Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 73 posts

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#11

Post by IanDrake »

jerf wrote: post #7

Yes, when you pour money down the money hole, you do tend to get a few things in return. My real question, which we'll see answered hopefully over the next few years, isn't "Were the capabilities we got with the shuttle cool ?" but "Was the shuttle a cost-effective way to obtain those capabilities?" And it's really hard to look at the Shuttle program and say yes . In general, we really need to get over whining about…

>we really need to get over whining about what we could have if only we could spend money we don't have.

I don't think it could be said any better. What we do have now is a privatized space race which is priceless.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#12

Post by rubyrescue »

chrismealy wrote: post #5

7. Dead astronauts. The space shuttle was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the robots!

see the article i just posted from 1980 by Gregg Easterbrook on this theme - If you are a critical thinker and haven't read his posts on the shuttle, you should...

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2738448

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#13

Post by nate_meurer »

sambeau wrote: post #3

Interesting points from Prof. Brian Cox: * NASA costs less than 0.13% of GDP and provides 9x return on investment * The entire Shuttle Program cost approximately the same as the UK bank bailout * The Iraq conflict so far has cost significantly more than a manned mission to Mars Source: https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88955884390195202 https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88956654539902976 https://twitter.c…

I nearly vomitted when I read this story on NPR saying that we've spent more on air conditioning in the Afghan war -- around 20 billion -- than NASA's yearly budget.

Fucking politicians.

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/25/137414737/among-the-costs-of-w...

Edit: I understand that the 20 billion figure includes the cost of infrastructure needed to put that air conditioning in place -- fuel for transport, roads that will be unmaintained or actively destroyed soon after the U.S. leaves, etc. Each piece is more frustrating than the last.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#14

Post by rrrazdan »

chrismealy wrote: post #5

7. Dead astronauts. The space shuttle was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the robots!

Not to sound insensitive but 134 flights and 2 accidents is a good enough record. I for one would have volunteered to go, if I was presented with these odds. Robots can't do everything.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#15

Post by jules »

nate_meurer wrote: post #10
gaius wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going outside was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the pizza delivery and cable TV! See, that ain't no way to run a civilization. Without taking (calculated) risks, we're nothing.

Except those risks must be evaluated against the reward. In this present day and age, what exactly do we gain from using humans instead of robots in space that justifies their expense?

The fact that humans can do so many things that robots cannot yet do. Look at it the other way: what is the most robust and fault tolerant adaptive machine with the best motor skills, the best perception system, and quick decision making system that we have available? There are some tasks that robots are better at, but as a general purpose machine humans are still the best. A robot tumbles over or gets stuck behind a stone, and you've just lost your multi billion dollar project.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#17

Post by mcritz »

rrrazdan wrote: post #14
chrismealy wrote: post #5

7. Dead astronauts. The space shuttle was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the robots!

Not to sound insensitive but 134 flights and 2 accidents is a good enough record. I for one would have volunteered to go, if I was presented with these odds. Robots can't do everything.

If STS-135 doesn't catch fire, then that's a 1.48% mortality rate.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#18

Post by rbanffy »

praxeologist wrote: post #6
sambeau wrote: post #3

Interesting points from Prof. Brian Cox: * NASA costs less than 0.13% of GDP and provides 9x return on investment * The entire Shuttle Program cost approximately the same as the UK bank bailout * The Iraq conflict so far has cost significantly more than a manned mission to Mars Source: https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88955884390195202 https://twitter.com/profbriancox/status/88956654539902976 https://twitter.c…

I wonder how he comes to the conclusion of 9x return. I think that we ought to invest in dragons instead and that they would bring returns in orders of magnitude greater than any space program, plus they live longer. Source: http://blog.mises.org/6512/socialist-calculation-versus-magi...

Downvoted for referring mises.org.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#19

Post by rbanffy »

gvb wrote: post #8
mcculley wrote: post #4

Aren't some of these things possible with the X-37B?

Some, with limitations to most of the retained capabilities. The X-37B is substantially smaller and is not manned. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 1. Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. - Probably lost, the main reason the shuttle is gentle is because it carries fragile humans. 2. Bringing cargo down gently. - Partially lost: the cargo bay is much smaller. 3. Safe "proximit…

How many times did we actually need those capabilities?

edit:

> 1. Gentle delivery of large modules for attachment to existing complexes. - Probably lost, the main reason the shuttle is gentle is because it carries fragile humans.

I cannot imagine we don't have any launcher that can do that. Any launcher, when approaching its payload limit, should be very gentle (as in pull low G's). A Saturn V was much gentler than the SRBs in terms of vibration, BTW.

> 2. Bringing cargo down gently. - Partially lost: the cargo bay is much smaller.

How many times did we need that? We could keep one shuttle operational for that kind of mission or just build a bus-sized capsule that would go up empty and land on parachutes.

> 3. Safe "proximity operations." - Lost or at least made much more challenging.

I am not sure I see a scenario where we would need that. The arms attached to the station are adequate for manipulating objects close to it and capable of doing it very precisely. Automated cargo vehicles have been servicing space stations for decades.

> 4. Temporary deployment of a workbench in orbit for experiments, repairs, and other assembly. - Lost.

Do we really gain so much by bringing the workbench back? Why would "temporary" be an advantage here? Couldn't we just pack the supplies and leave the workbench there?

> 6. Flexibility of crew composition. - Lost.

We could have built a larger Apollo capable of launching 7 people. For a fraction of the price, most likely. If putting people in LEO were cheaper (a promise the shuttle never fulfilled) we would have far more diverse crews in space.

And all of that negates the fact the shuttle is useless for anything beyond LEO. And LEO is costly because we have to take everything with us.

Re: What We Lose With the End of the Shuttle Program

#20

Post by OstiaAntica »

rrrazdan wrote: post #14
chrismealy wrote: post #5

7. Dead astronauts. The space shuttle was a bad idea and dangerous from the start. Bring on the robots!

Not to sound insensitive but 134 flights and 2 accidents is a good enough record. I for one would have volunteered to go, if I was presented with these odds. Robots can't do everything.

The risk is worth it, if the mission actually does something. Most of the shuttle missions were just jerking off in orbit or hauling stuff to the space station.

The shuttle program was an unmitigated disaster that set back space exploration a generation. By trying to build a "reusable" space plane we ended up with the most complex machine ever built-- and complexity is dangerous-- that does nothing especially well.

Post reply on HN