Where are the flying cars? I was promised flying cars!

[dolari]

So, Bush is considering announcing a moon mission or two.....and retiring the shuttle fleet?

No.

USE THE SHUTTLE TO BUILD A SPACE STATION THAT MATTERS. LIKE IT WAS SUPPOSED TO DO.

From there, you can start work on using it as a way station on the way to the moon. which can then be used as a launching point for Mars.

LIKE NASA PLANNED IN THE EARLY 70s.

Before Nixon slashed the budget, and made a Shuttle that didn't do it's job until we decided to finally build ISS in th early 90s. If NASA had had it's way we'd have gone to Mars by now. Granted there was a war going on back then, but we never revisited space after the war was over!

Not like it really matters. It's just a happy happy joy joy statement he can say to get reelected and ignore once he's back in.

Sorry about the rant, but space exploration is something really close to my heart.

Comments

[evillord.livejournal.com]

Man, I hope the similarities to Bush Sr.'s administration continue (read: losing reelection)! In '91, Bush Sr. made a statement calling for a Mars landing.

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I'm of two minds of this. It would be nice for the space program to get a boost. But Bush really needs out of office.

I'm sure it's just a little something to get reelected.

[dovsherman.livejournal.com]

The irony is that, the first time we went to the moon, it was because other countries were almost there and we wanted to be first. Now China is planning a moonbase and we don't seem interested in competing.

From a purely tactical viewpoint, this is suicidal - no one can defend against a military attack from the surface of the moon. Someone on the face of the moon can just lob rocks at the Earth and each one can hit with the force of a hydrogen bomb. Good thing that there's no political tensions or disagreement of philosophy between the US and China!

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

Not that I don't feel a moonbase isn't important. We just don't need to scuttle out current plans to start from scratch.

In the 70s, NASA had an excellent plan for building a shuttle that could make a space station, that could then be used as a way station for more (second generation) shuttles to make more space stations and build moon bases. From there, the moon bases would have MORE shuttles, to launch to MARS. NASA actually had plans at one point to have all this done inside of 30 years (With 30 to 50 shuttle launches in a year during the peak time).

I would love to see the second generation of Shuttle get into production NOW, use the first generation to build the ISS into more of a waystation than an experiment platform, and then from there, work on a moonbase.

China will more'n'likely get a man on the moon soon, but in the capacity we did with the Apollo missions (land, look around, play golf, bring back rocks) before they'll make a moonbase. By the time they get to the point where they can make a moon base, we should be up and running to do one ourselves, AND have a way-station as well.

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

Note to self, MARS is not an acronym. :)

[kengr]

Actually, MARS *is* an acronym. With several meanings. One is something like "Miltary Amateur Radio System". Used to let hams carry traffic for folks at home from personnel at really isolated bases.

[dovsherman.livejournal.com]

Could? Yes. Should? Yes. Will? Who can say....

Retire the Shuttle

[inefficient.livejournal.com]

Actually, since the fleet is nearing 25 years old, it is more than time enough for a new re-usable orbiter. I remember the drawings and talk about the Space plane from 8 years ago or so, but sadly NASA has never had the budget it needs to accomplish any of the great accomplishments in space that America is in the best position to make. To Bush's credit, IIRC, after the Columbia disaster, he not only didn't slash the NASA budget, but increased it as well. For far too long NASA has been in the unenviable position of having to make too little go too far. One would hope that a successful Chinese space program might re-invigorate the American Interest in the Final Frontier. It has always been my dream to look down on the earth from orbit, but being a bit of a spindly geek has always been an impediment to that. The shuttle was the most advanced design we could come up with in 197? and it has served us tremendously well. However, we need to apply the best technology and designs we can come up with TODAY to a NEW orbiter. Something that leaves the Shuttle as far behind as it left the Saturn IV's. There were many a night I stayed up till 3 in the morning in college to watch the launches on the NASA channel we got. Sadly, we don't get that in the real world. I got to see the launch of STS-100 via TV. Someday, I hope to see an actual launch, if we ever get off the ground again. I'm also a bit of a space geek if you hadn't noticed...

Re: Retire the Shuttle

[zaecus.livejournal.com]

We have a channel on our cable that broadcasts the NASA activities, including launches.

Not sure if this is the same thing or not. Requires Real Player.

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/live/nasatv.htm

Re: Retire the Shuttle

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

Oh, I'm not saying we DON'T need a new Orbiter. We DO. We just dont' need to sit on our hands while we still have a usable Orbiter to use with a reenergized Space Program. By the time we get a usable space station, our second generation shuttles should be ready.

I'm one of those who watched every shuttle launch when I could. I'm just sad that the whole "whole morning broadcast" of a launch has boiled down to "Oh, this just in, ten seconds to Launch - Launch - Wasn't that great? Back to Days of our lives."

Sadly, I didn't earn about NASA TV till AFTER the Columbia broke up.

Re: Retire the Shuttle

[ascian.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of Callahan's Key, when the real space fans at Canaveral are still staring at the sky and listening to the com chatter on the loudspeaker when everyone else is piling into their cars and heading home.

"Where are you going? They aren't even in orbit yet!"

I agree completely regarding shuttles, moon, and Bush. Maybe, for the next launch, he could be convinced to pose for a photo op under the rocket...

well, ok

[inefficient.livejournal.com]

I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't re-enter orbit until we have a new orbiter, but I think there should be a humoungantic push right NOW for such a new orbiter with the majority of resources aimed at getting it designed, built off the ground and back home. In the time it takes to do that, we should be continuing the STS program as we have been operating it, minus the explosion per decade. Once we have that, the old shuttles could even be docked at ISS for hops to a waystation between ISS and the moon, or wherever. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, but it shouldn't be so difficult coming up with a better method of leaving the earth. In the time since the shuttle was born, computers have gone from 64K memory and the 8080 (or is it 8086 ... damn its something like that) chip to 1G Ram and nearly 3GHz processing speed! We've gone from PONG to Everquest, Final Fantasy XI etc. The advancements are so innumerable as to be uncountable. One has to think we can build a better mousetrap now? and in short order, right?

Re: well, ok

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

I would hope so. My only fear is that the development process doesn't take TOO long. The Shuttle was proposed in 1963, and didn't get approved until 1975, and wasn't launched till 81. But that was with a war and humongously thrashed budgets.

[kengr]

Actually, while Nixon killed the Apollo program, it was *Congress* that gutted the Shuttle. And frankly, we'd be better off if we *did* retire the Shuttles and build up some large expendables (which can re-use some Shuttle technology) while trying to build the sort of thing the Shuttle was *supposed* to be.

The only reason the Shuttle is so big is that they needed Air Force support, which meant that the cargo bay had to be big enough to take a KH series recon satellite.

BTW, don't get me started on the fact that *Congress* was to blame for the Challenger disaster, as they refused to budget the money for liquid fuel boosters for the Shuttle forcing the use of the solid fuel ones.

Anyway, for getting "stuff" to orbit, unmanned boosters are perfectly fine. And less likely to get folks upset with you if they fail.

A reusable ship for small cargos and ferrying up crew is a different matter.

Oh yeah, it'd be nice if we'd quit throwing away the external tanks from the shuttle. They could be used as a basis for adding space to a station. And as fuel tanks for a "space tug" that could go from LEO to GEO or even to lunar orbit.

BTW, I'm old enough that I remember my mom taking me out in the backyard and trying to point out Sputnik to me one night when it was visible from Spokane.

I remember all the students being taken into the gym to watch a small black & white TV for the first two Mercury flights. (I was in first grade then).

[jenndolari.livejournal.com]

Well, Congress killed it in the way that vultures swarmed on an injured animal. :) I've always had this theory that the reason Congress is so down on the Space Program is that so much money goes into places that simply aren't their constituency, so most will hack and slash just to justify "We're not getting any, why should they?"

Shuttle-C was a good attempt to make an "Expendable" shuttle using the existingshuttle manufacturing plants (no crew module or wings, just tanks and cargo), but, sadly the plants are gone now, too, and parts from shuttles are cannibalized for each other/improvised instead of making new ones.

I seem to remember reading about using the Fuel Tanks as raw material for Space Stations, but that it was abandonned because it was too costly to clean them for use. :P Still, something has to be better than just dumping them into the atmosphere.

I'm not old enough to remember Sputnik (my mom is :) - but I remember seeing Crippen and Young come to our school to talk about the Columbia. It was a very special day for me. :D (Also saw the Columbia and Challenger at Kelly AFB, and got to see the Enterprise at the Worlds Fair).

[ascian.livejournal.com]

I've got to admit, I've never been much of a real-life space enthusiast. As a kid, I was always willing to take fiction over fact any day, and when I could focus on the blinding ease of Star Trek physics and spacetravel, the real thing was about as interesting as lighting a firecracker under a tin can. The victim of its own grandeur, the space program was *just* fantastic enough to be judged on my personal 'fiction' scale, and thus lost out horribly to effortless fantasy. And unfortunately, in this era of waning popularity for NASA and its missions, I never had opportunity to be shown otherwise.
So anyway, I've finally come to my senses enough to know that I *want* space exploration to be something really close to my heart. I've got such a hunger for adventure and discovery, it's about time I put credit where credit's due. Thanks for reminding me; seeing how you care helps me see just how much there is to care about.