What is Digg?93 Comments
- shadowman99, on 08/29/2008, -0/+33You can bet NASA has been instructed to study this option by the Vice-President.
1) Having the Russians fly US Astronauts into space is being re-evaluated in light of recent events in Georgia.
2) Having America out of the manned launch business for 5-10 years is an embarrassment. - jaromdl, on 08/30/2008, -3/+36No, they need to get rid of that old technology. They need to start developing warp technology so they can finally make the Enterprise. I've waited too long. This is *****.
- BigManOnCampus, on 08/29/2008, -1/+17They are beautiful vessels, one-of-a-kind, but really they should be an embarrassment that we used them so long. They are too complicated. They have catastrophically failed twice. They have kept us in low-earth-orbit instead of challenging us to really explore the system. And, to top it all off, they failed in their own design goals which were namely to have a 1-week turnaround and be completely and cheaply reusable. Instead they take months to safely prepare for a new flight, they are not fully reusable and they are about the most expensive way to get into space, period.
- undershirt, on 08/30/2008, -2/+17Only 2 out of 125 shuttle missions failed. Shut the ***** up.
- Mutiny32, on 08/30/2008, -0/+13Anyone remember the X-33? Yeah, we wasted billions on it to replace the shuttle and then canned it at 85% completion. Might be time to re-think that decision.
- psevium, on 08/30/2008, -0/+10"If we die, we want people to accept it. We are in a risky business and we hope that if anything happens to us it will not delay the program. The conquest of space is worth the risk of life." - Gus Grissom
- inactive, on 08/30/2008, -1/+11Are people actually hating on Nasa? Wtf.....
- legendxx, on 08/30/2008, -0/+10Useless? Hardly..
Old? Probably. - vroom101, on 08/29/2008, -1/+111. NASA email -- "Shuttle extension assessment" by "Coggeshall, John C. (JSC-MA)" dated August 27, 2008 4:23 PM: http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewri ... (blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/files/nasa_email.doc)
2. "Shutting down the shuttle" by Wayne Hale: http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/ ... (blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/posts/post_1219932905350.html) - SeventhSon, on 08/30/2008, -0/+9I'm pretty impressed with the guys who designed the space shuttle. I inherited a slide rule from my grandfather, and anybody who knows how the hell to use one of those things has my respect.
- vroom101, on 08/29/2008, -5/+14NASA's Space Shuttle Fleet -- Space Shuttle Atlantis, Space Shuttle Discovery, Space Shuttle Endeavour -- is the pride & joy of We the People of The United States of America. And as of 29 August 2008, we have nothing...nada...zero...zilch...to replace the shuttle's functionality OR their crown-jewelness. So with the International Space Station (ISS) still operational AND the U.S. of A. still heavily involved with ISS, does it make any sense at all to retire the shuttle in 2010? The honest answer is, No!
Let me be as clear as I possibly can (again): There is no way the Congress of the United States of America is going to allow our manned space program to be dependent on another country -- specially Russia! And so I again predict that NASA's Space Shuttle Fleet will be operational past 2010 and beyond. - josepablos, on 08/30/2008, -3/+12-- Dad Seriously Get a New CAR!!!
--- No WAY. Son.. The old IMPALA Still have his POWER - BossKey, on 08/30/2008, -0/+7The reason NASA won't acknowledge it as equal is obvious. SpaceShip One, innovative as it is, has not matched Yuri Gagarin's 1961 flight, in altitude, duration, or achievement of a stable orbit, all of which were achieved nearly half a century ago. Sure, they'll close the gap, but until then, they're a half a century behind.
- Solstice, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6100% of the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules that were launched were "lost". They're not re-usable like the orbiter.
Mercury only had 6 manned flights, from 1961-1963, Gemini had 10 manned flights from 1965-1966, and 10 manned Apollo flights from 1968-1972. In contrast, the shuttle program has had 120 flights and has been flying since 1981. Had the Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo programs spanned 27 years and flew 120 manned missions, they would have likely had the same or different failure rate. - chispito, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6There's a world of difference between that and achieving orbit. What Scaled and Vrigin Galactic are doing thrills me, but there is much, much more required for orbital launches.
They aren't even planning to expand to orbital operations. - AmnesiacJack, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6God damn this is the government agency that should get the MOST funding as far as I'm concerned. I for one am more interested in the stuff they can find out there than any thing we could find on Earth.
- Nintendesert, on 08/30/2008, -0/+6That 23 minute flight is supposed to make them equal to NASA? How about land someone on the moon and launch probes outside of our solar system then try to step up to NASA again. Like fleas on an elephants ass.
- hexydes, on 08/30/2008, -1/+6Uhm...I think you need to do a bit more historical research before posting again...
- Ghostalker, on 08/30/2008, -3/+8Hmmm.... American jobs to maintain the space shuttle, or have Russia hold us hostage? I think the choice is obvious.
- jnosanov, on 08/29/2008, -1/+6This would be bad for the private space launch sector that has been preparing for this opportunity for the last five years or so.
- shadowman99, on 08/29/2008, -0/+5Very interesting blog. I still say the political pressures will probably force NASA to find a way. The VP carries as one of the responsibilities of his office the role as head of NASA. If Cheney has to get Haliburton to build shuttle pieces he'd just see it as an opportunity.
Or perhaps it will fall on Biden's shoulders. Do you think Biden will be happy with the downtime NASA will take as the program is in transition? NASA has always played a PR role for any administration. Politicians love having their picture taken at a launch. - Wildthing, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4How many European rockets do you know of that put MEN and WOMEN into space?
- CrushThemTorg, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Using a design that's 40 years old? I can see nothing going wrong with this.
- Wildthing, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4@Terasiel: There's a pretty significant difference between going 70 miles into the sky and coming down in 5 or 10 minutes and going into low earth orbit like the space shuttle does. While the station may only be 100 or so miles higher than the private companies, it's going SIGNIFICANTLY faster around the world, which is how it is able to stay in orbit.
- legendxx, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4A worthless troll who joined less than 30 days ago? NO WAI
- Virgule, on 08/30/2008, -1/+5The capacitor is empty
- hexydes, on 08/30/2008, -0/+4Though looked at from another angle, 40% of all space shuttle vehicles have been lost in catastrophic failures. Compare that to 0% for Mercury, 0% for Gemini, and 8% for Apollo.
- inactive, on 08/30/2008, -2/+5If Russia had $18 billion a year to spend instead of it's paltry $1 billion it would have sent men to alpha centauri by now. What the *****, just what the ***** NASA. Whats with the *****, come up with a new orbital craft.
- gquaglia, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3People die do dangerous things, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with flying a piece of ***** instead of something state of the art that a country as great as our should be flying.
- zplot, on 08/29/2008, -0/+3On the other hand, the shuttles were incredibly expensive and priced much higher than initially intended. I'd say it can makes sense to continue the program in light of recent events. Only if this extension seriously enhances the space industry in the long term, not further hinder it with the high costs of shuttle launches. I don't want to see any more delays in returning lunar missions and future mars missions (going past 2030 was not the expectation at the start of this millenium)
- Lazydriver, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3Lack of government funding might be the reason, no? Think about it. NASA develops a lot of tech but isn't funded that well.
- inactive, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3And that is what the USA is already doing. The launch vehicle is not the problem. its the re-entry vehicle that is being worked on.
- HamSandwich, on 08/30/2008, -1/+4Why the buries? He's dead on! The shuttle shoud've been scrapped years ago. It's NASA's fault that every alternative for the last 20 years has been a complete failure.
- Ooddiey, on 08/30/2008, -0/+3To MARS!
"Fists in the air" - RogerStrong, on 08/29/2008, -1/+4And you can be NASA will tell him why it won't happen.
http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog.blog/ ... - psevium, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3Spaceshipone basically used all its fuel and whatever to barely graze the edge of space. They'll need a massively different design (say, a giant rocket like most people) to make it into space (which will cost billions).
Virgin Galactic is good, and way better than what I can do, but it's nothing more than a rich persons excuse to say they went into space - Ogopogo, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3I know where NASA can get a spare shuttle cheap. Check out this one sitting in a Russian maintenance yard.
See: http://englishrussia.com/images/old_shuttle/1.jpg
and http://englishrussia.com/?p=2006#more-2006 - mickstephenson, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2What exactly is preventing NASA from subcontracting the ESA until 2015 instead of the Ruskies?
- legendxx, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2I'm not sure but I think you're trying to say that the shuttle is death trap.
- MasterGrief, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3Not nearly enough people play that game, man.
- inactive, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2The current NASA space shuttle is a technological dinosaur, however, I do respect it.
- BossKey, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2right...wake me when Virgin Galactic puts a man in orbit
- fluxion, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2expensive launches/upkeep i think. probably other reasons as well. spacecraft are not the type of technology we can let stagnate, in the grand scheme of things we're so much in our infancy it is not even funny.
- cyberdork, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2Hey Roger, thanks for sharing that article with us! Everyone who is commenting here should read it.
- appleseed1234, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2I really don't understand. The proposed space capsules that will enable deep space exploration serve an entirely different function than the space shuttles, and both are amazing pieces of technology, why can't they get together the funding to maintain both?
- RogerStrong, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2You're welcome.
The parts sourcing is just part of the problem. Another is that facilities like the crawlers need to be modifed for Ares - and that can't start until the Shuttle stops flying. If you keep the shuttle flying, you merely move the 'gap' to a later date.
Then there's the Shuttle technicians and workers. With only one manned launcher, the industry's pool of experienced technicians isn't much larger then those already working on the shuttle. Which is why NASA is already complaining about how it's workers are being hired away by the Ares/Constellation contracters. - inactive, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3The US Shuttle has been launched 125 times and 2 of thoese times the crew was killed. The Russian/former USSR has launched with it's 'obsolete and dangerous launch vechicles' - qoute NASA - 1,600 times with 100% safety record with the last fatality over 40 years ago.
- nimbleprune, on 09/03/2008, -0/+2He knows that if McCain does not win the election funding for the shuttle replacement WILL be cut pushing the first flight of the replacement back to about 2020 so its just NASA covering its ass so they are not stuck without manned space flight for 10 years.
- gquaglia, on 08/30/2008, -0/+2Story Musgrave, a former shuttle astronaut, has this to say about the death trap.
The shuttle, he says, is the most dangerous manned space vehicle the United States has ever built, "a butterfly strapped to a rocket." Musgrave personally favors a return to the streamlined Apollo-type configuration, where the payload can be carried below a reusable crew capsule and the capsule is equipped with an escape system. - decade7, on 08/30/2008, -1/+3don't get me wrong, I love NASA. I think their work is the most salient example of human potential thus far.
however, the space shuttle is like a windowless 1979 Econoline van; it's a little creepy, and if you get in you're never sure you'll make it out alive. 123/125 is an awesome success record, but those numbers have been shored up by countless millions. NASA could definitely take some cues from Burt Rutan & co. -
Show 51 - 94 of 94 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 