The Shuttle's Long Goodbye

Hi All,

I'm new so if this post is for some reason inappropriate, please by all means explain to me where I went wrong. THX


I came across an interesting press release tonight.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


THE SHUTTLE'S LONG GOODBYE
Posted: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 6:40 PM by Alan Boyle

NASA has set the dates for the space shuttle fleet's final missions, ending with a shipment of spare parts for the space station on May 31, 2010. That schedule isn’t set in stone, however – particularly if Congress has anything to do with it.

The space agency wants to get its flights wrapped up by the end of 2010 so that it can turn its attention and its funding more fully to the development of its next-generation Ares rockets and Orion crew vehicle. Even with the shuttle fleet retired, it will take until 2015 or so to get Orion flying, which would represent a giant leap in NASA's renewed push for moon exploration.

Some space pioneers - including the three past and present lawmakers who have flown in space as well as the last man on the moon, Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan - say Congress should provide more money to keep the shuttles flying after 2010 if necessary. However, NASA and the White House have resisted extending shuttle operations, saying that would cost too much....
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Link:
cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com...

There's links to time line, videos etc. in the article.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now I'm no rocket scientist and I may be ignorant on the topic. So feel free to correct me.

However i feel we have taken 1 step forward and 2 steps backwards. What I mean is, in the years since the Apollo missions, discovery, etc. Have we not found a un-Caveman way to land on the moon and a "astronaut farmer" way of returning to earth. I mean this project sounds like Apollo all over again, just on steroids. Have we not reached a point in technology where we can find a better way to land on the moon and return to earth other then this out date approach. Man, these guys will be hanging from a string (parachute) upon re-entry. All over again!!!

I'm by no means on the education level as the NASA gang. But I feel that there are a ton of ways this could be done better. Hows about they dock an Atlantis style ship at the space station and use it as a jump off for a moon landing. In something other then that out-dated style of moon lander. Then return to the space station and come home in something that at least has some wings, where these guys at are not hanging from frickin a string...

Now this is coming from the same bunch that built a space shuttle which was taken-out by the equivalent to a Styrofoam beer cooler. (Space Shuttle Columbia disaster)

It's a no wonder that beings from else where have not made contact. They are to busy laughing....

Your thoughts...

Thanks for letting me share!

Mod Edit: All Caps – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 7/14/2008 by Gools]

I plenty of ways parachuting back in a capsule is a better idea. Just a couple of points would be cost and safety, it's less complicated just to rely on gravity, and much much less to go wrong.

Those are good points but it still feels like 1 step backwards to me.

The capsule shape is the most efficient shape to use for space travel and atmospheric re-entry, so unless the laws of physics have changed over the last 40 years, there is no reason to go with something else. Taking a Shuttle like design, with its wings, tail, landing gear etc adds so much useless mass to the craft. Which means you need more fuel to push that mass. Plus a Shuttle returning from the Moon would enter the Earth at much higher speeds than it would if it were only in Earth orbit. At those speeds, its wings would snap off. If you were to instead just return to Earth orbit and redock at a space station, then you'd need to carry a lot more fuel to slow down, which would again, add more mass to your craft. This is why the capsule shape is so much better for going to the Moon. The same goes for the design of the Lunar Lander.

There is an episode in the series, "From the Earth to the Moon" that's all about the design of the Lunar lander, (episode 5 I think). I highly recommend it (and the rest of the series).

reply to post by jra

---

Good point but.....

I glanced at the series a week or so ago when it aired. However, I'm not interested in something that happen so long ago. I'm all about new technology. With that said, if they haven't figured a better way to propel through space and break in space without the use of fossil fuel. Then that IMHO is sad. Sure they need it to leave our atmosphere but once in space they should be able to switch to something else. Unless the laws of physics have changed over the last 400.....+ years, it doesn't take much to move through space. Especially for a target so close (the moon). It's not like their going to Mars or something. Which we should be by now (Maned). but that's a whole other thread....

They could go to their local Home Depot and pick up a air compressor, strap that baby to the hood and use compressed air for that matter. and this is coming from a guy that knows very little about the subject. Surely the not so bright (IMO) guys at NASA could come up with something better.

Don't even get me going about cost. $400 for a hammer, remember......

Sorry my original take on the subject still stands.. 2 steps forward, 1 backwards......



[edit on 9-7-2008 by john-Q]

Well, like you said a few times, you know very little about this subject. I think you'd learn a lot about it if you watched it or at least read more about the Apollo missions. Even though they happened "so long ago", all the concepts remain the same for todays newer technology.



I don't mean to offend, but how can you suggest using an air compressor from home depot and then call the guys at NASA not so bright? The engineers at Lockheed are building the new Orion spacecraft, the same company that made the F-35, F-22, F-117 etc. I kinda think they know what they're doing.

Oh, no offense taken, Those are all awesome birds. I just still disagree...

The thing just looks like another out dated death trap to me. As far as them being bright. I will quote my original post.

"Now this is coming from the same bunch that built a space shuttle which was taken-out by the equivalent to a Styrofoam beer cooler. (Space Shuttle Columbia disaster)"

With all do respect, I guess I should just leave this one alone. Because no one is really going to sway my opinion of the new and improved flaming turd.. Hope those parachutes don't get to warm on re-entry, or tangled, or a line break.. and on and on.. It was great for it's time, but IMO that has long past...

Thanks for your input jra, at least you entertained my madness.. When no one else would.

Here's a novel idea from the Washington Post that might be an answer to this...

www.washingtonpost.com...

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

---

Finally, someone that thinks outside the moronic box of nasa.



Any of you coming across this thread. I sincerely suggest that you follow the link posted anonymously above. It's a 2 page article which has plenty of merit. IMHO

Moral of my post(s):
Don't always just accept what nasa tells you. Use some independent thought and formulate your own ideas how this could be done. I'm sure if given ample amount of thought you can figure out a way to accomplish the goal way better then nasa's current heading.

Thank you all for your input!

I find that Washington post author to be rather ignorant of what would be needed to make the International Space Station into a Space Ship. He makes it sound like it would be easy and cheap, but it's really not.

For instance he tries to compare an orbital boost to that of sending it to the Moon. Unfortunately he didn't check the numbers. The ISS gets a 150mph boost from the Shuttle. You'd need a 15,000mph boost to get the ISS out of LEO and to the Moon. And that would require about 800,000lbs of fuel. And on top of that, the ISS's current orbital inclination makes it less than ideal for going to the Moon. It would be cheaper and easier to build and launch a new station into an equatorial orbit.

Using ion engines would make the trip a rather long one. One would spend months in the Van Allen belts alone. The ESA's SMART-1 probe took a little over a year to get to the Moon with an ion engine. And that's just a small little probe. I don't know how long it would take to push the ISS with one. Compare that to a mere 4 day trip with an Apollo like space craft.

The "Internation Space Ship" is an interesting idea though I'll admit, but it's really not the greatest idea.

reply to post by john-Q

---

NASA has been working on the new boosters since 2004. They are going really well with the production. The test Boosters were built in 2006.

I like the idea of using the ISS as a moveable platform for use in space exploration,

But if it is to "massive" to move out of low earth orbit, that's a shame..
I do however think that it may be a good Idea to have one in orbit around the moon.

And I have a question, I thought that bothe the apollo cmd module and the shuttle both use compressed nitrogen for thier manuvering thrusters..
I could be wrong though.

Also, I really don't see a problem with using old technology, just so long as we get our arses in gear and do something!!!!!

Back in the late 1980's When I was working on aircraft, most all of the small general aviation aircraft were using 50 year old technology, IE. a magneto with a points ignition, carburators, instead of fuel injection.. etc..

The reason being, was that it was a known and proven technology, although during that time I did start seeing electronic ignitions and multiport fuel injction systems start to get approved by the FAA, and such..

But I do see your point, and I will admit to feeling a bit like you do, after almost 50 years, you would think that we would have something closer to the "enterprise" than a "roman candle" lol