Space Shuttle and the Moon

[grooble]

Didn't some genius bother to point out that the Shuttle couldn't get to the moon?<br /><br />How the hell did anyone ever green light the project knowing it would reduce american spaceflight capability?<br /><br />

 

[henryhallam]

Because the funds were not available for a continued lunar programme.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Reduction in capability? Compared to Apollo??

 

[jurgens]

after a while of reading posts like this, you start to realize who the nuts are heh

 

[grooble]

Yes, i'm shocked that someone made a decision to settle for orbital flights when there existed moon mission capability. I just don't understand how the United States would dent its pride like that and settle for less than it was before, especially with the cold war ongoing. <br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

haha grooble<br />Apollo was just to beat the ruskies to the Moon. That wa sits purpose. When that was accomplished, and it was discovered that they couldn't even get there, funds started to dwindle, missions were cut, then all the hardware was scrubbed. Public interest was also lost, a crapload of money was spent in Vietnam, what politician who wants to get voted again would support such an expensive endeavour udner such circumstances? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Different beasts though mate. The STS wasn't a replacement for the Saturn 5s/Apollo.

 

[ve7rkt]

Storytime, kid.<br /><br />Once upon a time, I lived with my parents in a ~1800 sq.ft house with a nice backyard, a living room with a large-ish TV, a fridge that never went empty, and a workshop in the garage where I could build put fins on a rocket or rebuild a carburetor. Oh, I remember that day well, when we fired up that engine for the first time. "One small step for a man, one giant leap for a '75 Civic." A historic occasion, that, almost as important as its suborbital flight.<br /><br />Now I live in a dorm room the size of a large shoebox, with 3 shower stalls between 20 floormates. We have four stoves but only one microwave, and the microwave hasn't worked right since that girl cremated a yam in it (you never thought a yam could make that much smoke, but it can). I can't afford car insurance while I'm going to school, and it's illegal to drive without, so my beloved Civic is parked back at my parents' house.<br /><br />"OMFG!!!!1! I just don't understand how you would dent your pride like that and settle for less than you had before"<br /><br />First, short term, I live on campus. That saves me two and a half hours of transit every day. But most importantly, I'm working towards something better. When I've got my Bachelor's degree... well, then I can apply for grad school. But after THAT, well, I'll have improved my 'mission capability' significantly. More and better challenges.<br /><br />I used to have this idea that I'd be the first psychologist on Mars. I'm not going to get to Mars by living in my parents' house.

 

[grooble]

So how does the space shuttle program improve the moon-mars mission capability?<br /><br />Perhaps they could have cut the apollo missions down a bit, less missions, maybe 1 every 2 years, whilst simultaneously developing lighter more powerful rockets and capsules and life support systems. <br /><br />What did the public find exciting about Space Shuttle vs Apollo? <br /><br />And what is to stop the 2nd Moon exploration from going the same way?<br /><br />Think of this, they go to the moon, all the worlds media will want the live, full colour sharp video footage. It'll look amazing, man back on the moon at last.<br /><br />But the public will soon get bored. What exactly is going to be done up there, construct a small base? To do what?<br /><br />

 

[got_mmh]

Everyone needs to read the Columbia Accident Investigation report to get a UNDERSTANDING of the history of the space program: political, budgetary, scientific, etc. There is a good background in there and maybe it will keep you from asking stupid questions like "Didn't some genius bother to point out that the Shuttle couldn't get to the moon?" <br /><br />http://www.caib.us/

 

[grooble]

As for budget, somebody got conned. It was supposed to cost $20m for a shuttle flight, costs half a billion. <br /><br />

 

[got_mmh]

George Burns: <br /><br />"Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair."<br /><br />Proverbs 17:28: <br /><br />"Even a fool, when he holdeth his peace, is counted wise: and he that shutteth his lips is esteemed a man of understanding."<br /><br /><br />

 

[grooble]

Should keep your mouth shut then shouldn't you.

 

[ve7rkt]

<font color="yellow">So how does the space shuttle program improve the moon-mars mission capability?</font><br /><br />Would you say that Gemini didn't get us any closer to the Moon? Gemini proved you could meet up with something in space, dock with it, and do useful work outside a spacecraft. These had to happen before Apollo could go to the Moon.<br /><br />So start with STS-41C (Challenger, Apr '84) and STS-32 (Columbia, Jan '90), which in my admittedly amateur opinion contributed as much to our ability to reach Mars as all the Apollo missions combined, in a way that no expendable booster could. Look it up. Then look up all the studies on Space Adaptation Syndrome. STS-41G proved you could refuel in space. Bruce McCandless will forever be the first man to spacewalk without being attached to his spacecraft, when he flew the MMU away from the Shuttle on STS-41B. STS-61B, spacewalkers built structures in space.<br /><br />And those are just the experiments I understood, on the missions I had time to read through this morning (up to mid-1991). I wouldn't doubt that most of the life sciences experiments have applications towards keeping humans alive on a trip to Mars and back.

 

[najab]

><i>The main problem with NASA, IMHO, is that they never really build on what they have; maintaining the capability they already have and expanding on it. They always toss almost everything and start anew ; taking years to (possibly) rebuild a previously had capability. </i><p>You have much still to learn about Government, my friend...</p>

 

[grooble]

That settles it then. It was the governments fault.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

grooble,<br />The Shuttle Orbiter couldn't have gone to the moon, that's kinda why it's called the Orbiter. The Shuttle Program, however, could have built the space inferstructure needed to support pretty big moonbases, but we got really gunshy after STS 51L. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">George Burns:<br /><br />"Too bad that all the people who really know how to run the country are busy driving taxi cabs and cutting hair."<br /></font><br /><br />I agree with you 100%. Immigrants have always pushed America further, because they alone have the drive to succeed agains atll odds.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Out of interest, what different direction would you have taken, Grooble?

 

[drwayne]

Don't forget, political realities are that the budget is going downhill fast.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>I know they are a government agency, which means it was set-up and funded by the government.</i><p>Which really says it all. NASA takes its direction from the Executive Branch - you talk of the power of the NASA Administrator, but remember that the holder of that post is chosen by Presidential appointment. NASA's direction is almost entirely controlled by the Administration and the Congress. Take this year's budget (FY06) which had $400M worth of useless pork projects tacked onto it. $400M is enough to pay for a Shuttle flight to service Hubble.</p>

 

[grooble]

Well i'd have continued with Apollo but cut the mission quota down to make it more affordable. Like i said before, maybe 1 mission every 2 years. The main mission goal for me would be life support systems for t he ultimate goal of a moon base, leading onto civilian settlements.<br /><br />I guess on paper the shuttle looked better: $20m Orbital flights vs $1.5b moon flights, resulting in more people actually going into space.<br /><br />But it didn't work out that way, the shuttle costs 100s of millions to launch, so the price isn't drastically different. <br /><br />Perhaps though, Apollo was ahead of its time. The VSE has the benefit of all our technological advances and the media and internet will make the new moon missions have a far greater following. <br /><br />I'm looking forward to some high res video and photos of the new moon missions. I hope they do some actual exploring though. Strap a camera onto a buggy and go for a 3 hours drive or something!

 

[R1]

would it be better to stop the shuttle program now and use the tons of shuttle money for the next vehicles, and have someone else finish the ISS at a lower cost? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Thats not the way the government works. If shuttle funding were cut, NASA would never see the savings - the dollars would go elsewhere in the government.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[pathfinder_01]

Acuatly even in reality the shuttle is cheaper than apollo per launch. Not because because the shuttle is a cheap spacecraft to fly, but because apollo was way way too expensive. Basically take the cost per flight of the shuttle and double it. <br /><br /><br />I wish I had it in 2004 dollars, but in 1994 dollars the cost per moon shoot was like 1.2 billion per moon shoot at the cheapest and after the moon shoot you had to replace all of the equiment. The command moduleservice module cost like $220 million all by itself.<br />The entire moon program cost $100 billion.<br /><br />The shuttle came in at around $10 billion for development in 1994 dollars and in todays dollars costs about $400-$600 million to launch. Hard to esitmate per lauch costs because of the way NASA figures it out basically it takes the budget and divides it by the number of launches within the budget year. Not a good method because if more launches are made then it looks to be cheaper to launch and if fewer then it appears to be more expensive when in reality dozens of things could have affected the number of launches per year that had nothing to do with the money available to launch.<br /><br /><br />The problem with the shutlte and I also believe the CEV is that they cost more than what was promised by a long shoot. Nasa low balled the price and promised way too much.<br /><br />I expect the CEV to be cheaper, just not the ten times cheaper that NASA hopes for perhaps just one or two hundred million per launch cheaper than the shuttle but then again that is progress I guess.