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.

 

Making The Present Shuttle Safer!

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:00 AM
link   
Regardless of when the shuttle was designed or what era the technology was from its time for a replacement, and yes one may be on its way but we still have the problem of using the present shuttle at the moment.

NASA say they have added several new components to the shuttle but i still do not agree that it is safe.

NASA have added several cameras to the underside of the shuttle and the Canadian designed extending arm has been added to check for damaged tiles whilst in orbit, but what is NASA's plan if they do find tiles missing?
Will the have Atlantis or Endeavour prepared and ready to launch a rescue mission?

I think not!

So once Discovery is in orbit, if they find damage in any critical place on the shuttle, what do they do??? NOTHING AGAIN! They re-enter Earths atmosphere and burn up!

NASA needs a serious rescue plan before they send any more shuttles back to space!



E_T

posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee
So once Discovery is in orbit, if they find damage in any critical place on the shuttle, what do they do??? NOTHING AGAIN! They re-enter Earths atmosphere and burn up!
In that case they go to ISS where they have more food and oxygen.
That's also reason behind shelving Hubble's service flight, inclination of orbits between Hubble and ISS differs enough that shuttle's orbital maneuvering system doesn't have enough energy for going to both "places".



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   


In that case they go to ISS where they have more food and oxygen.


But how will they return home?

Shuttle missions can carry seven people max.
If seven people are sent to the ISS how will they get back to Earth?
If NASA sent up another shuttle it would need at least 2 crew, which means they can only bring back 5 astronauts.

So TWO shuttle missions would be needed to rescue a shuttle in danger, not to mention ANOTHER mission to fix the damaged shuttle still in orbit!

The only way to prove they have a real back-up plan is to prep ALL THREE shuttles ready for launch with crew's ready to pick up any stranded astronauts!
And that would cost far too much so......NASA, stop wasting money on shuttle launches and use the money to hurry the production of a replacement. Leave the ISS to the MUCH more reliable Soyuz and Ariane rockets!



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:22 AM
link   
best way to make the present shuttle safer is to turn the fleet into a museum and build a new fleet of super shuttles



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   


best way to make the present shuttle safer is to turn the fleet into a museum and build a new fleet of super shuttles


Not the best way....THE ONLY WAY!!!

Agree totally!



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 08:00 PM
link   
I know that some of the posters have read my thoughts on a design I see, but take away the added weight and do only what the Apollo people had with a rocket attached to the crew compartment and we give them a fighting chance to fight death, this forward crew section being detachable would allow the computers to be upgraded without grounding the entire craft. Also having the aft main engines able to detach would help when leaks are found that prevent the Shuttle from launching, Bang like the MLM or multi-logistin Module for taking up food and such, we could use the same design to remove a leaky main engine section for one that has been ground tested and meet our launch date?

Michael


My thought on a Safer Shuttle: home.earthlink.net...

We currently have a Shuttle called : Enterprise where the crew compartment was never insulated for space. We could use this craft to map out how to upgrade the rest of the fleet. Creating a new design as a phoenix project to the shuttle, with a cev that can perform more than just one function, simulator, escape pod, lunar bridge where main computers can guide a secondary craft designed for the Moon to it's destination.


[edit on 9-5-2005 by Ark-Angel]



posted on May, 9 2005 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by MurcielagoThe CEV is currently scheduled to enter service in 2014, and the Shuttle will end 2010, If I was Griffen (Nasa's top dog) I would get the CEV operational by 2013...


Actually, Griffen wants to get the CEV up by 2010.
The sooner the better, as long as it's done safely.



posted on May, 10 2005 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Mickeydee
but what is NASA's plan if they do find tiles missing?
Will the have Atlantis or Endeavour prepared and ready to launch a rescue mission?

I think not!

The will spread a space-age epoxy over it, in much the same way they upt bondo on a car to cover the ding/dent. Called Tile Ablator, Nasa has tested it at 3,100 degrees F for 15 minutes.

BTW, if they find a hole, or something to big for them to patch up, they will stay on the Space Station, the Shuttle could be remained docked up there, or they could have it on autopilot and flown back to Flordia, that way its no risk to the crew. Dont forget about the Soyuz Capsules, which can hold 3, I would assume the next shuttle would fly up with around 3 or 4 people, and go back with 7, there would be no need to urgently get the original 7 back to earth, they could stay up there performing various tasks. over a couple months time the would all return to earth.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 09:28 AM
link   


The will spread a space-age epoxy over it, in much the same way they upt bondo on a car to cover the ding/dent. Called Tile Ablator, Nasa has tested it at 3,100 degrees F for 15 minutes.


The problem with the tiles has been known since before Columbia took off on the first ever space shuttle launch into space, so why was something like this not available earlier???

If they didnt have it back in the 80's...fair enough.
But shurely they had it just 3 yrs ago when Columbia was stranded in space with no chance of re-entry.



posted on May, 11 2005 @ 11:48 PM
link   

Mickeydee
But shurely they had it just 3 yrs ago when Columbia was stranded in space with no chance of re-entry.

Doubtfull, however if they would of dedicated somemoney to fix the problem they could of made something, but theres a lot of politics involved, they have to justify expenditures.

and Columbia wasn't stranded, They didn't know that it wuold burn up, foam has struck the leading edge of the wing many times before...So it was assumed that it caused not much of a danger.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:27 AM
link   


theres a lot of politics involved, they have to justify expenditures.


And these expenditures are not worth having even if they could save seven brave men and women onboard Columbia!

And i think they knew there was a good chance Columbia would burn up and that is why they delayed the re-entry.
They just didnt have any option than to try!!!



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 08:36 AM
link   


The BEST way to make sure the shuttle is safe.... Is to park it in a museum


Yep, hehe...


Seriously though, perhaps some kind of heat-resistant adhesive/filler could be sprayed on the tiles as an added safety precaution instead. This wouldn't add a lot of weight, nor require any real modifications.



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 01:31 PM
link   


Seriously though, perhaps some kind of heat-resistant adhesive/filler could be sprayed on the tiles as an added safety precaution instead. This wouldn't add a lot of weight, nor require any real modifications.


But could it be made strong enough to stop damage to the tiles during takeoff???



posted on May, 12 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

MickeyDee
And these expenditures are not worth having even if they could save seven brave men and women onboard Columbia!

I'm done argueing with you, the fact is your point of view is dumb.\

Example: (it never happened)(hypothetical)
I'm getting an oil change in my truck and they tell me my front right tire is getting pretty bald and ask me if I want them to replace it with a new tire, I say no, because I dont have the money but plan to get all 4 tires replace in a couple weeks. I'm driving home on the interstate and my tire blows, and I lose control and my truck swerves to the right hiting a mini van, causeing it to slide sideways, it hits the side of the road and catches on the grass and rolls 5 times, the family of 4 was all killed.

That family would still be alive today if I would have just paid the money for a new tire.

I hope that hypothetical example will sink in.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 08:15 AM
link   
OK Murcielago,

Your right and everyone else is wrong,
your big and im small,
your wise im stoopid!

Forgive me for breathing!




Not one single person has made me be nasty on these boards and i dont intend to ever again but you just annoy me!!!




[edit on 13/5/2005 by MickeyDee]



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 02:06 PM
link   

MickeyDee
Not one single person has made me be nasty on these boards and i dont intend to ever again but you just annoy me!!!

Whats the matter? You hate to see a realist point of view...You can live in your fantasy land, where politics dictate nothing, I'm only trying to put some logic in these threads.

(Nothing I say should be taken offensivly, but if you choose so...fine)



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 03:25 PM
link   
I dont take offence and dont like arguing on the boards i just dont think that politics should be put before peoples lives.

You are making sense it just annoys me that the shuttles are still being used when there are obvious safety risks!

Mic




posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:42 PM
link   
Hey, Skunky Batman..... Stop saying that everyone who has an opinion OTHER THAN YOURS is stupid. That is just plain ignorance on your part. ATS is a great place simply because of the diversity of its members. Everyone is allowed an opinion. It is the differences in life that make this world great. You, do not have a patent on absolute truth.

As one who has actual experience working with the space program it is clear to me that your depth of knowledge is limited. There are modalities of thought other than yours and many of them are even more logical. You haven't even done the basic research yet to allow yourself to speak with such authority. You enjoy lecturing about shuttle design but didn't even know who Maxime Faget was or even the basic origins of the shuttle design. "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"

I would also like to remind people that the tiles on the current Space Shuttle, are held on with Double Stick Tape. Now ... tell me that is not a totally ancient idea and I'll give you a cookie. You can slather on all the magic Bondo you want on the shuttle and it will still be a flying dump truck. We have better designs and better capabilities. Lets put them to use today, not tomorrow.

NASA has long been planning a replacement for the shuttles because they well know how outdated and limited they are. The design is OLD (even if Batman insists otherwise) and if the public was more vocal about their support, we would have had a newer system in place long ago. The Apollo missions ended due to public apathy. Too many people are more concerned about themselves than the future of mankind

Just so people know... Murceilago in Spanish means BAT, thus my reference to Skunky Batman. I happen to speak a few languages and do indeed have experience working hand in hand with NASA and JPL. I am sometimes wrong as we all are from time to time, and I will entertain any improvement to my knowledge, but it bugs me when some people call others stupid just because they don't happen to agree with an uneducated opinion.

As Forrest Gump said.... "Stupid is, as stupid does" I'm done with this thread as it is going nowhere. We should be talking about NEW designs not how to patch and repair a leaky ship.



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 06:54 PM
link   
Quote >>>>>>Whats the matter? You hate to see a realist point of view...You can live in your fantasy land, where politics dictate nothing, I'm only trying to put some logic in these threads.

(Nothing I say should be taken offensivly, but if you choose so...fine)

I'm done argueing with you, the fact is your point of view is dumb.\

I dont like your idea at all.

Your first sentence is just dumb, and the Shuttle was designed in the 70's not the 50's. The shuttle's job is to build the ISS, not put satellites in orbit, it has only done that a few times.

What newer designs are you refering to?



posted on May, 13 2005 @ 11:58 PM
link   
Terapin - FYI, I did not choose this name cause I like bats...I chose it because the Lamborghini Murcielago is my favorite car, and I have a skunk because its Lockheed Skunkworks logo, which shows my enthusiasm for aviation.

First of all I have never claimed to know everything...However I do think I know more then a lot of people, like the average joe on the street.

You said the shuttle derived from the 50's. I dont like that because I dont like thinking of things that way. Would you say that new cars look the way they doo because of the first cars in the late 1800's...no. just because it has a resemblance to an early model, does not mean it was based upon it.





top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join