NASA still without shuttle repair kits

The space shuttle is scheduled to lift off in June or July of 2005 but is it really safe to do so? Why is NASA in such a hurry to restart the shuttle program? Why are they still willing to put the astronauts in peril?

CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida (AP) -- Nearly two years after Columbia shattered in the sky, NASA still has no way of repairing the kind of holes that could doom another shuttle, space agency officials acknowledged Monday in their latest status report on the return-to-flight effort.

www.cnn.com...

The development of patches for the shuttle wings and other vulnerable locations is proving far more difficult than imagined just months ago and, along with devising a way for astronauts to inspect their spaceship in orbit, represents "one of the most challenging and extensive return-to-flight tasks," the 268-page report said.

Are they worried about other countries surpassing our space exploration, or are they looking to install space weapons and high tech communications out in space? Are these factors more important then the safety of the crews on the shuttles?

the thing is with just a little thought this problem can easy be handeled Without fancy patches or risking the guy in a ife space walk .
Very simply put we already have a life boat up there its call the international space station . a wile its true its riddeled with problems it could still serve as a life boat . How you may ask by planing your flytes with enough left over fuel to change orbites if nessery to dock with it.
so using a satlight to check the wings and bottom of the shuttle for holes or damange and if damange is found eather braking (the usal methed or a small burn to chnge orbite its a trip to the space Junk .
Not the greatest place to have to stay for a few week would be crowed smelly but you will live .Even though by the time they send a pick up ship you may be thinking of doing some space sky diving and taking the chance on rentry.
ps you realy just need a parking space the shuttle has enough supplys and extra air to last quite some time without inposing on the space station.
Ps if things get realy dicy and you cant make it there its still no problem.
Just site there in orbite untill a cab gets there . Heck you could lunch a delta rocket with a dominos pizza and diliver it in under 30 minits .

[edit on 7-12-2004 by Simcity4Rushour]

The astronauts will be in a certain amount of danger no matter what, patches or no patches. They know what they're doing, and the dangers involved. You should commend them for their selflessness.

And they need the shuttle to take supplies up to the ISS, do repairs on it, and continue building it. The Soyuz modules just arn't enough. Would you rather have them risk losing billions of dollars?

They are pushing for the mid-may date because they know that if they keep delaying dates then it will be longer till it gets off the ground, if ever. People shouldn't expect it to be perfectly safe.

I dont think that they should of stopped the shuttle flights, They still have 3 more and a very very tight ISS timetable, they are gonna need to get there asses moving if they honstly expect to get it all built by 2010.

HURRY YOUR ASSES UP NASA.

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
The astronauts will be in a certain amount of danger no matter what, patches or no patches. They know what they're doing, and the dangers involved. You should commend them for their selflessness.

And they need the shuttle to take supplies up to the ISS, do repairs on it, and continue building it. The Soyuz modules just arn't enough. Would you rather have them risk losing billions of dollars?

I certainly can agree with you on that.

Also might I add that I think it may be premature to condem their current efforts on finding the problems and ways to fix them.

I do not want to see them rush into this without looking at every aspect and they have already stated

Nonetheless, NASA continues to aim for a May or June liftoff of Discovery and, in fact, contends it has dealt with all 10 remaining return-to-flight recommendations put forth by the Columbia accident investigators.

I take the term "has dealt with all 10 remaining recommendations" at this time that means it is a go. Keep in mind they still have more meetings and nothing is over until the fat lady sings as they say.

Here's another view to the story. Let me add a personal thought: the Space Shuttle is proving to be one of worst decisions ever for the space program. Why? Costs, efficiency and capabilities upgrades. Costs: as a reusable spacecraft (let's call it this way) it should have been a much cheaper option than "one shot" vehicles (like the Apollos, for example). This hasn't proven the case. Maintenance has turned out to a nightmare, a long costly nightmare, while the operating costs have glided through the years. This leads to the second problem:efficiency. The Shuttle is a technologically aging vehicle, but it's terribly under-used. No Shuttle has reached about half of its expected flight-hours while, by now, they should be near the end of their useful days. This is not due to a better design, but to under-use, be it due to monetary cutback or long periods of inactivities and investigations following any problem. Moreover this puts the space program at risk: if the Shuttles are grounded, there's nothing else (the Russian Buran spacecraft was heavily damaged while in storage and will not be rebuilt) to use in case of an emergency, for example badly needed repairs to the Hubble telescope or the ISS. We have to rely on Russian Soyuz capsules for this, and they have very limited payload (yet are so much cheaper than a Shuttle). It's like putting all the eggs in a single basket: the US military understood this and it's why they use two different rockets (the Titan and the Delta) to put their precious cargoes in orbit. Should one rocket prove unreliable and need redisgn, there's always a second option. The third problem (upgrades) is even worse: the Shuttle is an under-used, technologically aged spacecraft with little upgrade capabilities. There's very little room to improve its electronics (and look how much they advanced in the last twenty years in every field) and next to nothing to improve its structure. It's a very tight design with little room for improvements. I'll give you two silly examples: let's say they choose two Shuttle pilots, one coming from commercial aviation and one from the USAF. The commercial pilot is currently flying a Boeing 737-800 (a very common jetliner), while the military flies a Boeing B52H. Both will be forced to learn how to use the archaic flight architecture of the Shuttle: even the B52 (which is much older than the Shuttle, since the last one was delivered in 1962) has better controls, since it has been kept up-to-date through the years thanks to an "open" design. The 737-800, despite being based on an old design, is a complete new breed of aircraft, with brand new features and state of the art-controls. Forgive me for my rambling, but I love very much talking about these things!