Leave one Space Shuttle Operational?

Should the United States always keep one shuttle mothballed but fully operational and updated until we have another way into orbit?

We shouldn't have stopped the program until we had a replacement in place.

The Giant Noodle said:

Should the United States always keep one shuttle mothballed but fully operational and updated until we have another way into orbit?

Click to expand...

Yes. IMO it was stupid to not have a new one out by now. Blame the Feds on that one for not giving enough money to NASA for that purpose.

I certainly have no inside info re the shuttle, but we typically didnt go from black to grey with aircraft until the aircraft was already obsolete and its replacement was already operational. I sure as hell hope thats the case with the space program, otherwise, the decommisioning of the entire shuttle fleet is just about the stupidest thing this president has done.

VanceMack said:

I certainly have no inside info re the shuttle, but we typically didnt go from black to grey with aircraft until the aircraft was already obsolete and its replacement was already operational. I sure as hell hope thats the case with the space program, otherwise, the decommisioning of the entire shuttle fleet is just about the stupidest thing this president has done.

Click to expand...

The shuttles are already decommisioned and we are currently relying on Russia to get into space. From what I have heard Obama does not want NASA to build anymore. What he wants to do is make going into space an international deal...complete with covering the cost of building new space shuttles. While its not a bad idea in and of itself and I wouldn't mind something like it happening I consider not building one for ourselves to be highly stupid and irresponsible.

For seven years we didn't have Apollo and then the Shuttle came. That took nearly 4 years. The best plan is to just stop and force the next program instead of constantly looking in the past. The Shuttle was great but we need to move on.

Yes, we should not be reliant on other countries to get people into space.

Mothballed perhaps

But shutting down the shuttle program is a good idea. Private industry will now have the opportunity to develop a private space launch system. Especially as getting into space is rather routine in comparison to 40 years ago. Nasa should be focusing on the next step of space exploration, instead of hualing cargo to earth orbit

Lord Tammerlain said:

Mothballed perhaps

But shutting down the shuttle program is a good idea. Private industry will now have the opportunity to develop a private space launch system. Especially as getting into space is rather routine in comparison to 40 years ago. Nasa should be focusing on the next step of space exploration, instead of hualing cargo to earth orbit

Click to expand...

Do you honestly believe that private companies are going to do what is good for this country? That private companies will be allowed by the government to put up satellites that are meant to be kept secret for national security reasons?

There is nothing stopping private companies from making thier own versions/types of shuttles. They can do it right now. It does not mean that the government should not also invest in space flight.

Kal'Stang said:

The shuttles are already decommisioned and we are currently relying on Russia to get into space. From what I have heard Obama does not want NASA to build anymore. What he wants to do is make going into space an international deal...complete with covering the cost of building new space shuttles. While its not a bad idea in and of itself and I wouldn't mind something like it happening I consider not building one for ourselves to be highly stupid and irresponsible.

Click to expand...

It's not supposed to be the role of the government to tax individuals and/or future generations of individuals (i. e. children) to spend money on space vessels.

That being said, the shuttle program was a monumental waste of money. Russia knew that when they built their Buran shuttle, which was more advanced than any US shuttle, and later scrapped it.

The government should get out of space altogether. Let private individuals and organizations and/or Russia handle it. No more taxing people for space.

Kal'Stang said:

Do you honestly believe that private companies are going to do what is good for this country? That private companies will be allowed by the government to put up satellites that are meant to be kept secret for national security reasons?

Click to expand...

Private companies already control the government via lobbying.

The problem is that once lobbied, the US government taxes people and/or future generations to fund the projects favored by the lobbying. And that's not cool.

I don't want to be forced to pay for someone else's agenda. Let each individual voluntarily contribute to various pots for space exploration, depending on their interest.

hallam said:

For seven years we didn't have Apollo and then the Shuttle came. That took nearly 4 years. The best plan is to just stop and force the next program instead of constantly looking in the past. The Shuttle was great but we need to move on.

Click to expand...

Move on is putting it mildly. There is no real space exploration until some sort of faster-than-light transport system (i. e. warp drive, teleportation) has been developed.

IMHO, money and time would be better spent on physicists working on a theoretical breakthrough to allow that instead of just hauling more stuff into low earth orbit or into the solar system.

VanceMack said:

I certainly have no inside info re the shuttle, but we typically didnt go from black to grey with aircraft until the aircraft was already obsolete and its replacement was already operational. I sure as hell hope thats the case with the space program, otherwise, the decommisioning of the entire shuttle fleet is just about the stupidest thing this president has done.

Click to expand...

It was a smart move, and should've been done years ago. The shuttle program is one more reason for the debt disaster we're in.

solletica said:

It's not supposed to be the role of the government to tax individuals and/or future generations of individuals (i. e. children) to spend money on space vessels.

Click to expand...

Actually it is. For the simple fact that it is the governments job to provide security for this nation. What security is there if every other nation has vehicles, satellites, and possible weapons in space and we don't?

solletica said:

That being said, the shuttle program was a monumental waste of money. Russia knew that when they built their Buran shuttle, which was more advanced than any US shuttle, and later scrapped it.

Click to expand...

Is that why we are currently relying on the Russians to get our people into space and onto the ISS? (which also has russian cosmonauts on it) You also realize that it is due to the space shuttle program that we currently have many things that we didn't have before? Such as your GPS, cell phones...and the list goes on and on.

solletica said:

The government should get out of space altogether. Let private individuals and organizations and/or Russia handle it. No more taxing people for space.

Click to expand...

So what about NEO's? Think a private company is going to spend money on something which has no profit value?

Kal'Stang said:

Actually it is. For the simple fact that it is the governments job to provide security for this nation. What security is there if every other nation has vehicles, satellites, and possible weapons in space and we don't?

Click to expand...

The US govt is doing a lousy job of providing security, as has become evident on 9/11 and w/the useless Transportation Groping Administration.

And the reason is that the govt does not act in the interests of the people, but rather only in the interests of the private firms that lobby it. The so-called "defense" spending of the US is merely a taxpayer funded payoff for contractors who want to peddle their useless toys (the latest tanks and planes) that have proven to be useless against modern (guerilla-type) threats.

IMHO, the Framers made a huge blunder when they wrote the "provide for the common defence" clause.

Kal'Stang said:

Is that why we are currently relying on the Russians to get our people into space and onto the ISS? (which also has russian cosmonauts on it) You also realize that it is due to the space shuttle program that we currently have many things that we didn't have before? Such as your GPS, cell phones...and the list goes on and on.

Click to expand...

GPS and cell phones can be made to work without satellites, using land-based towers and undersea fiber cabling, and all those already exist, and cost much less to build/maintain.

Kal'Stang said:

So what about NEO's? Think a private company is going to spend money on something which has no profit value?

Click to expand...

In most cases, no. However, private institutions/individuals do occasionally fund the causes that interest them, including space exploration, i. e. SpaceShipOne funded by Burt Rutan and Paul Allen. And that's all we need. Furthermore, for space exploration to advance requires theoretical breakthroughs, and that requires great minds and a lot of pencil and paper.

Instead of the govt taxing individuals to build and deploy more low Earth orbit junk, voluntary donations should be collected from individuals and institutions to fund physicists to work on those breakthroughs. Without warp drive/teleportation, space is pretty much off limits anyway, so theory advancement is where the money should be spent.

solletica said:

The US govt is doing a lousy job of providing security, as has become evident on 9/11 and w/the useless Transportation Groping Administration.

Click to expand...

They are? Tell me...when was the last time the US was invaded? I know of twice that we have been attacked but I can't think of any time that we have been invaded in the last 60 years. Not that it matters. Even the best defense has its flaws which others can take advantage of so saying the the US gov is doing a lousy job based upon a couple of instances is idiotic imo.

solletica said:

And the reason is that the govt does not act in the interests of the people, but rather only in the interests of the private firms that lobby it. The so-called "defense" spending of the US is merely a taxpayer funded payoff for contractors who want to peddle their useless toys (the latest tanks and planes) that have proven to be useless against modern (guerilla-type) threats.

Click to expand...

Really? Then what happened during the civil wars days? Civil rights days? 9/11 reaction? I could name lots of other things but whats the use? I've got a feeling that it won't matter to you.

solletica said:

IMHO, the Framers made a huge blunder when they wrote the "provide for the common defence" clause.

Click to expand...

LMAO really? Then who do you think should provide for the common defense of America? Private corporations? Yeah, I can really see that working out to everyones benefits.

CEO of a corporation in Alaska: If you want us to protect you then you have to pay us $1000 dollars per month or we will ignore any pleas for help!"

Its funny...you are the one hollering about corporations controlling the government through lobbying (something which you yourself can do also mind you) to the detriment of everyone else and yet you are calling for the government to get out of the space program and to let the corporations do it.

solletica said:

GPS and cell phones can be made to work without satellites, using land-based towers and undersea fiber cabling, and all those already exist, and cost much less to build/maintain.

Click to expand...

So do you think that other countries will allow the US to put land lines and towers on thier soil?

Also what good is an undersea cable or a tower going to be for a ship in the middle of the ocean? Towers only reach so far and cables that run a couple miles deep below the ocean are not accessible to ships.

You are also forgetting that a satellite is a hell of a lot harder for terrorists to attack than a tower or land line.

You also forget that those satellites also look for and detect any possible threat to the US...such as nuclear missiles heading in our direction.

solletica said:

In most cases, no. However, private institutions/individuals do occasionally fund the causes that interest them, including space exploration, i. e. SpaceShipOne funded by Burt Rutan and Paul Allen. And that's all we need. Furthermore, for space exploration to advance requires theoretical breakthroughs, and that requires great minds and a lot of pencil and paper.

Instead of the govt taxing individuals to build and deploy more low Earth orbit junk, voluntary donations should be collected from individuals and institutions to fund physicists to work on those breakthroughs. Without warp drive/teleportation, space is pretty much off limits anyway, so theory advancement is where the money should be spent.

Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea what NEO's are. NEO's are about more than just Earth orbit junk that we put up there, most of which is harmless. NEO's are also about astroids and comets that have the possibility of impacting Earth. Some of those NEO's are out as far as Pluto. What company or private individual is going to spend the money required to map all those astroids just to make sure that they are not a threat to this world? Much less figure out a viable way of getting rid of any that do threaten the world?

solletica said:

It was a smart move, and should've been done years ago. The shuttle program is one more reason for the debt disaster we're in.

Click to expand...

The shuttle programs have been beneficial to science. I have said before that NASA should have and be funded with specific mission goals. However it makes no sense to abandon the program outright and render the shuttles useless.

As for the NASA contribution to the 14.5 trillion dollar debt and climbing...1-its a drop in the bucket and 2-its only a waste if it accomplished nothing. Few scientists would agree with your position on that.

Well I for one will miss the Space Shuttle Fleet. It was like the Johnny Carson of space flight.

The space shuttle program was excellent for its time, but it's obsolete by a good three decades. The private sector can handle routine launches. NASA should be researching new types of transportation.

solletica said:

Move on is putting it mildly. There is no real space exploration until some sort of faster-than-light transport system (i. e. warp drive, teleportation) has been developed.

IMHO, money and time would be better spent on physicists working on a theoretical breakthrough to allow that instead of just hauling more stuff into low earth orbit or into the solar system.

Click to expand...

You're gonna be waiting a long time then, since FTL travel is impossible outside of Star Trek.

Kal'Stang said:

They are? Tell me...when was the last time the US was invaded?

Click to expand...

:lol: nearly every other country in the entire world has been able to repel invasions with a 1000x less military budget than the US. The efficiency of a govt in managing its country's physical security is gauged by what it can accomplish per dollar spent.

So after spending $10 trillion on "defense", being able to deter invasions is nothing to scream about. But since the US govt, after spending approximately that amount since 1980, cannot even stop a bunch of flight school flunkies from piloting a commercial airliner into a major, large financial building (i. e. by scrambling fighters in time, by heeding 75+ warnings of the attacks beforehand), there's no nice way to say it: when it comes to defense, it sucks.

Kal'Stang said:

Really? Then what happened during the civil wars days? Civil rights days? 9/11 reaction? I could name lots of other things but whats the use? I've got a feeling that it won't matter to you.

Click to expand...

What happened in the Civil Wars days is irrelevant because we don't live in that world anymore.

What's relevant is the 21st Century world, where, after 9/11, the US spent nearly 10 years and another trillion dollars or so in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat a Third World organization--the Taliban. When any institution, army, etc., after spending a trillion dollars, cannot defeat such a primitive fighting force--one with a 100,000x smaller military budget--it sucks, period.

In the end, it's very simple: people's money should not be wasted on institutions that have a track record of using that money inefficiency. And on that criteria, the US govt is (as described above) second to none.

Kal'Stang said:

LMAO really? Then who do you think should provide for the common defense of America? Private corporations? Yeah, I can really see that working out to everyones benefits.

CEO of a corporation in Alaska: If you want us to protect you then you have to pay us $1000 dollars per month or we will ignore any pleas for help!"

Click to expand...

Great !

Sure sounds alot better than Uncle Sam's deal: "if you want us to protect you, you have to pay us $10 billion per month, and then maybe we'll be able to stop a bunch of flight school flunkies or teens with explosives in their underwear."

Kal'Stang said:

Its funny...you are the one hollering about corporations controlling the government through lobbying (something which you yourself can do also mind you) to the detriment of everyone else and yet you are calling for the government to get out of the space program and to let the corporations do it.

Click to expand...

I'm all for the private sector doing whatever it wants as long it doesn't steal money from the public via taxes, for the purpose of dumping it in its own pocket (i. e. subsidies) or to advance it's agenda.

If a corporation/private entity wants to spend money on something, fine--but it must do it on its own dime, or from voluntary contributions, not by forcibly taking money from me.

Kal'Stang said:

So do you think that other countries will allow the US to put land lines and towers on thier soil?

Click to expand...

Practically every other country on Earth already has towers on their own soil--towers that can be used to triangulate coordinates (i. e. GPS) provided they work w/standard protocols, and today, they all do (GSM, CDMA, hello?)

Kal'Stang said:

Also what good is an undersea cable or a tower going to be for a ship in the middle of the ocean? Towers only reach so far and cables that run a couple miles deep below the ocean are not accessible to ships.

Click to expand...

Ships at sea have been able to navigate themselves for years without GPS.

Kal'Stang said:

You are also forgetting that a satellite is a hell of a lot harder for terrorists to attack than a tower or land line.

Click to expand...

It's also alot cheaper to simply rebuild the tower after the attack and/or operate redundant towers than maintaining satellites in orbit.

Kal'Stang said:

You also forget that those satellites also look for and detect any possible threat to the US...such as nuclear missiles heading in our direction.

Click to expand...

And, after detecting the nuclear missile, can it stop it?

Kal'Stang said:

You obviously have no idea what NEO's are. NEO's are about more than just Earth orbit junk that we put up there, most of which is harmless. NEO's are also about astroids and comets that have the possibility of impacting Earth. Some of those NEO's are out as far as Pluto. What company or private individual is going to spend the money required to map all those astroids just to make sure that they are not a threat to this world? Much less figure out a viable way of getting rid of any that do threaten the world?

Click to expand...

Right, and the US govt, after spending $10 trillion on defense, still has no defense against NEOs.

I would think a private corporation, funded from private donations, could do a lot better than that.

solletica said:

:lol: nearly every other country in the entire world has been able to repel invasions with a 1000x less military budget than the US. The efficiency of a govt in managing its country's physical security is gauged by what it can accomplish per dollar spent.

So after spending $10 trillion on "defense", being able to deter invasions is nothing to scream about. But since the US govt, after spending approximately that amount since 1980, cannot even stop a bunch of flight school flunkies from piloting a commercial airliner into a major, large financial building (i. e. by scrambling fighters in time, by heeding 75+ warnings of the attacks beforehand), there's no nice way to say it: when it comes to defense, it sucks.



What happened in the Civil Wars days is irrelevant because we don't live in that world anymore.

What's relevant is the 21st Century world, where, after 9/11, the US spent nearly 10 years and another trillion dollars or so in an unsuccessful attempt to defeat a Third World organization--the Taliban. When any institution, army, etc., after spending a trillion dollars, cannot defeat such a primitive fighting force--one with a 100,000x smaller military budget--it sucks, period.

In the end, it's very simple: people's money should not be wasted on institutions that have a track record of using that money inefficiency. And on that criteria, the US govt is (as described above) second to none.



Great !

Sure sounds alot better than Uncle Sam's deal: "if you want us to protect you, you have to pay us $10 billion per month, and then maybe we'll be able to stop a bunch of flight school flunkies or teens with explosives in their underwear."



I'm all for the private sector doing whatever it wants as long it doesn't steal money from the public via taxes, for the purpose of dumping it in its own pocket (i. e. subsidies) or to advance it's agenda.

If a corporation/private entity wants to spend money on something, fine--but it must do it on its own dime, or from voluntary contributions, not by forcibly taking money from me.



Practically every other country on Earth already has towers on their own soil--towers that can be used to triangulate coordinates (i. e. GPS) provided they work w/standard protocols, and today, they all do (GSM, CDMA, hello?)



Ships at sea have been able to navigate themselves for years without GPS.



It's also alot cheaper to simply rebuild the tower after the attack and/or operate redundant towers than maintaining satellites in orbit.



And, after detecting the nuclear missile, can it stop it?



Right, and the US govt, after spending $10 trillion on defense, still has no defense against NEOs.

I would think a private corporation, funded from private donations, could do a lot better than that.

Click to expand...

Agreed 100 percent with your view of the military: it's embarrassingly inefficient and completely unequipped to deal with modern threats. With that said, that doesn't mean that government militaries necessarily suck, just that this one does. The answer is not privatization. I'm not willing to give a bunch of tanks and jet fighters to organizations who's only goal is making money. I can think of one or two ways that might end badly.

VanceMack said:

The shuttle programs have been beneficial to science. I have said before that NASA should have and be funded with specific mission goals. However it makes no sense to abandon the program outright and render the shuttles useless.

As for the NASA contribution to the 14.5 trillion dollar debt and climbing...1-its a drop in the bucket and 2-its only a waste if it accomplished nothing. Few scientists would agree with your position on that.

Click to expand...

Whenever it wanted to transport a person in space, NASA could've accomplished that w/cheaper spacecraft, like the Progress or Soyuz craft used by the Russians. AS for the need for large cargo, that could've been done w/an unmanned vehicle piloted remotely.

In fact, the only reason the US govt is finally scrapping the shuttle program is because it finally came to the (above) realization.

The Giant Noodle said:

Should the United States always keep one shuttle mothballed but fully operational and updated until we have another way into orbit?

Click to expand...

We should seek to spur private investment into space as much as possible and hopefully get this industry as a normal part of the economy. It would be a huge boom.

atrasicarius said:

Agreed 100 percent with your view of the military: it's embarrassingly inefficient and completely unequipped to deal with modern threats. With that said, that doesn't mean that government militaries necessarily suck, just that this one does. The answer is not privatization. I'm not willing to give a bunch of tanks and jet fighters to organizations who's only goal is making money. I can think of one or two ways that might end badly.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the US govt and the private sector are not even separate entities. In reality, powerful organizations within the private sector just rent the US govt for the sole purpose of stealing money from the public (via taxes) to advance their own agenda or merely fatten itself.

The essence of the problem is not that governments are always worse than private firms--they are merely institutions, like their private counterparts.

The problem is that in the good 'ol USA, the government is not hired for specific projects/services voluntarily by the people, based on what the people believe is a sensible use of their money.

Rather, Uncle Sam just steals money from the people to do its own thing, and that's the root of all the inefficiencies.