It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Scuttle the Shuttle!

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:22 PM
This article proposes that we stop our Space Shuttle Missions Today and instead use those resources for opening up the "space frontier" to businessses that are working on technologies important in populating the moon and beyond.
Los Angeles, CA, June 29, 2006 – Scuttle the Shuttle! This phrase, first used years ago by the Space Frontier Foundation, is being heard again, as the Foundation calls for NASA to end the expensive, dead-end Space Shuttle program immediately. The Foundation believes the approximately 20 billion dollars this would save between now and 2010 (when NASA has announced the program will end) should instead be used to kick-start a commercial LEO economy based on private facilities, satellite servicing, energy and resource development and other industries – in the end creating far more jobs and economic activity than the Shuttle program.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.

I personally completely agree with the message of this story. I too believe that NASA could be using this money in a smarter, more helpful way, one in which will help make sure that we go back to the Moon and venture off to Mars sooner rather than later.

Edit: Title.

[edit on 2-7-2006 by intrepid]

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:36 PM
That title made me laugh out loud!

I do wholeheartedly agree, but it's true that we need them for the time being, to service the space station.

I also think designing a replacement craft would be great, as long as it looked better than the Ares..

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 10:36 PM
Well I tend to think that the money would be more widely used to fund more interplanetary projects and not on flying around in orbit and landing again. In my opinion the space program has gone into limbo because there is no longer a pressing need or want to explore space. Many would rather see the money spent on social programs instead.

People need to see the bigger picture.....yes in the short run the social programs help out but consider the knowledge and technology that will be gained. When the earth dies or the human race becomes to great in number for earth to support what happens then? This isnt an issue of IF but more an issue of when....from a purely scientific viewpoint...we can delay it as much as possible but in the end our true slavation will be getting out into space and finding other places and ways to live.

NASA needs to be better also needs to find a way to populate mars and possibly the moon.

It also needs to take seriously an endeavor to develop a form of propulsion that will allow humans to explore other solar systems within our lifetime.

no more spending millions and billions of dollars to fly in orbit and run experiments. We need to accomplish something...get our foot in the door.

We can AT LEAST populate the moon...we have proven we can land there...and the US government has laser technology that can, with improvement, break up incoming meteorites. We can probably build self-sufficient "bio domes" on the move to produce and recycle oxygen and grow food.


posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:04 PM

Originally posted by SteveR
I also think designing a replacement craft would be great, as long as it looked better than the Ares..

I'm guessing that someone's been reading the Kim Stanley Robinson 'Mars' Trilogy?

Love that series, should dig it out again...

posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 11:10 PM
I believe Nasa would save a ton and really wouldnt need a large funding increase if they scrapped the Shuttle and its supports. Essentially its just a grossly expensive reusable satelite it goes up on a rocket then orbits and comes down. The whole process is flawed and insanely expesive for what little it does IMO. A cheaper space capsule type of reusable craft would cover as much and in reality cost much much less. Heck the Russian shuttles are no more dangerous than ours and way way cheaper to operate.
I find it funny all these years since the Apollo missions and the best we come up with after hundreds of billions of $$$ for the Shuttle costs is the idea of going back to 1960's rocketry. And why would Rocketry technology as in Ares cost so much more if most the engineering was done 30 + years ago. I say no New Nasa funding get rid of the Flying billion dollar brick called the shuttle and the money you save spend on other programs.
Should be plenty of $$$ saved. IMO

posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 10:29 AM
Today media outlets are reporting that they found another crack in the Shuttle's foam covered fuel tank.

Didn't NASA think they had fixed this problem and didn't the director say that the risk of it happening again was minute.

For me, this is just another sign that the Space Shuttle costs far too much for what we get out of it. Every time the shuttle is about to launch I cringe.

Every time a Space Shuttle blows up it sets NASA back so many more years.

NASA must understand that it does not get any more supporters for it when Space Shuttles blow up and everyone on board dies.

new topics

top topics

log in