Shuttle Final Destination

It wasn't Eisenhower who decided that commercial launches, earlier herded on to the Shuttle, where henceforth booted off the Shuttle.

 

The Space Shuttle and International Space Station formed a perfect Government situation. One demanded that the other be funded.

What is the purpose(s) of NASA? Please think before answering (if anyone bothers at all).

What does the Executive Branch and Legislative Branches of government think the purpose of NASA is? (Is it even remotely the same as the above answers?)

 

Ike and LBJ actually. Reagan and Bush gutted NASA, spent the money on wacky stuff like Star Wars and WWII battleships.

All the military payloads have secure US launches. Shuttle was not used for that except on rare occasions. The anti-missile systems and technology are mainly land based, intelligence stuff on satellites.

I'm aware that NASA budget is $18B and US military spending this year was $1,300B.

 

Yet the space shuttle was defunded: even more so when there was another shuttle explosion. From a funding note, I wonder if it was financially viable to keep a *somewhat* reusable space vehicle system vs a more conventional non-reusable rocket system. I grew up when the shuttle program was the pride of the country: the Challanger accident is one of my vivid memories from the 80s. Later, in high school, I was impressed with a school lecture we had from a NASA engineer. One of his cool demonstrations was showing the heat tolerance of a shuttle tile. he took a blow torch to it and showed that the other side was still cool to the touch. Even then, before Columbia, he specifically gave a disclaimer that the tiles were engineered to have great heat tolerance but are very fragile.

The space shuttle did have some nice engineering, but it also had shortfalls. I would hope that what was learned from its creation to its performance during its lifespan is used for future space vehicle development.

"pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research" is the official line from NASA as of 2006. If we look at its history, it looks like its role has always been inconsistant with different politicians. The only direct difference between it and its predecessor, NACA, was that it's a civilian organization vs a military one. I don't think NASA does as much aeronautics research as it used to: its predecessor helped with development of jet airplanes. Now with limited funding, I believe NASA is letting Lockheed try to push the envelope in airplane design.

 

What I have a feel for, but few do, is how much "payload" you get for the money spent. Over the years, NASA has been on a steep curve of spending staggering sums for shocking little exploration and discovery.

Virtually every major finding discovered in astronomy over the last decades has been ground based. So for NASA science-FAIL.

As for manned space exploration, as long as it is inside the Space Station, it's being explored. The exceptions are the unmanned planetary probes (initiated over a decade ago) and these are a very small fraction of the NASA budget. So for NASA exploration - Mostly FAIL.

As far as space vehicle R&D, well NASA has completely failed on EVERYTHING major they have initiated the last decade or so, leaving Space-X and others as the only R&D pioneers. So for NASA R&D-FAIL.

They did great things decades ago. But now they are a welfare agency.

 

If by reusable system you mean the Shuttle, I'd say no.

 

Hubble is currently being used for dark energy research. The Voyager space probes, while no longer having full functionality, are still sending data for scientists to discover and publish more findings on the heliosphere. I'd hardly call every major finding being ground based or isolated from NASA funding. Either from their probes or funding from the Goddard Center.

Looks like that since NASA doesn't have the funding, they're leaving manned space vehicles to companies such as Lockheed (which is tasked with the actual construction of Orion). I'm sure that since SpaceX is contracted from NASA to build craft for the international space station, that they also have access to NASA R&D. I'd hardly say NASA has a R&D-FAIL. From a science perspective, it seems like we get more return in technology research from a NASA project over a similarly priced military project. The latest Mars rover, Curiosity, will land on Mars later this year...and will be a continuation and improvement in the robotics first pioneered over a decade ago (but incapable of accomplishing current objectives).

The one aspect I'd agree with is actual funding of payload. Perhaps one of the reasons NASA has been defunded is the politics of the space shuttle. If you're looking for a cost effective approach of sending payloads to an orbiting space station, then the shuttle is overpriced and dangerous.

However, when guaging NASA success, I do think they show more positives then fails. NASA may no longer have the funding to build massive programs like Apollo solely. Even so, perceivably "small" projects from them shed quite a bit of science research.

 

The space shuttle isn't entirely reusable since it relies on a massive lift system that's not reusable. I was being slightly ironic when I said *somewhat* If we look at current private research for a reusable orbital spacecraft, even, it looks like non-reusable rockets are still the most financially viable. The most entertaining concept I've seen is Virgin Galactic's "mothership" idea where they try to first fly the actual spacecraft higher in the atmosphere before it then has to burn fuel.

 

Look me in the eye and say that.

Look me in the other eye. From Mars above to Chandra below, NASA has continued to inspire and amaze even though its budget is constrained at $18B while oil wars rage at $1.3T per year.

 

None of this changes my answer. The Shuttle's cost per pound to orbit was too high. Its cost overruns starved too many more cost effective programs.

 

OK, not concerning details, we're in agreement that the shuttle was expensive for what it was. Most of its missions did not need a reusable shuttle with working cargo bay. There were a few notable missions though...using the robotic arm to grab a satellite (most notable being the Hubble fix). Perhaps if NASA didn't have the shuttle, they would have found another solution with what was then conventional vehicles.

 

Well said Grumpie. We sometimes forget how the world views us. And the last 10 years must not have viewed us well.

 

For Hubble, they would have needed to build and launch another mission. Spare mirrors from two other vendors, figured correctly, were already sitting in a warehouse. This would have been more expensive for this particular project, but savings from other missions should easily have recouped the difference.

 

I've always been curious about the vendor. Was it the Perkin-Elmer mirror that failed?

 

Yup. I remembered a good Kodak mirror, wikipedia mentions another from Itek. Perkin-Elmer had multiple tests and tools indicating a problem, but ignored those conflicts with one other (incorrectly assembled) tool. And NASA didn't pick up on these problems.

 

I have no problem looking in the eye. (Before we go farther, thanks for replying. I enjoy differing viewpoints and have no desire to offend.)

The issue was not that NASA has gotten some results. It's that the cost of getting the results has reached extreme mismatches. The two photos you showed were from the "little" side programs of NASA. Imagine how many more photos you could have shown if just a fraction of the manned program money was available for things like these.

 

Take a huge chunk of your budget, spend it on a huge development, and then cancel the development. Then do that multiple times. When questioned, point to the great success of decades ago. Then when actual orbital lift capability is needed.....contract with the Russians. This is NASA Space Vehicle R&D.

Here are the $$$$ programs I am thinking about:

Aries I and V Lift Vehicles
Constellation Program
X-33

This is not a slam of government or space flight. It's pointing out that NASA has a budget about 3 times bigger than the National Science Foundation's Budget. Yet the NSF manages a fantastically productive organization.

 

Mars Rovers and Chandra were two MAJOR NASA programs. The argument that manned spaceflight "starves" other science is bogus. The issue is the huge cuts in NASA budget that starve all space science.

1964 $33B in inflation adjusted dollars. 4% of Federal budget.
1986 $13B in inflation adjusted dollars 0.75% of Federal budget.

2012 $18B/0.48% of GDP
2012 $1,312B/10% of GDP in oil wars etc.

The problem dear Brutus is not in our stars but in the anti-government jihadists who gutted financing for space exploration of all kinds in favor of "privatization" dogma and oil wars.

Had the US focused on space in 1980 vs. military build up for oil wars we might have made the "2001" space station a reality instead of the shadow of a dream of the current space station.

We are dredging up Apollo rockets like the signs of a great ancient civilization and in a way they are, of a civilization that put its resources to arguably man's greatest achievement vs. the fallen one that bankrupted itself to feed the oil wars of a technologically backward economy.

 

Actually the primary lift system, the solid rocket boosters, are reusable as they parachute back to the ground and are refuled for the next mission. Only the fuel tank, which is just a metal shell, disintegrates in the atmosphere.