Heard this a couple of times. We'll see...

I don't know, the way the russians and americans operate in space is vary different, I guess that it would be good to see two former enemys make more peace with each other though. Expiraments would certainly take less long to prepare.

The shuttle still has a major flaw,

I wrote Nasa back in 1980 about a shuttle exploding on launch, that we needed a way to protect the people riding them. All I got was a thank you and silence since then.

Proposal, use the shuttle Enterprise as a template for changes needed to add a LifePod or convert the existing crew cabin into an escape pod.

Current problem after spending all the money to get them READY is 6 inches off the launch pad one of the 3 main engines decides to explode, how will the crew escape this scene. Nasa believes it is unnessecary as the design for such a disaster was scraped. So Nasa has had it's up and down problems but it will be the one on the launch pad that will close down manned flight for a very long time.

Michael

faddinglight
I guess that it would be good to see two former enemys make more peace with each other though.

??? - More peace? In case you havn't notice ties between Russia and the US are getting smaller. Putin is former KGB, and he is obviosly trying to rebuild his country into the US hatin' superpower it once was.

As for the shuttle escape pod thing: $$$$$$$$$$$$, I think thats a good enough explaination, but i'll elaborate. You would need all 7 or so, people to be ejected at once, which means you would need the entire cockpit/crew area to be rocketed away from it, which means you would need a whole nother rocket, which would add more weight to the shuttle, therefore shriking its payloads, and yet rising its costs. and that rocket would need to be bigger and longer lasting the a fighter jet ejection seat, because you would need to get the people up high enough to escape the huge explosion soon to follow, as well as give the parachute enough time to deploy and slow down the compartment enough so they dont all die from the hard impact. In other words...$$$

a joint global space exploration venture,ahh...i wish hope and pray,just think of what could be achieved if resorces would be pooled? it will happen one day but when is un forseen?

As for the shuttle escape pod thing: $$$$$$$$$$$$, I think thats a good enough explaination, but i'll elaborate. in other words...$$$

I worked in machine shops and tooling is costly!

Adding weight to the shuttle, hmmmm, alternative is do nothing? Nasa could then advertise Cheaper costs with Throw away astronaunts, who sign contracts exempting Nasa from any law suites.

If we have to take less up would that mean we could bring down a crew that was alive! Safety is the reason Hubble is off limits now, so we now won't do those things that need to be done. Where was safety when columbia needed another shuttle sent up? Lets spend money on ISS with a crew of 2 ( bottomless pit until more people live there )and let the shuttle fly without any option to eject from ignition to that height the shuttle can land on an emergency runway.

In that case the shuttle should be retired NOW! Apollo program didn't lack putting a rocket on top of the capsule for protection. So why are we willing to put another life in harms way because we want to take more weight into space? How can you justify scraping an escape option to one on nothing? Don't take this personal as this question is one I've been asking Nasa for a very long time.

ATS is a good place to discuss topics so again you made a point I already know is true $$$$$$. But to do nothing is to allow another accident to happen, and Nasa has a history of being caught knowing about a problem ( Challenger and the blowby ) and doing nothing until an accident happens. I would rather take less up if it meant we could bring back a crew.

Michael