Discovery arrives in DC for final display

[Ms Tree]

You hate the idea of losing something that hasn’t served us well??

Nothing says “space exploration” like circling planet earth for 34K crew days! How many crew days have Russians circling the lunar surface?

You are aware that Russia had its own Space Shuttle program right? Fail

Check out NASA’s “Spinoff” website then come back and tell us again the space program wasn’t worth what we put into it.

If you go back and read my posts you wil see that I like some of what NA has done and I would like NASA to continue so long as it stops trying to reinvent the wheel. If it cannot do so then NASA should be disbanded and let private enterprise continue with the advances using government subsidies when needed.

Yes I am aware of the Buran. I am not clear on what you mean by failed. The Buran made one unmanned space flight and the program was canceled. This Wiki article f true gives some insight as to why it may have been canceled and why ours should have been canceled.

The Buran orbital vehicle program was developed in response to the U.S. Space Shuttle program, which in the 1980s raised considerable concerns among the Soviet military and especially Defense Minister Dmitriy Ustinov. An authoritative biographer of the Russian space program, academic Boris Chertok recounts how the program came into being.[3] According to Chertok, after the U.S. developed its Space Shuttle program, the Soviet military became suspicious that it could be used for military purposes, due to its enormous payload, several times that of previous U.S. spaceships. The Soviet government asked the Russian TsNIIMash (ЦНИИМАШ, Central Institute of Machine-building, a major player in defense analysis) for an expert opinion. Institute director, Yuri Mozzhorin, recalls that for a long time the institute could not envisage a civilian payload large enough to require a vehicle of that capacity. Based on this, as well as on US profitability analyses of that time, which showed that the Space Shuttle would be economically efficient only with a large number of launches (one every week or so), Mozzhorin concluded that the vehicle had a military purpose, although he was unable to say exactly what. The Soviet program was further boosted after Defense Minister Ustinov received a report from analysts showing that, at least in theory, the Space Shuttle could be used to deploy nuclear bombs over Soviet territory. Chertok recounts that Ustinov was so worried by the possibility that he made the Soviet response program a top priority.

Officially, the Buran spacecraft was designed for the delivery to orbit and return to Earth of spacecraft, cosmonauts, and supplies. Both Chertok and Gleb Lozino-Lozinskiy suggest that from the beginning, the program was military in nature; however, the exact military capabilities, or intended capabilities, of the Buran program remain classified. Commenting on the discontinuation of the program in his interview to New Scientist, Russian cosmonaut Oleg Kotov confirms their accounts:

Wiki

One could easily argue that the space shuttle program was a failure. Aside from the loss of two vehicles and 14 crew members, the original intent was to be able to launch about 50 missions a year. How ever over a 30 year project life ('81-'11) NASA only managed 135 launches. Each vehicle was supposed to have an operational life of about 100 launches and 10 years. You do the math.

Depends. You seem to be assuming that had NASA not spent as much money reinventing the wheel that none of the technology derived from space exploration would have been developed. If that is the case then every dime spent was well worth it. I do not agree with that supposition. I believe that much if not all of the technology developed by NASA could have been developed using less money and more reliable technology. I believe that had NASA spent money more wisely our program would be much more advanced that it already is. Russia beat us to Mars and it was our feaking idea. As Signals pointed out above and what I have also been alluding to it name a single Fed program that is efficient? There is not a single one. NASA ripped us off. Sure they did some great things, but that does not negate the fact that we could have done much more for much less an Russia's program is proof of that.

 

[Ms Tree]

Thats the problem with many who take the attitude ms tree does. Their houses, cars, phones, computers, food, clothing etc etc all contain technology that was originally developed for the Military or Nasa but they are the first to jump up and down about the money spent for it.

Ever ridden on a cold war russian aircraft? Driven a russian automobile? Toured a russian sub? (There is one in Long Beach) Frankly I am amazed they managed to get into space at all.
The Smithsonian Air and Space museum has a Soviet Lunar capsule and luner EVA suit on display. One look at the antiquated technology they were trying to get to the moon with compared to the Apollo program and its easy to see why they abandoned the effort. The technology developed for the Apollo missions and shuttle is used everyday by the common american.

But they worked and they worked better and safer than the US program. They were in space for close to 35,000 days with a lower loss rate than the US. They may not have been as fance but they worked.

What did going to the moon get us? We abandoned it as well. Why should the Russians go and do it to? Until technology is developed to colonize the moon there is no sense in going again other than to say we went.

As I said above, you seem to be assuming that the money spent has a direct correlation to the technology developed. I do not believe that is correct. There is no way to prove it one way or the other. How ever if you look at the successes of the Russian program verses the US program, they have done far more than we have with far less.

Again, I am one of NASA's biggest fans. Growing up I had several models of the Space Shuttle and other NASA rockets. Last year I went to Johnson Space Center and embarrassed the hell out of my wife because I was like a kid in a candy store. I have read every thing I could about the NASA space program and space exploration. I am stil of the belief that NASA did not spend the money wisely and that they are grossly inefficient like most other programs.

 

[Ms Tree]

So, in closing and using your logic, you then "DO" agree "ALL" federally funded programs need to be cut, because just about every program is bloated or run inefficiently ?

Not necessarily. I think they can and should be run more efficiently so that the dollars spent go farther. If a program is run more efficiently it can do more with the same amount of money. Some programs may end up not needed the money allocated, some will.

 

[Keroseneuser]

What did going to the moon get us?

Water purification, cool suits, home insulation, freeze dried foods, fire resistant clothing advances, fuel cells, and intigrated circuits to name a few. the last one is what makes this conversation we are having via the internet possible.

The Soviets didn't go to the moon in 1969 for one reason, they didn't have the technology to do it. Contrary to what they put out to the public during that time, they tried and could not do it. Nearly every technical advancement that they made during the cold war was "borrowed" from other nations. The Soviet form of gov't just could not keep up with western advancments. They tried to copy the shuttle and actually flew it once. But it was such a heap that it never flew manned.

Most of the fancy ipods laptops, and navigation systems we enjoy using today can be traced back to military or space applications where the technology was developed. Inertial Nav systems were first thought of and developed for Submarines so they could navigate around the globe while underwater. GPS that tells us all how to find a starbucks is another one. The electronics developed for the apollo missions and later the shuttle is now in use daily in nearly every airliner in the world.

Did NASA waste money in the process, of course, but that falls more into the standard US gov't profile than any single agency of it. Just look how much money Obama's administration has pissed away in the last 4 years. However unlike NASA the United States citizens have nothing to show for it. At least NASA's money pit allows me to surf the web and find a tasty cup of coffee! 🙂

 

[Ms Tree]

Every single item gout mentioned was required for space travel. The fact that it was also used for the moon landings does not change that fact. Had we started to colonize the moon then the landings would have paid off.
Whether they had the ability or not does not change the fact that unless you are colonize the moon and.preparing to go beyond there really is no point in going.

And that is.my point. NASAL wasted money trying to reinvent the wheel and put us at a.sever disadvantage in the space race.

 

[Knotbuyinit]

Time-lapse video: Space shuttle Endeavour’s trek across L.A.

 

[Kev3188]

Wow!

Gotta say that was pretty cool.