10-year set-back to US space programme

The Evening Standard ^ | February 5, 2003 | Colin Adamson

[MadIvan]

Hopefully President Bush will prove them wrong.

Regards, Ivan

[MadIvan]

Bump!

[Timesink]

"I don't think you could build a new shuttle if you wanted to. All the production facilities were shut down and I'm not sure the tooling is still there," said John Logsdon at the Space Policy Institute of George Washington University.

Think about the overwhelming stupidity of this statement for a moment. He's essentially saying that the whole of human society could never build another Model T Ford because the original assembly line was eventually retrofitted to make something else.

By that logic, McDonald's would still be on its first restaurant.

[Kakaze]

A re vamped/ new state of the art craft, that can autonimously go from runway to orbit and back is the best tribute : in my view.

The time for new technology and flexibility is here......I sit like alot of people, numbed by the loss.

God Speed to them , and to a new orbital vehicle.

[Miss Marple]

The shuttle won't be replaced, but I believe something better will, instead, be initiated. The first priority in this effort, however, will be convincing the American people, and I think the President is equal to the task.

[Procyon]

will not replace the lost space shuttle Columbia for around 10 years, sticking to a schedule that may force the agency to rely more on Russia to supply the International Space Station.

This snippet reveals the author as uninformed. The shuttle Columbia never visited the space station. Being the first shuttle constructed, it was too heavy to be boosted to the altitude of the ISS. It's loss has no effect on the space station program other than to call into question the safety and reliability of the Shuttles in general.

[arkady_renko]

Maybe they are thinking that the other shuttles will now have to make the lower orbit missions to take up the slack.

A_R

[OldFriend]

The ten year set back began the day slick willie became President. The future of the space program begins NOW!

[Moonman62]

This snippet reveals the author as uninformed. The shuttle Columbia never visited the space station. Being the first shuttle constructed, it was too heavy to be boosted to the altitude of the ISS. It's loss has no effect on the space station program other than to call into question the safety and reliability of the Shuttles in general.

The ISS is actually in a fairly low orbit. The problem is the high inclination, which was selected to accomadate the Russians, requires more energy. The Columbia could have made it to the ISS, however it wouldn't have been able to carry the heavy payloads required.

[Mr. Silverback]

Afternoon, Ivan!

Serious new doubts emerged today over America's ability to make any significant contribution to the international space programme for almost a decade.

I vividly remember hearing this "ten year setback" line in the weeks after Challenger. I could see ten years before a new space plane flies, but otherwise this is bunk.

[Redleg Duke]

I suspect he will. He has so far. The Columbia Disaster will be the catalyst for a rebirth of a rational space program. It has languished far too long.

[Sacajaweau]

One step back and 10 forward. It will bring about a new, perhaps better heat shield. The problem will always be: the ships and the universe are so complex, the accident stats will come "AFTER THE FACTS" not before these awesome exploratory flights.

Think of the many "exploration" ships coming to the shores of America and other countries that are at the bottom of the seas of our universe.

The stats come after.

[Protagoras]

and to a new orbital vehicle.

I assume you want to fund it with your own money. I'd opt out if they didn't have their guns trained on me.

[Sacajaweau]

We assume that the "best" of inventors are within or associated with NASA and just when we think we have nothing better, "POOF", someone lifts their head from a drawing board and says "I've got it!!".

[Protagoras]

While I share in the excitment of discovery, I prefer the type that is achieved without the use of funds taken from people by force.

History is replete with it, but that doesn't make it right. Back in the early eighteen hundreds, Jefferson's use of tax money to finance exploration was wrong IMO, even though it was exciting and useful to future travelers.

[Sacajaweau]

All exploration has been funded by the coffers of various Nations. Columbus is the one that we commonly use as the example. Without exploration, there can be no expansion.

We went from folks in Conestoga wagons, to rails, to airplanes. We went from millions of acres of barren lands to a land to house and feed billions of people.

We have built a nation from sea to sea as a result of that preliminary exploration. We may have paid for this but it has paid us back a million fold.

Your grandparents were likely immigrants. Where would you be now???

[Protagoras]

Your entire post was already answered in my previous post.

Not to mention that you seem to be making the case that all of those things could not have been accomplished absent government force.

[hopespringseternal]

He's essentially saying that the whole of human society could never build another Model T Ford because the original assembly line was eventually retrofitted to make something else.

Therein lies the problem with this thinking. Just as it would be silly to start production of Model Ts, it would be silly to build another shuttle. We can do better.

I just hope that whoever has the president's ear on this issue realizes the single most important aspect of the next launcher is economics. We really don't need another white elephant that only the government can afford.

[Sacajaweau]

You're missing the point. These were FEDERAL LANDS owned by THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES and consequently, the preliminary exploration was paid for by the PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. Private individuals would take over after the preliminaries of the Federal Government.

The Federal Government (1785)set up the criteria for the division and exploration of Federal Lands (Northwest Territory)into what would become states and further divisions. It is contained in the Congressional Records and remains relatively unchanged to this day.

The money from the sale of the Federal Lands went into the Federal coffers as do present day rentals of federal timber, oil and mineral lands.

As an investment, we got our money back.

Lewis & Clark and their men got paid practically nothing for what they produced and endured. This was a scientific journey-"men trained in astronomy, botany and medicine". You're looking at it as some sort of field trip. Look at it as the beginning of mapping the lands for all the immigrants that would come to the United States to settle. You're grandparents are likely among them. So many benefactors on the exploratory work of "A FEW GOOD MEN".