by iamlucky13 » Tue May 11, 2010 6:24 am
Hofi wrote:Hi!
We all know that there are financial problems nearly all over the world. The shuttle was thought to be cheap because it's reuseable. Indeed, it did not work as planed. That's the reason why the USAF joined the project - because NASA had not the money to pay the expenses.
In my opinion, the shuttle is much to expensive. It would have been better to invest in safer and cheaper rockets than in the shuttle project. (Please notice that 16 Astronauts died in the shuttle!) It does not cheer my heart that the US won't be able to send men into space for some years. The Russian Federation and China will be the only ones. But we are not in the Cold War any more. The best way would be to set up an international cooperation as seen at the International Space Station. It's not necessary for each country to build its own rocket! So cooperate and push spaceflight forward!
That's my opinion!
The Air Force got in on it because they wanted a hands-on ability to launch, service, and recover reconnaissance payloads. After the basic form of the shuttle was defined and detailed design was well under way, they backed out because digital imaging had improved enough they felt much less need for Air Force personnel in space.
The International Space Station is a poor poster child for international efficiency. Each participant is constantly waiting each other participant to meet this milestone or that so the program can proceed. Any internationally coordinate program has to be conceived such that members are not held up by others' lack of progress. Also, there are enough different rocket needs in the world for most of the variety we have now.
While I agree it's time for the shuttle to be replaced, the safety and cost can't really be compared to any other vehicle so far. There is no other system capable of launching 7 astronauts into orbit in one operation, much less with 25 tons of cargo. The problem there is that we can almost always accommodate such a need in separate launches. It also has the best safety record of any manned launch vehicle, despite those two accidents. On that note, it's worth pointing out that the cause of the Challenger accident was fairly conclusively resolved, while the cause of the Columbia accident been significantly reduced, in addition to being mitigated.
I'm still holding out hope that Obama and Congress will recognize the value of adding two additional flights to the manifest to launch the AMS payload and additional fuel and supplies that the ISS will be short on for several years. The hardware is built. There's little more to do but keep the necessary staff on payroll for another 6 months.
[quote="Hofi"]Hi!
We all know that there are financial problems nearly all over the world. The shuttle was thought to be cheap because it's reuseable. Indeed, it did not work as planed. That's the reason why the USAF joined the project - because NASA had not the money to pay the expenses.
In my opinion, the shuttle is much to expensive. It would have been better to invest in safer and cheaper rockets than in the shuttle project. (Please notice that 16 Astronauts died in the shuttle!) It does not cheer my heart that the US won't be able to send men into space for some years. The Russian Federation and China will be the only ones. But we are not in the Cold War any more. The best way would be to set up an international cooperation as seen at the International Space Station. It's not necessary for each country to build its own rocket! So cooperate and push spaceflight forward!
That's my opinion![/quote]
The Air Force got in on it because they wanted a hands-on ability to launch, service, and recover reconnaissance payloads. After the basic form of the shuttle was defined and detailed design was well under way, they backed out because digital imaging had improved enough they felt much less need for Air Force personnel in space.
The International Space Station is a poor poster child for international efficiency. Each participant is constantly waiting each other participant to meet this milestone or that so the program can proceed. Any internationally coordinate program has to be conceived such that members are not held up by others' lack of progress. Also, there are enough different rocket needs in the world for most of the variety we have now.
While I agree it's time for the shuttle to be replaced, the safety and cost can't really be compared to any other vehicle so far. There is no other system capable of launching 7 astronauts into orbit in one operation, much less with 25 tons of cargo. The problem there is that we can almost always accommodate such a need in separate launches. It also has the best safety record of any manned launch vehicle, despite those two accidents. On that note, it's worth pointing out that the cause of the Challenger accident was fairly conclusively resolved, while the cause of the Columbia accident been significantly reduced, in addition to being mitigated.
I'm still holding out hope that Obama and Congress will recognize the value of adding two additional flights to the manifest to launch the AMS payload and additional fuel and supplies that the ISS will be short on for several years. The hardware is built. There's little more to do but keep the necessary staff on payroll for another 6 months.