Hey all I'm new here I'm Seth and I'm 15 I joined so I could talk to others about space since most people I know don't give two wits about it. So what I wondered after reading an article here on space.com called "The Future of Space Shuttle Columbia Uncertain." I wondered what would the program be like if STS-107 didn't burn up. My POV is based off this article I think it would have continued for few more years until the station was done and then it would just fly to transport crews and repair the station. So anyone else want to tell me their idea.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
T
tanstaafl76
Guest
Hi Seth, welcome to the forum!
In regards to Columbia, keep in mind that when the accident occurred they wound up delaying a lot of flights, so if it had not happened, we would probably have accomplished more missions by now. However in terms of how long the shuttles continue to fly and whether it would have been any longer if the accident had not occurred, it's tough to say, they are getting awfully old and they are pretty limited in their mission scope. There are some real experts here that can probably give you a better answer than me.
But the future for discovery at NASA is to go back to the Moon and to Mars, and the shuttle just can't get that done for us. So as much as I love the shuttles, it is necessary to let them go and move on to new things that get us to new places. The sooner the better!
In regards to Columbia, keep in mind that when the accident occurred they wound up delaying a lot of flights, so if it had not happened, we would probably have accomplished more missions by now. However in terms of how long the shuttles continue to fly and whether it would have been any longer if the accident had not occurred, it's tough to say, they are getting awfully old and they are pretty limited in their mission scope. There are some real experts here that can probably give you a better answer than me.
But the future for discovery at NASA is to go back to the Moon and to Mars, and the shuttle just can't get that done for us. So as much as I love the shuttles, it is necessary to let them go and move on to new things that get us to new places. The sooner the better!
S
seth_381
Guest
I'm aware of the Vision for Space Exploration and plans to land on the moon. But I think that a shuttle is almost necessary for taking care of the station and remember they eventually want to make/construct the craft in orbit to go to mars and a shuttle would be good for that right ?
A
andrew_t1000
Guest
I am worried to mate!
The way things are going with the dumb ass step backward of the Ares/Constellation program we will be having a hard time getting any kind of lunar base, let alone Mars landing.
With NASA getting gutted the way it has been, talk of no Moon, just a fly-by of an asteroid, I just hope that Russia, China or private industry gets it's stuff together.
I hope you feel as ripped off as I do, and I grew up with Apollo, Skylab, Viking, Voyager.
The only problem I have with private industry getting to the moon or Mars is that it will not be "for all mankind", but "for a select few shareholders"
The way things are going with the dumb ass step backward of the Ares/Constellation program we will be having a hard time getting any kind of lunar base, let alone Mars landing.
With NASA getting gutted the way it has been, talk of no Moon, just a fly-by of an asteroid, I just hope that Russia, China or private industry gets it's stuff together.
I hope you feel as ripped off as I do, and I grew up with Apollo, Skylab, Viking, Voyager.
The only problem I have with private industry getting to the moon or Mars is that it will not be "for all mankind", but "for a select few shareholders"
J
JonClarke
Guest
andrew_t1000":3d5fj4ya said:I am worried to mate!
The way things are going with the dumb ass step backward of the Ares/Constellation program we will be having a hard time getting any kind of lunar base, let alone Mars landing.
Noithing dumb about Ares/Constellation. It's the best way forward. It just needs to be properly funded.
Jon
P
pathfinder_01
Guest
JonClarke":iw2pothb said:andrew_t1000":iw2pothb said:I am worried to mate!
The way things are going with the dumb ass step backward of the Ares/Constellation program we will be having a hard time getting any kind of lunar base, let alone Mars landing.
Noithing dumb about Ares/Constellation. It's the best way forward. It just needs to be properly funded.
Jon
Which will never happen because until LEO access is cheap going to the moon or mars is going to be too expensive. Not to metion the cost of replacing the capsule and the rocket. I think the shuttle was a good idea that just was not developed.
J
JonClarke
Guest
pathfinder_01":jg7j9ord said:JonClarke":jg7j9ord said:andrew_t1000":jg7j9ord said:I am worried to mate!
The way things are going with the dumb ass step backward of the Ares/Constellation program we will be having a hard time getting any kind of lunar base, let alone Mars landing.
Noithing dumb about Ares/Constellation. It's the best way forward. It just needs to be properly funded.
Jon
Which will never happen because until LEO access is cheap going to the moon or mars is going to be too expensive. Not to metion the cost of replacing the capsule and the rocket. I think the shuttle was a good idea that just was not developed.
Too expensive compared to what?
Jon
A
Awasteofspace
Guest
If the Shuttle had been refined over the years and the thermal tiles replaced with a newer technology, we wouldn't need capsules period. If the shuttle had been upgraded or newer models built with more capability, I think most space programs would have based their future systems off of it, like the Russian Buran.
I can imagine different models for different purposes. A crew transport shuttle would have had air breathing engines for atmospheric flight and would have been half the size of the current shuttle. It could have been used as a ferry to the ISS or a superfast intercontinental transport. The standard shuttle with its cargo bay would have served most other missions in LEO, and a third model would have had interplanetary abilities. Maybe a shuttle would be launched and then a second engine would be launched and the shuttle would lock on to it and get boosted to the moon or Mars.
Nasa could have based all of its missions off of shuttle variants, which would have matured by now, and no one would even think of building another capsule. Originally, before the Challenger accident, they had planned upto 24 missions a year on the shuttle. If it weren't for its faults, and had they actually flown that many missions per year, who knows what vehicles would have evolved from that.
I can imagine different models for different purposes. A crew transport shuttle would have had air breathing engines for atmospheric flight and would have been half the size of the current shuttle. It could have been used as a ferry to the ISS or a superfast intercontinental transport. The standard shuttle with its cargo bay would have served most other missions in LEO, and a third model would have had interplanetary abilities. Maybe a shuttle would be launched and then a second engine would be launched and the shuttle would lock on to it and get boosted to the moon or Mars.
Nasa could have based all of its missions off of shuttle variants, which would have matured by now, and no one would even think of building another capsule. Originally, before the Challenger accident, they had planned upto 24 missions a year on the shuttle. If it weren't for its faults, and had they actually flown that many missions per year, who knows what vehicles would have evolved from that.
M
MeteorWayne
Guest
This topic concerns neither a Mission or a Launch, so will be moved to Space Business and Technology
V
vulture4
Guest
>>they are getting awfully old
The physical age of an aircraft is irrelevant as long as it is inspected and maintained as required. In the case of the shuttles they also had periodic overhauls and upgrades, although these have been canceled. The published probability of loss of the shuttles is now much higher than the original value (1/77 vs 1/100,000) but just as the original figure was unrealistically low, the actual probability of loss is almost certainly less than the published figure now, since the design problems that caused the loss of Columbia and Challenger have been corrected. In fact, virtually all launch vehicles become more reliable as experience is accumulated and problems corrected, so in all probability the Shuttle is actually safer now than it has ever been.
The physical age of an aircraft is irrelevant as long as it is inspected and maintained as required. In the case of the shuttles they also had periodic overhauls and upgrades, although these have been canceled. The published probability of loss of the shuttles is now much higher than the original value (1/77 vs 1/100,000) but just as the original figure was unrealistically low, the actual probability of loss is almost certainly less than the published figure now, since the design problems that caused the loss of Columbia and Challenger have been corrected. In fact, virtually all launch vehicles become more reliable as experience is accumulated and problems corrected, so in all probability the Shuttle is actually safer now than it has ever been.
E
Eman_3
Guest
The shuttle is a magnificent beast, an amazing machine that has contributed a lot to the advancement of science. But it was also an evolutionary dead end. A lot has been learned from the shuttle, and those mistakes will never be repeated. For instance, mounting the shuttle, with it's thousands of fragile tiles in a position where debris falling off the tank can impact looks like an engineering blunder of the worse sort. And does it make sense to construct a device that carries both passengers and cargo? If you want to lift cargo, then why place humans at risk? And if you wish to transoprt humans into space, why carry along a huge cargo section that can accomodate a bus?
From these lesson NASA has come ot the logical conclusion that from now on, rockets will have the components lined up, instead of arranged side-by-side. And if a cargo is to be placed in orbit, then a dedicated cargo rocket will do the job. If humans, then Aries will fulfill that tole.
The shuttle was originally designed for 100 flights, and 10 years service. And the first shuttle reached orbit in 1981, 28 years ago. Geez Seth, that's almost twice your age. And think of the kind of computers they built into the shuttle? In fact, that is one of the problems handicapping the shuttle, because the computer parts from that era are now far and few between, NASA has a tough time just finding components.
The shuttle is now very old, and expensive. It really is time to retire the fleet and move on to something better, something built from the lessons learned from the shuttle.
From these lesson NASA has come ot the logical conclusion that from now on, rockets will have the components lined up, instead of arranged side-by-side. And if a cargo is to be placed in orbit, then a dedicated cargo rocket will do the job. If humans, then Aries will fulfill that tole.
The shuttle was originally designed for 100 flights, and 10 years service. And the first shuttle reached orbit in 1981, 28 years ago. Geez Seth, that's almost twice your age. And think of the kind of computers they built into the shuttle? In fact, that is one of the problems handicapping the shuttle, because the computer parts from that era are now far and few between, NASA has a tough time just finding components.
The shuttle is now very old, and expensive. It really is time to retire the fleet and move on to something better, something built from the lessons learned from the shuttle.
L
LandoverLee
Guest
It would have been amazing I think if the STS hadn't been legislated into obscurity. After Challenger satellite launching, repair and retrieval was taken away. And Columbia really killed the program. I would've liked the U.S. to be more intrepid and have kept doing those exciting missions. The moon program probably would have gotten a faster start upon the back of the STS.
G
Gravity_Ray
Guest
good question. I think the shuttle would simply been retired sooner. The accidents only delayed the project. The shuttle was designed to build the station, it was originally much smaller, but the congress got involved and there were several large changes instituted that really changed it. It got bigger and was designed to do things not related to building the space station. As stated in earlier post you don't really want to have one machine for both crew and cargo, it's wasteful.
As any engineer will tell you, design a tool to accomplish a task, because there is an old saying; if all you have is a hammer then every thing looks like a nail to you.
By the way the shuttle is still a very good ship and will accomplish it's primary goal, but after the ISS is built we should retire it and move away from LEO and start robotic exploration of our immediate space to figure out what we have and where.
I would like to ask you as a teenager what would you like to see NASA do after the ISS is complete and the shuttles retired?
As any engineer will tell you, design a tool to accomplish a task, because there is an old saying; if all you have is a hammer then every thing looks like a nail to you.
By the way the shuttle is still a very good ship and will accomplish it's primary goal, but after the ISS is built we should retire it and move away from LEO and start robotic exploration of our immediate space to figure out what we have and where.
I would like to ask you as a teenager what would you like to see NASA do after the ISS is complete and the shuttles retired?
L
lowrieder
Guest
The shuttle suffers from a serious design flaw. That design flaw is the side mount launch. I love the idea of a resuable launch system, but not the design of the shuttle. It may simply been ahead of its time, like the Ford Edsel, which was a great concept with too many technical problems.
We are also missing a huge piece of the shuttle puzzle named Buran. Buran was a Soviet shuttle that was very close in concept and design to the shuttle. It only flew in space once with no crew, then the Soviet Union broke up and the program was cancelled. If we had more data on Buran then we would know a lot more about or own shuttle's flaws. It would also be a game changer in that we would have to keep producing shuttles to "keep up."
We are also missing a huge piece of the shuttle puzzle named Buran. Buran was a Soviet shuttle that was very close in concept and design to the shuttle. It only flew in space once with no crew, then the Soviet Union broke up and the program was cancelled. If we had more data on Buran then we would know a lot more about or own shuttle's flaws. It would also be a game changer in that we would have to keep producing shuttles to "keep up."
E
elroy_jetson
Guest
Hey Seth,
Your friends are no different than mine were at 15 - those of us who care about the space program and advancing humanity through exploration and learning about the universe are definitely a minority.
I have a love/hate thing going with the shuttle program. I love it because it's the only thing we've got (in regards to American manned spaceflight capabilities). I hate the shuttle program because Congress and NASA decided years ago that low Earth orbit was the only thing worth doing in space. If the shuttle program had been used to complement and enhance interplanetary missions by putting parts in orbit that would be assembled and used to go beyond Earth orbit (to the Moon, various asteroids, Mars), and the Saturn program had been allowed to continue, we'd be living in a very different world by now. Why? Because hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people would be living beyond Earth orbit by now. And tens of thousands would have visited space by now. Everyone who sees our planet from space gains a new perspective on our universe, and a new appreciation for just how wonderfully unique our homeworld is.
Our manned space program has been stagnant since the ending of Apollo in the early '70's and the introduction of the shuttle in the early '80's. Spaceflight is still a very risky business, all astronauts are aware of the risk. To be honest, I always expected to lose a shuttle on re-entry. That we've only lost one on re-entry (Columbia) is pretty amazing. Now the Challenger explosion - that was a total shocker, at least to me. They built a new shuttle to replace Challenger - Endeavor. It entered service in 1992, so even the newest shuttle is older than you are, Seth. But it's pretty much the same as the other shuttles - you'd think they'd have come up with some design improvements.
I'm not looking forward to the shuttle retirement. Not so much because of the shuttle itself, but because there will be too many years between the last shuttle launch and the first Orion/Ares flight. It's frustrating. It's politics. I hope your generation does a better job, with government and the space program, than the boomer generation has. Have a great day, kid!
Your friends are no different than mine were at 15 - those of us who care about the space program and advancing humanity through exploration and learning about the universe are definitely a minority.
I have a love/hate thing going with the shuttle program. I love it because it's the only thing we've got (in regards to American manned spaceflight capabilities). I hate the shuttle program because Congress and NASA decided years ago that low Earth orbit was the only thing worth doing in space. If the shuttle program had been used to complement and enhance interplanetary missions by putting parts in orbit that would be assembled and used to go beyond Earth orbit (to the Moon, various asteroids, Mars), and the Saturn program had been allowed to continue, we'd be living in a very different world by now. Why? Because hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people would be living beyond Earth orbit by now. And tens of thousands would have visited space by now. Everyone who sees our planet from space gains a new perspective on our universe, and a new appreciation for just how wonderfully unique our homeworld is.
Our manned space program has been stagnant since the ending of Apollo in the early '70's and the introduction of the shuttle in the early '80's. Spaceflight is still a very risky business, all astronauts are aware of the risk. To be honest, I always expected to lose a shuttle on re-entry. That we've only lost one on re-entry (Columbia) is pretty amazing. Now the Challenger explosion - that was a total shocker, at least to me. They built a new shuttle to replace Challenger - Endeavor. It entered service in 1992, so even the newest shuttle is older than you are, Seth. But it's pretty much the same as the other shuttles - you'd think they'd have come up with some design improvements.
I'm not looking forward to the shuttle retirement. Not so much because of the shuttle itself, but because there will be too many years between the last shuttle launch and the first Orion/Ares flight. It's frustrating. It's politics. I hope your generation does a better job, with government and the space program, than the boomer generation has. Have a great day, kid!
M
mike555
Guest
I am disappointed they are retiring the shuttles. They are the most amazing machines man has designed and built. I think they should keep flying but I’m not in charge. The orbiter has been very reliable both accidents were caused by equipment that was attached to the orbiter the external tank and the solid rocket motors. Once they are in orbit they have been extremely reliable. I only remember one time they had to land early and I believe that was a failure of the electricity generating equipment. I will be watching every one of the last few launches and maybe even make a trip to Florida to see it in person.
H
heroineworshipper
Guest
If STS-107 never burned up, another mission would have burned up shortly thereafter. It wasn't a random event. The tanks shed too much material & there was no way to detect TPS problems. The tanks would still shed & there would still be no repair capability or way of knowing if tiles were damaged.
C
cww
Guest
I have followed the space program and the shuttle since I was a kid and now at the age of 32 continue to follow it and dream about the discoveries the program may make and often wish I could contribute in some way.
I like many others am disappointed that it appears in all likelihood that the United States will go several years with out the ability to launch people into space.
As some in this topic have alluded to, the space shuttle is a product of micro management by the U.S. government. The original design of the space shuttle was a vehicle that would take off horizontally and be entirely self contained if I remember correctly. The original vision was for a space plane that could make hundreds flights a year and have a cost that was much cheaper per flight than launching rockets. Congress involved its self pretty early on and scuttled that idea pretty quickly via budget cuts. There was an article that was posted on space.com a couple of years ago that gave a pretty good account of this. If someone knows of this article and post a link that would be much appreciated. I was surprised when I read the article by how much congress had involved its self in the design process of the space shuttle. It was really arrogant for people without the correct back ground to be instructing NASA engineers in sometimes very specific ways about the key attributes of a space craft. This was all geared to keeping development cost down. What happened is they were successful with keeping development cost down, but they ended up with a vehicle that was much more expensive to operate.
The space program has been greatly handicapped by this. Instead of a vehicle that could make many flights in a year we ended up with one that we could only afford to send up a handful times a year safely. Everything that the shuttles was to be used for became more expensive, time consuming and dangerous. That meant projects such as the space station had to be scaled back.
Don’t get me wrong the space shuttle is an impressive vehicle and has racked up plenty accomplishments in its life time, but it has not achieved what was originally planned and our space programs growth has been stunted because of that.
I am not the biggest fan of the Constellation program, but given the budgetary constraints it is the best NASA can do in my opinion. Which again we are skimping on development cost, but at least this time NASA is being some what realistic in what they can do given funding levels. The constellation program will be cheaper to operate, will have a greater lift capacity than the shuttle and be more reliable if current goals are met. The problem is it uses the same rocket technology that we have been using for years as far as I can tell We will still continue load up earth orbit with junk what we will have to worry about colliding with later.
I like many others am disappointed that it appears in all likelihood that the United States will go several years with out the ability to launch people into space.
As some in this topic have alluded to, the space shuttle is a product of micro management by the U.S. government. The original design of the space shuttle was a vehicle that would take off horizontally and be entirely self contained if I remember correctly. The original vision was for a space plane that could make hundreds flights a year and have a cost that was much cheaper per flight than launching rockets. Congress involved its self pretty early on and scuttled that idea pretty quickly via budget cuts. There was an article that was posted on space.com a couple of years ago that gave a pretty good account of this. If someone knows of this article and post a link that would be much appreciated. I was surprised when I read the article by how much congress had involved its self in the design process of the space shuttle. It was really arrogant for people without the correct back ground to be instructing NASA engineers in sometimes very specific ways about the key attributes of a space craft. This was all geared to keeping development cost down. What happened is they were successful with keeping development cost down, but they ended up with a vehicle that was much more expensive to operate.
The space program has been greatly handicapped by this. Instead of a vehicle that could make many flights in a year we ended up with one that we could only afford to send up a handful times a year safely. Everything that the shuttles was to be used for became more expensive, time consuming and dangerous. That meant projects such as the space station had to be scaled back.
Don’t get me wrong the space shuttle is an impressive vehicle and has racked up plenty accomplishments in its life time, but it has not achieved what was originally planned and our space programs growth has been stunted because of that.
I am not the biggest fan of the Constellation program, but given the budgetary constraints it is the best NASA can do in my opinion. Which again we are skimping on development cost, but at least this time NASA is being some what realistic in what they can do given funding levels. The constellation program will be cheaper to operate, will have a greater lift capacity than the shuttle and be more reliable if current goals are met. The problem is it uses the same rocket technology that we have been using for years as far as I can tell We will still continue load up earth orbit with junk what we will have to worry about colliding with later.
T
TC_sc
Guest
heroineworshipper":49vsepr8 said:If STS-107 never burned up, another mission would have burned up shortly thereafter. It wasn't a random event. The tanks shed too much material & there was no way to detect TPS problems. The tanks would still shed & there would still be no repair capability or way of knowing if tiles were damaged.
I'm not sure a shuttle would have been lost in reentry, but one would have been lost. Damage by foam was inevitable. If the shuttle had been on a mission that didn't have the science module, let's say a station building mission, then the odds are good they would have spotted damage that large. That shuttle might have been lost in orbit, but the crew could have possibly been saved.
We lost two shuttles and both times it was preventable. Challenger went against design temps and the EPA forced NASA to change the foam. The new foam had shedding problems from the beginning. NASA was reluctant to fight the EPA ruling since the new foam was lighter and they could carry more cargo. I guess they thought they could solve the shedding problem, but so far they haven't.
So, unless you go way back, losing a shuttle to TPS problems was going to happen. Over the years the TPS could have been upgraded more than it has been, but that is once more a money issue.
S
srmarti
Guest
It bothers me that with the shuttle retirement we lose certain capabilities even when Orion capsules become operational. You can't do a mission like the Hubble repair and upgrade with Orion.
D
Dragonsbreath
Guest
The original idea, back in '80, was that by this time we would have a fleet of about 40 shuttles, we would be on gen 5 or 6 by now, rather than still flying gen 1.
At all times, there would be
1 on the launchpad
1 approaching the station
1 docked
1 returning to earth
1 in repair/refurbish.
They would ferry back and forth to the station, they would capture, repair and release satellites, they would be catching and cleaning up space junk, and by now we would also be servicing the lunar station. and be well on our way to building not only a Mars station but either one in the asteroids or on Europa.
Even before the Challenger disaster, we were way off track because the Senators/reps couldn't keep their hands out of the pie - siphonig off the money for the pet projects and senind NASA only the dregs, while arguing over whether we sould even be in space.
You want an even more interesting question? I know they have come up with an excuse for it... but when we pulled Skylab down, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and we had the equipment to do SKylab 4.
If Congress had been long-sighted enough to allow us to complete our first space staiton back in '71ish, where would we be now? And would the depression be hitting us as hard since we would have a viable space construciton/tourist/ colony industry going today?
At all times, there would be
1 on the launchpad
1 approaching the station
1 docked
1 returning to earth
1 in repair/refurbish.
They would ferry back and forth to the station, they would capture, repair and release satellites, they would be catching and cleaning up space junk, and by now we would also be servicing the lunar station. and be well on our way to building not only a Mars station but either one in the asteroids or on Europa.
Even before the Challenger disaster, we were way off track because the Senators/reps couldn't keep their hands out of the pie - siphonig off the money for the pet projects and senind NASA only the dregs, while arguing over whether we sould even be in space.
You want an even more interesting question? I know they have come up with an excuse for it... but when we pulled Skylab down, there was absolutely nothing wrong with it, and we had the equipment to do SKylab 4.
If Congress had been long-sighted enough to allow us to complete our first space staiton back in '71ish, where would we be now? And would the depression be hitting us as hard since we would have a viable space construciton/tourist/ colony industry going today?
E
evadnik
Guest
Just reading the posts about the STS programme. It was never designed to look anything like it does in the beginning. If you do a search for " STS original design, 1970" you get loads of sites, Wikipedea is a good page, NASA has a page as well, the original design was for a similar set up to the new Orion Vehicles, one for crew carrier on top, one for payload, but due to the funding cutbacks and different agencies wanting it to be able to launch a variety of payloads, i.e. spy and military, it's design got changed, longer, wider and heavier, to the point that couldn't carry it's own fuel and had to have an external tank and boosters. The original STS would probably been a safer ang quicker way to get the ISS built and into action, but with so many different paymasters all wanting their own piece of the action, you end up with what you get, not what's best.
R
Ruri
Guest
Just about every problem with STS can be traced back to politics there is nothing engineering wise that makes a reusable launch vehicle impossible.
The first problem was Nixon cutting the R&D funding forcing NASA to give up on the STME or even an F1 derivative for stage 0 and partner with the USAF.
This meant they had to make use of SRBs as the R&D was cheaper for them even though it drove up the reoccurring costs.
Because they had to partner with the USAF the shuttle had to meet a requirement of having a 15 by 65 foot payload bay and a 3,000mile cross range.
Columbia was the result of a decision forced by the USAF to go with an aluminum airframe vs titanium this meant a change from a hot frame structure to a cold frame structure.
This is why they had to choose the ceramic tiles which have nearly magical thermodynamic properties but unfortunately are extremely fragile.
It still is amazing the vehicle still flew and operated as well as it does despite having so much go wrong politically during development.
Still the vehicle probably never would have had a serious accident if they simply avoided launching in cold weather.
It effects the O-rings sealing and making conditions worse for what is known as cryopumping where water and air freeze under the ET insulation.
The first problem was Nixon cutting the R&D funding forcing NASA to give up on the STME or even an F1 derivative for stage 0 and partner with the USAF.
This meant they had to make use of SRBs as the R&D was cheaper for them even though it drove up the reoccurring costs.
Because they had to partner with the USAF the shuttle had to meet a requirement of having a 15 by 65 foot payload bay and a 3,000mile cross range.
Columbia was the result of a decision forced by the USAF to go with an aluminum airframe vs titanium this meant a change from a hot frame structure to a cold frame structure.
This is why they had to choose the ceramic tiles which have nearly magical thermodynamic properties but unfortunately are extremely fragile.
It still is amazing the vehicle still flew and operated as well as it does despite having so much go wrong politically during development.
Still the vehicle probably never would have had a serious accident if they simply avoided launching in cold weather.
It effects the O-rings sealing and making conditions worse for what is known as cryopumping where water and air freeze under the ET insulation.
R
Ruri
Guest
JonClarke":3urxlm6b said:andrew_t1000":3urxlm6b said:I am worried to mate!
The way things are going with the dumb ass step backward of the Ares/Constellation program we will be having a hard time getting any kind of lunar base, let alone Mars landing.
Noithing dumb about Ares/Constellation. It's the best way forward. It just needs to be properly funded.
Jon
More like most decisions on the architecture is questionable at best.
Once you know about large SRBs using one as the first stage on a crewed launch vehicle does seem pretty dumb.
Other aspects that border on the edge of lunacy the 1.5 architecture,the use of non storable propellants in the lander and throwing away everything we learned about assembling vehicles in LEO.
Reusing the Apollo OML was not really dumb just lazy as there are better more efficient shapes though from a PR stand point it was pretty dumb.
B
Booban
Guest
Dragonsbreath":38x54d6y said:The original idea, back in '80, was that by this time we would have a fleet of about 40 shuttles, we would be on gen 5 or 6 by now, rather than still flying gen 1.
At all times, there would be
1 on the launchpad
1 approaching the station
1 docked
1 returning to earth
1 in repair/refurbish.
They would ferry back and forth to the station, they would capture, repair and release satellites, they would be catching and cleaning up space junk, and by now we would also be servicing the lunar station. and be well on our way to building not only a Mars station but either one in the asteroids or on Europa.
That's just amazing, almost so much so to be true. Could that really have been feasible? Sounds like a terrific case to be in LEO with a space station and shuttle, even to clean up space junk. Would repairing a satellite really make economic sense? Even if it didn't work out, it should be practical things like this that should be tried.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 10
- Views
- 8K
- Replies
- 61
- Views
- 27K
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 9K
- Replies
- 9
- Views
- 4K
- Replies
- 4
- Views
- 7K
TRENDING THREADS
-
UFO whistleblowers tell Congress 'we are not alone in the cosmos' (video)- Started by Admin
- Replies: 38
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 171
-
-
US Congress will hold another UFO hearing this week. Here's how to watch
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 18
-
The US is now at risk of losing to China in the race to send people back to the Moon’s surface
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 12
-
NASA's Jet Propulsion Lab laying off 5% of its workforce
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
All astronauts still in good health on ISS, NASA flight surgeon says amid new tabloid rumors
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 0
Space.com is part of Future plc, an international media group and leading digital publisher. Visit our corporate site.
© Future Publishing Limited Quay House, The Ambury, Bath BA1 1UA. All rights reserved. England and Wales company registration number 2008885.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram