What should be our next step? (Space Shuttle)

[Tomblvd]

I've been vigorously defending manned space flight the past 24 hours on another board (Free Republic). It seems many people see this accident as proof that the Shuttle is a boondoggle (they may have a point), and ALL tasks in space can better be done remotely, with robotics.



Aside from the obvious point that it is man's fundamental nature to explore, what other reasons do we have to send men into space? And what do you think should be our next long term step?

Can this be used as the impetus to replace the Shuttle with something more advanced?

I apologize in advance if this thread appears to have been posted too soon after the fact.

[darkhunter]

Mars

[Doodler]

X-33, not as a replacement to the shuttle, but to complement it. Using a shuttle to ferry crew up to a space station is like using a cargo freighter to (legally) carry passengers across the Atlantic.

[nebularain]

Well, to answer Tomblvd, can you imagine the the government shutting down the railroad the first or second time there was a train wreck? Or highways being banned because people die on them every day in accidents? Or all factories being shut down because one or two had a mishap that led to an explosion?

Sure space travel is dangerous, but where would we be if we let the threat of danger control our lives?

[AstroGman]

Well,whoever,these people were,they sure weren,t voting yesterday because the (unscientific) poll I participated in showed that 88 percent of those who voted were in favor of continuing manned spaceflight despite the risks.

[g99]

I truely think we will see a bnoom in our space industry and exploration. As i said in the other thread, this might be good for the space industry overall. It is horrible that people had to die, but at least their deaths were not in vain. It is all over the news of when will we go back into space? When will we go to mars? What is next? I think there is more furvor for space now than the last ten years combined. I really can see us now getting the funding for Mars and beyond. But this can all be pure optimism. We have to wait and see how much money NASA is going to get in the next budget.

[RafaelAustin]

As posted by someone elsewhere, I can only hope this brings a stronger effort to develop the next generation of Earth-to-Orbit vessel. It will still take 10-15 years to develop and implement a new system.

And as discussed in previous months on this board, I think we need to find a viable economic plan for this venture. Science and research in of itself (at least for me) is reason enough to explore space. But it (like love) doesn't pay the bills. If we can set an economic purpose, goal and incentive to use the new fleet, then it will happen with unanamous support.

[g99]

Advertising on the shuttl. The Pepsi mars lander and the Coke mars orbiter! [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

J/K

I think if we privatized some aspects of space and allowed certain reliable companies into space we could go a long way. How to choose those comanies? Well obviously ones that won't put up weapons into space for other nations.

Allow mining on the moon and passing asteroids. Allow them to preform manufacturing in space on their own satelites and stations. Than we would be able to do it. I think some companies once the economy gets better will realize the profit potential of being in space. Basically no rules, don't have to worry about ruining the environment, and no taxes!! Nobody owns space.

[JayUtah]

It seems many people see this accident as proof that the Shuttle is a boondoggle (they may have a point)

Far from boondoggle. But there is a legitimate question over whether it's the best solution for our manned space flight needs. For all its faults, it's the system we know best how to operate, and that's a serious advantage in that business.

ALL tasks in space can better be done remotely, with robotics.

I strongly disagree. There is no computer equivalent to the human brain, no camera equivalent to the human eye, and no manipulator equivalent to the human hand. While there is a place for automated spacecraft, the best work in and the best exploration of space is done in person.

Aside from the obvious point that it is man's fundamental nature to explore, what other reasons do we have to send men into space?

Because learning how to protect ourselves and flourish in new and hostile environments helps us better protect ourselves and flourish in the hostile environments closer to home.

And what do you think should be our next long term step?

Personally I think it would be nice to return to the moon before the last of the Apollo moonwalkers passes on.

Can this be used as the impetus to replace the Shuttle with something more advanced?

That's been contemplated for years. Clearly it will be impetus to increase the safety and reliability of our space systems, whether that means continuing to improve STS or more seriously examining the next step.

Morbid as it seems, engineers always learn more from failure than they do from continued success. When loss of life is concerned, though, this maxim seems pale and ineffectual. However, the space program will emerge from this with greater knowledge of its capabilities and limitations, and that will be priceless in ensuring greater success and safety.

[Peter B]

On 2003-02-02 18:24, JayUtah wrote:
Can this be used as the impetus to replace the Shuttle with something more advanced?

That's been contemplated for years. Clearly it will be impetus to increase the safety and reliability of our space systems, whether that means continuing to improve STS or more seriously examining the next step.

What was the status of the next generation shuttle? I understand that some decision had been reached on which company's idea was to be pursued, but to what point had things moved?

[Tomblvd]

I strongly disagree. There is no computer equivalent to the human brain, no camera equivalent to the human eye, and no manipulator equivalent to the human hand. While there is a place for automated spacecraft, the best work in and the best exploration of space is done in person.

Thanks for all the replies. Thinking about this aspect of the tragedy is cathartic.

Focusing on the above quote a question came to mind. How many of the planetary probes that we have lost throughout the years do you think could have been saved if a human had been on board?

[Irishman]

Tomblvd said:

Aside from the obvious point that it is man's fundamental nature to explore, what other reasons do we have to send men into space?

Well, I'm probably going to get dirty looks, but there really isn't any other reason for us to be going into space, other than the fact that humans wish to explore, and learn. Jay points out why humans should go for our exploration, but why we choose to be going doesn't really have any other reason. We could turn to the answers used historically - discovery, resources, trade routes, growth. How do those apply to the situation? *shrug*

Can this be used as the impetus to replace the Shuttle with something more advanced?

Of course it can be used as an impetus. It probably should be used as an impetus. But whatever the outcome on that, the shuttle will continue to be used because there is no alternative for the near term. It will take about a decade to build a replacement vehicle. We've already seen the problem with stopping your current method before the next version is complete (Saturn rockets). Let's not repeat Skylab with ISS.

Tomblvd asked:

How many of the planetary probes that we have lost throughout the years do you think could have been saved if a human had been on board?

All of them? The reason for the loss of the two Mars vehicles have been traced to lack of information available or confused information to the human controllers. Being on site (i.e. on the vehicle) would have eliminated that confusion.

[ToSeek]

On 2003-02-02 19:21, Irishman wrote:
Well, I'm probably going to get dirty looks, but there really isn't any other reason for us to be going into space, other than the fact that humans wish to explore, and learn.

Reason #2: Sooner or later the Earth is going to get blasted by an asteroid. If we're not set up somewhere else by then, we're not only history, we're the next intelligent species' paleontology.

[SKY]

On 2003-02-02 18:19, g99 wrote:
Advertising on the shuttl. The Pepsi mars lander and the Coke mars orbiter! <IMG SRC="/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">

J/K

I found this on the internet. I had first seen it a couple years ago. I am not making light of yesterday's tragedy, I just thought it fit this particular quote perfectly:


*Link to pic discontinued*

[Donnie B.]

Why should we be sending humans into space? I'll let Isaac Asimov quote Michael Faraday on the subject of abstract knowledge:

IN THE 1840s, the English physicist and chemist Michael Faraday, in one of his enormously popular lectures, illustrated a peculiar phenomenon. He thrust a magnet into the hollow center of a spiral coil of wire connected to a galvanometer that would record the presence of an electric current. There was no current in the wire to begin with, but as the magnet was inserted, the needle of the galvanometer moved to one side of the scale, showing that an electric current was flowing. As the magnet was withdrawn, the needle flipped in the other direction, showing that the current was now flowing the other way. When the magnet was held motionless within the coil, no current flowed at all.

After the lecture, a member of the audience approached Faraday and asked, "But of what practical use can this be?" Faraday answered, "Sir, of what use is a newborn baby?"

The exploration of space is certainly in the "newborn baby" stage. I have a feeling that our descendants will look back at those who question its practicality much the same way we do towards that anonymous questioner.

If our species is to survive over the long haul, we simply must move out into the wider universe, despite the risks. The alternative, as another poster pointed out, is to become another civilization's paleontology.

[Kizarvexis]

On 2003-02-02 19:21, Irishman wrote:
Tomblvd said:

Aside from the obvious point that it is man's fundamental nature to explore, what other reasons do we have to send men into space?

Well, I'm probably going to get dirty looks, but there really isn't any other reason for us to be going into space, other than the fact that humans wish to explore, and learn. Jay points out why humans should go for our exploration, but why we choose to be going doesn't really have any other reason. We could turn to the answers used historically - discovery, resources, trade routes, growth. How do those apply to the situation? *shrug*

From the Babylon 5 episode 'Infection' in season 1.

The Interview (end of the show about why to spend money on the B5 station)

Reporter: "After all that you've just gone through, I have to ask you the same question a lot of people back home are asking about space these days. Is it worth it? Should we just pull back, forget the whole thing as a bad idea, and take care of our own problems, at home?"

Sinclair: "No. We have to stay here, and there's a simple reason why. Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics - and you'll get ten different answers. But there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on: whether it happens in a hundred years, or a thousand years, or a million years, eventually our sun will grow cold, and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us, it'll take Marilyn Monroe, and Lao-tsu, Einstein, Maruputo, Buddy Holly, Aristophanes - all of this. All of this was for nothing, unless we go to the stars."

Kizarvexis

[infocusinc]

I was looking at the image SKY posted and had to wonder if I was on the wrong forum. The picture made me think I was at a NASCAR forum [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Kizarvexis]

On 2003-02-02 21:12, infocusinc wrote:
I was looking at the image SKY posted and had to wonder if I was on the wrong forum. The picture made me think I was at a NASCAR forum [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

It was kinda funny looking. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis

[sacrelicious]

hi, new here.

how about this: if we switched to unmanned flights, the public would lose even more interest, making it even more justifiable for congress to cut even more funding (which would also be compounded by the penny pinching justification that we'd only need to spend a tiny pitance, since safety is not a concern with robots).

after all is said and done, switching to a totally human free space program would result in having no space program worth mentioning.

[Donnie B.]

On 2003-02-02 21:22, sacrelicious wrote:
hi, new here.

how about this: if we switched to unmanned flights, the public would lose even more interest, making it even more justifiable for congress to cut even more funding (which would also be compounded by the penny pinching justification that we'd only need to spend a tiny pitance, since safety is not a concern with robots).

after all is said and done, switching to a totally human free space program would result in having no space program worth mentioning.

Hi and welcome, sac.

60 Minutes had a segment on tonight's show about this. Someone associated with congressional funding for NASA mentioned that there is a faction that believes exactly this -- that the manned program is the lure that keeps the public interested in space exploration.

Yes, unmanned missions give more science for the buck. But there's an unquantifiable factor at work, too. Flying into space is an adventure, and we all share it vicariously.

[Kizarvexis]

Yes, unmanned missions give more science for the buck. But there's an unquantifiable factor at work, too. Flying into space is an adventure, and we all share it vicariously.

I don't know. The Apollo astronauts did a lot of stuff on the moon, especially Apollo 17, which took a geologist along. I wonder how much it would have cost to do everything that the 6 Apollo missions did on the moon with robots. Even with today's robots instead of 1960's robots.

Now for far off science missions, like the Jupiter missions, you may be right for now, because we can't get there...yet. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

Kizarvexis


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kizarvexis on 2003-02-02 21:35 ]</font>

[Graham2001]

I'm an Australian, so I can't directly affect anything in the US.

But for what its worth, we have to go forward from this, the deaths of Mallory & Irvine on Mt Everest didn't stop people from trying to climb (or fly over) the mountain.

So send a letter/email to your congresspeople saying you want manned space flight to continue, get your friends to do the same. Maybe you can build the momentum to get us back on the Moon, this time for good.

[nebularain]

What can we say? Humanity wouldn't have progressed very far if all we thought about was "playing it safe."

Would Marco Polo have gone to China and back if he was concerned about "playing it safe"? Would Columbus and Magellan and all the other captains and crew ventured across the oceans? Would air flight have occured? The list can go on and on.

Isn't there a famous quote somewhere about the value of taking risks?

[Mainframes]

Not sure if this is the one you're thinking of but:

'You have to speculate to accumulate' certainly springs to my mind...

[Tomblvd]

On 2003-02-02 21:47, Graham2001 wrote:
I'm an Australian, so I can't directly affect anything in the US.

But for what its worth, we have to go forward from this, the deaths of Mallory & Irvine on Mt Everest didn't stop people from trying to climb (or fly over) the mountain.

So send a letter/email to your congresspeople saying you want manned space flight to continue, get your friends to do the same. Maybe you can build the momentum to get us back on the Moon, this time for good.

Well, if it makes you feel any better, a poll in the USAToday this morning has 82% favoring continued manned space flight.

Most support manned space program, poll shows

[Tomblvd]

Isn't there a famous quote somewhere about the value of taking risks?

There are many. This is my favorite:


"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."

-Teddy Roosevelt

[ToSeek]

On 2003-02-02 21:22, sacrelicious wrote:

how about this: if we switched to unmanned flights, the public would lose even more interest, making it even more justifiable for congress to cut even more funding (which would also be compounded by the penny pinching justification that we'd only need to spend a tiny pitance, since safety is not a concern with robots).

after all is said and done, switching to a totally human free space program would result in having no space program worth mentioning.

I thought along your lines at one point, but then the unmanned Mars Pathfinder drew much more public attention than any of the contemporaneous shuttle missions.

[Thargoid]

Hey Irishman!

I think that we need to look at the space program in the sense of long-term goals. We are working toward setting up heavy industry in space. That will start when we can reliably make and refuel spacecraft with materials gathered off of earth.

We'll likely start my harvesting ice in the lunar polar zones to make into hydrogen/oxygen fuel. Metallic asteroids, such as Cruithne, are already in earth orbit ready to be harvested, as well as many other earth-crossing NEOs.

Once we bootstrap ourselves up, it will be much easier. The momentum will be unstoppable once the first ET steel, platinum, etc. starts showing up on the market. We'll be able to build ships in orbital shipyards instead of trying to launch stuff from the bottom of earth's gravity well. We'll have a foothold.

THAT is the goal, and I pray to God that we don't take our eyes off of it for the sake of political demogoguery!

Oh, and here is the rest of that excellent quote posted earlier:

It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbled, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs and comes short again and again; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions, and spends himself in a worthy cause; who, at the best, knows in the end the triumph of high achievement; and who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat.

[David Hall]

I've been thinking a bit about this. What we need to do next is scrap the "one size fits all" space truck concept; it's been shown to be rather inefficient in practice. Instead, we need to develop a series of launch vehicles, each tailored to different uses.

Light launchers are already available, the Titans and Ariennes and such. But we need heavy lifting capacity again. I'd say go back and develop a next-generation Saturn V style vehicle. Well, maybe not that large, but close to it. They don't have to be reusable, but another thread mentioned that there are some ideas for recoverable intermediate stages, that may be a direction to look into.

Second, we should design a series of modules designed to be lifted by these large boosters. Unmanned payloads along the line of the Russian Progress modules should come first. This would allow for servicing the ISS. Later, we might consider a manned module as well.

Third, we should have one or two different human shuttles for the main work fleet. I think a small 4-8 man lifting body design would be best here. If we do away with the heavy payload capacity, we could even have a horizontal-takeoff-to-orbit design, perfect for quick turnarounds. I think two versions would be best, a small shuttle for human-only transfer, and a slightly larger one for orbital science missions, maybe half the size of the current shuttle.

We already have the biggest resource we need, the ISS. Now that we have it, we should use it to capacity. We no longer need a large shuttle to use as a science platform. Most orbital research can be done on the ISS more easily. Shuttles are only needed to get people and equipment to and from the station.

Other missions, like servicing the Hubble, could be done with a smaller shuttle just as easily as a big one. Maybe even more easily, as it would take less delta-v to rendevous. Heavy lifting could be done by more standard rockets, and rendevous made if necessary. And the shuttle design is still kept for manned missions, allowing for the reusability of most equipment.

The heavy lifting equipment would also come in handy if we decided to go back to the Moon or on to Mars. I think it will be necessary to develop them eventually anyway, might as well do it now.

So what do you all think? Any additions or subtractions to my idea? It would mean a lot of inital development outlays, but there would be a lot more flexibiltiy in the end.

[Zathras]

DH, I think you raise some good points on these issues. The one point I might differ with you on is whether we need reusable vehicles at all. Thr space shuttles have never been able to match what the Saturn rockets could have done on a cost per pound basis. I think it would be better to stick with what has worked the most efficiently and build a spectrum of rockets to meet the needs of space flight.

By the way, here is an interesting article which advocates the cancelling of the space shuttle program. I don't agree with everything it says, but it has some good points.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...418518,00.html

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Zathras on 2003-02-03 18:49 ]</font>