The LAST Shuttle flight

[Hugh 0ne]

1 minute to go.

[Hugh 0ne]

Failure at 31 seconds.

[Hugh 0ne]

Back on.

[Hugh 0ne]

And she's off.

[jetsfan]

[wiegie]

[Furd]

Is anyone seriously saying the shuttle program wasn't a good value?

 

I think that if you do a little research on it, you'll find many credentialed people who believe that the program was not worth the money.

[The Wolf]

Man, I feel old...I remember watching the first ever shuttle launch when I was in Elementary school. Now I just saw the last...

[Ursa Majoris]

It pains me to say this, but I am.

 

NASA could have gotten a lot more bang for its buck by concentrating on conventional rockets, unmanned probes and the like. For example, when you take all of the costs into account, each shuttle launch has cost more than $1 billion (in today's dollars)--that's a whole lot of money that NASA could have put to use for other projects.

 

(And note: I am NOT suggesting that the government shouldn't have given NASA the money, just that NASA could have put it to better use.)

 

 

I think that if you do a little research on it, you'll find many credentialed people who believe that the program was not worth the money.

I think you ought to look at the relative cost that I posted.

[wiegie]

I think you ought to look at the relative cost that I posted.

false comparison

 

If a sh|t-burger costs $1 while a sh|t-pizza costs $10, it still doesn't make spending a dollar on a sh|t-burger money well spent.

[Clubfoothead]

It pains me to say this, but I am.

 

NASA could have gotten a lot more bang for its buck by concentrating on conventional rockets, unmanned probes and the like. For example, when you take all of the costs into account, each shuttle launch has cost more than $1 billion (in today's dollars)--that's a whole lot of money that NASA could have put to use for other projects.

 

(And note: I am NOT suggesting that the government shouldn't have given NASA the money, just that NASA could have put it to better use.)

 

 

I think that if you do a little research on it, you'll find many credentialed people who believe that the program was not worth the money.

 

Well MY tax dollars probably contribued a fraction of a cent to NASA. I feel like I got an excellent bang-for my-buck for that fraction of a cent. Maybe the credentialed people don't think their farction of a penny was well spent but it's my faction of a cent and I approve.

[Furd]

I think you ought to look at the relative cost that I posted.

 

So what? Costs are costs.

 

If you paid 200 billion dollars (or whatever) to do something that you could have done for 100 billion dollars, you've wasted 100 billion dollars.

 

I read somewhere that each launch cost on the average of $1.6 billion dollars.

 

And costs aren't the only factor. They weren't safe. (14 people killed). They weren't reliable. 2 out of 5 (40%) exploded into smithereens . They didn't launch all that frequently and when they did, it was always after delays.

[Hugh 0ne]

What the hell is a sh|t-burger? You Midwesterners are nasty mofo's.

[wiegie]

What the hell is a sh|t-burger? You Midwesterners are nasty mofo's.

it's sort of like an alpen-pizza

[Clubfoothead]

it's sort of like an alpen-pizza

 

I assume they are both made of horse.

[Ursa Majoris]

false comparison

 

If a sh|t-burger costs $1 while a sh|t-pizza costs $10, it still doesn't make spending a dollar on a sh|t-burger money well spent.

False math. If the cost for 39 years = $180 billion and the cost for "defense" over the same period is $20 trillion (to be generous), then you need your $hit burger costing $1 to be related to a $hit pizza costing $110.

 

So what? Costs are costs.

 

If you paid 200 billion dollars (or whatever) to do something that you could have done for 100 billion dollars, you've wasted 100 billion dollars.

 

I read somewhere that each launch cost on the average of $1.6 billion dollars.

 

And costs aren't the only factor. They weren't safe. (14 people killed). They weren't reliable. 2 out of 5 (40%) exploded into smithereens . They didn't launch all that frequently and when they did, it was always after delays.

And if the rocket route had been the one chosen, would everyone have said "Ooh, well done, you saved $90 billion over that Shuttle we never built"? I think not. It would have been "We should have done that shuttle, this isn't moving us forward at all". Hindsight is 20-20.

 

I doubt astronauts sign up for a safe ride in the airborne equivalent of a Toyota. Risk and death come as part of the program.

[Clubfoothead]

2 shuttles of 5 exploded for a 40% failure rate or 2 missions of 135 exploded for like a 1.5% failure rate. Irrelevant I suppose if you were on either of the shuttles that exploded.

[Furd]

Hindsight is 20-20.

 

Well, when I judge whether something has been successful, I look back over time.

 

How do you do it?

 

And if you look at what the goals of the program were at the beginning (like you want to do, apparently), it was an abject failure.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Furd

[jetsfan]

Well, when I judge whether something has been successful, I look back over time.

 

How do you do it?

 

And if you look at what the goals of the program were at the beginning (like you want to do, apparently), it was an abject failure.

 

There are rare occasions our politicians push a program with unrealistic expectations. Perhaps this was one of those rare occasions.

[buddahj]

My dad's going to be bummed. My parents were heading down to their condo in Cocoa Beach today. He was hoping to see it live.

[ts]

is there an unclassified list of stuff that has been discovered,invented from the space program?...

 

Tang?

[Pope Flick]

2 shuttles of 5 exploded for a 40% failure rate or 2 missions of 135 exploded for like a 1.5% failure rate. Irrelevant I suppose if you were on either of the shuttles that exploded.

 

 

I mean no offense to jetsfan or any of the NASA workers, but I simply find it a sad state of affairs that the program was reduced to launching the vehicle and basically hoping it didn't get too jacked on launch to return.

 

What would happen RIGHT NOW if they found tiles fell off during launch again? Would they go the rescue mission launch route or some other way? Anyone know?

[jetsfan]

What would happen RIGHT NOW if they found tiles fell off during launch again? Would they go the rescue mission launch route or some other way? Anyone know?

 

This mission has a four man crew instead of the usual seven. We can have them stay on the ISS (we flew extra supplies this mission just in case) and return in groups on Soyuz. The Shuttle can be flown remotely back to see if it would survive re-entry. We also have tile repair kits on orbit that they can use to fix problems on the vehicle.

Edited July 10, 2011 by jetsfan

[Pope Flick]

This mission has a four man crew instead of the usual seven. We can have them stay on the ISS (we flew extra supplies this mission just in case) and return in groups on Soyuz. The Shuttle can be flown remotely back to see if it would survive re-entry. We also have tile repair kits on orbit that they can use to fix problems on the vehicle.

 

 

Thanks. I was curious about that as I was writing my post, because if I recall correctly ever since Columbia a second shuttle has more or less been on standby for each launch. And again, I'm not bagging on any employees, just the system that's allowed this to happen, and where I think the real failure of the shuttle program is...

[Clubfoothead]

 

A 98.5% success rate is hardly crossing your fingers and hoping nothing bad happens.