Not another shuttle bashing post, but seriously -

[CalliArcale]

Well, they don't want to abandon the ISS. Continuing to fly the Shuttle is the only way to get the ISS finished, and the risk is considered low enough. Heck, more people die building skyscrapers, but those keep going up.<br /><br />But once the ISS is finished, the plan is to retire the Shuttles. The reason they are not making fundamental changes to the Shuttle design right now is that there's no point given that they're planning to replace them *entirely*.<br /><br />Frankly, it astonishes me that so many Shuttle-bashers are evidently not even satisfied with the complete replacement of the system, as if this somehow doesn't count as getting "off [NASA's] lazy asses and think[ing] about coming up with some alternative plans." <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Me: I agree. How many more accidents and how many more good people will have to die before NASA staff get off their lazy asses and think about coming up with some alternative plans to current flawed shuttles?"<br /><br />1. There is one, it is called Constellation<br />2. What do you suggest?

 

[hearme]

What do I suggest? Simple, get the Government hands off NASA. This is a space science institution not a polotic entity. Government and NASA is like Government and religion. It's about time the divorce papers are filled out in courts. [smile face]

 

[jimfromnsf]

Simple, get the Government hands off NASA. This is a space science institution not a polotic entity. Government and NASA is like Government and religion. It's about time the divorce papers are filled out in courts."<br /><br />??????<br /><br />NASA is a gov't agency, just like the IRS, FAA or CDC

 

[icemanmd]

LOL yea kinda forgot about the no vacumme lol. I guess using the same test down here up there just wouldnt work. I just wish there was a better way. Is there a way the laser scan could tell if a tile was slid or moved from position or are the tiles not placed that perfect.<br /><br />Thank you Calli I been here on and off just havent posted anything in a long.......while. Well in earthing standards anyways....lol<br />

 

[docm]

My worry about the tiles: subsurface damage that will cause them to shatter during re-entry, as in spiderwebs of micro-cracks, opening a large gap in the TPS. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketscientist327]

Sadly, I see NASA getting pseudo-phased out. As companies like SpaceX figure out how to safely launch a rocket without all the political “BS†that NASA has to do, I think that NASA’s relevance will be minimized.<br /><br />How much will one Ares 1 launch cost compared to one Falcon 9 with a Dragon? In today’s political environment, NASA has to fight all sorts of pet projects (pork) just to try to get Ares 1 airborne by 2012? 2013? 2015? No one really knows because of all the political tap dancing and group speak & think. Dragon is currently slated for flights in quarter three in 2008, quarter two in 2009, and quarter three also in 2009. The last demo flight for NASA will be a full up supply mission to ISS.<br /><br />Clearly, if SpaceX experiences more problems the timeline pushes to the right. And honestly, if someone had a gun to my head right now, I would say it is slipping to the right. However, my two point is this:<br /><br />Point 1: Private companies are now doing what NASA should be doing but cannot because of (insert your favorite excuse here). They range from terrible leadership to politics to poor communication.<br /><br />Point 2: Private companies are more environmentally friendly.<br /><br />This is such a volatile issue for me because NASA is probably the best government program for dollar spent. The value of spin offs cannot be calculated. Again, it is so frigging frustrating to watch NASA slowly drown. On the bright side, I am not sure I could ever see NASA being axed due to places like Langley, JPL, and APL.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Rocket Scientist 327<br />

 

[rocketscientist327]

Edit: Double post. I appologize.

 

[no_way]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The value of spin offs cannot be calculated.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Yes, because the precision of regular 32-bit floating point is not enough for the value to not be lost in rounding errors <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[docm]

Without knowing their extent how can you know that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[hearme]

jimfromnsf: NASA is a gov't agency, just like the IRS, FAA or CDC.<br /><br />Me: That's right and that's why they have to sucker up to the White House boss to get any fund to make any improvement to their Government owned/controlled agency. That's exactly the point I am trying to drive thru; that's politics and science don't go together very well. Can you imagine Politicians in congress planning and executing war plans? I am not a NASA basher as I want to see NASA free of Politician control to be in any posotion to accomplish successful missions of space explorations. <br /><br />If NASA was able to safely send humans to and back from the Moon some 38 years ago then how come they're having problem doing it today? Ask yourself the question then let me know of your anwer.

 

[frodo1008]

Perhaps a little political science here might just keep you from making such misinformed statements!<br /><br />This country is a representative democracy, and NOBODY has as yet found a better type of government!. We elect representatives to do political and other things for us with free elections.<br /><br />One of the most important things that such representatives do is to over see how the money that we pay for the government is spent. In other words we elect congress to see that our tax dollars are spent the way we want them to be spent. <br /><br />This means (for good or bad, but I think in general for the good) that congress has direct over sight on such agencies as NASA that spend billions of tax dollars. So in order to divorse NASA from the government congress would have to cut ALL funding to NASA for ALL government spending (which mean ALL NASA spending).<br /><br />This should not be to difficult to understand.<br /><br />So unless you can find some way of coming up with some $18 billion year after year (a proposition that practically NO person could support no matter how rich), then NASA is going to have to remain a government funded agency, which means (for good I think) that NASA is going to remain under the control of our elected representatives!<br /><br />Understood????

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If NASA was able to safely send humans to and back from the Moon some 38 years ago then how come they're having problem doing it today? "<br /><br />Explain Apollo 1 and 13

 

[frodo1008]

I apologize, I misunderstood what you were saying. Yes, if there is another fatal accident then the shuttle program will be shut down. I would like to think that even you don't want to see that happen!!<br /><br />Short of that the shuttle WILL be used to finish the ISS. The ONLY possibility if the foam problem continues in a non fatal manner is that the Hubble flight might be canceled, but I am certain that you of all people would not want to see that happen either. <br /><br />Now, in the even that a fatal accident happens, NASA is still not going to be able to just abandon the ISS either. Especially as there are at least some $10 billion dollars worth of not only NASA equipment, but the laboratories of several other partners also that would be uselessly stranded at the Cape. <br /><br />They would have to immediately cut the shuttle funding to accelerate the next launch system(s) to get up to ISS with people. And then contract with anybody (UAL for Delta IV Heavy, and possibly Atlas V Heavy, as well as possibly Ariane V or Russian Heavy launchers) to be able to launch the remaining parts of the ISS up to the ISS itself. I know this would take time and probably change the ISS construction schedule considerably, but this is exactly the kind oc challenge that NASA has (at least in the past) shown itself to be capable of handling!<br /><br />Hopefully, somebody at NASA has already been thinking about this possibility!!<br /><br />But, I think that we all would hope and pray that this does NOT become necessary. And YES, if you want to know, I do think there IS a risk involved, but I also believe it to be an acceptable risk!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Explain Apollo 1 and 13</font>/i><br /><br />I agree. Apollo was very risky. I recall hearing/reading that when one of the wives of Apollo 11 (?) asked one of the managers what the probability of them coming back alive, he estimated 50-50 (or something like that... can someone clarify/correct please?).<br /><br />The point is, we look back through rose colored glasses at a very small number of launches of Apollo and declare it a success, but it was still very dangerous.</i>

 

[JonClarke]

Very true. Imagine the media angst that would have occurred over the Apollo 12 parachutes had it occurred on a present day mission.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[askold]

"They would have to immediately cut the shuttle funding to accelerate the next launch system(s) to get up to ISS with people."<br /><br />At the risk of sounding like 20-20 hindsight - if you had taken all the money NASA spent since Columbia patching up the shuttle (including the standing army), you could have built a new launch vehicle and had money left over.

 

[frodo1008]

You are correct in that hindsight really does now one any good at this stage.<br /><br />However, I also think that you are somewhat underestimating how much such a new system is going to cost. <br /><br />But there IS going to have to be a cost if mankind is ever going to have a space faring civilization. <br /><br />The shuttle and ISS will have been well worth this cost if they will have just kept the Dream itself alive through these difficult years for those of us that believe in the Dream at all that is (and I even think that in your own way you do!).<br /><br />Tel me, is future history (500 years from now or more) going to remember our age for such things as Apollo, shuttle, ISS, and those marvelous robotic explorers. Or is history going to remember us for our many many useless and stupid wars?<br /><br />Being an idealistic optimist, I think the first part!!!

 

[askold]

And on that encouraging note maybe we should put this thread to rest - having discussed this topic more than adequately....

 

[frodo1008]

Something we can indeed agree on!

 

[cuddlyrocket]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And then contract with anybody (UAL for Delta IV Heavy, and possibly Atlas V Heavy, as well as possibly Ariane V or Russian Heavy launchers) to be able to launch the remaining parts of the ISS up to the ISS itself.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I don't think that's possible, is it? My understanding is that the remaining components were designed to be launched in the Shuttle's cargo bay and cannot simply be transferred to a RLV as the loadings would be very different requiring different support points that would necessitate a re-design.

 

[jimfromnsf]

Nor is there a way (like an OMV) to get the components to the station once they are in orbit.

 

[kdavis007]

You are probably upset the shuttle didn't exploded..

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Because the loads are known. </font><br /><br />Yes, but the degree of subsurface damage from the impact couldn't be. It could be guesstimated, but not known. You guys got lucky. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

But to put it in perspective, it's smaller than a hocky puck, on an area that doesn't get too hot. If it were on a leading edge it would be totally different, but on the underside of the Orbiter, near center mass, it's not really a big deal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>