View Poll Results: Whic is most scientifically valuable

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Hubble

    23 82.14%
  • shuttle program

    5 17.86%
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Which has proven most scientifically valuable

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    980

    Which has proven most scientifically valuable

    Ok I Understand this is an astronomy site, so Obviously the replies will be biased. I will also admit I do not understand all the politics involved in this issue but here goes and don't think of cost, I am referring to Pure Scientific Value.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    44

    Re: Which has proven most scientifically valuable

    Quote Originally Posted by skrap1r0n
    Ok I Understand this is an astronomy site, so Obviously the replies will be biased. I will also admit I do not understand all the politics involved in this issue but here goes and don't think of cost, I am referring to Pure Scientific Value.
    I don't think I could really pick. They have provided insights in very different scientific areas.

    If I had to say which was of more interest to myself personally, I would say the Hubble telescope. But as to picking which represented more raw scientific knowledge, I don't have enough information about their respective accomplishments to be able to assess that choice.

    Can it really be quantified, anyways?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Posts
    2,988
    I feel similar. I mean Hubble technically has more "capabilities" in that it has a wide range of tasks it can perform, although I'm sure you could argue the same for the shuttle program. I haven't voted yet, since I don't really see how one could have really done "more" for us.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    64
    Wasn't HST put into orbit on board a shuttle? And don't they repair it using the shuttle to get replacement parts and repairmen there? So...would HST be much use without the shuttle program?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    44
    Quote Originally Posted by countrywideoptionone
    Wasn't HST put into orbit on board a shuttle? And don't they repair it using the shuttle to get replacement parts and repairmen there? So...would HST be much use without the shuttle program?
    And again, simple common sense has passed me by. Very true.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    980
    I have not voted either, I am just posing the question. I was a kid in the apollo era and have followed the Shuttle program all my life.

    My take on it is this. We need a new way to transport into space. Lower cost, faster turn around and with less capability than the shuttle. I honestly feel the faster cheaper method should be applied to manned space flight.

    Scrapping the shuttle program in favor of a manned reentry wedge capable of transporting 4 or six to the IIS would save NASA Billions. The IIS can serve as the Lab, we don't really NEED the cargo bay we just need boots up there

    Dollar for Dollar, I would have to vote hubble. Since the IIS is there, we no longer really NEED the shuttle.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    819
    The space shuttle. Without a doubt. Well maybe not scientifically, or maybe, but certainly technologically.

    It's brought dawn to a new age of technological advancement, one where GPS, reliable satellite communications as well as making the Earth a lot smaller. Not counting all the microgravity experiments that take place on board.

    The 21st century started when the shuttle first flew. I don't want to go back to the 20th when it stops.

    I'm never going to stop saying that the space shuttle is a technological marvel, the ultimate result of everything man could make.

    I am not happy it's retiring. Save the shuttle. Please?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    980
    I am not saying get rid of reuseable transport, but c'mon, its pretty expensive and a Lot of the things the shuttle is used for could be done a lot cheaper, thus allocating the savings for things such as a Moon base, or manned mars mission.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    819
    You make a good point, but I think it REALLY REALLY deserves the money it gets for what it does. And for what it proves.

    Everyone always says that we could do something better, that requires less resources, and is safer. We tried with the X-33. It failed miserably.

    The shuttle is not a rocket. Rockets are more akin to fireworks than anything else. The kind of refinement the shuttle solution has is beyond the scope of any other currently technologically possible solution.

    When does the beauty of the solution not matter anymore? Why can't people see just what it is is what has me going nuts. Everyone always pictures the end goal as the only thing that matters. "We could have done this with rockets." Maybe. Probably, even. But would it have any kind of merit? Sure the end result would be the same, but frankly I'd be ashamed if we were still traveling by rocket all the time.

    We're talking about a machine that most engineers have to learn about in order to graduate. We're talking about, let's say it, the finest piece of flying machinery ever. Show some pride. This is the life work of so many people. Why throw it to the ground. I think it deserves a lot more respect than it gets.

    Now I agree I somewhat didn't answer any of your points skrap1ron, and that's because they are good points, and I can't say anything against them, but I'm trying to highlight a different point of view.

    Maybe I'm just feeling overly sentimental over it. But what can I do, I love it, and I wish it flies forever with all my heart.

    I'm known for getting uselessly attached to machines. It's like I feel for them.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    980
    don't get me wrong, the Shuttle is a beautiful piece of work. I too, take pride in the accomplishements. I hve never seen a launch live, however I DID see them test fire it on the pad. it was amazing.

    I do think we we can develop a less complex, more efficient machine that can accomplish the same missions. I am by no means in favor of sticking them all in the smithsonian.

    The X-33 was a good idea, and as far as why it was a miserable flop is unknown to me. I'll read up on it tomorrow and educate myself.

    My concern is that NASA is so fixated on the Shuttle program, it is blind to other options.

    What are the goals of man in space? Research? Exploration? The shuttle is witout a doubt a workhorse, however a lot of what we use it for it can be done by a cart pony.

    I would also like to mention that my opinion is not based on Challenger or Columbia, but based on cost per pound.

    Given a choice between resuming regular shuttle flights or puting a base on the moon, I would opt for cutting the launches down to repair missions and offsetting the cost for a moon base.

  11. #11
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,354
    Well since the Space Shuttle has allowed HST to become the success it has, they are slightly linked. But comparing HST to other STS programs, HST comes out on top. It is the one thing that we slap in the faces of MSF opponents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. X
    Everyone always says that we could do something better, that requires less resources, and is safer. We tried with the X-33. It failed miserably.

    The shuttle is not a rocket. Rockets are more akin to fireworks than anything else. The kind of refinement the shuttle solution has is beyond the scope of any other currently technologically possible solution.

    When does the beauty of the solution not matter anymore? Why can't people see just what it is is what has me going nuts. Everyone always pictures the end goal as the only thing that matters. "We could have done this with rockets." Maybe. Probably, even. But would it have any kind of merit? Sure the end result would be the same, but frankly I'd be ashamed if we were still traveling by rocket all the time.

    We're talking about a machine that most engineers have to learn about in order to graduate. We're talking about, let's say it, the finest piece of flying machinery ever. Show some pride. This is the life work of so many people. Why throw it to the ground. I think it deserves a lot more respect than it gets.
    Interesting how you say the Space Shuttle is not a firework when it has two of the biggest fireworks ever built strapped to it.

    The problem with X-33 was probably trying to make a space vehicle too integrated. There is something to be said for an adaptable, modular design. It's cheaper, more efficient and more flexible. The lack of modularity in the Space Shuttle kept the fleet grounded after 51-L even though the spacecraft itself was fine. It was just part of the launch vehicle that needed work, but because the space vehicle is integrated, failiure of one part grounded the whole thing.

    Check out this discussion,

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    819
    [quote="Glom"]Well since the Space Shuttle has allowed HST to become the success it has, they are slightly linked. But comparing HST to other STS programs, HST comes out on top. It is the one thing that we slap in the faces of MSF opponents.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    Interesting how you say the Space Shuttle is not a firework when it has two of the biggest fireworks ever built strapped to it.
    Do you realize that these two rockets do not burn up as they go? Instead of the, I'll say it, limited idea of destroying itself as it goes along, like fireworks. Instead they glide gently down with parachutes and are reused. So much for that.

    The problem with X-33 was probably trying to make a space vehicle too integrated. There is something to be said for an adaptable, modular design. It's cheaper, more efficient and more flexible. The lack of modularity in the Space Shuttle kept the fleet grounded after 51-L even though the spacecraft itself was fine. It was just part of the launch vehicle that needed work, but because the space vehicle is integrated, failiure of one part grounded the whole thing.
    Define adaptable modular design.

    Too integrated? At this point the only step up from the space shuttle is SSTO. X-33 was the only alternative, and the only right direction. Before we manage serious advances in materials science (advance in materials is made each day, by leaps and bounds, especially with nanomaterials now). Anything less and we'd just be deluding ourselves and making an inferior machine "in thought" (concepts) and claiming it as superior.

    51-L suffered from bad launch conditions. In something like this, failure of one part always means that the whole thing stays grounded, and for good reason: we have to figure out what went wrong unless we want to happen again. Two times over we had to do it, and we did.

    Are you saying that we should just launch another indentical vehicle a few days afterwards after an accident? And that you would do that with another solution? I don't know, but that might be construed as grossly irresponsible and immoral, in any case.

    Quote Originally Posted by Glom
    Check out this discussion,
    Maybe I will, but I'm tired, I can't seem to sleep, I have a bad headache and I need to get a computer laboratory guy fired and I haven't figured out how yet.

    Glom: WHAT DOES YOUR SIGNATURE MEAN! I've asked you like 5 times now, and you don't answer.

  13. #13
    Glom's Avatar
    Glom is offline Insert awesome title here
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Posts
    11,354
    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. X
    Do you realize that these two rockets do not burn up as they go? Instead of the, I'll say it, limited idea of destroying itself as it goes along, like fireworks. Instead they glide gently down with parachutes and are reused. So much for that.
    I was referring to the solid propellent aspect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. X
    Define adaptable modular design.
    Apollo.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. X
    Too integrated? At this point the only step up from the space shuttle is SSTO. X-33 was the only alternative, and the only right direction. Before we manage serious advances in materials science (advance in materials is made each day, by leaps and bounds, especially with nanomaterials now). Anything less and we'd just be deluding ourselves and making an inferior machine "in thought" (concepts) and claiming it as superior.
    Not sure what you're saying here. I'm not aruging against SSTO or reusability, but against big honkin' one-size-fits-all spacecraft. A superior machine is one that gets the job done more efficiently.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr. X
    Are you saying that we should just launch another indentical vehicle a few days afterwards after an accident? And that you would do that with another solution? I don't know, but that might be construed as grossly irresponsible and immoral, in any case.
    Hence the problem with an integrated space vehicle. Boeing's new OSP concept is designed to be launched on a range of LVs. If they launch on a Delta and it blows up because the LV was built wrong, Boeing is going to have to investigate what went wrong with it, but OSP can then be launched on Ariane and the program can continue since nothing was wrong with OSP.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    2,285
    You might like to read this article before you vote. Weinberg makes some very interesting points about the shuttle's relation to HST.

Similar Threads

  1. Valuable Space Rock Crashes Into Oslo Cabin
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2012-Mar-12, 04:40 PM
  2. Life is too short-Scientifically-SO what if???
    By Rude Dude in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2008-Jan-16, 10:55 PM
  3. Valuable UK UFO Project
    By IsaacKoi in forum Life in Space
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 2006-May-20, 09:30 AM
  4. Incredibly valuable soapbox burned!!!
    By junkyardfrog in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-29, 06:01 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •