 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / April 2004No more Space Shuttle?
Story from space.com. What do you think? http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html > Story from space.com. What do you think? > > http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html Continuing the Shuttle and ISS programmes has always been a tricky question (not just recently). They both have value, although people will argue about how much, and they both have costs that some will argued are too high. Personally I wonder how much such decisions depend on the sunk cost fallacy http://www.confidentchoices.com/sunkcosts.html I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a manned space programme. I am saying that I'm not sure that what you have is well-balanced with respect to funding for other space activities. > Continuing the Shuttle and ISS programmes has always been a tricky > question (not just recently). They both have value, although people will > argue about how much, and they both have costs that some will argued > are too high. Both have values, but... there are actually better ways on doing them. For example, having the Space Shuttle took flight each time it's kinda like a big trailer going to orbit each time. It's preferable instead to have a separate launch vehicles according to the type of cargo. And the ISS are constructed in a quite different way, instead docking one module to another like the Mir, the ISS was constructed with a lot of E.V.A. in mind. And then there's the obvious lack of use of a Skylab style of construction, which essentially having a large tank as a space station. The way of doing things now it seems to measure on how much hard tasks that humans could endure. > Personally I wonder how much such decisions depend on the > sunk cost fallacy http://www.confidentchoices.com/sunkcosts.html Has anyone thought of selling or giving away those 'tickets'? Or even keeping them as momentos? > I'm not saying that you shouldn't have a manned space programme. > I am saying that I'm not sure that what you have is well-balanced > with respect to funding for other space activities. Well... The massive amount of time, resources, and time spent is probably due to preparing and operating the flights. The other stuff can be modified for other uses. For example, the Space Shuttle launchpad can be modified for other type of launches, much like it was also once used for the Apollo program. I think this is worth considering and as the article says, the longer the Shuttle doesn't fly, the more people will be asking whether it's time to stop work on the ISS, retire the Shuttle and re-direct the funding to the next manned space initiative. There have been learning's from Shuttle that can be used in future manned spaced programs, reusable or otherwise...I say it's time to close this chapter on manned spacecraft, leave the ISS as is, payback the other ISS partners for their hardware if need be, and move on.... Jeff Lerner > Story from space.com. What do you think? > > http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html > Story from space.com. What do you think? > > http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S. Any such decision would imply that the Shuttle isn't safe and therefore one big mistake. That would be too much for NASA to bear. No, I think no matter what the cost, the Shuttle will fly again. If only for a few more flights. I, however, could well envision that the Shuttle is ditched after only a couple more flights. > The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S. > Any such decision would imply that the Shuttle isn't safe and therefore one > big mistake. That would be too much for NASA to bear. 'Being too much for NASA to bear' isn't the criterion that is used to determine what will be done, though. Safety isn't the issue, anyway. It's cost and value. At $1.2B per future shuttle flight (when proper cost accounting is done on the NASA budget and you assume 4 flights/year), the vehicle is horrendously expensive, and its sole remaining justification, supporting ISS, is ever more obviously flawed. Paul "Uddo Graaf" <u.NOSPAMgraaf@DELETETHISchello.nl> wrote in message news:<40820739$0$65929$a344fe98@news.wanadoo.nl>... > > The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S. > > Any such decision would imply that the Shuttle isn't safe and therefore one > > big mistake. That would be too much for NASA to bear. In the last few years, the U.S.A.'s reputation has been defamed quite a lot, it has been slapped quite a lot in the face. It's possible that the group of people that is responsible for these defaming acts are the same group of people, so... it's possible that the Shuttle not flying anymore probably will be another slap that 'they' planned. > > No, I think no matter what the cost, the Shuttle will fly again. If only for > > a few more flights. I, however, could well envision that the Shuttle is > > ditched after only a couple more flights. An Apollo program style of exit seems to be possible. > 'Being too much for NASA to bear' isn't the criterion that is used to > determine what will be done, though. > > Safety isn't the issue, anyway. It's cost and value. Doubtful, the more I observe the world, the more I see that many things in the world is actually done with a 'money is no object' routine. While the average person might be persuaded to think that the reasons that the Space Shuttle could get axe is due to its operational cost, the true reason might be more political (see above in the term of defaming). > At $1.2B per > future shuttle flight (when proper cost accounting is done on the NASA > budget and you assume 4 flights/year), the vehicle is horrendously > expensive, and its sole remaining justification, supporting ISS, > is ever more obviously flawed. Money seems isn't the object. However, I do notice that the time, resources, and work spent on preparing and operating one flight is too much. Anyway. Having a Space Shuttle flight is kinda like taking a big trailer somewhere and then taking the whole trailer back home. And keep repeating to do that. It's preferable to build a villa, and then regulary shuttle people and objects to the villa by a regular car. Unless of course... Someone didn't get the permit or only manage to get a permit to build a small and cramp villa. On the other hand, it's possible that someone just want to have a big trailer going back and forth, and also a small and cramp villa. > Paul > Money seems isn't the object. Of course it is. It's about the only thing that matters here, actually. The feeders-at-the-trough want it; other government agencies want it; the taxpayers want it. Safety is a *pretext*, a symbol behind which the real cynical fight can be waged. Paul > Anyway. Having a Space Shuttle flight is kinda like taking a big > trailer somewhere and then taking the whole trailer back home. And > keep repeating to do that. What's wrong with that, necessairily? > It's preferable to build a villa, and then regulary shuttle people and > objects to the villa by a regular car. An oceanographic research vessel might be a better anology. Of course you bring the whole ship back in the end. There's not always a need to leave anything at the research site. Of course, the shuttle tries to be a cargo ship too. Attempting to be all things to all people is part of its problem.  SignatureYou know what to remove, to reply.... >Money seems isn't the object. I disagree. Money is the first issue, here. I think manned spaceflight is great, as long as someone else, other than the US Treasury, pays. I would prefer that the ISS be donated to the UN, and that the shuttle would fly one more mission, to Hubble. and then permanently grounded. M. > "Uddo Graaf" <u.NOSPAMgraaf@DELETETHISchello.nl> wrote in message news:<40820739$0$65929$a344fe98@news.wanadoo.nl>... > > > The Shuttle not flying anymore would mean a HUGE prestige blow to the U.S. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > > Paul >From: Menwith menwith@hill.com >I would prefer that the ISS be donated to the UN, >and that the shuttle would fly one more mission, >to Hubble. and then permanently grounded. >M. What on earth leads you to even vaguely believe that the UN has the infrastructure, trained personnel, or even desire to want such a "donation"? And based on the UN's extremely poor track record in financial management, what leads you to even vaguely believe that they would would be able to not screw up the finances on a scale not imaginable even now? And why should all the partner nations that spent billions of dollars developing and building it have an even vague desire to do so? Very un-thought through on your part. DF >And why should all the partner nations that spent billions of dollars developing and building it have an even vague desire to do so? The ISS is worse than useless; it is useless and a continueing finacial drain. I suggest donating* the ISS to the UN, or Paraguay, or the Salvation Army, as a face-saving way for the US get rid of the ISS. (* perhaps pay them a few million) M. > >From: Menwith menwith@hill.com > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > DF > >Money seems isn't the object. > I disagree. Money is the first issue, here. > I think manned spaceflight is great, as long as > someone else, other than the US Treasury, pays. > I would prefer that the ISS be donated to the UN, And the United Nations, with no means of reaching it, would do...what? > and that the shuttle would fly one more mission, > to Hubble. and then permanently grounded. ISS still needs completion, to get whatever we can out of it. The hardware is mostly built, and only the shuttle can deliver (not merely launch) it. SignatureYou know what to remove, to reply.... > ISS still needs completion, to get whatever we can out of it. The > hardware is mostly built, and only the shuttle can deliver (not merely > launch) it. Sunk cost fallacy. The sad truth is that the station is nearly worthless, and is not worth the cost of finishing it out or operating it (particularly when the cost of the shuttle would be added in.) Paul > And the United Nations, with no means of reaching it, would > do...what? Take the blame when it all comes crashing down to Earth, of course. Mark On 22 Apr 2004 08:24:16 -0700, in a place far, far away, mmaker@my-deja.com (Mark) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >> And the United Nations, with no means of reaching it, would >> do...what? > >Take the blame when it all comes crashing down to Earth, of course. No, that, like all bad things, will be proclaimed to be George Bush's fault. > Story from space.com. What do you think? > > http://space.com/news/shuttle_status_040416.html ahem: "Left to be answered by the public and politicos are several key questions, suggested Launius: Is the United States as a nation willing to endure a period of several years when humans do not fly in space like it did between the time of the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975 and the first shuttle mission in 1981? Are we willing to end human spaceflight altogether?" so I guess all those Soyuz/Salyut cosmonauts weren't human, eh? :( I think that gives you a pretty good perspective on just how accurate and useful this article is. SignatureTerrell Miller millerto@bellsouth.net "It's one thing to burn down the sh.t house and another thing entirely to install plumbing" -PJ O'Rourke |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.