[driven]

We are reduced to copying parts from MUSEUMS !?!?!!

http://www.charter.net/news/read.php...ARSDCCL1_UNEWS

[Landos Mustache]

Disappointing for sure. It reminds me of a prequel. It is supposed to look cool and modern but at the same time older than the original.

[mitchell_pgh]

You make it sound like these items are hundreds of years old.

Why wouldn't you go back and look for ideas from successful past projects (especially when we haven't been to the moon in some time). IMHO, you would be an idiot if you DIDN'T go back. Why not look at what they were using at that point in time and try to improve upon it.

To quote the article:
"We've gone back to the days of simplicity. You can get more complicated, but why bother?" Snoddy said.

[tutelary]

the problem is we are getting rid of shuttles all together instead of building new ones. Its a tremendous step backwards. I dont see how anyone can view it any other way.

Snoddy is giving the party line because he has to.

[baw]

How is it a step backwards? The glider experiment that is the shuttle program is a flop. It is too expensive to maintain and much more dangerous than the previous space programs. The old way just works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

I'm excited to see the launch of this new rocket.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by tutelary

the problem is we are getting rid of shuttles all together instead of building new ones. Its a tremendous step backwards. I dont see how anyone can view it any other way.

Snoddy is giving the party line because he has to.

Tell me again why we need shuttles?

Why is this a step backwards?

I agree with baw on this one. Unless you can show me something a shuttle can do that a more traditional capsule can't... I say we go the cheap way.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by baw

How is it a step backwards? The glider experiment that is the shuttle program is a flop. It is too expensive to maintain and much more dangerous than the previous space programs. The old way just works.

because unless you're going to use the space station for everything (and its getting old), you simply cannot carry out the scientific experiements that you can easily do on the shuttle in a capsule. Its a step back.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by baw

How is it a step backwards? The glider experiment that is the shuttle program is a flop. It is too expensive to maintain and much more dangerous than the previous space programs. The old way just works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

I'm excited to see the launch of this new rocket.

The replacement shuttle that NASA showed in the 90's LOOKED advanced and futuristic. This looks like nothing.

No looks aren't everything but this method also doesn't leave much payload or comfort room.

[baw]

Originally Posted by tutelary

because unless you're going to use the space station for everything (and its getting old)

Old? It isn't even close to the age of the shuttles. The shuttles are old and busted. If experiments need to be carried out, then yes, the ISS will have to do it.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by baw

Old? It isn't even close to the age of the shuttles. The shuttles are old and busted. If experiments need to be carried out, then yes, the ISS will have to do it.

which is why we should be building NEW SHUTTLES, not frigging capsules. Age is relative, btw, since the ISS is in space all the time. Shuttles are maintained constantly.

[baw]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Constellation

Has some pretty good info. It seems NASA is moving away from having the launch vehicles perform experiments and more of a way to get us to the moon and then to Mars.

[baw]

Originally Posted by tutelary

which is why we should be building NEW SHUTTLES, not frigging capsules. Age is relative, btw, since the ISS is in space all the time. Shuttles are maintained constantly.

The Shuttle program is a flop. Too expensive to maintain. And we already lost two.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by baw

The Shuttle program is a flop. Too expensive to maintain. And we already lost two.

APOLLO 1
The first U.S. Apollo mission was to be called Apollo 1. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were the astronauts for this mission. The three men died, however, in a fire inside their command module during a pre-flight test at a launch pad in Florida. The date of this tragedy was January 27, 1967.

SOYUZ 1
The Soviet Soyuz 1 spacecraft crash landed in April 1967, because its
parachute failed to deploy. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died in the crash.

SOYUZ 11
Three more cosmonauts died during the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971. A valve in the descent module activated during re-entry, releasing the cabin air into space. The cosmonauts were Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev.

yeah, capsules are MUCH safer

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by tutelary

which is why we should be building NEW SHUTTLES, not frigging capsules. Age is relative, btw, since the ISS is in space all the time. Shuttles are maintained constantly.

The russians have vehicles than can ferry astronauts back and forth to the space station where they can conduct all the experiments they want. I look at bringing back the old rockets as a step forward--as far as I know the shuttle isn't designed to make it to the moon.

There is a huge difference between putting a shuttle into orbit and sending someone to the moon. That program has been neglected so long that engineers have to go back to those old rockets. Don't worry, I'm sure the new spaceships will have new computers with merom chips.

It would seem with resources running out here on earth, developing vehicles that can take us to other planetary bodies where there are more resources could eventually pay off big.

[Landos Mustache]

"Facing tight deadlines and uncertain budgets as it works on President George W. Bush's plan to send astronauts back to the moon and on to Mars, NASA is both cannibalizing and analyzing pieces of its glory years, namely the Apollo program that first put humans on the lunar surface in 1969."

The geek in me draws comparisons to how Apple put the intel hardware in the old and tested PowerBook cases and didn't make a redesign because of time.

We all see how well that worked out.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by tutelary

because unless you're going to use the space station for everything (and its getting old), you simply cannot carry out the scientific experiements that you can easily do on the shuttle in a capsule. Its a step back.

It's bee up there since 1998... and many of the components are less than 3 years old. It's far from "old" and they can continue adding new research components as needed.

Also, the space shuttle has a limited payload. A traditional rocket could offer a much larger payload.

IMHO, it's all about versatility. There is a reason the Russians abandoned their shuttles. They were too expensive to maintain.

[baw]

Originally Posted by tutelary

APOLLO 1
The first U.S. Apollo mission was to be called Apollo 1. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were the astronauts for this mission. The three men died, however, in a fire inside their command module during a pre-flight test at a launch pad in Florida. The date of this tragedy was January 27, 1967.

SOYUZ 1
The Soviet Soyuz 1 spacecraft crash landed in April 1967, because its
parachute failed to deploy. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died in the crash.

SOYUZ 11
Three more cosmonauts died during the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971. A valve in the descent module activated during re-entry, releasing the cabin air into space. The cosmonauts were Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev.

yeah, capsules are MUCH safer

Apollo 1 never left the launch pad (it wasn't designed too). There was a short in the electrical wiring that sparked the 100 percent oxygen atmosphere within the capsule. Instant BBQ.

The space shuttle was never designed to leave Earth's orbit and so it cannot be used to get to the moon or mars.

[baw]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

IMHO, it's all about versatility. There is a reason the Russians abandoned their shuttles. They were too expensive to maintain.

Exactly. Have one rocket just to lift the crew into space and then have a separate, much larger rocket to get the cargo and other modules into space. The one downside to the Shuttle was the lack of cargo space. Using the new Ares V, you can get a much larger payload without jeapordizing the safety of the crew.

[itai195]

The shuttles, in addition to being old technology, are just inefficient. What do they do that can't be done more efficiently with a manned or unmanned capsule? One of their primary missions -- launch capability -- is rarely even used, satellites are usually launched using expendable rockets.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by baw

The space shuttle was never designed to leave Earth's orbit and so it cannot be used to get to the moon or mars.

You're talking about an agency that cannot even find the original moon landing tapes getting to mars. lol. And I mean, we are talking about 70 boxes of material here.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by tutelary

You're talking about an agency that cannot even find the original moon landing tapes getting to mars. lol. And I mean, we are talking about 70 boxes of material here.

Don't forget how they smashed a 300 Million $ probe into mars's surface because the crack team of engineers forgot to convert from Metric.

Oh and how they installed the parachute launcher backwards on another and made a nice expensive hole in the ground.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by itai195

The shuttles, in addition to being old technology, are just inefficient. What do they do that can't be done more efficiently with a manned or unmanned capsule? One of their primary missions -- launch capability -- is rarely even used, satellites are usually launched using expendable rockets.

What about the Canadarm? That was a useful part of the shuttle. How is NASA supposed to carry out non-space station orbital repairs (like fixing the Hubble) without a robotic arm and cargo bay?

[Zeeb]

Originally Posted by Spliff

What about the Canadarm? That was a useful part of the shuttle. How is NASA supposed to carry out non-space station orbital repairs (like fixing the Hubble) without a robotic arm and cargo bay?

The Hubble Telescope program has been abandoned I believe.

[Spliff]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

The Hubble Telescope program has been abandoned I believe.

I was using that as an example. For me, the shuttle's biggest strength was it's ability to capture and repair things in orbit. But I guess it's safer and cheaper to make everything expendable.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by Zeeb

The Hubble Telescope program has been abandoned I believe.

yeah. another sad day in history.

[mitchell_pgh]

[QUOTE=tutelary]APOLLO 1
The first U.S. Apollo mission was to be called Apollo 1. Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chaffee were the astronauts for this mission. The three men died, however, in a fire inside their command module during a pre-flight test at a launch pad in Florida. The date of this tragedy was January 27, 1967.[QUOTE]

You don't know your space history all that well do you. These people died in a test situation... inside a building.

Originally Posted by tutelary

SOYUZ 1
The Soviet Soyuz 1 spacecraft crash landed in April 1967, because its
parachute failed to deploy. Cosmonaut Vladimir Komarov died in the crash.

OK, that's one person...

Originally Posted by tutelary

SOYUZ 11
Three more cosmonauts died during the Soyuz 11 mission in 1971. A valve in the descent module activated during re-entry, releasing the cabin air into space. The cosmonauts were Georgi Dobrovolsky, Vladislav Volkov, and Viktor Patsayev.

Those people would have lived if they wouldn't have had 3 people in a capsule designed for TWO. They didn't have pressure suits on. This was Russia cutting corners that killed these three people.

Originally Posted by tutelary

yeah, capsules are MUCH safer

The Challenger Disaster - January 28, 1986
SST-51L - Challenger - (destroyed during takeoff)
- Francis Scobee
- Michael Smith
- Ellison Onizuka
- Judith Resnik
- Ronald McNair
- Gregory Jarvis
- Christa McAuliffe

The Columbia Disaster - February 01, 2003
STS-107 - Columbia - (disintegrated on re-entry)
- Rick Husband
- Willie McCool
- Kalpana Chawla (India/USA)
- Laurel Clark
- Mike Anderson
- David Brown
- Ilan Ramon (Israel)

Our track record for both vehicles is far from spotless.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

You don't know your space history all that well do you. These people died in a test situation... inside a building.

Yes, I know that, it also doesnt make a difference, they are still dead. The point is that its space flight, you arent guaranteed a free easy pass. People are going to die. Going back to doing it a lesser way and still having people invariably die isnt better, its worse.

You're arguing meaningless specifics without grasping the real problem here. We are taking a step back.

[mojo2]

We are doing what needs to be done in a more cost effective manner to take the steps to eventually walk on Mars. If you want the Star Ship ENTERPRISE, then yes, it's disappointing.

Using proven technology that is safer and will cost less in the long run than building a Sci-Fi fan's dream reminds me of the kid who wants his mom to buy a Hummer H2 when a Mini-Van might be the smarter choice.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We are doing what needs to be done in a more cost effective manner to take the steps to eventually walk on Mars. If you want the Star Ship ENTERPRISE, then yes, it's disappointing.

Using proven technology that is safer and will cost less in the long run than building a Sci-Fi fan's dream reminds me of the kid who wants his mom to buy a Hummer H2 when a Mini-Van might be the smarter choice.

We dont even have a damn moon base and you people keep babbling about mars. Get a grip.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by mojo2

We are doing what needs to be done in a more cost effective manner to take the steps to eventually walk on Mars. If you want the Star Ship ENTERPRISE, then yes, it's disappointing.

I have no problem taking rockets to Mars/moon etc. I just don't think it is a good replacement for earth orbital missions.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by tutelary

Yes, I know that, it also doesnt make a difference, they are still dead. The point is that its space flight, you arent guaranteed a free easy pass. People are going to die. Going back to doing it a lesser way and still having people invariably die isnt better, its worse.

You're arguing meaningless specifics without grasping the real problem here. We are taking a step back.

Talk about arguing meaningless specifics. Face facts... we never lost anyone on launch, in space or on reentry when using capsules.

If our goal was to make cool looking spacecraft, I would agree that we are moving backwards, but our goal is to get humans back on the moon and beyond...

Why spend billions making and testing another shuttle when we can use more traditional (and tested) methods?

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by tutelary

yeah. another sad day in history.

AIP FYI #102: Management Shortcomings Identified in James Webb Space Telescope Program

STATUS REPORT
Date Released: Monday, August 14, 2006
Source: American Institute of Physics

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News Number 102: August 14, 2006

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a self-initiated review of the James Webb Space Telescope program that identified several major management shortcomings. NASA concurs with the report's findings, and is taking steps to bring the program into conformity with most of its acquisition policies.

The James Webb Space Telescope is a next generation telescope that is frequently characterized as a replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope. Its major component is a 6.5 meter segmented primary mirror. A suite of other scientific instruments, including a near-infrared camera, a near-infrared spectrograph, a mid-infrared instrument, and a fine guidance sensor will also be hosted. The European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency are collaborating with the United States on the telescope. The GAO estimates that the program will require a commitment of $4.5 billion, of which $2 billion would be spent from FY 2007 through FY 2011. NASA has scheduled launch of the telescope in 2013.

The Space Studies Board of the National Research Council's Astronomy and Astrophysics Survey Committee produced a 2001 decadal study entitled "Astronomy and Astrophysics in the New Millennium." It described what is now called the James Webb Space Telescope as follows: "The Next Generation Space Telescope (NGST), the committee's top-priority recommendation, is designed to detect light from the first stars and to trace the evolution of galaxies from their formation to the present. It will revolutionize understanding of how stars and planets form in our galaxy today. NGST is an 8-m class infrared space telescope with 100 times the sensitivity and 10 times the image sharpness of the Hubble Space Telescope in the infrared. Having NGST's sensitivity extend to 27 mm would add significantly to its scientific return. Technology development for this program is well under way. The European Space Agency and the Canadian Space Agency plan to make substantial contributions to the instrumentation for NGST." (See http://darwin.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/9839.pdf ) NASA has extensive information on this program at http://jwst.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html .

GAO did not comment on the telescope's scientific capabilities. Instead, it examined the program's management, which has experienced cost growth of $1 billion and schedule slippage of almost two years. Before this review, GAO explained, "program officials intended to have NASA commit to program start, which is the end of the formulation phase and the beginning of the implementation phase, with immature technologies, according to best practices, and without a preliminary design."

The report notes corrective action by NASA, although the GAO still has concerns: "During our review, we discussed these shortfalls with NASA officials, and they revised their acquisition strategy to conform to NASA policy. However, the current strategy still does not fully incorporate a knowledge-based approach which ensures that resources match requirements in terms of knowledge, time, and money before program start. If program officials follow the current plan, the maturity of key technologies may not be adequately tested prior to program start. In addition, it appears the program will not have sufficient funding resources to ensure the program's success. In light of the fiscally constrained environment the federal government and NASA will face in the years ahead, adopting a knowledge-based approach will not only increase the JWST program's chances for success but also lay the foundation for comparison between competing programs."

The report was sent to the leadership of House and Senate appropriations and authorization committees with NASA jurisdiction. House Science Committee Ranking Member Rep. Bart Gordon (D-TN) responded, "JWST will be an invaluable research tool when completed, but we owe it to the American taxpayers to ensure that the resources invested in it are responsibly managed. This report will be a valuable oversight tool." House Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee Ranking Member Rep. Mark Udall (D-CO) stated, "I am encouraged that NASA has concurred with the GAO's findings and recommendations and intends to address them. JWST has the potential to continue the revolution in astronomy begun by the Hubble Space Telescope. Yet, we need to make sure that JWST is developed as efficiently as possible so that it doesn't adversely impact other important astronomy and astrophysics projects at NASA."

The 31-page report can be read at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d06634.pdf

Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi@aip.org
http://www.aip.org/gov
(301) 209-3095

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21707

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by tutelary

We dont even have a damn moon base and you people keep babbling about mars. Get a grip.

Ha... and a moon base would do what for our goal to reach mars?

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Talk about arguing meaningless specifics. Face facts... we never lost anyone on launch, in space or on reentry when using capsules.

If our goal was to make cool looking spacecraft, I would agree that we are moving backwards, but our goal is to get humans back on the moon and beyond...

Why spend billions making and testing another shuttle when we can use more traditional (and tested) methods?

Why send people to mars at all when you can send more probes instead? Your logic has horrible flaws.

[Gossamer]

Originally Posted by tutelary

Why send people to mars at all when you can send more probes instead? Your logic has horrible flaws.

Are you saying that there's no difference between a mechanical probe and a person?

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

Ha... and a moon base would do what for our goal to reach mars?

what do you think we are going to do, go to mars, touch down, and immediately return? Are you grasping the fact that a Mars mission is a *3 year round trip?*

we are going to need a temporary ground station on mars. You cannot design one from the ground up without practical experience having used them and experimented with different methods for creating the best one possible. A moon base is an absolute necessity for going to mars for any practical research. There is no way around it.

"Ha"

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by tutelary

We dont even have a damn moon base and you people keep babbling about mars. Get a grip.

If you are planning a trip to Mars, what you do is reverse-engineer the journey. The Moon base is another step to that reverse engineered trek leading to (or starting with) the CEV.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21708

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

I have no problem taking rockets to Mars/moon etc. I just don't think it is a good replacement for earth orbital missions.

Which are designed to do what?

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by Gossamer

Are you saying that there's no difference between a mechanical probe and a person?

hes saying why spend money on shuttles when you can spend money on mars. Mars will be phenomenally more expensive, and we dont have the practical experience we need from having a moon base yet to go to mars. You people thinking we can skip the moon and go right to mars are out of your minds.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Which are designed to do what?

Large space for repairs, living quarters, Canada arm, payload, labs etc.

[tutelary]

Originally Posted by mojo2

If you are planning a trip to Mars, what you do is reverse-engineer the journey. The Moon base is another step to that reverse engineered trek leading to (or starting with) the CEV.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=21708

...except a CEV will be nothing like whatever ship you'll have to use to get to mars. In fact, a shuttle is more like what you'll have to use(no, I'm not saying a shuttle will fly to mars, dont even attempt to peg that kind of stupidity on me.), so why abandon that? You'll need storage areas, crew compartments, hydroponics areas, etc etc etc.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by tutelary

...except a CEV will be nothing like whatever ship you'll have to use to get to mars.

That's like criticizing the Space Shuttle because all it was going to do was just go into Earth orbit and return.

That's like criticizing a car because it can't fly.

It is the best vehicle for THAT part of the task.

Specialization.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by tutelary

hes saying why spend money on shuttles when you can spend money on mars. Mars will be phenomenally more expensive, and we dont have the practical experience we need from having a moon base yet to go to mars. You people thinking we can skip the moon and go right to mars are out of your minds.

I don't know if they are out of their minds, but the President has fully committed NASA to a Moon project.

[Landos Mustache]

Originally Posted by mojo2

I don't know if they are out of their minds, but the President has fully committed NASA to a Moon project.

They want to set up shop before the terrorists blow it up

[Kerrigan]

No, that's not the reason at all.

He's going to the moon because Saddam put his WMD there. Obviously.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Landos Mustache

Large space for repairs, living quarters, Canada arm, payload, labs etc.

The International Space Station was never meant to be the end goal of Earth orbit. It was the nearest point where we could experiment and learn about the wonders of this new, hostile environment. And while there is still plenty more to learn about space, at a certain point you have all the info you need to to get on with the real mission.

Manned exploration of the galaxy.

Some people love college so much they never want to leave it, and while there may still be lots for the young graduate to learn, at a certain point they need to put that education to good use and find their calling in life.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by baw

Exactly. Have one rocket just to lift the crew into space and then have a separate, much larger rocket to get the cargo and other modules into space. The one downside to the Shuttle was the lack of cargo space. Using the new Ares V, you can get a much larger payload without jeapordizing the safety of the crew.

Compared to what?

Space-Shuttle Orbiter

The orbiter is both the brains and heart of the STS, and it contains the latest advances in flight control, thermal protection, and liquid-rocket propulsion. About the same size and weight as a DC-9 aircraft (a fairly small two-engine jet airplane), the orbiter is composed of the pressurized crew compartment (which can carry up to eight crew members under normal conditions and as many as ten in an emergency), the huge cargo bay, and the three main engines mounted on its aft, or rear, end.

The crew cabin has three levels: the flight deck, the mid-deck, and the utility area. Uppermost is the flight deck, where the commander and pilot control the craft, surrounded by an array of switches and controls. During launch of a seven-member crew, two additional astronauts are positioned on the flight deck behind the commander and pilot. The three other crew members are in launch positions in the mid-deck, which is below the flight deck.

The galley, toilet, sleep stations, and storage and experiment lockers are found in the mid-deck. Also located in the mid-deck are the side hatch for passage to and from the vehicle before and after landing, and the airlock hatch into the cargo bay and space beyond. Astronauts pass through this hatch to don their space suits and maneuvering units (called Simplified Aid for EVA Rescue, or SAFER, these units strap on an astronaut's back over the space suit and allow an astronaut to move about in space without being tethered to the shuttle). This equipment prepares astronauts for extravehicular activities (EVAs), more popularly known as spacewalks. Below the mid-deck's floor is a utility area for air and water tanks.

The space shuttle's cargo bay is adaptable to hundreds of tasks. Large enough to accommodate a tour bus at 18 by 4.6 m (60 by 15 ft), the cargo bay carries satellites, spacecraft, and scientific laboratories for the modular Spacelab system to and from orbit around Earth. It also is a workstation for astronauts to repair satellites, a foundation from which to erect space structures, and a storage area for satellites retrieved from space to be returned to Earth.

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...e_Shuttle.html

[baw]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Compared to what?



http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_...e_Shuttle.html

Space Shuttle: Maximum Payload: 55,250 lb (25,061.4 kg)

Ares V: Payload Capacity: 130 t (287,000 lb.)

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by baw

Space Shuttle: Maximum Payload: 55,250 lb (25,061.4 kg)

Ares V: Payload Capacity: 130 t (287,000 lb.)

Oh.

[baw]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Oh.

The way I understand it is, the Ares V will carry the work areas and other necessary equipment and then the Ares I launches the crew capsule. Then the crew capsule and the modules the Ares V launched will dock.