Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

tim_perdue · 2003-03-22 09:35:52

Good article - exactlywhat I think. Abandon the shuttle and the ISS and do something exciting.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.0 … .html?pg=2

George H · 2003-03-22 14:56:20

Good article - exactlywhat I think. Abandon the shuttle and the ISS and do something exciting.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/11.0 … .html?pg=2

But if we nix all of em, who's gonna take care of Hubble or satelites, when they need up-grades, or repair's?? We better keep 1 shuttle.

Bill White · 2003-03-22 15:55:06

I could support a "trade" of humans to Mars for cancellation of these projects however I fear what we would get is cancellation with nothing in return. Besides, if "made in America" boosters are to be used to lift a Mars mission isn't Ares (STS sans orbiter) the route needing the least R&D?

Given the current international climate I do not see President Bush supporting spending billions of dollars only to use Russian heavy lift and flying more shuttle flights will lower the costs of buying SRBs or at least keep the production lines open.

Palomar · 2003-03-22 16:05:49

I could support a "trade" of humans to Mars for cancellation of these projects however I fear what we would get is cancellation with nothing in return. Besides, if "made in America" boosters are to be used to lift a Mars mission isn't Ares (STS sans orbiter) the route needing the least R&D?
Given the current international climate I do not see President Bush supporting spending billions of dollars only to use Russian heavy lift and flying more shuttle flights will lower the costs of buying SRBs or at least keep the production lines open.

*That's my fear as well, Bill. President Bush aside (well...), would the U.S. public currently be in favor of spending billions of dollars in going to Mars? My guess is "absolutely not." Our economy is in the crapper, jobs are being lost daily (over 300,000 in February alone)...enough of that.

Yes, I'm afraid a cancellation of any project, especially now, will return nothing. I've mentioned this previously, in another thread. And yes, we do rely on the shuttle to maintain/repair the Hubble Space Telescope and satellites; like it or not. Hubble is, IMO, indispensible; somehow it's got to be maintained and kept in order.

By the way, what is "R&D"? My synapses aren't firing as quickly today as they usually are...I probably know, but can't think of the answer right now.

Ever forward!

--Cindy

tim_perdue · 2003-03-23 10:13:38

I could support a "trade" of humans to Mars for cancellation of these projects however I fear what we would get is cancellation with nothing in return.

Cancelling a do-nothing space station/space shuttle would not be much of a loss, especially if all the money went into R&D (Research and Development) of a new craft.

Maintenance of the hubble is hardly reason enough to fly 5 shuttle missions/year, especially since the next gen space telescope cannot be serviced anyway. If I remember right, hubble is only due for one more service trip, or am I wrong?

Either way, the ISS/shuttle are gigantic leeches of cash that contribute back almost nothing compared to the unmanned probes.

dicktice · 2003-03-23 14:07:25

tim_purdue: "...not much of a loss..."! If you only knew...how long the mere idea of a "platform in space" was the only objective for space travel! It makes up for the fact that Earth doesn't have a Phobos. Once there, hang onto and nurture it. Because it's your "springboard" for tethered launches to escape LEO, weightlessness research of every description, LEO point-of-assembly (launched piecemeal by means of the Soyuz) for spacecraft too fragile and/or large to launch other than via the shuttle orbiters you don't mind losing. Thanks a lot, buddy!

tim_perdue · 2003-03-23 15:06:09

tim_purdue: "...not much of a loss..."! If you only knew...how long the mere idea of a "platform in space" was the only objective for space travel! It makes up for the fact that Earth doesn't have a Phobos. Once there, hang onto and nurture it. Because it's your "springboard" for tethered launches to escape LEO, weightlessness research of every description, LEO point-of-assembly (launched piecemeal by means of the Soyuz) for spacecraft too fragile and/or large to launch other than via the shuttle orbiters you don't mind losing. Thanks a lot, buddy!

I think this is NASA propaganda. I haven't seen any plans for the ISS that include using it as a launchpad for anything.

What I do know is that it is repeating activities that have been done for 40 years now, and does not go much beyond Mir or even Skylab, except in sheer cost.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I cannot seriously see anything going on in the current manned space platform that justifies its existence. If I really believed that this was a stepping stone to anything else, then I would be all for it. As it is, I'm convinced that this is a government make-work program (at outrageous expense).

Contrast this with the unmanned program which returns incredible volumes of science from every corner of the universe.

The manned program should be more agressive and be backed with a real plan to go somewhere, otherwise, shut it down and use the cash for something useful.

soph · 2003-03-23 19:03:33

The cash wouldn't be used for anything.

And even if it was a "do-nothing" program, so what? That "do-nothing" program funnelled a lot of money into a crawling manufacturing industry, and it will serve a real science purpose.

Even now, it is serving a purpose. Our OSP R&D must be accelerated so that we have a viable crew ferry to take us to the ISS. The ISS gave us a public purpose in space.

Cindy is right, cancelling these programs would just take money out of NASA. Congress has to approve everything, and trust me, they wouldn't approve of anything that didn't look nice in the sky. Now, Congress can look politically motivated by funnelling money into the OSP, to keep the international dream alive.

Without the ISS, nobody would be in orbit for a long time. And we wouldn't have the resources to get there either. Many small private entrepreneurial firms are trying to develop cheaper launch vehicles expecting to cater to the demand created by the ISS. Without that demand, there is no private space sector at all. We would just have more Deltas, Arianes, and Atlases.

tim_perdue · 2003-03-23 19:15:19

Even now, it is serving a purpose. Our OSP R&D must be accelerated so that we have a viable crew ferry to take us to the ISS. The ISS gave us a public purpose in space.

Hehehe - you proved my point.

We need the shuttle to get to the space station and we need the station so the shuttle has somewhere to go. That's a circular dependency of uselessness.

One thing that baffles me - why did we need a shuttle mission dedicated to "pure science" if we have the space station? So either that was a purely-wasted trip which resulted in 7 dead astronauts, or indeed that science could not be done on the useless ISS.

soph · 2003-03-23 19:25:10

One thing that baffles me - why did we need a shuttle mission dedicated to "pure science" if we have the space station? So either that was a purely-wasted trip which resulted in 7 dead astronauts, or indeed that science could not be done on the useless ISS.

The ISS isn't fully complete.

Hehehe - you proved my point.
We need the shuttle to get to the space station and we need the station so the shuttle has somewhere to go. That's a circular dependency of uselessness.

Circular dependency of uselessness? And if the OSP is a cheaper, say 1/4 the price ferry for 4 people? It would allow cheaper access to space. Is this a bad thing? No, it's obviously serving a useful purpose.

Why don't you read the rest of my post. This "circular dependency of uselessness" is the only demand in space there is right now--it's the only thing keeping manned space travel going.

tim_perdue · 2003-03-24 15:05:32

Why don't you read the rest of my post. This "circular dependency of uselessness" is the only demand in space there is right now--it's the only thing keeping manned space travel going.

You should read the article and take it to heart - they are not advocating abandoning space, but rather abondoning the current "make work" program and instead doing something inspiring.

Bill White · 2003-03-24 15:13:10

You should read the article and take it to heart - they are not advocating abandoning space, but rather abondoning the current "make work" program and instead doing something inspiring.

In a rational world, I might very well agree.

However, given my opinion of how the US federal budget gets approved by the various interested parties - Dem and GOP - I see this proposal as a recipe for zero funding for civilian space efforts.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-03-22 09:35:52

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#2 2003-03-22 14:56:20

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#3 2003-03-22 15:55:06

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#4 2003-03-22 16:05:49

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#5 2003-03-23 10:13:38

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#6 2003-03-23 14:07:25

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#7 2003-03-23 15:06:09

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#8 2003-03-23 19:03:33

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#9 2003-03-23 19:15:19

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#10 2003-03-23 19:25:10

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#11 2003-03-24 15:05:32

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

#12 2003-03-24 15:13:10

Re: Wired: Can NASA Really Make It to Mars? - Urges abandoning shuttle& ISS

Board footer