The End of an Era

[HoagieOfDoom]

Assuming all goes according to plan, tomorrow will be the last launch of Space Shuttle Atlantis and the end of the Space Shuttle program as a whole. The launch is scheduled for 11:26am EST, and will be able to be viewed at http://www.nasa.gov/externalflash/135_splash/index.html]NASA's official website. I for one will be watching it live; I'm glad it falls on one of my days off.

[robkelk]

It a birthday present I could do without, thanks... (No manned spaceflight from North America for how long after this launch? Ugh.)
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Bob Schroeck]

(No manned spaceflight from North America for how long after this launch? Ugh.)

At least five years, according to what I heard on the radio this morning. And yeah, ugh.
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.

[Rod.H]

If I had the funds and the time, I would be seeing it live. But as I don't currently have 5 grand to spare, I'll just have to watch it on a screen, just like it was back at the start of the program.

[robkelk]

(No manned spaceflight from North America for how long after this launch? Ugh.)

At least five years, according to what I heard on the radio this morning. And yeah, ugh.

Well, if we're lucky, we'll have private spaceflight going before then... but that's at least a year away, more likely longer.
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[robkelk]

At least we got an appropriate (and beautiful) photo of Atlantis taken last night:



800×600, 1024×768, 1600×1200, and 4015×2672 ("full size") versions http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegal ... _1995.html]available here
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[Dartz]

Why do I get the feeling that we as a species are starting to slip back down the long slide of entropy. All the cool stuff such as Concorde, the Blackbirds, the Shuttle, Apollo.... all of them are decades old or more. What we have now is farmville, and distractions stacked up on top of distractions and 'good business'.

And while I know rationally that there is still a lot of frontiers being pushed, it still feels just a little bit..... disheartening.

There's no more cool shit.... it's all very mundane in a way. And while the mundaness of such wonders as a PC and the internet may well be wonders in themselves.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?

[Black Aeronaut]

You're not the only one. By all rights, I feel we should have colonies on the Moon and Mars by now. Hell, knowing my Mother? If they had opted to start lunar colonies drawing from the more talented citizens, then my Mother would have likely gone to one as a hydroponics specialist... and then I would have been a proud 1st generation Lunatic instead of a proud 6th generation Tejano.

[Ayiekie]

I'd have to disagree on the sentiment. Not only is manned exploration of space kind of a giant boondoggle (there is essentially nothing that cannot be done far more cheaply and safely with robotics), even if manned space travel ought to be pursued, the space shuttle is not a good platform to do it on. They cost too much and have demonstrably not been safe enough. Many times things have been done with shuttles that could have been done far more cheaply without them just to justify the shuttle program's existence and the money spent on it. This is not to say they were all bad, but it really is time they were put to bed and hopefully replaced with a superior, safer, cheaper delivery system.

[Matrix Dragon]

Which leaves the question... Where IS the space shuttles replacement? Why is it that they spent so much on keeping the Shuttles going instead of getting their replacements designed, built and into the sky? James May once got to show off the next generation lunar rover, which is one of the most remarkable designs I've ever seen... and it will most likely never get to carry out its purpose.

[Star Ranger4]

*Murmers to self Do NOT feed the Troll, do NOT feed the Troll.....*
*Fails Willpower save*

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are
easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills,
because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win,
and the others, too.

Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children

[Ayiekie]

Troll? For saying the space shuttle was not cost-effective or safe? Are you serious?

First, this is not exactly a marginal view. Second, kindly keep that sort of discourse to the Politics forum.

[Black Aeronaut]

Both of you, for that matter. You just ripped out the heart of this thread and pissed on it.

[Matrix Dragon]

It's a beautiful thing, one we'll never see live again. I really hope we're going to get some reveal that shows that, budget limitations or not, NASA has been planning for this, and they'll be reaching for the stars again.

[Epsilon]

Which leaves the question... Where IS the space shuttles replacement? Why is it that they spent so much on keeping the Shuttles going instead of getting their replacements designed, built and into the sky? James May once got to show off the next generation lunar rover, which is one of the most remarkable designs I've ever seen... and it will most likely never get to carry out its purpose.

The idea behind the space shuttle was fundamentally flawed. It assumed that you could have a "one size fits all" reuseable orbital insertion vehicle. Orbital insertion of various things is best handled by specialized vehicles, for a variety of economic and practical engineering reasons. If we need to insert humans into orbit again, then we should do so with a machine designed solely for that purpose and if it turns out that a one-shot vehicle is cheaper (what with having to carry less weight) we do that.
Unfortunately, manned space exploration has run into a severe economic burden. Simply put the current dollar cost to weight in orbit ratio is too high to safely place humans up there (since we have to account for the humans weight, and the weight of all the lifesupport dedicated to that human). Until we find a way to significantly reduce the ratio of dollars/pounds and make getting into orbit much cheaper, we're going to have to live without a manned space program for awhile.
The shuttle program has been obsolete for about ten years now, and the only reason it kept going was because of bureaucratic inertia at NASA. Ironically enough, they may have been a victim of their own success. Shuttles were just useful enough that the government bureaucracy could justify choking off funds into research on a replacement because the shuttle was working, so why look for something better? This lack of funding crippled the research into alternative transport methods (which should have been well on its way fifteen years ago).
If you want to bemoan the lack of manned spaceflight stop clinging to outdated technology, no matter how nostalgic. Instead encourage your government to invest heavily into research to develop new vehicles better suited for what we have identified as the real needs of manned space flight would be.
-------------
Epsilon

[Matrix Dragon]

'If it ain't broke, don't fix it' isn't always a good idea. And I'm well aware of the shuttles flaws. Sadly, I've never been able to figure out who in the Australian government should be contacted to argue my opinion for this sort of thing, and right now with the stranglehold the Greens have on our government, I get the feeling it wouldn't be feasible for us to develop a space program, much as it isn't workable for America to keep theirs going at the moment. We can always hope Virgin Galactic does something unexpected, but no matter how crazy awesome Branson is, I'm not holding out my hopes there.

[Ayiekie]

Both of you, for that matter. You just ripped out the heart of this thread and pissed on it.

blackaeronaut, that was actually a very hurtful comment and I don't think it was justified by anything I said. 

[robkelk]

Children, take it to email. A memorial thread is not the place for an argument.

Getting back to what this thread is actually about:


--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."

- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012

[HoagieOfDoom]

The idea behind the space shuttle was fundamentally flawed. It assumed that you could have a "one size fits all" reuseable orbital insertion vehicle. Orbital insertion of various things is best handled by specialized vehicles, for a variety of economic and practical engineering reasons. If we need to insert humans into orbit again, then we should do so with a machine designed solely for that purpose and if it turns out that a one-shot vehicle is cheaper (what with having to carry less weight) we do that.

Project Constellation was originally going to tackle this problem by using clusters of leftover, modified Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters. The Orion capsule could be boosted into low earth orbit by a single "stick" SSSRB, while heavier payloads and higher altitudes could be attained by using up to (if I recall correctly) six SSSRBs of varying lengths (for which read fuel capacity). Whatever the outdatedness of the Shuttle, the SSSRBs are, if you'll pardon the pun, still solid technology, but often, like you said, overkill for many of the past Shuttle missions.

...but it really is time they were put to bed and hopefully replaced with a superior, safer, cheaper delivery system.

Unfortunately, until somebody invents a way to escape the Earth's gravity without using chemical propulsion, manned rocketry will never be truly safe. Although, there have been no launch fatalities in the history of human spaceflight. (The Russians did have two launch aborts with Soyuz, but the pilots came out safe, if bruised and battered.)

Despite this I have a lot of confidence in the Soyuz spacecraft to maintain a manned (if not continuously North American) presence in space. Except for the tragedies of Soyuz 1 and 11 it has a stellar safety record and was recently upgraded with fully digital, modern computers and various support systems. It's also downright inexpensive compared to other launch systems throughout the years.

As for future developments, the ESA, NASA and the Russian space agency (whose acronym I've plum forgotten) and the private company SpaceX do all have plans on the board for next generation manned spacecraft, all of which have striking similarities to the Apollo Command Module frustrum (EDIT: SpaceX's Dragon actually has more in common, physically, with the odd gumdrop shape of the Soyuz descent module). So there's certainly not a lack of ideas, at least, for keeping people in space.

As for the NEED for a human presence in space...

This is a difficult topic to argue without veering into a discussion better suited to the Politics board. Like Ayiekie said, many of the things that we are doing/have done can (and have) been done just as well with robotics. But in the pursuit of science there are practical benefits to having people in space as scientists and technicians. Even Skylab's detractors had to admit that the space station's three crews contributed greatly to the scientific experiments on board by simply being available to solve problems as they came up and to take advantage of unexpected oppurtunities.

But I suppose that I'm ultimately in favor of human spaceflight because I cling to the wonder of it all. It's one thing to see images of moons, planets and nebulae; it's another thing to know that someone was there. No, it's not particularly rational or logical. But, possibly to my detriment, I'm an idealist.

So I'll mourn the Shuttle in all its outdated glory, and hope for better in the future.

[Matrix Dragon]

Yeah. My desire to have mankind continue reaching for the stars isn't really based in logic, or an interest in what science can achieve out there. It's the desire to go out there, to see what's there, what it's like. What's it look like on Mars through human eyes? What are the asteroids like up close? What does micro-gravity feel like? What IS it like to play golf on the moon, and would I be just as bad there as here? What's out there? It's the ancient human instinct of 'what's over the next hill?' on a cosmic scale.

[ECSNorway]

There are many reasons for manned space exploration. The most simple of which comes down to the basic fact that life on Earth simply is not sustainable. Even if the Cult Of Renewable Resources were to get all their wishes, we cannot continue, if for no other reason than the eventual likelyhood that we will face some disaster, natural or not, that will do to us what Chicxulub did to the dinosaurs. Sooner or later, we will run out of not just oil, but metals, minerals, clean water, and more.

The ONLY place we can get a new supply of resources from, barring zero-energy-cost-matter-transmutation (ie, 'magic'), is off-planet.

Why is a manned presence important? Robotic exploration has its limits. A robot is limited by what it can be programmed to do. A remote-controlled or remote-programmed robot is still limited by the time delay in communications - from seconds for Lunar orbit, to minutes for Mars, and hours or days for the outer system. Anything outside of Earth orbit WILL be out of communication with us for significant amounts of time due to solar occlusion if nothing else. And the most versatile, self-programmable, infinitely flexible operator we can put on-site at any particular place of interest, is a human being.
--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ECSNorway]

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[ECSNorway]

President Pitzer, Mr. Vice President, Governor, Congressman Thomas, Senator Wiley, and Congressman Miller, Mr. Webb, Mr. Bell, scientists, distinguished guests, and ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate your president having made me an honorary visiting professor, and I will assure you that my first lecture will be very brief.

I am delighted to be here, and I'm particularly delighted to be here on this occasion.

We meet at a college noted for knowledge, in a city noted for progress, in a State noted for strength, and we stand in need of all three, for we meet in an hour of change and challenge, in a decade of hope and fear, in an age of both knowledge and ignorance. The greater our knowledge increases, the greater our ignorance unfolds.

Despite the striking fact that most of the scientists that the world has ever known are alive and working today, despite the fact that this Nation¹s own scientific manpower is doubling every 12 years in a rate of growth more than three times that of our population as a whole, despite that, the vast stretches of the unknown and the unanswered and the unfinished still far outstrip our collective comprehension.

No man can fully grasp how far and how fast we have come, but condense, if you will, the 50,000 years of man¹s recorded history in a time span of but a half-century. Stated in these terms, we know very little about the first 40 years, except at the end of them advanced man had learned to use the skins of animals to cover them. Then about 10 years ago, under this standard, man emerged from his caves to construct other kinds of shelter. Only five years ago man learned to write and use a cart with wheels. Christianity began less than two years ago. The printing press came this year, and then less than two months ago, during this whole 50-year span of human history, the steam engine provided a new source of power.

Newton explored the meaning of gravity. Last month electric lights and telephones and automobiles and airplanes became available. Only last week did we develop penicillin and television and nuclear power, and now if America's new spacecraft succeeds in reaching Venus, we will have literally reached the stars before midnight tonight.

This is a breathtaking pace, and such a pace cannot help but create new ills as it dispels old, new ignorance, new problems, new dangers. Surely the opening vistas of space promise high costs and hardships, as well as high reward.

So it is not surprising that some would have us stay where we are a little longer to rest, to wait. But this city of Houston, this State of Texas, this country of the United States was not built by those who waited and rested and wished to look behind them. This country was conquered by those who moved forward--and so will space.

William Bradford, speaking in 1630 of the founding of the Plymouth Bay Colony, said that all great and honorable actions are accompanied with great difficulties, and both must be enterprised and overcome with answerable courage.

If this capsule history of our progress teaches us anything, it is that man, in his quest for knowledge and progress, is determined and cannot be deterred. The exploration of space will go ahead, whether we join in it or not, and it is one of the great adventures of all time, and no nation which expects to be the leader of other nations can expect to stay behind in the race for space.

Those who came before us made certain that this country rode the first waves of the industrial revolutions, the first waves of modern invention, and the first wave of nuclear power, and this generation does not intend to founder in the backwash of the coming age of space. We mean to be a part of it--we mean to lead it. For the eyes of the world now look into space, to the moon and to the planets beyond, and we have vowed that we shall not see it governed by a hostile flag of conquest, but by a banner of freedom and peace. We have vowed that we shall not see space filled with weapons of mass destruction, but with instruments of knowledge and understanding.

Yet the vows of this Nation can only be fulfilled if we in this Nation are first, and, therefore, we intend to be first. In short, our leadership in science and in industry, our hopes for peace and security, our obligations to ourselves as well as others, all require us to make this effort, to solve these mysteries, to solve them for the good of all men, and to become the world's leading space-faring nation.

We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say the we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.

There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation many never come again. But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.

In the last 24 hours we have seen facilities now being created for the greatest and most complex exploration in man's history. We have felt the ground shake and the air shattered by the testing of a Saturn C-1 booster rocket, many times as powerful as the Atlas which launched John Glenn, generating power equivalent to 10,000 automobiles with their accelerators on the floor. We have seen the site where the F-1 rocket engines, each one as powerful as all eight engines of the Saturn combined, will be clustered together to make the advanced Saturn missile, assembled in a new building to be built at Cape Canaveral as tall as a 48 story structure, as wide as a city block, and as long as two lengths of this field.

Within these last 19 months at least 45 satellites have circled the earth. Some 40 of them were "made in the United States of America" and they were far more sophisticated and supplied far more knowledge to the people of the world than those of the Soviet Union.

The Mariner spacecraft now on its way to Venus is the most intricate instrument in the history of space science. The accuracy of that shot is comparable to firing a missile from Cape Canaveral and dropping it in this stadium between the the 40-yard lines.

Transit satellites are helping our ships at sea to steer a safer course. Tiros satellites have given us unprecedented warnings of hurricanes and storms, and will do the same for forest fires and icebergs.

We have had our failures, but so have others, even if they do not admit them. And they may be less public.

To be sure, we are behind, and will be behind for some time in manned flight. But we do not intend to stay behind, and in this decade, we shall make up and move ahead.

The growth of our science and education will be enriched by new knowledge of our universe and environment, by new techniques of learning and mapping and observation, by new tools and computers for industry, medicine, the home as well as the school. Technical institutions, such as Rice, will reap the harvest of these gains.

And finally, the space effort itself, while still in its infancy, has already created a great number of new companies, and tens of thousands of new jobs. Space and related industries are generating new demands in investment and skilled personnel, and this city and this State, and this region, will share greatly in this growth. What was once the furthest outpost on the old frontier of the West will be the furthest outpost on the new frontier of science and space. Houston, your City of Houston, with its Manned Spacecraft Center, will become the heart of a large scientific and engineering community. During the next 5 years the National Aeronautics and Space Administration expects to double the number of scientists and engineers in this area, to increase its outlays for salaries and expenses to $60 million a year; to invest some $200 million in plant and laboratory facilities; and to direct or contract for new space efforts over $1 billion from this Center in this City.

To be sure, all this costs us all a good deal of money. This year¹s space budget is three times what it was in January 1961, and it is greater than the space budget of the previous eight years combined. That budget now stands at $5,400 million a year--a staggering sum, though somewhat less than we pay for cigarettes and cigars every year. Space expenditures will soon rise some more, from 40 cents per person per week to more than 50 cents a week for every man, woman and child in the United Stated, for we have given this program a high national priority--even though I realize that this is in some measure an act of faith and vision, for we do not now know what benefits await us.

But if I were to say, my fellow citizens, that we shall send to the moon, 240,000 miles away from the control station in Houston, a giant rocket more than 300 feet tall, the length of this football field, made of new metal alloys, some of which have not yet been invented, capable of standing heat and stresses several times more than have ever been experienced, fitted together with a precision better than the finest watch, carrying all the equipment needed for propulsion, guidance, control, communications, food and survival, on an untried mission, to an unknown celestial body, and then return it safely to earth, re-entering the atmosphere at speeds of over 25,000 miles per hour, causing heat about half that of the temperature of the sun--almost as hot as it is here today--and do all this, and do it right, and do it first before this decade is out--then we must be bold.

I'm the one who is doing all the work, so we just want you to stay cool for a minute. [laughter]

However, I think we're going to do it, and I think that we must pay what needs to be paid. I don't think we ought to waste any money, but I think we ought to do the job. And this will be done in the decade of the sixties. It may be done while some of you are still here at school at this college and university. It will be done during the term of office of some of the people who sit here on this platform. But it will be done. And it will be done before the end of this decade.

I am delighted that this university is playing a part in putting a man on the moon as part of a great national effort of the United States of America.

Many years ago the great British explorer George Mallory, who was to die on Mount Everest, was asked why did he want to climb it. He said, "Because it is there."

Well, space is there, and we're going to climb it, and the moon and the planets are there, and new hopes for knowledge and peace are there. And, therefore, as we set sail we ask God's blessing on the most hazardous and dangerous and greatest adventure on which man has ever embarked.

Thank you.

--
Sucrose Octanitrate.
Proof positive that with sufficient motivation, you can make anything explode.

[Ayiekie]

Yeah. My desire to have mankind continue reaching for the stars isn't really based in logic, or an interest in what science can achieve out there. It's the desire to go out there, to see what's there, what it's like. What's it look like on Mars through human eyes? What are the asteroids like up close? What does micro-gravity feel like? What IS it like to play golf on the moon, and would I be just as bad there as here? What's out there? It's the ancient human instinct of 'what's over the next hill?' on a cosmic scale.

To clarify, I agree with you. I was in fact just remarking to my girlfriend less than a week ago how wonderful it would be to be able to see another planet (specifically Jupiter) up close and marvel at its size. But I think the best way to ensure that for future generations is to build on what works - and the vast costs accompanying human spaceflight at the moment make exploration and science in space far rarer than it could be. We'd never have had a man on Europa no matter what at this point - but maybe we could have had a robotic lander there by now. And maybe the discoveries made by a much larger generation of unmanned probes would allow us to find ways to actually make it economical to gets larger weights out of atmosphere, and thus facilitate space travel for humans in the future. 

[Dartz]

Send little space men up on deathtraps

It's addictive.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?