><i>Except for the hardware which was too large for the Shuttle, which was carried up by the Russian Proton booster.</i><p>The only modules which were too massive for Shuttle to lift to ISS were Zarya and Zvezda. These modules are about 2,540 and 2,270kg too heavy for Shuttle. However, it's worth noting that even with Proton's lift capacity they had to launch them partially equipped and mount a Shuttle mission to complete the outfitting. That Shuttle mission (2A.2 if memory serves correctly) also carried several tons of supplies.<p>There's no reason to doubt that the modules could have been designed to launch on Shuttle (ie in a more 'stripped' configuration) and outfitted by a third Shuttle mission.</p></p>
- Status
>My feelings about the shuttle are stated better than I could ever say by the beautiful eulogy for the crew of Columbia, and Columbia herself by her first pilot-Bob Crippen.<<br /><br />Couldn't agree more. Spoke volumes. One of the most impressive speeches of all time (by way of delieverence, tone, prestentation and emotion) - Crippen was on par with Tony Blair for speech presentation that day - something I say as a studier of speeches over history.<br /><br />"Some say she was old, past her prime. But she had only lived a third of her design life, in years she was 22. She, like her crew, had her life, snuffed out, in her prime."<br /><br />I'll transcribe the whole speech one day when I do a few reviews pre-RTF on Collins and the fun-and-games on STS-93 and Columbia's history.
Does the beautiful eulogizing necessitate return to flight? Unlike some of the posters here, I have immense respect for the astronaut corp. it's not disrespect to question throwing good money and lives after bad. <br /><br />Here's what I would propose: One or two launches of a modified Shuttle to put the remaining station modules onorbit. The vehicle is stripped of TPS, landing, wings & stabilizers, the cargo bay is stretched to acommodate Kibo and Columbus together (or Kibo & truss/PV, etc). Essentially use the Flight and mid-decks and engines with a new cargo bay, ShuttleC with a crew. Station is built to something approaching Core-Complete in two (SDHLV) launches and longer (multimonth) assembly flights. Extra logistics are provided by ATV, CSI and Progress. One extra module is built and flown for this: a dedicated life support system based on a SpaceHab RDM. The modified Shuttle is ditched over the Pacific and assembly team returns via several Soyuz or t/space capsules. The remaining Shuttle (or two) is retired to the Smithsonian.<br /><br />A fast-track to Core Complete would require marginally more money (if any, barring mismanagement), would still use Shuttle workforce, makes the station more useful quicker and frees money up sooner for the moon and mars. <br /><br />There doesn't need to be any disrepect involved, just clear heads willing to solve problems, regardless of the path taken.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
A very interesting idea, although I'm not sure about the timeline and costs involved there, over the cost of the upcoming 28 launch mandate.<br /><br /> />Does the beautiful eulogizing necessitate return to flight?<<br /><br />No, but NASA was built and fostered in part on eulogising visions and dreams of the future. Without it endangers the next generation of visionaries/scientists and engineers that drive from childhood in becoming part of that dream.
> <i><font color="yellow">I just want to say that the shuttle is a huge waste of $ when we could be focusing on exploration...</font>/i><br /><br />On a straight economic analysis I agree with you, and so does the current NASA administrator (or at least he did a year ago before he became the NASA Administrator): "<i>This total of $60 B [to complete and operate ISS] is significantly higher than NASA's current allocation for human lunar return. It is beyond reason to believe that ISS can help to fulfill any objective, or set of objectives, for space exploration that would be worth the $60 B remaining to be invested in the program.</i>"<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=12151<br /><br />The primary reason for flying the shuttle is to complete ISS, and the primary reason to complete the ISS is to "fulfill obligations" to our international partners. People often argue that it is important to fulfill this obligation so the international partners will contribute to the exploration vision.<br /><br />The first problem is economics. My guess is that the international partners will not contribute $60 billion to the exploration initiative for a very long time, so the US will not recover that remaining $60 billion investment in ISS.<br /><br />The second problem is that Griffin does not want international help (or even commercial help) to support the core of the exploration vision. He wants the government to own all the core and critical technologies and capabilities to carry out the exploration vision: "<i>I believe the core capability, the core intellectual property that will sustain this journey, must reside within NASA as an organization, and particularly within the NASA Field Centers.</i>"<br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=16941<br /><br /><b><font color="yellow">BUT...</font></b></i>
>A very interesting idea, although I'm not sure about the timeline and costs involved there, over the cost of the upcoming 28 launch mandate.<br /><br />A lot of the labor for converting Discovery into a one-off would come gratis as JSC, KSC and MSFC labor force. It doesn't have to be pretty, but it has to work, once. The knowledge they gain in a 2year crash program is leveraged into the Shuttle-Derived vehicle. Sort of a practice run that completes ISS as well. <br /><br /> />No, but NASA was built and fostered in part on eulogising visions and dreams of the future. Without it endangers the next generation of visionaries/scientists and engineers that drive from childhood in becoming part of that dream.<br /><br />Sure, the educational/inspirational part of NASA is important. Couldn't that be channelled immediately into VSE and a radical approach to finishing Station? The Shuttles are old, let's just call it good and start on the next phase. Imagine what Mike Griffin could do with a suddenly free $4billion and a couple thousand very seasoned aerospace workers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>
<font color="yellow">I want to get up close and personal with an Orbiter before I die...."</font><br /><br />me too. I wanna dismantle this child of management and bureaucracy and politics , also known as a homicidal monstruosity, by hand.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
Won't be easy if I come over and hold you hostage till you go on CNN and declare your un-dying love for all things Shuttle.<br /><br />Might be interesting when I get to Newark Airport and Customs ask me "Business, pleasure or hostage taking?"
what's the deal with your love affair with the shuttle? <br />it's not even a matter of pride since I don't believe it was the UK who built it.<br />Do you want to see more billions wasted, more lives lost, just to have this leviathan flying again? You never seen a launch other than on TV and you afraid you missed your chance? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
>what's the deal with your love affair with the shuttle?<br />it's not even a matter of pride since I don't believe it was the UK who built it. <<br /><br />That's like asking an American (and I'll add the geeky voice for effect, cause that's how this question sounds like it being asked) "Errrrrr, you're American, why do you like the Beatles???? It's, it's, it's, errrr, not even like your British?!?!"<br /><br />Feel a bit stupid now? Good<br /><br /> />Do you want to see more billions wasted, more lives lost, just to have this leviathan flying again?<<br /><br />Asking rhetorical nonsense like that is only going to get one answer, STFU. <br /><br /> />You never seen a launch other than on TV and you afraid you missed your chance?<<br /><br />Yeah, that's it!!! Wow, you're so clever!! I wish I was you. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight have something to do with, and pay attention now, what I do for a living?
you suck though...I can't believe you love the shuttle when it has been proven to be a very unsafe spacecraft..and on top of that very expensive...and it never delivered the level of access to LEO that it was promised. <br />WHY do you like it? just cause it's big and has wings?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
>you &%$#@!?<<br /><br />Yep, but only on Mondays <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /><br />And another changed post (a bit like the one where you called a dead UK solider a "Gay Nazi" before changing it.<br /><br /> />WHY do you like it? just cause it's big and has wings?<<br /><br />Right again, wow, you're so clever man.
you know, this is sad., but the best thing for NASA would be a hurricane destroying all of the remaining shuttles.<br />All of the safety measures they are taking do nothing but assuage the public. You really think they can detect all possible damages to the tiles from orbit by panning a camer around? dream on! or while it's flying?<br />what are they going to do, abort the launch if they see any debris shedding from the ET? yeah right! 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>Somebody's been eating the stupid toast for breakfast again. Put the toast down and ready this book: <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />http://www.garysmarketplace.com/ProductImages/SE_NotStupidDVDsm.JPG
better stupid than blind! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
I guess killing 14 people because of a less than sturdy design is an accomplishment. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
What "you guess" is not of anyone's concern, especially when your opinion isn't even based on any knowledge on the Shuttle: See your Debris answer for shining example of stupidness.<br /><br />Basically, what you post is not unlike what one finds on the bottom of their shoe whilst walking through a field of Bulls.<br /><br />Do you get me, sweetheart.
I really wish you'd come here to the states. I'd ram a model of the orbiter up your arse. Then again, you'd enjoy that too much. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
One point of tangential context I would like to provide here.<br /><br />There have been a number of threads over the years about "We should get rid of the shuttle and take the billions saved and ...."<br /><br />Well, the perspective is this. Even in you ignore shutdown costs etc, the fact is, in the game that is the budget, if you save/don't spend money, you seldom, if ever get to keep it.<br /><br />So - if the shuttle were shut down at COB today - the money that would have been spent on the shuttle would end up in deficit reduction/some Senators pork barrel project - not NASA. (OK, they *might* get 5% of it - maybe)<br /><br />To ignore politics and the budget process when discussing what NASA should do - well, its ignoring reality. Did that process lead to compromises in the current shuttle that compromise it - yes! But, ladies and germs, the political process is still there, it is not going to go away. Wishing it away, or thinking you are going to get it to go away by pointing out to it that it screwed up the last time is not going to work.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<font color="yellow">"So - if the shuttle were shut down at COB today - the money that would have been spent on the shuttle would end up in deficit reduction/some Senators pork barrel project - not NASA. (OK, they *might* get 5% of it - maybe) "</font><br /><br />Ordinarily, I'd align my natural cynicism of the US governmental process with yours and agree whoeheartedly. However, in this case -- you're overlooking VSE. With another politically-mandated barrel to start throwing money into, anything saved from the shuttle program should manage to stick with NASA. At least until the next presidential election.
Currently there isn't another heavy lift launch system in production. If the shuttle-C (cargo only) was available to replace the orbiter, the STS could fly tomorrow. Just because the STS system isn't used in the most optimum fashion doesn't mean that it is a bad system.
I'd like to see the Shuttle-C myself. I think that's a judicious use of current technology for new applications.<br />However, the SSTS, in its current configuration, for manned applications...is a deathtrap . <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
In this day and age of exploding deficits and a war - well, I stick by my prediction - though I understand and respect yours mrmorris - and I certainly can not tell you you are wrong.<br /><br />(The fact is, one hopes you are right - that the political momentum is as strong as you think - darn, I really hope you are right)<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything." Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
<font color="yellow">Oh grow up son. Pretending to be hard behind a PC monitor says it all. </font><br /><br />you must spend a lot of time being 'hard' behind a monitor. get a life.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 6
-
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram