Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

This Bus Goes Nowhere (A Rational Look at the Shuttle)
The feared and hated lewrockwell.com ^ | 2/5/03 | Vin Suprynowicz

Posted on 02/05/2003 4:43:37 AM PST by from occupied ga

 

This Bus Goes Nowhere

by Vin Suprynowicz

On Saturday, Feb. 1, most Americans were surprised and saddened as we awakened to the news that six federal government employees (five military officers and a civilian engineer) and a brave Israeli Air Force colonel had burned up and died as the creaky 21-year-old Space Bus Columbia overheated and broke up on re-entry over Texas after a 16-day pointless mission in near earth orbit.

By all indications these were seven smart, fine, brave and decent folk. All but Dr. Kalpana Chawla were where the military told them to be, and thus deserve our respect and gratitude as do any servicemen who die in the line of duty. They leave behind spouses and children and dogs; a day of sadness and respect was doubtless appropriate.

On the other hand, were flags dropped to half staff all around the nation the last time we lost a handful of guys in helicopter training accidents? These were seven adults who knew or should have known the risks, and one confidently assumes they all had liberal tax-paid survivor benefits. I’m sorry they’re gone, but there is really no justification here for suspending all our faculties of reason and analysis as we rush to show off our patriotic crocodile tears.

I particularly refer to the thoroughly predictable call that, "We certainly can’t suspend or cut back our space program – now – of all times. Why, that would be an appalling admission of a national weakness of the heart and of the spirit in the face of adversity."

No it wouldn’t. After the 1937 Hindenburg disaster in Lakehurst, N.J. – from which most of the passengers walked away unscathed, by the way (something you certainly can’t say about most of our modern-day plane crashes) – did the people rise en masse to declare, "We must now redouble our efforts to expand and continue commercial dirigible passenger service – any other course would be a pathetic admission of defeat for the human race in the face of a minor technical setback"?

Um ... no.

Yes, I realize the Hindenburg was German, not American. But so what? The point is that commercial dirigible passenger travel ended essentially overnight, and the progress of modern science and technology continued without missing a beat. They were slow and highly vulnerable to bad weather even after you got past that little hydrogen problem, as our Navy found out with the helium-safe Macon.

A few brave souls occasionally suggest bringing back rigid-frame airships for their cargo-lifting capacity, and I wish them well. But the technological progress of the modern world proceeded just fine without commercial Zeppelin travel, just as it will get along just fine – in fact, better, as vast confiscated resources now wasted on government Space Pork are freed to flow into more promising avenues – after our fleet of lumbering space buses, 90-ton, billion-dollar hollow aluminum "all-purpose" meteorites that do nothing particularly well but cost a whole lot doing it, are finally mothballed.

As is now likely to happen sooner than later, no matter how NASA tries to wave the flags, enlist the schoolchildren in writing letters about their "hopes and dreams," and other such shopworn piffle.

Why does the space shuttle carry seven people? Because it was designed with seven seats. The fact that what little these lumbering space buses accomplish could easily be executed by a crew of two or three is clearly demonstrated by the way their "crew" manifests have progressively become toys of patronage and public relations.

You know that not much of importance is going on when they can offer free seats to schoolteachers and foreign dignitaries and septuagenarian senators, as they’ve been doing for years now. The American public has for years unquestioningly accepted without question the baldfaced assertion of "valuable science experiments" being done up there, but where’s the real independent cost accounting? One widely publicized shuttle experiment involved determining whether spiders would build symmetrical webs in zero gravity – I seem to recall some schoolchild dreamed that one up to win a contest.

And anything demanding careful measurement in zero-gravity conditions could – certainly – be done better without seven human chimps bouncing around, bumping into the bulkheads as they try to figure out how to use the porta-potty.

Yes, shuttles have lofted numerous scientific instruments into space, "but only because policy makers mandated that the equipment be configured so they could fly only on the shuttle, and not on Apollo-era booster rockets," reporter Sharon Begley revealed in the Feb. 3 Wall Street Journal.

"From the first flight of the Columbia itself in 1981, the scientific community has viewed the shuttle as a black hole for space dollars," Begley writes, "sucking them up and sending back almost nothing in return."

The "science" on the space shuttle has been made up, quite simply, to create a "scientific" rationale for this billion-dollar bus route to nowhere. From studies of protein crystallization to the behavior of fire in zero gravity, "There is no experiment that has been done on the space shuttle that has made a significant difference to any field of science," according to physicist Robert Park of the American Physical Society in College Park, Maryland.

NASA has to publish the results of such twaddle itself because "They’re not cutting edge science, by and large," agrees Alex Roland, professor of the history of technology at Duke University. "There’s a lot of make-work going on up there," Professor Roland told Ms. Begley of the Journal, as a result of which the results of the shuttle "experiments" are hardly ever published in "refereed scientific journals."

FAILS CRUCIAL SPECIFICATIONS

Why do we need the space shuttle? Why, because valuable science is being done up there, we’re told, measuring the astronauts’ urine production and reaction to weightlessness.

And why is that valuable?

Because it facilitates future shuttle missions.

Ah, so a multi-billion dollar program is proven valuable because it facilitates doing more of the same thing, later. Have I got that right?

Well, wait a minute, you’re forgetting that then there’s the "International Space Station" – surely the most ludicrously inflated title ever bestowed on an over-budget orbiting tin can full of sweat stink that would get you convicted of child abuse if you were to lock any child inside it on a typical schoolyard playground for as little as an hour.

Yes, our submariners once put up with worse. But there’s no imperial Japanese space fleet up there for us to stalk and sink, in case you haven’t noticed.

The shuttle is needed to supply and relieve the "International Space Station," you see. And the reason we need an "International Space Station" is ... well, to give the space shuttle something to do.

The notion that this was all preparing us for a manned mission to Mars was abandoned decades ago. The main priority of any government bureaucracy is – always – to keep itself going at any cost. If they’ve learned all they can possibly learn at this point, and all the objective analyses show the safest and most cost-effective option is to simply mothball these beasts, do you think NASA’s administrators are actually going to – tell – us that?

The space shuttles were originally designed to fly every week or two, but they actually need a complete (and enormously expensive) rebuild after each mission, meaning they can fly only once a year. Which explains why the ancient, groaning Columbia, which was supposed to fly 100 missions in a couple years and then retire, was being launched (with many fingers crossed) on only her 28th mission last month, after 21 years in service!

There aren’t many 21-year-old vehicles I’d even drive across the country, let along subject to temperatures high enough to melt steel at Mach 18 or 25.

The shuttle was supposed to be able to "pay its way" with commercial payloads, but has never even come close – NASA no longer even pretends to be trying. The shuttle was supposed to carry spacemen to repair satellites in high earth orbit, but it can’t. It’s too heavy and it can’t go high enough. It missed many of its original mission specifications, at which point it should and would have been canceled before it ever got off the drawing boards, except that NASA had no other project big enough to keep everyone in work. So the shuttle can only repair faultily designed telescopes (do you suppose government could have had anything to do with that?) set in low earth orbit to give it something to do, or else – launch – satellites from low earth orbit into high earth orbit, which is ludicrous, since that job can be done at a tiny fraction of the cost (and far more safely) with unmanned boosters.

In fact, the Space Shuttle is little more than an enormous make-work jobs program for a large segment of the "Aerospace Industry," whose potentially productive members should have been cut loose and encouraged to go apply their talents to profitable, free-market endeavors 30 years ago, after they got us to the moon ... which – itself – was little more than a Cold War political publicity stunt designed to potlatch the Soviet Union into bankruptcy – a goal we accomplished 13 years ago, in case no one in Houston or Cape Canaveral has noticed.

What’s that? The space program has given us charcoal filters, miniaturized computers, and the powdered orange-flavored fruit drink "Tang"? Right you are. At development costs in the billions of dollars, and possibly a few months faster than they would have been developed by private entrepreneurs trying to sell us better wristwatches, TVs, and home computers ... though even that is impossible to prove, given the way government intervention always messes up asset allocations.

A GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY

Listen to these desperate charlatans crow that "We can’t abandon the space program – now – of all times. In the face of adversity," these table pounders demand, "are we ready to turn tail and give up part of what makes American unique and great?"

How does this differ, really, from the statement of some headstrong barbarian Irish chieftain that "I alone in all the land am great enough to drive one thousand slaves, one thousand virgins, and one thousand head of prime cattle off the cliffs in sacrifice each year at the celebration of Bron Trogain. Why should I stop? This alone proves that Ailil of Cruachan is the greatest king in all the land, does it not? Does anyone else have such wealth to throw away?! Am I not great and fearsome?"

As we speak, a dozen cashiered NASA whistle-blowers are desperately trying to get the media’s attention to tell their "I told them this would happen" whistle-blower stories, and the NASA chieftains are just as busy shredding all those "I can’t believe you’re going to fly this thing again without the redesign and refit you promised us" memos, while closing ranks and doubtless blackmailing (remember those death benefits) even the weeping widows to come forward and tell America, "My husband will have died for nothing if you suspend this program now ... Jim wouldn’t have wanted that."

Please leave the widows in peace, guys. Don’t you think they’ve already sacrificed enough?

I’ve been accused in the past of lacking vision, of being "against space exploration."

But that’s not true. These seven victims of a superannuated government boondoggle weren’t "pushing back the frontiers of space," as we were repeatedly told over the weekend of Feb. 1. (Don’t get me started on the television press corps, pretentiously intoning that "NASA now gets to work on getting the space shuttles back where they belong – into space." There’s objective analysis for you. To which channel do I flip to hear someone announce that "NASA now gets to work on getting these space shuttles where they belong – into a museum"?

In fact, these seven victims were riding an enormously expensive government commuter bus to nowhere.

If some private entrepreneur, having bought NASA’s left-over space junk at a bankruptcy auction, wants to sell shares and launch a venture to mine the asteroids for precious metals, or endeavor to demonstrate the colonization of Mars can be safe and cost-effective (there actually is such a fellow – Dr. Robert Zubrin), let him or her proceed with my blessing.

(Government didn’t develop the airplane, or the locomotive, or the steamship. Why should it have a monopoly on space? If the answer is that "government is now bigger than any private corporation," isn’t that just another way of stating the same problem?)

But there is nothing unpatriotic about asking why we continue to shoehorn seven sacrificial victims at a time into these big orbiting aluminum buses, just to prove ... what? That we’re the only ones who can afford to waste billions of dollars shoehorning seven sacrificial victims at a time into big orbiting aluminum buses?

Watch four government workmen change the lightbulb in a stoplight. Watch your state government waste millions and anger and frustrate hundreds of thousands snarling up a totally unnecessary "motor vehicle registration" scam. Government messes up everything it touches ... after convincing us that exceeding the budget by a factor of 10, and producing results astonishingly below initial promises, is "close enough for government work."

The only reason it’s not now "time to end the government space program" .... is that it was time to end the government space program, 30 years ago.

Vin Suprynowicz [send him mail] is assistant editorial page editor of the daily Las Vegas Review-Journal and author of the books Send in the Waco Killers and The Ballad of Carl Drega. For information on his books or his monthly newsletter dial 702-656-3285; write 3172 N. Rainbow Boulevard, Suite 343, Las Vegas, NV 89108; or visit his Web site.

February 5, 2003

Vin



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: columbia; disaster; shuttle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
Once again Suprynowicz hits a home run.
1 posted on 02/05/2003 4:43:37 AM PST by from occupied ga
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
We need to be in space. The shuttle hasn't been the right answer for years.

This won't be popular, and you're going to get slammed for posting it (as you knew, based on your post header ;-), but there's a lot of truth here.
2 posted on 02/05/2003 4:55:36 AM PST by FreedomPoster (This space intentionally blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster
This won't be popular

I put on my nomex suit just for the occasion. :-) If I wanted popular I'd go post with the overestrogened on the day in the life of GWB with pictures thread. Vin has a lot of valid points, and the emotion needs to be stripped from the crash and the program looked at rationally. Seven teenage kids died in an avalanche in Revelstoke over the weekend. Are their families any less upset? Is this any less of a tragedy. I don't think so.

3 posted on 02/05/2003 5:06:27 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Bump to comment on later.
4 posted on 02/05/2003 5:20:00 AM PST by Celtjew Libertarian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
For people who have seen this post of mine on another thread - my apologies. But this guy makes some very good points - and I experienced a lot of frustration with the things he described in the article. This is a perspective from having to work with the Shuttle from the Air Force side of the fence.....
*****************************

It's probably not "sporting" to kick a program when it's down - but it is long past time to replace the shuttle and its management infrastructure.

The Shuttle was born of a Faustian bargain between Congress, the Air Force and NASA. Originally, the Air Force had a design for a 2-stage to orbit, completely re-usable system called DynaSoar. The problem was the upfront costs of development. Congress panned it. So Air Force got with NASA and hammered out the Shuttle design (Air Force had some specific requirements of Shuttle capabilities). In order to sell the design to Congress, a certain General Abrahamson arranged it to so that Air Force promised that they would get rid of all those "costly" expendable launchers and use Shuttle exclusively for military satellite launches. Shuttle represented reduced upfront development costs - but higher operational costs - due to the non-reusable nature of key elements of the system - as in the tank and boosters. Boosters ain't really all that re-usable - and the refurbishment costs of the Shuttle itself are astronomical. But... in a climate where nobody could stay in one job longer than 4 years - else be labeled a "Homesteader" and get transferred to Timbuktu by MPC (AF personnel office) - who cares what disastrous decisions are taken? As long as the consequences are at least 4 years out.

Cut to the early 80's - working with Shuttle. As a First Lieutenant - I was assigned to work in a technology demonstrator "SDI" program (SDI office had not been created yet). This experiment was a shuttle sortie - meaning it stayed in the bay and all activities involved shuttle crew. But we were having a devil of a time with NASA. The timelines for our experiment were such that we needed more than the 12 hours per day of crew activity NASA would give us . We'd have these big meetings at Johnson, Lockheed or JPL - where NASA would stonewall us with their trump card "NASA crew rules...NASA crew rules." "OK, we said - let's look at the CAP - the Crew Activity Plan." They posted it on the projector and I asked, "What's that item labeled 'grooming'?"

"Brushing their teeth" they answered.
"A half-hour for that?"
"Yep. Can't be changed."
"Alright. At this point we have to look at double crews, to get 24 hour ops."
"No way. 24-hour ops would disturb the sleeping crews."
"What do you mean? How so? It's not like they're setting off bombs back there."
"Oh yeah, Lieutenant? Every time they maneuver - those vernier thrusters go off like cannon shots."
"Fine. Give'em some acoustic headphones...look, the shuttle is not supposed to be a Holiday Inn in the sky, it's actually supposed to support missions."

At this point, the meeting broke down very acrimoniously - and everybody scurried home to elevate the issue to where some sanity might prevail. It eventually did. We got 24 hour ops - at least we WERE going to get that. But General Abrahamson did us in, albeit indirectly.

Abrahamson, busy being shifted from each 4-year-or-less assignment, was eventually appointed head of SDI. He complained to Reagan that if he didn't have budgetary control of all SDI programs - he had no control at all. He got his way - which was a dumb move. Congress HATED the SDI program - but they didn't have an easy way to kill it. Our SDI activities were funded through generic AF space activities - some in launch operations, some in software development, R&D, etc. There was no budgetary item called "SDI". Abrahamson consolidated all our budgets and gave them one fat juicy target. And they nuked it. He asked for $1.7 billion in FY 85 - and they gave him $1.2 billion.

So what did Mr. Air-Force-will-use-only-Shuttle do? To save money by avoiding shuttle launch costs, he gave himself Special Dispensation and bought 10 expendable launchers for his other SDI programs - but left the rest of us lined up around the block to use Shuttle, which had a hopeless backlog of operational military satellites that trumped our technology-demonstrator priority. But at least he had the further thickheadedness to inadvertently put us out of our misery.

I got a call one morning from the Lockheed program director - who was looking for program redirection. Seems SDI had cut Lockheed's FY 85 $125 million budgetary allocation down to a laughable $20 million - but gave them no authorization to descope program goals. So she (actually "it", "He" had had a sex change - but that's another ridiculously unbelievable story) was calling me to ask for program descoping. I told 'her' - "You know I can't do that - We're not the Program Office. We're just the space operations office being wagged by the same stupid dog."

So what did Lockheed do? It spent $20 million at the rate of $125 million a year - driving toward the now-impossible goals requiring $125 million a year - until it went flat broke and stopped dead in its tracks. End of program. It legally had no choice to do anything other. Your tax dollars at work.

So, I concentrated on the four other technology demonstrator satellite/sortie programs in my in-basket - each one doomed to fly on Shuttle - supposedly. Every time NASA came out with a new launch schedule, we got farther back in the list - and delayed a year or more each time. This has a very real dollar impact - because you have to keep the development team employed working on that program until it launches. At one point, to save costs and bump ourselves up in the schedule we proposed to consolidate two of these programs, one deployment and one sortie - into a single Orbiter mission. But NASA said the wings would have to be strengthened to carry both - and that would happen...sometime in the future, and that Vandenberg would not be ready for polar launches for sometime anyway....NASA didn't even bother putting the wing-strengthening project on their schedule.

The Challenger explosion finished off all these four programs, along with many others. There is a billion dollar paper-weight down in Rockwell's Seal Beach facility - which was another SDI satellite. I used to go visit and see it being finalized through the big glass windows into the clean room. It was inspiring to watch. As for the other three sortie/satellites, I imagine they might be lobby sculptures, or maybe in a playground next to an old Sherman tank.

To summarize a long story, it has been my direct experience that Shuttle, and the stultified NASA management structure necessary to operate it, has been a disaster for the launch manifest. The Air Force has now completely backed out of the Shuttle-only posture that killed many satellites - cost us billions, and which delayed untold progress in space R&D.

Even 20-odd years ago, during the heady days of senior year at MIT's Aero & Astro department, when everybody wore their freshly-minted Shuttle T-shirts after the Shuttle was successfully tested, our professors were telling us that Shuttle was only an interim vehicle at best, and that there was no way that it was going to provide the $300/lb cost to Low Earth Orbit that would be necessary for serious space exploitation.

Now is the time to take most of our eggs out of the Shuttle basket. It is time to develop the Scramjet single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. This vehicle would be designed to take off and land from any major airport - accelerate to Mach 4 using standard turbojets with rocket-assist - then kick in the scramjets - which are essentially hollow tubes with fuel injectors - but hollow tubes which can achieve Mach 18 or better. It will cost a LOT of money. But it will open up Low Earth Orbit to reliable economic access (as well as commercial air travel to undreamed of swiftness), and routine, flexible and economical access to space will bring its own possibilities. To paraphrase the Midas ad, we have seen that the choice is "You can pay for a real option now, or pay through the nose to operate a white elephant later."

5 posted on 02/05/2003 5:25:42 AM PST by guitfiddlist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitfiddlist
Thank you.
6 posted on 02/05/2003 5:41:39 AM PST by dasboot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Why do we need the space shuttle?

To place, repair, and retrieve orbital satellites tha vastly improve our communications, navigation, and military power. Just because Vin can't think of a good use for the shuttle, doesn't mean there aren't any.

I ususally agree w/ VIn but he should stick to Second Amendment issues where he knows what he's talking about.

7 posted on 02/05/2003 5:45:26 AM PST by ez ("If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: guitfiddlist
Now is the time to take most of our eggs out of the Shuttle basket. It is time to develop the Scramjet single-stage-to-orbit vehicle

I'm with you, we should use this fork in the road to move away from the costly Shuttle and set the nation immediately working on the next generation low-orbit vehicle.

8 posted on 02/05/2003 5:47:46 AM PST by ez ("If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ez
The shuttle can't reach the geostationary satellites to repair or do anything with them. It can only reach stuff in low orbit.
9 posted on 02/05/2003 5:50:19 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
The shuttle can't reach the geostationary satellites to repair or do anything with them. It can only reach stuff in low orbit.

Then how do they get there?

10 posted on 02/05/2003 5:53:10 AM PST by ez ("If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: guitfiddlist
Great info. Thanks
11 posted on 02/05/2003 5:53:51 AM PST by jammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: ez
Then how do they get there?

Rockets other than the shuttle of course. Those that were taken to low earth orbit by the shuttle were then sent on their way with additional rockets. The shuttle can't reach geostationary orbit, and if by some combination of staging with multiple boosters did get there it couldn't get back. Shuttle is strictly low earth orbit.

12 posted on 02/05/2003 6:03:33 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: guitfiddlist
Would a scamjet use the same sort of tiles or is there an alternative?
13 posted on 02/05/2003 6:07:36 AM PST by winodog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Once again Suprynowicz hits a home run.

NASA is not only ignoring the potential of privatizing space programs, but has a history of actively trying to prevent it from happening. Whewn that wholly unexpected market for tourists to the ISS at $20 million per head developed two years ago, the aging Stalinists at NASA vainly tried to stop Tito from going. AFter all, even $20 million paid for a seat would not have cvered the cost of that seat on the Shuttle. When the Russians decided that $20 million would mean a tidy profit on their much cheaper Soyuz orbiters, NASA's response was to prohibit Tito from entering any "American" part of the station.

What Shuttle, as uneconomic as it may have been, did accomplish was give us thousands of hours of flight experience with hypersonic aircraft. It's tme for corporate taxpayers to use that technological experience to build a new generation of low-cost boosters.

14 posted on 02/05/2003 6:07:47 AM PST by BlazingArizona
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Then I take it the ISS is also low Earth orbit?

Sorry, but I was of the understanding that only Columbia, being the oldest heaviest craft in the fleet was restricted to low orbit, and that the other shuttles could go farther. And that was why Columbia was reduced to science experiments, while the other shuttles were used to supply ISS.

I'll be back after checking the facts.

15 posted on 02/05/2003 6:09:58 AM PST by ez ("If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Looks like NASA disagrees with you...

The United States developed the Space Shuttle system to improve its access to space. Since the first flight in April 1981, the Shuttle has carried more than 1.5 million pounds of cargo and over 600 major payloads into orbit. The Shuttle is the first and only reusable space vehicle, and is the world¹s most reliable and versatile launch system. The Shuttle can be configured to carry many different types of equipment, spacecraft and scientific experiments. In addition to transporting people, materials, equipment and spacecraft to orbit, the Shuttle allows astronauts to service and repair satellites and observatories in space, as was demonstrated with the successful repair of the Hubble Space Telescope in December 1993.

16 posted on 02/05/2003 6:13:41 AM PST by ez ("If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Also looks like they DO retrieve satellites


Shuttle Accomplishments
(as of 03/31/2000)
96 missions accomplished with a 98.9% success rate

Over 600 major payloads flown to orbit

43 scientific platforms

68 spacecraft deployed
- 26 commercial satellites
- 3 planetary spacecraft
- 28 scientific/technology platforms
- 2 major ISS elements

31 payloads retrieved
- 21 deployed and retrieved on same flight
- 10 retrieved for repair or refurbishing

11 DoD missions

4 Space Shuttle Development flights

47 Rendevous with other spacecraft

45 EVA’s (spacewalks)

A total of 10,427 tons of orbiter/cargo have been launched into space, including:
- 1,531 tons of payload and payload integration hardware
- 472 tons of payload deployed and left in orbit
- 20 tons were deployed to the Mir space station
- 26 tons were retrieved from Mir
- 34.6 tons rendezvoused with and retrieved from orbit
- 13 tons deployed to International Space Station

802 days of flight time accumulated by the fleet

551 total crew members flown

13.3 years of total person time in space onboard Space Shuttle

17 posted on 02/05/2003 6:17:27 AM PST by ez ("If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning." - GWB)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: from occupied ga
Don’t get me started on the television press corps, pretentiously intoning that "NASA now gets to work on getting the space shuttles back where they belong – into space." There’s objective analysis for you. To which channel do I flip to hear someone announce that "NASA now gets to work on getting these space shuttles where they belong – into a museum"?

Suprynowicz is either not paying attention or oversimplifying to make a point. I've heard quite a few people make the point that the Shuttles are pushing their useful life and need to be replaced by a new surface-LEO vehicle.

That said, he's right about the self-perpetuation of the NASA-contractor establishment being an obstacle to progress.

18 posted on 02/05/2003 6:19:29 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ez
What is it about you people who can't accept reality. The Hubble is in low orbit and was deliberately placed in low orbit so that it could be serviced by the shuttle.

Most comsats and weathersats are in geostationary orbit. The shuttle does not have the ability to reach geostationary orbit. Therefore the shuttle cannot be used for repairs to comsats and weathersats.

19 posted on 02/05/2003 6:21:18 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ez
Also looks like they DO retrieve satellites yada yada yada

They only place and retrieve stuff in low orbit. All of this crap (undoubtedly gleaned from NASA) notwithstanding.

20 posted on 02/05/2003 6:24:29 AM PST by from occupied ga (Your government is your enemy, and Bush is no conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-76 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson