a journey through space and time that took us nowhere

[AndyDT]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/8652590/The-Shuttle-a-journey-through-space-and-time-that-took-us-nowhere.html

What resulted was a badly designed and very dangerous craft. Two Shuttles have been lost, and 14 crew members killed. By 1993, a single launch cost $547 million, $180 million more than Nasa had projected. The complexity of the operation meant that, instead of 779 launches by 1992, Nasa managed just 133 by 2011. Cost and unreliability frightened away customers; Those wishing to put satellites in orbit chose Russian or European space agencies.

“Apollo was a matter of going to the moon and building whatever technology could get us there,” writes the space historian Walter McDougall. “The Shuttle was a matter of building a technology and going wherever it could take us.” But where did it take us? After 133 missions, thousand of orbits and millions of miles, our old friend the Shuttle has taken us back to where we began 30 years ago. Despite all the excitement, drama and tragedy, we’re no nearer an answer about what to do in space.

The only personal response I'd make is that if "us" is the world then we could have been investing more in our own space programmes, instead of expecting NASA to do everything and watching when it fails.

[Perpetual Change]

I honestly think Space Exploration needs to be an international effort. Giving the nations of the world space as another common cause is good in the short term and, also, it's the only way we could even afford getting anywhere with it at this point.

[El Barto]

Aye Carumba.  I've been a pretty vocal critic of NASA and the shuttle program,  but the excerpt from the article is so ridiculous and overblown that I have no interest in reading any more of his opinion.  The shuttle wasn't a good investment at all, but it was every bit as safe and reliable as the Soyuz program,  which is the only viable comparison.  Space exploration is a stunningly dangerous endeavor.  Considering what's involved,  2 accidents in 40+ years isn't bad at all. 

Furthermore,  it's not like there's anybody else really doing this sort of thing.  I don't have any problem with the ESA, but they're hardly a fair comparison to the US or Russian space programs at this point. 

[7StringedBeast]

NASA is about pushing boundaries and continuing the human tradition of learning more about our surroundings.  What NASA does is the embodiment of human curiosity and the need to go further and find more.  NASA has completely changed the world as far as technology goes today.  They have driven technological advances.  I think it's a terrible idea to start breaking NASA down and forgetting them.  If they aren't doing their thing who will?  Exploration and discovery is important.

[AndyDT]

Aye Carumba.  I've been a pretty vocal critic of NASA and the shuttle program,  but the excerpt from the article is so ridiculous and overblown that I have no interest in reading any more of his opinion.  The shuttle wasn't a good investment at all, but it was every bit as safe and reliable as the Soyuz program,  which is the only viable comparison.  Space exploration is a stunningly dangerous endeavor.  Considering what's involved,  2 accidents in 40+ years isn't bad at all. 

Furthermore,  it's not like there's anybody else really doing this sort of thing.  I don't have any problem with the ESA, but they're hardly a fair comparison to the US or Russian space programs at this point. 

I think Soyuz has a better safety record than the Shuttle. The shuttle is 30 years old AIUI.

How do Americans feel knowing they don't have the ability to send humans into space themselves? Apparently this is the first time since the early 1960s although I don't know how or if they did it in between Apollo and the Shuttle. The US is now like the UK having developed space ability and abandoned it leaving other nations to deal with it.

[rumborak]

Once again: Telegraph!

rumborak

[MasterShakezula]

Once again: Telegraph!

rumborak

So, is Telegraph a really poor source of information on the current going-abouts of the world?

[rumborak]

It is uber-UK centric, so other than the basic news facts you can't get much out of it.

rumborak

[MasterShakezula]

Hmm.. what US-ian source would be most comparable to Telegraph?

[rumborak]

Can't really say, I don't know US newspapers well enough (well, the ones in that kind of political spectrum) to make a judgment.

rumborak

[El Barto]

Aye Carumba.  I've been a pretty vocal critic of NASA and the shuttle program,  but the excerpt from the article is so ridiculous and overblown that I have no interest in reading any more of his opinion.  The shuttle wasn't a good investment at all, but it was every bit as safe and reliable as the Soyuz program,  which is the only viable comparison.  Space exploration is a stunningly dangerous endeavor.  Considering what's involved,  2 accidents in 40+ years isn't bad at all. 

Furthermore,  it's not like there's anybody else really doing this sort of thing.  I don't have any problem with the ESA, but they're hardly a fair comparison to the US or Russian space programs at this point. 

I think Soyuz has a better safety record than the Shuttle. The shuttle is 30 years old AIUI.

How do Americans feel knowing they don't have the ability to send humans into space themselves? Apparently this is the first time since the early 1960s although I don't know how or if they did it in between Apollo and the Shuttle. The US is now like the UK having developed space ability and abandoned it leaving other nations to deal with it.

AIUI,  the odds of going up and coming down in one piece are about the same for the shuttle and Soyuz.  Now,  where the risk comes from I'm not sure.  In the case of Challenger,  it was strictly a human problem; a monumentally flawed culture within NASA itself.  Columbia would probably come down to a design flaw with the ET.  Their culture of complacency was certainly a huge player,  but I'm not sure there was anything that would have helped after the damage was done.  I have no idea what caused the Soyuz incidents.  Dr. Millahh turned me on to a fantastic article concerning one of their "mishaps,"  and it appears to be a terrible combination of wretchedly poor design and policy with the USSR. 

Truth be told,  if I had to ride one of those things up,  I wouldn't really like either option.  I'd prefer the shuttle form a design standpoint, but NASA would really scare the hell out of me.

As for how I feel about relying on others for the heavy lifting,  it doesn't bother me at the moment  (though not being able to maintain Hubble troubles me a great deal).  Construction of the ISS is a fine effort,  but sending guys up just to orbit for 10 days is seeming more and more pointless.  Regardless,  it's time for a very new, very large endeavor.  The moon and Mars are much more interesting.  And combine that with faster, better, cheaper,  and we're doing fine.  I'd rather continue exploring with robots and satellites while developing a grander long-term game plan.   To that end,  I suspect we'll continue to be the big-dogs. 

[AndyDT]

The trouble is the Shuttle could carry a big crew up to the ISS to assemble things. Now it's going to have to be automated or more difficult if they want to assemble a moon or Mars ship up there.

[rumborak]

Regardless,  it's time for a very new, very large endeavor.  The moon and Mars are much more interesting.  And combine that with faster, better, cheaper,  and we're doing fine.  I'd rather continue exploring with robots and satellites while developing a grander long-term game plan.   To that end,  I suspect we'll continue to be the big-dogs. 

I see your point, but I personally don't see putting some men on Mars, i.e. just repeating whatever was done on the Moon but a step bigger, being that "big endeavor". The real thing would be colonization; and that should probably be on the Moon, for starters. Because otherwise it will be like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1foQYcb4mw

rumborak

[AndyDT]

Don't they need to generate artificial gravity before they can consider either? AIUI basically you're dying as soon as your in zero gravity so a crew would either be dead or too weak before they even returned from Mars.

[Adami]

Why would anyone die in 0G?

[AndyDT]

Why would anyone die in 0G?

Do you mean why does 0G affect them or does it affect them? It certainly affects humans - there's a rapid deterioration from what I've read. It seems the human body is designed to be put under stress including gravity hence why illness occurs from inactivity and sedentary lifestyles.

[Adami]

Humans are in 0G every time they go into space. I haven't seen anyone die from it.

[El Barto]

Not for the lengths of time that would be required for colonization, though.  Spending a year in space is a real bitch.  Despite daily exercise and suits designed to help bones/muscles,  people still come back looking like Jello.  A trip to Mars and back would take 14 months in travel time alone.  Any attempt at colonization would obviously be much longer. 

That said,  better propulsion would bypass the need for indirect routes,  and the trip could be made in about half the time.  Plus,  there is about 1/3 gravity on Mars, which would certainly help things out a bit, as well. 

[Adami]

Not for the lengths of time that would be required for colonization, though.  Spending a year in space is a real bitch.  Despite daily exercise and suits designed to help bones/muscles,  people still come back looking like Jello.  A trip to Mars and back would take 14 months in travel time alone.  Any attempt at colonization would obviously be much longer. 

That said,  better propulsion would bypass the need for indirect routes,  and the trip could be made in about half the time.  Plus,  there is about 1/3 gravity on Mars, which would certainly help things out a bit, as well. 

I agree, we need warp drive.

[rumborak]

Do we have working ion drives at this point?

rumborak

[AndyDT]

The Dawn probe uses them but acceleration is extremely slow.

[XJDenton]

THe acceleration always will be with ion drives. They make up for it with how long they can accelerate overall.

[rumborak]

Is there an inherent reason (other than engineering) that limits the acceleration? Is it tough to generate the plasma that provides the ions?

rumborak

[XJDenton]

According to wiki the major limitation is simply the power the spacecraft can generate and therefore the acceleration of the ions. I think you also limited to quite a low ion density for the ion optics to work correctly. Its a common problem with detectors used in my field of optics for example.

[zerogravityfat]

The major hurdle of space flight regarding the zero gravity fat is the bone loss. Bones and cartilages grow and sustain their lubrication/regeneration on a need basis. So an obese patient will have micro fractures on their lower extremities in order to strengthen the joins to hold the extra load, and at a certain point, the structure can no longer sustain the weight. On a healthy person, micro fractures occur daily due to stress from over use of muscles (fatigued muscles transfer the load to the skeleton, hence the pain on joints after a long run/walk, etc.) and the bones respond by regeneration. The synovial fluid is also pumped to the joints with reverse osmosis so there is a need for a pressure field. Without it, the joint will not be lubricated, and the cartilage will be damaged from friction increases.

Zero g means zero loading on the joints, hence the fatigue on any astronaut who comes back. Mars mission would be impossible under the current timeline of minimum 1 year and the time spent there.

[rumborak]

Well, we could try to find a way to accelerate (for the first half of the trip) and deccelerate (for the second half) the ship with 1g.
Otherwise, there's always the "rotating dumbbell" design that creates artifical gravity.

rumborak

[zerogravityfat]

not sure why, but the rotating dumbbell doesn't work from what i heard.

[AndyDT]

The major hurdle of space flight regarding the zero gravity fat is the bone loss. Bones and cartilages grow and sustain their lubrication/regeneration on a need basis. So an obese patient will have micro fractures on their lower extremities in order to strengthen the joins to hold the extra load, and at a certain point, the structure can no longer sustain the weight. On a healthy person, micro fractures occur daily due to stress from over use of muscles (fatigued muscles transfer the load to the skeleton, hence the pain on joints after a long run/walk, etc.) and the bones respond by regeneration. The synovial fluid is also pumped to the joints with reverse osmosis so there is a need for a pressure field. Without it, the joint will not be lubricated, and the cartilage will be damaged from friction increases.

Zero g means zero loading on the joints, hence the fatigue on any astronaut who comes back. Mars mission would be impossible under the current timeline of minimum 1 year and the time spent there.

What about white blood cells?

[Chino]

I am a huge fan of astronomy and space. I believe that he shuttle program was a waste of time other than proving we can build stuff in space, which in reality is a huge stepping stone (and will prove vital at some point). Im not against it by any means, but it wasn't worth the cost. However, the Hubble space telescope, the mars rovers, and our deep space probes were worth every penny, at least in my opinion. Maybe it's just me, but I would love to see as much of the cosmos in my lifetime as possible, even at it's ridiculous cost. I have plenty of faith in the privately funded companies reaching into space, especially SpaceX.