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.

 

Nasa's Plan B

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 02:26 AM
link   
What do you think Nasa's plan "B" is or should be?

If the shuttle launches in May 06' and either blows up, burns up, or lands succesfully but only to have the same ol' foam problem falling into the orbiter during launch.

Nasa plans on having their next gen spacecraft ready by 2012, but it wont be for putting the ISS together...like the shuttle currently is. Nasa still needs to put a couple dozen major components of the ISS into Orbit, and the Space Shuttle is their only vehicle capable of doing so.

What will be their "plan of attack" if the shuttle is unsuccessful?





posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 03:20 AM
link   
I think its about time that they bring out something new. I don't know why the do no,t budget mabe?



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 11:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by RaiderJose
I think its about time that they bring out something new. I don't know why the do no,t budget mabe?

Nasa is getting something new...called the CEV, but It wont be ready until 2012.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:03 PM
link   
i say fly the shuttle until they all blow up or until 2012. i for one will risk my life to enter space . sign me up nasa.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I wonder what it would take/cost to revamp the Russian Boran's and use them in the meantime.

I know 1 of them was converted into a restaurant for some expo, another got toasted when the hangar collapsed where it was stored and an other one doesn't exist as a composed shuttle.

But out of all the tech, parts and existing models of the Buran, they should be able to make at least 2 viable vehicules.(Probably need to remanifacture half the parts and update all the electronics and instruments though)

The Buran is capable of carying about 2 tons more then the US Space Shuttle and would've been an incredible machine if the funding for it hadn't run out.

Wouldn't Nasa be able to coop with Russia to see if they can make at least 1 and flight capable with a second ready for spare parts and emergency situations?

Russian tech always has and always will be some of the most hardend around. It might not be top notch in technological perspective but its sturdy as hell and thats whats needed atm. Something that gets the job done, no matter how dirty.

[edit on 24/11/05 by thematrix]



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Could they not use The Nautilus? It must be true, I read about it on ATS



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 04:16 PM
link   
Transformational Space I read about this new start up a while back. They've developed the radical concept of rapid prototyping. Basically NASA used to hand out million dollar studies to find out if a concept would even work. This company has done the preliminary studies and built a prototype to begin flight testing.

www.transformspace.com...



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I think that over the past 10yrs. NASA has had a bunch of (Black bucks) squirrled away and I would hope that they would be putting it to good use by investing in a practicle means of getting man to Mars and back. We need to exploit that planet by all means.



posted on Nov, 24 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
Outsource to the private sector. Its the only way to progress in leaps and bounds.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I know...NASA should scrap all manned missions into space until a reason to go into space can be achieved and planned to carry out. Then you see how much people really care about space exploration. We also get a good look at how interested about space exploration congress will be.



posted on Nov, 26 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
Frosty...enough with your anti human spaceflight talk.


frosty
NASA should scrap all manned missions into space until a reason to go into space can be achieved and planned to carry out.

Its obvious the there is no reason for you.

If we find alien life...send robots.
explore the land...send robots.
a planet made out of solid gold...send robots.

I would rather experience space for myself...feel the effects of weightlessness, and walking on the moon.
People will always have their part in space exploration, not because its cheaper, but because its what the people want. (the majority...not you)



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 03:56 AM
link   
www.physorg.com...



While no scientist can deny the value of robotic space exploration, many feel the need for complementary manned programs. Most agree that, for basic survey missions, robotic probes produce dramatic results. It’s in field study that scientist crewed missions could do better. Ironically, it is the same people who run the unmanned space missions that are clamoring for human crewed missions to follow them up.

Part of the problem is the limited abilities and scope of each robotic mission. To save money and reduce failure rates to a minimum, robotic probes are stripped down to essentials. Although these probes gather important data, much of it is ambiguous for lack of the probe’s ability to do follow up tests. Today’s robots cannot start up new lines of investigation.

/snip

Crewed missions are more costly, but also more effective. Human calibrated experiments setup up on the moon by Apollo missions functioned perfectly for 8 years until shut down for fiscal reasons in 1977. Robotic missions, while they may carry similar instruments, are incredibly difficult to place and calibrate. Ruggedness wins over accuracy so instruments are less sensitive and deliver fewer details in the data they collect.

/snip

Geologists make up the most vocal group of proponents for manned missions. While probe data is useful, they contend one mission with a live geologist could answer all their questions in a few weeks, while endless robotic probes may never be able to provide a clear picture of Mars.


This article says it better then I ever could. A diverse and robust combination of both Robotic Survey missions and followup manned Field studies is the best rout to go for the next century.



Outsource to the private sector. Its the only way to progress in leaps and bounds.


Allot of the stuff NASA uses is subcontracted out to the private sector. NASA should be more involved in private startups rather then propping up near-monopolies. (Air Force is guilty of this as well)

Frosty there are many many reasons(from learning to live efficiently with scarce resources to learning how to mine the moon) which you continually either ignore or brush off as fantasy for one reason or another. I'm sure glad people like you are in the minority(on this issue alone). And your arguments against it don't seem to be swaying anyone so I don't know why you keep harping the same tune.

[edit on 27-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 27-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 27-11-2005 by sardion2000]

[edit on 27-11-2005 by sardion2000]



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Looks like NASA allready decided on plan B ( or is this plan A?) and their starting to buy equipment from the right source this time.


NASA to buy 4 spacecraft in Russia

Stellar



posted on Nov, 27 2005 @ 06:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
Looks like NASA allready decided on plan B ( or is this plan A?) and their starting to buy equipment from the right source this time.


NASA to buy 4 spacecraft in Russia

Stellar


The Soyuz is for people only...Not large ISS components.

This might of been a nessecity for Nasa, since it seems the shuttle foam problem is still a problem...A billion bucks later.



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sardion2000Frosty there are many many reasons(from learning to live efficiently with scarce resources to learning how to mine the moon) which you continually either ignore or brush off as fantasy for one reason or another. I'm sure glad people like you are in the minority(on this issue alone). And your arguments against it don't seem to be swaying anyone so I don't know why you keep harping the same tune.


Hundreds of millions of people in this world survive on scarce resources. There is no need to go into space or land on a moon to see if it can be done.

So what if my arguements don't seem to be swaying anyone. Your approach is wrong. There is no reason to send people into space for any scientific purpose, it is simply a coolness factor.

In fact there is no reason as of yet to send men into space. Your moon harvesting idea is mute. The US government does not mine its own materials or else TR would never have been a trust buster.

Think about it. What can a human do that a robot or a camera cannot? Honestly?



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The Soyuz is for people only...Not large ISS components.


It's far more than just that.... U.S. Congress Lets NASA Use Russian Spacecraft

"The Senate approved the House version of the bill, which allows NASA to buy Russian space hardware or services until 2012."

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frosty
Hundreds of millions of people in this world survive on scarce resources. There is no need to go into space or land on a moon to see if it can be done.


Wich in fact has nothing to do with the availability or energy or scarcity of resources. Keeping people dependent on on barely survival rations is what control is all about after all. Since they are robbing humanity blind anyways lets at least ask them to spend it on something "cool" since they wont spend it on saving lives.


There is no reason to send people into space for any scientific purpose, it is simply a coolness factor.


So colonizing the solar system is not interesting or "scientific"?


Think about it. What can a human do that a robot or a camera cannot? Honestly?


A robot can only deal with what we imagine might happen wherever we send them. Well known fact that reality does not often stick to what we consider possible.

Stellar



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
they have to stop spending / wasting money on the space shuttle and make start making its replacer sooner and use the privat entrepeneurs they are doing it much cheaper. than boeing and lockheed.

they have budget problems now at nasA because of the Space shuttle



posted on Nov, 28 2005 @ 07:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX

Originally posted by Murcielago
The Soyuz is for people only...Not large ISS components.


It's far more than just that....

no...its not.

Its a people mover...thats it. With out the shuttle we wouldn't have the ISS...ans without that there is no purpose for the Russian Soyuz.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join