Suck it up NASA

[becarlson]

Exploring will most likely always be a dangerous endeavor. Sad as it may be to lose some astronauts once in a while to this end, I think it's worth it. I hope I don’t sound too cold.<br /><br />NASA needs to start accepting this reality. If NASA is too scared to send astronauts 350 miles up to service the Hubble, then they are certainly too scared to send humans to Mars.

 

[para3]

Unfortunately I see NASA losing even more astronauts in another shuttle before the shuttle program ends. I feel like the shuttle was never made as safe as it should have been. Anything to get that thing into space, even if it means sacrificing safety to do it. <br /><br />I don't know if I would call NASA scared, but terribly concerned about the lose of life, if they have any feelings at all. So I would rather see NASA be "as you call it" scared and hopefully they will start practicing more safety. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font size="3" color="#99cc00">.....Shuttle me up before I get tooooooooo old and feeble.....</font></strong></p><p><strong></strong></p><p><strong><font size="4" color="#ff6600">---Happiness is winning a huge lottery--- </font></strong></p> </div>

 

[vogon13]

A ship in harbor is safe-but that is not what ships are for.<br /><br />John A. Shedd <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>

 

[hansolo0]

I think the expression is " A ship in a harbor is safe, but eventually it's bottom will rot out" , and you're right.

 

[the_ten]

<font color="yellow">"A ship in harbor is safe-but that is not what ships are for."</font><br />=====<br />Beautifully put!

 

[drwayne]

Nope, ships can and do sink in harbor - why does the picture of the Normandie on her side in New York leap to mind.<br /><br />Got to put those puppies up on dry land...oops, thats definitely not what they are for.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

What level of safety do we want?<br /><br />The shuttle has killed two crews in 113 missions. ~2%<br /><br />Soyuz has killed two crews in 93 missions. ~2%<br /><br />Apollo killed 1 crew in 20. 5%<br /><br />The X-15 1 in 13. ~8%<br /><br />Gemini, Vostock, Voskhod, and Mercury escaped killing anyone - by the skin of their teeth.<br /><br />Jon <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>

 

[vogon13]

My ancestors came to America on ships with sails and steam engines. Can you imagine the premium Lloyds of London would charge the owner of a ship like that today? Pacific islanders conquered biggest ocean on planet with raft technology. Magellen's 5 ship fleet had but 1 ship complete voyage. We are all descendents of the folks who took the risk. If it's a trait to be found in our DNA, then we are all carriers. When Columbia landed first time, I took long lunch break from work just to watch. I marvelled that it all worked. In hindsight, that first flight was staggeringly more dangerous than I appreciated at the time. 100 years from now, will school children walk through Dayton, SAC, and Udvar-Hazy Museums and snicker at the antique contraptions as I did on high school trip to Smithsonian in 1974? <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>

 

[Astrosag]

Those numbers do indeed put things into perspective. I see it as a pretty good record..for all the programs listed. However, its the public and the government that doesn't believe in these numbers..especially after graciously funding the organization. NASA probably isn't as scared about losing people as it is losing the American public's (and Congress') faith in a space program. Hubble (as much as I would love to see it up) probably isn't worth the human risk to save it - getting to space is one thing, getting to hubble is another (from what i have heard- i dont know much about the difficulty). However, scrapping an unmanned mission is not worth it in my eyes....especially since there isn't a replacement for Hubble in the near future (correct me if I am wrong on this last statement).

 

[thalion]

With the shrinking violets at home and in Washington, good luck colonizing the Moon and Mars. Really.

 

[mattblack]

I say repair the Hubble with a Shuttle & crew!! Make it part of the new Space Initiative.<br /><br />A mission to attach a de-orbit module would cost more than $300 million bucks. $300 million bucks to destroy an icon. Frankly, that sucks mightily. The service and de-orbit module attachment missions should be combined. It makes fiscal, scientific and aesthetic sense. A small solid rocket package similar to the old Mercury capsule package would be sufficient. And with new batteries, gyros and new instruments fitted, plus patching up the thermal covering and maybe even replacing the solar arrays, who would bet against Hubble lasting until 2015?<br /><br />Shuttleguy is right. A Hubble mission is hardly any more dangerous than an ISS one. I hear that Nasa only plans to have another "rescue" Shuttle on the pad for the first 2 or 3 RTF missions. But in 2007 just as a one-off, why not repeat that arrangement? Then, after the Hubble-servicing orbiter returns, process the rescue-Shuttle on to an ISS mission. Amerliorate the costs and work outlays. Seems "simple" to me.<br /><br />Boy, if only somebody famous like Tom Hanks or Schwarzenegger would get behind a "SAVE THE HUBBLE" march or movement, maybe Mr Bush might take notice then. Probably a vain hope.<br /><br />How do you run an online petition anyway..?<br /><br />**SAVE THE HUBBLE! JUST DO IT!!**<br /> <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>

 

[Astrosag]

Thanks for clearing that up Shuttle_guy. In that case, the Hubble should be fixed, no doubt. Also, I highly doubt a "famous" face would change Mr. Bush's plans.

 

[mattblack]

Oh, hah hah! Very funny, you clown. Let's bash Bush for a cheap laugh and undermine the seriousness of our discussion while you're at it. In case it went over your head, my remarks WERE a form of jibe at the Bush administration. But I saw no need to stoop to silly stuff, because current events kind of speak for themselves, with no silly blogging needed. In Mr Bush's defence (sorta), the White House only wants to cancel a Hubble service because that's what the bean counters and worry-worts have advised them to do. <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>

 

[becarlson]

Why can't we ever have another president who puts space at the forefront of their policies, instead of nation building? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[najab]

><i>Why can't we ever have another president who puts space at the forefront of their policies...</i><p><b>Another</b>?!? Who was the first?</p>

 

[no_way]

I bet he's thinking Kennedy but alas ..<br />http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/003274.html<br /><br />"Like many of the myths of Camelot, the notion of Kennedy as space visionary is a sham."<br /><br />"It's now well established that Kennedy never cared about space per se. What he cared about was beating the Russians to the moon, for its symbolic value. "

 

[najab]

Exactly!

 

[becarlson]

Right now the Hubble could be working 100% again with a few repairs. It just seems like such a waste to let it slowly fall apart. Besides, the Terrestrial Planet Finder won't be launched for a long time, we might as well have some sort of space telescope available for use until the TPF launches.

 

[claywoman]

I agree with you here...its a long way from 2005 to 2011...and that's IF the new one works, and I don't believe its going to do the photography work Hubble does? <br /><br />A question here, how much of its range has Hubble photographed? Wouldn't it be nice to see the rest of its 'territory' mapped for further reference?

 

[Astrosag]

Because its not nearly as important (im assuming you knew- you had a sarcastic tone + the smiley!). I mean as much as we all enjoy or crave or just can't live without the science of astronomy and/or being a space faring nation, it all takes a far back seat to the problems that our nation faces now. Yes, better management would simply alleviate most of the problems that NASA may have however its probably still not worthy of an issue for the top officials of our goverment to spend valuable time on. Besides a small polictial booster for Bush during a small period of greiving for the loss of STS-107, I think most presidents and most americans see the space program as a luxury, as a status symbol. The cold war of course was a different era but even then, I personally doubt that science was on Kennedy's mind when he set that agenda. Science is like a surfer waiting for the right wave to ride and get ahead. It in itself (at least in astronomy- biology is different), isn't an issue that warrants so much money and time. I think its unfortunate but at the same time, we can't deny the fact that there are issues at hand that require more of our attention. I know most of us here understand it, but its seems as if quite a few people can't come to grips with the fact that astronomy science just isn't as important- even though I regard it as my most passionate hobby (hopefully college will make it a larger part of my life)- I simply love it.

 

[becarlson]

I suppose a space program could be considered a "luxury", in the sense that it doesn't directly keep people from starving, it's not curing AIDs, etc (see my point?). But I also believe our government has a responsibility to keep the wheels of progress rolling by funding space research.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I read something interesting the other day, someone, I forget who, suggested that we run our Space Program at the same level of risk as a NASCAR race. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[arobie]

<font color="yellow"> I want that moon base to be equipped with a huge-ass telescope.</font><br /><br />This may not be huge, and it's not from NASA...instead from private industry <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />, but it is a planned observatory on the moon <i>possibly</i> by 2007. <br /><br />Robotic Lunar Observatory Studied

 

[cdr6]

Who was the pilot killed in the X-15? I followed the program pretty closely in my junior high/high school days, and don't recall any fatalities.

 

[Astrosag]

I thought one was killed during a ground test...not sure.