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.

 

Retire the Shuttle.....Now?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 06:56 PM
link   
The Space Shuttle continues to get billions in funding, only for the reason of finishing the construction of the International Space Station, and the Hubble fix mission. Nasa still hasn't fixed the foam problem, despite several years and billions of dollars.

The Shuttle is currently going to retire in 2010...but realisticaly, it wont even be able to lift half of the planned ISS loads into space by then...and what are you going to do with all the modules from different countries that hundreds of millions have being spent on, only for their ride to retire.

Nasa should not spend anymore money on the foam problem. Since fixing the hubble has become a priority for Nasa, they should launch the shuttle and fix it (which will keep it operational till around 2013) and then put the shuttles in museums. Divert all money planned to be spent on the shuttle to the next-gen setup.

For the planned moon missions Nasa will need a heavy lift vehicle...which will be developed using many existing systems that Nasa allready has, only they will need to be modified. It will be capable of lifting 125 metric tons...by comparison the shuttle can only lift 20 metric tons, and yet it would be cheaper per launch then the shuttle is. So they could just use the HLV instead of the shuttle for the ISS components.
If they took that approach they could be on the moon by 2012 instead of 2018.

NASA's New Plans: Positives and Negatives
Former shuttle chief talks about new CEV launcher





posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The Space Shuttle continues to get billions in funding, only for the reason of finishing the construction of the International Space Station, and the Hubble fix mission.


STS-107 was designated a microgravity research flight with 86 payloads involving 79 investigations traveling on Columbia. and had nothign really to do with ISS or the hubble. Really difficult to say taht the ONLY reason for the 3 shuttles as of now is to solely maintian and repair the ISS ,and Hubble



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:06 PM
link   
If we Retired the shuttle now alot of the larger pieces of the ISS would never get up. Well unless that new CEV launcher has a cargo bay as large as the shuttle.

Russia has some rockets that lift more then the Shuttle but their cargo bay would never be able to hold some of the larger ISS sections. Theres I believe a ESA section (or Japanese I forgot) of the ISS already built just waiting to go up but its huge and only the shuttle could fit in inside.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 08:32 PM
link   
STS-107 was before Nasa's New Vision, and things changed. Now the shuttle flights are dedicated to the ISS (& hubble).

The HFV that Nasa is developing can hual any ISS component. It can lift more then the Shuttle, and also has a larger cargo bay.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:15 PM
link   
I agree. Retire it now.

The founders had it right: National Aeronautics AND Space Administration. Space is space AND aeronautics is something else. Russia knew what to do with Buran, and we should follow suit and admit that we did an admirable job building an amazing, inefficient, uneconomical Sanger machine- a machine that should be hangared in favor of Von Braun's (and Tsiolkovsky's and Goddard's before him) superior math.

The shuttle is an arrow, Apollo was a bullet.

Let's shoot for the Moon again.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 09:20 PM
link   
We need something slightly more advanced then Apollo imo, something that isn't so disposible for one thing, seperate crew and cargo modules with the crew vehicle basically a miniturized and simplified shuttle with a capacity for just as many people as the current day shuttle.

The most important thing though is to drop their current suppliers and contractors with smaller more agile and cost competitive start-ups like SpaceX. Yes I knwo they have yet to launch anything significant but once they get past that first launch then we're good to go IMO.



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
The HFV that Nasa is developing can hual any ISS component. It can lift more then the Shuttle, and also has a larger cargo bay.


Oh if its got a bigger cargo bay then all the ISS sections will be a piece of cake.

If we use something like the CEV will NASA go back to the ocean landings you think? Or will they try to land on solid ground like the Russians?


[edit on 9-12-2005 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
If we use something like the CEV will NASA go back to the ocean landings you think? Or will they try to land on solid ground like the Russians?

It will have airbags on the bottom of it for a softer ground landing, but the CEV will also be able to float...just in case.

Sardion - As much as I like SpaceX and T/Space and others, They just dont have enough expertise under their belt to be Nasa's choice. While ATK (SRB maker) has the expertise, and have a solid rocket design that is proven and human certified. I have mixed feelings about the path that Nasa has chosen.....mainly because it practicly has no inovations, its basically putting people and payloads on the top of the launch stack, and modifing all their existing equiptment. But i'm sure the innovation will come later when their bouncing on the moon...so I guess its best to take the proven cheaper route for now.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 12:16 AM
link   
The shuttles have had more than just foam problems to deal with, such as the oxygen leak on the Discovery.



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 01:01 AM
link   
Perhaps the saddest part is that the ISS project has now cost more than $100 Billion, and it will not even be finalised before retired, and not be useful for much longer.

If they would have done it right with those money we would now have a flourishing moon base and establishments instead of a no good resource draining space floating collection of giant tin cans.

The ISS with it's devotion of resource, development and research pretty much delayed human space progression about 25 years, man I hate being part of the lost generation...

What the heck was the idea with the space station to begin with? Very poor planing and execution, someone ought to lose their job!

And about your question to retire the shuttle, talk about being stuck between a rock and a hard place! Retire the project and ISS going down in history as one massive expensive mistake, or continue the project and it will drain resources, and research for years and years to come, like watching the time go backwards.

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Raabjorn]

[edit on 10-12-2005 by Raabjorn]



posted on Dec, 10 2005 @ 08:47 AM
link   
Murc., I also am not all that impressed with NASA's plans to, more or less, strap a bunch of existing technology together and stuff a human on the top of it and call it a new vehicle. I guess I'm all for any new work being done in space, but I just don't see the current plans being all that valuable. Maybe they will act as technology demonstrator projects for future work.

Raabjorn, while I too think the ISS has been a colossal waste in terms of developing a valuable product, I am hopeful it will be an invaluable investment in learning how NOT to conduct massive, multinational space operations. If we can learn lessons from the entire ISS project that serve us well for more grandiose projects in the future, the 100Bil might seem like a wise investment.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   
wouldn't this new stage of space exploration kind of be a step backwards? I thought the saturn 5 style was wasteful....you couldn't use it again. Perhaps they have a better idea. I like the method Virgin used in the X-Prize.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 06:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishmaster
wouldn't this new stage of space exploration kind of be a step backwards? I thought the saturn 5 style was wasteful....you couldn't use it again. Perhaps they have a better idea. I like the method Virgin used in the X-Prize.

Spaceship One is what you mean.

Scaled Composites are building a larger version, that will be the size of a Gulfstream 5, and hold 8-10 people. But its only for sub-orbit, the ISS is four times higher then that...so that method wont work.

and I'm not sure, but the first stage is probably re-usable, second stage wont be, and the capsule itself will probably be re-usable.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 08:22 PM
link   
as long as there is no step backwards which too me it seems there is. I'm no scientist, but are they now saying "well men we made a bit of a boo-boo.......ya that saturn rocket really was the way to go.....so much for the past 35 years".

Well at least they already have the plans.



posted on Dec, 11 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by fishmaster
as long as there is no step backwards which too me it seems there is. I'm no scientist, but are they now saying "well men we made a bit of a boo-boo.......ya that saturn rocket really was the way to go.....so much for the past 35 years".

Well at least they already have the plans.


The biggest mistake of the Shuttle program, is the foam problem. If you cant stop the foam from falling...you move the people portion of the craft upwards, above falling debris. Hence why it will have a normal rocket appearence.

But yes...The shuttle taught Nasa (and others) that people should be on top, so no foam hits it, and an easier launch malfunction escape system is possible.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Retire the Shuttle.....Now?

Uh, excuse me, but this question seems kinda moot doesn't it? The shuttles seem to be retiring themselves no matter if we like it or not.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Retire the Shuttle.....Now?

Uh, excuse me, but this question seems kinda moot doesn't it? The shuttles seem to be retiring themselves no matter if we like it or not.


lol, true true.

But I mean stop pouring billions into it, and put it towards the future system, and stop spending so much on something that will have such a short life.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:28 PM
link   
I agree. I'd prefer those billions and more be put toward getting to a point where we can establish a permanent base on the moon. A lot of people either don't understand or minimize how vital this important first step would be.

Now obviously, we need a reliable, modern launch vehicle to do that, but a moon base needs to be our goal. I feel it's much more important that going to Mars. In fact, a moon base from which to stage a Mars mission solves a lot of problems simply by the fact that you don't have to boost directly from the Earth's steep (compared to the moon) gravity well.



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
Retire the Shuttle.....Now?

Uh, excuse me, but this question seems kinda moot doesn't it? The shuttles seem to be retiring themselves no matter if we like it or not.


lol, true true.

But I mean stop pouring billions into it, and put it towards the future system, and stop spending so much on something that will have such a short life.


If NASA doesn't realize what you just said, I think we will have to rely on ESA, Russia and China for future space development. I don't think the US have a genuine (as in pioneering spirit) interest in developing space anymore. They will do though if it means military advantages or creating a space-race with Russia and China to force them spending their up-and-coming massive economic surpluses on space programs rather than catching up the US in military technology and capacity.

I have a hunch USA nowadays are too cold an calculating to be driven by any other means.

I think I might be getting off-topic..

[edit on 12-12-2005 by Raabjorn]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 11:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ambient Sound
In fact, a moon base from which to stage a Mars mission solves a lot of problems simply by the fact that you don't have to boost directly from the Earth's steep (compared to the moon) gravity well.


Why do you people make the moon seem important by saying it could halp get us to Mars? The moon is important enough and trillions should be spent on it. I dont see why it always resorts to Mars.

Besides...We dont have any clean room facilities on the moon in which to build our space probes, So why should we launch them from the earth...only to land on the moon, and then launch them from the moon to Mars.......that doesn't sound very logical.




Originally posted by Raabjorn
I don't think the US have a genuine (as in pioneering spirit) interest in developing space anymore.

really? I think the exact opposite.
The American people want to go into space, and visit there and explore there, and its becoming increasingly obvious that NASA is not going to be the ones to offer that...dispite that we pay there budget.
Thats why public space flight is gaining momentum so fast, and billionaires are digging into their pockets and funding it. Basically their done waiting for Nasa and are going to do it themselves.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join