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.

 

Why not leave the Shuttles in orbit?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 05:41 PM
link   
Why not leave them up there. Some small conversions and they could effectively be used as space stations. They could also be used as emergency return vehicles if ever needed. The cargo bay could be converted to research labs of living quaters?

Park one around the moon as well... Why let em rot they still have many good uses. Ya could dock one to space station to increase the usefull space avail. Would be nice place to go if Station got real bad for soe reason.




posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 05:43 PM
link   
There are actually plans on the table to do just that. Check out this months Popular Science. It's got the low down on those plans



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 05:45 PM
link   
and then what would we use to get our men up to them? we shouldn't keep using the soyuz craft... and i doubt we would revert to anything else. we need the shuttle to launch larger payloads into space, not to be parked up there. plus, to keep them all running for so long wouldn't be cost effective at all.

and popular science is the national enquirer of the science world, as far as i'm concerened. no offense or anything.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 05:47 PM
link   
The orbital spacecraft would be used for much longer missions, so less fuel would have to be consumed to get them away from earth. There would be a shuttle to go out there, (or maybe even the star ladder in the works, which would kick ass!) and then go from there. So the shuttles would become exactly that.

Edit: oh, and by the way, I agree about popular science. I just haven't gotten that far in my American Scientific, and I had just read the article from PS a few nights ago.

[Edited on 3-23-2004 by junglejake]



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 05:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
The orbital spacecraft would be used for much longer missions, so less fuel would have to be consumed to get them away from earth.


please explain that? i would ahve though MORE would be used to keep it up there since they'd have to adjust the orbit more over the longer duration. and when i said cost effective, i was talking about keeping things like food, air, and water up there and along with still having a power source.


(or maybe even the star ladder in the works, which would kick ass!)


what's a star ladder?



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:04 PM
link   
Oh man, the star ladder idea is AWESOME! It's a plan to build an elevator up to 68,000 miles above the earth off of the equator. The reason it hasn't taken off yet was because anything they would use as the cable holding everything together would collapes under it's own weight, or else plummet back down to earth.

Now, hoever, we have discovered carbon nanotubes which would be able to support it, being about 80 times stronger then steel. The plan is to create a lift out of these tubes, and then be able to run cargo in loads of about 5 tons to and from space on a solar powered lift. THAT would rock.

As for the ships left in space, they wouldn't be exactly like 7 sudgested, they'd essensially be mothballed ships that, before they were ready to be used, would be refit with supplies, fuel, oxygen, etc. And if you get it into orbit, it doesn't really need much fuel to stay in orbit.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:18 PM
link   
okay, so that makes sense about the space shuttles just being mothballed... but then they'd probably have to be really checked up on to make sure they even work. keep them down here and use them when we need them.

and that star ladder idea is not awesome... why not just build a huge linear accelerator? that would lift A LOT more, and work a lot better. do in africa or asia, where the ramp could be built up the side of a mountain.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:20 PM
link   
A liner accelerator would require an enoumous amount of energy, and wouldn't be able to control the cargo's trajectory as well. Matter that's moving likes to keep moving, so after the cargo left earth's atmosphere, it would keep going off into deep space.

Besides, I don't think the technology is really there to build a linear accelerator of that magnitude.

P.S. Yes, it is awesome



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid
okay, so that makes sense about the space shuttles just being mothballed... but then they'd probably have to be really checked up on to make sure they even work. keep them down here and use them when we need them.

and that star ladder idea is not awesome... why not just build a huge linear accelerator? that would lift A LOT more, and work a lot better. do in africa or asia, where the ramp could be built up the side of a mountain.




I have got a thread that discusses this very idea

www.abovetopsecret.com...


I like the space evelavator idea too

The bottom line is we have to find a less costlly way into space



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:34 PM
link   
do u have any idea how much metal or,whatever we are gonna use, to get it up there? if its 68,000 miles like what u said, and theres four sides to it. then it would be 68,000x4...wich is alot. and it would have to be huge at the base to support its own weight at the top.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by junglejake
A liner accelerator would require an enoumous amount of energy, and wouldn't be able to control the cargo's trajectory as well. Matter that's moving likes to keep moving, so after the cargo left earth's atmosphere, it would keep going off into deep space.


umm... earth has gravity last time i checked. that's what keeps the shuttle and anything else in orbit from flying off into deep space. yes, a linear accelerator would need lots of energy. i agree. why not use their own nuclear energy though?


Besides, I don't think the technology is really there to build a linear accelerator of that magnitude.

but there's technology enough to build a 68,000 mile tall elevator? and how would you compensate for the earth's rotation? i would think that that would topple it over no matter how strong it was. also, we really don't have a means solar energy to do something of that magnitude efficiently.

plus, the reason nothing is launched straight up, and the reason most launches occur on, or at least near, the equator is so that the rockets can get a boost from the earth's rotation.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Amuk
The bottom line is we have to find a less costlly way into space


build and use a linear accelerator. it would be cost effective in the long run, just like a star ladder would be if it were to be built.



posted on Mar, 23 2004 @ 08:21 PM
link   
The space elevator is an interesting concept.

The Space Elevator Comes Closer to Reality

Its hard to see how the funding for the project will ever get off the ground!



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:15 PM
link   
We can extend the life to the Shuttle's in my mind thru modifications that would allow the creation of a CEV or Crew Escape Vehicle and still be a Crew Exploration Vehicle.
home.earthlink.net... where I point out how it will look and the benifits. Grounding of our B-52 Bombers won't happen so why are we willing to put out to pasture a farely good working horse like the Shuttle?

Michael



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ark-Angel
We can extend the life to the Shuttle's in my mind thru modifications that would allow the creation of a CEV or Crew Escape Vehicle and still be a Crew Exploration Vehicle.


the control cabin is designed to break off of the shuttle incase of an explosion. it happened with the challenger, and it was actually the impact with the water that had killed the occupants.

as for anything else, i don't think it would be feasible. mainly, where would they put it? the cargo bay? there's barely enough room in there as is... and it would be a pretty mad dash from the control cabin to the cargo bay in an emergency.



posted on Mar, 25 2004 @ 10:25 PM
link   
One day this technology may prove useful for surface to orbit transit:

Light Craft

Effectively creating a space elevator that rides not on a cable, but on a simple beam of laser-light.

DeltaChaos



posted on Mar, 26 2004 @ 06:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by cmdrkeenkid

Originally posted by Ark-Angel
We can extend the life to the Shuttle's in my mind thru modifications that would allow the creation of a CEV or Crew Escape Vehicle and still be a Crew Exploration Vehicle.


the control cabin is designed to break off of the shuttle incase of an explosion. it happened with the challenger, and it was actually the impact with the water that had killed the occupants.

as for anything else, i don't think it would be feasible. mainly, where would they put it? the cargo bay? there's barely enough room in there as is... and it would be a pretty mad dash from the control cabin to the cargo bay in an emergency.


I want to thank you for feedback,

I hope you went to my website and read the letter. I believe that leaving the cargo bay as it is. The Aft section needs to be removable as the new CEV, then leaks that keep us from launching on time can as an Indy 500 team replace a blown engine qualifying and stay in competition, we could replace the aft sections that spring leaks. As for the CEV I explained on stretching out from where the window looks into the cargo bay 12 to 15 feet making this a work deck. Connected to that is the CEV where had it been in use our Columbia crew could have seperated from the main body and with parachutes come thru alive or at least have a fighting chance.

As it stands there is a HIGH risk of loss of life if the Shuttle crew is faced with a major malfunction 10 feet off the pad, in Apollo days we made sure the crew could eject (rockets on top of the capsule) should a problem arise. Here I see what is talked about in IT dept of "Fall to plan, plan on failling" Nasa has no means of protecting the crew if a motor was to explode due to malfunction, during Apollo that was planned for, nothing for that today.

Thank you again Michael


Ps - How did you like the thought of Tomb Raider and the statue of many arms with the swords, It came across to me as " Cutting edge -pun intended - technology we ourselves could grasp "

link for those who missed it: home.earthlink.net...

[Edited on 26-3-2004 by Ark-Angel]

[Edited on 27-3-2004 by Ark-Angel]



posted on May, 23 2004 @ 10:22 AM
link   
Imagine a terrorist attack or an asteroid hit on a 68000 mile high lift! Imagine if that came down on top of you!


jra

posted on May, 23 2004 @ 04:39 PM
link   
With the space elevator, if anything were to happen to it. It would fly off into space and not back towards Earth. Think of it like this. You have a rope with one end tied to a ball. You grab the other end of the rope and spin around in circles. The rope should be sticking stright out more or less. If the rope gets cut or you let go, it will fly away from you.



posted on May, 24 2004 @ 07:22 AM
link   
if thats the case, then at what height do buildings start to have negative gravity, and being attracted away from the earth? Dont think youre right here.



new topics




 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join