if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. the U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). no heavy-lift capability. we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and down from the ISS. it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough to overlap the next generation. why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? the mechanical and aerodynamical components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. i just don't get it. r b-j
OT: *why* are they retiring the shuttle before a replacement is even on the drawing board?
Started by ●June 1, 2011
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Jun 1, 11:24�am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- > defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. �the > U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). �no heavy-lift > capability. �we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and > down from the ISS. > > it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna > let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some > replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). > fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough > astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress > changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix > and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough > to overlap the next generation. > > why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? �the mechanical > and aerodynamical �components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s > technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior > of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. �i > just don't get it. > > r b-jRobert, The Air Force launched the shuttle replacement, X-37B, last April. It is unmanned, and about 0.25 times the size of Nasa's shuttle. On April 23, 2010, the Air Force had a press release that said, in part, "Looking somewhat like a traditional shuttle but at roughly one- quarter the size, the unmanned X-37B Orbital Test Vehicle took off for its maiden space voyage from Cape Canaveral in Florida and reached a low earth orbit late in the day." So, heavy-lift capability is not completely lost. Regards, Maurice Givens p.s. how did you make out with the river battle?
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Jun 1, 11:24�am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> wrote:> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- > defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. �the > U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). �no heavy-lift > capability. �we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and > down from the ISS. > > it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna > let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some > replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). > fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough > astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress > changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix > and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough > to overlap the next generation. > > why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? �the mechanical > and aerodynamical �components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s > technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior > of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. �i > just don't get it. > > r b-jp.s.s This still leaves no "manned" capability!! maurice
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT), maury <maury001@core.com> wrote:>On Jun 1, 11:24=A0am, robert bristow-johnson <r...@audioimagination.com> >wrote: >> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- >> defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. =A0the >> U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). =A0no heavy-lift >> capability. =A0we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and >> down from the ISS. >> >> it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna >> let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some >> replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). >> fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough >> astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress >> changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix >> and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough >> to overlap the next generation. >> >> why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? =A0the mechanical >> and aerodynamical =A0components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s >> technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior >> of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. =A0i >> just don't get it. >> >> r b-j > >p.s.s >This still leaves no "manned" capability!! > >mauriceI think the obvious follow-up question is whether we need manned capability. It certainly adds an enormous amount of cost to the lifter and any mission it's used for. I don't see the wisdom of using the most expensive way possible to get things done. Eric Jacobsen http://www.ericjacobsen.org http://www.dsprelated.com/blogs-1//Eric_Jacobsen.php
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On 06/01/2011 10:58 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote:> On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT), maury<maury001@core.com> > wrote: > >> On Jun 1, 11:24=A0am, robert bristow-johnson<r...@audioimagination.com> >> wrote: >>> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- >>> defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. =A0the >>> U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). =A0no heavy-lift >>> capability. =A0we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and >>> down from the ISS. >>> >>> it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna >>> let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some >>> replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). >>> fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough >>> astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress >>> changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix >>> and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough >>> to overlap the next generation. >>> >>> why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? =A0the mechanical >>> and aerodynamical =A0components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s >>> technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior >>> of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. =A0i >>> just don't get it. >>> >>> r b-j >> >> p.s.s >> This still leaves no "manned" capability!! >> >> maurice > > I think the obvious follow-up question is whether we need manned > capability. It certainly adds an enormous amount of cost to the > lifter and any mission it's used for. I don't see the wisdom of using > the most expensive way possible to get things done.Or to add more nuance: do we need manned capability always. Or, perhaps, why are we doing all this space stuff, anyhow? To the nay-sayers the equation is easy: you can do more science and satellite launches with unmanned rockets. To me the equation is easy, too: we need to get our soft, squishy bodies up into space on a permanent basis. If we want to last forever as a species, or at least as a genus, then we need to gain a permanent foothold, and we need to keep moving ever outward. Eventually, if nothing else, the sun's going to burn up its hydrogen and turn into a red giant. We're working on a deadline here. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Jun 1, 2:15�pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:> On 06/01/2011 10:58 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT), maury<maury...@core.com> > > wrote: > > >> On Jun 1, 11:24=A0am, robert bristow-johnson<r...@audioimagination.com> > >> wrote: > >>> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- > >>> defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. =A0the > >>> U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). =A0no heavy-lift > >>> capability. =A0we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and > >>> down from the ISS. > > >>> it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna > >>> let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some > >>> replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). > >>> fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough > >>> astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress > >>> changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix > >>> and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough > >>> to overlap the next generation. > > >>> why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? =A0the mechanical > >>> and aerodynamical =A0components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s > >>> technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior > >>> of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. =A0i > >>> just don't get it. > > >>> r b-j > > >> p.s.s > >> This still leaves no "manned" capability!! > > >> maurice > > > I think the obvious follow-up question is whether we need manned > > capability. � It certainly adds an enormous amount of cost to the > > lifter and any mission it's used for. �I don't see the wisdom of using > > the most expensive way possible to get things done. > > Or to add more nuance: do we need manned capability always. �Or, > perhaps, why are we doing all this space stuff, anyhow? > > To the nay-sayers the equation is easy: �you can do more science and > satellite launches with unmanned rockets. > > To me the equation is easy, too: we need to get our soft, squishy bodies > up into space on a permanent basis. �If we want to last forever as a > species, or at least as a genus, then we need to gain a permanent > foothold, and we need to keep moving ever outward. > > Eventually, if nothing else, the sun's going to burn up its hydrogen and > turn into a red giant. �We're working on a deadline here. > > -- > > Tim Wescott > Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com > > Do you need to implement control loops in software? > "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. > See details athttp://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -In 5 billion years not only is our sun going move into helium burning, swell up and consume us, but the Andromeda galaxy is going to collide into ours. Things will get real interesting if Andromeda's central massive black hole comes near us. Plus once it starts to get ahold of our matter during the collision, it is likely to turn into a blazar and zap us with an incredibly strong x-ray beam. Carl Sagan was a huge proponent of unmanned planetary missions. So it is not just mindless naysayers saying this. On the other hand the Hubble's repairs could not have been done without humans on the job. So there is a strong argument for humans on some missions but not all. Clay
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Jun 1, 2:15�pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:> On 06/01/2011 10:58 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT), maury<maury...@core.com> > > wrote: > > >> On Jun 1, 11:24=A0am, robert bristow-johnson<r...@audioimagination.com> > >> wrote: > >>> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- > >>> defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. =A0the > >>> U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). =A0no heavy-lift > >>> capability. =A0we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and > >>> down from the ISS. > > >>> it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna > >>> let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some > >>> replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). > >>> fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough > >>> astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress > >>> changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix > >>> and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough > >>> to overlap the next generation. > > >>> why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? =A0the mechanical > >>> and aerodynamical =A0components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s > >>> technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior > >>> of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. =A0i > >>> just don't get it. > > >>> r b-j > > >> p.s.s > >> This still leaves no "manned" capability!! > > >> maurice > > > I think the obvious follow-up question is whether we need manned > > capability. � It certainly adds an enormous amount of cost to the > > lifter and any mission it's used for. �I don't see the wisdom of using > > the most expensive way possible to get things done. > > Or to add more nuance: do we need manned capability always. �Or, > perhaps, why are we doing all this space stuff, anyhow? > > To the nay-sayers the equation is easy: �you can do more science and > satellite launches with unmanned rockets. > > To me the equation is easy, too: we need to get our soft, squishy bodies > up into space on a permanent basis.our andriod descendants will take that torch
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
I am not interested in things that do not affect my life in any way, as well as things for which I do not have any impact. :-) robert bristow-johnson wrote:> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- > defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. the > U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). no heavy-lift > capability. we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and > down from the ISS. > > it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna > let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some > replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). > fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough > astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress > changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix > and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough > to overlap the next generation. > > why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? the mechanical > and aerodynamical components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s > technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior > of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. i > just don't get it. > > r b-j
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:24:07 -0700 (PDT), robert bristow-johnson <rbj@audioimagination.com> wrote:>if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- >defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. the >U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). no heavy-lift >capability. we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to and >down from the ISS. > >it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna >let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some >replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). >fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough >astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress >changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fix >and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enough >to overlap the next generation. > >why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? the mechanical >and aerodynamical components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s >technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior >of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. i >just don't get it.AAUI, competing mission profiles meant that the shuttle fleet ended up as an odd hybrid of heavy lift and manned-transport vehicle. Capabilities such as the robot arm coupled with the relatively large mass certainly helped (a lot!) on specialized missions like the Hubble repair runs, but in general it's probably much more cost effective to have separate crew lift and bulk cargo systems. Even for a future Hubble-like mission, a separate "repair station" and crew capsule may make sense. Drop the repair station back into LEO hibernation between deployments, perhaps, rather than all the way back to the bottom of the gravity well. -- Rich Webb Norfolk, VA
Reply by ●June 1, 20112011-06-01
On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 12:23:55 -0700 (PDT), Clay <clay@claysturner.com> wrote:>On Jun 1, 2:15=A0pm, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> On 06/01/2011 10:58 AM, Eric Jacobsen wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > On Wed, 1 Jun 2011 09:42:44 -0700 (PDT), maury<maury...@core.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> On Jun 1, 11:24=3DA0am, robert bristow-johnson<r...@audioimagination.c= >om> >> >> wrote: >> >>> if there *is* an American replacement to the shuttle that is well- >> >>> defined (with a name and description), i haven't heard about it. =3DA= >0the >> >>> U.S. has no manned space capability (after Atlantis). =3DA0no heavy-l= >ift >> >>> capability. =3DA0we'll be depending on the Rooskies to get us up to a= >nd >> >>> down from the ISS. >> >> >>> it reminds me of the time, about a decade ago, that they were gonna >> >>> let the Hubble space telescope slide by (at least there was some >> >>> replacement that was expected to go up in, what, the 2020s). >> >>> fortunately the stupidity of that waste was objected to by enough >> >>> astronomers and other influential scientists that some in Congress >> >>> changed their minds about funding one more shuttle trip up to HST, fi= >x >> >>> and update what they can and the HST will live, hopefully, long enoug= >h >> >>> to overlap the next generation. >> >> >>> why couldn't they have done that with the Shuttles? =3DA0the mechanic= >al >> >>> and aerodynamical =3DA0components would still be the "obsolete" 1980s >> >>> technology, but the electronics and controls and such in the interior >> >>> of the craft could be updated to reasonably current technology. =3DA0= >i >> >>> just don't get it. >> >> >>> r b-j >> >> >> p.s.s >> >> This still leaves no "manned" capability!! >> >> >> maurice >> >> > I think the obvious follow-up question is whether we need manned >> > capability. =A0 It certainly adds an enormous amount of cost to the >> > lifter and any mission it's used for. =A0I don't see the wisdom of usin= >g >> > the most expensive way possible to get things done. >> >> Or to add more nuance: do we need manned capability always. =A0Or, >> perhaps, why are we doing all this space stuff, anyhow? >> >> To the nay-sayers the equation is easy: =A0you can do more science and >> satellite launches with unmanned rockets. >> >> To me the equation is easy, too: we need to get our soft, squishy bodies >> up into space on a permanent basis. =A0If we want to last forever as a >> species, or at least as a genus, then we need to gain a permanent >> foothold, and we need to keep moving ever outward. >> >> Eventually, if nothing else, the sun's going to burn up its hydrogen and >> turn into a red giant. =A0We're working on a deadline here. >> >> -- >> >> Tim Wescott >> Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com >> >> Do you need to implement control loops in software? >> "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. >> See details athttp://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html- Hide quote= >d text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > >In 5 billion years not only is our sun going move into helium burning, >swell up and consume us, but the Andromeda galaxy is going to collide >into ours. Things will get real interesting if Andromeda's central >massive black hole comes near us. Plus once it starts to get ahold of >our matter during the collision, it is likely to turn into a blazar >and zap us with an incredibly strong x-ray beam.And we can assume that lots of technology will advance naturally during that time, so that sorting out things needed to go elsewhere (if possible, which I doubt) will be much less expensive to accomplish when the time comes. Right now it's very expensive to develop manned space flight and we won't need it for eons. The argument that we may need it to propagate the species throughout the universe (aka, pollute the universe with mankind, who can't even take care of their own planet), so we need to bear an enormous expense to develop it now just doesn't make sense to me.>Carl Sagan was a huge proponent of unmanned planetary missions. So it >is not just mindless naysayers saying this. On the other hand the >Hubble's repairs could not have been done without humans on the job. >So there is a strong argument for humans on some missions but not >all. > >ClayOTOH, the cost of launching the shuttle to fix the Hubble was enormous compared to the money they saved on skimping on the ground tests that would have found the problem pre-launch. I do see value to having manned space flight capability, it's just that that value seems low compared to the cost when other methods are available. Eric Jacobsen http://www.ericjacobsen.org http://www.dsprelated.com/blogs-1//Eric_Jacobsen.php
