Secular Pinoy

I admit, I underestimate them big time. And I overestimate the number of participants here that can decouple childhood fantasies with real-world needs. We all have dreams, Carl Sagan made sure of that, but as skeptics, we'd better check that at the door when thinking things through.

Rousseau_CHN

Is the shuttle worth it?

I think you are all missing the point. What caused the accident wasn't the shuttle, it was the rocket.

The question we should be asking if rockets are worth it. Rockets are made of materials that is only slightly stronger than a coke can. If that is not scary enought, consider that its content is 90% fuel. That sounds like a recipe for explosion to me.

Unless we radically change the design of rockets, we should banned its use as transport.

I think more money should be given to the idea of MagLev (magnetic levitation). That is where our future lies, not in rockets.

Feather

I admit it: whenever I see the words "real-world" in an assault on scientific/exploratory endeavours my "skeptic" flags are immediately thrown. See, in my experience, the kind of person who uses "real-world" in this way is the same kind of person that uses phrases like "liberal acadamia elitists" and "ivory tower snobs that don't know what the real world is like;" the kind of person that doesn't actually understand what goes on in academic circles but judges that it's not worth it anyway, because it doesn't directly benefit him in his perception.

Perhaps you mean "earthly needs" as opposed to "real-world" needs. Because the shuttle and all the science carried out thereby is just as much a part of the "real world" as anything else. And the shuttle--along with the rest of the space program--has brought many tangible benefits in addition to the pure research.

In short: it really frosts my ass to see people claim the miniscule amount of money spent on the space program could be "better used elsewhere." Especially when you consider all the good things that have come from the space program that affect every facet of our daily lives.

But if you honestly believe the program is a waste of money, that's your opinion and you're entitled. Just don't go and try to rationalize it as being somehow more practical or reasonable when it's not, in fact.

Wyz_sub10

Just for the sake of context, could someone please provide a list of summary of a few shuttle missions so that people may get a feel for what is actually taking place in space?

Secular Pinoy

Have you read my posts, or the article and book that I cited? I did not refer to the shuttle disaster at all (nor, I think any one else in this thread did). I am not talking about shuttle safety here at all, or with the merits of rockets, but rather of the usefulness of the shuttle for science right now(or any manned space program), and the money drain the program has done with regards to research budgets. I've had this opinion since well before the disaster.

Magnetic levitation for space flight is unfeasible for the forseeable future, but if there is indeed a legitimate reason for furthur studies (with a good chance of results), then hey, tell the scientists to go for it. Of course, you'd have to educate me more about it first.

So, do you think that the current space shuttle program is doing a lot for science? I'd like to hear specific examples, and the costs incurred to get it.

Secular Pinoy

Semantics. If you like it, then use your words then. Of course, that's your unargued-for opinion.

Miniscule? We're talking billions here, love. What are these goods that you speak of? Scientific goods? Emotional, inspirational goods? If you read my OP, I purposely chose to tackle the scientific merits, all others are outside this discussion, and it does not mean that I think non-scientific reasons are not important, for some. And I'm not referring to the entire space program, either. I refer to the Shuttle program in particular, with peripheral notes to the ISS and any other manned space programs (which, for safety considerations, are magnitudes more expensive than unmanned missions). So your counter is largely misplaced. I think unmanned missions are the only currently feasible way to do first-hand space science.

Why am I not allowed to defend my opinions with arguments? Are you saying that all opinions are equal? I think all people have an equal right to have their opinions in the matter, but the contents of their opinions can still be gauged for value using reason and evidence. My opinion for the worthlessness (which is not absolute, cause I'm still open to good ideas) of the of the shuttle program from a scientific perspective is given above, with references to the linked article and the cited book. Care to defend your opinion?

Friar Bellows

You could try out this page:

Space Shuttle Launches

The Shuttle did a lot for the Hubble Space Telescope, and the Hubble Space Telescope did (and is still doing) a lot for astronomy and cosmology. But space telescopes don't require a manned space program, of course ... just some type of space program. Or just something that can fling things into precise orbits. Long-term, we'd like to put telescopes on the Moon.

For me a good practical reason for a manned space program (as part of long-term project of space colonisation) is the safety in spreading us around (even if it's just around the solar system). This makes us far less susceptible to complete species extinction from a single catastrophic event (like an asteroid impact, or a super-virus, or something not imagined yet, or even worldwide war).

I have other reasons, but they're so philosophical or even metaphysical that I would only confess them at gunpoint.

Secular Pinoy

Hmmm... I seem to have struck a nerve with my topic, which comes as a surprise. The majority of negative responses does not really add anything of value to the topic at hand, mostly emotional tirades, and I don't want that. I'm a thorough-going skeptic, and all I want is a good dialogue. I'm not out to change minds, nor to beat the trekkie fanatics with a large trout. My purpose is to flesh out the real value of the shuttle program from a perspective of cost-benefit analysis with scientific value and budgetary considerations as the currencies in question.

I think that in science we have to be imaginative, but it must constrained with pragmatic considerations. If we want to learn more of the cosmos (as I wholeheartedly do), do we do it with unmanned probes and landers, which are cheaper, but just plain boring for the sci-fi fan? Or do we reach that objective via manned space vehicles and space stations, which are fancy but very expensive and with little worthwhile scientific results? If it's a mix of both, then which ought to be more prominently used?

I want to know why we need to use the space shuttle. I want to know if there is still a good reason to waste money on the ISS, even after it has outlived it's previous three or four objectives (which varies from president to president). I want to know why we need to be sending people into space at this time, and not later when the technological/technical and scientific foundations have been laid down using the knowledge we learned from using alternatives. I want to know if they have lived up to the hype some of our fellow posters have claimed for it. Enlighten me, please, but spare me the abuse.

Secular Pinoy

Aside from Friar Bellows' useful link, let me add mine: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...-missions.html

Secular Pinoy

I think I've been unfair about this. My OP is primarily concerned with the Shuttle, not the ISS. It is wrong for me to ask you to defend the use of the ISS when the OP did not ask for it. You may agree that the shuttle is useful for building the ISS, which may have nothing to do with your actual opinion on the ISS' usefulness itself. I apologize.

Though I must add that it is not really a scientific use, but an engineering use.