Shuttle and Space Station were Mistakes, Space Agency Chief Tells US Daily

AFP ^ | 9/28/05

[anymouse]

Whoa! This is going to ruffle a few feathers.

[anymouse]

Space pork ping.

[alex]

There was one good thing from the Shuttle - USSR died trying to follow the same path.

[Lauretij2]

Yeah, God forbid we take any risks or be ambitious with our space program.

Jeez, what's with this guy

[Rodney King]

Some of us have been saying that on FR for years, and all we do is get trashed for it. Let's see what the NASA worshippers will say about this (that is, if they get time away from the Dungeons and Dragons game they are playing over their HAM radios).

[Rockitz]

It's nice to know I wasted a few years of my life on a mistake. What a bonehead statement!

This is possibly true for the Space Station, especially after it morphed from the original Freedom design to "Ralpha" (Russia + Alpha) and moved from 28 deg to 51.5 deg to suit Russia, but not shuttle. We learned everything we know about reusable space propulsion hardware from shuttle. That information will be priceless if we ever get to critical mass in repeated flights to orbit.

[saganite]

Damn! This man is making a lot of sense! What's he doing in govt.? No doubt he will soon be fired.

[xzins]

Yep. I agree with the guy.

We put someone on the moon and then decided that the next step was merely orbiting the earth so we could do lab work in a reentry vehicle.

Amazingly near sighted.

[BoBToMatoE]

Damn! This man is making a lot of sense! What's he doing in govt.? No doubt he will soon be fired.

---

Baloney. This guy is a loon.

I can see him responding to President Kennedy.. "Sorry sir, but we do not have the technology to go to the moon."

Lastly, the money we spend on the space program is microsopic compared to other programs (not even divisions) - and that is not even considering the spin offs which go directly into the market from space exploration.

[FReepaholic]

..."Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."...

The agreement on the orbit inclination was an appeasment to the Russians.

That orbit has cost us millions (and perhaps 7 astronauts) in upgrades to the shuttle components.

In order to reach that orbit the SSME's have to run at 105% (IIRC), the ET had to be redesigned to be lighter (which may have contributed to the Columbia disaster)and the SRB's had to have modifications done.

[Tulsa Ramjet]

"Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."--------------------------------------------- Not so harsh! We got Tang!

[windcliff]

ping

[PISANO]

Almost 40 years ago our astronauts WALKED on the moon. If 'space exploration' would have continued with that same energy and inspiring vision one can only guess where NASA would be today.

It is almost sad looking back to those days...... for it seems we have wasted these 40 years when they [NASA] changed directions and left the FINAL FRONTIER.

[newgeezer]

It's amazing what some people will do when tasked with spending a huge pile of other people's money.

[zarf]

Abandoning the moon program was a tragic decision. Blatantly stupid at the time, it seems even more so today.

[Moonman62]

There was one good thing from the Shuttle - USSR died trying to follow the same path.

The Shuttle was a big part of that. The mistake was sticking with it for too long.

[montag813]

Can we turn the Shuttles into bombers for Iraq? That payload could hold quite a few MOABs.

[MHalblaub]

Where Mr. Griffin would have built his space station?
In the Antarctic, on the moon or on Mars?
For nearly all low gravity experiments you need a station in space and not on moon. To gather experience for long term missions in space a space station is much cheaper and saver.

The goal why America went to moon in 1969 was always clear. It was not a scientific mission it was just a way to show your muscles to the Russians.

But today I am not quite sure about the aim going back to moon. As training for a mission to mars? Just to be there? Well, there is still something on Mars http://marsrovers.jpl.nasa.gov/home/index.html

[kjam22]

We put someone on the moon and then decided that the next step was merely orbiting the earth so we could do lab work in a reentry vehicle.

Yep... and a reentry vehicle that lacks the power to re-enter at sub orbital speed.