scrap the shuttle, now!

[barrykirk]

Welcome aboard.

 

[blackened27]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> the problem is this "incredible machine" and "engineers of awe" have killed 14 astronauts and sucked up 100s of billions of taxpayers money and for what? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Do you have any idea how many people planes and cars kill every year? When you get in your car and drive to work, do you know how likely it is that you'll be involved in some form of accident? I don't hear a call from you to abandon all forms of mechanically aided travel, why is that? At some point, you have to accept that some things are worth doing, even though they're dangerous. 200+ flights to space with only 2 losses is pretty good, in my opinion. You're talking about space travel here, one of the most dangerous undertakings man has ever attemped here. <br />As to the cost of the shuttle, I don't really know if what it's done over it's long life could have been done cheaper, more cost effectively. But to be honest, i don't really care. I'm proud of the shuttle and what it's accomplished, and i'll be proud of the CEV system when it comes online.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

I think it's more accurate to say they'd love to move from Shuttle to something else. Very few people (except perhaps the unmanned space fanatics) would want to ditch Shuttle if it meant ditching manned spaceflight altogether. For a long time, there was a very real chance that's where it would go if it were cancelled. So that's why you see a gut reaction when people propose cancelling it as a "waste of money". Waste of money is a subjective measure, and many of the budget people would just as soon see no spaceflight at all, feeling that there are more worthy causes (health care, education, transportation, defense, etc, etc, etc). The people reacting on a gut level agree with you that the Shuttle and ISS are not what they could've been. But when we see somebody saying "axe the ISS, it's a waste of money", we get afraid because we think you're one of those types who think all spaceflight is a waste of money, especially if you don't suggest an alternative. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Do you have any idea how many people planes and cars kill every year?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />An interesting sidenote to that, Columbia is not the only vehicle to have killed seven NASA employees in one fell swoop in 2003. A van carrying (I believe) JPL staff to a testing site somewhere in the Southwest went off the road. The driver and the six passengers were all killed. But the incident didn't get much attention, because of course we've all come to terms with the fact that people die in car accidents all the time. What we haven't come to terms with is the fact that accidents happen elsewhere. In some respects that's not a bad thing; we must never accept accidents blithely, but must strive always to understand what caused them and fix it. But it can be paralyzing, and it makes us judge things out of proportion to their actual significance. <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>

 

[erioladastra]

"There are very few fans of the shuttle in the corridors of NASA. "<br /><br />I encounter a wide variety of attitudes here at NASA but can't say I see any truth to this one. I have no idea where you concluded that.

 

[blackened27]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> But it can be paralyzing, and it makes us judge things out of proportion to their actual significance. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />That is the part that worries me. Not to stray off topic too far, but i think if anything can endanger or postpone our future in space, it's the overcautious attitude that comes after any setback in space. There's a point where all humanly possible preperations and precautions are complete, and then it comes to a gut check of do we go or do we not. I agree that we must never accept accidents blithely, but one you determine that a capability is as safe as you can make it, the only option left is to use that capability and hope that all goes well.

 

[mattblack]

You're right. <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>

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

"I encounter a wide variety of attitudes here at NASA but can't say I see any truth to this one. I have no idea where you concluded that."<br /><br />Because I've walked them. It's not an assumption.

 

[rubicondsrv]

You have worked for NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Do you expect trolls to be honest?<br /><br />Please don't feed the trolls.<br /><br />

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

Again, if you have nothing constructive to say, then I suggest you don't post.

 

[dragon04]

I'd personally prefer to see the STS program terminated yesterday. Along with the ISS.<br /><br />But having said that, the reality is that both the Shuttle fleet and the ISS will remain in operation. In that vein, I can only hope that NASA and its contractors can and will complete the program as safely, expediently and cost effectively as possible.<br /><br />And while I adamantly disagree with them, there are nonetheless valid reasons for the current flight schedule to be seen through to its conclusion.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

Unfortunatly you are correct. At least you were clued up before NASA implodes around 2009.

 

[dobbins]

It's no secret that I consider the ISS to be the wrong station in the wrong orbit, however the wrong station is better than no station, which is the position the USA would be in if it pulled out of the ISS. I thought the STS was a mistake before it ever flew, but that doesn't change the fact that for at least 5 years the choices are use what we have, go hat in hand to Russia for Soyuz seats, or stay on the ground. Flying the STS is clearly the lesser of the three evils.<br /><br />

 

[spaceiscool]

nasa imploding would be a great day.

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

It would be a sad day, but one that could have been avoided.

 

[spaceiscool]

can it still be avoided?

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

No. I do not believe so. The point has been passed.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Flying the STS is clearly the lesser of the three evils.</font>/i><br /><br />Seeing how long it took to get ESAS approved, I suspect getting termination of STS and ISS approved through all the appropriate levels (multiple levels in both the White House and Congress) would take a very long time (a year?). Can you imagine all the Congresspeople up in arms about jobs being cut in their districts? They would probably threaten to kill other NASA funding (outside their district - or at least not guaranteed for their districts), including ESAS if STS/ISS jobs are cut, especially with mid-term elections coming around next November.<br /><br />And once a termination is approved, there would be at least a year to unwind from the various contracts. The STS/ISS programs are so huge that unwinding all those contracts, subcontracts, sub-subcontracts would probably be a nightmare. (When the Navy A-12 was cancelled lawsuits went on for over a decade!) That would probably take us half way to the already approved retirement date.<br /><br />Then you have to add the cost of keeping suppliers around as you make the transition to CEV/CLV and then HLV. There isn't much of an external market for SRBs, SSME, and ETs to keep these contractors and suppliers busy.<br /><br />For anyone to imply that such a decision (immediate suspension of STS/ISS) would be easy or cheap would be mischaracterization. I think the "lesser of several evils" might be a more appropriate summary.</i>

 

[j05h]

On STS being "cut" from NASA, I don't see it happening either, mostly because of Congress. The real stopper for Shuttle is going to be technological attrition - there is coming/has past a point where STS is not capable of flying due to improper maintenance, sourcing of parts or similiar. This point may already have past, not sure what they'll do with the Standing Army, sometime in 2006 say "Sorry, no more paychecks, you need retraining"? This is an argument-from-inertia viewpoint. I thought the performance of NASA and the Primes was abysmal before and during the RTF. They couldn't keep the foam from falling, they failed, period.<br /><br />I support the VSE and the ATK's safe-soon launchers, I hope this provides enough opportunity for the space workers that will be cut when STS doesn't fly anymore. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

If STS-121 isn't picture perfect, the program will be over.

 

[j05h]

>If STS-121 isn't picture perfect, the program will be over.<br /><br />I'm questioning whether STS-121 will fly, not if it's going to be perfect. <br /><br />The Shuttle workers on Uplink insist it's going to fly, but that is voices from the trenches- even with the Internet they are not fully informed. Don't get me wrong, neither are ordinary people, even space geeks. We simply don't know the extent of Katrina damage, whether the foam problem is fixable or management's reaction to the Budget Crisis. The Shuttle has now flown once in nearly three years. There is significant inertia to keep it on the ground. The question is, when does mounting "grounding" factors override the political/jobs factor of flying it? <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Katrina damage was as wildly overstated as the 10,000 death figure was. Good progress has been made on the foam problem. NASA's budget crisis is one of NASA Watch's lies.<br /><br />

 

[spaceiscool]

nasawatch doesnt lie it tells people what is really hapening. just cause they hate the shuttle doesnt mean theyare lieing.

 

[blackened27]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p> nasawatch doesnt lie it tells people what is really hapening. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What makes you believe that this is true? Just because they fall in line with your beliefs doesn't mean that they're telling the truth either.