Quo Vadis Space Shuttle

[St Leo]

Re: Quo Vadis Space Shuttle

Originally posted by Ned
I am surprised there is no thread on the Shuttle Report. But it is devestating to NASA. The Columbia disaster happened because NASA ignored safety in favor of cost and schedules.

OMFC, NASA is run like a business.

What do you guys think we should do?

I think you should fund NASA enough so that it does not have to cut corners on essential services.

[Donegeal]

How about a stronger pust for the SSTO ship?

For those that don't know, SSTO stands for Single Stage To Orbit. As space flight stands today, we have the massive solid feul rockets and boosters. These are one of the biggest (if not THE biggest) cost to space flight. A SSTO ship would do away with these massive expenditures and would open the door for everyday space exploring.

[DanS]

donegal: I worked on public financing for SSTO. The program was killed several years ago due to the tech not being there (linear aerospike engines were giving them problems, among other things).

As for what to do about the Shuttle, I think it should be sunsetted quickly. The space plane idea has promise.

[Donegeal]

Sounds like a cool job. But what about all the other independant projects going on? I admittidly know very little details of these projects (and I didn't even know that there ever was a public attempt), but do any of them look even somwhat promising? I remember watching a show that used a laser to launch things up. They never made it to orbit, but they were getting up there.

Anyway, I personally believe that space exploration won't really kick in until SSTO is developed.

[St Leo]

X33 got cancelled. NASA has very limited funding. Don't know about the others.

[Ned]

Che, if you read the report, you will find that the major downsizing and de-emphasis on safety occurred under the Clinton administration at the instance of Clinton’s administrator who literally laughed when NASA veterans said the cuts would harm safety.

[Makahlua]

Re: the earlier Air Force quote about about 30 flights - guess what? Discovery's had 30 so.....

Columbia = 28 flights; Challenger 10; Atlantis 26; Endeavour 19. Straight from NASA : http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/.../orbiters.html Interestingly, Challenger was not only a refitted test vehicle, but had been modfied at one point (along with Discovery) to carry a fueled upper stage rocket in the cargo bay Of course after challenger they decided that wasn't such a smart idea.....

And does anyone sles find it a wee bit disturbing they refer to Challenger and Columbia as 'retired'?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Ned
Che, if you read the report, you will find that the major downsizing and de-emphasis on safety occurred under the Clinton administration at the instance of ClintonÂ’s administrator who literally laughed when NASA veterans said the cuts would harm safety.

The budget cuts occured, IIRC, when the Republicans took control of Congress. Remember, it is Congress, not the President, that sets the budget.

I don't deny that NASA has a severe culture problem, but a large part of their problem is the don't have the money for the job they have to do, and so they cut corners.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


The budget cuts occured, IIRC, when the Republicans took control of Congress. Remember, it is Congress, not the President, that sets the budget.

Interesting...Che states emphatically that Bush has nothing to do with the deficiet. Hmmm

[mrmitchell]

I downloaded the hi-res version and will be reading it in my free time.

NASA needs to give up this pansy "Low-orbit testing" and push any necessary testing on the ISS while we're heading our asses out to Mars.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by PLATO
Interesting...Che states emphatically that Bush has nothing to do with the deficiet. Hmmm

That is correct. I am not blaiming this administration, although they aren't very NASA friendly either, the current mess in NASA isn't Bush's fault.

Just cuz I hate Bush and would like to see the heave part and the hand of God come down and point at him and say, "I mock you" doesn't mean I think he eats live kittens.

Oh, wait, you're not talking about NASA. Well, in the case of the current deficit, I would say Bush is disproportionately, but not largely responsible, because he leaned on the Congressional Republicans to pass that inane tax cut and then signed it into law.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Bump for TCO.

[The Mad Monk]

Funny we should be discussing the NASA budget, and government funding just now. I've got a couple more posts from Darkstar that you might find of interest. They certainly say something about the future of NASA.

Humm... NASA is already funding a wide variety of "weird science". I think Goddard is the lead center for Alternative Research and Technology, but I could have that wrong.

ZPE is everywhere, but as you cannot get below ZPE, there isn't much point in dealing with it according to most scientist. However, I'll kick that link over to a few oddball scientists I know, and see how they like it...

It's not that NASA doesn't want new space-craft. They are working on Next Generation Launch Vehicle and Re-usable Vehicles. But, it will still be another 10 to 20 years before they get any serious models built, thanks to Clinton's shutting down and redirecting the funding for the next generation projects while he was president. These things take serious time. The one 'quick, cheap, and dirty' set of next generation projects got cancelled as well. Leaving only the latest in the next generation re-usable launch vehicles. Heck, if it wasn't for Sept. 11, the current crop would have probably been cancelled as well. Only, immediate and swift total response is desired, so the Air Force is underwriting the next generation re-usable vehicles, so that USA can space lift full heavy army units to anywhere in the world in less then 20 minutes. And the Army and Air Force both want space bombers capable of striking any target in the world within 15 minutes of the word go, and keep the Space Traversing strike force based in the safety of the Dakotas. Of course, the ARMY is looking at the Space Bombers for deploying large scale tactical nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. The Air Force just wants the Space Bombers to deploy everything in their arsenal...

The Navy will of course get a slice of the Air Force action, supposedly to drop SEAL teams and for support of SEAL action, as well as Space Superiority (killing other nations Space Bombers) and support of Naval Superiority via Space to "ground" (dropping guided iron bombs onto enemy fleets from orbit) weaponry.

All that from the WTC and Pentagon attacks. Complete militarization of space to deal instant vengence and guarantee American military superiority overy the world for a few more generations...

[The Mad Monk]

Wait, there's more...

On the Militirization of Space front...

Do you know why NASA is dumping lots of funds into linear accellerators? NASA wants them for launching items into orbit... have ever since a few NASA people read about them in some SF. However, it has only been recently that they've been investing serious bucks into the research. Why? Because the DoD (Dept. of Defense) has stated they'd fund a moon base if NASA has linear accelerators that are capable of shooting a large iron rock from the Moon to the Earth... as it would be even a better National Weapon of Mass Destruction then the nuclear weapons in their arsenal. They would be able to cut back significantly on earth based nuclear weapons and maintain the ability to destroy any nation state at the push of a button.

The circle is almost complete. We started by throwing rocks at each other, back in the beginning. Soon (within a few generations), we will be back to throwing rocks at each other.

I'm still wondering if I shouldn't give these their own thread.

[The Mad Monk]

One more for now...

You should realize they are talking 2 seperate kinds of space planes, Deacon. In the straight bomber, a space drop would be just like it sounds... a drop from the bombers payload bay down onto target. That's a one way trip, like an airborne assault. No loading back up on the drop vehicle and getting lifted out.

The other transport would land with the transported, so they could reload and rapidly redeploy (or retreat) if needed. They are talking about it being basically a SVTOL aircraft that uses scram engines to go giga (hyper+) sonic around the world.

The bomber isn't anything but a larger version of the Space Shuttle... only they want to drop the tile system. That's what they are digging for in the 'Affordable Space Transport' X series right now. They don't need to worry about anything else for an Air Force Space Strike Bomber, as all the other tech for it is already known. Moving from tiles to some lower maintaince, non-ablative re-entry mechanism is all that is needed to achieve that, as they are going to use aerodynamics to get up to a decent altitude (Think: Jet), then kick in a rocketry boost, and then go scram. Although Nuclear Propulsion is being examined as an alternative propulsive means, as that would mean only one propulsion system. Simpler is always better. And since there is no other super power (currently), it means the DoD (and NASA) does not feel we have to stick to any Nuclear Propulsion treaty bans...

The SVOTL transporter HAS to be combat rated, so it needs to be a hardier craft, and more heavily armored, then normal, so it can go into a hot LZ, drop troops, return into the hot LZ, and extract troops. This makes the craft heavier. (Currently, all space craft have to be made 'bullet proof' just to survive all the trash in LOE.) They are only looking at Nuclear Propulsion. And the added side effect for the military is that if they lose a Hot Bird, they set it's reactor to self destruct, and have an instant dirty bomb to punish the enemy.

Isn't it fun when the military start moving in on the idealists territory?