Obama: Buy American

[Guest American Woman]

Fixed it for you.

I suggest you fix it back. I won't have you misquoting me.

[dre]

I suggest you fix it back. I won't have you misquoting me.

Mrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooow

[Shady]

Mrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooow

Purposely misquoting somebody is against forum rules. Shape up or ship out.

[dre]

Purposely misquoting somebody is against forum rules. Shape up or ship out.

Pay attention.

[Guest American Woman]

Mrrrrrrrrrroooooooooooooooooow

Fine. I'll "fix" your quotes from now on. I look forward to it. It can only improve them.

[dre]

Fine. I'll "fix" your quotes from now on. I look forward to it. It can only improve them.

Do what you like.

[Guest American Woman]

Do what you like.

I always do.

[dre]

I always do.

I never said you didnt

[BubberMiley]

I suggest you fix it back. I won't have you misquoting me. :angry:

Fixed it for you.

[Charles Anthony]

Everybody,

Please stop this misquoting nonsense.

Ch. A.

[Wilber]

Actually consensus is it was a bad idea in the first place, which is probably why they canned the program. The US used to have a near monopoly on sattelite deployment but the shuttle was a crappy and unreliable platform that cost way to much to launch and the US only has a small share of the launches now.

The Soyuz rocket, which you were knocking early (or maybe it was someone else), is actually a much better platform.

Canned the program? They had been flying for thirty years. Not bad for a crappy program.

[Guest American Woman]

Canned the program? They had been flying for thirty years. Not bad for a crappy program.

Their accomplishments weren't bad for a crappy program either.

[bush_cheney2004]

Canned the program? They had been flying for thirty years. Not bad for a crappy program.

Yea...the US Space Shuttle Program was so "crappy"...the Russians tried to copy it as Buran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29

[dre]

Yea...the US Space Shuttle Program was so "crappy"...the Russians tried to copy it as Buran:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran_%28spacecraft%29

It wasnt crappy. The shuttle program was a technology demo, and lots of important technologies were developed. But practically it was a pretty lousy launch platform, and going in this direction cost the US the near monopoly they had on commercial sattelite launches a few decades ago.

The Soyuz is a better platform because its simple and not overly high tech. I imagine that the US will get back to basics and make something similar, based on KISS.

[Bonam]

The Soyuz is a better platform because its simple and not overly high tech. I imagine that the US will get back to basics and make something similar, based on KISS.

America's best hope in that regard, by far, is SpaceX and their Falcon series of launch vehicles. Based on simple concepts and designs yet using the latest in technology to optimize efficiency and reduce weight, they picked the right way to do it. People in the industry realize that SpaceX can deliver launch vehicles for NASA's needs far more economically than NASA itself can. The cost of launching a falcon 9 rocket to LEO with 10 T of payload is a mere $50 million, compared to $1.5 billion for a shuttle which carries 20 T. That's $5,000/kg private vs $75,000/kg NASA. Going private results in a cost savings of 96%. Keep in mind that the Falcon 9 is to be able to launch manned Dragon spacecraft too, not just unmanned cargo. In fact, they'll manage to have costs directly competitive with Russian rockets despite being based in the US where everything is so much more expensive.

NASA's new announcement of an ultra heavy launch vehicle to be developed over the next 20 years (for a program cost that will likely exceed 100 billion dollars before it inevitably gets canceled) is farcical when they could just fund SpaceX to develop the exact same (or superior) capability in the Falcon X Heavy or Falcon XX for a tiny fraction of the price and in a much shorter timespan.

Edited September 17, 2011 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

It wasnt crappy. The shuttle program was a technology demo, and lots of important technologies were developed. But practically it was a pretty lousy launch platform, and going in this direction cost the US the near monopoly they had on commercial sattelite launches a few decades ago.

But you said it was a crappy program...no? The US hasn't had a monopoly on commercial sat lift for a very long time, and never expected to do so in the face of cheaper competition from Europe and Russia. The US also maintains a completely separate and dominant military lift capability to wire the planet.

Actually consensus is it was a bad idea in the first place, which is probably why they canned the program. The US used to have a near monopoly on sattelite deployment but the shuttle was a crappy and unreliable platform...

The Soyuz is a better platform because its simple and not overly high tech. I imagine that the US will get back to basics and make something similar, based on KISS.

Both are better than Canada's nonexistent program.

[Sir Bandelot]

America's best hope in that regard, by far, is SpaceX and their Falcon series of launch vehicles. Based on simple concepts and designs yet using the latest in technology to optimize efficiency and reduce weight, they picked the right way to do it. People in the industry realize that SpaceX can deliver launch vehicles for NASA's needs far more economically than NASA itself can. The cost of launching a falcon 9 rocket to LEO with 10 T of payload is a mere $50 million, compared to $1.5 billion for a shuttle which carries 20 T. That's $5,000/kg private vs $75,000/kg NASA. Going private results in a cost savings of 96%. Keep in mind that the Falcon 9 is to be able to launch manned Dragon spacecraft too, not just unmanned cargo. In fact, they'll manage to have costs directly competitive with Russian rockets despite being based in the US where everything is so much more expensive.

Perhaps, but it's one thing to have a few successful demo flights, and another to have an intensive program with hundreds of successful missions. With these private companies I'd be concerned about robust designs and quality control.

I do find the cancellation of the shuttle program baffling. To me it was a fantastic program. But of course the two accidents were tragic and disastrous. Maybe that is ultimately why they decided to end it. But I doubt that... these missions are inherently risky by their nature. What I find most strange is why there is a discontinuity in shuttle service, even if for a few years. To be reliant on ones former enemies is usually a bad idea.

[Bonam]

Perhaps, but it's one thing to have a few successful demo flights, and another to have an intensive program with hundreds of successful missions. With these private companies I'd be concerned about robust designs and quality control.

I do find the cancellation of the shuttle program baffling. To me it was a fantastic program. But of course the two accidents were tragic and disastrous. Maybe that is ultimately why they decided to end it. But I doubt that... these missions are inherently risky by their nature. What I find most strange is why there is a discontinuity in shuttle service, even if for a few years. To be reliant on ones former enemies is usually a bad idea.

The program was far too expensive for what it did. There are much cheaper ways to get people and cargo into low earth orbit. Also, the program used technology that is over 30 years old and outdated at the present time. NASA wanted to focus on a program that would go beyond low earth orbit (Constellation program) and get people back to the Moon and to Mars and the only way to get the money for that was to cancel the shuttle program which was eating up almost half of NASA's budget. Many other programs were also canceled so Constellation could be funded. Of course, Constellation itself was scrapped after over $10 billion spent and the first prototype Ares I flew.

As for quality control for private companies. Trust me, if a messed up outfit like the Russian space agency can do it, so can private companies. Anyway, we have a long history of private rockets launching payloads into space. These include the Atlas series, the Delta series, the Titan series, and many others.

[bush_cheney2004]

.... What I find most strange is why there is a discontinuity in shuttle service, even if for a few years. To be reliant on ones former enemies is usually a bad idea.

How so? Canada has been doing it for almost 200 years.

[Sir Bandelot]

What technology was outdated though. I mean, we're talking about NASA here. It's not like there's thousands of companies making products in competition. How many companies make shuttles, rocket boosters, and massive gantries to support the whole thing. The Thiokole rockets with leaky gaskets could have been replaced with something better. The fuel tank had its problems. The vehicle had some issues, like with the ceramic plates. But those were being managed, finally, after the disaster by doing careful inspection with a TV camera mounted on the Canadarm. If a problem was found, they had an n-board repair kit with a few extra tiles and some glue. But on the whole, there is nothing else in the world like it. I for one am disappointed to see it go. There is still quite a bit of valuable work to be done up there, and it should be done by a vehicle like the shuttle.

As for objective like the Moon and Mars, I always thought they were just a pipe dream used as propaganda by George Bush. Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen, but what I read is, most scientists think it's a waste of time to send humans to Mars. It would be so tremendously expensive that it would eat up most of the available budget for scientific research in astronomy. And their view is, what could be accomplished by putting people back on the moon or mars, that can't be done with robotic probes and orbiters? Look at the success of recent missions to Mars. There are currently something like 5 orbiters going round the planet. Plus the ground based rovers, spirit and opportunity. Phenomenal success, for minimal cost. Sending a person does not make sense from the perspective of economics, or science.

[Sir Bandelot]

How so? Canada has been doing it for almost 200 years.

If I had a fight with somebody, and next thing they wanted to be my friend, it would take me a while before I believed them. 200 years might be enough.

[Sir Bandelot]

When I heard that the Soyuz blew up, I immediately became suspicious. You think the Russians are sincere and trustworthy to America? They still have their interests, and covert ops. And I'm sure they would be quote pleased to see bad things happen to America. Failure of the ISS would be a loss for Russia as well but overall wouldn't be so bad, from a perspective of global power politics. So it's ok to delay the next launch, stall, and create problems. There are elements in this game that might even sabotage a rocket. I guess I just have a suspicious nature.

[bush_cheney2004]

....NASA's new announcement of an ultra heavy launch vehicle to be developed over the next 20 years (for a program cost that will likely exceed 100 billion dollars before it inevitably gets canceled) is farcical when they could just fund SpaceX to develop the exact same (or superior) capability in the Falcon X Heavy or Falcon XX for a tiny fraction of the price and in a much shorter timespan.

This is already in development, as NASA can/has achieved most of its science objectives without manned flights at a fraction of the cost. Political and/or military objectives are an altogether different framework, not unlike the one that made Mercury/Gemini/Apollo possible. I don't think most people understand just how much military objectives drove such things in the past, including the Space Shuttle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_X#NASA-funded_Mars_mission_concept

Edited September 18, 2011 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

What technology was outdated though.

Umm, google the computers they used on the shuttle some time. The engine design was plenty outdated too.

I mean, we're talking about NASA here. It's not like there's thousands of companies making products in competition. How many companies make shuttles, rocket boosters, and massive gantries to support the whole thing.

None make shuttles, since they have been shown to not be an economical way of transporting things to and from space. As for rocket "boosters", plenty of companies do, as well as the associated support infrastructure.

The Thiokole rockets with leaky gaskets could have been replaced with something better. The fuel tank had its problems. The vehicle had some issues, like with the ceramic plates. But those were being managed, finally, after the disaster by doing careful inspection with a TV camera mounted on the Canadarm. If a problem was found, they had an n-board repair kit with a few extra tiles and some glue.

And in what world does that sound to you like a good solution? Costly and prolonged visual inspection and patching things up with "glue"? Better to design something safe.

But on the whole, there is nothing else in the world like it. I for one am disappointed to see it go. There is still quite a bit of valuable work to be done up there, and it should be done by a vehicle like the shuttle.

How is the shuttle better to do this valuable work than alternative forms of manned low earth orbit space travel, such as a capsule spacecraft? Because it has an arm? You can stick an arm on other spacecraft too.

As for objective like the Moon and Mars, I always thought they were just a pipe dream used as propaganda by George Bush. Not that I wouldn't like to see it happen, but what I read is, most scientists think it's a waste of time to send humans to Mars. It would be so tremendously expensive that it would eat up most of the available budget for scientific research in astronomy. And their view is, what could be accomplished by putting people back on the moon or mars, that can't be done with robotic probes and orbiters? Look at the success of recent missions to Mars. There are currently something like 5 orbiters going round the planet. Plus the ground based rovers, spirit and opportunity. Phenomenal success, for minimal cost. Sending a person does not make sense from the perspective of economics, or science.

There is a valid argument there, certainly. In terms of science objectives, they can be accomplished much more cheaply by robotic craft, rather than by humans. That is certainly an argument that can also be used against the shuttle, against the ISS program, and against manned spaceflight in general. But, science is only one of the objectives of NASA. The ultimate goal when it comes to flying humans to the Moon and to Mars is to establish permanent outposts, eventually leading to colonization.

I for one am disappointed to see it go.

On an emotional level, I am too. As a fan of space exploration and an aerospace engineer, the shuttle has been the symbol of our endeavors in space for three decades. But, I also recognize that by scrapping the shuttle program, tens of billions of dollars will be saved, which can hopefully be better spent on other programs, which are more cost effective.

Edited September 18, 2011 by Bonam

[Jack Weber]

This thread has hit a pissing match stage. Yikes.

Yup...Not terribly interesting...

Ya' wanna know how to shiut these Yanks up and make them dance?

Just say we'll shut the oil and gas valaves off and let the Yank (bastards) in the Mid-West freeze in the dark this winter...Tell 'em to go to their friend Hugo in Caracas to get their oil...

They'll jump...They have before!!!

The Paper Tiger to the South is'nt as tough as they think they are....