NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"

In article ne.com,
Andrew Gideon wrote:

We've a huge investment in satellites. Real on-site repair could be a time
and money saver if done well.

In most, probably all, "repair in space" situations, you can build and
launch a replacement satellite (and throw in some improvements
on the side) for less than -- probably much less than -- the costs of
launching and recovering the manned space vehicle that does the
repairs.

Andrew Gideon wrote:
Bob Noel wrote:


There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point
(I assume you mean space stations in general, not just the ISS).


We've a huge investment in satellites. Real on-site repair could be a time
and money saver if done well.

Do you have a clue where those satellites are in orbit compared to where
the space station is or where the shuttle can get to? It's not like
you can go up and grab a geosynch satellite and take it to the ISS for
repair and then plop it back in the right orbit easier.

Bob Noel wrote:

There are a few other uses for a space station, not just a launch point

Manufacturing in hard vacuum is another. I've read that there are also medicines
that can be made in that environment much more easily than here.

George Patterson
Drink is the curse of the land. It makes you quarrel with your neighbor.
It makes you shoot at your landlord. And it makes you miss him.

On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com::

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
travel.

Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.

The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal of
peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
meaningful scientific achievement.

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com::

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
travel.

Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.

The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal of
peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
meaningful scientific achievement.

You could argue that this is the UN's function. Also, the countries which
are participating in the ISS generally are not the bomb throwing loonies who
are the real concern in today's world.

In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the ISS
were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to transport stuff to
a space station that didn't exist until 20 years after the shuttle's launch.
The US joined the ISS effort because NASA needed a space station to validate
the shuttle. Circular logic and justifications like these have cost US
taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

I am a fan of a space program, but it needs to be about exploration and/or
scientific discovery. Instead, we're stuck with a Shuttle and ISS which are
essentially the world's most expensive exercise in logistics.

KB

On Sun, 2 Oct 2005 13:15:39 -0400, "Kyle Boatright"
wrote in
::


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com::

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for use
as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually, interstellar)
travel.

Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.

The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal of
peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
meaningful scientific achievement.

You could argue that this is the UN's function.

Yes. One could. But you'd have to overlook the leadership role
incumbent on a nation in the world position of the USA. (Where is UN
headquarters located?)

Also, the countries which are participating in the ISS generally are
not the bomb throwing loonies who are the real concern in today's world.

Exactly. They are the technologically and politically advanced
countries with a well educated populace. They stand as examples of
successful (non theocratic) government to the rest of the world.

In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the ISS
were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to transport stuff to
a space station that didn't exist until 20 years after the shuttle's launch.

Do you think the US has learned anything of use for planning future
missions as a result of the Shuttle program?

The US joined the ISS effort because NASA needed a space station to validate
the shuttle. Circular logic and justifications like these have cost US
taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars.

Bureaucracy, by it's political nature, works in convoluted ways.

I would much prefer to see this nation's wealth used for cooperative,
constructive prepossess, than weapons and war. But that's just me.
You may feel differently about that.

I am a fan of a space program, but it needs to be about exploration and/or
scientific discovery.

How would you achieve the goals of exploration and scientific
discovery? What would you explore and how would you propose to
overcome the obstacles to achieve it?

Instead, we're stuck with a Shuttle and ISS which are
essentially the world's most expensive exercise in logistics.


It's a beginning, after all.

Because space exploration is not a real priority issue like arms and
military, progress has been slow. It is only now, after significant
satellite exploration of our solar system, that we have any idea of
the requirements of realistic exploratory missions. Engineers like to
see the mission accomplished successfully, unlike early airmen who
just wanted to try things out without benefit of knowledge of the
entire flight envelope of aircraft of that time. At least, that's how
I see it.

Kyle Boatright wrote:

In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the ISS
were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to transport stuff
to a space station that didn't exist until 20 years after the shuttle's
launch.

You're neglecting the cold war mentality that existed at the time of the
Shuttle's introduction. Grabbing the high ground certainly appeared to be
(and likely was, even if it turned out to have been unnecessary) a
reasonable strategy.

- Andrew

Recently, Kyle Boatright posted:

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On 2 Oct 2005 05:04:08 -0700, "Jay Honeck" wrote
in . com::

The fact is, the ONLY long-term reason for a space station is for
use as a launch point for interplanetary (or, eventually,
interstellar) travel.

Please provide the name of one other single human endeavor that has
brought so many nations together for a CONSTRUCTIVE purpose.

The International Spaced Station is a start on the "long term" goal
of peaceful coexistence among the nations of our would, if not a
meaningful scientific achievement.

You could argue that this is the UN's function.

Only tangentially. The UN is primarily a forum to address grievances in a
peaceful manner, not to work collaboratively on a complex technological
problem that could benefit the human race.

Also, the countries
which are participating in the ISS generally are not the bomb
throwing loonies who are the real concern in today's world.

True, its participants are the bomb-dropping loonies who *should* be the
real concern in today's world, largely because we're creating the need for
the existance of "bomb trowing loonies" (and in more than one instance
arming them) in the first place. But, what does that have to do with the
value of the ISS?

In hindsight (always 20/20, right?), I'd say that the shuttle and the
ISS were both boondoggles. The shuttle was built in order to
transport stuff to a space station that didn't exist until 20 years
after the shuttle's launch. The US joined the ISS effort because NASA
needed a space station to validate the shuttle. Circular logic and
justifications like these have cost US taxpayers hundreds of billions
of dollars.

The shuttle was, and largely still is, a platform to test the viability of
reusable space vehicles (the notion of this kind of vehicle seems to be as
deeply imbedded in our psyche as flying cars). Giving it missions such as
supplying the ISS is to provide further knowledge about working in space.
We are still quite primitive in that area, as the most recent in-flight
shuttle repairs show. There is still much to learn, and at this point,
there is no other space vehicle on the planet capable of providing the
same quality of "classroom" in which to obtain that education.

The ISS was, and largely still is, a platform to perform low-gravity
experiments and to address the effects of long-term space living on the
human body. A manned mission to Mars (much less anything further) would be
an impossibility without the information and systems resulting from these
experiments. And, the notion of long-term space travel is also deeply
embedded in our psyche, so the value of the ISS should be self-evident; do
it or give up the idea of long-term manned space travel.

Neil

Jay:
I'm a very strong proponent of our space program,

I was too, until NASA gave Moller five million dollars for more R&D on
his flying car.

Jay Honeck wrote:

As for the shuttle? It was a great idea that, again, was so
*******ized by the bureaucrats and politicians that it lost its
purpose. It should have been replaced a decade ago.

And the AF bailed on it a long time ago in favor of regular
boosters. Back when I was working for Martin, they were
gearing up for the second (Vandenburg) launch base and some
classified missions, but that all got shelved.