Priorities in government and space

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, Douglas May wrote:
>
> On Aug 4, 2006, at 5:59 PM, Robert wrote:
>
> > considering its age, it should have already been replace. shuttles
> > are not inherantly more dangerous or more expensive. but they do get
> > old.
>
> Age certainly is a great factor, but I think the design of the
> Shuttle is too complex. Too many possible points of failure. An
> article I read online this week pointed out one: the foam. The new
> CEV will use the same foam as the External Fuel Tank on the shuttle,
> however, since the crew capsule will be above the fuel tanks instead
> of beside it, there is absolutely zero chance of that foam striking
> the crew vehicle. Foam will still fall off and no one will care.
> Also, the new CEV has no flimsy wings and rudders and landing gear
> and SSME's (main engines) and all that stuff that complicated
> everything the shuttle tried to do. The Breakup of Columbia was
> caused not just by the foam damage, but by the snapping of the weak
> tail of the shuttle during severe yawing.
>
> I guess in some sense Orion may be a step backwards, but with
> hindsight I think we have learned that the shuttle was a step in the
> wrong direction. It was a medium-lift-launcher, a shuttle, and a
> reusable short term space-station with landing gear, all rolled into
> one. The ISS is a better space station than the shuttle, and Orion
> will be a better lift vehicle than the shuttle. The huge Skylab was
> launched with one rocket (wasn't it a Saturn V?). The ISS with its
> much smaller modules has taken many launches by the smaller space
> shuttle, and still is not finished.
>
> Again, Orion is not the final answer, but we have learned a lot
> through the shuttle program, and a 21st century version of the Apollo
> rockets using the best of modern technology and computer aided design
> is bound to be one mean rocket. Space planes with wings and
> horizontal landings will likely be used for commercial passenger
> service someday, but not until prices come down. Right now we should
> concentrate on improving technology and bringing prices down, instead
> of trying to build the final product with current, inadequate
> technology.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I love the space shuttle. I'm one of the few who
> still watches the launches live, when work permits. I will remember
> them fondly when they are retired. I watched Challenger explode live
> in my high school physics class, and heard and felt Columbia explode
> over my house. But it is time to learn and move on.
>
> doug
>

I remember that day well. I was in 4th grade when the Challenger
exploded. I watch live on tv as well as Im sure everyone who was in
school that day did. And strangely I happen to be in california the
very morning Columbia met its fate. And the only thing that came to
mind when I found out what I saw in the sky bruning up and coming
apart was the shuttle was the same thing that came to mind the last
time.......... DAMN!

Doug makes a good piont

Does the space shuttle have merit? Yes I believe so despite major
shortcomings such as cost and complexity. It can do what no spcae
craft can do that came before it. Take the Hubble space telescope.
If NASA had not the shuttle, but intsted still used basic capsules and
rockest Hubble would be a 4 billion dollar piece of space junk.
Reason why I say this is simply the shuttle was the only stable work
platform that could do the needed repairs to something such as the
Hubble. Would it been totally imposable without the space shuttle no,
but I'm sure any one can see how the shuttle made it far easier.
And I would bet money NASA will come up with a CEV version that
mimicks the shuttles cargobey in some way and have a robotic arm/s..

As I said before theres a lot to be learned from the shuttle. Good and
bad things that need to be kepted in mind when going to the next step.