The Space Shuttle's Replacements July 2011 and beyond.........

I think most of the space exploration and work has been cancelled. The media says Obama did it, but I think they may be lying again. Since when did congress let the executive branch run NASA?

Originally posted by earthdude
I think most of the space exploration and work has been cancelled. The media says Obama did it, but I think they may be lying again. Since when did congress let the executive branch run NASA?

The white house tends to favor commercial vehicles (those pictured here + Atlas V and Falcon 9 rockets). Congress favors those with close ties to NASA (MPCV capsule and SLS rocket).

Bye bye Atlantis

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/604e35889f08.jpg[/atsimg]

Cool shots.



Especially this one.



Last view.



Its going to be a long time before we see another bird like the Space Shuttles.

Originally posted by Podius1
Since I'm not allowed to post since I have less than 20 posts, I have a question for you guys. I read on another board several years ago, that if one would happen to get the chance to get into space, you would only be able to see with the naked eye, the Sun, Moon, Earth, and total blackness. You would not be able to see the stars like we can when we're on the ground because the Earth's atmosphere acts as a telescoptic lens which allows us to see the other heavenly bodies at night. Is this correct and if so, do you think that the night sky is just an "illusion" anyway?

Uh are you serious? Trolling?

No, it's just the opposite.

The Earth's atmosphere is like a big cloud. The difference between what you can see from Earth and what you can see from above the atmosphere is like the difference between driving in fog vs driving on a clear day.

The Hubble Space telescope was one way to get around the reduced visibility caused by the Earth's atmosphere.

Another approach was to create a type of land based telescope called an interferometer. A bunch of small mirrors on independently adjustable platforms with independent motors are used, and basically computers and laser beams are used to correct for the distortions caused by the atmosphere by adjusting all the little mirrors individually.

Interestingly enough, there is even a second 'atmosphere' around the entire solar system. We are basically encased inside the Sun's atmosphere. Observations made from beyond the 'heliosheath' should offer even greater visibility. Small problem there: anything that gets out that far is on a one way trip...until somebody invents a better power and propulsion system.The Pioneer and Voyager probes are out there or close!

no not trolling. Just asked a question that I have always wanted an answer to. Thank you for responding.

We have a multitude of wonderful vehicles in development but nothing that covers the range of capabilities that the shuttles had. We have the mindset to move beyond the shuttle program, which is good but we seem to have forsaken the nitch that shuttle filled.

We are on course to travel out but we are losing our unique ability to do complex service and construction tasks at home.

Another aspect of the shuttle that most over look is that it was not just a “command module”, and “payload.” The idea behind the design was that it was a “space station” in reality. The idea to use a separate command module, and payload module, is ok as long as you have the ISS to deal with the “living quarters” and the “lab space.” The shuttle was designed to do all of this as there was no ISS at the time, and thus no other alternative. The fact the ISS is now finished, is the reason they have now been scrapped. The ISS indeed has living and lab space for them to work with, so the separated systems like we are looking at here now make sense. Not just in the cost of the individual missions, but the cost to the ISS as well. Now that the shuttle is out of the picture the ISS can, and has been boosted to a higher orbit that was not feasible for the shuttle to attain. Small and more efficient system can indeed reach higher altitudes, and thus the operational cost of the ISS is greatly reduced. Individual mission to reach it will cost a bit more for fuel in the future, but the overall savings far outweigh the smaller cost of the individual missions that dock there. The higher altitude of the ISS means it burns less fuel to maintain orbit, and since it is doing so 365 days per year that savings is very big compared to the onetime cost of the missions that go up. Thus many countries pressured the U.S. to cancel the shuttle and allow the ISS to be boosted to a higher orbit, and thus cut the cost of the program. This makes sense every way you look at it, as the useful life of the Shuttle was over, since the ISS could now be used instead.