It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What's safer, Space Shuttle or Apollo?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2005 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I was watching a documentary on Space Shuttle Columbia a while back. Astronaut Story Musgrave was saying how he felt scared whenever he flew on a space shuttle and how the shuttle was basically a recipe for disaster every time it flew. He also went as far to say that he would much rather fly on Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo, which he claimed were a whole lot safer than the space shuttle.

This got me wondering, is the space program really worth it? With Mike Griffin admitting that the space shuttle program was a mistake, and reports that the space shuttle program was a failure in almost all respects, has NASA pretty much doomed humanity's attempts at the greatest journey?

A sign that things are improving is the plan to scrap the space shuttle program and begin using disposable rockets, Saturn V-style. While I don't dispute the position of someone like Story Musgrave, what do you all think, do you think the space shuttle is a one-way ticket to Hell and Saturn V is space exploration at it's best?




posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 12:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
This got me wondering, is the space program really worth it?


Umm yes it is!!!!

www.sti.nasa.gov...

www.sti.nasa.gov...

www.thespaceplace.com...

www.thespaceplace.com...

vesuvius.jsc.nasa.gov...



A sign that things are improving is the plan to scrap the space shuttle program and begin using disposable rockets, Saturn V-style. While I don't dispute the position of someone like Story Musgrave, what do you all think, do you think the space shuttle is a one-way ticket to Hell and Saturn V is space exploration at it's best?


We can build an Apallo style program to be non-disposable. Yes I do think it is safer though.

[edit on 10-10-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:04 AM
link   


This got me wondering, is the space program really worth it?

sweatmonicaIdo, unfortunately oneday the earth will be of no use...all it's resources used up, the fules burned, the O-zone will be the NO-zone, global warming, etc..etc... And in order for the human race to press on we will have to go somewhere else (probably Mars). IMO, every space flight, every astronaut that goes into space and every new telescope made is somehow prepping us for this.

Yeah, NASA could do more research aimed at avacuating earth, which they probably are....we don't know everything that goes on behind the scenes. IMO, as bad as it may sound, NASA is #1 our hope for the future.

[edit on 10/10/2005 by SportyMB]



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 01:09 AM
link   
The Saturn V rocket itself was IMHO a much safer launch vehicle than the shuttle; however, the full Apollo mission of going to the moon with the lunar lander was probably, in total, more dangerous.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 11:38 AM
link   
EDIT: My question was is the space SHUTTLE program really worth it? I made a typo. Sorry all. Please revise your responses as necessary.



posted on Oct, 10 2005 @ 09:47 PM
link   
No offense guys, but I was talking to a NASA rep at the Oshkosh airshow this year, and he told me they dont have the plans for the Apollo, or Saturn V rockets anymore. And the only person that knows it complelty is dead. They never revised the original plans when they made modifications and relied on one persons memory who know the whole thing.

One of the problems we have is that our nuclear technology is so efficaint that we never needed big rockets to lauch our payloads like the russians did, that is why the russians are able to reuse ICBMs and put a Soyuz capulse on top and we americans are stuck with the space shuttle. No one wantso t spend the money to develpe a cheap dumb rocket

But also the Space shuttle has the distiction of the only craft that can carry such a huge payload into orbit, and recover orbiting craft. while using a good portion of reusable parts

[edit on 10/10/2005 by Jehosephat]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:09 PM
link   
Even mistakes are worth making, you learn from them



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 02:16 PM
link   
NASA's a dead horse. It still costs as much in manpower and resources to launch the shuttle as it did to send men to the moon. Why? Big Government.... They only know how to do it one way and that's big and expensive.

NASA should go the way of the Do-Do bird and give way to privatization like Burt Rutan and Virgin have done.

As far as which is safer.... Apollo... fully tested with greater lift capacity. But... those days are long gone...


[edit on 10-11-2005 by wetwarez]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:16 PM
link   
with only a handful of flights, and a single crash, Scaled composites along with Virigin galactic are taking just as much risk as the shuttle is. There is just less to go wrong with a craft like space ship one.

maybe you should talk to Mike Melvill and his first trip into space and how he thought half the craft was destroyed when he heard a "thump" after the engine shut-off

If we do nothing because of the risks, we will never do anything but dream.



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
No offense guys, but I was talking to a NASA rep at the Oshkosh airshow this year, and he told me they dont have the plans for the Apollo, or Saturn V rockets anymore. And the only person that knows it complelty is dead. They never revised the original plans when they made modifications and relied on one persons memory who know the whole thing.

[edit on 10/10/2005 by Jehosephat]



This is the type of thinking by NASA that has doomed the American space program. If you want to really participate in space exploration, I suggest you learn to speak Chinese.

Who ever flies in any American space craft deserve our prayers because NASA is more concerened with cost cutting than safety of the crew.

[edit on 11-10-2005 by whaaa]



posted on Oct, 11 2005 @ 06:50 PM
link   
Me again, the ex-aerospace engineer...

1. The shuttle is expensive, rockets are cheaper.
2. The purpose of the shuttle, was to lift certain heavy loads that could not be launched any other way at the time. Not true any longer.
3. The shuttle is re-usable, but turned out to be more expensive to be re-usable.
3. Yes, they don't know how to build Saturn V rockets any more, but they have no plans to try anyway.
4. The story that was published, is that Boeing was asked to bring out the old Saturn V drawings, so a current estimate could be made of the degree of difficulty in building more of them. The drawings were very difficult to find in their archives, and apparently there was some difficulty in interpreting or reading them. Basically they said they didn't know how to build them again. Having seen a few, I have my own personal opinion, but I'll skip that part.
5. The new rocket will be based on shuttle launch tanks and boosters, with no shuttle. Or combinations of a rocket and boosters. Boosters should be re-usable, same as done now. Other options are available beyond that. It's not a firm plan yet, but it looks good.
6. The original Saturn V was one of the most reliable launch vehicles ever. Zero failures from the start. I suppose that's why it keeps coming back up as a subject.
7. Safety: I'll take the rockets, the record of successful launches is better, and the fatalities are lower.
8. There are advances in rockets and their engines that people have overlooked, forgotten, or don't know about yet.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 07:54 AM
link   
Maybe the Shenzhou vehicles are safer!!



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
the shuttle was a great idea that was too far ahead of its time and flawed by design compromises, those being the ET and the solid rocket boosters. The facts were that being a child of the early 1970's material and eletronics era, the shuttle just could not fufill its promises. If the shuttle were to be done again today, I can forsee that the original two stage full reusable design could be made, and it would be enourmously cheaper witht the thermal protection system used on the x-33 instead of the fragile tile/blanket/carbon-carbon system on the shuttle now.



posted on Oct, 12 2005 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
with only a handful of flights, and a single crash, Scaled composites along with Virigin galactic are taking just as much risk as the shuttle is. There is just less to go wrong with a craft like space ship one.

maybe you should talk to Mike Melvill and his first trip into space and how he thought half the craft was destroyed when he heard a "thump" after the engine shut-off

If we do nothing because of the risks, we will never do anything but dream.


Jehosephat, I never said that we shouldn't take risks, but I believe that the next stage of space exploration is set for private enterprise. There have been too many compromises in the shuttle program to make it a viable lift/launch system.

As for Mike Melvill and Spaceship 1, he knew the risks.... that's what's great about the human spirit (without big government in the way)... we want to push and reach the edge... then beyond. I know we have to take risks... but do you honestly want to leave it to a bunch of bean counters with nothing more at stake than a paper cut from budgeting paperwork. Or would you rather have someone with the same dreams we've all had as kids to reach out and explore at the helm?

Your choice....



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
A sign that things are improving is the plan to scrap the space shuttle program and begin using disposable rockets, Saturn V-style. While I don't dispute the position of someone like Story Musgrave, what do you all think, do you think the space shuttle is a one-way ticket to Hell and Saturn V is space exploration at it's best?



I'd fly in a Saturn V without batting an eye. I would never fly the shuttle.

The Sat V was America's greatest rocket. She's a real beauty!

The shuttle was a bad idea from the start IMHO...

Tom



posted on Oct, 14 2005 @ 07:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
EDIT: My question was is the space SHUTTLE program really worth it? I made a typo. Sorry all. Please revise your responses as necessary.



The shuttle program was worth it in hindsight but far too dangerous. We learned a lot from it but I'd retire it now. We've already pushed our luck over the edge....

I'd feel MUCH safer in a Soyuz.

Tom



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 04:29 PM
link   
I know the rocket engine wasn't the cause, but apollo does not have a perfect record some may believe. Such as the Apoll0 1 fire, and the Apollo 13 #2 Oxygen tank Exploding when it was stirred.

And quite honestly folks, we only need the saturn V if we need to go to the moon, or lauched a huge paylod



posted on Oct, 15 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jehosephat
...we only need the saturn V if we need to go to the moon, or lauched a huge paylod (sic)


Exactly. And we do. On both counts. The operative word being 'need'.

Badly.

Because extinction sucks...



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join