It will not matter what the causes another shuttle loss

[Hallerb]

Because with just 2 remaining orbiters the program will be shut down.

Because 2 isnt enough to operate.

[Kim Keller]

"Hallerb" > wrote in message
...
> Because with just 2 remaining orbiters the program will be shut down.
>
> Because 2 isnt enough to operate.

sez who? Kid, they can operate just one if they had to.

-Kim-

[Jorge R. Frank]

"Charleston" > wrote in
news:OPgQa.11337$zy.2043@fed1read06:

> "Hallerb" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Because with just 2 remaining orbiters the program will be shut down.
>>
>> Because 2 isnt enough to operate.
>
> Bob they operated with one and two for a few years;-)

Not to mention that the logical conclusion to his line of thought is that
there is no point in implementing a shuttle crew escape system.

But then again, Bob has never been much for logical reasoning.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Hallerb]

>
>sez who? Kid, they can operate just one if they had to.
>
>-Kim-

Lets HOPE we dont find out.

Practically speaking with one getting refurbished and one flying it will be
tough. Plus none to use for spare parts.

Then too to fix WHATEVER causes the next failure will cost tons of $$ just
making the cost to fly more.

[Sean Conolly]

"Hallerb" > wrote in message
...
> Because with just 2 remaining orbiters the program will be shut down.
>
> Because 2 isnt enough to operate.

There's no denying that the shuttle is long overdue for replacement. Sadly,
once the glamour and adventure vanished in the public's eye, Congress lost
what little commitment they ever had to a serious manned space program. NASA
has been running on bare-bones funding for way too long, and it's finally
caught up with them. Look at us all speculating on the funding for
continuing the shuttle program, which is so much less than the funding for
what we really need; a replacement for the shuttle. As a nation we've become
more motivated to "keep up" with our achievements past than reaching for any
vision of the future.

Manned space programs require a commitment over decades, much longer than
the tidal cycles of our political environment. Until this country accepts a
manned space program as a legitimate NATIONAL INTEREST, we will continue
fund NASA as the red-haired stepchild of the national budget. Remember, it
was not that long ago when we used to virtually dismantle the entire
military once a conflict was finished, because few understood how a capable
peace-time military acts as a deterrent to aggressors. A peace-time military
was an *unrecognized National Interest*.

So my questions for the forum are:
(1) Is a manned space program a legitimate National Interest?
and (2) How do we convince the general public (and thus the politicians) of
this?

All replies welcome,
Sean

[Sal Bruno]

"Sean Conolly" > wrote in message >...
>
> There's no denying that the shuttle is long overdue for replacement. Sadly,
>

I keep on thinking of the fact that so much has been learned about the
vehicle in 113 flights and that all of the knowledge, evolution,
shaking the bugs out if you will, will all have to be re-done with a
replacement vehicle, however improved. I guess I am one of the few who
thinks we should stick with the Shuttle, learn more about it, build
some more. It will only get safer and better, as has been the case so
far, as more is learned about it.

> (1) Is a manned space program a legitimate National Interest?
> and (2) How do we convince the general public (and thus the politicians) of
> this?
>

I think if only NASA would concentrate on a MUCH larger, MUCH grander
replacement for Hubble (which could incorporate the ISS and would most
probably require manned operation and maintenance) in the hope of
imaging an earth-type extrasolar planet - and God knows what else -
well, that would get the juices flowing.

[Hallerb]

>
>I keep on thinking of the fact that so much has been learned about the
>vehicle in 113 flights and that all of the knowledge, evolution,
>shaking the bugs out if you will, will all have to be re-done with a
>replacement vehicle, however improved. I guess I am one of the few who
>thinks we should stick with the Shuttle, learn more about it, build
>some more. It will only get safer and better, as has been the case so
>far, as more is learned about it.
>
>> (1) Is a manned space program a legitimate National Interest?
>> and (2) How do we convince the general public (and thus the politicians) of
>> this?
>>
>
>I think if only NASA would concentrate on a MUCH larger, MUCH grander
>replacement for Hubble (which could incorporate the ISS and would most
>probably require manned operation and maintenance) in the hope of
>imaging an earth-type extrasolar planet - and God knows what else -
>well, that would get the juices flowing.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Yeah but it would STILL be horendously expensive to operate, and thus a
roadblock to space.

[Jan C. Vorbrüggen]

> I keep on thinking of the fact that so much has been learned about the
> vehicle in 113 flights and that all of the knowledge, evolution,
> shaking the bugs out if you will, will all have to be re-done with a
> replacement vehicle, however improved. I guess I am one of the few who
> thinks we should stick with the Shuttle, learn more about it, build
> some more. It will only get safer and better, as has been the case so
> far, as more is learned about it.

Nope. At some point with software V1, it's time to cut your losses, take
account of what you've learnt, design the V2 system and build - and it will
likely look nothing like the initial system looked like.

That time has also arrived for the Shuttle. However, it's unclear that the
current owner/oeprator is capable of taking this step in any useful form.

Jan

[Jon Berndt]

"Sal Bruno" > wrote in message
>
> I keep on thinking of the fact that so much has been learned about the
> vehicle in 113 flights and that all of the knowledge, evolution,
> shaking the bugs out if you will, will all have to be re-done with a
> replacement vehicle, however improved. I guess I am one of the few who
> thinks we should stick with the Shuttle, learn more about it, build
> some more. It will only get safer and better, as has been the case so
> far, as more is learned about it.

I agree with some of your logic, but there's more to it than that. Any new
spacecraft we build is sure to have it's own set of problems, some
unforseeable. But we need to ask the question: after ISS is complete, what
purpose is there for a shuttle fleet? How many missions a year would be
needed? Is it worth the cost to maintain the infrastructure to support just
one or two flights per year, indefinitely? Do we really want to be
launching a large ship like this when all we really need is a "taxi" and
some expendables? Also, eventually age will begin to take its toll.