Sunday, June 18, 2006

NASA, Despite Dissent, Sets Shuttle Date





NASA managers on Saturday picked July 1 to launch the first space shuttle in almost a year, despite recommendations against a liftoff attempt by the space agency's chief engineer and safety offices.


Here we go again.
Posted by Mac at 12:33 AM

6 comments:

jezzie said...

This is one of those situations where I can see things from both sides.

Yes, you want the Shuttle as safe as can be, but at the same time by continuously delaying the launch to tweak the external tank, they're just crippling themselves from getting anything done.

Space travel is risky, and these astronauts know that they put their life on the line every time they get on the Shuttle. They know that things can go awry at any given moment.

I'd still take the spot of anyone that doesn't want to go in a heartbeat. To be able to travel to space while I'm still young and fit enough to do it would be a dream come true.

Is NASA doing anything to design the next generation spacecraft? I think instead of trying to redesign the existing Shuttle and its components, that they should concentrate on building something new.

With the upgrades in technology within just the past twenty years, the Shuttle is almost a dinosaur.

9:57 AM
Mac said...

I'd still take the spot of anyone that doesn't want to go in a heartbeat. To be able to travel to space while I'm still young and fit enough to do it would be a dream come true.

I'd go in a heartbeat too.

Is NASA doing anything to design the next generation spacecraft?

Fortunately, yes. They're making serious headway with the next-generation heavy-lift launch vehicle -- good for orbital missions *and* Moon missions. (Google "Crew Exploration Vehicle" -- it's like Apollo on steroids.)

With the upgrades in technology within just the past twenty years, the Shuttle is almost a dinosaur.

"Almost"? ;-)

11:38 PM
W.M. Bear said...

If it hadn't been for the "Moon race," a more rational timetable to proceed with space exploration would have been:

1) 1960s-70s: Create a heavy-lift vehicle with orbital hefting capabilities comparable to Shuttle first. (Saturn booster might have been OK for this.)

2) 1970s-80s: Construct space station WITH SPECIFIC GOAL OF USING IT AS WAY STATION for lunar and planetary exploration.

3) 1980s-90s: Carry out first manned lunar expeditions with goal of establishing permanent lunar base.

4) 1990s-2000s: Construct lunar base and establish permanent human presence on the Moon.

5) 2000s-2010's: On to Mars!

2:37 PM
Mac said...

The Shuttle never should have happened. Neither should the ISS. We should have continued in the Apollo vein, even if we decided to put Moon missions on temporary hold. *All* bases, as you said, should have been built with the ultimate goal of serving as way-stations.

That said, I'm still hopeful we can get off this planet in a meaningful way.

3:46 PM
W.M. Bear said...

That said, I'm still hopeful we can get off this planet in a meaningful way.

I think the so-called "space race" --although it certainly got us to the Moon much quicker than might otherwise have been the case -- ultimately had a very deleterious effect on humanned space travel. Once the motive for "beating the Russians" was gone, there was no real driving vision to go beyond low Earth orbit because there never was one in the first place. At least not in the sense of a grand vision of exploring the solar system and then the stars. We MAY be in the process of acquiring such a vision now. It's like the Chinese beginning to explore the world in the century before Columbus, and then giving up the enterprise and leaving it to the West. Except in our case, there is no "West" other than, perhaps, some other intelligent species.

2:34 PM
Mac said...

In the end, we'll colonize space because we'll die if we don't.

4:14 PM