Spaceshuttle - National treasure or piece of crap?

[ascan1984]

I think it is a national treasure. Even if it isnt it is the only thing we have right now. So go go go. What does everyone else think

 

[henryhallam]

I am interested in your services w.r.t. dead horses and specifically how best to beat them. Please add me to your mailing list.

 

[j05h]

It's both. The Orbiters should go to museums for the honors they deserve.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Its sort of like a car you purchased a few years ago. It keeps breaking and you're trying to figure out when to stop putting money into it and buy a new one.

 

[igorsboss]

It's a nationally treasured piece of crap.<br /><br />It's the American Way: get a bad idea, and then hold on to it for dear life.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>Its sort of like a car you purchased a few years ago. It keeps breaking and you're trying to figure out when to stop putting money into it and buy a new one.<<br /><br />How exactly have they "kept breaking"?

 

[mikejz]

The CAR that keep breaking, with regard to the shuttle, I gueess is within the context of "keep sinking money into it to keep it going"

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">How exactly have they "kept breaking"?</font>/i><br /><br />Perhaps the person was referring to the number of things that have introduced delays over the years (is the frequency of delays increasing?), from the calamitous such as Columbia, to the moderate troubling like the recent foam requiring modifications to the tank, to the annoying like the ECO sensors which introduced a few weeks delay and public hand wringings.<br /><br />The shuttle system is complex, and the orbiters are getting old. There have been other age-related issues such as wiring insulation or getting spare parts for computer systems. Griffin, referring to the shuttle's age, recently commented how hard it is to find any electronic equipment in his home that is 25 years old and still working. Wayne Hale compared the orbiters to his "old truck".<br /><br />What I think is both amazing (and in hindsight troubling) is the number of new things the shuttle introduced during design and development. From side-mounted launches, to re-usable main engines, completely new TPS, to a very large, winged, glide-back vehicle.<br /><br />In contrast, the two new systems Griffin wants to develop initially (the smaller vehicle for manned launches and the HLV) are based almost entirely on existing and proven technologies and system components.</i>

 

[mikejz]

Yes the shuttle was an amazing bit of tech, however in the end the conclusion were very low tech:<br /><br />1) Men and payload do not mix<br />2) Cheaper and proven beat high-tech and expensive anyday.<br />3) Rockets are ALL about overhead, no amount of reuaseablity will displace that---only new org sturcture.<br /><br /><br />To Quote Burt Rutan "The space shuttle is the most complex spacecraft that will EVER fly"

 

[kdavis007]

Both.. I think that we should shut it down and put one of the shuttles in the musuem....

 

[steve82]

I ride on 30 year old airliners all the time. No big problem with the age as long as all the maintenance is performed properly. Now, how much do you want to put into maintenance? <br />

 

[spacefire]

I think it's a National Piece of Crap. it would make a fine symbol for the current administration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[haywood]

Well now, this is interesting.<br />Just why would you say it's a "piece of crap"?<br />I wish you could get a chance to actually go aboard and marvel at the complexity and sophistication.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

>The CAR that keep breaking, with regard to the shuttle, I gueess is within the context of "keep sinking money into it to keep it going"<<br /><br />But the context of your analogy doesn't sit well. This thread - which poses the question opinion as National Treasure or "piece of crap" is leading to this poor analogy by association.<br /><br />You car may have been a piece of crap, but any association in the comparison is unfair, imho.<br /><br />This thread title poses an interesting question as to why it exists. I'm NOT aiming this at everyone on here, but there's a shift of public opinion based on the sudden belief that the STS is a "piece of crap" because some columnist who knows &%$#@! all about the STS decided to be an attention seeker - and/or - being a sheep to the rest of the mainstream media by going all "Tax Dollars - only LEO missions, it needs modifications and that costs money? Oh, scrap it already."<br /><br />It does seem to be lost on some of these people who present the STS to the public that this is not cheap, it's always work in progress, that STS-1 to STS-121 is part of the learning process of manned space flight and thus will exponentially need more money thrown at it as part of said learning process.<br /><br />To those Opinion writer "media" I would ask for them to realise there is a process, more lessons need to be learned, that it costs cash, that scrapping the Shuttle now would be damaging to the space industry beyond belief (note Griffin's comments on this - end of STS - gap - to CEV), that the money saved from such a scrapping would 99 per cent go back to Washington - not NASA, that the retirement is set, that the next generation of space flight is being worked on now, and to stop brainwashing the public that the STS is a "piece of crap," because this "piece of crap" is the work of millions and millions of man hours of the best people we have in the space industry - the same people that will get us back to the Moon and Mars.

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">I wish you could get a chance to actually go aboard and marvel at the complexity and sophistication.</font><br />why, thanks for making my point for me. It is too complex and complicated for its own good.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

'what if' foam is shed from the tank during lift-off and hits the leading edge of the wing? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Well, it's a national treasure whether or not it's a piece of crap, because of its role and position in the history of manned (and unmanned - cf Hubble) spaceflight. Stephenson's Rocket, or the Wright brothers original plane and pieces of crap, but I can't imagine either country's national museums letting them go.<br /><br />The Shuttle was, in fact if not always regarded as such, a test spacecraft. We learnt a lot - what works, what doesn't - from it. From that point of view it was a success.

 

[nacnud]

There is a replica built in 1979 in the National Railway Museum, dunno what happened to the original.

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Sure is. The National Railway Museum is one mile from my house here in York. <br /><br />http://www.nrm.org.uk/html/home_pb/menu.asp for images showing around the place.

 

[spayss]

Its an expensive piece of crap but we've learned a lot from it. The question is when does the learning stop and the piece of crap get in the way of doing something that will bring better returns? That was about 10 years ago but that's all water under the bridge. Now we'll have to wait until about next spring for the announcement that the plug will be pulled on the beast.<br /><br /> In the meantime American manned space exploration will be confined to the endless debate on 'foam'. <br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

The Rocket is in the Science Museum, London.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">...some columnist who knows &%$#@! all about the STS ...</font>/i><br /><br />This is not unique to the STS. When I read an article in the Wall Street Journal about an area of which am very familiar, I am amazed at how often they get it wrong. Then I wonder about the accuracy of all those other articles I have read in the WSJ.</i>

 

[spacester]

I literally have never been witness to an event that ended up in a newspaper where the reporter ended up getting much, if anything, right.<br /><br />I have a pet theory: if a number appears in a story, and the number is greater than 7, it has no better than a 50/50 chance of being correct. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Its an expensive piece of crap but we've learned a lot from it.</font>/i><br /><br />I look forward to the history books on STS written after the shuttle program comes to an end and several new systems enter operational service, or not (NASA manned SRB, NASA HLV, Russia Kliper, etc.). I think only then can we begin to gain a good perspective on the system.<br /><br />Were we penny wise but pound foolish? When did managers realize that a market for 50+ shuttle launches a years was not going to materialize? Did the leadership at NASA ever seriously consider scaling back the STS operations to free up serious financial resources for an alternative system? Did NASA leadership percieve the STS one way but present it to the public and politicians another way? How much time (e.g., how many hours per year in meetings, how many speeches, how many words spoken) did various presidencies devote to a space policy? Did subsequent NASA launch systems require fewer personnel? Did private organizations achieve manned space flight? Are there fundamental philosophical differences between NASA and other space programs?<br /><br />In the meantime, I have ordered:<ul type="square"><li>Space Shuttle Decision, 1965-1972 (History of the Space Shuttle, Volume 1)<li>Development of the Space Shuttle, 1972-1981 (History of the Space Shuttle, Volume 2)<br /></li></li></ul><br />Has anyone in this forum read these?</i>

 

[shuttle_man]

"This thread title poses an interesting question as to why it exists. I'm NOT aiming this at everyone on here, but there's a shift of public opinion based on the sudden belief that the STS is a "piece of crap" because some columnist who knows &%$#@! all about the STS decided to be an attention seeker - and/or - being a sheep to the rest of the mainstream media by going all "Tax Dollars - only LEO missions, it needs modifications and that costs money? Oh, scrap it already."<br /><br />It does seem to be lost on some of these people who present the STS to the public that this is not cheap, it's always work in progress, that STS-1 to STS-121 is part of the learning process of manned space flight and thus will exponentially need more money thrown at it as part of said learning process.<br /><br />To those Opinion writer "media" I would ask for them to realise there is a process, more lessons need to be learned, that it costs cash, that scrapping the Shuttle now would be damaging to the space industry beyond belief (note Griffin's comments on this - end of STS - gap - to CEV), that the money saved from such a scrapping would 99 per cent go back to Washington - not NASA, that the retirement is set, that the next generation of space flight is being worked on now, and to stop brainwashing the public that the STS is a "piece of crap," because this "piece of crap" is the work of millions and millions of man hours of the best people we have in the space industry - the same people that will get us back to the Moon and Mars."<br /><br />Great post.