To those who know more than me (which on this subject is most everyone):
Wasn’t part of the cost of the shuttle that it was trying to do something for everyone? Instead of an all purpose vehicle, how about a fleet of more special purpose ones? Seems like rockets do just fine launching satellites pretty reliably and a bit more cheaply. Seems like another vehicle (?space plane?) could get high enough to drop-off and return workers to the ISS wirth greater efficiency.
Maybe long term goals are best served by building something out there to stay out there to service satellites from a space station dock, do the science at the space station, and have seperate vehicles specifically designed for ferrying workers and launching satellites and not for functioning as mini-space stations as well.
Could be just my ignorance talking. Please educate me.
This thread got me thinking seriously. Especially with this:
Big statement. Honest statement.
I’m thinking that with the current ISS and so many current-technology sattelites in orbit, and wanting to get into orbit; so many military sattelites that may need periodic service; the occasional crew and cargo transfers relating to the ISS, can we do without a full-sized eight orbiter fleet?
I personally would support the construction of two orbiters, but given the fact that NASA is most likely working on the “next generation” of orbiters, would you support a technology that has seemed to work (save the two failures in 20+ years)? Or, would you say “Nope, let’s wait for the next innovation!”
DSeid, the shuttle project has been in trouble since the very beginning. The original designs called for a vehicle with more reusable components and a vastly bigger price tag than what we ended up with. As NASA’s budget kept getting smaller, they kept having to redesign the thing (this, of course, isn’t cheap) and kept doing it until we ended up with the design we have now. Were we to rebuild the shuttle now, using only the current technological advancements that have come about since the originals were designed, and not (as was done with the originals) push the design envelope, we’d be able to build one for probably about the same amount of money or less that the original one cost us. Designing and building a different kind of spacecraft is going to be more expensive.
The problem is that NASA has no real goals. It’s current level of funding is such that it can basically continue to do what it’s doing at present, but nothing more. So not only does NASA need more money, it needs something to do with that money. Rumors are flying (and so far, that’s really all they are) that NASA is going to push for a manned mission to Mars, but to do that, NASA’s budget is going to have to double, at least. Difficult with rising budget deficits and war looming with Iraq (not to mention North Korea).
No matter what happens, NASA will need a vehicle with the ability to do much of what the shuttle does. There are ideas floating about, but nothing’s been set in stone as of yet.
TUCKERFAN is right…there are no real goals for NASA. The ISS has been a huge sinkhole for money…and now, the Russians want another BILLION $$! The ISS has exceeded its initial cost estimates by 500-1000%…and it is now faced with absolute dependence on the Russians…and you can bet they will squeeze us for all its worth.
I think NASA ought to confine itself to robotic probes, and the US should fund private entrepreneurs who want to developnew launch vehicles…NASA shouldbe phased out once that happens.
ralph, there are private entrepreneurs who’re trying to make cheap, manned spaceflight possible. Cite,cite,cite, and some discussion about what NASAshould be doing. But so far, they’re not having much luck. (Well, $20 million a pop, but that’s another story.) Somewhere out there is a thread (assuming it wasn’t lost in the Winter of Our Missed Content) about the ISS and why it costs so damn much (I’d try searching for it, but ISS is below the character limit). Most of it, IIRC, isn’t NASA’s fault. A good deal of it has been because Congress has micromanaged what NASA can do with it’s money and the ISS. Again, IIRC, NASA is required to have Russian involvement in the ISS, so they have to do whatever they can (and pay whatever they can afford) with the Russians, in order to keep 'em going.
