked Moon Mission' rears its head again. <br /><br />Think of the technological advances in Medicine, energy efficient electronics, improved understanding of natural cycles, etc. Without Space Exploration, I would doubt that medicine would have progressed much beyond the 1940's right now. <br /><br />Perhaps problems with Hospitals & Schools are incompetant managers, not budgetary. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080">"I suddenly noticed an anomaly to the left of Io, just off the rim of that world. It was extremely large with respect to the overall size of Io and crescent shaped. It seemed unbelievable that something that big had not been visible before".</font> <em><strong><font color="#000000">Linda Morabito </font></strong><font color="#800000">on discovering that the Jupiter moon Io was volcanically active. Friday 9th March 1979.</font></em></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://www.launchphotography.com/</font><br /><br /><font size="1" color="#000080">http://anthmartian.googlepages.com/thisislandearth</font></p><p><font size="1" color="#000080">http://web.me.com/meridianijournal</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Minotast:<br />Fake atleast two missions to the moon, when the Soviets were obviously ahead at the time in terms of technology. <br /><br />Me:<br />Look at the history of the space race and you may see why we beat Russia to the moon. Aside from our lead in technology, especially microminiaturization of electronics. There was the first cryogenic upper stage to be used (Centaur) which was built by us. This was instrumental in development of cryogenic upper stages for Saturns.<br /><br />On October 1961. We changed the rocket power equation in a single Saturn 1 launch. The R-7 derived Soyuz vehicle was Russias most powerful vehicle at that time as Proton didn't come along till 1965 and still didn't match Saturn.<br /><br />Then theres the manned Gemini missions. The key to winning the moon race. Russia seemed to have stopped shooting for the moon after its Voskhod missions, having no Gemini equivalent missions until it was basically too late.<br /><br />When they decided to join back into the moon race, the hastily tested N-1 resulted. 4 out of 4 failures. In light of this, we didn't need fake lunar missions nor would we need them if we could already go there.<br /><br />Minotast:<br />Spend so much money that could have been used to promote better education or better medicine or the construction of more hospitals and clinics.<br /><br />Me:<br />Indeed a noble argument, but a false one. If you look at NASA budget history since Apollo, you may just notice the consistent 50% drop since 1973-74. So in effect, we had the chance to improve society. Did we? Lets see...cancer has been joined by Legionairres disease and worse yet, aids. Poverty is doing better than ever. But wait, I haven't reached the best part. This isn't it but during the Reagan years, we ran consistent budget deficits and a $500 billion dollar tab on something called the S&L scandal. Then in the 1990s, Medicaid was being investigated for the loss of $12 billion dollars but said in its defense that they did better th <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[sponge]

qso1 : especially microminiaturization of electronics<br /><br /><br />Me: Ah i knew i was missing something out. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I'm inflating the NASA nearly 50 years of budgets again to $400 billion to cover anything I might have missed. My original estimate was $158B dollars spent on NASA in its entirety since 1958. The $400 B figure is still only one years worth of deficit spending and I never even mentioned the trade deficits which are much higher. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[sponge]

qso1:<font color="yellow"> I never even mentioned the trade deficits which are much higher.<br /><br /><br /><font color="white"> Dont think that matters too much qso1, after your little educational exercise, I dont think for some reason that you will get a reply. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><u>SPONGE</u></em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Not to worry, I'm not holding my breath waiting. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>