The end of an era...STS-135.

shack

zingo

Jstas

<object width="416" height="374" classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" id="ep"><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always" /><param name="wmode" value="transparent" /><param name="movie" value="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed_edition&videoId=us/2011/07/08/vo.atlantis.launch.nasa&quot; /><param name="bgcolor" value="#000000" /><embed src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/apps/cvp/3.0/swf/cnn_416x234_embed.swf?context=embed_edition&videoId=us/2011/07/08/vo.atlantis.launch.nasa&quot; type="application/x-shockwave-flash" bgcolor="#000000" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" width="416" wmode="transparent" height="374"></embed></object>

I-SIG

So sad, at least the shuttle ended properly like it began: with a Georgia Tech astronaut on board!

Wes

steveinaz

What a legacy....stuff for Americans to be proud about.

[Deleted User]

Absolutely!

tonyb

steveinaz wrote: »

What a legacy....stuff for Americans to be proud about.

Yes Sir.....but the irony in it is, didn't we have a space program to begin with because we wanted to beat the Russians to the moon ?
Now, we have to rely on the Russians to get back into space ?

I always thought the shuttle program would be a precurser to better things for further and deeper space travel. Something I personally see value in if our species is to exist well down the line. Hopefully Nasa still has a few idea's up their sleeve.

maximillian

tonyb wrote: »

I always thought the shuttle program would be a precurser to better things for further and deeper space travel. Something I personally see value in if our species is to exist well down the line. Hopefully Nasa still has a few idea's up their sleeve.

I think that was the original plan. Turns out it was too exepensive and NASA has an ever shrinking budget. So they outsource the job of space-ferrying crew and supplies to the Russians until the US's commercial ventures can take over. This allows NASA to get back to real space exploration and science - hopefully.

tonyb

maximillian wrote: »

This allows NASA to get back to real space exploration and science - hopefully.

I always thought to explore something, you had to actually go there. Hard to do without a vehicle.

shack

I believe the emphasis will be on unmanned probes...at least in the near future.

txcoastal1

Stretched all across the south we rely heavily on jobs from the NASA space program, there are 3 houses for sale in the adjacent cul-de-sac 2 of which were NASA employees. Since 2010 over 10,000 people are or will shortly be out of jobs mainly Texas, Alabama, and Florida

What a shame

It will cost an estimated $63 million per seat on the Russian tranport

George Grand

[QUOTE=txcoastal1;

It will cost an estimated $63 million per seat on the Russian tranport[/QUOTE]

I'm out.

inspiredsports

NASA Lewis Research Center up here in Cleveland (recently renamed Glenn Research Center after Ohio resident John Glenn) is also just a shell of its former self.

It really seems to be the end of an era, and it's painful to realize we've squandered our lead role in space.

maximillian

tonyb wrote: »

I always thought to explore something, you had to actually go there. Hard to do without a vehicle.

The shuttle is not the vehicle for exploring. I don't think it has the ability to go to the moon or Mars. NASA already has other vehicles for that. What NASA retired was the vehicle to service the ISS and other satellites. There are cheaper was to do that other than the shuttles. And, it's time NASA passes that mundane task to the commercial sector.

DMara

maximillian wrote: »

The shuttle is not the vehicle for exploring. I don't think it has the ability to go to the moon or Mars. NASA already has other vehicles for that. What NASA retired was the vehicle to service the ISS and other satellites. There are cheaper was to do that other than the shuttles. And, it's time NASA passes that mundane task to the commercial sector.

I don't understand the math here. If the commercial sector could make money delivering astronauts, why couldn't NASA compete with them and do the same thing? Say, using NASA shuttles to deliver foreign astronauts, charging a bit cheaper than any commercial companies, or even Russia, then use the profit to deliver our own astronauts? :biggrin:

cnh

It's hard to believe that 10 years after Clarke's 2001 that we still don't have an earth to orbit reusable craft that does need a monster rocket tank to get up there and cost a small fortune to launch?

But when all is said and done, really, NASA's budget is miniscule compared to a lot of other 'fat' in the U.S. budget. We can't afford to keep our space program funded? Right?

cnh

tonyb

shack wrote: »

I believe the emphasis will be on unmanned probes...at least in the near future.

Kinda like getting your colon checked out ? Send a probe up there ?:biggrin:

In roughly 7 decades, we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon. Thats quite a feat. Imagine what the next seven decades could turn out if we had the will to continue on. Just the possibilities is pretty darn exciting. It's a shame we don't realize the value in it. I'm sure Nasa has a few prototypes hanging around waiting for funding.

nooshinjohn

tonyb wrote: »

Kinda like getting your colon checked out ? Send a probe up there ?:biggrin:

In roughly 7 decades, we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon. Thats quite a feat. Imagine what the next seven decades could turn out if we had the will to continue on. Just the possibilities is pretty darn exciting. It's a shame we don't realize the value in it. I'm sure Nasa has a few prototypes hanging around waiting for funding.

This is a sad event for me for many reasons. I had been friends with a man that was part of every manned space program since NASA"s inception, including the Space Shuttle. The first round of budget cuts in that program eliminated his contribution to the Shuttle program, which were the parachutes and recovery aparatus that may have saved the Challenger crew from thier fate.

I lost Harold to old age several years ago at the age of 94. Were he still here, he would be heartbroken that for the past couple decades, we have had as solid a vision for NASA as we have for our energy policy in this country. Gone are the days when NASA stood alone as the means by which we showed the world that we are ready, willing and able to lead humankind towards a brighter tommorow. For me, the light of NASA was a beacon of hope, as was Liberty's torch that greeted visitors to the free world decades before. We were that "shining city on a hill" and NASA was our brightest star.

NASA's contirbution to the massive leaps forward in technology has saved and improved the quality of life for BILLIONS of people around the world, and the money spent on their funding IMHO was the very best use of my tax dollars, besides the money spent in support of our troops. American exceptionalism and our nations pride rode on the shoulders of each man and woman that has flown our nations colors into space, and every man like Harold Bixby that dreamed of better ways of doing things to make those flights possible.

If they want to craft a new stimulus plan, as they are talking about now, every dime of it should go to NASA so that we can stretch our legs on the surface of Mars. That is a "shovel-ready" jobs plan that will not only restore America's pride, it will restore hope and prosperity around the world.

tonyb

cnh wrote: »

It's hard to believe that 10 years after Clarke's 2001 that we still don't have an earth to orbit reusable craft that does need a monster rocket tank to get up there and cost a small fortune to launch?

But when all is said and done, really, NASA's budget is miniscule compared to a lot of other 'fat' in the U.S. budget. We can't afford to keep our space program funded? Right?

cnh

Kinda always wondered the same thing. I always thought a reusable craft was the space shuttle, but like you said, takes a ton of power to get her up there. Technology doesn't exist yet, but I don't think it's a priority to those holding the purse strings....and there in lies the problem.

fatchowmein

Sad to see the end of an era with no new chapters to look forward to. Feels like we threw in the towel. I wonder what kind of brain drain is going on at NASA?

obieone

I predict they'll be back. The cost of this program using conventional propulsion is staggering, but with 'Rail-Gun' technology, who knows?
The eggheads at the USN are doing the research now. We may get to Mars yet.

shack

The replacement was to be the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle...and it was not expected to be operational until maybe 2013/2014. Last year Obama stated he would cut out funding for NASA's Orion project from the budget opting instead for "unmanned" exploration and the development of private commercial spacecraft.



The Constellation Program was working to put us back on the moon by 2018-2020. Not going to happen now...maybe never in my lifetime now...:frown:

txcoastal1

My wifes boss is Gene Cernan's (last man on the moon) personal assistant and liaison met him a couple of times. He spent the last 2 years in Washington trying to save the space program. He showed us the mock up ideas for the Constellation project...it reminded me of Battle Star Galactica...nothing like it

nooshinjohn

txcoastal1 wrote: »

My wifes boss is Gene Cernan's (last man on the moon) personal assistant and liaison met him a couple of times. He spent the last 2 years in Washington trying to save the space program. He showed us the mock up ideas for the Constellation project...it reminded me of Battle Star Galactica...nothing like it

I met Gene at Purdue University when they opened the new Armstrong Hall of Engineering. He is a great guy to talk to, and very passionate about NASA's role in building America's future. Gene would have made a formidable NASA Director, but he has a penchant for telling it like it is. Too bad the pinheads in DC don't listen.

tonyb

Man kinds future has always benefited from exploration and the way I see it, our future is out there in space, somewhere. Not funding a space program is like putting the cork back on the genie bottle. If you can dream it, you can eventually make it happen. I think back to the designs of Davinci and his "flying machines". Pretty sure at his time he was laughed at for those idea's. We maybe a few decades, even centuries off from realizing a Star Trek-ish type of space travel, but we will get there in time. Who knows, Nasa's Constellation project may be looked at one day like Davinci's designs were.

aviator

tonyb wrote: »

In roughly 7 decades, we went from horse and buggy to landing on the moon. Thats quite a feat. Imagine what the next seven decades could turn out if we had the will to continue on. Just the possibilities is pretty darn exciting. It's a shame we don't realize the value in it. I'm sure Nasa has a few prototypes hanging around waiting for funding.

And in the last 4 decades we've not been back. I was just a pup then and am an old dog now.

We should have a moon and Mars base by now.

tonyb

aviator wrote: »

I was just a pup then and am an old dog now.

You and me both bro.

I do believe the ephasis was on a reusable craft for orbit but the space shuttle itself is an old outdated design. Given the funding, I'll bet the eggheads at Nasa have a few idea's left to persue. Instead of just dropping the funding to save a buck, they should have had a direction better suited for the coin to be spent. Idea's, innovations, thats the american spirit we like to see and are damn proud of.

Jstas

maximillian wrote: »

The shuttle is not the vehicle for exploring. I don't think it has the ability to go to the moon or Mars. NASA already has other vehicles for that. What NASA retired was the vehicle to service the ISS and other satellites. There are cheaper was to do that other than the shuttles. And, it's time NASA passes that mundane task to the commercial sector.

The shuttle was an orbiter. Doesn't have enough fuel to break orbit/gravity.

It was intended as a transport vehicle to get stuff to space stations where experiments and other explorations could/would be launched from. That never materialized so it was used as a test platform itself and to get our part of the ISS commitments fulfilled.

It served it's purpose. It was and honestly, still is the only reusable space flight vehicle. The Russians had one but they never "reused" it. Hell, they never launched it with people in it!

And honestly NASA shouldn't be in the space taxi business. It takes up far too much of the budget supporting other countries endeavors in space. I'd rather see us sending robots like Pathfinder, Sojourner, Spirit and Opportunity to other planets. We can get way more info about stuff from them than we ever could from the Space Shuttle.

The thing that sucks most about not having a shuttle anymore is that stuff like the Hubble Space Telescope can't be serviced anymore. Theen agian, Hubble is set to die as early as 2013 and is being replaced by James Webb Space Telescope and Advanced Technology Large-Aperture Space Telescope (ATLARST).

nooshinjohn

maximillian wrote: »

....it's time NASA passes that mundane task to the commercial sector.

A trip to space is anything but mundane.:rolleyes: Outside of the occasional recreational drug, I doubt seriously anyone on the forum has achieved orbit.:biggrin:


I remember Mars by 2010 was something that was an obtainable goal. Now we will be lucky to see it by 2030. According to almost all involved with the planning of such a mission, the capability is already there and the systems needed have been proven time and time again. The only thing missing is resolve and a few people with a set of stones big enough to see it trough. The men and women that defeated the ****'s and the Japanese, then answered the call of JFK were such people. Why are we(as a nation) becoming a bunch of pansies?

tonyb

Obviously given the task of a commercial space taxi, the private sector no doubt must charge, and charge well for such a service. Did we ever charge others ? I don't know,just asking is all. Seems like everything we do never comes with a price tag for those others who may benefit.

Regardless, I'd like to see us set our sights on achieving something deemed near impossible at one point......as a country. It can lift spirits, install a sense of pride to a whole country, something we could use about now,no ?

maximillian

nooshinjohn wrote: »

A trip to space is anything but mundane.:rolleyes: Outside of the occasional recreational drug, I doubt seriously anyone on the forum has achieved orbit.:biggrin:

Didn't mean it's trivial. I meant that NASA should be looking at doing new science and exploration instead of being space delivery boys (or taxi as Jstas put it). The old hat stuff can be regulated to the commercial sector, i.e. Spacex, Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop Gruman, and maybe a startup. NASA has already started funding these activities.

The end of the shuttle doesn't necessarily mean the end of America's space program. It just means we will be doing something different. That could be a good thing since it would focus NASA's efforts on new ventures. Unfortunately, politicians are looking to greatly cut back on NASA's budget. Even the James Webb space telescope getting the axe is being discussed. That is what we really should be concerned about.