5
   

The Last Space Shuttle Mission is in Progress...Do You Care?

 
 
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 03:19 pm
This is getting about zero traction in the public consciousness from what I can see. This feels like the end of Apollo did, if not a "good riddance" than at least a shrug. Anyone who thought that the American people would support a new major human space project, for instance going back to the moon or going to Mars, now should know better.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 5 • Views: 2,439 • Replies: 39
No top replies

 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 04:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
Anyone who thought that the American people would support a new major human space project, for instance going back to the moon or going to Mars, now should know better.


Oh well China and India will likely do so and if the language of space travel then turned out to be Chinese we will just have to live with that future.
0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2011 04:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
[edit] Proposed lunar explorationMain article: Chinese Lunar Exploration Program
In February 2004, the PRC formally started the implementation phase of its unmanned Moon exploration project. According to Sun Laiyan, administrator of the China National Space Administration, the project will involve three phases: orbiting the Moon; landing; and returning samples. The first phase planned to spend 1.4 billion renminbi (approx. US$170 million) to orbit a satellite around the Moon before 2007, which is ongoing. Phase two involves sending a lander before 2010. Phase three involves collecting lunar soil samples before 2020.

On November 27, 2005, the deputy commander of the manned spaceflight program announced that the PRC planned to complete a space station and a manned mission to the Moon by 2020, assuming funding was approved by the government. Towards that end it intended to perfect space walking and docking by 2012.

On December 14, 2005, it was reported "an effort to launch lunar orbiting satellites will be supplanted in 2007 by a program aimed at accomplishing an unmanned lunar landing. A program to return unmanned space vehicles from the moon will begin in 2012 and last for five years, until the manned program gets underway" in 2017, with a manned Moon landing some time after that.[35]

Nonetheless, the decision to develop a totally new moon rocket in the 1962 Soviet UR-700M-class (Project Aelita) able to launch a 500 tons payload in LTO[dubious – discuss] and a more modest 50 tons LTO payload LV has been discussed in a 2006 conference by academician Zhang Guitian (张贵田), a liquid propellant rocket engine speciallist, who developed the CZ-2 and CZ-4A rockets engines.[36][37][38]

On June 22, 2006, Long Lehao, deputy chief architect of the lunar probe project, laid out a schedule for China's lunar exploration. He set 2024 as the date of China's first moonwalk.[39]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_space_program

In September 2010, it was announced that the country is planning to carry out explorations in deep space by sending a man to the Moon by 2025. China also hopes to bring a moon rock sample back to Earth in 2017, and subsequently build an observatory on the Moon's surface. Ye Peijian, Commander in Chief of the Chang’e programme and an academic at the Chinese Academy of Sciences, added that China has the "full capacity to accomplish Mars exploration by 2013."[40][41]

As indicated by the official Chinese Lunar Exploration Program insignia, denoted by a calligraphic Moon ideogram (月) in the shape of a nascent lunar crescent, with two human footsteps at its center, the ultimate objective of the program is to establish a permanent human presence on the Earth's natural satellite.

Yang Liwei declared at the 16th Human in Space Symposium of International Academy of Astronautics (IAA) in Beijing, on May 22, 2007 that building a lunar base was a crucial step to realize a flight to Mars and farther planets.[42]

According to practice, since the whole project is only at a very early preparatory research phase, no official manned Moon program has been announced yet by the authorities. But its existence is nonetheless revealed by regular intentional leaks in the media.[43] A typical example is the Lunar Roving Vehicle (月球车) that was shown on a Chinese TV channel (东方卫视) during the 2008 May Day celebrations.

0 Replies
 
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sun 29 May, 2011 12:42 pm
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye this thread had only forty-four views to date so no one care at all it would seem.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2011 05:40 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Hawkeye this thread had only forty-four views to date so no one care at all it would seem.
On the other hand I am wrong, there is one more mission to go.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Mon 30 May, 2011 05:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
On the other hand I am wrong, there is one more mission to go.


Yes. I was aware of that fact but it did not seem worth correcting the matter compare to there being no interest in the shuttle program coming to an end and few members even taking the time to view this thread.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:00 pm
SO, it blasted off 7.5 hours ago. The story is 12th most popular on CNN news pulse....not exactly impressive.
roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:21 pm
@hawkeye10,
Well, we can still hitch rides with the Russians, you know?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 05:39 pm
@roger,
roger wrote:

Well, we can still hitch rides with the Russians, you know?
At $63 million per ride by contract, and this being the Russians you know damn will that they will not honor the contract. As they do with the Europeans on the gas contract they will demand more money and shut it down if they dont get it.
http://www.cfnews13.com/article/news/2011/march/218843/NASAs-cost-to-hitch-a-ride-on-Russian-rocket-rises
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 06:08 pm
@hawkeye10,
Form the TV that price of 63 millions is cheaper then then the space shuttle cost per person!

One strange thing however is that I remember hearing figures in the 20 millions dollars range for the few very rich men who had purchased tripes to the space station not 62 millions.

I wonder why they was able to get a better deal from the Russians then the US government.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 06:56 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
One strange thing however is that I remember hearing figures in the 20 millions dollars range for the few very rich men who had purchased tripes to the space station not 62 millions.
You heard correctly. Putin has us over a barrel, even more so after this last shuttle comes back, taken partly apart, and the rest of the workers are fired.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 06:59 pm
@hawkeye10,
It their space statrion to not just ours so that fact should placed some limit on them as they need our technology to keep it running in any useful manner.

Without us if would be in short order just a very expensed pile of orbiting junk that would not be useful to them

Oh and without our cash flow they would loss thier space program also so there is a limit to how hard they can push us because they are the ones with man orbit capbilities.
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 07:07 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Oh and without our cash flow they would loss thier space program also so there is a limit to how hard they can push us because they are the ones with man orbit capbilities.
Wasn't it just two years ago that we were ready to burn up the space station in 2014? Now we are willing to stick with it for another 10 years, maybe. I am not convinced that the Russians care any more about it than we do, we gave the shuttle something to do so mission is accomplished, now it sucks money for not much purpose from the American point of view.. We dont need to keep the space station around any longer.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 07:20 pm
@hawkeye10,
The space station was just completed and is useful low orbit base for many reasons.

Hell we could alway mount ion rockets on it and a lander and then head for Mars, resupplying it by cargo rockets along the way. Drunk
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 07:30 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
Hell we could alway mount ion rockets on it and a lander and then head for Mars, resupplying it by cargo rockets along the way.
where did you get the idea that we want to go to Mars? The idea was a placeholder for Bush, he never funded it, and Obama quickly killed it when delaying funding could no longer be accomplished. Many of us said back on day one when Bush announced the plan that there was zero chance that it would actually happen, because Washington is broken and because we dont want to go to Mars bad enough to pay for the trip.

EDIT: in order to get to Mars we would need several Congresses and Presidents to agree to the same plan, and to make sure that the program got stable funding. You watch Washington just like the rest of us, you know there is not a snowball's chance in Hell of that happening.
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Fri 8 Jul, 2011 07:43 pm
@hawkeye10,
Using the space staion as a large crew quarters for a trip to Mars that we had already pay to get into orbit, the most expensed part by far, seem to be a dirt cheap means of getting humans to Mars.

You would need to design and ship up a lander and greatly increased the plans now to add ion rockets to the station.

Oh and cargo rockets for resupply would likely be needed to be design but off hand I can not think of a show stopper on this idea.

Hell we could try the idea out with a short trip to the moon with a lumar lander instead of a Mars lander.

The delta v to leave earth orbit seem will within the ability of ion rockets.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2011 12:52 am
Quote:
By Jerôme Fenoglio
LE MONDE/ Worldcrunch
In the end, a handful of achievements in orbit were not enough to make up for the high costs and risks of America’s space shuttles. The longest dead-end in its space exploration, it is a failure, nevertheless, that the United States is most proud of.
With the scheduled return to Earth next week of Atlantis, the era of the space shuttle will officially come to an end, 30 years after the inaugural flight on April 12, 1981 of the Space Shuttle Columbia. Of these last three decades of coming and going in the cosmos, the United States will only want to remember the “extraordinary accomplishments” that their president, Barack Obama, has just celebrated. They will boast about the fact that the space shuttle was a technical achievement at a time when the engineers who designed it still worked with slide-rules. And, even though the development of digital simulation and ultra-powerful computers make the space shuttles now look like magnificent flying anachronisms, they survived.
But this idea that the shuttle program’s biggest achievement was its longevity is just an illusion. The longest program in NASA’s history is also one that was doomed from the start, in the 1970s. The space shuttle was born at difficult time for the U.S. space agency, which faced major budget cuts as a result of the oil crisis and resulting economic dip.
Those restrictions weakened the program from the beginning. Because they are heavy, the shuttles can’t leave the ground by themselves: they need rocket boosters to tear them away from the earth’s gravitational pull. The budget cuts also meant that designers chose in the end not to implement expensive but vital improvements, such as a back-up system used to protect its crew in emergency situations.
Those repeated compromises explain what happened on Jan. 28, 1986, when the Challenger exploded 73 seconds after takeoff, killing its seven passengers. The crew was not able to escape because of a fire in one of the vessel’s defective rocket boosters.
Just An Illusion
The program survived the disaster. But the dreams on which it was created did not. In developing the shuttle program, NASA envisioned a plane that would fly to space and back with the steadiness of a long haul flight. It also imagined an affordable machine that would not only transport astronauts, but could also ship heavy goods to the cosmos.
The Challenger accident succeeded in demonstrating the limits of NASA’s dreams. To be able to transport men and at the same time materials in one ship was supposed to reduce risks and costs. Instead it increased them. Flights transporting humans, which always demand more precautions, are difficult to accommodate with the transportation of satellites and other objects, which always need more power.
Space shuttle launches are extremely expensive, especially compared to the costs of sending up non-reusable shuttles such as the European civilian Ariane vehicle. The U.S. military realized this as far back as the late 1980s, when it stopped entrusting its spy satellites to the dangerous and costly space shuttles. With this decision, the vessels became little more than luxury vehicles for glamorous missions.
In 1993, one of NASA’s shuttles gloriously succeeded in correcting in orbit the Hubble spatial telescope’s short-sightedness. Then, the program dedicated itself to building the International Space Station (ISS). But this was interrupted by a second disaster on Feb. 1, 2003, when the Columbia shuttle exploded on its way through the atmosphere back to Earth.
This second disaster crushed the last hopes of those who still wanted to believe in those flying machines. Shuttles are dangerous: they killed 14 astronauts during their missions, which is much more than all the other space programs combined. Even worse, NASA’s lack of organization increased the risks of such a program. Just like with the Challenger incident, the investigation into the Columbia explosion eventually turned into an indictment against the agency, its work methods, its decision-making, its technological bias and its arrogant corporate culture.
The fate of the three remaining shuttles has been sealed for good this time. Their next missions will take place in museum galleries. What’s not clear is what this will mean for U.S. space exploration. Space shuttles, after all, remain the only way for American astronauts to have access to the cosmos.
There in lies the difference with the brilliant and successful Apollo project, which cost 150 billion dollars and whose end did not mean a violent break in space exploration. The space shuttle program, in contrast, failed slowly. It cost 210 billion dollars in all and emptied NASA’s budget. It was shut down too late and its financial costs stifled other projects that should have developed.
The shuttle program began amidst an acute budget crisis. It ends at a time when the U.S. government’s budget crisis is even worse. This lack of money, plus a lack of public interest, could mean that with the failure of the space shuttle program, American space ambitions could be permanently paralyzed
http://www.worldcrunch.com/america-s-space-shuttles-were-doomed-fail/3432

Sometimes I think that the French dont like Americans very much, but they might be right here. Dont hold your breath waiting for an American media outlet to express these views
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 03:27 am
The last shuttle landing happens in 29 minutes, does anyone care?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 03:43 am
@hawkeye10,
The landing is now in 14 minutes, you can see it here:
http://www.cnn.com/video/flashLive/live.html?stream=stream2?hpt=hp_t2

Anyone? Does anyone care?
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jul, 2011 03:46 am
@hawkeye10,
Hawkeye look at the numbers for the people who even bother to look at this thread and you have your answer.
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Last Space Shuttle Mission is in Progress...Do You Care?
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/12/2020 at 01:41:14