StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In the light of the Columbia disaster, what is the future of NASA?

The shuttle may continue to be used for a few more years, but the Columbia disaster means that a replacement will be demanded. They'll likely look to a similar design, but more soundly engineered and with superior electronics to the STS, which had a network less capable than a pre-Pentium 486.

Its only pissed more people off, so now they want to increase funding to prove we can do it. Plus, Bush supports the Space Program.

We'll make Mars by 2010....anything can be solved with the proper use of
money.

NASA isn't dead, just severelyy crippled.

Depends on funding.

NASA is neither dead nor crippled. Things will continue like they did after the last shuttle disaster. We will continue to use orbitals until we've decided they are no longer benificial, then we'll continue on the next logically progression of our space program.

NASAs taken a nasty blow, but it's not dead.

We still have three shuttles left, and one is a lot younger than the others.

I wonder what would happen if we sold nasa to the corporations - a tourism and luna hotel would be quite profitable investment. . .

I think it'll have to be delayed for some time. They may try to rework the shuttles to make them safer, or just scrap the shuttle all together for something new (unlikley).

Of course with war in Iraq about to begin, and funding for all that shit Bush talked about in his adress a few days back, they'll be hard pressed for money now or in the near furure.

Falcon wrote:NASA is neither dead nor crippled. Things will continue like they did after the last shuttle disaster. We will continue to use orbitals until we've decided they are no longer benificial, then we'll continue on the next logically progression of our space program.

Problem is, after Challenger, NASA was crippled with uncertainty that has only recently begun to fall to the wayside. Man on Mars by 2010? No way.

Darth Garden Gnome wrote:I think it'll have to be delayed for some time. They may try to rework the shuttles to make them safer, or just scrap the shuttle all together for something new (unlikley).

Of course with war in Iraq about to begin, and funding for all that shit Bush talked about in his adress a few days back, they'll be hard pressed for money now or in the near furure.

The budget is over 2 trillion, I think we'll manage...

Enforcer Talen wrote:I wonder what would happen if we sold nasa to the corporations - a tourism and luna hotel would be quite profitable investment. . .

But only if you have enough people willing to go. The problem isn't building such a hotel, it's getting people there at a low cost, and with convienence to them. I'm not sure I would spend months training just to spend a night in space.

Anyway, I'm sure NASA will go on, and private corporations won't enter the business for another few decades.

Well that's two shuttle disasters for NASA. Soon enough people will either ask NASA to shape up or die because the space program is so expensive and high-risk.

I think NASA will continue its current op tempo. However, I don't see them ordering a new orbiter any time soon.

I think that NASA will probably get more funding for safety purposes and etc. now that the public will care again. I personally think that to get more people interested in the Space Program they should go to the moon again.

If its anything like the last one, which was launched because opf political pressure, NASA's budget will be slashed.

I haven't heard anyone from Marshall Space Flight Center sweatin' it around here. Man on Mars baby! We're gonna make Von Braun proud. (Even if our speeling doesn't)

It's time we got rid of the STS and began phasing the VentureStar in.

jaeger115 wrote:It's time we got rid of the STS and began phasing the VentureStar in.

VentureStar's fuel tanks never worked right. It's already been canceled and destroyed.

Not much happned when the Challenger exploded in 1986, except that the Shuttle Programme was grounded for some time.

I think that pretty much the same thing will happen this time.

VentureStar's fuel tanks never worked right. It's already been canceled and destroyed.

Whatever. Isn't it obvious that the Space Shuttle is showing its age?

I am betting that the shuttle program will be put on hold for a good while. I cannot really see NASA getting another shuttle, although I bet they will do a complete systems rehaul on all of them. I can see them restarting the X-34/33 program though. A replacement for the shuttle is needed. They are using technology in these things that is almost 30 years old, and the shuttle design is over 20. We can build something much better right now.

But what are we going to use to continue work on the ISS and to keep it serviced? The Russians? Can we really rely on them to keep a regular schedule of manned launches to change crews? Will we see a resurgence in the Buran project, with NASA support, at least until we can get the shuttle program back on its feet?

I think that NASA has taken a pretty heavy blow, but I also think some good will come out of this. This will increase public awareness of NASA, something that the agency has severely needed for 25 years. I mean, can't they even get an ad campaign going like the Air Force or Navy? This will make the public see the need for NASA to get a new orbiter, and maybe even the need for further exploration of our solar system. If NASA is smart, they will use this tragedy to help build support and awareness for the space program

jaeger115 wrote:

VentureStar's fuel tanks never worked right. It's already been canceled and destroyed.

Whatever. Isn't it obvious that the Space Shuttle is showing its age?

I completely agree with that. I was more grumbling than anything else, because I feel we desperately need something better in space if we're going to keep putting people up there. Considering my first computer was more powerful than an orbiter's systems, and that the latest modification was to put in a digital cockpit and digital data recorders, it's gotten to the point were designing and building a new craft might possibly be cheaper and easier than refitting the shuttles. I say let them retire finally and become museum pieces. They've done more than their job, now let's design something more capable.

jaeger115 wrote:Well that's two shuttle disasters for NASA. Soon enough people will either ask NASA to shape up or die because the space program is so expensive and high-risk.

1) NASAs budget IIRC has been cut several times over the past several years.

2) Those men and women know the risks of space flight and they know that a trip on the shuttle can very well be their last. For people to demand NASA be dismantled because of the inherently risky nature of spaceflight is, in my opinion, blatantly disrespectful to those who have already died in getting where we are today.