get rid of the shuttle!

[cyrostir]

I just want to say that the shuttle is a huge waste of $ when we could be focusing on exploration...also, think of the Russian Soyuz, costs a buttload less and its been doing the work of the shuttle for at least 4 years now..... Just my opinion. I know that the shuttle can hold more people and transport more, but it is not as efficient...cost tons more that it can make up for........Think of the space programs of the 60's and 70's simple concept, and efficient in the way it was executed.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>also, think of the Russian Soyuz, costs a buttload less and its been doing the work of the shuttle for at least 4 years now<<br /><br />Errrrrr, No. I'm not sure what angle you're looking at this...but that statement above doesn't really go all that far in validating your argument, given how stupid that is.<br /><br />Shuttle/Orbiter - think Crew and Cargo<br />Soyux - can't do the cargo and can only take up three people.<br /><br />

 

[grooble]

Well it'll be retired in a half decade. But i still have a feeling it won't fly this year for one reason or another, and then someone will decide to just cancel it in 2006. <br /><br />I only say that though cos of a $10 bet i made <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />.

 

[cyrostir]

errr no what....no it doesnt cost less or no it hasnt been doing the work of the shuttle? um there hasn't been any shuttle launch since feb 2003....so therefore the shuttle could not have done any mission taking supplies to the ISS.....<br /><br />"Soyuz is the longest serving manned spacecraft in the world. Soyuz has built up a strong safety record. Its last fatal flight was in 1971 when three cosmonauts died during re-entry. Shuttles have had fatal flights in 1986 and 2003 with a total loss of 14 astronauts. " -http://www.spacetoday.org/SpcStns/SoyuzTransport.html<br /><br />

 

[shyningnight]

I believe the gentlemans primary point was this;<br /><br />The Space Shuttle can do so many missions that the Soyuz CAN'T (at any price), that there is no comparison.<br /><br />If ALL you want to do is move 3 people back and forth to the ISS, then yes, the Soyuz is hands down a cheaper way to do that.<br /><br />Want to add a module or significant tonnage of supplies to the ISS? Soyuz can't.<br />Want to bring 7 people to the ISS in one shot? Soyuz can't.<br />The list goes on..<br /><br />I am also of the opinion that the Shuttle is about 10 years past due for a replacement system, or rather SYSTEMS plural to replace it's capability. <br />But you don't do that by scrapping the Shuttle immediately, with nothing on the table to replace it in ALL of it's capabilities.<br /><br />Soyuz or other craft can pick up PART of the load, but it's gonna be a few years yet before we have even part of the Shuttle's capabilities replaced.<br /><br />Yes, the Shuttle is overly expensive.. that's why I say we're more than a decade late in starting a replacement (One system, or several)...<br />That doesn't mean "dump it now".<br /><br />Paul F.

 

[ltm_se]

Dont get me wrong here. I am a bit fan of the shuttle but i have to agree with the author of this thread. <br /><br />The Soyus is a very good taxi for manned transport to and from the ISS. Actually i belive its the best solution for this task. But the Soyus booster can also carry cargo instead of a manned capsule. Ok it has its limitation [not beeing heavy enought for heavy lifting] but there are alternatives from boeing, molnyia etc.<br /><br />I love the shuttle because of its complexity and all-around capabilities but if i were an american taxpayer i would maybe not be so happy about it.<br /><br />Btw. Does anyone know how much on average a Buran-Energia launch would cost if they hadn't retired the whole program?<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[crossovermaniac]

<font color="yellow">Shuttle/Orbiter - think Crew and Cargo<br />Soyux - can't do the cargo and can only take up three people. </font><br /><br />They launch the Soyuz for $40 million per launch. Compare that to launching seven people on the shuttle for $500 million per launch. Not much a deal there. And cargo can be launched on expendable launch vehicles for less.

 

[mattblack]

Not yet, not until at least 3 missions beyond U.S. ISS Core Complete. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

This is a laughable thread.<br /><br />You CANNOT compare the Space Shuttle with Soyuz.<br /><br />It's like comparing American Football and Rugby. There's just some pointless shuttle bashing here.<br /><br /> />so therefore the shuttle could not have done any mission taking supplies to the ISS<<br /><br />The shuttle is NOT a supply ship in the same way Progress or Soyuz are. The Shuttle is taking up the hardware.<br /><br />Trying to say the Soyuz is safer by through the 14 dead astronaunt card at this thread is insulting.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The Shuttle is taking up the hardware."<br /><br />Except for the hardware which was too large for the Shuttle, which was carried up by the Russian Proton booster. <br /><br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

"The point is, they were all good programs, but nowhere close to being safe and simple! "<br /><br />What is the full history of the Space Shuttle? We all know about the Challenger and Columbia disasters, but have there ever been any near miss situations similar to those of the earlier space programs you just recounted? I seem to recall there was at least one incident where a mid-boost abort was barely avoided thanks to piloting of some women Shuttle pilot.

 

[cyrostir]

shuttle_RTF do you work for nasa? is that why you are so angry? I am not bashing the shuttle at all, I am pointing out the cost/efficiency problems that I think should be questioned....<br /><br />I know the shuttle has done some great things...but all this money can be focused on creating a new vehicle, one that has the efficiency of a program like soyuz....<br /><br />my point about the missions during the 60's is that we had a focused goal, and we reached it......the shuttle program had no goal, until the Columbia incident.......now the goal is "to return to flight"

 

[spacefire]

Develop a Lifting Body SSTO!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I only see one post from Shuttle Guy on this thread, and he was correcting some mistakes someone made in the previous post. I do not see any "anger" from SG.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[cyrostir]

mybad, it was shuttle_RTF

 

[shuttle_rtf]

No, I wish <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />I'm not disagreeing on cost - that's obvious...but you're comparing an 18-wheeler truck with a 1000cc car. Also to claim by paraphrase that the Shuttle is a failure because of the 14 dead astronaunts is insulting their memory and the amazing things the STS program has achieved. <br /><br />I know it's a usual argument of those who want us to send probes out to take pretty pictures of moons - when they see the budget - but the vision of exploration deals with it all.

 

[cyrostir]

im all for manned missions to the moon and beyond

 

[shuttle_rtf]

As do I.

 

[cyrostir]

it just seems like there is nothing left for the shuttle to do, with soyuz supplying it regularly with people + supplies....<br />we should shift our $$$ towards manned spacecraft able to get to the moon and back

 

[shuttle_rtf]

They have - in a way - already.<br /><br />Shuttle: 28 flight mandate<br />CEV - to be ready between 2010-2014<br /><br />If you mean ground the Shuttle now, then you've lost Hubble (not sure if you're bothered about Hubble), and the ISS is going to be in a mess as far as construction (remember, the majority of the parts are built with the Shuttle payload in mind).<br /><br />The ISS has a role to play in manned spaceflight to the Moon and Mars given long-duration time in space - and the effects thereof.<br /><br />So to me, it does work in timeline for a progression towards that goal of manned spaceflight to the Moon and Mars.<br /><br />It's clear that the three Orbiters are going to earn their well deserved retirement in museums (hopefully one will go on a World Tour on the back of a STA - like Enterprise did), and that it'll be by 2010-11....with the CEV kicking in hopefully not that long after.<br /><br />Pretend we cancelled RTF and stopped the STS now. <br /><br />1) We'd of then wasted billions on RTF efforts.<br />2) We'd of lost all ISS construction plans that are currently set in stone.<br />3) We'd lose billions in contract commitments relevant to the Shuttle and ISS constructions and obligations.<br />4) We'd of 'given up' post STS-107 (a non costed insult to McCool, Husband etc. in my opinion.)<br />5) We'd have a big gap of no-manned spaceflight out of NASA for many years (Griffin already noted this problem when looking back at the gap between Apollo and STS).<br /><br />...and all the knock on effects...not least the thousands that work at KSC etc, on the STS. ...maybe 10,000s of workers in all the knock-on areas that support STS........and how much experience and priceless expertise would the US lose from that?

 

[shuttle_rtf]

And just a side note on the two Shuttle losses and the 14 brave astronauts we've lost.<br /><br />We all know spaceflight is never going to be 'safe' for ages. It can only be "as safe as can be made".<br /><br />113 Shuttle launches - I class the achievements as a testimony to STS and the people that work on them.<br /><br />I've been following STS since 1986 and I'm still nowhere near close to knowing how it all works. The vast amount of complexity involved - added to the pure power involved - means that I personally see every single successful mission as a testimony to what America can achieve when it puts money and brains together.<br /><br />Maybe I focus too much on the positives - but if we focused on the negatives, we'll never leave LEO again.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Not too fussy - so long as these ladies are given the respect they are deserving of. Anything but a radio show auction to some movie star that wants to treat it as an expensive playground (Like Buran's sister nearly was).<br /><br />I want to get up close and personal with an Orbiter before I die.

 

[starbaby57]

Me three. May they all live long, cherished lives to the wonderment of millions of visitors to space flight museums. I hope to visit all three, but I am really hoping the the Boeing Museum of Flight in Seattle gets one (my back yard). My feelings about the shuttle are stated better than I could ever say by the beautiful eulogy for the crew of Columbia, and Columbia herself by her first pilot-Bob Crippen. It brings tears to my eyes every time I watch him struggle to get the words out...

 

[juliemac]

Just dumping the shuttle would be a mistake. With 113 flights and 2 accidents? It and all of the astronauts and support engineers have far too much work still to be done.<br />Finish the ISS, boost the parts of the lander to the ISS area, assemble it there and then go to the moon. It does not need to be pretty or aerodynamic like the lander in "2001-A Space Oddessy".<br />

 

[najab]

><i>it just seems like there is nothing left for the shuttle to do, with soyuz supplying it regularly with people + supplies.... </i><p>Neither Soyuz, Progress, HTV nor ATV can bring lab racks up to the station - they are too big for any of those vehicles. None of them can bring any significant amout of cargo <b>back</b> down either.</p>