7 ms·

Sadly I agree with you. The loss of a couple shuttles was a very public event and I think that has taken some steam out of the drive to push the edge. Explora

by 51Cards 16y ago

Sadly I agree with you. The loss of a couple shuttles was a very public event and I think that has taken some steam out of the drive to push the edge. Exploration is by its nature risky and you just can't make it completely safe. All the money and time you spend trying to eliminate (not reduce, eliminate) the risk factor only destroys budgets and delays advancement. I use the analogy of ships of explorers/settlers heading for the new world. Some ships never made it, some did but the settlements never took. Today we cross the oceans almost without thinking about it. Space is no different, just on a grander scale. But when those early settlers board the ships they will be taking the risk too. If our ancestors didn't do it we wouldn't have explored the world until the late 1900's. Nor would we have learned to build reliable ships as quickly.

uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
That's the risk - you make an unnecessary manned vehicle to launch satellites because you can get funding for it being 'our brave heroic astronauts' then when it goes wrong the same publicity comes back and bites you. Exploration of the West wouldn't have been possible if Nasa had been in charge: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_n...
- rbanffy 16y ago
  Or, to put it bluntly, if you are not killing people, you are not pushing hard enough. I may be a weird person, but since when strapping yourself to a tank, the size of a building, filled with high explosives and riding it to orbit could be expected to be a safe thing? If astronauts wanted safety, they'd be accountants.
  - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
    The problem is that Nasa don't seem to have a reason for having astronauts there - other than without the astronauts there would be no interest and no Nasa. You could make it safer by replacing the Shuttle with an Apollo era capsule and sticking it on the front of every commercial ArianeV / Atlas IV launch. Wouldn't be any point in having the man there but it would be safer manned spaceflight.
    - rbanffy 16y ago
      There is not much reason to have astronauts up there other than to have astronauts up there. You can do a lot of science with unmanned probes, you can launch satellites with unmanned rockets. OTOH, you can't repair the Hubble without meatware close to it. And no machine can tell you an inspiring story of adventure and exploration. And that's what NASA should focus on. Returning scientific data is important, of course, but stories of exploration are what inspire us.
      - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
        OTOH Hubble cost 3x as much to build because it had to be serviceable by the Shuttle and it's scientific use was greatly compromised by the orbit it had to be in. Each service mission cost (in real $) as much as building a non-shuttle HST. Compared to the Herschel space telescope I don't see Hubble as a great advert for manned space flight.
        rbanffy 16y ago
        You don't need a shuttle to repair a Hubble. Hubble's orbit was limited to what a shuttle could reach and the cost of repairing it compounded by the operational costs of the shuttle. You could send a repair crew on an expendable vehicle or, even better, launch a tow that could bring the satellite being serviced to the ISS and reinsert it into any desired orbit. The Hubble service missions greatly extended its useful life. I doubt Herschel will last as long.
        uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
        Herschel is cryogenic so can't last anyway. Hubble was in a particularly bad orbit specifically because of the shuttle but any manned servicing would still require it to be in LEO, there is no way you are servicing something at the Lagrange point. A lot of Hubble's cost and problems were also the result of Nasa in the 80s - things have got a lot better. The point is more that a series of disposable satellites, especially sharing common parts, is much cheaper than a single upgradable one. Otherwise we would make other satellites (GPS, comms etc) shuttle rated.

by 51Cards 16y ago

uikjhgyujmn 16y ago

That's the risk - you make an unnecessary manned vehicle to launch satellites because you can get funding for it being 'our brave heroic astronauts' then when it goes wrong the same publicity comes back and bites you. Exploration of the West wouldn't have been possible if Nasa had been in charge: http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_nafa.shtml http://www.spacefuture.com/vehicles/how_the_west_wasnt_won_n...

rbanffy 16y ago
Or, to put it bluntly, if you are not killing people, you are not pushing hard enough. I may be a weird person, but since when strapping yourself to a tank, the size of a building, filled with high explosives and riding it to orbit could be expected to be a safe thing? If astronauts wanted safety, they'd be accountants.
- uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
  The problem is that Nasa don't seem to have a reason for having astronauts there - other than without the astronauts there would be no interest and no Nasa. You could make it safer by replacing the Shuttle with an Apollo era capsule and sticking it on the front of every commercial ArianeV / Atlas IV launch. Wouldn't be any point in having the man there but it would be safer manned spaceflight.
  - rbanffy 16y ago
    There is not much reason to have astronauts up there other than to have astronauts up there. You can do a lot of science with unmanned probes, you can launch satellites with unmanned rockets. OTOH, you can't repair the Hubble without meatware close to it. And no machine can tell you an inspiring story of adventure and exploration. And that's what NASA should focus on. Returning scientific data is important, of course, but stories of exploration are what inspire us.
    - uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
      OTOH Hubble cost 3x as much to build because it had to be serviceable by the Shuttle and it's scientific use was greatly compromised by the orbit it had to be in. Each service mission cost (in real $) as much as building a non-shuttle HST. Compared to the Herschel space telescope I don't see Hubble as a great advert for manned space flight.
      - rbanffy 16y ago
        You don't need a shuttle to repair a Hubble. Hubble's orbit was limited to what a shuttle could reach and the cost of repairing it compounded by the operational costs of the shuttle. You could send a repair crew on an expendable vehicle or, even better, launch a tow that could bring the satellite being serviced to the ISS and reinsert it into any desired orbit. The Hubble service missions greatly extended its useful life. I doubt Herschel will last as long.
        uikjhgyujmn 16y ago
        Herschel is cryogenic so can't last anyway. Hubble was in a particularly bad orbit specifically because of the shuttle but any manned servicing would still require it to be in LEO, there is no way you are servicing something at the Lagrange point. A lot of Hubble's cost and problems were also the result of Nasa in the 80s - things have got a lot better. The point is more that a series of disposable satellites, especially sharing common parts, is much cheaper than a single upgradable one. Otherwise we would make other satellites (GPS, comms etc) shuttle rated.