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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee

Originally posted by Valhall
What I'm saying is - if you really want to do away with the need for heat shields, then you allow them to come in fast and gradually decrease their speed over several diminishing orbits. In other words, let their orbit decay slowly and let them "fall" in close to naturally.




posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 10:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
But no...To "skip" off of the earth you have to be going faster then it.


Faster than what?????



posted on Jun, 20 2005 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by MickeyDee


But dont things bounce off the atmosphere if they come in at less of an angle?


Only if they're not already in orbit around the earth. If you're coming toward the earth and aiming to enter an orbit and you burn such that your orbital velocity is too high then you're not going to be able to stay in orbit.

But if you're in orbit and you're wanting to decrease your orbit, then you slow down - either with a steep trajectory or a shallow one



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
What I was saying before is you could gradually slow down to progressively smaller orbits and spiral in over many many orbits - which would take a long time. It's not feasible, I was just pointing out that the logic behind a prior statement in this thread was not right.


Why is this not feasible?

So what if it takes days to re-enter, at least we would still have seven ALIVE astonauts on board!




posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown

Originally posted by Valhall
What I was saying before is you could gradually slow down to progressively smaller orbits and spiral in over many many orbits - which would take a long time. It's not feasible, I was just pointing out that the logic behind a prior statement in this thread was not right.


Why is this not feasible?

So what if it takes days to re-enter, at least we would still have seven ALIVE astonauts on board!



You say that like they were made to do something.



posted on Jun, 21 2005 @ 09:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown

Originally posted by Murcielago
But no...To "skip" off of the earth you have to be going faster then it.


Faster than what?????


the earth / rotation



posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall

Originally posted by Identity_Unknown

Originally posted by Valhall
What I was saying before is you could gradually slow down to progressively smaller orbits and spiral in over many many orbits - which would take a long time. It's not feasible, I was just pointing out that the logic behind a prior statement in this thread was not right.


Why is this not feasible?

So what if it takes days to re-enter, at least we would still have seven ALIVE astonauts on board.



You say that like they were made to do something.


Made to do something? I dont get what you mean.

If you think i meant the Columbia crew i didnt, i just meant every other seven crew that has to fly in the rustbucket NASA call a shuttle.




posted on Jun, 22 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
Well, let me explain further what I mean by unfeasible. I did not mean for my words to be taken as something the shuttle could do. I meant my words to be taken as a correction to a fallacious statement made earlier. In other words, it was a generic alternative re-entry - not a feasible alternative re-entry for the shuttle.

In order to do this you would have to do a series of minor retro-burns in descending orbits. You would have to have accomodations for the added fuel to do this. You would have to basically re-design the shuttle to perform these maneuvers. In other words, this is not a feasible alternative for the current design - which by the way is not a bucket of rust or any other negative term you want to throw at it. It's all we've got and it serves its purpose. If you want to vent your frustration at the stagnation that has occurred in re-usable orbital vehicle design - vent at the government/organization that has stymied that - not a vehicle that does exactly what it was designed to do.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Valhall
You say that like they were made to do something.


Made to do something? I dont get what you mean.

If you think i meant the Columbia crew i didnt, i just meant every other seven crew that has to fly in the rustbucket NASA call a shuttle.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4   >>

log in

join