Next shuttle launch

[Kitsune]

Not as impressive a sight from Tampa, but there's Discovery lifting off just minutes ago. What a way to kick off the 4th!

[xoxoxoBruce]

Bye bye.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Not as impressive a sight from Tampa, but there's Discovery lifting off just minutes ago. What a way to kick off the 4th!

Well, at least you can see it at all and take a pic. I had to settle for the TV.

Congrats to NASA and especially the shuttle crew for having the cajones to get humans back into space.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Elspode

Congrats to NASA and especially the shuttle crew for having the cajones to get humans back into space.

They had no choice. Appreciate how close the entire shuttle and ISS is to total collapse and disintegration. Appreciate how many other nations would have spent $bilions that would never get used. Every shuttle launch from here on out is a crap shoot where snake eyes is the complete and utter disaster for both ISS and America's only manned program. Appreciate how close to the edge NASA has come, in part, because almost all their eggs are in only one basket.

[Kitsune]

Originally Posted by tw

They had no choice. Appreciate how close the entire shuttle and ISS is to total collapse and disintegration. Appreciate how many other nations would have spent $bilions that would never get used. Every shuttle launch from here on out is a crap shoot where snake eyes is the complete and utter disaster for both ISS and America's only manned program. Appreciate how close to the edge NASA has come, in part, because almost all their eggs are in only one basket.

So, are you suggesting we abandon it, should never have started it, or should have had an alternate vehicle by now?

[Elspode]

The ISS and NASA are now paying the price for successive administrations who were wishy-washy about the space program in general. Unmanned exploration is delivering great dividends, but shortsightedness has kept our manned program from moving forward.

In retrospect, the money spent on ISS might have been better targeted at more specific goals, but a permanent manned presence in space is, in itself, nothing to be sneezed at. It is sort of hard for us to know how what we learn now might be applied in the future. Failure to think of the future is one of the greatest shortcomings of Mankind, IMHO.

[xoxoxoBruce]

These were posted on Wunderground by a guy in Florida but he said they were taken by Gene Blevins/LA Daily news?

[xoxoxoBruce]

And a big un.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

So, are you suggesting we abandon it, should never have started it, or should have had an alternate vehicle by now?

Appreciate the major difference between management that saved three lives in Apollo 13 verses management that all but tried to kill shuttle astronauts. My first experience was standing on a runway in California when a P-3 airplane landed on that same runway and came to a stop. All I could see was the top of its tail; it stopped that far away. And there was at least one more mile of runway behind me.

So I went back to the blockhouse to ask engineers (who had nothing to do with shuttles) why that runway was so long. The brakes on the Space Shuttle did not work. The MBA solution was to make 10+ mile long runways throughout the world rather than fix the brakes. These engineers who had nothing to do with the Shuttle then proceded to tell me tens of problem with the Shuttle.

I specifically remember sitting on that airplane reviewing what I had been told and saying, "It could not be that bad". Then Challenger exploded. No, it was worse.

The problem with Shuttle are mostly traceable to management that does not understand how the work gets done AND uses the 'communist' principles taught in Harvard Business School. Communist? Yes. Engineers did not make decisions. In non-communist organisations, when the little guy finds a problem, he is then empowered to fix it. In communism, you don't have a problem until the top man says so (the difference between socialism and communism).

Challenger was directly traceable to a management that created not just those tens of problems I was told. The problems cited by the Roger's Commission were thousands - directly traceable to bean counter or communist type management (they are same).

Why was that runway so long? Why could engineers not fix brakes on the shuttle until they were listed in the 200 most critical problems to be fixed before shuttle could fly again? Why did those engineers who had nothing to do with the shuttle know of these problems? And most important, why did top management not know of or deny these problems? That is why Shuttle has had a marginal history. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. That is why Shuttle has problem, is so expensive, and has failed to do what it was intended.

So why do we put all - every - egg in that basket? Same reason why a president thinks a man on Mars is called science.

Meanwhile, we don't need new shuttles. First we need strategic objectives that are not based in the greater glory of a political agenda. We need an agenda that is instead based upon the advancement of mankind and the promotion of science. Until we have that, then, well, why do you think the world leaders in space science launching and satellite launches are the French? Again, look at who(foolishly) defines America's strategic objectives in space exploration. Not science educated people.

[Elspode]

Originally Posted by tw

Until we have that, then, well, why do you think the world leaders in space science launching and satellite launches are the French?

The French are in it for the money. Let's review the list of French pure research accomplishments and *then* decide if we're comparing apples to apples.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Boeing is launching lots of satellites......with russian rockets.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by tw

First we need strategic objectives that are not based in the greater glory of a political agenda. We need an agenda that is instead based upon the advancement of mankind and the promotion of science.

Cool. So what will the financing be based on, then...voluntary contributions? Because that agenda won't get you any tax money.

Seems to me we're transitioning very slowly to privatized space untiliation. The next ten years will prove very interesting.

[tw]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Seems to me we're transitioning very slowly to privatized space untiliation. The next ten years will prove very interesting.

Note changes made to NASA's objectives as defined by Congress. Study of earth science has been completely removed. The exploration of space has been replaced with 'colonization of space'. As a result, those wildly successful unmanned space programs (that consumed less than 10% of NASA's budget and did most of the science) are being trimmed back for things like the ISS, a moon base, and sending a man to Mars. All sound good politically - and currently have near zero science benefit.

Even the Martian Rovers that were so successful as to require refunding almost got eliminated.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

Cool. So what will the financing be based on, then...voluntary contributions? Because that agenda won't get you any tax money.