...And the old heap is off the ground.

[Tsukiyumi]

Do you think someone finally gave them a jump, or did they have to call AAA?

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/NAS ... s_999.html

[Monroe]

Old Heap is a good term for it. They really need to come up with newer shuttles. We can't be using the same fleet over and over. If only we had some money to spare on space dust instead of sand dust.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Amazing, what is supposed to be the most advanced vehicle of spaceflight is delayed by two months because it can't tell how much gas is in it's tank.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Old Heap is a good term for it. They really need to come up with newer shuttles. We can't be using the same fleet over and over. If only we had some money to spare on space dust instead of sand dust.

Scrap shuttles and the concept. expendable spacecraft are the way to go. They're cheaper, and easier to use. Shuttles have to spend weeks or even months getting repaired and refitted for their next launch, and even longer for refits. You can just build upgraded expendable ships.

[Sionnach Glic]

Agreed, Blackstar. From what I've heard, one-shot ships that just go straight up and crash back to the ground are a good deal cheaper to make and launch.
That's not that surprising, when you consider that the Shuttle itself would pretty much need a complete overhaul after each launch. Given how old these things are, it's only a matter of time before we get another Challenger or Columbia.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Agreed, Blackstar. From what I've heard, one-shot ships that just go straight up and crash back to the ground are a good deal cheaper to make and launch.
That's not that surprising, when you consider that the Shuttle itself would pretty much need a complete overhaul after each launch. Given how old these things are, it's only a matter of time before we get another Challenger or Columbia.

The Russians, despite having a cheaper budget, can launch three Soyuz-class ships and two Progress-class unmanned cargo ships, or it could be the other way around. I'm not totally sure.

NASA has realized this, and the Orion-class spacecraft will be in service in 2014 or 2015. Essentially it is a larger 21st century version of the Apollo-class ships.

When I did a paper for High School one of the things I came to realize was the shuttle was built to do all sorts of amazing stuff, but due to budget cuts, and the Challanger incident, the shuttle fell short and is rarely used to it's full potential. Only a handful of large satalites and parts of the ISS have ever pushed the shuttle to its full capacity.

In fact the Russian's shuttles were better but their budget was too small. They were better looking too IMO. Could take heavier loads, larger size, and safer.

The Energia rocket was not covered in foam, the shedding of which led to the destruction of Columbia. In addition, the booster rockets were not constructed in segments vulnerable to leakage through O-rings, which caused the destruction of Challenger. However, the liquid fuel for the booster rockets (see above) would have made them less easy to prepare - and hold ready - for flight than solid rocket fuel in the shuttle boosters and in addition represented a potential explosive hazard on the ground. Comparison should be drawn with the problems encountered with Soviet era liquid fuelled ICBMs (e.g., SS-18s vs. Minuteman solid rocket fuelled ICBMs of the same era in the USA) which could only remain fuelled for a short period due to the toxicity/corrosive effects of the fuels themselves.

So, the Buran program could've avoided both accidents. The US shuttle uses Solid Rocket Boosters, which one astronout said something along the lines of "I wouldn't get close to those things if I didn't have to." The Buran system was far safer. Too bad the Russian system was never fully realized. The russians may have stolen the idea, but you gotta give them credit, they don't just steal things, they improve them.

[Mikey]

The Buran was a great idea, but its only a safer system in theory. If aactually applied in long-term service... who knows?

As far as the NASA shuttle program, it's not perfect - but who's doing better? The ESA? I think not.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

The Buran was a great idea, but its only a safer system in theory. If aactually applied in long-term service... who knows?

As far as the NASA shuttle program, it's not perfect - but who's doing better? The ESA? I think not.

Well if you figure in success vs. budget I'd say the Russians. NASA has a bigger budget but is lucky to get the shuttles off the ground more then four times a year. If it wasn't for the ISS the shuttles would've been retired long ago. I would love to see what the Russian space program could do with a bigger budget.

[Mikey]

The disappointing lack of regular launch and advancement the NASA provides is certainly true; but "success v. budget" is not a valid metric. "Success" is a metric. We can say that the Buran program seemd to be a better idea, or that we appreciate it more; but it's impossible to truthfully say that it IS better, safer, or anything. Whether the reason was lack of funding or anything else, Buran has NOT been as succesful as the Space Shuttle program.

Now, I seem to see a global tendency to knock NASA for ill-spent funds, lack of continuous success, for not developing a shuttle alternative, for the technical problems which have been plaguing the shuttles, and for doing this or not doing that. Pointing out a fact is fine; but Europeans, for example, have no place to knock NASA until the ESA supercedes them. If NASA is so terrible, why are they still the gold standard? Why hasn't anyone else done anything better?

[Blackstar the Chakat]

Why hasn't anyone else done anything better?

I was under the impressian they have the largest budget of any space program. Same reason why no one has a military as large as the US.

Hey, here's an interesting fact: Each Nimitz-class carrier costs twice as much as an American Space Shuttle. We have 9 carriers and a 10th under construction but only 5 shuttles were built. Really shows where the US's priority is.

[Monroe]

That's amazing they only cost twice as much. Shows you just how expensive each shuttle is.

[Mikey]

I'm glad our priority is here on Earth, where people actually LIVE, rather than anywhere else.

And of course NASA has a larger budget than any other agency. I was making a point when writing that post. It's very easy for people from outside the US to complain about what NASA has or hasn't done, but such complaints are invalid when those people's home countries haven't done anything more worthwhile - for fiscal or other reasons.

[Blackstar the Chakat]

I'm glad our priority is here on Earth, where people actually LIVE, rather than anywhere else.

Rather then doing stuff in space where we can learn stuff that can help us? Now not supporting the space program is one thing, but why have a military larger then the rest of the world? The US government spends 20% of their budget on their military, a budget that is also larger then any other country's in the world. Now experiments in space can help people. Or spend it on other things that help people. Don't spend it on stuff intended to blow people up, most of which isn't even used.

And of course NASA has a larger budget than any other agency. I was making a point when writing that post. It's very easy for people from outside the US to complain about what NASA has or hasn't done, but such complaints are invalid when those people's home countries haven't done anything more worthwhile - for fiscal or other reasons.

But what about people in the US, don't we have a right to complain about our money being wasted? [/quote]

[Tsukiyumi]

So, they fixed the spacecraft, and now the German is broken...

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Sic ... s_999.html

[Mikey]

But what about people in the US, don't we have a right to complain about our money being wasted?

Sure. But a simple complaint is not an intelligent response. That complaint should be couched with a suggestion for a solution.

BTW, how do you go from "informing" me that NASA has (by far) the largest budget of any space agency - to telling me that we waste the money elsewhere that should go to them?