Skip to comments.
Shuttle and Space Station were Mistakes, Space Agency Chief Tells US Daily
AFP ^
| 9/28/05
Posted on 09/28/2005 9:02:35 AM PDT by anymouse
The US space agency NASA lost its way in the 1970s when it focused on the space shuttle and International Space Station, NASA chief Michael Griffin reportedly said.
"It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path," Griffin said. "We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can."
Asked whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin told USA Today: "My opinion is that it was. It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible."
Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in."
Griffin announced September 19 that the United States will send four astronauts to the moon in 2018 in a major return to its pioneering manned missions into space.
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: griffin; iss; nasa; shuttle; space; spacestation
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-176 next last
To: anymouse
Not me...I'm a space booster all the way around and have been since I was a kid...I fully expected, when I was young, back in the sixties, to be living on a lunar colony by now, and have kids getting ready to be Mars colonists...shattered dreams...
121
posted on
09/28/2005 2:13:32 PM PDT
by
Knitting A Conundrum
(Act Justly, Love Mercy, and Walk Humbly With God Micah 6:8)
To: anymouse
This is horrible timing. The budget cutters are looking for offsets for hurricane relief and questioning the Mars initiative. Although he is talking about NEO, it will get broad brushed into an indictment of the entire space program and used by those who want to kill manned spaceflight altogether IMO.
122
posted on
09/28/2005 2:24:20 PM PDT
by
Truth29
To: narby
123
posted on
09/28/2005 2:31:23 PM PDT
by
MHalblaub
(Tell me in four more years (No, I did not vote for Kerry))
To: MHalblaub
Good images. That first concept of the space shuttle looks workable. It'd be better if it was a single stage, if only to avoid the ground handling of mating the two vehicles. The first Trans-atlantic mail plane for the Brits did this, with two 4 engine aircraft stacked on top of each other. Yeah, it'd work, and like this concept it would be more "efficient". But it's just so darn much easier to operate something that you just put fuel in and let fly. Even if the payload wasn't that much as a percentage of tare weight and fuel, it's just so much easier to tank it up.
I did a bit searching on the net on the early proposals for the shuttle from the late 60's, early 70's. Obviously it was damaged because NASA insisted that it be able to haul up large components. That might be nice, but you just don't need an 18 wheeler every day. They had the Saturn V for that. Dummies.
124
posted on
09/28/2005 2:57:34 PM PDT
by
narby
To: tricky_k_1972
It wasn't just the tank, the shuttle itself was heavier than the others, this type of science and repair of the hubble were about all it was up to (no pun intended). The one useful thing about the shuttle was that it could theoretically return large payloads back to Earth. But given how rarely that was done, I suspect that NASA can live without it.
To: chimera
Like I said, think small, be small.That perfectly describes NASA lately.
We should have settlements on the moon by now.
126
posted on
09/28/2005 3:12:00 PM PDT
by
airborne
(My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
To: saganite
One word. Space elevator. Well--- that's two words.A space elevator would make an easy target for terorists.
127
posted on
09/28/2005 3:17:51 PM PDT
by
airborne
(My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
To: airborne
Shopping centers and WalMart are easier targets and more likely to have the desired effect by the terrorists. We shouldn't let fear of those scum keep us from moving forward in any area of our lives.
128
posted on
09/28/2005 3:29:18 PM PDT
by
saganite
(The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
To: saganite
See also the last paragraph in post # 71.
More unproven systems will, IMO, result in more wasted time and money.
We could most likely use the current type of rockets and technology and get a small colony on the moon in under 5 years.
IF we were serious about it.
129
posted on
09/28/2005 3:35:17 PM PDT
by
airborne
(My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
To: anymouse
Shuttle a mistake? Space Station a mistake?
Maybe NASA is a mistake. Maybe private enterprise is the answer.
To: airborne
These are private industry programs as far as I know and if NASA contributes anything it's seed money. These kinds of technologies need to be explored or we're just going to be driving around in the space version of the Model T for the next few hundred years.
131
posted on
09/28/2005 3:41:38 PM PDT
by
saganite
(The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
To: saganite
It's just my opinion, and I'm no rocket scientist, but I believe that NASA pursuing the space elevator will end up with the same results as NASA building the space shuttle.
An unproductive waste of time and resources.
132
posted on
09/28/2005 3:56:22 PM PDT
by
airborne
(My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
To: RadioAstronomer
Apologies for not clicking. I just get depressed whenever I think of the wasted resources going to the ISS when I've dreamt of real space stations since I was a kid....!
133
posted on
09/28/2005 4:03:38 PM PDT
by
Androcles
(All your typos are belong to us)
To: airborne
I did some googling on these things and there seem to be more productive uses for them in space than as a means to reach space. It's pretty well understood how they would work in various uses but the engineering is the holdup. IIRC there have been several tether trials already carried out by NASA, one using the shuttle. Not much success so far but I'm betting my grandchildren will think they're pretty standard fare.
134
posted on
09/28/2005 4:06:09 PM PDT
by
saganite
(The poster formerly known as Arkie 2)
To: saganite
Not much success so far but I'm betting my grandchildren will think they're pretty standard fare.Like the 50's when they said the same thing about flying cars and the end of the internal combustion engine.
135
posted on
09/28/2005 4:11:21 PM PDT
by
airborne
(My hero - my nephew! Sean is home! Thank you God!)
To: anymouse
I think NASA needs to break out of a vicious cycle and propose something radical like terraforming Venus or building a space elevator.
To: narby
I worked in the now named Johnson Space flight Center during Apollo and Skylab. I state that so the reader will know my bias. I'd like to add some reality (as I remember it) to NASA's plight since Apollo 11.
Following 11, the budget cuts started. The final Apollo flights were canceled for budget reasons.
The space shuttle was supposed to be used for 10 years then be replaced by the next vehicle which was to be designed and built in that 10 years. There were numerous shuttle designs floating around. But, nobody complains too loudly when NASA's budget was cut so the cuts continued.
The shuttle as built was a compromise in an ever shrinking budget process. There was no room in the budget for the next vehicle. What was supposed to be a 10 year life span was stretched each year as more budget cuts eliminated any thought of new vehicle. So the shuttle has been stretched to a 20+ year lifetime with patchwork to make it last.
The original purpose of the space station was to have a platform to build spacecraft that did not have to be lifted out of earth orbit. Again, more budget cuts killed that. I have not heard of that use in a decade or more.
It was changed to the I space station for several reasons the first of which was PC but also to get the Russians to help pay for it.
So the net is NASA has built what they could with limited resources. There was plenty of vision, but like so many things, no money to implement the vision.
I could on and on about the changes at NASA but I'll stop here. (Is that applause I hear?)
To: Androcles
Apologies for not clicking. I just get depressed whenever I think of the wasted resources going to the ISS when I've dreamt of real space stations since I was a kid....! No need to apologise to me on this one. I too dreamed of being one of the founding members of the first lunar colony. Our generation got screwed big time. I ended up at NASA doing mission control work, however, that was not my dream.
138
posted on
09/28/2005 4:57:59 PM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: phatoldphart
I was working at JPL flying interplanetaries. Then went on to JSC on the ISS.
Once the people were not behind exploration the funding died. Every President since Carter has issued proclimations about going back to the Moon and on to Mars. I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy it now.
139
posted on
09/28/2005 5:00:59 PM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
To: Fitzcarraldo
I think NASA needs to break out of a vicious cycle and propose something radical like terraforming Venus or building a space elevator.Agreed. However, lack of funding will kill anything but small stuff anyway. Did you see they cancled the Prometheus nuclear propulsion studies?
140
posted on
09/28/2005 5:04:46 PM PDT
by
RadioAstronomer
(Senior member of Darwin Central)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120, 121-140, 141-160, 161-176 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson