Poll: Support of the STS - An SDC Poll

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Not that I'm making this an SDC issue (as I do like this site a lot), but I've personally never seen so much distain for the Space Shuttle in one place before.<br /><br />I'm not sure if it's just a vocal section of posters who've managed to secure this mentality as the majority opinion on this particular forum - or if it's simply is indeed the majority of users on this site.<br /><br />So time for a poll - and we'll see how different it is to the USA Today poll!<br /><br />I've given a third option as I want people to take the yes or no option by way of their absolute opinion, rather than a half hearted yes or no.<br /><br />Supporting the STS does not mean "I want it flying 'till 2030" - voting yes is saying you support it's achievements and its planned retirement of 2010.<br /><br />Voting no means you think it's was a waste of money and now a burden that needs to be gotten rid of asap (now - to within two years).<br /><br />There are no prizes for guessing which option I took <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />PS If you vote no, please provide your name and address, so I can come round and slap you with a wet fish <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><span method="POST" action="/dopoll.php"></span>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Support of the STS (Total Votes: 1)<br />Yes, I support the STS <br /> 1 (100%)<br />No, I want it scrapping <br /> 0 (0%)<br />I'm indifferent to it <br /> 0 (0%)<br /><br />100 per cent STS support. I take it all back. Thank you all for your votes.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
T

tap_sa

Guest
Voted yes, but with a condition. I'd like to see the remaining orbiters end up as hangar queens ten years ago, but OTOH hope they keep them flying to haul up at least the already finished parts of ISS waiting for transport. It would seem an awful waste to scrap ISS or leave it as is, half ready barely able to support skeleton crew. I'd like to see US ordering Progress flights from Russia to do the mundane consumable runs and have STS to carry heavy ISS parts on every remaining flight, in order to finish the job asap.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>I'd like to see US ordering Progress flights from Russia to do the mundane consumable runs and have STS to carry heavy ISS parts on every remaining flight, in order to finish the job asap.<<br /><br />I think that's kinda where we are now? Bar "test flights" STS-114 and STS-121, plus the potential HSM.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
I applaud your support for the STS, but it's time to move on.<br /><br />The STS is a marvel of engineering. The fact that it performs as well as it does always amazes me. Had it lived up to its promise it would indeed be the answer to our space transportation needs. How many CEV capsules could be put in the cargo bay? How useful could it be toward achieving success in the VSE?<br /><br />Alas, it has proven to be too fragile, too complicated and too expensive. Between the STS and the ISS, US human spaceflight has been stuck in LEO for over 30 years with each program justifying the other's existence to a highly questionable end.<br /><br />I'd like to see the ISS used to seriously develop ways to live in space, but the real challenges are in developing off-Earth resources. I haven't seen any indication that ISS is going to be used for this. As has been said by others, there is already a space station out there. It's called the Moon. It just needs a little development. It also has the potential for useful resources to help sustain humans there. ISS doesn't have that.<br /><br />IMO, it's not a question of supporting or not supporting the STS. The ISS needs to be brought to a state of completion that reasonably satisfies international agreements. The STS is the only vehicle capable of performing that function. The sooner ISS is completed the sooner we get to go somewhere beyond LEO.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
V

vt_hokie

Guest
I voted yes, but also agree with what "Tap_Sa" said. <br /><br />Also, if I could turn the clock back to 1972 and decide what direction NASA should take, with the benefit of hindsight, I would not have scrapped Apollo in favor the shuttle. However, I would have put a hiatus on lunar flights after the remaining planned missions were flown (what were there, 2 or 3 more lunar missions that were planned?), and used the Saturn V to launch not only Skylab, but Skylab II, III etc. We could have built some impressive stuff in LEO using the Saturn V! Also, I would choose to develop a small reusable space plane along the lines of the "Dyna-Soar" for crew transport to/from the orbiting Skylab, launched on a Saturn 1B or whatever launch vehicle best filled that role.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>Yes, that is where we are now. In addition will hopefuly will start to see the ESA ATV help out the ISS.<<br /><br />ESA's been rather muted on the ATV...anyone seen a recent update?
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
I think it's worth noting that supporting the STS does not detract from supporting the move to the CEV.<br /><br />That has to be done, that's the progression curve to the next stage of where NASA is going.<br /><br />The transition is all important, imho. Especially when one considers elements of the STS are continuing with the CEV and later with the SDLV. That's one problem I've got with people who want it scrapped now.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>I, of course, voted yes.<<br /><br />I think I might of gone turned off the PCs and gone to the pub to get extreemly drunk if you'd voted no, SG! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />7-0 in support of the STS so far. However, I'm waiting for that to change. Maybe all the bashers live in California or something <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />No shocks on the mirrored poll on NSF.<br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=516
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
You'll get no argument on that from an Englishman <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
Yes, I voted yes and I'm proud of it.<br /><br />Going to Drezo's computer analogy, the mini computers and then the micros made the whole transition possible for computers.<br /><br />Integrated Circuits and then large scale integrated circuits and most importantly, the developement of the microprocessor made the whole transition possible.<br /><br />I would say that the Elon Musk's of the world would be the equivalent of the mini computers in the computer analogy. The mini's just started the first of the transition to the world we live in today.<br /><br />The micro's really started the revolution and got the momentum going.<br /><br />Going back to rockets, when we have the technology to get the payload mass fraction up to and I'm guessing here, say 50%, then we will really start to see the revolution start.<br /><br />Remember that the microprocessor was invented in, what 1972-73 time frame? And it took 30+ years from that event to reach where we are now.<br /><br />So, maybe we start our 30 year clock when mass fraction reaches 50%.... Ouch<br /><br />NASA is doing good work right now and I support them. Remember that in the computer world the first compilers COBOL, and FORTRAN were developed for mainframes. The whole theory of how to build compilers has it's very foundation in mainframes.<br /><br />NASA is putting together our foundation, so that when the microprocessor of the rocket world finally gets invented, we already have a foundation built, were not starting from ground zero.<br /><br />So, yes the Shuttle was an absolutley essential vehicle. It wasn't what we really wanted. But then Columbus probably didn't get the ships he really wanted. He got what he could afford with the funds that he had.
 
R

rvastro

Guest
I voted yes. The shuttle is a marvalous vehicle and I have yet to see a spacecraft that can match its ablilities to repair, construct, and fly payloads of differnt types. I will be sad to see her retired in 2010, but the moon and Mars await.
 
V

vogon13

Guest
Orion beats 50% with nineteen fifties technology.<br /><br />Pennies per pound to LEO, 4000 <b>tons</b> at a time.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
That's a great comment. <br /><br />Current standings:<br /> Yes-No<br />SDC 14-3<br />NSF 10-0
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
So you voted yes?<br /><br />Because that statement does not support scrapping the STS now. The STS IS moving aside for the Moon (cause that's only as far as NASA's plans go right now).<br /><br />If you voted no, you're going to have to note what you did last night (waste of money etc.etc.)<br /><br />I know you can write, so you can do better than "Show some dignity" - which makes zero sense in the context of this subject.
 
F

franson_space

Guest
Yes from me, but you already knew that <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
How would you propose the years (up to six) of downtime in NASA's manned space flight would be made into a good thing?<br /><br /><br />Yes-No-Indifferent<br /><br />SDC 18-4-1<br />NSF 12-0<br /><br />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
You mean rides on Soyuz?...........................to the ISS?
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Ok, so STS-121 is a must first, then a HSM. That's two flights in six years IF the CEV can reach the 2012 debut. However, if the ISS is a no go, then you're talking nothing till 2018 for the moon mission. <br /><br />Surely you can see how daft this all sounds?
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>Increase funding towards the other projects.<<br /><br />This is the crux of the issue. While the CEV etc. still has to be designed, built, tested etc.etc (so it's not going to happen vastly sooner than they say) the notion that any money NASA saves will go back into NASA is something too many people who know about the workings of Federal Government say is simply a pipe dream.<br /><br />Counter that if you want as I'm going on secondary info there...and I'm not a US tax payer (UK tax payers have their own issues with money going to the French to pay with ESA).<br /><br />What have you heard about the British Space Program.....exactly! Everyone over here knows what NASA is, but hardly anyone knows what ESA is, nevermind has an interest in it.
 
G

gpurcell

Guest
Shuttle guy is absolutely right. Griffin is threading a needle here. The only way to keep up sufficient political support for manned spaceflight is to keep the money and jobs flowing to existing contractors. If you simply stopped that, then support will vanish and NASAs budget WILL be slashed.<br /><br />OTOH, the Shuttle clearly is on its last legs as an operational vehicle and must be replaced as quickly as possible.<br /><br />The ESAS is, in my opinion, an elegant way to accomplish this. It uses the best parts of the shuttle infrastructure (very reliable SRBs and SSMEs) and allows an orderly transition to a much more robust system that eliminates the inherent fragility of the orbiter. A phased standdown of the orbiter fleet will also help the transition by allowing funds to flow to CEV development in a politically sustainable way.<br /><br />By the end of the Bush Administration, if we're lucky, the shuttle fleet will have moved significantly towards retirement (so a new Administration can't try to keep it limping along) while CEV development will have proceeded to the point that it doesn't make sense to shut it down (e.g. atmospheric drop tests, etc.) At that point you AT LEAST have the shuttle replacement on the horizon, you have a reduced cost vehicle, and you have funds you can shift to developing the HLV.
 
B

barrykirk

Guest
Thats exactly right. Dr. Griffin is threading the eye of a needle. And that eye is really small.<br /><br />Kudo's to him for having vision and ability. Something that is so desperately needed.<br /><br />Keeping the NASA budget together is absolutely required or we have no space program.<br /><br />The shuttle's won't last forever, and we need something for people to get excited about or they will lose interest. And if they lose interest than NASA will lose funding.<br /><br />I honestly believe that NASA will help accelerate the private enterprise guys to make space flight cheap. They are providing the foundation that the private enterprise guys can build on.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>I find the poll options inadequate. <<br /><br />That doesn't shock me. <br /><br />Anyway....<br /><br />Yes-No-Indifferent<br />SDC 24 7 2<br />NSF 23 0 2
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
This is exactly why threads like this are sometimes a good thing. A lot of people don't post along the lines of stating support for the STS - given this place sometimes is crowded out by Shuttle Bashers who tend to over-state and over-polute their opinion.<br /><br />When you see some of the posts on here from people who don't post much, but are part of the obviously majority opinion, then the statement is made.<br /><br />I want to copy over two posts over on our forum on the poll we're running in tandem with this one. We've got a lot of similar views on "Yes, but we need to move on" etc. But these resonate with me more than anything:<br /><br />This one from a NASA guy at Langley:<br />"People see some of the loss we've had with the Shuttle Program as reasons it should be scrapped. After all, 14 crew and a couple of multi billion dollar space ships is something we don't ever want to class as acceptable. I would claim though that such hard times improve the way we do things. We increase how we try to make things as safe as possible and it all translates to the next goals. We're going back to the Moon, then Mars, then maybe Titan with new knowledge and learning on how we can do these things as safe as is possible. <br /><br />That should be a testiment of the STS program."<br /><br />And this from an ex-Apollo guy at USA:<br /><br />"It should also be a testiment of the whole program that we didn't give up after both major losses. It's sometimes said that NASA is hard faced, that the losses didn't seem to effect us. That's about as far from the truth as you get. I know people who spent weeks knee high in mud in East Texas trying to help find peices of Columbia to bring her home. <br /><br />We've had our hearts ripped out, twice. We've lost 14 dear friends and two beloved Orbiters. But we didn't stop, we sat down, fixed it and started again. We're doing that again right now. <br /><br />When you watch Discovery launch next year, remember that."
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Can I ask...which do you dislike the most, the Shuttle or the ISS?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts