Space Shuttle Mission?

Joined
6 November 2002
Messages
4,697
Location
UT
Did NASA have an actual mission in mind for this last space launch? Or were they just trying to get back in to space, see how many problems they could find and spend the entire time up there trying to fix them? Is this an R&D mission?
 
actually, there was an itinerary...

I believe NASA put into orbit a satelite, repaired/replaced a gyrsoscope on the Int'l Space Station, as well having alot of cargo/supplies for the crew up there.

If there is so much trebidation and anxiety concerning the thermal tiles on the edges of the wing and mid-bay area, this in all honesty should be the last mission for the shuttle fleet... :redface:
 
Did NASA have an actual mission in mind for this last space launch?

I think you could ask this question about the entire space shuttle program in general. Best I can tell the plan is to:

1. Spend billions of dollars
2. shoot people into space
3. Fix the spacecraft that broke during launch
4. Return to earth safely

I think there are better ways to spend our billions of tax dollars.
 
I agree. Sure it's cool that man can go into space whenever it wants and they probably do learn quite alot from going there, but at what cost? I say lets fix the problems that WE created here on earth before trying to plan a manned mission to mars or even continuing on with the Internaional Space Station.

We are supposed to be the strongest nation in the world, but my Grandpa who served in WWII, worked for the Colorado Sate police for 39 years has to buy his prescriptions from Canada because it's $400 cheaper a month. I think we can offset the costs like this and actually help and support people who have served our country and community if we didn't spend $16 billion or whatever it costs per mission into space.
 
I strongly disagree

cmarsh90 said:
I think there are better ways to spend our billions of tax dollars.
For at least the last 30 years, it has been funded with less than 1% of federal spending. To put this in perspective, our country spends more (40% more) on the food stamps program than it does on space program.

In my opinion, in spite of NASA’s shortcomings, the space program represents the pursuit of science at one of its purest forms: one driven by man’s natural curiousity. Even though our world has many pressing needs, I think there should be a small slice where humans can satisfy their natural and intrinsic desire to explore and understand the universe in which they live. At least it’s a nice change compared to using science to figure out new and better ways to harm people. :)

That said, NASA does have a major problem, that is one of image: I don’t think children are as inspired by space exploration as they have been in the past. I think American’s pride in the space program has not even come close to what it was in 1969. I still don’t mind paying my share (if you break it down evenly, it’s less $50 per year for each American) to let NASA do what it does. I think those Hubble images alone are worth it.
 
cmarsh90 said:
I think there are better ways to spend our billions of tax dollars.
Yeah, this mission could have funded several hours of the War on Terror.

My opinion only of course, but I think we get an incredible value and return on our investment for the money we put into NASA.
 
bodypainter said:
Yeah, this mission could have funded several hours of the War on Terror.

Indeed. With the amount of money spent so far in Iraq, we could have built *cities* on the Moon. It would have been cheaper, both in dollars and lives.

Hmm, thousands of dead Iraqis and Americans, or Lunar cities? I know which I'd rather spend my tax dollars on.
 
Here's a PDF link to mission info:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overview_july05.pdf

NASA has a good site with a lot of good info if you want to read about it rather than assume it's just a bunch of BS.

With the amount of criticism of an experimental aircraft (the shuttle) I doubt it will ever fly again. We have become a culture of take no risks. I truly believe in space exploration and the pursuit of knowledge but I think NASA has not done a good job of conveying that to the populous. Americans are more worried about their TVIO not recording their favorite show than exploring our universe and furthering mankind. Sad IMO.

Nik
 
Thanks for the link showing the mission info. Sounds like they have extremely well planned out.

As far as the other topics go, in my own opinion there are many more ways to further mankind here on our own earth right now. There are so many problems with poverty, starvation, basic education, etc....

Again, in my own opinion I just think there are better ways to spend that kind of money, time and effort. In this day and age, I don't understand how a child living in the U.S. can't even eat every single day. Or anywhere else for that matter.
 
White92 said:
As far as the other topics go, in my own opinion there are many more ways to further mankind here on our own earth right now. There are so many problems with poverty, starvation, basic education, etc....

Quick -- what was the average income level in Spain in the late 15th century? What level of education was achieved? What was Spain's food production like?

Everyone knows what Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand did in 1492. And it had nothing to do with poverty or education.

Space is the 21st century's "New World". Hundreds of years hence, no one will care what the USA's poverty or education level was. But they will recall the times, the leaders, and the countries for our achievements in space exploration, and ultimately, colonization.

Every president, and especially second-term presidents, seem overly concerned with their "legacy". Aside from being assassinated, what is President Kennedy most remembered for? "We choose to go to the Moon." If a president really wants a legacy that will be cherished for decades or centuries, he'll stop bombing third world countries and put some serious effort and funding into Space.
 
I was 13 in 1969 and watched the first moon landing live on TV. I will never, ever, forget that moment.

The emotions were indescribable. It saddens me that generations since can't know what that was like.
 
Ever wonder where some of the technology behind design and production of our lovely cars comes from? Be careful of what you wish for, without the space program we wouldn't have these and more.

1. HIGH INTENSITY LIGHTS
2. AUTOMOTIVE INSULATION
3. TORQUE WRENCH
4. SOFTWARE FOR AUTOMOTIVE DESIGN (NASTRAN computer program. NASTRAN takes an electronic look at a computerized design and predicts how the structure will react under a great many different conditions.)
5. BETTER BRAKES
6. BETTTER COOLANTS
7. CIRCUIT BOARDS AND CONTROLLERS
8. ADVANCED FUEL INJECTION

and many more
 
Question: These developments that the Space program finds that we seem to be benefitting from...are they patented by the GOV and licensed so that they make money off it or what?
 
bodypainter said:
I was 13 in 1969 and watched the first moon landing live on TV. I will never, ever, forget that moment.

The emotions were indescribable. It saddens me that generations since can't know what that was like.

My question is, if we could send a team to space and land on the moon with the technology present in 1969, then why is it that NASA says that we wont have the capability to land on the moon again until somewhere around 2020?? Does this make the whole landing on the moon scenario fishy to anyone else? I know there are a bunch of conspiracy theories on this, but how much velavance is there? Did we really land on the moon? Can anyone see the supplies and equipment that was left there with a telescope>? I'm not saying we didnt, it just seems strange to me. :confused:
 
Last edited:
Ruskies: The substitute for 21st century technology

SNDSOUL said:
My question is, if we could send a team to space and land on the moon with the technology present in 1969, then why is it that NASA says that we wont have the capability to land on the moon again until somewhere around 2020??
Good question. This illustrates perfectly how there is so much more to application of technology than simply having the technology:

Before Kennedy was even president, there was a strong concern that we were already lagging well behind the Soviets in missle technology. The Soviets had also beat us to putting an satellite into orbit and a man in space. Kennedy did not want to let them beat us to the moon and during the 60s our country spent accordingly. Even though have done it before, it would cost quite a bit to put an man on the moon today. More importantly, I don’t think we have anything today that could give us the same focus and determination as we did back then.

Sending a man to the moon and back must be the greatest technological feat our race has ever achieved - It seems orders of magnitude beyond anything else in terms of complexity. During its first decade, over 15 billion man hours were spent on the Apollo program. I really have no idea how to comprehend such a figure. I suppose one could say that’s like having a team of 3/4 million people employed full-time on the program for an entire decade. Or that it’s the same as having a team of 10,000 people working regular 9-5 jobs for over 700 years.

SNDSOUL said:
Can anyone see the supplies and equipment that was left there with a telescope>?
I wondered about this, but apparently, it’s not possible. Not even Hubble can see such small objects. From Hubble site:
A closeup view of Copernicus' terraced walls. Hubble can resolve features as small as 280 feet across.
I think Hubble is bumping up against an optical physics limitation (determined by size of the lense and how far away the object being viewed is).
 
Last edited:
Back
Top