http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8744709/

I say it's time to ground the Shuttles for good.  The Discovery reminds me of the Dodge Dart my buddy had in high school, parts falling off it on acceleration as you fumble your rosary! 
:o
If we keep shooting these aging hulks into space, we're in for another disaster and consequent public outrage.
It is time for NASA to focus its resources on the next phase of the space program, whatever that may be.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8744709/

I say it's time to ground the Shuttles for good. The Discovery reminds me of the Dodge Dart my buddy had in high school, parts falling off it on acceleration as you fumble your rosary!
:o
If we keep shooting these aging hulks into space, we're in for another disaster and consequent public outrage.
It is time for NASA to focus its resources on the next phase of the space program, whatever that may be.
Hey...MOPAR enthusiasts actually RESTORE Dodge Dart's...but YES they are modified,engine-wise and looks-wise...even stuff like the electronics are upgraded...cool sound systems and other goodies..
and the interiors are totally redone...

But yes the Space Shuttle is a bust...by the same token how would we get people aboard the Space Station(researchers and scientists)without having to use 'one time only' rockets?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/8744709/

I say it's time to ground the Shuttles for good.  The Discovery reminds me of the Dodge Dart my buddy had in high school, parts falling off it on acceleration as you fumble your rosary! 
So the space shuttle was built by Chrysler? That explains a lot!  If they'd have just stuffed a 400 Chevy small block into that bad boy, we'd have made it to Jupiter by now.

Seriously, I think that the "X Prize" was a step in the right direction. I think that as the private sector becomes more involved in space exploration, it will dramatically accelerate our progress in conquering space.

But yes the Space Shuttle is a bust... by the same token how would we get people aboard the Space Station (researchers and scientists) without having to use 'one time only' rockets?


Well, sending people to the station is not a problem.  The problem is that there is no rocket in the world that can replace the shuttle for the size of payload that can be sent up.  The next most powerfull functioning rocket ever made was the Saturn 5.  And no way are they going to bring back a beast of that size to do work on the ISS.

I think it should be phased out, and we need to work on a replacement now.  There are several in development, but they are still years away from being working models.  If we eliminate it now, it will leave a huge gap in our ability to carry paylods into space.

And the shuttle fleet does a lot of other payloads as well.  None of the other sytstems can carry payloads like the Shuttle can.  That is why the Hubble Space Telescope was launched from a shuttle.  And many private companies (like Boeing) pay NASA to launch satellites into orbit.  Here are some of the other systems:

Ariane 5 (France):  6,200kg
Photon (Russia):    5.800kg (this was originally designed as an ICBM)
Taurus (USA):      1,300kg
Minotaur (USA):    1,750kg
Delta II (USA):      1,819kg
Delta III (USA):      3.810kg
Space Shuttle:    63,500kg
N-1 (USSR):        74,300kg (Soviet Lunar Launch Vehicle, never worked properly)

Saturn V (3 stage):  118,000kg
Saturn V (2 stage):  75,000kg

Those are among the largest launch vehicles in use today.  None of thouse could have launched the Hubble, which had a weight of 11,000kg.  In fact, Skylab weighed in at 77,088kg.  The Shuttle is the only vehicle other then the Saturn 5 that comes even close to being able to lift that weight.  The only working launch vehicles to ever exceed the weight capacity of the shuttle are the Saturn V series of rockets.  Of the 4 N-1 rockets launched, all 4 were failures.

So until there is a replacement for these vehicles, we are stuck with them.  Otherwise we might as well kiss the ISS and any future projects like it goodbye.

I say ditch the shuttle.  NASA is a hugely mismanaged bureaucracy.

The other day I was watching on TV as they shows the department that figures out what food to feed the astronauts.  Now let's see... the shuttle has been flying (on and off) for the past 24 years.  And we still need a department stuffed with people to figure out how to feed a few people in space?

GET REAL...

Space exploration is too expensive and it is the playground of academics and pork barrel spending.

Put the money into roads, schools, or (egads) back into the taxpayer's wallet.

I say ditch the shuttle. NASA is a hugely mismanaged bureaucracy.

The other day I was watching on TV as they shows the department that figures out what food to feed the astronauts. Now let's see... the shuttle has been flying (on and off) for the past 24 years. And we still need a department stuffed with people to figure out how to feed a few people in space?

GET REAL...

Space exploration is too expensive and it is the playground of academics and pork barrel spending.

Put the money into roads, schools, or (egads) back into the taxpayer's wallet.
Hey lyricboy...they conduct MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS in space...stuff that they REALLY can't simulate or do here on Earth in some lab!

Hey lyricboy...they conduct MEDICAL EXPERIMENTS in space...stuff that they REALLY can't simulate or do here on Earth in some lab!


Yeah, I know that.  But the cost effectivess is TERRIBLE.  Better more cost effective medical research can be done on earth, or... if space is what ya want... with UNMANNED spacecraft.

Best thing ever invented by NASA is Tang.  Tastes like crap, but ut is great for cleaning out a grungy dishwasher.  :P

They should get rid of space exploration.  Its too much money.  It's good to know stuff about the universe, but its not worth all the money.  I don't think they have learned enough useful stuff to make it worthwhiles.

They should get rid of space exploration.  Its too much money.  It's good to know stuff about the universe, but its not worth all the money.  I don't think they have learned enough useful stuff to make it worthwhiles.


Well, are these things worthless?

Scratch resistant lenses
Shock absorbing safety helmets
Freeze dried foods
Flat Panel Displays
Sports Bras
Photo-X Lenses
Quartz Timepieces
Mylar
Velcro
CCD (digital photography)
Mamography
Large Core Needle Biopsy (used to check for breast cancer, and other forms of cancer)
Laser Angioplasty
Programmable Pacemaker
Ultrasound Scanners
Automatic Insulin Pump
MRI
Gasoline Vapor Recovery (people outside of California may not know what this is)
Emergency Rescue Cutters ("Jaws Of Life")
Lightweight Fire Respiration Tanks
Self-righting life raft
Carbon composite material
Fuel Cell Technology (what once powered the Apollo capsule will soon power your car)


Do I need to go on?  All of those (and many many more) came as a direct result of the space program.  Now tell me how worthless most of those are?

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html

I can't see us junking the Space Program.  I'm not for that myself.  What REALLY against is the militarization of space, but that's too controversial a subject for this side of the board.
It comes down to manned vs. unmanned space travel.  I think we should restrict the program to unmanned projects until we can develop a space-worthy manned craft to replace the shuttle program.    And this is nothing to rush.  I don't care if we don't send another astronaut up until 2020!  If we lose another crew, public sentiment may lean toward pulling the plug on the whole d*mn thing.

I read a piece in The Economist a while back saying that NASA should open up space transport to the private sector. They might be more likely to come up with a safer, more cost-efficient alternative to the shuttle.

I can't see us junking the Space Program.  I'm not for that myself.  What REALLY against is the militarization of space, but that's too controversial a subject for this side of the board.
It comes down to manned vs. unmanned space travel.  I think we should restrict the program to unmanned projects until we can develop a space-worthy manned craft to replace the shuttle program.    And this is nothing to rush.  I don't care if we don't send another astronaut up until 2020!  If we lose another crew, public sentiment may lean toward pulling the plug on the whole d*mn thing.


The chances of losing another crew in the near future is pretty slim.  In the 40 or so years we have been sending people into space we have had only 3 disastors.  Once in 67' and that was a ground test, then Challenger in 86' and then Columbia in 03'.  If we somehow did lose another shuttle in the near future I would hope people wouldn't turn against the space program because were would we be today with out it.  So of the most important research undertaken in the last several decades has been in space.

As for scrapping the shuttle, I do not see it happening anytime soon.  NASA is currently doing a lot of exensive research and designing to come up with a newer, faster, and safer way to send people to space.  But they one problem they are having is finding a way to be faster.  With the current shuttle technology the shuttle travels at 17,500 mph and to even think about sending people to Mars we are going to need to go much faster than that.

The Discovery crew is now in the process of ending today's EVA and the removal of the 2 loose tile gap fillers appeared to be a complete success.

  Mushroom, do you know what the payload of the Saturn1 is? I'm just curious is all.

  Yeah, I know that.  But the cost effectivess is TERRIBLE.

  Hmmm, very few projects involving government money are cost effective. Look at what the military wastes. How about the cost of getting new medicine approved. Then theres all the little "pet" studies done by various groups/organizations.

If we somehow did lose another shuttle in the near future I would hope people wouldn't turn against the space program because were would we be today with out it.




Can somebody tell me were we would be without it?  What's the use of it anyway?

  Mushroom, do you know what the payload of the Saturn1 is? I'm just curious is all.
 
  Hmmm, very few projects involving government money are cost effective. Look at what the military wastes. How about the cost of getting new medicine approved. Then theres all the little "pet" studies done by various groups/organizations.


Well, that depends on which Saturn I you were talking about.  Here are the stats for all of them  :)

The original was a development project known as "Juno V".  It was a test project designed to build an ICBM.  NASA took over the project when the DOD realizes it was to large for military uses, but was perfect for exploration and scientific uses.  They used it as the basis of the Saturn series of rockets.

                  TLI            LEO
Saturn 1:    2.200Kg      9,000Kg

TLI is "Trans-Lunar Injection" (sending things to the moon), while LEO is Low Earth Orbit.

                  LEO
Saturn 1B:  15,300Kg

The Saturn 1B was basically the same as the Saturn V, except the lunar equipment was removed and it never left Earth orbit.  That is the rocket that sent the scientests to Skylab, and carried out the Apollo-Soyus mission.  When launched with the extended Command Module rocket and the lunar lander, it was the Saturn V.

And "Military waste" is somewhat of a misnomer.  The waste is forced in by congressional requirements and the Department Of Defense (A civilian organization).  This is the same reason it takes forever and a ton of money to develop new medicine.  The beaucracy requires so many forms and hoops jumped through, that it takes forever and a lot of money to do anything.  If you do not believe me, look at what the military asked for as a "Joint Strike Fighter", then look at what the DOD turned the project into.

Well, are these things worthless?

Scratch resistant lenses
Shock absorbing safety helmets
Freeze dried foods
Flat Panel Displays
Sports Bras
Photo-X Lenses
Quartz Timepieces
Mylar
Velcro
CCD (digital photography)
Mamography
Large Core Needle Biopsy (used to check for breast cancer, and other forms of cancer)
Laser Angioplasty
Programmable Pacemaker
Ultrasound Scanners
Automatic Insulin Pump
MRI
Gasoline Vapor Recovery (people outside of California may not know what this is)
Emergency Rescue Cutters ("Jaws Of Life")
Lightweight Fire Respiration Tanks
Self-righting life raft
Carbon composite material
Fuel Cell Technology (what once powered the Apollo capsule will soon power your car)


Do I need to go on? All of those (and many many more) came as a direct result of the space program. Now tell me how worthless most of those are?

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html


Mushroom you really love to exaggarate and make up what people say!

I never said worthless.  It's just not worth whatever billions of dollars.  And most of those things or maybe all of them we didn't have to go in space to do them.  You really mean we had to go to space to figure out how to make the jaws of life?  And space bras?  I don't think so.

Mushroom you really love to exaggarate and make up what people say!

I never said worthless.  It's just not worth whatever billions of dollars.  And most of those things or maybe all of them we didn't have to go in space to do them.  You really mean we had to go to space to figure out how to make the jaws of life?  And space bras?  I don't think so.


I don't think so at all.  And if anything, I do not exagerate enough.

Remember, "Necessity is the mother of invention".  Things are almost never developed before there is a need for them.  Inventions follow each other, and build upon each other.  Even something as massive as the Saturn V was lead by a huge series of small developments, each of them in order.

Let's just take one.  Before Apollo, computers were massive, and took up huge rooms.  Because of the need to save weight, NASA pumped a huge amount of R&D into miniaturization.  They shrunk computers in 5 years more then they had been shrunk if 50 years of development before that.  Composite Material was known for decades, but it was not until the Shuttle program that it was taken seriously.  Now we use it in bullet proof vests, and even golf clubs.

You might want to read "Connections", by James Burke.  It was a BBC/PBS series from 1979, and also a book.  He wrote other books about this very thing, including "The Pinball Effect".

This is how all things work.  We could not have Airplanes before the internal combustion engine.  We could not have jets until advanced alloy metals which could withstand the heat.  We could not have supersonic flight until computers advanced enough to allow the development of proper wing shapes.  Now that we have composite materials and advanced ramjet and scramjet technology, we can start working on hypersonic flight.

This is the same reason that the loss of silk and rubber in WWII forced the US military to do research in to synthetic materials, creating synthetic rubber and nylon.  No invention stands alone, and it does not come along until it is needed.  If you think we would have invented half of those things by now without the space program, you are deluding yourself.

And we have had hydrolic technology for centuries.  Why was it only used for "Jaws Of Life" when the Mercury program came about?  Simply because that is when the need appeared.

Well, that depends on which Saturn I you were talking about.

  Thanks Mushroom. I knew I should've specified the 1B. I was comparing the Saturn V & 1B side-by side and couldn't believe the difference. The Saturn V was a behemoth.

And "Military waste" is somewhat of a misnomer.  The waste is forced in by congressional requirements and the Department Of Defense (A civilian organization).  This is the same reason it takes forever and a ton of money to develop new medicine.  The beaucracy requires so many forms and hoops jumped through, that it takes forever and a lot of money to do anything.

  That's the point I was trying to make. I should have said "look what the government wastes to outfit the military." There are so many what we called "Brother-in-Law" contracts signed for projects it makes ones head spin. I saw tools in the USAF that cost 1,000% more than I could by it off the shelf, because of the "criteria" they had to meet.

  That's the point I was trying to make. I should have said "look what the government wastes to outfit the military." There are so many what we called "Brother-in-Law" contracts signed for projects it makes ones head spin. I saw tools in the USAF that cost 1,000% more than I could by it off the shelf, because of the "criteria" they had to meet.


You don't know the half of it!

When I was in the Marines, we needed to get some specialized equipment for our Scout-Sniper platoon.

Now each unit in the military has a "Budget", and that even goes for in-house purchases.  When we checked for the DOD approved equipment, we found out that it was $800 each, and backordered for 9 months.  When the Lieutenant looked at a local sporting goods store, he found an identical item for $125.  It was only because we were about to go on deployment that he got authorization to go "outside of normal supply" to get them.

To get a new item, the military must submit a request to the DOD.  The DOD then assigns a group to look at the item requested, then a system of competative bids takes place.  After the bids are considered, they have prospective suppliers submit prototypes to be tested.  After 1-10 years of tests, then one (or more) of them is finally contracted as the supplier.  It is this bloated system that makes new items (weapons, jets, body armor) take forever to get, and cost much more then civilian products.

I know that people often complain about the cost of militart body armor, and why it takes so long to improve.  This is because the DOD does nothing quickly.  They are career beaurocrats.  I often think that a lot of military waste could be eliminated by disbanding the DOD, and letting the military take care of itself.

The idea of "privitazing space flight" is a great idea, but it is a fool's dream.  It was only a few months ago that the first privately funded space launch happened.  That is over 40 years after Allan Sheperd and John Glen did the same thing.  And while there are private satellite launch systems, the Sea Launch program (developed by Hughes, now owned by Boeing) is nowhere near as advanced as the Proton or Atlas systems.  Sea Launch is only good for small satellites.  When I worked at Hughes Satellite, most of our stuff was sent up by Atlas, Proton, or Shuttle missions.  Our own launch facilities could handle less then half of what we built, because of size and weight restrictions.

SOmeday private enterprise may take over, but that is decades away.  And I find it interesting that a lot of those that proclaim themselves most afraid of the "Military-Industrial Complex" wants to take such research away from NASA, and turn it over to said "Military-Industrial Complex".  After all, Burt Rutan may have built a cheap rocket, but he alone does not have the resources to exploit it the way it would need to be done to replace NASA.

I support the space program as long as it's a scientific endeavor, not a military campaign.

One thing I note, our culture has been saturated in stories of space travel for a century.  Sci-fi got notions into the collective consciounsness that space travel was a lot easier than it actually is. 

Our health and bodies deteriorate rapidly in weightlessness.  Human beings were not built for environments with atmospheres different from Earth, let alone zero atmosphere as found in outer space.
In 1969, the year I was born, the public thought we would have colonized the moon, Mars, and Venus, and would have people zinging back and forth all the time from gigantic space labs. 
Some people who still don't get how hostile outer space is and how complicated every shuttle launch is see the space program as a failure because we have not achieved the visions of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark, or (retch) Gene Roddenderry.
But when you do consider how many thousands of operations have to go 100% right in order for the shuttle not to turn into a giant bottle rocket, our success in space has been most remarkable.

I support the space program as long as it's a scientific endeavor, not a military campaign.


That is somewhere that I agree with you 100%.  Space should not be militarized.  As far as I know, the only attempt to launch a weapons platform into space was the Soviet Union's Polyus, which was destroyed during launch in 1987.


Our health and bodies deteriorate rapidly in weightlessness.  Human beings were not built for environments with atmospheres different from Earth, let alone zero atmosphere as found in outer space.
In 1969, the year I was born, the public thought we would have colonized the moon, Mars, and Venus, and would have people zinging back and forth all the time from gigantic space labs.


While it is true we are not built for different environments, we are very skilled tool makers, and are able to adapt with our tools to many diferent environments.  Staying for an hour at 60 feet below water is not natural, but because of SCUBA we can do it.  We can even go down to the depth of 2 miles underwater (without deep sea divers, the pressure would crush a human).  Respirators allow us to explore great heights also, like Everest.  And with the right tools, we can live on barren continents like Antarctica.

The problem with movies like 2001 is that they took the pace of progress from 1945 to 1968, and tried to extrapolate how much further things would progress in another 33 years with that rate of progress.  They did not expect that after 1969, space technology would largely stagnate.


Some people who still don't get how hostile outer space is and how complicated every shuttle launch is see the space program as a failure because we have not achieved the visions of Isaac Asimov, Arthur C. Clark, or (retch) Gene Roddenderry.
But when you do consider how many thousands of operations have to go 100% right in order for the shuttle not to turn into a giant bottle rocket, our success in space has been most remarkable.


Please, do not even mention Gene Roddenberry in the same paragraph as Dr. Asimov, let alone the same sentence!  Issac Asimov, Arthur Clarke and Ray Bradburry were true science fiction writers.  Gene Roddenberry was a Hollywood hack, who failed as a writer of westerns and police dramas.

Star Trek is great TV drama, but it is not based on any kind of reality.  Transporters, Warp Drive, Universal Translator, the sheer number of "Class M planets" are so far from reality that it is not even funny.  Dr. Asimov and Ray Bradburry were far off of reality also, but they were as close as they could get with what we knew in the 1940's and 1950's.

I am a big believer in space exploration.  I have been a member of SETI@Home since 2000 (with 3,062 units processed as of this moment), and eagerly read any webpages I can in reguards to new discoveries in this field.  I was in heaven when I got a job at Hughes Satellite, being able to work with the same teams that pioneered such things as GPS and communication satellites (the mousepad I use now I got there, is from a manufacturer of titanium fuel tanks, Pressure Systems Inc.).

I remember the "Moon Fever" of the late 1960's.  I remember watching the moon walks, and the splashdowns in the Pacific Ocean.  I was even excited when I spent 2 weeks deployed on the USS Iwo Jima, knowing that it was flagship of the Apollo 13 recovery team (there was a plaque about it on the mess deck).

I hope that someday we can colonize Mars.  Because of practical limits we will likely never send more then unmanned probes to any other stars, but I can always dream.  Alpha Centari is beyond our grasp, but terraforming Mars is possible.  And who knows what may be possible in a few hundred years.

That is somewhere that I agree with you 100%. Space should not be militarized. As far as I know, the only attempt to launch a weapons platform into space was the Soviet Union's Polyus, which was destroyed during launch in 1987.

While it is true we are not built for different environments, we are very skilled tool makers, and are able to adapt with our tools to many diferent environments. Staying for an hour at 60 feet below water is not natural, but because of SCUBA we can do it. We can even go down to the depth of 2 miles underwater (without deep sea divers, the pressure would crush a human). Respirators allow us to explore great heights also, like Everest. And with the right tools, we can live on barren continents like Antarctica.

The problem with movies like 2001 is that they took the pace of progress from 1945 to 1968, and tried to extrapolate how much further things would progress in another 33 years with that rate of progress. They did not expect that after 1969, space technology would largely stagnate.

Please, do not even mention Gene Roddenberry in the same paragraph as Dr. Asimov, let alone the same sentence! Issac Asimov, Arthur Clarke and Ray Bradburry were true science fiction writers. Gene Roddenberry was a Hollywood hack, who failed as a writer of westerns and police dramas.

Star Trek is great TV drama, but it is not based on any kind of reality. Transporters, Warp Drive, Universal Translator, the sheer number of "Class M planets" are so far from reality that it is not even funny. Dr. Asimov and Ray Bradburry were far off of reality also, but they were as close as they could get with what we knew in the 1940's and 1950's.

I am a big believer in space exploration. I have been a member of SETI@Home since 2000 (with 3,062 units processed as of this moment), and eagerly read any webpages I can in reguards to new discoveries in this field. I was in heaven when I got a job at Hughes Satellite, being able to work with the same teams that pioneered such things as GPS and communication satellites (the mousepad I use now I got there, is from a manufacturer of titanium fuel tanks, Pressure Systems Inc.).

I remember the "Moon Fever" of the late 1960's. I remember watching the moon walks, and the splashdowns in the Pacific Ocean. I was even excited when I spent 2 weeks deployed on the USS Iwo Jima, knowing that it was flagship of the Apollo 13 recovery team (there was a plaque about it on the mess deck).

I hope that someday we can colonize Mars. Because of practical limits we will likely never send more then unmanned probes to any other stars, but I can always dream. Alpha Centari is beyond our grasp, but terraforming Mars is possible. And who knows what may be possible in a few hundred years.
I was glued to the TV for all the moon landings...but the first one was truly an EVENT.

Phase out the shuttle and develop something new, or just cut back funding all together and retire the fleet.  Why are we still using 1970's technology?  A 4 year old would laugh at the computers on the space shuttle.  It looks like there should be some ABBA and Bee Gees records on that thing.  NASA still seemed so cutting edge to me as an elementary-middle school kid growing up in the 80s.  Now it just seems like an expensive dinosaur.  Star Trek has definately polluted peoples minds about how easy space travel is, as much as I used to love NASA as a kid, today I'm too old and cynical to dream of the stars.

Phase out the shuttle and develop something new, or just cut back funding all together and retire the fleet.  Why are we still using 1970's technology?  A 4 year old would laugh at the computers on the space shuttle.  It looks like there should be some ABBA and Bee Gees records on that thing.  NASA still seemed so cutting edge to me as an elementary-middle school kid growing up in the 80s.  Now it just seems like an expensive dinosaur.  Star Trek has definately polluted peoples minds about how easy space travel is, as much as I used to love NASA as a kid, today I'm too old and cynical to dream of the stars.


Don't forget, that the Shuttle only had an "Operational Life" of 10 years.  And quite obviously, we are long beyond that time.  But due to budget cuts, the research for the next generation has never advanced beyond basic flight testing.  The closest was the X-33, which was cancelled in 2001.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-33

So for the next 10-20 years, we are either stuck with the Shuttle for lifting large payloads, or bringing back the Saturn V.  Myself, I would like to see 1-2 "New Shuttles" the same basic design as the current shuttle built with newer technology, and then continue research on another "X-33 type" system.  1 or 2 of the current fleet should still be kept, but only on a "stand-by" basis, to be used only in the event of an emergency.

There is no doubt that something like the shuttle is needed.  Nothing else can lift massive ISS components or large scientific payloads like the Hubble is available.  But until something else is developed, we are stuck with them.

I have never lost my awe for space exploration. Why? Because there is much for us to learn 'out there' As Mushroom pointed out things developed by NASA for the space program have been adapted for use by us civilians..
I wonder whether the fireproof material that makes up a NASCAR driver's firesuit was a NASA innovation...

In a nutshell, yep. Nomex, made by Du Pont, was developed for NASA spacecraft as protection from atmospheric friction on re-entry. Pete Conrad, an amateur SCCA racer tipped off Bill Simpson, a drag racer & SCCA racer, on this product and Simpson went on to create the first viable, comfortable Nomex driving suit. It was first made avaiable at Indy in 1967. Up until then Simpson was marketing aluminized suits, based on welding gear, to drag racers.

Phase out the shuttle.

The last flight proved to have several scares which where solved, the only question I ask is what if, so scuttle the shuttle.

Phase out the shuttle.

The last flight proved to have several scares which where solved, the only question I ask is what if, so scuttle the shuttle.

The message from NASA is "Pheew! We won't be doing that again for a while!," whereas before the Columbia exploded, they talked of missions as fairly routine.  I think they'll phase the shuttle program out completely by 2010.

How does the shuttle perfectly find it's landing strip on Earth form outer space while it's a glider?

How does the shuttle perfectly find it's landing strip on Earth form outer space while it's a glider?


They manoeuvre it in space so that it will glide correctly down.  That is why they have to start the descent at a certain time or wait until it completes another orbit.  The NASA page contains a bit more about how it manoeuvres in space

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/news/STS-114-28.html

Well, are these things worthless?

Scratch resistant lenses
Shock absorbing safety helmets
Freeze dried foods
Flat Panel Displays
Sports Bras
Photo-X Lenses
Quartz Timepieces
Mylar
Velcro
CCD (digital photography)
Mamography
Large Core Needle Biopsy (used to check for breast cancer, and other forms of cancer)
Laser Angioplasty
Programmable Pacemaker
Ultrasound Scanners
Automatic Insulin Pump
MRI
Gasoline Vapor Recovery (people outside of California may not know what this is)
Emergency Rescue Cutters ("Jaws Of Life")
Lightweight Fire Respiration Tanks
Self-righting life raft
Carbon composite material
Fuel Cell Technology (what once powered the Apollo capsule will soon power your car)


Do I need to go on?  All of those (and many many more) came as a direct result of the space program.  Now tell me how worthless most of those are?

http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html


Laptops, cars and palm pilots can be darn useful too, but if I was having financial trouble, you can bet I could learn to do without them and find other ways to get around, get information, and organize my life. 

And if we spent more time creating a healthier environment and educating people to eat right, I wonder how much less heart disease and cancer we might have, but that's another subject.

They manoeuvre it in space so that it will glide correctly down.  That is why they have to start the descent at a certain time or wait until it completes another orbit.  The NASA page contains a bit more about how it manoeuvres in space

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/news/STS-114-28.html
Thanks Karen, I'll check the website right now.  I heard that the shuttle crash in 2003 was because of someone on the ground's miscalculation of the reentry point, but that's another story.

The message from NASA is "Pheew! We won't be doing that again for a while!," whereas before the Columbia exploded, they talked of missions as fairly routine.  I think they'll phase the shuttle program out completely by 2010.


They also acted the same way with the Apollo program, until Apollo 13.  Remember that none of the networks carried the live broadcast from them, and hardly mentioned the flight until the explosion.  That is just human nature.  Once it is done 2 or 3 times, it becomes routine.  When Challenger exploded, the only network to carry it live was CNN, none of the others thought it was an important launch.  And if memory serves me right, hardly anybody would have known about Columbia even being up, if not for the fact that the astronaut from Israel was onboard.


Laptops, cars and palm pilots can be darn useful too, but if I was having financial trouble, you can bet I could learn to do without them and find other ways to get around, get information, and organize my life. 

And if we spent more time creating a healthier environment and educating people to eat right, I wonder how much less heart disease and cancer we might have, but that's another subject.


I'm sorry, but I do not understand the point.

Space exploration has innovated and originated several generations of technological innovation.  Apollo required a revolution in microchip technology.  That lead Intel (and others) to create advanced chips which were basically "computers on a chip".  Increasing need (and the desire to phase out the old mainframe technology) lead to smaller and more powerful computers.  Further demand and technologies (more advanced NiCad technology, also from the space program) lead to more powerful batteries as the power of LCD technology increased and the cost decreased.  Put all of these together, and you have PDA and laptop computers.

And people know how to eat right.  They also know not to smoke, not to use drugs, and not to drink to much.  There you are simply dealing with either apathy, or selfish behavior.  And we had cancer before then, and will have it even if we returned to a stone-age environment.

Besides, does anybody doubt that the advances in Fuel Cell technology will improve the environment?

They also acted the same way with the Apollo program, until Apollo 13.  Remember that none of the networks carried the live broadcast from them, and hardly mentioned the flight until the explosion.  That is just human nature.  Once it is done 2 or 3 times, it becomes routine.  When Challenger exploded, the only network to carry it live was CNN, none of the others thought it was an important launch.  And if memory serves me right, hardly anybody would have known about Columbia even being up, if not for the fact that the astronaut from Israel was onboard.
Good points.  The shuttle launches had become so routine by 1986 that only CNN was carrying it live.  There was no FOX news in 1986, and just for that the world was a better place!  Anyway, I wouldn't have seen it live because I was in school.  However, the the vice-principal announced it over the PA as soon as the news came in, which was a matter of minutes.
I remember spending that afternoon watching the updates on the tube.  I still remember Reagan's address.  D*mn he was good at that stuff!  Four months later, Chernobyl lit up.  The Challenger was heartbreaking, Chernobyl was terrifying.

Good points.  The shuttle launches had become so routine by 1986 that only CNN was carrying it live.  There was no FOX news in 1986, and just for that the world was a better place!  Anyway, I wouldn't have seen it live because I was in school.  However, the the vice-principal announced it over the PA as soon as the news came in, which was a matter of minutes.


Actually, a lot of schools carried it live because Christy Macullif was on board.  There were several "lessons" planned to be conducted from space.


I remember spending that afternoon watching the updates on the tube.  I still remember Reagan's address.  D*mn he was good at that stuff!  Four months later, Chernobyl lit up.  The Challenger was heartbreaking, Chernobyl was terrifying.


Well, he was not called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.  No matter how you felt about President Reagan, there was no denying that he gave the country a well-needed morale boost when he was in office.  In 1980 we were depressed.  Double digit inflation and unemployment, missed Olympic games, gasoline over $1 a gallon, and still trying to get over Viet Nam.  Reagan helped make us proud to be Americans again.  He even helped lay the groundwork for Lybia to eventually swear off of terrorism, the liberation of Poland, Checkslovokia and Hungary, and the fall of the Soviet Union.

Just like any other administration, there was good and bad.  But there is no denying he made us feel good again.

Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster, just as it was a testiment to the bravery of the people of the Soviet Union.  I still feel pride in those men who willingly worked themselves to death, just to help protect others from the radiation.  To bad the Commisars thought it was unimportant to place a containment dome around the reactor.  If they had done so, it more then likely would have been no worse then the Three Mile Island disaster.  A lot of brave men lost their lives, and I am sure that they will never be forgotten.

Actually, a lot of schools carried it live because Christy Macullif was on board.  There were several "lessons" planned to be conducted from space.
Some of the saddest footage was of the auditorium of Christa McAauliff's school.  All the students were celebrating with their ribbons and party whistles, and then a terrible hush.  The principal then ordered everybody to file back to their classrooms.  The unthinkable happened.  Then again, we had so much confidence in the Shuttle program we forgot about the risk.  I doubt it occurred to the principal to say, "Ms. McAuliff may be the first teacher in space, but she may be killed in a huge explosion, so let's guard our optimism!"
::)

Well, he was not called "The Great Communicator" for nothing.  No matter how you felt about President Reagan, there was no denying that he gave the country a well-needed morale boost when he was in office.  In 1980 we were depressed.  Double digit inflation and unemployment, missed Olympic games, gasoline over $1 a gallon, and still trying to get over Viet Nam.  Reagan helped make us proud to be Americans again.  He even helped lay the groundwork for Lybia to eventually swear off of terrorism, the liberation of Poland, Checkslovokia and Hungary, and the fall of the Soviet Union. Just like any other administration, there was good and bad.  But there is no denying he made us feel good again.
I complimented Ronald Reagan, that was hard enough!  Otherwise....
:-X



Chernobyl was an unmitigated disaster, just as it was a testiment to the bravery of the people of the Soviet Union.  I still feel pride in those men who willingly worked themselves to death, just to help protect others from the radiation.  To bad the Commisars thought it was unimportant to place a containment dome around the reactor.  If they had done so, it more then likely would have been no worse then the Three Mile Island disaster.  A lot of brave men lost their lives, and I am sure that they will never be forgotten.

Well, we like to grumble about Congress and overbearing government regulators gumming up projects, but look what happens when the executive branch holds all the power...the former Soviet Union.  Their heritage is a landscape of horribly decripit nuke plants, rivers choked with carcinogens, and soils laden with heavy metals.  I'd like to think our President and our industries would not do such things, but we have to fight them tooth-and-nail not to!
Three Mile Island was about an hour away from melting down, blowing up and killing tens of thousands of people.
The company said it would not blow,
the government said it might!
Harrisburg, oh, Harrisburg,
I wonder who is right!
--Midnight Oil
Harrisburg