Ibanez JEM Forum banner
1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The shuttle fleet……errr….grounded AGAIN! Nasa has become (or maybe they always were) a big joke! They had two years to correct the problem with the heat tiles falling off of the external fuel tank. Two years of focusing on correcting that problem and what happens?? The same damn thing. I am embarrassed. Nasa needs to be totally re-structured starting from the top all the way down. They also need to trash this antiquated shuttle design and build a totally new one. But of course in these times of war that is not possible….no money. Could this be the end?? Sad:sad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,342 Posts
Even though we think of it as high tech the shuttle system we currently use is COMPLETELY outdated technology. Budget cuts abound and this is what we end up with its more or less our faults, since we would rather support war, than the advancement of man and technology. We should be spending more time working on renewable, and or free energy resources, than worrying about social security! Of course just my opinion and I guess this is sort of turning into a political discussion which is definitely a no no on this forum so im cutting this post short
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
882 Posts
Actually, the shuttles are scheduled to be retired in 2010. They ARE working on a new space craft.

I have mixed feelings about the space program in general. I understand why they wanted so badly to get back up there, but I see everyone's points. I do know that I wouldn't have gone in that shuttle, in the condition it's in...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
Whats the point of the Space Shuttle anyway?
I can understand why it was devolped, but nowadays you can hardly justifify its existance.
If you want to experiment for several days or weeks (or even a year or more) you have the international space station. If you need to deliver parts or supplies to the space station, the russians are able to deliver that for a fraction of the cost. (I mean, even their modified SS18 ICBMs are capable of putting satelites into space, not that they are suitable to reach the space station, but you get my point).
NASA should focus in colaborating more with the russians, japan and the european spave agency now that the cold war is over. The international space station is a step in the right direction, but Im not sure about the need to develope a new version of the shuttle.
Lets hope they can return home safe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
RCB said:
Whats the point of the Space Shuttle anyway?
I can understand why it was devolped, but nowadays you can hardly justifify its existance.
If you want to experiment for several days or weeks (or even a year or more) you have the international space station. If you need to deliver parts or supplies to the space station, the russians are able to deliver that for a fraction of the cost. (I mean, even their modified SS18 ICBMs are capable of putting satelites into space, not that they are suitable to reach the space station, but you get my point).
NASA should focus in colaborating more with the russians, japan and the european spave agency now that the cold war is over. The international space station is a step in the right direction, but Im not sure about the need to develope a new version of the shuttle.
Lets hope they can return home safe.
Ahmen!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
RCB said:
Whats the point of the Space Shuttle anyway?
I can understand why it was devolped, but nowadays you can hardly justifify its existance.
If you want to experiment for several days or weeks (or even a year or more) you have the international space station. If you need to deliver parts or supplies to the space station, the russians are able to deliver that for a fraction of the cost. (I mean, even their modified SS18 ICBMs are capable of putting satelites into space, not that they are suitable to reach the space station, but you get my point).
NASA should focus in colaborating more with the russians, japan and the european spave agency now that the cold war is over. The international space station is a step in the right direction, but Im not sure about the need to develope a new version of the shuttle.
Lets hope they can return home safe.
i disagree. We do need a new shuttle...one that is capable of unassisted takeoffs and something with a range of going to the moon and back. Since a moon base is our next logical step in the exploration of space, a new longer range shuttle would make sense. Hopefully this is what they are working on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
btweensunandmoon said:
i disagree. We do need a new shuttle...one that is capable of unassisted takeoffs and something with a range of going to the moon and back. Since a moon base is our next logical step in the exploration of space, a new longer range shuttle would make sense. Hopefully this is what they are working on.
I agree with you sunandmoon. We need a space program..But were will they get the $$$$$?????
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,373 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
darren wilson said:
Pathetic?

I don't see you launching rockets into space!
You know what I mean...NASA has been falling apart. New folks at the top are needed badly and and entire restructure. I'm on their side....they just can't seem to get the sh*t together. Russia is pulling away fast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,457 Posts
The shuttle program (and NASA in general) certainly do need some work ... but if you guys think fixing these problems is so simple, then get your butt off the sofa and show them how it's done. To say that these problems should have been solved in two years shows that you have no understanding of the problems at all.

NASA has a lot of administrative problems and is severely hampered by a lack of funding (due not only to wars, but mainly to the American public's general lack of interest). Shuttles these days exist less for running experiments as for transferring cargo to space (such as to the station) and to perform maintenance (and related) missions that can not be performed by other craft. The space station would not exist without it, and Russian manned craft are a safety nightmare. No other craft currently exists that can fill its role.

These are not new problems ... they are problems which have suddenly gotten the spotlight of attention due to the recent accidents. If you look closely enough, you will find problems. You make things as safe as you can ... but space flight will always be a dangerous business.

Could it be done better/cheaper/faster? Probably. But only in an organization that isn't under government regulation ... ala Scaled Composites. Instead of writing them off as hopeless, go tell your Congressmen to get them the funding they need to function without compromising testing for budget reasons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
257 Posts
I think we should just stop wasting money on nasa. Nothing ever seems to go right for them....i think nasa is just a waste of money. there are much more important things to spend the money on than like guitvai1 said...to keep up with russia.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,901 Posts
As a practical person, it's hard to stomach the ridiculous amounts of money we pump into NASA each year, only to see such failures. However, the potential for future growth in extraplanetary resources is hard to resist. Everyone talks about ending our reliance on foreign oil. Here's an untapped, unmeasured, well of potential solutions to problems facing our economies. Research and investment are a required part of being prepared for the future.

I would love to see a shakeup at NASA though. Clearly things aren't well there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,635 Posts
ryanb said:
The shuttle program (and NASA in general) certainly do need some work ... but if you guys think fixing these problems is so simple, then get your butt off the sofa and show them how it's done. To say that these problems should have been solved in two years shows that you have no understanding of the problems at all.

NASA has a lot of administrative problems and is severely hampered by a lack of funding (due not only to wars, but mainly to the American public's general lack of interest). Shuttles these days exist less for running experiments as for transferring cargo to space (such as to the station) and to perform maintenance (and related) missions that can not be performed by other craft. The space station would not exist without it, and Russian manned craft are a safety nightmare. No other craft currently exists that can fill its role.

These are not new problems ... they are problems which have suddenly gotten the spotlight of attention due to the recent accidents. If you look closely enough, you will find problems. You make things as safe as you can ... but space flight will always be a dangerous business.

Could it be done better/cheaper/faster? Probably. But only in an organization that isn't under government regulation ... ala Scaled Composites. Instead of writing them off as hopeless, go tell your Congressmen to get them the funding they need to function without compromising testing for budget reasons.
Russia had it last accidente in space when? It was so long ago that I cant even remember.... and they had a space station for more than 10 years, solved a ton of issues without any fatal cassualty... with very little money and farily simple aproachs to problems and hardly any cutting edge technology. And by the way, the internation space station program would ve plunged without Russians solution to problems as simple such as water reciclation.

I remember watching this (american) documentary, where there was the recognition that if it wherent for the Russians, the whole international space station would ve been a disaster (since a lot of money was already spent and they had no clue as to how to manage the persisiting problems).

Some other guy mention that you needed a space shuttle able be launched just by itself and to land on the moon and get back here. You are clueless if you think that there is a cost effective way to do that.

Its certainly not a problem of funding, since NASAs budget its probably 10 or 100 times Russia space ageny funding. Of course, if you give NASA more funds, may be they can produce some results.

The USA has the leading edge on a lot of hiegh end technology, japan has and edge on certain technology (robotics ie) and Russia always had an edge on vectors (rocket technology) and space stations. So why dont you put your money where its more cost efficient?

As I said, the cold war is over.

You want an example of this kind of differnt aproach? Take the "star wars" shield program that would suppousedly portect north america against a nuclear misil attack. The cost of such a thing are so huge that it been debated for over a decade. Basically you need to be able to predict the trayectories of the ICBMS to intercept them.

The Russians response.... they develope mobile launchers with a new technology that make theirs ICBMS able to "manouver" in such a way that would turn the shield useless before its even built. That whole program probably costed less than the factibility studies and research that went on with the "star wars" program.

Another example? The cost of the shileded silos for american ICBMs. The Russian answer, they built the SS18 with a higher tageting precission than the rest of their nuclear arsenal and nuclear payload of 20 megaton, able to wipe them out by sheer brute force.

So where is the problem? Well, since your armament and military technology is developed mostly by private enterprises with a lot of access to the politicians in the whitehouse and the congress, whose campaigns they help to fund (or worse, the politicians or people related with them are stockholders of this companies) they dont really need to be "cost efficient".

On the other hand, America has the cutting edge in most high end technology. So its not fair to say that that money is going down the toilet, because its certainly not. But space exploration is expensive and hard enough to justify a lot more colaboration with other countries (particularly Russia in the case of lauching vectors).

To be fair, the "deep impact mission" was succesfull so you cant say that everything is going wrong.
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top