Discovery approaches its May 15 launch date

[missioncontrol]

It's good to see NASA is moving forward with shuttle launch.........

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/04/06/shuttle.rollout/index.html

[Gunstar Hero]

I don't think I'd like to rocket into space in a 25 year old vehicle...

When I was a kid, I loved the Space Shuttles. When Challenger exploded, I was devastated, because I figured that was the end. I was so happy when they came back.

As the fleet got older, I wondered when NASA was gonna come up with the next generation Space Shuttle... I mean, after all, these things are 20+ years old. When Columbia went, again, I figured that was the end.

Well here we go again... It kills me to say this, but I think that the Shuttles should have been retired long ago.

[JCL]

They're going to fly these things another 5 times and retire them (my prediction, not NASAs plan).

It is really a saving face thing. NASA truly sucks at manned spaceflight these days and the shuttle is really a jobs program. Even if it wasn't an obsolete, dangerous vehicle, and even if NASA wasn't so idiotic as to fly in violation of their own rules, the shuttle would be a bad deal just based on the $1 Billion it costs per launch.

We need cheaper heavy lift capability. With that, all things in space are possible. But we're not going to get that from NASA without some major culture changes.

I'm a big proponent of manned space flight. And I'm really a NASA hater these days.

NASA still does do some good unmanned stuff, but it is an obsticle to manned spaceflight, not a pioneer.

[Bones]

NASA has been trying to do more with less $$$ so mistakes are inevitable. Gone are the big budgets of 20-30 years ago.

the shuttle would be a bad deal just based on the $1 Billion it costs per launch.

Are you sure on this figure?? It really doesn't sound correct.....

[JCL]

NASA has been trying to do more with less $$$ so mistakes are inevitable. Gone are the big budgets of 20-30 years ago.

the shuttle would be a bad deal just based on the $1 Billion it costs per launch.

Are you sure on this figure?? It really doesn't sound correct.....

The whole shuttle program cost about $150 billion. And there have been considerably less than 150 flights. And two shuttles no longer exist, while the rest of the "fleet" is on its last legs. A billion dollars per flight is a low estimate. Just the recurring costs per launch are about $500 million, include the development costs (divided by number of launches). Each flight is far more expensive than NASA ever planned. Reccuring cost per launch were supposed to be 10-20 million dollars. Ooops.

The Shuttle is a colossal failure on so many levels it isn't funny. It is way too expensive. It can't be flown safely (by NASA at least). It can't be flown often. It has no margin of error.

With the money spend on the shuttle, we could have a real space station, safe and cheap heavy lifters. We'de be on the moon today and on the way to Mars. But not with NASA.

Really look at NASA has been doing over the last couple of decades. It is very sad.

[Bones]

If these are the facts, then I am wrong.

On the bright side it wasn't my country that spent 150 billion. 

But in all seriousness, I don't think the shuttle program should be labelled a disaster. A lot of people have worked hard and the science has been good.

[Gunstar Hero]

I agree with Bones, disaster is a strong word. But I also agree that NASA has wasted time and money. I mean, the shuttle was the first vehicle of it's type, so why did they stop there?

I feel the shuttles at best should have been a 10 year plan, and even with the Challenger accident happening I feel at that point they could have retired a success, but now the whole program feels like they're trying to band-aid it together. And if another accident happens, what then?

I mean, if you consider they started design in 1972, that program is over 30 years old!

[Trimoor]

Topic: Discovery approaches its May 15 launch date

When will it reach Jupiter?

Project Orion was our best hope for cheap thrust.  It's extremely cheap, and we would likely have moon/Europa colonies by now.

[jbox]

Project Orion was our best hope for cheap thrust.  It's extremely cheap, and we would likely have moon/Europa colonies by now.

Which is probably exactly what they said about their "re-usable space vehicle" idea all those years ago.

Getting into space is hard. Yet it seems like six months can't go past without someone else coming up with The Perfect Solution(tm). Space elevators? High-altitude blimp launches? Slingshot launches?!? Everything is a 'great idea' until you actually have to build the rest of the stuff that goes with it. Until you need to have living quarters, life support, communications, and so on...   

Now, smart money to me says to watch the X-prize people. Regardless of whatever theories other people have, it has been done, and so will now likely be done again the same way they did it for private enterprise. 

Of course, I always thought the real reason NASA was still around was because the US didn't want all those rocket scientists having to get jobs outside of the US... 

[Trimoor]

There's not much to Project Orion.  Use a normal space shuttle with a heavy metal plate on the bottom and put a city-buster under it.  All it does is replace the booster rockets.  Nuclear disarmament people will be happy we found a non-killing use for nukes.

[tommy]

I heard something about a guy built his own jet/shuttle to take people to space for a fee, kind of an expensive quick vacation, i dont remember all about it but he did take some people up and they made it back ok.