Cancellation of the Space Shuttle Program - Shameful !!

[Interceptor]

In a word? Misinformation. The health insurance lobby funded large-scale astroturf operations at the height of the healthcare debate to convince everyone that you would go to jail for not having insurance, or that the government would kill old people, and a hundred other blatant lies. Once the stories were made up, they just loudly repeated them all year long until people eventually took them as truth. I'd be in the streets protesting too, if any of that stuff were actually true. Misinformation fueled by corporate money is, IMO, one of the most critical problems with our political landscape. Nobody can make a proper, informed decision when everything they hear is fabricated.

Silly Idealogy, Govt funded health care= Socialism in some peoples eyes,not mine.

 

[Donamy]

Then you just need a more efficient truck. Efficiency is relative.

But it's tripple the cost.

 

[Urwumpe]

Silly Idealogy, Govt funded health care= Socialism in some peoples eyes,not mine.

That is because such people won't recognize socialism until it bites them.

also public health care is a monarchist invention... the first laws in modern time have been done in imperial Germany.

In Germany, Chancellor Otto von Bismarck created the modern welfare state by building on a tradition of welfare programs in Prussia and Saxony that began as early as in the 1840s, and by winning the support of business. In the 1880s he introduced old age pensions, accident insurance, medical care and unemployment insurance that formed the basis of the modern European welfare state. His paternalistic programs won the support of German industry because its goals were to win the support of the working classes for the Empire and reduce the outflow of immigrants to America, where wages were higher but welfare did not exist. Bismarck further won the support of both industry and skilled workers by his high tariff policies, which protected profits and wages from American competition, although they alienated the liberal intellectuals who wanted free trade.

 

[FADEC]

If you help them in Africa for example building a school, this means that the local tyrant does not spend the money for this and can buy weapons. The same for wells, farmer schooling or mobile phone networks.

That kind of nonsense has failed so often, that you need to be religious to keep doing it again.

This is not what I am talking about. I talk about work that for example Karlheinz Boehm does do.

 

[Urwumpe]

This is not what I am talking about. I talk about work that for example Karlheinz Boehm does do.

It isn't actually better. But he at least appears more serious in his work as many others.

 

[Mantis]

I'm not sure how this got onto the subject of healthcare but I'll add my two cents. Government funded healthcare is not all it's cracked up to be. It's an impossibly expensive program that in Canada consumes approximately 40% of the entire budget of the province of Ontario each and every year. It costs billions upon billions at the federal level as well and the result is that while we have universal care and we don't pay directly for any medically necessary procedures, the level of care is universally mediocre. Wait times for diagnostic testing such as MRIs and even for surgical procedures is far longer in Canada than it is in the United States. Emergency care is excellent but often the wait times for non-emergency but none the less critical procedures is far longer than it should be. Also, the government has taken it upon themselves to determine which procedures are "medically necessary" and which are not. If they deem a procedure non-medically necessary, they don't cover the cost of it. Unbelievably in the province of Ontario, prostate cancer screening for men is deemed not medically necessary (of course mamagrams for women are fully covered though). Eye exams for adults between 18 and 65 are not covered either. Shockingly the same government that thinks that screening or the most common cancer in men is not medically necessary will fully fund sex-reassignment surgery. Try to figure out the logic in that one.

 

[Linguofreak]

All this talk about healthcare plans confuses me... can someone please explain, without sparking a political debate why there is so much opposition to government-funded healthcare in the US?

Different people have different reasons, and the same person may have different reasons for different types of systems. My opposition to the system recently implemented here (government-funded but privately run) is that I judge it (for reasons that would take lots of explanation and might spark a political debate) to be worse than either a government-funded-and-run program *or* a privately-funded-and-run program.

I also have misgivings (more social and political than strictly economic) about a government-funded-and-run health care as opposed to privately-funded-and-run health care, but if privately-funded-privately-run isn't an option, I'd rather have a full-out nationalized health care system than what we just got.

 

[Ark]

I'm not sure how this got onto the subject of healthcare but I'll add my two cents. Government funded healthcare is not all it's cracked up to be. It's an impossibly expensive program that in Canada consumes approximately 40% of the entire budget of the province of Ontario each and every year. It costs billions upon billions at the federal level as well and the result is that while we have universal care and we don't pay directly for any medically necessary procedures, the level of care is universally mediocre. Wait times for diagnostic testing such as MRIs and even for surgical procedures is far longer in Canada than it is in the United States. Emergency care is excellent but often the wait times for non-emergency but none the less critical procedures is far longer than it should be. Also, the government has taken it upon themselves to determine which procedures are "medically necessary" and which are not. If they deem a procedure non-medically necessary, they don't cover the cost of it. Unbelievably in the province of Ontario, prostate cancer screening for men is deemed not medically necessary (of course mamagrams for women are fully covered though). Eye exams for adults between 18 and 65 are not covered either. Shockingly the same government that thinks that screening or the most common cancer in men is not medically necessary will fully fund sex-reassignment surgery. Try to figure out the logic in that one.

I will take every single one of those flaws over the current healthcare picture in the US, which can be summed up as:

"If you're rich, we'll help you. If you don't have money or insurance, go find a quiet place to die in."

I'll take some delays or questionable treatment over no treatment whatsoever.

 

[Linguofreak]

A capsule can travel further into space as the Shuttle, because it has a better mass ratio without the wings and heatshield, but: It also offers much less space for work in space. A capsule has no payload bay,

It doesn't need a payload bay. You just stack as much payload as the launcher will carry on top of the upper stage, with the capsule on top. Did the Apollo CM need a payload bay for the LEM or service module?

no robot arm.

Again, you launch it with the capsule as a separate payload item on the same stack. And, since it's not part of the capsule, it's all the less mass you have to deorbit and relaunch on every mission that needs it. If you start building a space station, you bring the arm up with you on the first launch and leave it with the station. That way further capsules that come to work on the station don't need to bring their own arms.

 

[Urwumpe]

It doesn't need a payload bay. You just stack as much payload as the launcher will carry on top of the upper stage, with the capsule on top. Did the Apollo CM need a payload bay for the LEM or service module?



Again, you launch it with the capsule as a separate payload item on the same stack. And, since it's not part of the capsule, it's all the less mass you have to deorbit and relaunch on every mission that needs it. If you start building a space station, you bring the arm up with you on the first launch and leave it with the station. That way further capsules that come to work on the station don't need to bring their own arms.

You mistake something there - it isn't about hauling the mass. It is about the EVA work platform.

Of course you can launch your capsule on top of a 2500m payload module if you like to. But if you try to work in space with it, you need to make the payload module its own work platform. With a lot of mass going into providing these services.

The same with the robot arm. It is a difference if you just launch it, or if you need to work with it. Just installing a robot arm on the service module of the capsule isn't the same, as having the robot arm in a complete EVA work platform with cameras, floodlights and reference points.

Just imagine doing the HST Service missions with a capsule - how would these look like then? my imagination is maybe not the best, but without launching a payload bay behind the capsule for the same task, it goes very very badly.

 

[Ark]

I don't see why you couldn't just launch a payload bay behind the capsule. What is a payload bay but a framework for holding payload, plus some lights and maybe a robotic arm? You could even build an airlock into it so you can dock the nose of an Orion to it. Build 'em cheap and just deorbit into the ocean when you're done. You could have your flexible capsule and your payload bay too, without them being married to each other.

 

[T.Neo]

It'd seem pretty wasteful to dispose of all that infrastructure after every flight...

 

[Ark]

It'd seem pretty wasteful to dispose of all that infrastructure after every flight...

I view it like a fairing, just something simple and cheap that you dump after every flight. What makes a few beams, some lights, and maybe a basic airlock different from the rocket stages that get dumped downrange of the Cape on every launch? Surely you could build multiple disposable payload bays/EVA platforms for the cost of every Shuttle turnaround.

The only real capability you'd loose is the ability to recover satellites and return them to Earth, which isn't that important to begin with.

 

[T.Neo]

A fairing is a big shell. A payload bay contains lights, cameras, some electronics, motors, grapple points, tool kits...

I think the whole point of a successor to STS is a vehicle that would have a cheaper turnaround...

The ability to recover satellites and return them to Earth hasn't been that important... yet.

 

[deltawing777]

That is because such people won't recognize socialism until it bites them.

Exactly! Thank you!

---------- Post added at 01:14 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 AM ----------

I will take every single one of those flaws over the current healthcare picture in the US, which can be summed up as:

"If you're rich, we'll help you. If you don't have money or insurance, go find a quiet place to die in."

I'll take some delays or questionable treatment over no treatment whatsoever.

This is exactly why the gov't spending spree and the debt needs to get under control first so that any reforms of healthcare to make it better and affordable for you,me,our children can be addressed. These reforms can't be done if the country is broke. Do you really want a politician somewhere determining if you are "worth it" to spend money on if you or a loved one comes down with some form of infliction? But I agree with you 100% something needs to be done.Think about every check you make they are taking out money for social security. If social security goes broke by the time we get old and may need it, do you think they will re-emberse us for all the years we paid into it? Don't think those people running our gov't and making "the rules" have to worry about their healthcare though. They have a special, different plan then us "common folk". This is of course just my opinion.

 

[Ghostrider]

I will take every single one of those flaws over the current healthcare picture in the US, which can be summed up as:

"If you're rich, we'll help you. If you don't have money or insurance, go find a quiet place to die in."

I'll take some delays or questionable treatment over no treatment whatsoever.

A pity Obamacare takes too much from the Swiss healthcare system:

- "you must pay us, by law. end of line"
- "if you can't cough up enough money, when your hospital bill falls under a certain threshold (thanks to our accountant there) you will have to pay for it"
- "every year we'll raise the prices so pay up and get over it, the law is on our side"

 

[hribek]

Do you think a spaceplane can have a 2-day turnaround (between flights)?

 

[Screamer]

Why?

I am no American, like T. Neo , but hate the fact that the shuttles will be no more. I remember vividly the first shuttle launch. When Columbia eventually went to orbit I was hooked.
But why does the Shuttle program cost so much?

 

[Urwumpe]

Do you think a spaceplane can have a 2-day turnaround (between flights)?

Sure. You could have even less. The question is: Can you afford it?

you would need pretty modular subsystems, that can easily be swapped for reducing the inspection times. For example engines could fly 5 times in a row and then be swapped for inspection and overhaul. You would need much more sophisticated self-tests. The longest period of time goes then into refueling all the stuff, and would be around 6-12 hours, especially refueling toxic RCS tanks is pretty slow for preventing accidents. But if the RCS would use for example GOX + kerosene, you could refuel the RCS in less than 2 hours, and only need minimal checks.

Next, you would install the space plane on a booster stage, since we lack currently the engine technology to make winged SSTOs... I include SABRE on the things that don't yet exist. Even if it is close.

Important is: Faster turn around times are bought by lower performance...or better performance results in longer turn around times.

A two stage space plane could be likely overhauled faster than a SSTO.

 

[Ark]

This is exactly why the gov't spending spree and the debt needs to get under control first so that any reforms of healthcare to make it better and affordable for you,me,our children can be addressed. These reforms can't be done if the country is broke. Do you really want a politician somewhere determining if you are "worth it" to spend money on if you or a loved one comes down with some form of infliction? But I agree with you 100% something needs to be done.Think about every check you make they are taking out money for social security. If social security goes broke by the time we get old and may need it, do you think they will re-emberse us for all the years we paid into it? Don't think those people running our gov't and making "the rules" have to worry about their healthcare though. They have a special, different plan then us "common folk". This is of course just my opinion.

No government employee will ever be in a position to look at someone and decide "No, they're not worth the money to save." That's an idiotic scare tactic that never has and never will be true. Health insurance companies are the ones that look at a spreadsheet and decide whether you live or die. If they don't think you will pay more in premiums than they give you in coverage, then as far as they're concerned you can go die, preferably quietly and cheaply.

Social Security definitely needs work. The basic problem is that A. we had a massive population surge that are all getting old at the same time, and B. those people are living 10 years longer than was predicted when the program was created. Additionally, the Social Security funding as been a frequent target of raids for short-term projects. Manage the funds better, increase the Social Security tax a little to reflect how much people will be drawing from it, and I don't see why these issues couldn't be solved.

At least we didn't privatize it like Bush wanted, I can't imagine the nightmare that would ensure if the '08 market crash wiped out the Social Security fund along with everyone's retirement savings. :rofl: