EricW Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 I hate the Space Shuttle. The Space Shuttle has to be one of the biggest jokes ever perpetrated on America. It was originally billed as a "Space Truck," an eminently utilitarian vehicle. 25 years later, the "Space Truck" is nowhere to be seen. What we got was a Space Jaguar: something that costs way more than it should and is always broken. The current bill for the Space Shuttle program is $150 Billion. That's $1.3 Billion dollars every time we light the candle....provided the candle isn't broken today. In return, we have gotten absolutely zip in the way of science. Ant farms in space, mice in space, and growing rutabagas in space don't count as science. The Space Station is useless. The Hubble doesn't count either. There were vastly cheaper ways to launch the Hubble. And now that the Shuttle has fallen on hard times, the one thing we've put into space that EVERYONE seems to marvel at, the Hubble, is destined to be burned to a cinder once its remaining gyros fail. Thanks Space Shuttle. The Shuttle is a marvel in bad economics. There is nothing in low-earth-orbit that the Shuttle can do or retrieve that justifies the cost of the program. Let's say we want the Shuttle to just break even in it's operations. OK, we'll pretend there's gold just over that stratospheric rainbow. If the Shuttle could bring back solid gold, and we valued gold at $500 an ounce, it would have to bring back over 81 tons of gold each time it flew. Unfortunately, the shuttle's payload is only 65,000 pounds, so we'll be about 100,000 pounds of gold short when we land. Every time I see the Space Shuttle, I want to shoot my television. We have done so much better better science for so much less. We could send a dozen Mars Rovers to our neighbor planet for every shuttle flight. We could send multiple probes out into the solar system and beyond. We could be on our way to visit other stars, maybe even another solar system. Apparently there's another planet in our own solar system that needs investigating. Instead, we're stuck with history's most expensive and most fruitless flagpole sitting program. And I hate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Hayden Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Great rant! I won't even ask about the $$ Billons to go to Mars... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricW Posted July 30, 2005 Author Share Posted July 30, 2005 I won't even ask about the $$ Billons to go to Mars... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> There's just one, itsy-bitsy, teeny weeny problem with Mars: the absence of a magnetic field to shield it from all the solar and cosmic radiation hitting it. How is life supposed to evolve in a place that's constantly being sterilized? How are people supposed to live there long term? Everybody wants to go on the roadtrip. Nobody wants to talk about what to do when they get there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 The Shuttle is a marvel in bad economics. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And an excellent example of what happens when you let the government steal large amounts of money from it's citizens that it can freely spend on stupid s**t with no accountability for it... Hey, just think - at least it was built by the *lowest* bidder.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al503 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Regardless of whether the mission/purpose/goal/program/etc., has merit or not or even works (I know, details, details), having worked on various govt. programs, I can attest to the GROSS waste of taxpayer $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al503 Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Hey, just think - at least it was built by the *lowest* bidder.... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, the lowest bidder rarely gets the job. The contractor that represents the 'best value' gets the job. On paper, that means the contractor that has experience, background, expertise, etc. In reality, it's usually Boeing or whoever has the best lobbyists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Absolutely Agreed Eric! NASA is the biggest impediment there is to getting the human race into space. Until they get outa the way, we aren't going to get down to a reasonable cost per kilo to boost and until that happens, we aren't getting there via a US launch machine. Let's just hope that NASA doesn't succeed in keeping everyone eles's cost per kilo to orbit sky high. -- Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiG Lady Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Until we get past the current fuel/propellant technology we keep insisting on using, we'll continue to shove cumbersome, expensive things into the sky with little hope of recouping the costs OR of being safe and lightweight. Mars? Ha! Mars is, in part, a 'why bother?' idea at this stage. The environment there is so hostile to Earth life that it's silly to even think about "living" there. Why'n hell would we WANT to, even...?? I'm all for maybe sending a few more mechanized investigative gadgets up there if we can ju$tify it, but let's not talk about a Mars Colony and the totally unimaginable expense that venture would be even if it WERE successful. Crap, if you think the Shuttle disaster was bad, imagine a whole Mars Colony (of ANY size!) wiped out in an instant by one teensy flaw or problem in the system. Or wiped out before it even GOT there, more like. Let's talk about JOBS for Americans here at home... not about multi-billion-dollar show-off boondoggles in 'space'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierruiggi Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Also, many lives have been lost in the 2 Space Shuttle tragedies... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Actually, the lowest bidder rarely gets the job. The contractor that represents the 'best value' gets the job. On paper, that means the contractor that has experience, background, expertise, etc. In reality, it's usually Boeing or whoever has the best lobbyists. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My direct experience is only w/ lowest bidder situations, both as a seller, and as a government employee - but I was more referencing the common cliche.... I'll agree with you re: wastage, though - again based on my direct experience, if not the many examples of inefficiency in plain view Siggy, the only reasons I've ever been able to come up with for heading to Mars is pure scientific interest, and as a potential source of raw materials at some point in the future. I can't see any other reasons (and those are thin reasons to spend that kind of money). Maybe someone is smarter than me If you want to see jobs in America, we need a boosted economy. Historically, the best way to do that would be to cancel the space program (much as I do enjoy the few rewards from it, being a geek and all - I still think there was a lot of "cool factor" in going to the moon), and several many other government programs, and return all the tax money to individuals who can spend it (ie, you and me and every other working schmoe). Then watch the jobless rate drop to nothing... Rant rant rant... sorry BTW - if this weren't a hate thread, I'd point you at one of my favorite results from the whole series of "earth to moon" projects ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dajarrel Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Instead, we're stuck with history's most expensive and most fruitless flagpole sitting program. And I hate it. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> [/drift on] Future topic: "What would I replace the space shuttle with?" 1000 words or less. Fanciful or factual, what difference does it make while we are fixin' the world. [/drift off] and to keep on topic.... I hate that the space shuttle has such problems. I believe the problem with the space shuttle is that NASA, US gov, or whoever, lost thier vision. No developement. I personally like the space shuttle but it sure is getting old. Time for the next generation to come along. FWIW dj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoNsTeR Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 Awesome rant. Here's to private space flight! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heath Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 It's got wings and it goes in space. Why the hell would anything in space need wings? It's got windows that takes a crew of four PhD's 3 weeks to polish after every mission. Why the hell does it need windows? It's also got a 2% failure rate. Haven't these guys heard of five nines reliability? Propulsion technology being what it is, it's much cheaper to put things in space with 50's technology than with the crap on the space shuttle. Custom-built one-off cryo parts are damned expensive. Build something from COTS stuff and fly it around. Private industry would be doing that, but it's hard to compete when all of your competitors are subsidized by the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zhunter Posted July 30, 2005 Share Posted July 30, 2005 2 days ago, my kids (aged 9 and 10 ) asked, "Dad, what does the space shuttle do?" (Living in Florida, we see it go up fairly often) I thought for a minute, they repeated their question, thinking I had not heard them. I told them I was trying to think of a good reason for the shuttle, but could not think of ONE good reason that has had any positive result!!!! NUFF Said!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 I agree with the sentiment. However the way I look at it, the shuttle was the first of its kind. It turns out like all prototypes it has countless flaws and pitfalls, but discovering those is its job. I think we are long overdue for a replacement with a real orbit truck. I think we need to thank the shuttle fleet for all its work and for all the things it has taught us, some bad some good, and tow them to a museum. In retrospective its is clear what went wrong and what the mistakes where, but almost 30 years ago when the design started we didn't know those things. Now we do. Its time to stop wasting money and build a replacement that does what we need, not what we thought we where going to need and turned up to be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrettone Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Eric W: I appreciate your rant. What started out as a noble cause to explore alternative places to live (even temporarily...like a space station) in case of a cataclysmic event on Earth, have gone by the wayside. I agree with having options in case of catastrophy to repopulate at a later date, but somewhere, things went wrong. Good rant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Thanks. I always feel like a grinch whenever the shuttle launches, because it is such a huge money suck. Nice to know someone shares the same sentiments. If we had a Trilllion dollar surplus, go to the moon, go to Mars, whatever. But that is not our present situation. Someone needs to explain the concept of opportunity cost to the Bozo folks who keep approving this budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooter Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 Trillions of dollars wasted also means lots of JOBS. Bureaucracy is also another reason why the project cost so much. I had a professor who worked for NASA in their summer program. They had these flowmeters that require refurbishing and recalibration after each use due to the corrosive liquids used. There's something like over 1000 flowmeters between the launch pad and shuttle. It was something like $6 million to refurbish the flowmeters per flight. He designed a super simple flowmeter that cost almost nothing to refurbish and was far more accurate. NASA even thought about getting a patent, but the patent attorneys deemed it too simple for a patent. Well, in the end, they decided they couldn't use it because it would cost too much money to redesign all the systems to use this super simple and cheap flowmeter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 (edited) it's just 1% of all the money spent on welfare. it's not wasted money. lynn oops! i'm sorry, it's less than 1% Edited July 31, 2005 by lynn jones Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XRe Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 it's just 1% of all the money spent on welfare. it's not wasted money.oops! i'm sorry, it's less than 1% <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Dude, that's a whole other rant!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TriggerT Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 I watched a special on an idea a company has come up with for a "Space Elevator." Now that sounds just way too crazy to work, but so far not a single expert has been able to come up with a reason why the way this company is proposing to make this thing wouldn't work. I will believe it when I see it (right along with the chunnel from NY to London) but it is an interesting idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aXXman Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 I'm sure if they ever made anything like that some fruity terrorist would try to destroy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dunn Posted July 31, 2005 Share Posted July 31, 2005 It is so wasted money! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErikW Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 EricW: Huzzah! Thanks for a great rant. lynn jones: The space shuttle program is a welfare program. And I don't think your 1% figure takes into account other welfare programs like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lynn jones Posted August 1, 2005 Share Posted August 1, 2005 ok, it's a welfare system, but one that gives back. not one that just sucks the economy dry. don't be sparky, lynn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now