NASA Unlikely to Build New Space Shuttle

[oracle]

NASA Unlikely to Build New Space Shuttle (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030201/ap_on_sc/shuttle_future_2)
<font size=1>2 hours, 31 minutes ago</font>

By MATT CRENSON, AP National Writer

NASA is extremely unlikely to build a new space shuttle to replace Columbia, according to experts, leaving the space agency with the three remaining orbiters as its entire fleet for the foreseeable future.

The next generation of reusable space vehicles is at least 10 to 15 years off, said Donald H. Emero, who served as the shuttle's chief engineer from 1989 to 1993.

"I think the country will not invest in any more shuttles," Emero said Saturday.

Until a few years ago, NASA was exploring several designs for vehicles to replace the space shuttle. But NASA's new administrator, Sean O'Keefe, has shelved those designs and committed to operating the space shuttle for the next 10 to 15 years. The fleet's primary mission during that period will be constructing and servicing the international space station.

...


Click here to read more (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/ap/20030201/ap_on_sc/shuttle_future_2)

[MaximumSam]

I don't know if reusable vehicles have much purpose, anyway. We ought to invest more in long range, unmanned probes instead of figuring out whether grass grows in zero gravity.

[2nd_Amendment]

The only purpose of space exploration is to give mankind another frontier. Otherwise we might as well slap together a space station for experiments and otherwise forget the whole thing. Unmanned probes are simply the pointless "compromise" of the left so they can suck up yet more money for welfare and crack-whore housing.

If our history had been populated by such thoughtless cowardice we'd all still be living in Europe, at best.

[rbisrb2]

Oh how the left has changed, it was a Democrat that started NASA.

[MaximumSam]

The only purpose of space exploration is to give mankind another frontier. Otherwise we might as well slap together a space station for experiments and otherwise forget the whole thing. Unmanned probes are simply the pointless "compromise" of the left so they can suck up yet more money for welfare and crack-whore housing.

This ain't Star Trek. Manned expeditions have simply warn out their welcome - we aren't going any further than we did 40 years ago. We aren't learning much from them, and all they do is suck up more and more money in the hopes that someday we will fly around the cosmos like Captain Kirk. But right now, that's a pie in the sky dream.

Unmanned probes, OTOH, give us relevant scientific evidence. They have nothing to do with emotional 'feel good' policies. It is much easier to make probes that go farther and explore more. They are also cheaper and more efficient, as we don't have to include life support systems. Their possibilities are almost limitless, since we don't have to worry about whether they will return or not. They aren't as sexy as sending someone in space to build space stations, but their usefullness is many, many times more.

Of course, this doesn't mean we have to totally abandon manned missions. But as today proves, they are dangerous. As our history proves, they are mostly useless. I think we should be exploring where we want to go before we decide to go there.

[2nd_Amendment]

Sailing the Mediteranean was dangerous. Sailing the Atlantic was dangerous. Flying a small cloth kite with motors and a harness across Kittyhawk was dangerous. But each led to the accomplishment of great things. No probe will accomplish greatness. And nobody will care where they go. They are a means only to insulate us further from risk.

Our response needs to be another and more advnaced craft. One which can easily make it to a lunar touch down. And the day that vehicle kicks up the first lunar dust we should have its' replacement on the drawing boards to go further and faster.

Kirk is not pie in the sky. Enterprise is the goal. Pull your vision up out of the mud.

[aresian]

Unmanned missions do provide useful information, but the real goal of course is to explore and (dare I say it....) conquer space. That involves real manned exploration. It's time to forget about going to Mars. Yes it would be a cool thing to do, but enough of photo op missions. We need to concentrate on useful manned missions. And today that means the Earth-Moon system. The first step is to do away with parts of the UN Space Treaty and begin planning a real lunar colony, colonies at L-4 and L-5 as well as an extended presence in near earth orbit. It will take decades, but it's time to come up with a realistic plan.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

Yes I want to see a lunar colony and put a man on Mars too. However I don't think the public will ever support the cost of such dreams. They want more education, more welfare, more medical care, ect, ect...

[MaximumSam]

2A,

Sailing the Mediteranean was dangerous. Sailing the Atlantic was dangerous. Flying a small cloth kite with motors and a harness across Kittyhawk was dangerous. But each led to the accomplishment of great things. No probe will accomplish greatness. And nobody will care where they go. They are a means only to insulate us further from risk.

I disagree. Voyager was great. The little Mars lander was great. People cared about these things much more than they did about the Columbia space mission. I wasn't even aware there was a Columbia missions until I saw the crash. Why? Because we have reached the limit of what we can practically do with the manned shuttle technology we have. Space is great, and I am not prepared to agree the faction that says we will never send a person farther than the moon, but we should seriously spend more resources on exploring space before we start sending people there. Why do we want to go to the moon? Why do we want to go to Mars? To set up little colonies there? There is a cornucopia of valid scientific research at our fingertips, and we refuse to explore in the vain hopes of flying around the universe in the Enterprise. If we find out more about space, then people will want to go there, instead of the other way around.

[oracle]

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam said:
I wasn't even aware there was a Columbia missions until I saw the crash. Why? Because we have reached the limit of what we can practically do with the manned shuttle technology we have.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it's because shuttle flights had become so common place that they don't get the same media coverage that the early space flights recieved. The same was true in 1986 when the Challenger was lost.

[Warlady]

For the past 43 years, NASA has devoted its facilities, labor force, and expertise to sharing the abundance of technology developments used for its missions to enhance the lives of people spanning the globe.

The NASA Commercial Technology Program has facilitated the transfer of NASA technology to the private sectors. The resulting commercialization has contributed to the development of commercial products and services in the fields of health and medicine, industry, consumer goods, computer technology, and environment. Through distribution and outreach activities, NASA technology has benefited global competition and the economy.

NASA technology spinoffs will be used as an overarching theme behind NASA's GSTW objective to create interactive experiences for students in grades K-12 to discover and explore ways in which NASA technology touches their lives in the areas of communication, food- nutrition, health-medicine, remote sensing, and transportation.

web page (http://education.nasa.gov/gstw2002/whatspinoff.html)



Space technology used to detect and treat heart disease (http://www.karlloren.com/ultrasound/p27.htm)

Space Technology and the science of ecology (http://geo.arc.nasa.gov/sge/casa/investg.html)

[Warlady]

Pushing the Limits of Computer Technology
Using Light and Organic Molecules to Form Materials in Space

May 18, 1999: By using light and organic molecules to form materials in space, NASA scientists may improve both the speed and capabilities of computers.

Right: Dr. Donald Frazier monitors a blue laser light used with thin-film materials.

Led by Dr. Donald Frazier of the Space Sciences Laboratory at the Marshall Space Flight Center, NASA is working with Optron Systems, Inc. in Bedford, Mass., to develop thin-film materials for devices that use both electrons and photons to transmit data. These films could be used in electronic/optical hybrids such as electro-optic computers.

Left: Dr. Steve Paley discusses the the goals of optical computing. Click on the image for a brief RealVideo. The clip is also available in QuickTime format. Free players for QuickTime or RealVideo content are available from the vendors.

In most modern computers, electrons travel between transistor switches on metal wires or traces to gather, process and store information. The optical computers of the future will instead use photons traveling on optical fibers or thin films to perform these functions. But entirely optical computer systems are still far into the future. Right now scientists are focusing on developing hybrids by combining electronics with photonics. Electro-optic hybrids were first made possible around 1978, when researchers realized that photons could respond to electrons through certain media such as lithium niobate (LiNbO3).

To make the thin polymer films for electro-optic applications, NASA scientists dissolve a monomer (the building block of a polymer) in an organic solvent. This solution is then put into a growth cell with a quartz window. An ultraviolet lamp shining through this window creates a chemical reaction, causing a thin polymer film to deposit on the quartz.


Click to read the rest (http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/msad18may99_1.htm)

[Warlady]

The commercial development of the space frontier is one of the greatest opportunities facing America. It is the growth of business into space that will bring the benefits of space down to Earth and enrich the everyday lives of all Americans.

NASA is encouraging businesses to seize this opportunity through the Space Product Development Program and its Commercial Space Centers, to help ensure the continued economic growth of the U.S. and to bring the opportunities for new advances, technological understanding, products and jobs to the public.

SPD NEWS:

STS-107
On Thursday, January 16 2003, Space Shuttle Columbia flew an international mission dedicated to microgravity science by carrying a double Spacehab module filled with over 80 experiments. Many of these STS-107 experiments are managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC), five of which are sponsored by the SPD Program.


web page (http://spd.nasa.gov/)

[Warlady]

[ QUOTE ]
MaximumSam said:
The only purpose of space exploration is to give mankind another frontier. Otherwise we might as well slap together a space station for experiments and otherwise forget the whole thing. Unmanned probes are simply the pointless "compromise" of the left so they can suck up yet more money for welfare and crack-whore housing.

This ain't Star Trek. Manned expeditions have simply warn out their welcome - we aren't going any further than we did 40 years ago. We aren't learning much from them, and all they do is suck up more and more money in the hopes that someday we will fly around the cosmos like Captain Kirk. But right now, that's a pie in the sky dream.

Unmanned probes, OTOH, give us relevant scientific evidence. They have nothing to do with emotional 'feel good' policies. It is much easier to make probes that go farther and explore more. They are also cheaper and more efficient, as we don't have to include life support systems. Their possibilities are almost limitless, since we don't have to worry about whether they will return or not. They aren't as sexy as sending someone in space to build space stations, but their usefullness is many, many times more.

Of course, this doesn't mean we have to totally abandon manned missions. But as today proves, they are dangerous. As our history proves, they are mostly useless. I think we should be exploring where we want to go before we decide to go there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sam I challenge you to prove your statement that history has proven that most manned missions are useless. As for dangerous, NASA has had three incidents, Apollo, Challenger and Columbia in all its years. I'd say that's quite a safety record. Would you end the airline industry for the same reason? Or the automobile industry? The risks way outway the dangers. With your kind of thinking we would still be on horseback living in the dark ages.

[MaximumSam]

Sam I challenge you to prove your statement that history has proven that most manned missions are useless.

There are lots of schools of thought on this, although I found this article to be interesting:

ATLANTA (CNN) -- Sending humans into orbit might capture the imagination but the expensive enterprise does little to advance science, the first paying space tourist told CNN.

Dennis Tito, who paid about $20 million for a jaunt into space last month, said astronauts and cosmonauts must spend almost all their time on mundane tasks.

"Most science in space is being conducted by unmanned vehicles. In my view, there is limited amount of science that takes place on the international space station," the California investment fund manager said.

Tito said he asked one of the residents how much research she had conducted since arriving at the space station months ago.

"'About two days,' was the answer," Tito told participants at a CNN World Report conference in Atlanta on Tuesday.

The daunting logistics of keeping numerous humans in space takes up most of the time of the space station residents, said Tito, who spent a week aboard the orbiting outpost.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/06/01/tito.report/

Anyway, I also reference Voodoo Science by Robert Park. Anyway, my point is not that all manned missions have been useless, but that there usefulness has reached its limit. Instead of spending huge amounts of money to let a person walk around a space station, why not invest the money in technologies that don't need people to operate, and have more scientific value. That doesn't mean unilaterally ending manned missions, but redirecting our funding to a more efficient path.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

An article by a space tourist is not convincing to me. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Warlady]

You're taking the word of a non-scientist space tourist???????? Bwahahahahahahahaha

[Warlady]

Sam you are clueless. I rest my case.

[MaximumSam]

First, the 'space tourist' has infinitely more knowledge of what he saw than you. Second, as I said, most of what I've said can be supported by a book, so go to the library.

OTOH, you seem happy to use the word of NASA, who has to show the potential of space exploration in order to get funding. See any problem with that?

No, it's because shuttle flights had become so common place that they don't get the same media coverage that the early space flights recieved. The same was true in 1986 when the Challenger was lost.

That, and the fact that they don't do anything. I mean, John Glenn and the effects of space on aging? Whoo hoo - that's something to spend taxpayer dollars on.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
First, the 'space tourist' has infinitely more knowledge of what he saw than you. Second, as I said, most of what I've said can be supported by a book, so go to the library.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your sources are one book and a space tourist. This space tourist is not a real astronaut. Nor qualified to discuss anything technical about the space program. As for the book, why don't you tell us who the person is that wrote it (not just his name) and what his experience is in the space program. I don't have time to read the book and then be able to post on this topic about it. That would take quite a while. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

[Chris]

According to an interview I heard today, the Chinese are planning a moon colony, and they are not that far from their first moon mission. I guess we should just let them go ahead and set one up, and not do anything to keep an eye on what they are up to up there.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
Chris said:
According to an interview I heard today, the Chinese are planning a moon colony, and they are not that far from their first moon mission. I guess we should just let them go ahead and set one up, and not do anything to keep an eye on what they are up to up there.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard that same interview. If the Chinese get the moon, they could try to keep us from using it and the space around it. We may need the moon to help us in further exploration. We don't need an enemy of America having more power over us.

[Warlady]

Sam just because you have tunnel vision doesn't mean the rest of us do. If we all thought as you the world would still be considered flat.

[Greymon]

We need to continue the man flights. First, we need to finish the space station. Secondly, we need to have a moon colony. And third, from the moon we need to launch a manned Mars mission.

We have a lot of work to do up there yet.

[aresian]

Actually I think most of what I've read on this threat lately has been right. Most of the manned missions we've sent up lately have been of limited value. Why? Complete lack of vision when it comes to space policy. No one has put forth a coherent long term space strategy in a very long time. Right now we are seeing the results of a program that has become just another teat on the federal hog for congressmen to let their constituents feed at. Manned flight is absolutely necessary as it is one of the steps to permenant human conquest of space. And that conquest is going to do more for humanity than the conquest of the New World. Personally I'd rather have those neoconquistadors be American than anyone else.

[**DONOTDELETE**]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally I'd rather have those neoconquistadors be American than anyone else.

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too!

[Warlady]

[ QUOTE ]
aresian said:
Actually I think most of what I've read on this threat lately has been right. Most of the manned missions we've sent up lately have been of limited value. Why? Complete lack of vision when it comes to space policy. No one has put forth a coherent long term space strategy in a very long time.

[/ QUOTE ]
This sounds like opinion unless you can back it up with facts.

[aresian]

Ok....I'll ask anyone if they can tell me what the vision is for NASA. Where are we going with space exploration?? Does anyone know? The two last big things I remember was a report during Bush the Elder's admin that gave a date of about 2020 for going to Mars. That was pretty much DOA, no one pushed it. Then there was AlGore's "Mission to Planet Earth" which basically was a vision of no vision.

Our space program has become a status symbol. Granted it befits us as we are such a dominant economic and scientific power, but it's like owning a boat just to have it sitting in the driveway. As I've said elsewhere on this board it's just become another teat on the federal hog. Just another way for congressmen to get some pork.

I love the space program, but not the way it's been run. I'm frankly pissed that we've spent the last 30 years wasting our time. All we have to show for three decades is an aging shuttle fleet that never lived up to anywhere near its promise and has lost 40% of it's fleet and a space station that is billions over budget and over a decade behind schedule.

[Warlady]

aresian do you enjoy cable television, beepers, satellite precision bombs, GPS, satellite telephones, internet, life saving medications? Those are just a few of the successes out of the NASA space program. You are the one who said the program is antiquated. I asked you support your claim. I'm not saying you are wrong. Just that I would like to see you support your claim.

[aresian]

Warlady....I'm willing to stipulate that the space program overall has been a tremendous blessing and has been the root of many great inventions. I'm just saying that the way we've been going about it for the past three decades sucks. Not that we haven't gotten something out of it, but that we could, and should, have gotten so much more.

Here's some of the experiments that were on Columbia
A combustion experiment to study how flame balls react in space to help researchers model combustion in car, airplane and rocket engines.

An experiment to find out whether ants tunnel at a slower rate in microgravity.

A photographic investigation searching for huge dust plumes in the Mediterranean and Atlantic that might affect the weather.

An experiment to possibly create a new, commercially viable fragrance from space.


Maybe it's just me....but I'd rather see us carving a lunar colony out of the Moon's soil than trying to find a new perfume. Look at the listing of experiments on the ISS's Expedition Six (http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/background/facts/exp6fact.html) or Columbia (http://spaceresearch.nasa.gov/sts-107/factsheets.html). Most of the experiments have to do with humans living in space. Those could have been done by any human habitat in space. I'm not a leftist saying that the money on space would be better spent here on Earth. I'm saying that the money that we are spending on space could have been better spent in space.

[DesertFox]

I basically agree with you, Aresian, and wonder how anybody can have a vision for a space program with Dimocrats and GOPers both throwing rocks at everything a reasonable person comes up with. With this latest disaster, the country will again spend weeks, months and years (and plenty of public money) deciding on memorials and arguing about whose pain goes deeper.

In 1993 the Democrat Congress, with IIRC plenty of help from Newt Gingrich, cancelled the Superconducting Super Collider, a Big Science program for which the payback wasn't immediately visible. If Congress now put the shuttle program back on, you can be sure the Left, the Right and everyone in-between would have caustic things to say.

I've argued before that we need to go into space, but got my doubts it'll ever happen. The Dimocrat whine machine and politics of personal destruction has so consumed politics that America will spend her very considerable scientific establishment on some equivalent of studying the lint in the national navel.

This isn't just the Dimocrats' fault, either.

[Warlady]

aresian I'm not disagreeing with you but I'd like to hear the other side of the argument on those experiments. I know some experiments are paid for by the private sector. I know some may appear silly to those of us who don't know all the facts concerning those experiments. I agree we should be doing more. With the Dems in Congress we are lucky NASA exists at all.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

The need for a strong space program is obvious. The need for publicly funded art programs that involve artists throwing feces on sculptures is not. Yet, modern liberals tend to prefer the latter (a fact that is truly pathetic).

Sadly, DF is right. "Repubs" in Congress have not been very supportive of the space program either.

[BarryG]

the space progam is the biggest waste of tax payer money, with the possible exception of welfare. its a misguided attempt to find God. hello people! God will not be found in outher space, the way to find God is thru your heart, by admitting to the Lord Jesus Christ that you're a sinner and asking his forgiveness. you won't find it in outer space, because theres nothing out there. and we should quit spending billions of dollars on it and try to instead deal with the problems we already have like crime, drugs and perversion.

[Warlady]

Barry no offense but you're on the wrong planet.

[DesertFox]

Well, BarryG, with a name like that I'd have expected a different tune from your harp.

The space program has little if anything to do with God, except in the sense of humanity being what God meant us to be. It's the old story of The Quest. If we don't have one, we fall into corruption of the heart. We become timorous and afraid.

Man has to strive, to become, not just be. He must risk, and fail, even die, and come back again and again and extend his knowledge of this marvelous Creation God put here for us to grow into.

That's what being a man is about. It's why the angels themselves respect humans.

[Warlady]

Amen Fox. When we cease to learn, cease to explore then we cease to be all that God meant us to be.

[aresian]

Barry, Barry, Barry.....we don't have to spend money going into space to look for God. The Soviets told us they didn't find him when they sent Sputnik up.

All joking aside...going into space has nothing to do with religion. (Although I must admit I have a special little dream about one day humanity building a cathedral on Mons Olympus, but that's just me.) It's about pushing forward into a new frontier. It's what humanity does. Especially Americans.

[RayChuang]

WL,

I think in my personal opinion what Bush really needs to do RIGHT NOW is to tell the American people this: we must set a goal to truly take space exploration to the next level. The goal? Be able to send astronauts to Mars and back safely before 2014, and invite the entire world to come along. Unlike the International Space Station, a manned Mars mission is audacious enough that there would be great interest in pulling it off, to say the least. Wouldn't it be great by 2014 the flags of the USA, Canada, the European Union, the Russian Republic and Japan are flying on Mars? /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/icon16.gif With rockets that use a new generation of very safe pebble-bed nuclear reactors to heat the rocket fuel for extremely high peformance, we're talking a trip to Mars and back that will take at most six weeks per direction in the right conditions! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[DesertFox]

Good idea. And right now IS the time to do it. If he waits so much as a week, the Dimocrats will start blaming Bush and things will run off track.

But I think 2020 a likelier target date.

[Warlady]

I'm not as enamoured with the big red rock as you guys are. But hey. If you want to go I'll tag along. I'll be the bartender.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Mars is a great goal, but I would strongly encourage that we head back to the Moon ASAP. We have the technology to make the trip. The question is: Will Congress get its act together? Back to the moon by next year would be great, and Mars by 2030 seems realistic if the People support it.

[RayChuang]

[ QUOTE ]
DesertFox said:
Good idea. And right now IS the time to do it. If he waits so much as a week, the Dimocrats will start blaming Bush and things will run off track.

But I think 2020 a likelier target date.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, most of the technology is in place to start serious development of a spacecraft that can fly to Mars on a fast-tracked basis. All that is needed is the will of the international space community to pull it off. And I think could happen by 2014.

[aresian]

Drudge is reporting that the Bush Admin is seeking an additional $500 billion for NASA. Those numbers were before Columbia, so who knows now.

As far as Mars all I have to say is : Let's not take another photo op trip just because we can. Let's go back to the moon and begin a real colonization effort. We'll get to Mars eventually. But let's not set some Kennedyesque date to do it by.

I'd love to see Bush announce a plan to go back to the moon, and to go back for good. A Columbia Base on the Luna would be the best fitting tribute.

[ThomasIsUnderrated]

Uh, aresian, I think you mean 500 MILLION. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[DesertFox]

Ray, if it's going to happen, it depends on us. Anybody in any other country who's serious about science comes here. I've noticed that increasingly the names in the polytech schools are increasingly Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, even Iranian. So we already got all the international whatever -- read "brains" -- that we need.

What's missing is the political will. One would hope Bush supplies that.

[aresian]

Damn....I think my subconcious got involved with what it wanted. Yes it's 500 million.