the space shuttle

[eagle 0]

folks this is a fun site to be enjoyed , but please keep the feed back w/in perspective

please.....thank you. :P

[Dumbass 0]

::dumps 2 tons of grain on Eagle's doorstep:: Here is my feed back.

[eagle 0]

::dumps 2 tons of grain on Eagle's doorstep:: Here is my feed back.

what no KETCHUP,....:: grabs a new bottle of ketchup and digs into the grain::+burp+thanks :P

[WesleyMustDie 0]

LOL, VANROY!

 

Seriously, we need the shuttle to keep the ISS going.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

On topic, living in Florida, I have had the pleasure of actually seeing two of these things go up...up close. I've also seen numerous climb into the distant sky from my home further south.

 

The space shuttle program is the best thing we have at the moment. The fact is the construction of the International Space Station cannot continue without the shuttle program in operation. The ISS should not be something simply cast asside like Skylab.

 

People complain about the shuttles, pointing out the youngest of the fleet is still over two decades in age. While this is true, keep in mind that most of the aircraft we ride in commerical aviation are...in some cases...working on being four decades old. I don't see people demanding the mass retirement of them.

 

The shuttle program, by NASA's own timetable, is slated to ride into the sunset somewhere near 2010. That date may be pushed back slightly given development issues with the next generation of shuttle, such as the Venture program, and the construction delays the ISS has faced. I think we should simply let that clock run out, let the shuttle's complete the task they have and once a solid replacement is ready...switch.

[Ramdar Goftar 0]

we should definatly keep them because they can still be useful in someway like I always say its useful till it stops working.

[Cougar 0]

Scrap them and build a newer and better spacecraft.

[Seiben 0]

I think NASA could keep them running for another few years.. Heck, if the Canadian Military can keep our Sea King helicopters running for 40 years, I'm sure NASA could keep the shuttles going until their due for retirement in 2010. They need the shuttle to keep the ISS running. :P

Edited August 18, 2005 by Seiben

[koolaidman 0]

i dont understand the question so ill just tell you my answer.

 

i think that the shutle program needs to stay in place, that way we can finish the space station and take one step closer to a trekish future i think that future spacecraft whould be left docked at the station and ave shuttles that bring the astronoauts there making missions to places like mars more of a reality because of the issue with fuel.

 

long live the shuttle.

 

miles obrien was saying that the shuttle is going to be obselete by 2010, thats is nasa's plan

Edited August 18, 2005 by koolaidman

[WesleyMustDie 0]

Scrap them and build a newer and better spacecraft.

Someone waiting for a warp drive? :P

[DigitalLava 0]

I think that if they just improved more of the space shuttles design before they blast off might be a better idea. Like that one inch chunk of something that was sticking out of Discovery had to be removed, maybe if they thought of more issues that could occure with the shuttles in space, then they could fix em before ppl die, like in umm Columbia was it?

[Cougar 0]

Someone waiting for a warp drive? :P

The shuttles are getting obsolete. They are old also. So they should either improve on them by building newer ones or create a whole new craft.

I say continue the program but at the same time build something newer and better.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Exploration_Vehicle

The CEV is the proposed craft to replace the shuttles.

Edited August 18, 2005 by Cougar

[WesleyMustDie 0]

I think that if they just improved more of the space shuttles design before they blast off might be a better idea. Like that one inch chunk of something that was sticking out of Discovery had to be removed, maybe if they thought of more issues that could occure with the shuttles in space, then they could fix em before ppl die, like in umm Columbia was it?

There have been two major shuttle disasters: Challenger and Columbia.

 

And Cougar, I agree about the shuttles becoming obsolete, but that's the best we have at the moment.

[Cougar 0]

And Cougar, I agree about the shuttles becoming obsolete, but that's the best we have at the moment.

Yep. And we can only hope and pray for their success.

 

Big news...

 

NASA targets Discovery launch in March 2006

 

BY JOHN KELLY

FLORIDA TODAY

 

CAPE CANAVERAL — There will be no more shuttle missions in 2005.

 

NASA announced today that shuttle Discovery will fly the next mission, which managers are tentatively targeting for March 2006.

 

Atlantis, already stacked in the Kennedy Space Center’s Vehicle Assembly Building in anticipation of flying that second post-Columbia mission, instead will go back to the hangar.

 

Atlantis, which handles heavier payloads better, would launch as early as May on a flight to resume construction of the International Space Station.

 

The shakeup in flight planning is a direct result of five oversized pieces of insulating foam that fell off Discovery’s external fuel tank July 26, during the first shuttle launch to test safety reforms made in the wake of the 2003 Columbia disaster. NASA needs several months to study and then fix the fuel tanks it has on hand.

 

Bill Gerstenmaier, the newly-appointed head of space operations at NASA, says the proposed changes have the side benefit of providing smoother turn-arounds between station construction missions further down the road. Under earlier plans, Atlantis would have flown back to back flights on a super-tight schedule.

 

The new shuttle plan, which is yet to be formally approved by shuttle management, puts Atlantis in line to carry an especially heavy piece of the space station. It also sets a sequence of Discovery, Atlantis, Discovery rather than one in which vehicles might have had to fly back-to-back, a sequence that could have led to delays.

 

“By being able to do this vehicle switch, that is going to make a more efficient schedule; that makes the impact not a very big impact,” Gerstenmaier said.

 

Indeed, under the original plan, NASA sought to fly that first station construction mission in March 2006. The new plan gives engineers six extra months to work on the lingering foam problems while – possibly – only pushing the resumption of space station assembly back by a couple months.

 

The March, then May sequence are not official launch dates yet. They represent “planning” or “targeting” windows that give the shuttle team here at KSC and elsewhere a sort of roadmap of when certain goals must be accomplished. As such, the targets often move around on the calendar.

 

NASA does not officially set a firm launch date until managers declare the vehicle safe to fly at a Flight Readiness Review, typically just weeks in advance of the planned liftoff.

 

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin cautioned people against speculating on any impact to plans to retire the shuttle. He reiterated the agency’s commitment to safely fly the orbiters as many times as possible between now and 2010, saying it remains possible to complete construction of the station using the three remaining orbiters.

 

“There is a change in thinking, if you will,” Griffin said. “I’ve changed the game on shuttle thinking. We are not trying to get a specific number of flights out of the shuttle system. We are working toward an orderly and expeditious retirement of the shuttle system over the next five years.”

 

The extra time in the schedule allows NASA to ship several fuel tanks back to the Michoud factory, outside New Orleans. There, technicians plan to slice and dice the foam on some of the tanks as they try to figure out why certain pieces of foam broke free and how to stop that from happening in the future.

 

The biggest piece of foam that came off Discovery’s tank, a one-pound slab that narrowly missed the wing, is from a ramp that protects pipelines and cables from unstable air during the ride to space.

 

Gerstenmaier said the agency’s tentative plan is to remove those 30-plus foot long ramps from existing tanks and re-spray the ramps. The agency believes more strict control over the process used by workers to spray and form the foam ramps will prevent the flaws that cause the foam loss.

 

Credit: FloridaToday

Edited August 18, 2005 by Cougar

[Nemesis 0]

I think NASA could keep them running for another few years.. Heck, if the Canadian Military can keep our Sea King helicopters running for 40 years, I'm sure NASA could keep the shuttles going until their due for retirement in 2010. They need the shuttle to keep the ISS running. :D

To make a comment on that, it's different when you have helicopters mostly used pretty much close to home and are rather easy to repair outside of their main base compared to something as large and high-tech as the space-shuttle. Personally I believe that the Space shuttle and the space program should be scrapped for in reality it brings in no return compared to the huge monetary hole that it really is. Basically all the great things that people attribute the space program for now has already, and now can easily be taken over by the commercail sector.

 

Personally, I'd rather the great expenses that my government is placing in projects like the ISS and other stuff, be placed where it's beneficial to us in a realistic way. It's time we leave this idealistic viewpoint that the space program is so great and it's what will lead to a Star trek universe where we'll explore the cosmos, but that will not be the case.

[Dumbass 0]

So what the heck is NASA going to do with a fleet of used space shuttles? Sell them on eBay?

[DaryusZaphodDracal 0]

So what the heck is NASA going to do with a fleet of used space shuttles? Sell them on eBay?

Hey, I'd buy one. :D

 

Seriously, the shuttle was shown up big time by Spaceship One. I think that NASA should get together with the civillian organization who built it and come up with a new state of the art reusable spacecraft. I mean Spaceship one didn't have heat shields, or cost a billion dollars just to fail. It made it both times it was launched. NASA could learn a valuable lesson from that.

[Murdok Helios 0]

psssh that thing didn't even go into real space, it went up to the upper edge of our atmosphere which is scientifcly considered space, but come on we all know it was just a high flying plain.

 

 

call me when they get into oribit for longer then a few min. :D

[eagle 0]

Hey, I'd buy one.  :D

 

Seriously, the shuttle was shown up big time by Spaceship One. I think that NASA should get together with the civillian organization who built it and come up with a new state of the art reusable spacecraft. I mean Spaceship one didn't have heat shields, or cost a billion dollars just to fail. It made it both times it was launched. NASA could learn a valuable lesson from that.

remember the 100mill. question and my comment on mr. burt rutaan....well ther you go

and it was not just a high flying plane,..it actually was /is a space flight capable vehicle

the pilot/astronaut was awarded his astronaut wings by nasa...in a ceromony....attended by many v i p,s ,nasa does not just hand those wings out for a

really high plane ride......any way that group has in fact proven that space flight can be

accomplished at a fraction of the cost...comparitively...and should be promoted to expand the realm of possibilities connected to space exploration.....or we can stick our heads in the sand like an ostrich and go no where...history showa just how dangerous

that option can be and the ensuing results from such an isolationist point of view.. :lol: :blink:

Edited August 19, 2005 by eagle

[Nemesis 0]

They should scrap NASA altogether and fund private corporations with contracts to build the new space vessels, I mean the point of NASA was basically for secrecy reasons but that's pointless now without the soviets around now.

[FredM 0]

Hey there,

 

First, I'll answer Nemesis statement first. I don't know if you realize it or not, but there is a big international legal issue developing over "private corporations" working in space. Specifically, U.N. resolutions pasted in 1963 (Resolution 1962) and again in 1967 (Resolution 2222) make it clear that space exploration is to be done on a "free basis" with the primary objective "the benefit of all mankind." Furthermore, it states that a government...not a corporation...is responsible for the spacecraft put into orbit. As a result, for example, if there was an accident with one of the civilians who went to the ISS...it would be a liability against the Russian government...not necessarily the company that he "paid" to get him there.

 

Second, I think it completely foolish to say "Let's scrap the shuttles and build a new one." Well, given the fact that the construction of a new (design tested) aircraft carrier takes somewhere near 7 to 8 years...I think one might expect it to take that long to get a new design built/functioning. Until that time, you have to work with what you have. To do otherwise is, in economic terms, a waste.

 

Third, there are designs that are being developed. In fact, someone I used to co-host with worked in Huntsville and was remotely involved in one of them (the Venture program I believe). These craft hold the design potential to be reusable in less than three days, hold as much cargo as the space shuttle but allow for longer missions...more crew...etc. The question of whether we get back to the moon is a major focus of the new design.

 

Fourth, I would disagree that the shuttle was shown up by Spaceship One. Once that craft can make as many successful launches and returns as the shuttles, then I'll start to buy into that remark. To say that in over 25 years of the shuttle program there have been 2 accidents isn't necessarily a bad track record when viewed objectively. If your local fast food establishment could get your order right that percentage of the time, I doubt we'd be complaining about service.

 

Finally, remember that in fact there are three shuttles in existence today. Atlantis,Discovery and the oldest...Enterprise will likely all end up the same. Enterprise was never flown in space but was the test craft used for all "suborbital" reentry examinations. It's presently sitting on display in Washington D.C.. The others will probably end up in display like some of the old Saturn V rockets that were built but never used (believe there were 3 or 4). I'd assume one of the shuttles would end up on display in Houston and another at the Kennedy Space Center.

Edited August 19, 2005 by FredM

[Harry Potter 0]

psssh that thing didn't even go into real space, it went up to the upper edge of our atmosphere which is scientifcly considered space, but come on we all know it was just a high flying plain.

 

 

call me when they get into oribit for longer then a few min. :D

lol...it may be "space", but call me when they go to the moon and back, then I will be impressed, not before...as for NASA...well...do we REALLY need a space program at all? sure it's a nice little idealistic thing, but I think the majority of us have come to realize that the Vulcans are not going to land and rescue us from for plights and the possiblity of alien contact is slim at best (i think the most compelling arguement for intelligent life in space is that they have stayed away from us...) and the money being pumped into the space program can be used so much better in programs that more directly affect us...long story short, lets clean up our own house before beaming over to someone elses...

[FredM 0]

do we REALLY need a space program at all? sure it's a nice little idealistic thing,

Hey there,

 

Given the benefits we've seen in medical and scientific research due to the space program, I think it's worth it. Besides, without NASA you might never of had the joy of playing with velcro or using that plastic container you're storing the food in (BTW, it now has mold on it and should really be put in the garbage). :D

[WesleyMustDie 0]

I think the majority of us have come to realize that the Vulcans are not going to land and rescue us from for plights and the possiblity of alien contact is slim at best (i think the most compelling arguement for intelligent life in space is that they have stayed away from us...)

No one's said anything about believing first contact is actually going to happen. That's not what the space program is about anyway.

[Grom 0]

Hey there,

 

Given the benefits we've seen in medical and scientific research due to the space program, I think it's worth it. Besides, without NASA you might never of had the joy of playing with velcro or using that plastic container you're storing the food in (BTW, it now has mold on it and should really be put in the garbage). :D

While your argument has merit, but I'm more apt to take the fiscal conservative route and agree with Harry. Quite a lot of tax payer money is invested into a program that yields very little results. A billion dollars can go a lot further here on Earth for that same medical and scientific research than it can up in space. The best alternative/compromise, in my mind, is to allow the private sector handle research and development and if they see any reasonable purpose in researching the things of space, let them.