Posted on 07/16/2005 12:37:54 PM PDT by Arkie2
CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Maybe NASA's managers still view the shuttle as the Cadillac of space technology, but they sometimes make it sound as if it were a cranky old Ford with a few too many miles on it.
Deputy shuttle manager Wayne Hale says its recent on-again, off-again electronics problem "reminds me of an old truck I own."
The Space Shuttle Discovery sits on Launch Pad 39B in this photo made Tuesday, July 12, 2005. NASA officials said Friday, July 15, 2005 that the scheduled launch of STS-114 would be delayed at least seven to ten days. (AP Photo/Bob Bukaty) (Bob Bukaty - AP) Delays for safety improvements have repeatedly thwarted the shuttle's comeback from the Columbia catastrophe 2 1/2 years ago. But aging components could eventually add their own setbacks and risks to flying as the shuttles near retirement in just five years, according to authorities on space travel.
"If I have any worries at all, it's a few years from now, down the road, when the hardware gets older," said Bob Sieck, a former shuttle launch director and NASA safety adviser.
Designed in the 1970s, the shuttle was meant to advance space travel by several giants leaps. It was to be named the Space Clipper, in a reference to the speedy American clipper ship that expanded the possibilities of sea travel in the 19th century.
The shuttle would be the first vehicle to travel back and forth to space. Its comparatively comfy quarters for crew and garage-like cargo bay made the old space capsules feel like claustrophobic sardine tins. The shuttle would make trips to space much more routine, more like commercial flying. It would potentially be the first step in putting space within the reach of ordinary business and tourism.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
ping
It's better to have it right the first time rather than (for example) placing mirrors on backwards. Then costing the taxpayer billions to shoot up a repair vehicle just to replace the mirrors. Dumb dodos!
Bet you didn't know they could have built three Hubbles and placed them in geosynchronous orbit for the price of the one up there now. Why, you ask, didn't they do it? Well, the launch of the Hubble had to be tied to the shuttle to prove it's worth as a cargo vessel. A purely political decision.
I'm sure India or China will build us a new fleet.
Now you've really ticked me off with that news. NASA needs overhauling bad--really bad.
Pssst: Ask him for the actual cost analysis before you let any unsupported claims get you riled up.
The new fleet is already on the drawing boards and will be an enormous improvement over what we have now because they've decided to split the cargo and manned mission between two vehicles, return to capsule re-entry, and make the vehicles scalable.
Unfortunately they won't be online for 5-10 years. Meantime, NASA feels compelled to prove it's still in the manned program with the shuttle. It's a recipe for another disaster.
It's always fun hearing from the "the glass isn't half empty, it's going to break and cut an artery, it's all futile" crowd...
Thanks! Was so riled up I spilled my cup of hot chocolate down the front of my prized Mickey Mouse t-shirt. I'm calm now and my t-shirt is dirty.
"A ship in port is safe, but that's not what ships are built for."
-- Rear Admiral Grace Murray Hopper (1906-1992)
I'd be PO'd if I'd spilled something on my Memin Pinguin Tshirt....
It's always fun hearing from the "we should keep throwing up a discredited piece of crap just so we can prove we've got a manned program" crowd.
Or about the cost to the Superconducting Super Collider and real science, contra 'technology'.
The statement "Let's Fly" uttered by the crewmembers says it all for me.
It says it for me too, I'd rather "fly" than be spam in a can.
"Let's Fly!"
Face it, the reality is that we must use what we HAVE until
we can produce another state of the art vehicle which itself
will no doubt be obsolete in 10 years.
No, what it says to me is that the entire program is run by a bunch of high testosterone flyboys who have little, if any, concern about costs or an unmanned alternative. Their blind, macho Bravado is unnerving at best. The cost/safety issues would be enough to scrap any other program less politically connected and less publicized.
IMO 90% or more of the missions flown by the Shuttle could have been achieved by unmanned alternatives but then the Pilots wouldn't be needed would they.
No, what it says to me is that the entire program is run by a bunch of high testosterone flyboys who have little, if any, concern about costs or an unmanned alternative. Their blind, macho Bravado is unnerving at best.
Their "blind macho Bravado" is what lets them ride atop
the worlds largest firework in order to go to work.
Quit your sniveling, no one is gonna make YOU ride one.
We can flush billions of dollars down the welfare sinkhole and in third world cesspools but we can't build decent spacecraft for our astronauts? Where the hell are our priorities?
Sniveling?? Far from it. I just don't think other, more effective and safer means of exploration should be shortchanged, or even ignored, for the sake of this venture. >p?BTW, I know they won't make me ride it but they sure as hell will make us all pay for what is continually being shown to be an expensive boondoggle. Too bad these resources weren't used for more beneficial purposes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.