What is Digg?124 Comments
- a1cd, on 07/15/2008, -2/+60Give them the war budget.
- prisoner24601, on 07/15/2008, -10/+63I just what to know what happened to the space shuttle?!? NASA has basically explained ZILCH about this. Now, I'm fully aware of the official (and credible) explanations that "the new design is cheaper" and "this will include major technology upgrades" etc.
What I'm talking about is simply that NASA spent decades telling us all that the shuttle was vastly superior to the Saturn series and we had to build it because reusable spacecraft were the future. "Reusable, reusable, reusable" and "cost savings" and all that mantra was repeated for years. Then we built the thing and now it's like they are saying: "Sorry, my bad. Turns out reusable spacecraft aren't a good idea after all. The whole gliding back to earth concept was a dead end."
I'm not trying to be snippy about this. I'm just honestly shocked that it seems like no one at NASA has been forthright enough to directly address that retiring the shuttle makes a lot of us (very reasonably) wonder if we were led down a 30-year development blind alley. They trumpeted the shuttle as the absolute pinnacle of space technology. America had something that was orders-of-magnitude better than the rest of the world. Sure the Russians, the Europeans, and the Chinese were making singe-use rockets, but NASA actually FED US this "have national pride in the shuttle" stuff for decades.
Now (and VERY SUDDENLY from the public's perspective) they are saying: "reusable is a dead end" but they are somehow trying to use a Jedi mind-trick so that we will all applaud when Orion/Ares is unveiled and say "wow, what an upgrade" instead of "Holy smokes! That's my GRANDPA'S rocket!!! You mean instead of the shuttle being a step towards something better (dual-mode space planes, an elevator, whatever) it's actually been a gigantic blind alley and we would have been better off just putting Saturn on steroids 30 years ago?!?!"
It's like there's no way that this can't be seen as a national embarrassment, but no one wants to admit the emperor has no clothes. I honestly am really upset as a taxpayer that we seem to have worked in the wrong direction for THIRTY YEARS and (even more) that no one at NASA is even trying to address this "public perception of dismal failure" issue. It's a pretty astonishingly large mistake that NASA made if the reality is that we would have been better off all along building ordinary rockets like the Russians, Europeans, Chinese, etc. have been all this time.
I really think the American public deserves an explanation for this. - rinpoche, on 07/15/2008, -6/+56Look at the X-prize. Private individuals and companies don't have the bureaucracy of government and can put a man into space cheaper, faster, and safer than the government.
This is like the open source community that has given us great software. - BlankVerse, on 07/15/2008, -1/+44It makes you wonder what NASA might be able to achieve if it had a Google-like Innovation Time Off for its engineers.
- bosssmiley, on 07/15/2008, -0/+41Open competition leads to greater efficiency. Good for them.
- Ninjamonkey, on 07/15/2008, -1/+27The Shuttle fine for its time. It did what it was designed to do for NASA's mission at the time. It allowed us to deploy and repair satellites in space, build the ISS, etc. At the time it was an amazing piece of technology, nothing like it had been built before.
That's not to say the shuttle was/is perfect, it confined us to low earth orbit missions, but remember at the time NASA's mission was not to go back to the moon, we had been there done that. Not to mention the public was bored with it and Congress cut funding.
Now that it is time to go back to the moon, the capsule works, the shuttle doesn't. It is time to move on. - Dumbledorito, on 07/15/2008, -1/+24This will never work. Their lead scientist is some boozer nutcase named Zefram Cochrane.
- CSharpSauce, on 07/15/2008, -0/+17We'd have space elevators for that kind of money :)
- yerbestfrend12, on 07/15/2008, -1/+16This isn't exactly a secret.
- juniorb, on 07/15/2008, -2/+16The Moon Rocket Project NASA Doesn't Want You to Know ... About.
Unless you mean "know" as in the biblical sense, in which case, party on Wayne. - inactive, on 07/15/2008, -0/+14The press loves a "little guy vs the boss" story so they are all over this
- teeheehee, on 07/15/2008, -0/+14I had thought that the reason for the new design was for farther-reaching space missions. The shuttle was designed for achieving orbit, not flying to the moon. The two types of mission are supremely different and the craft needs to reflect the needs of the mission.
This is a warm-up to getting to Mars. The shuttle won't make it to the moon, let alone Mars. It doesn't even have enough fuel on it to make it back home, it has to glide in.
Besides, do you have any idea how piddly the NASA budget is?
I offer for you the top two results by our favorite search engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_budget
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/898/1
P.S. I am not Javert. - DeskFlyer, on 07/15/2008, -0/+13If NASA was given the DOD's budget every year since 1969, you'd be able to find tickets to Mars on Orbitz today.
- inactive, on 07/15/2008, -0/+12Great, now the x-prize guys just need to make their craft go about 15 thousand miles an hour faster so they can get to orbit. Then they need a re-entry system to burn off those extra 15 thousand miles an hour as it re-enters the atmosphere.
- JBrown99, on 07/15/2008, -0/+12...Except for things like advancing new technologies, colonizing to combat increasing Earth populations, new potential resources, and more. There certainly IS a huge monetary incentive, or else there would be little interest and no such thing as the X-prize.
- schneb, on 07/15/2008, -1/+11"It's not feasible. We said, 'It doesn't work' and moved on,'" Cook said
I'm sure he would have said the same thing about the Virgin-funded SpaceShipOne. I do not like that kind of comment in the least. - nevetssav, on 07/15/2008, -1/+10Not an engineer myself, but from what I can tell, Prisoner24601:
1960s Question: How do we get to the moon?
Answer: 1-time-use tubes filled with enough propellant to...get you to the moon. (that metaphor loses something).
Done.
1990s Question: How can we get into space to deploy low level satellites, space stations, and telescopes and effectively maintain them?
Answer: With a reusable aircraft that lets us make multiple short range trips without rebuilding a majority of the electronics.
2008+ Question: How do we get back to the moon with enough stuff to start building/testing/exploring?
Answer: Start with the vehicle that got us there in the first place. - Jeez, on 07/15/2008, -0/+9Russia/USSR did work on Space shuttle program but they collapsed by then. Currently both India and china are working on space shuttle concept. Space shuttle is very efficient and safe means of transport (granted NASA design had plenty of issues) compared to the alternative (Soyuz). Just ask the poor Japanese astronaut who had rough landing in Soyuz last year.
- megamod, on 07/15/2008, -2/+10YAY, so we get to go through another lunar landing conspiracy where crazies will say it never happened?
- barstegry, on 07/15/2008, -2/+10The best innovation comes from underground, behind walls, and in the shadows. Hiding from those who would suppress it's call for radical change and open collaboration.
- cotaskmemalloc, on 07/15/2008, -1/+9Right, because the contributions the Apollo program made to physics, mathematics, computing, etc, essentially science in general, have had no benefits on our lives since the prorgam ended.
You're a ***** idiot. - sockpuppets, on 07/15/2008, -2/+9I know a few people working on ares, this article is spot on. The ares is so poorly engineered at the moment that it lacks the capacity to get off the ground, it's grossly overweight. Apparently there was bad math from the very start. Seriously, isn't one of the most fundamental decisions in a project like this determining the amount of lift you'll need?
Nasa is filled with talented engineers and bloated bureaucracy. It's sad to see it continue on in a project that could have been a great clean start for them. - dthebear, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7its better to spend our tax money on space programs than on a retarded war
- merlin5, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7The thinking at the time, when the shuttle program first started, was that one of the safety risks would be using the equipment for too many years. In order to avoid catastrophes, a decision was made to set a retirement date. The shuttles are actually quite old now.
- gidd, on 07/15/2008, -0/+7This isn't the first time NASA engineers have bypassed or sidestepped the chosen way of doing things. The choice of Lunar Orbit Rendezvous as the mission mode for Apollo was thanks to engineers bucking the company line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_Orbit_Rendezvou ...
- CSharpSauce, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6I hate how I have a cell phone, and a microwave, and i can navigate through gps...
- ploop, on 07/15/2008, -1/+7That's bull. Complete bull.
There is mineral wealth that has the potential for being cheaper to acquire out there than on Earth, provided the transportation technology becomes cheaper, which it has the potential to do. - Ninjamonkey, on 07/15/2008, -1/+7How is that Vague? When the mission changes, so must the hardware and the tools. When we stopped going to the moon because national interest and funding was lost the mission changed to how can we live in space for long durations. In this case the shuttle succeded. We built the ISS using it, we deployed and repaired Hubble with it, it has carried out many science experiments, it has done its job and it is now time to move on.
I'm no engineer either but it does not take a rocket scientest to know the shuttle which was built to achieve and do work in orbit cannot fly to the moon. - fadeout, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6There is a big difference between skimming the atmosphere and launching a multi ton piece of cargo into space.
- wem003, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6I'm going to agree with most of your point, but the safer thing? Let's see an xprize winner get hundreds of humans to space and back with a better record for a terrible statistic before you call that.
- DeskFlyer, on 07/15/2008, -0/+6The Space Shuttle is being scrapped because it can't go to the Moon.
- CSharpSauce, on 07/15/2008, -3/+8yeah, the possabilities of manufacturing in zero gravity has no profit potential
- fuhcough, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4The thing is NASA is fighting for their budget just like any other government organization. The best way for them to get the bucks they need is to apply it towards the research of technology that is reusable.
And by reusable, I don't mean a space shuttle. I mean rockets and rocket technology that has other MILITARY implications. - Ze1da, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5This has been happening for a while. LSP(Launch Services Program) has been dealing in expendable rockets this whole time. LSP mostly deals with the Atlas, Delta and Pegasus rockets. And it's because expendable rockets are cheaper, more reliable, and easier to deal with. This entire time the shuttle program has been losing gobs and gobs of money while LSP has been paying for itself. The problem is, NASA relinquished control over the rocket industry when it abandoned the expendables for the shuttle, so now the contractors have more control over the rockets than NASA does. And, the shuttle program employs thousands and thousands of people. NASA would loose support if they just did away with the shuttle program all togeather. As for the Ares rocket, it is all about keeping shuttle people employed. We could just switch to the Atlas V rocket and everything would be much cheaper, safer, and quicker, but NASA would have to fire thousands of people because they would become superfluous. And that does not fly for government agencies.
In short NASA messed up and has been trying to cover their asses for a while now. - simg, on 07/15/2008, -1/+5"except there is no market for space beyond tourism"
You are soooo wrong.
The value of the minerals in a single "small" (1 Km) asteroid is worth billions, if not trillions of dollars...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asteroid_mining
Space spaced solar power stations and space based farms could provide all the energy and food we need for billions more people.
And that's just for starters. - greeniemeani, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4The other thing that NASA doesn't want you to know: they just built a ***** DOLLAR GENERAL right in front of the Space Center!
- teeheehee, on 07/15/2008, -0/+420 Billion dollars sure is a lot of money for many things. But not, for example, for our Defense department. The space program's budget is piddly when compared to Defense.
Now, my personal opinion is that space exploration holds the future of all humanity, should we ever figure out how to live without trying to kill each other off. All of the future of humanity, and how much are we investing in it?
I guess it depends on what you think is rational.
Here's an exercise, find the NASA logo on this flash-based map of our budget.
http://www.wallstats.com/deathandtaxes/
I'll help you, it's in the upper right, and gets about half as much as the Department of Homeland Security. - funkyjunk3, on 07/15/2008, -2/+6"Besides being a simpler, more powerful system, backers say, the Jupiter rockets would save NASA $19 billion in development costs and another $16 billion in operating costs over two decades."
Relevant quote: "First rule in government spending: why build one when you can have two at twice the price?" - Gustomucho, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4100 billion/year for War in Iraq.
What did you get from it? - darkcooger, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4@hexydes: I was under the impression that the two little rovers currently (or at least until recently) wandering around on the surface of Mars were developed under the mantra of "cheaper and faster," as was the Sojourner/Pathfinder mission. If I'm right, those are both more recent and more thoroughly successful than the STS program.
- coyote1284, on 07/15/2008, -2/+6So does the mission to Uranus
/sorry, I just had to - prisoner24601, on 07/15/2008, -0/+4My point is not about the age of any one specific shuttle, it's about the concept. Here's an analogy:
Imagine the US Navy goes to congress in 1930 and says: "Battleships are the past, the aircraft carrier is the future. We need to design and build the next generation." OK, fine (and historically accurate.) The navy makes the aircraft carrier the new top-of the-line capital ship. Sure, when one been in service for 30 years, you replace it with a new (and technologically improved) one. But the next ship is still an aircraft carrier.
In this analogy, NASA is like the Navy going back to congress after 30 years and saying: "sorry guys, we built a bunch of these but they just don't perform. Turns out we were wrong anyway, and the battleship was actually the best ship design in the first place."
NASA either needs to say "the shuttle was a dead end" or they can say "we need to have 5 shuttles at all times and so we need to build one new one every 8 years" etc.
Why haven't we been "staggering" the lifespan of these shuttles all along? The Navy didn't build 15 aircraft carriers in the 1970's and then wait for them all to simultaneously rust apart. Frankly I honestly "just don't get it" here with this whole debacle. The only thing I'm clear on is that NASA owes us all an explanation. - prisoner24601, on 07/15/2008, -1/+4Just to be clear, I'm sure there are plenty of NASA engineer type here and you might think I'm just trying to be troll or something, but I'm *genuinely* at a loss about this entire apparently massive step backwards. That said, my questions might make more sense:
"The Shuttle (was) fine for its time."
I certainly DON'T remember NASA ever saying "the shuttle is a stop-gap and will fill a temporary need and then we'll go back to Saturn designs."
"It allowed us to deploy and repair satellites in space"
This is going to sound snippy, but remember I'm not an engineer, so I have to ask: How are we going to deploy and repair satellites now? If Orion can do that, then why build the shuttle in the first place? Don't the Russians do this with single-use rockets? It still looks like the shuttle was wrong all along, and your explanation is the same one that NASA has made: "Our needs are different now" etc. But that's VAGUE and just doesn't make sense when I look at the details here. - yaddayaddayoda, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3I'm glad that this is finally getting some press. "The Stick" is a retarded rocket and will not perform as promised... they are spending billions of dollars to make up for its shortcomings.
DIRECT is a much better alternative. They have a big fight ahead of them... good luck! - elnerdo, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3However, this: "A spokesman for the competing effort, Ross Tierney, said concerned engineers at NASA and some contractors want a review of the Ares plans but can't speak out for fear of being demoted, transferred or fired."
Is AWFUL if you're planning on completing a huge engineering project. If I was serious about something like this, and some other engineer told that it wasn't going to work, I would stop working RIGHT away and let them explain themselves. - Ninjamonkey, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Your anology doesn't work. It is not that the craft doesn't perform it is that the mission has changed so we need another craft.
Let's use your military anology. In the mid to late 20th century, the US government built thousands of nuclear warheads and rockets to deliever them to the USSR. Now that the Cold War is over, those nukes are not suited to the type of warfare we are in today so many of those weapons are being decomissioned. - fireburner23, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Didn't something like this happen during the early space program? I remember watching History channel about something similar to this.
- inactive, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3Do you have a link? I would honestly be interested in reading anything, including speculation, on what is being developed.
- Balanced, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3I think it's more saying that reusable designs don't fit current mission parameters, not that they don't work.
One limitation with the Shuttle is that it has a lot of minimum 'infrastructure' that goes up on every flight: The crew cabin, the full bay, etc. The cost/pound, which is always an issue, gets even worse when you're looking at lifting a lot of weight that isn't relevant to the at-hand mission.
If the budget existed, it would probably make more sense to focus on multiple designs for multiple roles. To a point I'm sure NASA does this , but the shuttle and it's "replacement" tend to be the focus and we forget about he other projects. Maybe have teams working on a heavy lifter (Ares/Jupiter), a crew transport/maintenance platform (Shuttle), and maybe a third niche.
Remember that we're still in the very early stages of space travel. We're in the space-age equivalent of sending crude rafts out from the shore. Space is much less forgiving than other 'frontiers' and we need to respect that, but keep pushing. - kurtu5, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2I hate to disagree teeheehee but it will be Loftstrom loop launchers.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 125 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is