What should NASA do about the shuttle?

[Eriol]

I was thinking of having a poll but I can't limit the options. What do you think should happen with NASA's space program, particularly the space shuttle? As happened in the aftermath of Challenger's accident, you (americans) will probably spend a great amount of thought and ink about it. Should it be discontinued? Should it be stopped for a while? Should NASA be modernized with renewed Congress funding? What do you think?

[TheFool]

Here's a bit on the Space Elevator (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html) which is pretty mind-blowing when you imagine it.... Maybe it is time to consider this as a serious proposal? Some people are estimating a $10 billion budget - (which is less than what it is costing to build that new skyscraper in Hong Kong) to get one up in less than 20 years. Just imagine the profits if a private company built it! Obviously there are a million problems to be solved (eg lightning, satellites, dumb-ass airline pilots etc) but is it really any more difficult than going to the moon in 1969?

I don't think there's any way the Shuttles will be discontinued... scaled back, maybe; overhauled, definitely. But maybe more funding should be given to long-term alternatives to the Shuttle.

[Niniel]

I think the space program should be contuinued. There are important reasons why it shouldn't:
-the enormous cost, which could better be spent on more useful things, such as improving the living standard of the world population
-it's very bad for the environment
-the relatively little scientific result that comes from it.
But there are also many benefits of the space program.The most important of this is the following: the scientific results are small, but if we stop now we will never learn more about the world and the universe. I think finally, when we understand the universe better, we can use thuis knowledge to make the world a better place and to improve living standards for everyone. This will take a long time of course, like thousands of years, but in the end it will work out. Maybe then we will have the ideal Star Trek world, where everyone is nice to each other and there are no more wars (at least not in the United Federation of Planets). I'm an optimist as you can see.
Maybe NASA should look at other options of space exploration instead of shuttles. There might be cheaper ways (unmanned flights eg.). So I'm not saying the shuttle program should be continued, but space exploration should go on.

[Rogue666666]

To stop exploring our solar system would be a mistake, and shutting down the space shuttle program would be a seroius step in stopping that exploration. I stand firmly against it.

Just as we must preserve on in the face of terror, so we must also preserve under the threat of looming disaster. If we allow every set back, no matter how major, to stop us, then we have failed.

Now, the elevator sounds like an excellent idea. There is only one problem that I know of. Somewhere I read that the only possible location for such a tower to work would be if it were placed in the nation of Sri Lanka. Geometrically speaking it woudn't be possible to stick it anywhere else. That would mean only ONE tower.

Finally, the idea of it going to the moon is ridicoulus. It would be possible for it to go out of our atmosphere. But think about it, the moon is constantly swinging around our planet. Unless the tower connects and then disconnects from the moon over the span of a couple of hours, then you can throw that idea away.

Still, if we could biuld an elevator that stretched out of our atmosphere, their must be several advantages.

[Hadhafang]

I think that the shuttle tecnology is actually outdated. NASA should focus more on developing safer and more efficient ways of getting into space. They also need to develop better ways of reentry. I find it amazing more of these accidents haven't occurred in the past. The shuttle needs to be able to have more control then simply falling through the atmosphere upon reentry. I also think it important that we continue exploring space. It is not a waste of money and time.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Hadhafang
I think that the shuttle tecnology is actually outdated. NASA should focus more on developing safer and more efficient ways of getting into space. They also need to develop better ways of reentry. I find it amazing more of these accidents haven't occurred in the past. The shuttle needs to be able to have more control then simply falling through the atmosphere upon reentry. I also think it important that we continue exploring space. It is not a waste of money and time.
I agree that much of the technology is outdated, and the current system is grossly inefficient in regards to the tasks required of it. It seems the shuttles are expensive, outdated, inefficient, and unsafe; it may be time for all the shuttles to go to the Smithsonian. A good way to invite more innovative tech and shake up the status quo would be to lift the lid that NASA has on space exploration in America and allow private enterprise and competition to get involved. Here are a couple interesting perspectives on the question:



Gregg Easterbrook (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101030210-418518,00.html)

Radley Balko (http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/defensewrapper.jsp?PID=1051-350&CID=1051-030502D)

[TheFool]

The elevator tower has to be on the equator - but it could be based on a sea platform. It would be great if they could build them in Africa. And you could build a second one just for tourists, I reckon that would pay for itself very quickly.

'The elevator to the moon' title is indeed just plain wrong; all it needs to do is get stuff into earth orbit.

[Jesse]

What NASA should do about the Columbia 7 is simple:

Learn from the accident. If they do this, lives will be spared. The explosion should be a lesson to NASA that one error can ruin an entire mission....

[faila]

I dont believe space exploration should be stopped, and as long as the military can continue using it tthan our government has a right to be up in the stars. So yes continu both shuttles and nasa.

[FoolOfATook]

I dont believe space exploration should be stopped, and as long as the military can continue using it tthan our government has a right to be up in the stars. So yes continu both shuttles and nasa.

No one is arguing that the world has no right to explore the stars. Note that I said the world, not America, since NASA has become so international in the multi-national diversity of its crews and in its work on the International Space Station. However, I'm a bit bothered by the idea that the reason why we should explore space is to exploit it militarily. After all, I don't think that the US needs to bomb anyone on the moon yet... :rolleyes: ;)

[TheFool]

I think all the major powers will be keeping an eye on China, who plan on a manned space mission within the year (and the very best of luck to them). 'Taikonaut' - great word :cool:

I think that India also has ambitious space plans....

[Rogue666666]

It seems the shuttles are expensive, outdated, inefficient, and unsafe;


Yes, but the alternative of finding a different way into space and then building it would probably be beyond NASA's financial capability. They ARE letting private businesses look into space exploration. But most forms of space exploration are so expensive that no business is willing to start up its own space program.

[Legolam]

I think the best thing that can be done in the wake of the Columbia disaster is to remember that the astronauts gave up their lives whilst doing something that is part of every human being on this planet - exploration. Space really is the last thing left to us to explore, and I believe that this pursuit of knowledge is what makes us human.

The shuttle technology may be outdated, but there really is nothing better right now. NASA's idea of a reusable space shuttle is unique in the world, although they are working on a smaller vehicle for use in emergencies and suchlike, the X-38.

I'm not so keen on the idea of space tourism at the moment. It seems like we could waste a whole lot of money putting tourists up there, when we could be using it for scientific research. As for an elevator to space, what would you do when you got up there? The lift would have to go all the way up to geosynchronous orbit (very high up) if it was to dock with a space station or something.

[Aulë]

Yes, now that Legolam mentions it, the space elevator does seem kinda pointless.

One thing that baffles me is why humans are being sent into space.
With the state of technology these days, robots could be sent ino space to do all the experiments and repairs, without the risk of loss of life.

The next frontier in space I believe should be research into Saturn's moon, Triton. It appears to be the most likely object in space where humans would be able to live, since it's atmosphere is very similar to Earth's.

[FoolOfATook]

I'm not so keen on the idea of space tourism at the moment.

I've never been able to figure out the appeal of space tourism. Maybe I'm some kind of a weirdo, but I really enjoy taking holidays in places with oxygen.

That was only half a joke, by the way.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Legolam

The shuttle technology may be outdated, but there really is nothing better right now. NASA's idea of a reusable space shuttle is unique in the world, although they are working on a smaller vehicle for use in emergencies and suchlike, the X-38.



This is the heart of the question; given X amount of available resources, does it make more sense to continue to dump these resources into life-support for an inefficient (and dangerous) system or to devote more resources to developing a better system? Also, what really is the real attraction of a reusable vehicle if recovery and maintenance add up to its being more costly than throw-away vehicles. Outer-space environmentalism?

[TheFool]

A working space elevator (I agree it's a somewhat loose term) would render all shuttles/rockets obsolete overnight - by far both on safety and cost. You could send up components for a huge spacestation or big ship to the moon, Mars, anywhere and assemble them in orbit - for $100 a kilo! To use a cliche: it would be the gateway to the solar system! The brilliant thing is, it doesn't have to be attached to anything.. the far end just floats in space.

Parrot is right - is it really wise to see the Shuttle (or even conventional rockets) as a long-term solution?

[Ciryaher]

There is a small craft being developed that uses a currently-under-development SCRAMJET system to take off with a payload and land. It's a lot smaller than the shuttle but is more reliable and doesn't use huge amounts of resources to launch (it's self-contained, no SRB's).

Is an elevator that stretches into a low- to mid-level orbit structurally feasible? It seems as though it'd take a terrific amount of resources to build. Also, would it be lined with anti-aircraft/missle batteries to make sure nothing blows it up?

[faila]

Originally posted by FoolOfATook
No one is arguing that the world has no right to explore the stars. Note that I said the world, not America, since NASA has become so international in the multi-national diversity of its crews and in its work on the International Space Station. However, I'm a bit bothered by the idea that the reason why we should explore space is to exploit it militarily. After all, I don't think that the US needs to bomb anyone on the moon yet... :rolleyes: ;) THrough a system of satelites it could make our tracking devices work much better, our military in general. For instance with satelites at the correct positions we could drop a nuclear bomb from space at anyone on earth. (yes I see the danger in this as well) But i think that it can be used by the military (better spy satelites). Maybey im just dreaming. But im actually iffy as to whether it should be continued if the military doesnt use it. and if it sounded like I said the world has no right to explore space im sorry. But I do think that our government has no right to explore space unless it can in be someway helpfull to the general american public.

[Bombadillo]

I think it's good to remember this: space shuttles have no meaning in exploring space... they just stay in orbit and paople think its fun to be in them.. but just SAY that... most test can be done cheaper or on earth or in an unmanned spacestation...
i dont know if the space program should be shut down, my father had the whole dutch press and space people on his neck, after writing a big story saying that it should be abandonded...

[FoolOfATook]

Without downplaying the potential uses of space for national security, I would argue your implication that space exploration can only benefit the American people in defense purposes. For example, a friend of mine is convinced that the moon would be a wonderful place to strip-mine for raw materials. Granted, I'm horrified at the idea of opening up space merely to continue to rape every natural resource that mankind can get their hands on, but I'm sure that there are other uses of this kind that are less offensive... ;)

[Ciryaher]

Actually, I think that an extremely good motivation for space exploration is mining the asteroid belt for metals, etc. Practically an inexhaustible source of materials!

I don't think that planets or their satellites should be used for heavy mining operations, but these resources should definitely be considered for use.

On a totally different tangent, I wish that schools would start teaching in science classes the proper name for the star around which we orbit (Sol). Hardly anyone knows it, unless they are *really* into astronomy.

[Aulë]

I was just reading through the paper, and there was an article on the space elevator.
It appears that Perth (where I live) is one of 2 places (the other being Equador) where the elevator would be viable.

[Legolam]

Also, what really is the real attraction of a reusable vehicle if recovery and maintenance add up to its being more costly than throw-away vehicles. Outer-space environmentalism?

Actually, "outer-space environmentalism" is more important than you think. The orbits around earth are slowly filling up with space junk, mostly from the Apollo missions. If one of these pieces hits the shuttle or space station, it's quite possible to destroy it because of the speed of the bits flying about. If it hits an astronaut on EVA (extra vehicular activity), he's pretty much a goner.

[Eriol]

A lot of interesting responses. I am a great enthusiast of space exploration myself, but I think that it should be done by private means, and one of the chief reasons is the risk (rather, certainty) of "militarizing" space. I would be very gratified if private space exploration were one of the means contributing for the downfall of the nation-state...

So, addressing specifics: The shuttle should be discontinued. It is obviously no long-term solution, as someone said here... and the quicker we begin researching this long-term solution, the better. If states (such as U.S., India, and others mentioned) engage in space exploration, there should be a strong check by the public (which will not happen... sigh) to prevent the prevalence of military uses and goals. Notice, I am not against the existence of militarism, I am against its prevalence over other perspectives.

[Parrot]

Originally posted by Legolam
Actually, "outer-space environmentalism" is more important than you think. The orbits around earth are slowly filling up with space junk, mostly from the Apollo missions. If one of these pieces hits the shuttle or space station, it's quite possible to destroy it because of the speed of the bits flying about. If it hits an astronaut on EVA (extra vehicular activity), he's pretty much a goner.
I don't think I ever said whether I thought it important or not; it was an honest question.

[TheFool]

NASA's plans (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035777960556&call_pageid=968332188492&col=968705899037) for a shuttle replacement.

X-Prize stuff (http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/10/16/xprize.contest/) as well.

[Rogue666666]

Has anyone here ever read the Foundation novels by Isaac Asimov? Just thought I'd ask.