Where the shuttle went wrong

Hannah, Leesville, Lausiana — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:28:19 GMT

why stop the space shuttles from going out to space??!!??

Where the shuttle went wrong

Tom, IL — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:31:03 GMT

Its probably time to get out of space for a while. Too many things to straighten out here at home. When did science truly ever help mankind? We'd be better off being still in the caves. At least they didnt have nuclear weapons.

Where the shuttle went wrong

steve smyth — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:45:30 GMT

Gaia Two was first presented to NASA as a replacement for Shuttle via Frank McDonald in 1982.
The comment was 'thanks, but NASA will continue with its plans.'
Same ol', same ol'...the bureaucrats gave themselves lifetime positions, doing the same things as they did in the 1960s.
and that's the way it is...

Where the shuttle went wrong

John, Denver, Colo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:01:33 GMT

We as a nation have forgotten what true exploration is like. Any endeavour that carries so much value, will by necessity be inherintly dangerous. The Space Shuttle is and was no different than any previous space craft. Humans are subjected to an environment in space that is beyond any other, and the risks are well known and documented. I applaud the men and women of NASA and the space program, the astronauts and their families for understanding these risks, and their willingness to allow themselves and their loved ones to assume such risk. If we feel that we can just retreat to our small planet and forego space, then we have lost our will and our built in quest for the unknown. What a sad day that would be for humanity.

Where the shuttle went wrong

henri M. van Bemmel, Keswick, Ontario — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 01:25:11 GMT

Dear Mr. Boyle,

What you say is of course largely on the public record. The problem however, is that the political process always intervenes in the design, building and especially in the case of the shuttle, operations.
Politicians, many who barely possess the technical acumen to roll the pearl on the their Blackberrys are deciding what money is "needed" for such programs. The silly cost cutting and "making the shuttle pay for itself" nonsense of the Reagan administration surely destroyed Challenger and 7 wonderful people in as much as any O-ring failure did. However, it seems that in the world of non-accountability, there is no leader like JFK for example who will say..."yep we were responsible..we will fix this etc." They just do not seem to get it. The shuttle is far more hazardous that it needed to be and far less capable that it could have been if not for extreme requirements placed upon it by the US military and then never used. So the shuttle has these big wings and a 1500 mile cross track recovery capability that is simply a waste of mass. If the STS system had more ability the shuttles could have gone to the synchronous orbit and if you can get this high why not go to the moon? etc. Nope, each shuttle barely crawls into low Earth orbit and somehow we are satisified. If we had done this correctly, then we could have built two shuttles at the beginning and then a new on every fives years incorporating the lessons learned from the previous versions. We could have morphed into a new technology seamlessly in my view.
We have to remember regardless of the vehicle (Apollo, STS , Soyuz) etc. No space system in history has has anywhere near the number of launches that the shuttle has enjoyed and no system can come anywhere near its stunning set of successful working in space missions. The two tragic (and easily preventable) accidents were in the first case an example of massive underfunding and an operations climate that put a fear of program cancellation ahead of sound operations. The second disaster was also an operations fiasco as the problem was not foam shedding fro the tank, it was this briefcase sized piece of foam stuck onto the tank *afterward* Considering the crazy drag and vibration forces encountered during launch, it should be clear to even an engineering student that we do not stick *anything* to the foam. Oh well...
When the STS first flew everyone was terrified of the main engines. They were cutting edge and so they were tested and retested. Testing costs money. A lot of money.
I am tremdously grateful to the US for its space exploration investments and accomplishments, but it is a shame that the people who know how to do it are always being squeezed. This is no way to operate an unforgiving technology. As Prof. Rchard Feynman wrote in the Challenger report appendix. (I paraphrase here) "...for a successful technology the laws of physics must take precedence over public relations for Mother Nature cannot be fooled..." I behooves this round of Congress members to remember that the space club costs a lot of money. Discount fares only kill dedicated astronauts and destroy national assets. If they are not willing to pay the full fare then SHUT IT DOWN. Space costs the average taxpayer peanuts in comaprison to the military or the current vogue to bail out irresponsible bankers. This is one technology that has more than once led the technology transfer industry and easily made a profit for the US and other nations by association. It deserves more than most to be taken seriously during budget talks allowed to operate properly and safely.

Where the shuttle went wrong

a p garcia — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 02:24:36 GMT

NASA's other mistake was scrapping the Saturn 5 and relying on "Solid Boosters Rockets!

Where the shuttle went wrong

Joe, Kalispell, Montana — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:15:21 GMT

When I joined Rocketdyne in the late 1970's the scrap yard was full of completely or partially complete F1 and J2 engines and tooling. They were sold for scrap.

If you all had any idea how much Rockwell hid from NASA you would never want the shuttle to fly again. The weld joints attaching the Inconel jacket to the Narloy Z combustion chamber where full of liquid metal embrittlement yet they lied to NASA that the problem was fixed. The weld joint holding the base plate and injector rods failed during pressure test and almost completely blew out of the hot gas manifold. At the time it was under 7500 PSI of hydrostatic pressure and if the weld had failed instantly it had the possibility of blasting through the pressure safety door and launched towards the Topanga Mall.

Please just let the space shuttles go into retirement now that they and the main engines have reached their end of life design before more astronauts are killed.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Eagle1 — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 03:44:34 GMT

Thanks public TV for showing us once again how you just can't help yourselves when it comes to another bash AMERICA first documentary. We are aware of the even more bad decisions leading to the current public broadcasting system on TV. Most americans will and do support the space program.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Fred Dungan, Riverside, California — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:18:39 GMT

Did we get out of space so as to let the Chinese in? Of course space travel is risky. Why not ask the astronauts if they are willing to take the risks? My guess is that most would answer in the affirmative. Everything in life entails risk. Are we so timid that we cannot take risks? Columbus, Magellan, Amundsen, and all the great explorers took greater risks. So did the troops who fought this nation's battle. Have we grown so soft and decadent that we can no longer take risks? This country was founded and developed by strong people who took big risks to accomplish their goals. John F. Kennedy inspired us to explore the universe. It appears we got to the moon and then fizzled out. Whatever happened to the American spirit? Am I the only one who is bothered by this?

Where the shuttle went wrong

Hnry Glbshnk, Houston, Texas — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:17:46 GMT

In the early 70's I attended the public announcement of the Shuttle. The venue speaks volumes about NASA's attitude about the end of Apollo and the the start of the new Shuttle. The event was held in the Lubbock, Texas Municipal auditorium on short notice. Almost no media showed up. Werner Von Braun displayed the now familiar shuttle, solid booster, and external fuel tank stack. He mentioned in passing that the original concept had been a runway launched carrier plane to lift the shuttle/fuel tank assembly to ~ 30,000 ft at 500+ kts., then an in flight separation with the shuttle pressing on to orbit.
Budget constraints killed the development of the very expensive carrier plane. Thus was born the kludge that was ultimately built.

Notice that the two shuttle failures were caused by elements added to make the shuttle a vehicle that could actually be afforded in the climate of the early 70's.

1. The original concept had no solid boosters to fail with low ambient temperature weakened segment seals.

2. The original shuttle/fuel tank had a different configuration. Since the carrier and shuttle would have been mated until separation, the shuttle could have been closely monitored for damage in the run up to separation. The wing damage that destroyed Colombia occurred early in the launch, well before the 500 Kt. separation speed on the original concept. The mission could have been safely aborted and returned to land with minor damage and no loss of life.

When the shuttle project contract was let, the Apollo contractor bid the job using their experienced staff. The contract was won by a company that bid the job using all new college hires. The apollo team moved on to rewarding careers in fast food and lawn maintenance.

Many of the early delays in the shuttle can be directly linked to the inexperience of the designers.
(The very late realization that the fragile thermal protection system would require a continuing extensive amount of maintenance. The hugely optimistic belief that the main engines would only require major attention every 6 to 10 missions, not every mission as is the practice now. etc. forever.)

For all that it works.

Yes it is very dangerous, all current ways of leaving the planet are. If the Saturn 5/Apollo had remained in service it would probably have had many more failures than the shuttle. It's only saving grace would have been the much lower cost.

The proposed replacements for the shuttle only have one major advantage; 21 century technology and new hardware. (The shuttle is 1970's tech. with 30 year old hardware.)

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the new hardware will ever be deployed. Everything I see points to a new dark age for anything but taking ever higher resolution pictures of our belly buttons (navels for those of you with at least a 9th grade educations.)

Where the shuttle went wrong

Hnry Glbshnk Houston, Texas — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:30:22 GMT

I worked with the physicist that developed the shuttle reentry profiles. The 1500 cross grade capability was just a pleasant benefit of the large hypersonic S turns required for the shuttle to land at the destination of it's choice. The "big wings" were and are the only solution found so far for controlled hypersonic reentry.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Hnry Glshnk Houston, Texas — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:38:52 GMT

Until NASA changed the shuttle foam to be CFC free, the only foam that came off was in small irrelevant pieces.
Ever since, the foam has had problems shearing off in much larger pieces. bye bye shuttle.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Lee, Salt lake City, Ut — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 06:52:14 GMT

Have to agree that the scrapping of the Saturn 5 was a big mistake. What ever happened to the America will do do the improbable (sending man to the moon and safely returning to the Earth) as espoused by JFK. As for the "International Space Station", for all the billions it cost (not including getting it up there, what is the payback?

Where the shuttle went wrong

W. Sitze, Las Cruces, NM — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 08:02:31 GMT

One of the political intrusions in this situation, and probably critical to the design flaws was the original contract award: Originally, Grumman Aerospace of Long Island, NY, was notified that Grumman had been awarded the contract for the shuttle. Then communications went silent. It was finally re-announced that Rockwell, of California, President Nixon's home state, had been awarded the contract.

And yes, scrapping the Saturn 5 was a mistake. The technology has not been equaled.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Dave — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:00:26 GMT

I couldn't have said it any better than John from Denver, Colo and Henri Ban Bemmel from Keswick, Ontario!!!!!

Where the shuttle went wrong

Hope — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:41:50 GMT

The Shuttle fleet has only used up 1/3 of its intended flight time. These ships were designed to fly 100 missions and yet, people are now putting down their foot on flying further missions. Reasons: dangerous, old technology,(let the Russians do it), etc. One forgets that Congress will probably not fund further investments in Russians launches beyond 2011. This is due to the unpredictability of our relations with the Russians. So much for international space station! We probably will be 100 billion dollars in the whole and not being able to go to the ISS for 5 years or longer. I guarantee that we will be delayed with this Orion project. By this time, 2011, we could always beg a flight from the Chinese, they only be to happy to 'give' us a ride for propaganda purposes. Stick out your thumbs naysayers to hitchhike.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Doug Fingles, Warner Robins, GA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:59:55 GMT

To Tom, IL; re: Caves. Tom, we'll let you be the first one to return to living in caves, using stone implements and retreating behind the fire at night for protection. No internet, no hybrid foods like corn or wheat, no indoor plumbing or soap, etc. Try it for a few years and let us know if you think science and the improvements it brings to life might just be worth the associated costs.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Jason F. League City, Texas — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:22:08 GMT

Why have education without NASA? NASA has been underfunded for so many years. Private Industry is no more than a kite when compared to NASA's capabilities. They are finding out the hard way that space is expensive and dangerous.

The ROI still exceeds $7 - so for every dollar pumped into NASA - $7 returns to the public. Many things we do not see or even realize. It's always been this way throughout history. Those Nations that withdrawl from science and discovery - seemingly disappear. Look for yourself. History doesn't lie. It's amazing, with all our intelligence - we are unable to grasp this one, simple fact!

Where the shuttle went wrong

Mike in Sterling, VA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:26:24 GMT

So flying into space is dangerous... DUH! You would thing someone like John Logsdon would know that but it sounds like he is just trying to validate conclusions he came to as part of the CAIB. Yes, it's dangerous, very dangerous... But, so was sailing across the Atlantic ocean in leaky open boats. At least we can see where we are going in space. Early sailors often had no idea what was beyond the horizon yet they sailed on. How many tens of thousands were lost at sea? Yet they sailed on. Without the brave explorers of yesteryear we wouldn't have the brave explorers of today.

The human losses in manned spaceflight have been miniscule compared to almost any other exploratory endeavor, yet they are constantly blown way out of proportion. Also, please remember that every human killed in manned spaceflight accidents has been a willing and eager participant. Of course they did not want to die, but they knew the risks and were willing to take them to achieve the goal. They all died with their eyes wide open.

I suspect that what most nay-sayers really object to is the expense which is indeed (& no pun intended) astronomical. Yet, so were the exploratory voyages of the 15th thru 19th centuries.

I wholly agree that the STS has myriad flaws but it is a relatively proven and known technology. So why didn't NASA build it without those flaws in the first place... What human device is built without flaws? The shuttle was built with the best technology available in the 1970s. Their biggest mistake (IMHO) was in not building the design modularly enough that crucial components could be easily replaced as improved technology became available. My feeling is that, rather than return to single use vehicles for access to space, we need to invest in a modernized version of the shuttle. We have much superior computing technology than when the shuttle was first designed. We could rebuild it... smaller, lighter, faster and safer than the current version. Would this new version be completely safe? Of course not, but neither would a single-use vehicle.

One of the advantages of multi-use vehicles is that when it comes back you can check it out and see what works and what doesn't. A single use vehicle is virtually thrown away each time it is used and the materials are not even (to a great extent) recoverable for examination. It is also wasteful of natural resources and is akin to throwing away the 2 liter soda bottle but recycling the cap.

One last point... Do we really want to rely upon the Russians to get us into space from 2010 to 2020? Thats how long it will likely take to get a reliable and relatively safe single use launch system into place. Don't believe for one second that this project will be done on time. What government project ever is? The only one I know of was the original Apollo program but we have neither the motivation nor the leadership to do that today.

Keep flying the shuttle as long as possible and surely don't kill it before it's time...

Where the shuttle went wrong

Derek, Marquette, MI — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:29:21 GMT

I have to admit that I will be sad to see the shuttle go. Growing up in the 80's, the shuttle was the coolest thing a kid could have ever dreamed to pilot. It was extremely sad what happened to Challenger and Columbia, but those two vehicles helped our knowlage today of what not to do for vehicles in the future. And think...we got almost 30 years of use out of something that has gone millions of miles and carried millions of tons of people and equipment to possibly help our life down here. Remember that the shuttle was also a "green machine", and future ships might not be (enviromentalists unite!). I will have never gotten to see a takeoff or landing live in person, but I wish the shuttle all the best

Where the shuttle went wrong

Jeremy, Twin Falls, ID — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:47:16 GMT

NASA and the space program have given us many technologies and advancements that we use in our everyday lives, for one thing. (To answer a question of when science has really benefited mankind) Not to mention, the incredible advancements in medicine, communication, and information sharing that have resulted from science.

I have studied astronomy, geology, and paleontology since I was a child and have also been a christian since my early years as well. Thus having said that, I believe that to not explore what this universe has to offer and to turn our backs on science or to true exploration of the unknown could be construed as an insult to what has been created. If we do not make an attempt to understand God's creation, how can we truly appreciate it. I believe that mankinds future lies in the stars and that NASA's continued efforts are essential to that future.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Adam, Three Rivers, MI — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:50:19 GMT

What ever happened to the X Project winner, the lifting wing spaceplane?

Where the shuttle went wrong

Guy S. Newell — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:59:29 GMT

The space shuttle program and the ISS is the porverbial "bridge to nowhere". This program set back space exploration by 40 years. The idea that astronaughts (sic) could become glorified truck drivers is too silly, even for a beenie wearing geek like me.

Where the shuttle went wrong

John Parish, San Antonio, TX — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:01:04 GMT

Reusable! That's what the politicians sold us on in the early 70's. It was a mistake to scrap the program that was in place back then. As I recall, each moon mission cost about $300-400 million (that's what; about the cost of a B-2 bomber today). $700B (the bailout) could go a long way today in getting us toward the moon and Mars.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Chip, Duluth, GA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:04:16 GMT

Tom, you really think we'd be better off "living in caves?" Are you truly serious? As for "when science ever helped mankind," the absurdity of this question barely merits a response. How many lives have been saved because of advances in medical science, how many saved because of advance hurricane warnings from satellites, how many deaths averted due to advances in automotive technology such as airbags? The obvious irony of all this is that you're using a computer and the Internet to post your comment.... are you going to get a hi-speed connection while living in "your cave?" [...]

Where the shuttle went wrong

John,Austin Texas — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:12:03 GMT

The United States needs to regain the lead in the exploration of outer space. Going back to the moon is just the start. During the Project Apollo the United States took a big lead in industry and technology. Many of the things that we take for granted in our daily lives happened because of the space program. We can advance at a faster pace in our efforts to explore outer space.

Where the shuttle went wrong

RD, South Dakota — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 13:54:15 GMT

Take off from a Runway, land on a Runway. That was the original concept of the Vehicle to replace Apollo. The Shuttle was a design that resulted in everybody adding their own pet concept to the Orbiter.
This included people who had influence with members of Congress who also owned factories that employed people who were all registered to Vote. This is how politics works, and this is how it will continue to work unless we end up with a President that is economically successful enough and popular enough to be able to prevent politics as usual and allow the best design to actually reach the top of the Idea Vat.

This is also why our best bet is to look to the private sector to build the next best space ship, be it Sub-Orbital, Orbital, Lunar, or a Planetary craft.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Mike, Jefferson City, Missouri — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:40:42 GMT

I like the shuttle, a lot. I grew up dreaming of being an astronaut and flying in the shuttle to space. The mere image of the shuttle inspires me to dream about the grand things here on earth and in space.

With that being said, it is time to move onto a new launch vehicle. The shuttle *is* getting old and unsafe. It has also shackled us to near earth orbit instead of setting us free to explore the moon (again) and Mars and elsewhere. We need a vehicle to take us to the places we haven't explored. We need to leave the orbital exploration to the private sector much the way Old World exploration was done. With governments spending the money to reach the farthest flung places so that private entities can follow and develop its resources (hopefully not the same way history records though).

Government does many things half... heartedly, but almost never does anything well. The singular exception I can see is exploration down through the ages. So lets take advantage of one of its rare strengths rather than retreat to our little bubble in fear of what lies beyond our direct line of sight or what we may or may not do in this place or that. I am all for fixing things here but we are a nation of many people, as such we can do many things at once. Let us do this one great thing while we also do the things needed here.

Truly, humans are defined by how they expand their understanding through their lives. Space (as the sea was) is a natural extension of that and in fact is the manner in which our species demonstrates that at the end of the day. We are not a reclusive cowardly bunch. We are bold, curious, and intelligent. Let us put the desires of our hearts in deeds not just words.

Okay, I will get off the soapbox now. But seriously, the idea that we should leave space because we have problems on Earth is akin to not mowing the lawn because the dishes are dirty in your house. Ask your spouse to do the dishes while you mow the lawn!

As for the topic of the article: Dr. Logsdon's ideas don't sound far out to me. But I have heard precious little in the way of contructive (and practical) alternatives being offered up from anyone either.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Joe Hoffman, York, PA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:41:27 GMT

Anytime you try to make something do more than one thing it usually doesn't perform either task very well. Look at car/boats, or car/planes...Putting people into space requires different things than putting cargo up there. Flying a plane in atmosphere is very different than moving a craft through empty space. the course they are taking now seems to be getting back to the more prcticle and reliable methods used previously. I applaud NASA. The Shuttles were necessary to get us this far but it is time to move on.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Kevin, Louisville, KY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:49:19 GMT

The problem with powered space travel is exactly that, the large red liquid fuel filled, heavy, tank that the shuttle must haul up into space and then jettison once it empties. The solution to it all is very expensive and much safer. A magnetic rail system powered by multiple nuclear power facilities, which stretches miles, which would be capable of delivering a fairly large payload to a stable orbit. If the distance is sufficient, then the crew, a much larger crew, would not have to deal with high-G acceleration. AT a rough 7 mi/s escape velocity, or 25200 mi/hr, at 200 miles that is only 126 miles per hour per hour. This is roughly 11 m/s or 39600 m/hr, earthly gravity is roughtly 9.8 m/s/s. I haven't the science to work out all the bugs, but the big picture has been ignored. The problem is that instead of throwing everything into this kind of massive project, which will provide infrastructure to space exploration, we send up one rickety, old shuttle at a time, one that carries large amounts of fuel, and thus can carry only small payloads, and passengers.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Mark J. Dinkel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:55:03 GMT

It is an excellent documentary and one that brought tears to my eyes. Neil deGrasse Tyson did a fine job with the narration. The shuttle is a futuristic concept but needs scramjet technology, not rocket engines to achieve the promise of economy and reuseability. Until scramjet and or space elevators can be developed for routine vs. experimental use, it is more practical to begin establishing a permanent human presence in the solar system beyond earth where only rockets can take us.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank, Dallas, TX — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 14:56:37 GMT

The main flaw (well, "flaw" is a harsh word, how about "limitation") with the space shuttle is that it was limited to "missions to planet Earth" and was not designed to even go to lunar orbit let alone a solar orbit or anywhere else in the solar system.

Then, in the "nice to have" category would have been a shuttle that takes off like an airplane as well as lands like one.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Makis, Irving, TX — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:36:24 GMT

The space program must continue! If we have to wait for the Constellation Program to get us back to the moon, than I say wait! To insure humanities survival we must venture into our solar system and explore Mars, Europa, and Titan. We need to venture to the other planets and learn the mysteries that have dumbfounded us for centuries. A comment on this board suggested that we live in caves as science hasn't helped anyone... SERIOUSLY!?? I can't believe a human alive today would say that. This isn't turn of the century church beliefs... This is science. This is the same science that has increased human life span exponentially. This is the same science that saw 12 brave men to the moon and back. This is the same science that created cell phones, laptops, and the internet. Yes, with technology comes destructive power. That's gonna happen. However it is vitally important to continue the space program responsibly. Death and sadness will occur. If we gave up after the Apollo 1 disaster, where would we be? If I had the potential to become an astronaut, I would do it in a heartbeat and lay my life on the line for humanity's sake. NASA is one of the greatest programs ever created and must continue. Within 60 years of the Wright brother's first flight, Neil Armstrong stood on the moon. AMAZING! Let's keep it up. Let's continue forward. Let's be adventurous and take the chances our forefathers took.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Jason — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 16:06:03 GMT

Why not just skip all this and go back to the first NASA idea that was named Orion, use nuclear weapons to propel a truly huge ship into space. The largest Orion design on the drawing board was capable of lifting 8 million tons. Ok, sure, you have to set off some nuclear weapons within the earth's atmosphere to get it off the ground but given the right conditions it could totally be worth it.

Where the shuttle went wrong

D. Patten, Melbourne, FL — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 19:45:38 GMT

I will volunteer to go on any space mission they want!

Even if it were a failure/one-way trip.

We need a National Vision and a goal that gives us pride.

I would rather give NASA the 700 Billion and see what they could do with it in five years.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Uncle Jetski — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:07:51 GMT

What killed the space program - and, by this, I mean, true space exploration (the space shuttle is just a place-holder,) - was human nature. Within hours of the first moon landing, people were on the street saying things like "We can put a man on the moon, but we can't cure cancer/make a decent cup of coffee, etc..." Cynical, but irrelevant.

The key is that we proved that democracy was superior to communism by being the first to land a man on the moon, so there was no point to pushing beyond.

Until we have a political motivation again, we will not do anything serious in space.

The good news is that that political motivation is coming. As soon as China lands on the moon, you can bet your last dollar we're going to go to Mars.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Steve, Portland OR — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:18:45 GMT

We should at least entertain the idea of re-vitalizing the Energia project. This late-Soviet design was successfully launched in the early nineties with a cargo capacity equivalent of three shuttle launches. There was work on a system that could throw up to eight shuttle launches. Instead we develop a new system from scratch. I have high hopes that Aries I/V will work out.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Mike N — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:29:44 GMT

Anyone consider exploring the depths of our oceans if we need to expand our horizons beyond Earth or "earth", as the case may be. There's oxygen to be milked, muscle-sustaining gravity, no radiation, no rockets required, food to be harvested, and you can get back to land relatively easily. As glamorous as it is to explore foreigh orbiting bodies in space - humans simply can't live there, so what are we going to do once we blast a half-dozen brave souls off to Mars or beyond? How many billions per individual would it cost to get anyone else out there, much less sustain them?

Where the shuttle went wrong

Dave Geiser, St. Louis, Missouri — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:40:12 GMT

The space program (especially the race to the moon) inspired me and a generation of American kids to go into science and engineering to invent machines to further the frontiers of technology.

Let's be honest, NASA nailed the concept for a moons-hot vehicle with the Saturn 5 / Apollo, and bit of more futuristic concept than it could chew with the Shuttle. We went from a workhorse heavy-lift capability to a lower-lift capability "Space Truck" that can only achieve low earth orbit. There is a place for the latter concept, but it is hard to do that cheaply with a "re-usable" craft that requires so many design compromises, just to be re-usable.

So the Russians, French, Japanese, and now Chinese are pursuing efficeint expendable launch vehicles that are designed for a specific purpose, instead of something that tries to do too many different things, like the Shuttle. We can bash the Shuttle all day, but we have learned a lot from it, and there is value in that.

It sure looks like the Constellation / Orion concept borrows heavily from the Saturn / Apollo concept, with the use of some efficient, reliable Saturn AND Shuttle hardware. The man-rated Ares I lifter has its task simplified to only lofting the Orion capsule to low-Earth orbit. I applaud NASA, because I think the new Ares I / Ares V / Orion concepts seem to be well-thought out, in terms of offering a range of capability and avoiding the vehicular design flaws of the Shuttle System.

We need to press ahead with some meaningful mission for NASA. A trip to Mars would be inspirational, if Mars weren't so far away and require a mission of something like 2 years. There is still a lot that can be done in Earth orbit and the Moon. America's technological leadership will wither on the vine, if we toss our Space Program on the scrap heap. We can debate the cost-benefit of the program ad nauseum, but if our Space Program is a waste, why have Russia, Europe, Japan, and China all jumped in ? They clearly see a long-term value to space exploration and all the technology required to achieve it.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Avery in East L.A. — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:44:42 GMT

Mike from Jefferson City, Missouri Hit it on the head. I couldn't add anything else or put it better. Props to you.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Donna, Orlando FL — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:46:53 GMT

I am a huge fan of the space program. The benefits we have garnered from it are beyond price. We also need to face the fact that we are running out of both room and resources here on Sol III. I agree that the shuttle should be retired and that it desparately needs a replacement. However, as long as politicians with no clue and less science are running the show, we will have accidents. As long as we have an urge to explore, we will have accidents. It's the price humankind must pay to advance.

Whatever happened to the "right stuff"? I grew up on Air Force bases, watching expermental craft take off from the flight lines, knowing every time I saw a new design, I could also be seeing a new disaster - that black smoke rising in the distance often meant a friend's dad had died. I also knew you could never ground a test pilot telling him "it could be dangerous." When they were testing the F-14 and F-15s out of Pensacola Naval Air Station and Eglin AFB, we watched as the pilots pushed those weird looking jets to their limits over the Gulf of Mexico ("hey, look, those jets have twin vertical stabilizers!") The SR-71 looked like it was doing Mach sitting on the tarmac. The F-16 flew rings around its competition. But someone had to try those birds out first. And some politician, somewhere, was always looking to put that money on his pet pork, at the risk of those pilots' lives.

And the pilots still had the guts to fly, because the risk was worth the price. It's still worth it - I sincerely hope my grandkids have the opportunity to live on another planet, before we completely deplete this one.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 20:57:22 GMT

"When did science truly ever help mankind?"

I could go all day with this, but I'll be extremely breif and just say that if you want to go without antibiotics and sanitary sewers ('scientists' learned what germs were, after all), go right ahead...

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:04:54 GMT

"The Shuttles were necessary to get us this far but it is time to move on."

Correct, but 'move on' should mean a better (not necesasairily bigger) RLV, not moving back to one use capsules (the 4-5x reusable requirement of the Orion capsule seems to be slipping away) launched on expendables (yeah, I know its based on shuttle SRBs [boy *those* worked all the time, didn't they?] but they still need way too much re-work before re-flight)...

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:09:19 GMT

"The main flaw (well, "flaw" is a harsh word, how about "limitation") with the space shuttle is that it was limited to "missions to planet Earth" and was not designed to even go to lunar orbit let alone a solar orbit or anywhere else in the solar system."

That the shutle couldn't go to the Moion was also noted in the documentary. My response to both is:

"Right. So?"

The shuttle was already trying to be too many things to too many people. In a rational world, it (or something like it) would be used to *assemble* Lunar and or Mars ships in orbit.

Why, after all, are there so many different kinds of aircraft /ships /motor vehicles? No one expects a semi tractor-trailer to act as an off-road vehicle...

Where the shuttle went wrong

Sam Livingstone — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:33:51 GMT

When Appolo 11 landed on the moon we completed JFK's promise of landing on the moon before the end of the decade. As an engineer i thought we were on our way to Mars or elsewhere. I only later learned the politicians had no other goal and space exploration was discontinued with Nixon stopping the programs. There were no further manned space programs. The shuttle and space station are like going to the mall with no further imagination. What has come out of the space station other than practicing orbital hookups and feeding people in space and monitoring longterm bone loss? Space station was to be a way station on to other destinations.

The shuttle was partiarly do to excess testerone in pilots who wanted to land a plane. What a waste of resources. No one else has to deal the excess weight of wings and tires.

There has not been the payoff of new materials and other advances that occurred with Mercury to Appolo programs. The thrills of space havelong gone and we no longer have the school improvements and increased numbers of engineers and scientists. Dumbing down our students to what every student can do is not a goal to be proud of.

Sam

Where the shuttle went wrong

Eric, Salinas, CA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:35:07 GMT

Ofcourse going to space is risky, but it's a risk and cost worth undertaking. I'm miffed that the shuttle program is being shut down before a viable alternative is ready to fly. We had better keep the shuttle flying until Orion is ready to go.

I'm really miffed that the Alpha Magenetic Spectrometer was knocked off the list. The AMS is a really crucial piece of equipment ready to go that will help explain the beginnings of our universe. It would be a terrible waste of money to let that completed equipment go to waste as well as the $1.5 billion it cost to make.

We need real science now more than ever!

Where the shuttle went wrong

Jim, VA Beach, VA — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:35:36 GMT

Alan correectly alludes to the essential problem with the shuttle, the change in the safety culture between the lunar program where safety was paramount and cost was largely irrelevant, and the shuttle where the whole philosophy was turned upside down implementing as much as possible with COTS technology and let schedule and $ drive the program.

Anyone have any doubts, just watch Apollo 13, the system was so robust that all the crew and the system survived and returned to earth.

Anyone having doubts about about the benefits of space exploration should understand what drove our miniaturization of the electronic that eventually led to control the early rockets which led to the development of the IC, etc.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:36:07 GMT

A good history of the Space Shuttle and the design trade-offs in its development can be found here:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm

...And remember, it was a design that reflected what Congress was willing to *pay for,* as much as the best the technology of the day could deliver.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 21:46:14 GMT

"Why not just skip all this and go back to the first NASA idea that was named Orion, use nuclear weapons to propel a truly huge ship into space. The largest Orion design on the drawing board was capable of lifting 8 million tons. Ok, sure, you have to set off some nuclear weapons within the earth's atmosphere to get it off the ground but given the right conditions it could totally be worth it."

The nuclear-pulse Orion wasn't really a NASA project.

Still...do you remember the hue and cry fro a lot of people, when we wanted to launch a probe (Cassini) which carried a few pounds of naturally decaying plutonium to power its electronics, much to far from the Sun for practical solar panels...and how they expected a launch accident to make all of Florida a radioactive wasteland? (Yeah, that's hype, but so were their claims.)

And you want to propel a ship with actual nuclear *detonations?*

Yes, nuclear pulse will work, but there is no chance, politically, that it will ever be used from Earth's surface. None.

What's that? You want to build a nuclear pulse ship in orbit and start from there, instead? Well, that brings us right back to the need for a good RLV to get from Earth's surface to low Earth orbit and back, on a regular, economical, reliable basis (for whatever purpose you have in mind), doesn't it?

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:03:48 GMT

Kevin, where does atmospheric drag figure into your proposal? There have been many ideas for using ground-based accelerators of one kind or another for spacecraft, but none based on Earth (the Moon would be quite another matter) propose getting the ship all the way up to orbital velocity by themselves.

Drag losses *will* happen, and you *will* need rockets of some kind operating along the way to overcome it.

Also these systems are constrained to launch in *one* direction, serving *one* orbital inclination. You can launch out of KSC in *any* direction that stays over the Atlantic (and remember, even that is only for safety and lower stage disposal reasons)

Scramjet enthusiasts also forget that it's increasingly difficult to scoop in, burn fuel in, and get net thrust out of an engine at higher and higher Mach numbers, and they must also deal with atmospheric drag (and the heating that comes with it) along th3e way.. I submit it's not worth it to do airbreathing much above Mach 5 for a space launch system (as opposed to something intended to operate only in the atmosphere). Rocket trajectories are generally such as to get out of the dense lower atmosphere as quickly as possiblee, where drag is greatest, and rocket efficency is lowest..

If we ever field a two-stage to orbit RLV, It would probably be best if seperation of the orbiter took place at the highest altitude possible, but still at *subsonic* speeds.

If we ever have *single* stage to orbit, a vertical takeoff, vertical lander is the best way to go, IMHO.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Larry — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:09:58 GMT

I know what a lot of people are thinking...if these 50 yr. old b-52's are still in service, and really doing a fine job, then why are we worried about the Shuttles? Because b_52's are held together with rivets, and welds, and are made of aluminum. Shuttles are styrofoam cups with engines, and are held together with duct tape. All things man-made reach their service life, and the shuttles are just about there. And the B-52's are in the process of being retired, too. Their replacement will pretty much be the UAV, the unmanned aircraft rapidly being put into service., and to some extent, the good ol' cruise missle.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Daniel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:31:32 GMT

To Hannah, John and a p,
The space shuttles were dangerous, complicated and expensive from the start. Now they are old, too. We needed a better vehicle back then. We still need a better vehicle. The space shuttle is pointlessly complicated, creating more chances for something to break. Solid propellants, with no "off switch" and no reserve for later maneuvers, have no business carrying people into space. The boosters on the Challenger made it impossible to abort the flight – once lit, the mission has to go.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Daniel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:32:37 GMT

To Tom, Joe and Jason,
The Apollo program is what built America's technology, economy and military superiority. It paid for the research that launched the electronics industry, and most of our military superiority now is based on satellites, especially GPS. It took really bad mismanagment to get us into the situation we are in now after all of the brilliance of Apollo. Thank you. We have indeed forgotten. Apollo and its predecessors were and are the best investment America ever made. And we imagine that we will be better off if we "save" the money we are "wasting" on space. It is an old argument that only works because we have trouble connecting space to the technology it spawned.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Daniel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:33:26 GMT

To Joe,
I do not trust any one contractor that has been guaranteed profits from the government for the foreseeable future. Rockwell may have handled things in ways that were questionable, but once a monopoly government contract is awarded, there is no market pressure to do the best job possible. Apollo was lots of contractors, and failure was not an option.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Daniel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 22:34:10 GMT

To Fred,
Thank you. You are not alone in thinking America has lost its spirit. Most of America has been too comfortable for too long. Maybe a major economic depression will help us get our priorities straightened out. Unfortunately, it will also make us an ex-superpower.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Pat- Canon City CO — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:11:18 GMT

The reason the shuttle isnt what it should be is because of decisions made by politicians back in the 70s

Where the shuttle went wrong

Daniel — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 23:21:21 GMT

General comments:

The new Constellation system calls for humans to go into space on solid-propellant boosters. This would not have been acceptible to the Mercury astronauts, because it does not allow human control of the flight. If Constellation's delays and cost overruns and re-engineering of supposedly proven technology are not red flags for anyone else, we have learned little from the failings of the shuttles.

When the shuttle was chosen, we had proven systems for ground-to-orbit, including the Apollo-Saturn 1B. Another system that was turned down was to be called Big Gemini, building on the successful, practical and robust Gemini system.

Nixon wanted the shuttle - on a budget. Corners were cut, and safety was compromised. The space shuttle was the first manned system flown without an escape system, the first to use solid propellants (no "off switch"), and the first to drag most of its fuel along from the side.

When the Russians made their copy of the shuttle, they had the sense to put the rockets under their fuel tank. When they decided it was a dead end (after only two test flights), they still had a good heavy-lift rocket left over from the effort.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Henry Peacy, Wausau, Wisconsin — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 13:20:25 GMT

Space is worth exploring. Yes, people will lose their lives in doing that. Imainge how the world would be if our ancestors just stayed in one place and didn't go out and explore. The human race would be extinct, I guess. So yes to the continuing exploration of all space including this spaceship we all live on.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Pat O — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 15:36:49 GMT

Until we move past apollo-like vehicles and implement nuclear-driven spacecraft, we'll remain confined and limited to the earth and moon. Whatever happened to progress at NASA? Rehashing old tech seems like a huge waste of money.

Where the shuttle went wrong

William Carney, Illinois — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:47:09 GMT

Despite all the problems and nay-sayers the Shuttle is
currently the only vehicle that can take up and
assemble items in space like the ISS. Not too mention
repairing Hubble. Do you think the new vehicle could
do a Hubble repair, in a word NO. The next Hubble
repair will be the last. Despite all the issues with
the ISS it does have a very important task and need
in the next few years. The president told NASA to
complete the ISS and use it for research for more
exploration. A manned trip to Mars would take a year,
possible a year and a half just to get there. Once
landed the voyagers could not even walk for a month.
When the cosmonaut landed after a year on Mir he could
not walk and had to be carried. The ISS is important
to solving the issues of bone & muscle loss over time
to allow us to proceed with further exploration. As
to the flawed design of the Shuttle it was all
politics and economics. NASA originally wanted a
totally reusable Shuttle that would have had a fly-
back booster. The Nixon administration said it was
too much, and in retrospect would have been cheaper.
The current design took more money over time and much
longer to build. Not entirely NASA's fault.
On a last note. Without a new generation Shuttle what
will build the Mars craft in orbit? A trip to Mars
can not be just launched from Earth. You need too
much in fuel, supplies etc. You will have to build
a craft in orbit. How will it be built? Without the
Shuttles the only thing that could do the task is the
ISS. Remember the arm that was taken up recently?
We could launch Mar craft components to the ISS with
the Orion cargo vehicle. The ISS then assemble them
into a vehicle for trips to Mars and beyond.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Dennis Monastrial, Los Angeles, Ca. — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 04:53:36 GMT

Let us remember an American Proverb that says;

"We choose to go to the moon... not because it it easy. But because it is hard!" - JFK 1962

Where the shuttle went wrong

Rev. Pat RichardsFink, St. Cloud, MN — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 05:44:24 GMT

Time for the Big Dumb Booster, baby.

Expendable does not mean disposable -- every gram of metal, ceramic, plastic, rubber, you name it that doesn't come back can be captured and used for raw materials, at least until we grab a couple asteroids and maybe a comet for volatiles.

Our future is in space. The Earth has just enough resources to bootstap ourselves into the galaxy -- not nearly enough to sustain human civilization indefinitely.

If we don't do it, the rats or roaches or whoever replaces us will.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Mark, Cocoa, Florida — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 15:03:13 GMT

Hi, Alan

Again, I am disappointed that nobody even mentioned the Saturn IB. Every time I drive by the rocket garden and see it lying there I have to shake my head and wince.

This was the workhorse that enabled the entire Apollo program. The first stage of the Saturn IB was a bunch of coupled together Redstones, and the second stage was the third stage of the Saturn V. If we had kept building Saturn IB's, we would not now be reliant on Russia for their Soyuz launcher.

Why did we ever stop building it??

With block cycle upgrades every couple of years, the Saturn IB would now kick any nation's launcher out of orbit. Where did we go wrong??

And don't worry, the stupidity has not yet stopped... I just read this morning that the NASA Chief Advisory Council had recommended AGAINST buying more Delta II rockects for scientific launchs. Only the MOST reliable unmanned rocket around. Alan, I already copied you on the upgrades that could happen with the Delta II. But of course, Boeing wants to push the newer and more expensive Delta IV.

Why do we keep going down the wrong road???

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank, Dallas, TX — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 19:37:43 GMT

"That the shutle couldn't go to the Moion was also noted in the documentary. My response to both is:

"Right. So?""

The point is that Congress seems to be incapable of funding more than one space program for human spaceflight at a time, so it had better be a program with as wide a range of capabilities as possible. Within the range of missions to planet Earth, the shuttle was a really good choice. To expand the mission range further than Earth, we either need other programs or a program that really can do it all.

If you want to get a human to orbit without using the shuttle, you either need to ask the russians or maybe china.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Ed Baltimore, Md — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 21:33:24 GMT

Space exploration is not dangerous or expensive. What is dangerous and expensive is "manned" space exploration. Casinni, Galileo, the Mars Phoenix Lander, Mars rovers, Hubble, just to name a few - the science generated by these unmanned space exploration missions dwarf any science ever produced by the shuttle or ISS.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Rich Wharton, Dallas, TX — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 23:30:18 GMT

Okay, call me a dummy, but even as a 2x "SpaceCamp" alum from the 80's (damn those crickets and elmer's glue), I never could understand why the shuttle needed umpteen thousand unique tiles to protect itself. SURELY there is a better way to build larger tiles for the flatter surfaces, and then glue them on with more strength, OR, alternatively, create something more laminar, like the bedliner in a truck? I mean, I guess we could just mothball the fleet and put them in museums, but if you can solve the problem with larger tiles made and glued more robustly, wouldn't that work?

Lastly, and this is dumb, too, but I remember the arguments about the obsolescence of the flight system. At this time, are they still using 80386 cpu-style technology?

Where the shuttle went wrong

Steve Aa, Mispa NY — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:28:34 GMT

Would you get on a passenger plance that had a 1 in 80 chance of catostrophic destruction. I think not.

Where the shuttle went wrong

kevin simons, wheaton, mn — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:49:20 GMT

I remember watching the first man stepping on the moon. that was very awesome. I remember watching the first shuttle lifting off the launch pad. That give me some pride in the nasa program. now they need to update the program with newer techonology. any body can update their own computers. NASA can have a newer space craft designed on their own computers(which are probably 1,000 times smarter than the ones we use). Having the capability of taking off and landing like the U-2 spy plane(which flew in subspace). If you looked at that plane it had leaks on the ground. How many of those blew up taking off and landing. they also could be refueled in the air. Design a space shuttle with refuel capability means less weight needed to take off, once in the air can be refueled so they can travel into space. Now does that sound pausable.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Victor H. , St. Louis, MO — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:33:45 GMT

Im pretty ignorant to this subject but I must admit this country needs the space program and the shuttle. Its a good thing we decided not to give up making automobiles because they rode rough or didnt go fast at first. I wish the shuttle would have been modified to meet the current technology of the day. Auto manufactureres are always improving thier designs and functions, I dont understand why it couldnt be done with the shuttle. Maybe make a smaller version with the kinks worked out of it. Maybe thats what Nasa is doing but in a diff. way.

Thinking about all that is out there and how we are all on this small planet is quite humbling and frustrating to think about the quarrels this country and many other countries have against each other instead of pursuing greater challenges.

Where the shuttle went wrong

gjc — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 10:14:27 GMT

dock the shuttle in space, at the space station, then use it as it is named to shuttle us around space

Where the shuttle went wrong

Charlie WR, GA — Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:18:57 GMT

Money, Money, Money--It's all about money the US no longer has.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Mike, Arlington, VA — Mon, 20 Oct 2008 16:57:04 GMT

I see lots of comments, not all that well informed. The most recent are the last two. Sorry Charlie, the US has plenty of money. The problem is allowing the Federal government way to much control over how it is spent. Gjc, you obviously have little or no idea of how the shuttle, or most other spacecraft/satelites work. A space shuttle docked at the space station would not 'shuttle us around space'. More like that space shuttle would 'shuttle us around a Rhode Island sized piece of space surrounding the space station only'. Not exactly that useful. Not to mention the cost and danger of keeping the main engine fuel tanks full for what amounts to local neighborhood joy riding. And for Tom way back in the begining, well, you're right, if we still lived in caves we wouldn't have nukes. Frankly, I personally think everything else that has come with the ability to build nukes is well worth it. I would trade living in caves for what we have now, even with the nukes, in a heartbeat. If YOU want to live in caves, no one is stopping you.

And for all those who talk about the 'wasted expense' and the 'need to focus on earhtly problems', well, you're idiots. The only 'wasted expense' I see is that the Federal government was the one conducting the research, so what we got was way more expensive than it should have been. Though then again, maybe not. As so many other respondents pointed out, the technology inspired, spawned, developed, etc. as a result of the space program might never have come about without it. Human curiosity, inqusitiveness, and even greed might have produced the same advances, but maybe not. Never underestimate the value of having a goal to achieve in inspiring inovation. It is easy to see the path to where we are now and see how it led through the space program. It is much harder to see where we might be had there not been one. I, for one, think it much more constructive to try and see exactly what the program has done for us and try to figure how we can use that knowledge to improve ourselves going forward.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:22:54 GMT

"Expendable does not mean disposable -- every gram of metal, ceramic, plastic, rubber, you name it that doesn't come back can be captured and used for raw materials, at least until we grab a couple asteroids and maybe a comet for volatiles."

Used...how? Are you going to go to the trouble of creating an orbital recycling plant in orbit to seperate, melt down and otherwise reprocess what is not all that much material per year?

AND it's all scattered in various orbital altitudes and planes that takes propellant to get to, and get back from. It easily becomes cheaper to just launch new stuff.

I'm sorry, but this isn't like junkyards on earth where you have thousands of tons of stuff in one place, and an existing infrastructure that could use it. (or an asteroid, about which similar things could be said)

Where the shuttle went wrong

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:28:54 GMT

"
The point is that Congress seems to be incapable of funding more than one space program for human spaceflight at a time, so it had better be a program with as wide a range of capabilities as possible. Within the range of missions to planet Earth, the shuttle was a really good choice. To expand the mission range further than Earth, we either need other programs or a program that really can do it all."

Then it had better be the former, because the shuttle failed at just being an orbital transportation system for all users. To expect an orbital RLV to be good at lunar and Mars missions...is utterly impractical with any existing technology. Even Apollo used a seperate vehicle expressly for Lunar landing, it was simply possible to get it all on the same (expendable) vehicle.

Sadly, Lunar exploration the way NASA wants to do it (again), will end up being just as unsustainable as Apollo was.

Where the shuttle went wrong

JC, Fairbanks, AK — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 05:12:36 GMT

At up to a billion dollars a launch, the shuttle has NEVER been a good deal. As it can only reach LEO, it has NEVER performed. Since alot of it is NOT reused, it has never lived up to it's billing. Since it takes many months to 'reset', it has never fulfilled the promise of rapid turnaround. Starting to get the picture?

The vast majority of what it does can be accomplished but ordinary rockets for far less risk and expense. Only really big things (like Hubble) NEED to go on the shuttle (and this only because we foolishly discarded the old Saturn rockets). And only really complex missions (eg Hubble servicing) require people at all. Even alot of good science experimentation can simply be prepackaged and sent up on a cheap rocket.

As for the 'space station', it's primary mission seems to be simply to give the shuttle a reason to exist. It does little science, is very expensive, and seems to have become just a tourist destination for the filthy rich (more tourists have visited it than actual scientists).

While I understand the Wow! effect the shuttle has, I have to question if that's worth the $$ getting poured into it. We actually get very little "ROI" from launching the thing. NASA has many wonderful programs; the shuttle isn't one of them. Many others are terribly under-funded as a consequence of our addiction to blasting people into space simply to go round and round. Almost no meaningful science is being done by these missions. Certainly not billions of dollars worth, which is what the manned program costs every year . . .). Oh, well, I guess this is just chump-change compared to the Iraq war and the 'bailout'.

Where the shuttle went wrong

Richard, Sydney, Australia — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:58:03 GMT

There is a lot of naive misinformed opinions being released here, but I can't let this one go, from Daniel:

"The Apollo program is what built America's technology, economy and military superiority. It paid for the research that launched the electronics industry..."

What a bunch of hogwash. The Apollo program did nothing but prove what we could do with 1950s technology if we put our minds to it. And someone alluded to Apollo 13 as an example of how robust the technology was. Good Grief! They only just made it back, and only because of half the planet racking their brains to think of some kind of chewing-gum and baling wire fix that might hold the thing together long enough.

I have seen the Apollo hardware, and I'd go over Niagara Falls in a wooden barrel before I would get in one of those capsules.

"It paid for the research that launched the electronics industry..."

I don't think so. As has always been the case, war in all its disgusting forms is where all these innovations come from. Oh, yeah; that is, the ones that don't come from reverse-engineering the UFO they've got hidden at Area 51.