Poll: Support of the STS - An SDC Poll

[superluminal]

Post deleted by Superluminal <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[gpurcell]

"Why are we wasting valuable resources going to the ISS? This is like a Congressional bill. They want to staple pork spending on the bill! Don't you see that? The ISS has nothing to do with going to the moon / mars which are NASA's mandates. The ISS exists for itself! The system is being designed to cater to the ISS which is an unjustifiable expense and in no way supports NASA's mandate to the moon / mars. "<br /><br />Sigh.<br /><br />I'll try to explain it to you again:<br /><br />1) NASA cannot suddenly dump shuttle and ISS without running a grave risk of losing ALL funding for manned spaceflight. As a result, it is simply not a politically rational plan to think you can shift all those fund to your new Super Mars Exploration Craft in the course of a year. The government simply doesn't move that quickly or shift that rapidly.<br />2) To go to the Moon and Mars, we need two things: a crewed vehicle that can make the journey and a HLV to lift the heavy supplies needed.<br />3) Griffin can carve out enough money to build one of the two.<br />4) Building the HLV now means we have to rely on Shuttle as a manned vehicle for the forseeable future. Building CEV now means we can replace, soon, the most fragile part of the space program.<br />5) CEV cannot go to the Moon on its own. The only reasonable mission is ISS. Therefore, ISS needs to stay aloft.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"But consider the possibility that Jeb Bush may be our next President."</i><br /><br />Oh God no! If that happens, I'm moving to Europe!

 

[darkenfast]

I voted yes for the Shuttle and the ISS. As much as I like the "CEV, etc." proposal, we need the shuttle for the next few years. As for the ISS, its scientific ability has been crippled by having only two people on long-stay. The solution is not to give up and throw the investment away because some people want to play with new toys. The solution is to finish the job. Our exploration of space requires both the ISS and the deep space potential of the CEV proposal. It will always be cheaper to send a scientist for a few weeks to LEO rather than anywhere else. And from an engineering and practical standpoint, we have learned more from the Shuttle/ISS than most people realize. It's the day in-day out slog of racking up years of man-hours, and dealing with the many problems that arise that has given us the maturity in spaceflight to start really moving. It just isn't exciting enough for some of the "Space Cadets". And as to the foreign participation? Well, as a patriotic (but not paranoid) American, I am very glad to see that the CEV is ours. But, I believe it is also in our interest to keep other nations involved in the ISS. The more countries that have a stake in space, the better. I just want to see us in the lead! What Dr. Griffin is pulling off here is a concept that will do both. I believe it will work.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The ISS has nothing to do with going to the moon / mars which are NASA's mandates.</font>/i><br /><br />NASA's mandate, as directed by the president, begin with:<br /><ol type="1"><li>Return the shuttle to flight.<li>Complete assmbly of the International Space Station.<br /></li></li></ol><br />Here is the link if you need a refresher:<br />http://www.whitehouse.gov/space/vision.html</i>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">No where, is the ISS mentioned. What you have listed are Shuttle goals, goals which in no way help to complete the objectives and goals of the Vision as I have highlighted above from the link you provided</font><br /><br />Sure it is, <br /><br /><i>A. Exploration Activities in Low Earth Orbit<br /><br />Space Shuttle<br /><br />Return the Space Shuttle to flight as soon as practical, based on the recommendations of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board; <br /><br /><b>Focus use of the Space Shuttle to complete assembly of the International Space Station; and <br /><br />Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space Station is completed, planned for the end of this decade;</b> </i> <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>You are quite mistaken RadaRedux, take another look at your link<<br /><br />Must have been watching the wrong President Bush VSE speech if that's the case.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>What I have stated stand, you guys need to go see someone in regards to your dyslexia. <<br /><br />Damn, I'm in the wrong job then! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Is this a good time to point out your "I know I'm not alone out there, especially in Space.com." comment on opening another thread you started.<br /><br />Yes, you're not alone, but this thread has kinda given the impression that in your world the DJ's gone home, everyone else has gone to an after party, and the bar manager is asking you to leave as he's about to lock up.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

You know, your sig line is ironic (not in a bad way).<br /><br />JFK's words there are seriously historic.<br /><br />I'm going to ask a favour of you and to download this movie - as his words make up the end of this film (not too long, six mins of your time).<br /><br />http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=377&start=1<br /><br />I don't want to say too much but when I read your sig line, that came to mind, and watching it back just now it does point to a finality of the STS to the next stage. Note the first part is a Columbia tribute. <br /><br />Hardly trying to change your view - just maybe help you understand us (on the yes side) a bit more.

 

[haywood]

I voted "Yes".<br /><br />It is the only logical option (IMO). <br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No where, is the ISS mentioned.</font>/i><br /><br />That is a true statement. "ISS" is not mentioned, but "International Space Station" is. Your quote conveniently leaves out the line beginning with: "<i>To implement this vision, <b>the Administrator will conduct the following activities</b></i>" followed by the section on the shuttle and ISS. That seems like marching orders to me.<br /><br />Keep in mind, I am not arguing that the Shuttle/ISS are great and should be completed. Nor am I saying they will be completed. Nor am I saying Griffin supports shuttle/ISS.<br /><br />What I am saying is that NASA and Griffin do not have the authority to terminate the Shuttle/ISS program.<br /><br />In general, the President sets the policy, the Congress funds the policy, and NASA implements the policy. Until the President changes the policy or Congress chooses to block funding to implement the policy, NASA and its administrator are obligated to try to implement the policy.</i>

 

[barrykirk]

Orrey21, let me ask you a question.<br /><br />If the ISS was zero cost option with no impact on return to the moon or going to mars, would you still be opposed to it?

 

[barrykirk]

OK, then let me ask another question.<br /><br />Do you think that the ISS has any possiblity of providing useful science?

 

[barrykirk]

There is a method to my madness.<br /><br />The reason I'm asking all these questions goes back to the fact that their are some scientists who truely believe that a human presence in space is a big waste of money. That we can everything with unmanned probes and robots.<br /><br />There is a grain of truth in that un-manned robots and probes have been able to gather information in locations that we don't have the capability of sending people to yet.<br /><br />There are also some people that believe that the only really useful research requires the presence of people.<br /><br />And there are some people that believe that people should be off planet doing exploring and or colonizing because the human race needs to expand into new territory.<br /><br />My own beliefs are a good mixture of all three of the above.<br /><br />I suspect that people will look at how to divy up pieces of the pie depending on where on that spectrum their beliefs lie.

 

[JonClarke]

I voted yes. I also think that the ISS is an essential and very useful program that must be completed for a whole range of excellent reasons. Ergo not completing it would be a huge mistake.<br /><br />Jon<br /> <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>

 

[barrykirk]

orrey21, <br /><br />I will start by stating that it is absolutly imperative that we return to the moon and send men to mars.<br /><br />I also believe in the mission of the ISS in providing valid scientific information.<br /><br />Where I think we are having our difference of viewpoints is how they impact each other.<br /><br />I think that in this case we can have our cake and eat it too.<br /><br />I don't think completing the ISS will impact Mike Griffin's plans of return to the moon.<br /><br />I also don't think that the politics are there for accelerating our return to the moon.<br /><br />I also believe that cancelling the ISS could have disasterous impact on NASA.<br /><br />Once you start cutting a program, it's very difficult to control where the cutting occurs. Politicians will do the control of the cutting and I wouldn't want to trust them to do that.<br /><br />Best not to ask them to start cutting or the ISS might not be the only thing that gets cut.

 

[jcdenton]

I support the continued operation of the shuttle until its 2010 retirement date, which shouldn't be a moment sooner nor later I might add. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

And I believe that that is correct.<br /><br />However, the ISS is not complete.<br /><br />Does anybody have an itinarary for what science projects are on the books once the station is complete.<br /><br />Sadly, it's construction has been on hold for a long time. So frustration with lack of results is understandable.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Shuttle, there is no reconciliation between myself and those on the Yes side. You are digging your own graves and I'll have none of it.<<br /><br />If that's your answer to my post, then you're not interested in space travel, you're on a mission to attract attention to yourself, or have a political agenda. I can't fathom your reasoning and why you misquote to try and prove a strange point of view.<br /><br />Basically, you and a few others who daren't back you up (the non grave diggers). Speaking of which, where's Spacefire...he's one of your lot and equally as accurate.

 

[barrykirk]

well, i have to check out of here for the night.<br /><br />Good night all, be back tommorrow.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

77 per cent Yes. Mirrors the national USA Today Poll.<br /><br />18 per cent No - on this, the one forum that seems to have all the Shuttle Bashers on it. Speaks volumes.

 

[gpurcell]

"As more people voice their support for M2M and call for the slashing of the ISS, the President will be forced to take notice. If those who he is dependent on to complete the ISS, refuse to do so on the basis that it is destructive towards the completion of the greater objectives, the President will be forced to increase spending towards other missions, and forced to slash funding for the ISS to support them. "<br /><br />If, in the wake of Iraq spending, Katrina, and now Rita, you think there is going to be an upwelling of support for a Mars mission, you are seriously delusional. It is going to take the most deft politicial manuevering simply to implement the modest goals of the CEV/HLV program.

 

[darkenfast]

"Illogical and irrational continued support of the fascist STS - ISS program will be the ruin and downfall of NASA. "<br /><br />As one of the "illogical and irrational" supporters, I'm amazed to find that the STS-ISS is a "Fascist" program! My goodness, all this time and I had no idea. They must have hidden the swastikas and roman fasces symbols. Now, I realize that certain types of people have taken to calling just about everything the current administration does as "Fascist", but I had no idea it had spread to the space program. Does National Public Radio know? Perhaps they should do a special series on how fascism has infected the Shuttle program: "The Swastika and the Shuttle; what the Bush administration doesn't want you to know!"

 

[cuddlyrocket]

OK, at first I thought you were just an over-enthusiastic person with limited understanding of political realities who had become over-fixated on a particular idea.<br /><br />/* ad hominem deleted */

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Your poll questions are inherently biased and fail to present the voter with a selection of viable alternatives and justifications.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, that's the inherent problem with a poll, isn't it? It's unlikely to exactly and precisely encapsulate a person's desires. <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>