posted 05-16-2003 08:03 AM               

"Max Faget, one of the nation's most important spacecraft designers, says the space shuttle - which he helped pioneer - should be retired and the human space program suspended until the nation can build a better vehicle for putting astronauts into orbit."

"...'The bottom line is that the shuttle is too old,' Faget, 81, said in a telephone interview Wednesday from his home near Houston. 'It would be very difficult to make sure it is in good shape. We ought to just stop going into space until we get a good vehicle. If we aren't willing to spend the money to do that, then we should be ashamed of ourselves.'"

"NASA officials did not respond directly to Faget's comments, though they said the 'shuttle he designed 30 years ago is not the shuttle of today,' noting it has been upgraded and modernized. However, NASA engineers at the working level said privately that they regard Faget as 'a giant in the space community whose opinions are worth more than anybody else's.'"

I have to say -- prior to Faget commenting, I mostly wrote off the comments about grounding the shuttle permanently as political grandstanding. But Faget has nothing to gain from saying what he has and he is one of the last great spacecraft pioneers alive today.

You can read the entire article here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-shuttle16may16002431,1,2082307.s tory

posted 05-16-2003 02:38 PM            

your supplied link only works with a password. Could you please re-print the entire article here?

posted 05-16-2003 02:58 PM               

I don't have a reprint agreement with LA Times, so the above excerpt is all that I can really justify under "fair use".

Registration for the LA Times website is free and you can opt out of any e-mail from them or their sponsors.

posted 05-16-2003 11:33 PM               

I would like to go to the moon, even Mars, sure. At least start designing and building a new craft that could be flying within 7-10 years; not necessarily a reusable spaceplane, just any new craft that could be used to go to and from the station, on to the moon and for other purposes.

But no, let's not end the shuttle's legacy on a low-note, with the death of seven astronauts.

------------------
-Ben

http://www.geocities.com/ovcolumbia/

posted 05-17-2003 03:00 AM            

I believe that many of the other 'old-timers' at NASA would agree with that.

There have been just over 100 launches of this vehicle with 2 horrific tradgedies that basically came down to poor judgement and human error.

We have come a very long way in a very short period of time as the 100 year celebration of mankinds first flight begins.

Keeping man (& woman) in space is part of our destiny. Exploring other worlds may very well be given to the likes of robots, but we must continue to explore, and we need some leadership, commitment and new ideas FAST.

I agree that the shuttles should one day retire, the fleet is aging and the technology lacking in some repects but we need to get back up on our feet, make the improvements, heed the warnings and recommendations and get on with the program.

Just my 2 pennies...

posted 05-17-2003 07:59 PM            

By referring to it as a ‘test vehicle’ I was trying to describe it as kind of a young generation vehicle, constantly being ‘upgraded’, striving to reach perfection.

I meant no disrespect for the fleet.

As for a visionary leader, it doesn’t matter much to me what party he’s from, just someone who can create some sort of a peaceful global plan of exploration, get everyone excited about it, then move ahead with it. That’s all I’m trying to say.
(wishful thinking).

posted 05-17-2003 08:19 PM            

Ask any of those WW2 veterans if they were proud of their terrible ships, and you can bet they'd say yes. They did what they could. But if you asked them if they thought there ships were any good, and they'd probably laugh.

The shuttles have done what they could, but they're still living with the hangover of the Vietnam War. No disrespect is meant to the shuttles or the guys that fly them and keep them flying -- but it's still a huge dead end for space exploration.

posted 05-17-2003 09:56 PM               

If there hadn't been a Cold-War, it's likely we would still not have been to the moon today.

Maybe, just maybe, China will be our incentive. We (the US) may become suspicious of their intentions. (I'm not at all saying, nor do I personally believe, that they have any intentions other than science and exploration, but that reason is a good part of what got the space race started).

posted 05-17-2003 10:32 PM               

I mean no disrespect to either man. But, I do think that President Kennedy's tragic death added impetus to his challenge to land a man on the Moon before the decade is out, and return him safely to the Earth.

While President Reagan almost gave his life for his country, he did not die. So unfortunately his challenge didn't rally the troops in the same way that Kennedy's challenge did. This is a shame.

I think that Dr. Max Faget is right. I only wish I could disagree with him.

Ed

posted 05-18-2003 06:11 AM               

However, the managerial or political conclusions he takes out of his analytical considerations are easy for him to make - he is retired and does not have the responsability to put such a decision into reality.

There is a space station in place with considerable investment, and with binding agreements with 15 other nations, with all their space programs financially bound to this station project. So - I don't think that politically abandoning the shuttle "just like that" with no other options in place is politically and economically viable.

The question if course is - why are there so many abandoned follow-up projects in the US? Why no coherent effort and no money to go with it? Does this have to do with ideology (like: space must be a private effort - while at the same time the military-industrial complex is not interested in real big time investment), or: state is a bad thing and only has to have a marginal role - while all manned space programs only existed when they were state backed)?

And what technology to be followed? Is winged spacecraft - while compatible with a pilot's idea of something that flies - really a good concept? Max Faget is a "capsule guy", and this might explain his tenure to a certain point as well. And he might be right with this conservative viewpoint as well. What manned spacecraft flies - the Soyuz, the Chinese crafts (inspired by the Soyuz), the return vehicle under development with ESA - are all capsule concepts. And where are the heavy launchers to come with it? Energiya was a good concept, but it died when its primary payload - another winged vehicle - was doomed, mainly for cost reasons.

------------------
Jürgen P Esders
Berlin, Germany http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Astroaddies