We Never Should Have Mothballed the Space Shuttle

In the aftermath of Challenger, there was never any doubt about continuing, never the thought of quitting. After the Columbia accident almost seventeen years later, however, the program was wound down over the next eight years. Once construction of the International Space Station was completed, the Shuttles were grounded and the shuttle program ended.

I think that was a mistake. Space Shuttle was and remains the most capable flying machine ever conceived, built and operated. We learned much from the thirty years of Shuttle flights, and in my opinion, we should still be flying them. Shuttle carried a crew of seven, plus nearly sixty thousand pounds of payload to low earth orbit. After transforming from a rocket into an orbital research or construction platform, it entered the atmosphere and landed on a conventional runway at the end of its mission. After around one hundred days of processing, it was ready to fly again.

You are generally correct about striving and exploring, but I believe that would not apply to space travel. There is something inherently dangerous, unnatural, and of questionable value when mankind explores places whee he is unsuited to survive in his natural state.

I disagree. I think it is just a higher level to which we must strive. We have explored some of them most inhospitable places on this earth. Crossing the continents as nomads, humans were able to pull all the resources they needed from their immediate environment. The next step of our exploration, crossing the oceans, we lost that ability: we had to carry our own shelter, water, food and other supplies. So we used tools and developed constructs (ships, etc.) to facilitate the exploration. Space exploration requires the same development and preparation, except to an even higher degree. A man outside of a properly-stocked ship on the ocean could live for a number of days, perhaps a few weeks. But more than likely, he would die. A man outside of a spaceship in space would die in seconds. Ultimately, its the same equation, the same risk, except the risk of death is certain rather than almost certain.

The void of space itself is inimical to life, but there are other planets that may not be. Long-term colonization of Mars is an achievable goal. Small-scale terraforming is not out of our technological reach. Hell, if you believe the global warming fanatics, humans are even capable of changing the climate of an entire planet.

We have an amazing, God-given ability to adapt to our environment. But we also have an amazing, God-given ability to conquer and transfer our environment for our own well-being and comfort.

We are meant to grow, strive, adapt, discover, explore and move forward. It's what human beings are ultimately designed for, physically and psychologically. That's why we stagnate and devolve when there are too many of us in a single place for too long. Its the manifest destiny of the human condition.

Yup, I think accessing and probably converting old data is the reason for Fortran. Or maybe writing some new routines for the older space probes like the Voyagers to keep them going.

The shuttles are done, not coming back. Endeavour and Atlantis were just about stripped bare for hazmat remediation and spares reclaimation/reuse prior to being retired. Discovery is more intact (there was a BIG fight with the Smithsonian over that, and neither side got what it wanted) but has lost all of her propulsive plumbing.

At this point it would be cheaper to build 200-series shuttles new than resurrect the three existing ones.

Something to keep in mind here is that the human body is designed to walk upright, sleep about a third of its time, breathe air with the chemical composition of what is found here on earth, and live in a terrestrial environment with very specific gravitational constraints. Surviving for an extended period of time outside these constraints is much different than surviving in wild, inhospitable places here on earth.

If we don't even have any permanent settlements at the South Pole, I can't imagine why anyone would be optimistic about establishing a human presence on Mars.

1:135 chance of loss of the vehicle per launch.

Send cargo by way of a commercial launch vehicle, and crew on a mini-shuttle. Each is optimized to deliver proper services at best cost.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LafQo21Iwo4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTwRxtmQ9IY

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.