It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Leave last 3 Shuttles in Space?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 03:58 AM
link   
Hey i agree with the idea of permanently docking the shuttles at ISS. Their engines can serve as backup for those gyroscopes if they are placed at the right positions. Also, their cargo bays and cabins can be used be store supplies and serve as working or living space.

As for preparing them for long space journeys to the moon, that's impossible for the time being. Much of its onboard fuel wii be used up when it reaches orbit. Refuel it? The ISS cannot possibly be a "space gas station". How many rockets carrying huge amount of fuel supplies do we need to send up to create an orbiting fuel storage?

Although the shuttles will be retired soon, i still prefer the idea of re-useable space vehicles. In what way is CEV better than the shuttles(excluding safety concerns)?




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
First off the ISS does have a vessle to carry people back in case of an emergency, its the Russian progress, it can carry 3 people back at any time, although once the shuttle start to fly again the ISS will be more operational and it will have around 7 people aboard.


I was actually saying that the emergency craft would be orbit only, not returning to earth



and the shuttle cant go to the moon! it can only go as high as the ISS, which is 250 miles, and even if (for some dumb reason) you dicided that you could fill the shuttle interal tanks and also you would probably have to strap on some additional rockets to get there, but then when you do get there..then what? it has wheels, and as far as I know the moon doesn't have a 3 mile long runway.


well, on the subject of runways, there is nothing to stop us from building a runway up there

and as for the problem of no air for the parachutes, why not replace them with retro rockets? a quick, precise retro burn will do alot to slow the craft.

also, it appears that in you haste to wade in guns blazing, it seems that you totally overlooked the fact that i said i would not use the shuttle, and replace it with a newer design.


its kinda sad how uninformed people think they have all the answers.


and who are you saying is uninformed? lets stick to the topic please, and avoid any possible slanging matches


[edit on 21-4-2005 by Daystar]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Using the shuttles as permanently docked storage is I guess a viable idea, but as for using them to get to, and even landing on the moon ? I would have guessed this is impossible. Does the shuttle not need air to glide in to allow it to perform its slow down maneouvres on its descent after re-entry ? I believe that some have said that even after re-entry its speed is close to Mach 25 (dont flame me if i'm way off), and that it performs a set of sweeping 'S' turns to bleed off its speed down to normal speeds which allow it to land. These turns would be impossible as the moon has no atmosphere ?! So you are going to have a craft coming in at a ridiculous speed, with only its Orbital Manouvering Jets to slow it down ?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 10:59 AM
link   
You are forgetting about security....

what if Bin laden were to smoke some opium and rise into space and steal a space shutle then aim it at the white house....

hahahaha lol ;P

Just joking of course.

I actually completely agree it would be an excellent idea to have craft in orbit.

I have wondered what would be the outcome of the craft and think it would be the most efficient use of the craft....

My only reservations would be the upkeep.. I mean would we have to allocate any budget to the maintenance of the craft?? I suspect it would be quite costly to ensure that the craft were in perfect working order fir an acceptable amount of time.

Thumbs up Nice thought.


NeoN HaZe



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 11:16 AM
link   
This is a bit like using a Model T just to go to the local store, but using a modern car for longer trips...


The space shuttles are seriously too old to be used in such a manner safely. A newer craft for such a purpose would be cheaper too, in the long run, than constant maintenance on such an unreliable (these days) craft as the old shuttle.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   
Nasa originally planned on having a escape vehicle permenatly attached to the station just in case either some one got very ill, or a major disaster happened. It was called the CRV (Crew Return Vehicle), but with Nasa's new vision, it was axed.

The shuttles retirement is 2010, and Nasa's next spacecraft is called the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle), but its not scheduled to be operational until 2014, the new Nasa administrator (micheal Griffen)(whom I like far better then O'keefe) said that he wants it to progress faster then currently planned, and wants it operational sooner to shorten the "no flight gap". I cant say if the CEV could have a modified version of it for the ISS, because its to early, the CEV has had many different changes and concepts thrown about, but if memory serves I think its may when the big named companies will release there newest concepts of the CEV, Some first designs were a spaceplane but now with one of its missions having to be the only people carring craft that will be able to go to the moon it will likely be a capsule. In 2008 the two (Boeing Vs. Lockheed) will have a "fly off" much like the USAF does with its aircraft, the two will go into space and Nasa will choose the better of the two, it will be interesting who wins...considering that this craft seems to have a bright future, and the final contract could be worth up to 100 billion.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Murcielago

You sir are now on ignore. Your insulting me brings nothing to this discussion. Had you read my first statement, were I admited I know very little about the subject and proposed ideas so I could learn and perhaps open a discusion up about the shuttles you might have spared my feelings. I hope you feel superior now, and gain some sort of sick and demented pleasure out of making me feel stupid.

You sir are an A hole. Good luck in your Superiorness. All hail Murcielago!


[edit on 21-4-2005 by Xeven]



posted on Apr, 22 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
As far as landing it on the moon goes, even if they could get it down it would be a one-way trip, there is no way to get it back off the surface, then there would be debris that would be damaging the heat shield from FOD hitting the underside during such a landing attempt. Plus about 10K other reasons this idea is unfeasible.

Also something that only one person here has eluded too is that the underside is fragile as most learned with the Columbia, and its prone to damage from micro meteorites and other orbital projectiles, and is not feasible to repair in orbit. Over time, IMHO, due to the large surface area of the heat shield, you would have enough impacts to make it unsafe to use for a rescue boat as the heat shields condition would become questionable.

As far as using it as a orbital shuttle goes, even if you refueled it, I think Nasa would have to do a lot of research into the idea of re-igniting the main engines one they have shut down in orbit, they are usually inspected for damage between ignitions, otherwise you have the chance of it becoming a huge fireball in space.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join