NASA: "The Shuttle Was a Mistake"

[I keep posting these clips from Bob Park's newsletter to this group
from time to time because (a) there's always been a large component of
"piloting" to the Shuttle, and (b) he's a sharp, well-informed, well-
connected, outspoken guy -- and (c) obviously because I agree with him
on the issue. If people on this group think this seriously OT and/or
are seriously annoyed by this, cast enough online votes and I'll quit.]


WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Sep 05 Washington, DC

1. NASA: SO THE DAMNED SHUTTLE WAS A MISTAKE, WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

This week, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told USA Today that
both the space shuttle and the International Space Station were
mistakes. His candor is admirable, but after all, these were not
Bush initiatives, and Griffin's opinion of them was known before
he was tapped for the top job. What is disturbing is that
Griffin pledged to complete the ISS before the shuttle is retired
in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.

"AES" wrote in message
...
[I keep posting these clips from Bob Park's newsletter to this group
from time to time because (a) there's always been a large component of
"piloting" to the Shuttle, and (b) he's a sharp, well-informed, well-
connected, outspoken guy -- and (c) obviously because I agree with him
on the issue. If people on this group think this seriously OT and/or
are seriously annoyed by this, cast enough online votes and I'll quit.]


WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 30 Sep 05 Washington, DC

1. NASA: SO THE DAMNED SHUTTLE WAS A MISTAKE, WHAT DO WE DO NOW?

This week, NASA Administrator Michael Griffin told USA Today that
both the space shuttle and the International Space Station were
mistakes. His candor is admirable, but after all, these were not
Bush initiatives, and Griffin's opinion of them was known before
he was tapped for the top job. What is disturbing is that
Griffin pledged to complete the ISS before the shuttle is retired
in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.


But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the ISS
and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

---------------------------------------------
DW

Darkwing \(Badass\) theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.

But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the ISS
and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

The "world's greatest telescope" is presently in development (the James
Web Space Telescope). The Hubble is a great bird, but there may be
limited value in keeping it going until the James Webb can be launched.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

"Jay Masino" wrote in message
...
Darkwing \(Badass\) theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com wrote:
in 2010. There are no plans to send a shuttle to service the
world's greatest telescope, but the schedule calls for 18 shuttle
flights to finish the ISS, plus 10 ISS supply missions that's
an average of 5.6 shuttle flights per year. Anyone who would bet
on getting 28 flights out of these rickety-old jalopies has been
living on some other planet. Even with a crew of just five,
that's 140 rolls of the dice. That's a big gamble to support a
space station that is now acknowledged to be of little value.

But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the
ISS
and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

The "world's greatest telescope" is presently in development (the James
Web Space Telescope). The Hubble is a great bird, but there may be
limited value in keeping it going until the James Webb can be launched.

--- Jay


But it doesn't take pretty visual pictures.

------------------------------------------------------
DW

But it's the world's greatest space station. If they were abandoning the ISS
and were only sending up shuttles to fix the Hubble the same people would
still be bitching about not saving the ISS. People just like to bitch.

I'm a very strong proponent of our space program, but the Space Station
was so compromised by the bureaucrats that it's become little more than
a political tool.

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. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
to be used for this purpose.

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.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
to be used for this purpose.

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).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

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).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

Exactly. In addition, there's lots of other research, related to the
earth's environment, that can be done in an orbiting space station.
Personally, I think Bush's quest for the moon/mars is a huge waste of
money. In my opinion, it's literally devistating NASA from the inside by
robbing money from worthwhile research projects, in order to fund the
moon/mars development.



--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.OceanCityAirport.com
http://www.oc-Adolfos.com

In article ,
Bob Noel wrote:

In article . com,
"Jay Honeck" wrote:

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. Sadly, the current ISS is in an orbit that does not allow it
to be used for this purpose.

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).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

rg

In article ,
Ron Garret 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).
For example, continued medical research into the effects of space
travel and/or low-g exposure. Materials research (nothing like exposing
materials to the space environment to study how they handle/react to
space. If one expands their view beyond earth and very near-earth space,
a station at L-5 (is that the right name?) could be a good research
platform.
And how about the possible medical benefits of low-g environments?

All these things could be done for a lot less money without the/a space
station.

how?

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

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.

I'm not sure that there's much advantage to on-site fabrication until/unless
one gets *very* fancy (ie. importing materials from some place like the
moon, with the correspondingly lower transport costs).

- Andrew