BREAKING NEWS: SHUTTLE PROGRAM GROUNDED

[kevin]

The ISS is a stupid idea. It will not help science. It will not help international good feelings. Its so close to earth, and such a dump, and it sucks up billions of dollars that could be spent either doing science or planning better exploration missions.

It's the only place we can get any data on the effects of very-long-term low/zero gravity on the human body--something we'll need in the future for any manned missions that go past the moon.

Muscle mass degrades, bones begin to also degrade, the body starts to fall in on itself. We know that, and for 60 billion dollars we could build a spaceship that would turn and create its own gravity in such a manner able to allow humans longer periods in space.

The ISS is a waste of money. We had MIR to know what happens to people in low earth orbit for a long period of time, and we will not find anything exceptionally different.

[Stephanie]

I think that shutting down the program until they fix this problem is a good idea. Granted, there's always going to be something, but from the start, this trip has had one problem after another. The piece of foan insulation coming off on this trip makes me believe that they didn't learn anything from the Columbia disaster.

I love the shuttles - I think that the whole idea is so neat. However, as many pointed out, these ships are old.

[Hurricaneman]

I think they should rebuild the fleet

[HurryKane]

The ISS is a stupid idea. It will not help science. It will not help international good feelings. Its so close to earth, and such a dump, and it sucks up billions of dollars that could be spent either doing science or planning better exploration missions.

It's the only place we can get any data on the effects of very-long-term low/zero gravity on the human body--something we'll need in the future for any manned missions that go past the moon.

Muscle mass degrades, bones begin to also degrade, the body starts to fall in on itself. We know that, and for 60 billion dollars we could build a spaceship that would turn and create its own gravity in such a manner able to allow humans longer periods in space.

The ISS is a waste of money. We had MIR to know what happens to people in low earth orbit for a long period of time, and we will not find anything exceptionally different.

Yeah, you right. Because science is a completely stagnant entity.

There's always the possibility of new developments to try and counteract the long term low gravity effects. But you're right, no need to test them out because we know everything there is to know.

[kevin]

We know what weightlessness does to our bodies. We have had decades of experience with it. Furthermore since it only take a couple of days to get to the moon and back, we could have a station on the moon measuring the differences between weightlessness (which is established very much so) and partial gravity.

Flip a coin a thousand times, and it doesn't matter the chances are 1:2 it lands on the side you call. The deterioration of the human body by the lack of gravity is natural and results from the body not using muscles like it would on earth. The solution to weightlessness is to eliminate it, by spinning an object to create an acceptable amount of gravity and counteract deterioration of bone mass et cetera.

The ISS is a waste of money it is reinventing the wheel.

[mike18xx]

I think they should rebuild the fleet

With whose money?

Screw NASA.

[mike18xx]

...this is not a columbia type situation..

By pure chance nothing hit anything.

The very first bird they send up after months of introspection has exactly the same trouble with bits and pieces falling off.

[mike18xx]

Look, Ma! No tax money!

[HurryKane]

We know what weightlessness does to our bodies. We have had decades of experience with it. Furthermore since it only take a couple of days to get to the moon and back, we could have a station on the moon measuring the differences between weightlessness (which is established very much so) and partial gravity.

Flip a coin a thousand times, and it doesn't matter the chances are 1:2 it lands on the side you call. The deterioration of the human body by the lack of gravity is natural and results from the body not using muscles like it would on earth. The solution to weightlessness is to eliminate it, by spinning an object to create an acceptable amount of gravity and counteract deterioration of bone mass et cetera.

The ISS is a waste of money it is reinventing the wheel.

I'll refer you to this answer about spinning spaceships, and why--guess what--a space station would be needed to help build them: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=655

[kevin]

Since the ISS would be in no way suitable to that task, I'd have to still insist its a waste of money. Should anything that small cost that much money? Do you think in the hands of any major corporation they would make so many blunders?

[HurryKane]

Since the ISS would be in no way suitable to that task

Could you elaborate further on this point, please?

[kevin]

The ISS is not large enough or built for the construction of spacecraft.

[HurryKane]

The ISS is not large enough or built for the construction of spacecraft.

Are you talking about them being built inside the space station? They'd likely send up "smaller" (in a relative sense) Earth-built components and actually assemble them outside of the space station, somewhat like the ISS itself has been built.

However, I cannot imagine how they'd get enough thrust once such a spacecraft was undocked, to get it spinning fast enough to create gravity. That'd be a lot of kick needed to get going.

[mike18xx]

Given a large enough "donut", it doesn't take much spin to create 1G on the inside's out-facing surface.

"2001: A Space Odyssey" got it all right.

[HurryKane]

Given a large enough "donut", it doesn't take much spin to create 1G on the inside's out-facing surface.

"2001: A Space Odyssey" got it all right.

62.8 seconds per rotation is not a very long time in which to move a ginormous (1000 meter radius) donut. To get that started would take a (pretty big) kick.

[mike18xx]

Given the thrust it takes to get something into orbit in the first place, you're talking about relatively tiny amounts.

[Hurricaneman]

In this case, a little can make a big difference

[HurryKane]

Given the thrust it takes to get something into orbit in the first place, you're talking about relatively tiny amounts.

Right, but you'll have to throw a not-insignificant amount of fuel up there to get the new spacecraft (call it Spinner) 1) spinning and 2) anywhere else with real gravity that you're landing on, and back. I suppose you'd have to either store the fuel at the center of the donut, or assume you've got some perfect surfaces surrounding it if you store it along the outside wall of the donut.

I'm a little further removed from my dynamics, astrodynamics and propulsion classes than I care to admit, but the Spinner sounds like a logistical nightmare. Perhaps not that much more than the space shuttle itself, but...just sayin'.

[Pebbles]

For any that missed the news briefing earlier they are about to replay it on Nasa TV http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

[mike18xx]

That has to be the most disgusting display of bureaucratic ass-covering that I've seen in ages.
$100 million is what they spent on retrofitting those external tanks (or just tank, as in only this shuttle's one? I couldn't tell from the "Nightline" piece on it) -- and a chunk of foam over two feet long comes peeling right off.