3 ms·
Very good article, clears up a lot of questions, doubts, and misconceptions. It seems to me that the problems with the Shuttle program always came down to mone
by blisterpeanuts 13y ago
Very good article, clears up a lot of questions, doubts, and misconceptions.
It seems to me that the problems with the Shuttle program always came down to money. The Nixon Administration denied Nasa the necessary budget to build the larger reusable vehicle they originally envisioned, while simultaneously scrapping the Saturn manned program.
As a space nut since basically I was 5 or 6 years old, when America was in its heyday of Gemini and Apollo programs (I was 10 when Apollo 11 astronauts kicked up lunar dust), space exploration was a given to me and all of my friends.
It was assumed that we would just keep on building and growing our space program until we got to something that resembled Clarke/Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Perhaps we wouldn't make it by 2001, but some time not too far beyond then. Maybe 2011. Maybe 2015.
It therefore makes me sad that we've been in this hiatus since about 1974, really 40 years of treading water rather than building much on the accomplishments of the past. Why not a permanent station on the moon? Why not a nuclear propulsion system that could get to Mars in 6 weeks? What have we done instead with our money, that is so much more worthwhile? Why was Nasa denied the $4 billion it needed to continue the Constellation program, while literally hundreds of billions were allocated for bank bailouts, automotive bailouts, etc.? Where are our priorities?
I know these are controversial questions and there are probably some good answers out there, but I go back to the lost dreams, the sacrifices made by the Columbia and Challenger astronauts and others, and I wonder if we haven't traded big dreams for little ones and lost sight along the way of what we're all about.
- Sharlin 13y agoMoney, and in the end, politics. The Shuttle, as implemented, was not really what NASA wanted, but they needed to make design compromises to support certain use cases the Air Force told they need, including launching spy satellites to polar orbits and potentially capturing enemy satellites and bringing them down in one piece. The compromises were made but the Air Force had changed their mind in the meantime and those use cases were never actualized.
- blisterpeanuts 13y agoTrue. But, really, in the end, money. The Air Force could have contracted its own shuttle that was optimized for its needs, given enough budget.
- twoodfin 13y agoIn a sense, they did: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37
- ufmace 13y agoEven more about money. My understanding was that NASA came up with a big, awesome plan for a reusable spacecraft kinda resembling the shuttle, and only doing stuff that NASA and their science/exploration missions needed, but they couldn't get anywhere near enough money to build it. So they went to the military to try and get some more money, and they said that they'd kick in some towards it if it could do these other missions they wanted too. They took it and ended up building something that didn't do anybody's mission really well, but it was the only way at the time to get enough money to get something off the ground.