get rid of the shuttle!

[shuttle_rtf]

I have no need to, you're the one acting like a tit. If you're UNABLE to debate through your lack of knowledge, clearly seen on this thread, acting like a moron doesn't help your case.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"...though I understand and respect yours..."</font><br /><br />What's this with the understanding and respect? Haven't you been paying attention in this thread? You're supposed to be calling me names right now because I have a different opinion than you do. C'mon -- has it been <b>that</b> long since you spent time on the playground at recess? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[drwayne]

LOL. Its a good thing I wasn't drinking my Coke when I read that.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[shyningnight]

<has it been that long since you spent time on the playground at recess? <br /><br />Based on his replies, I have a suspicion that he spends a lot of his day in an elementary school... failing "interpersonal relations" on his report card.<br /><br /><br />Paul F.

 

[spacefire]

I think RTF is a really bad option. <br />Granted, the ruskies are not the ones to rely on for anything, including providing rides to the ISS for American astronauts, because Putin is not to be trusted.<br />Granted, the US doesn't have any other alternative for manned space access.<br />What could be done? Well ESA is getting pretty chummy with RSC Energia. Chimpy could try to work better relations with Europe, and let ESA and the Russians take good care of the ISS, which the Russians have proposed already anyway. The US can start working on the CEV to regain manned access to space.<br />If the Europeans and Russians take control of the ISS, I'd say good deal. The Russians know how to build and maintain space stations. in fact they are damn good at it-see MIR. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[cyrostir]

WOW im whipping out the popcorn and relaxing on this one! lol<br /><br />but I must make a serious point, if we stopped the whole RTF program and concentrated on creating a NEW manned spacecraft that can travel to maybe the moon, but most definatley the ISS, then that would be much worth it than just trying to recapture the "glory" with the shuttle's return to flight...<br /><br />it just costs tooo much, and has no main goal, except maybe construct the ISS, BUT if we create a more stable and efficient vehicle to help build the ISS, we should be able to get more "bang for our buck"

 

[drwayne]

"if we stopped the whole RTF program and ..."<br /><br />I guess you did not notice my post about dollar conservation, or lack of it in government funded programs.<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[dan_casale]

I have to agree with drwayne's assessment of any surplus. The US government is looking for ways to reduce the budget, 5 billion would be a good start. Besides, the whole ISS thing is a good way to keep control of all space access, the shuttle must fly again and complete ISS. If the EU, China, Russia, or any other nation starts getting serious about manned spaceflight, we will be back into an Apollo mentality. *go China*<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Now that's an opinion that can be debated. Nice one.<br /><br />Dr's point about savings from scrapping the Shuttle now, is very valid. If NASA doesn't spend it on the Shuttle, they won't get it to spend elsewhere...it'll go back to DC. <br /><br />Who's Chimpy?

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I think RTF is a really bad option.</font>/i><br /><br />While I am a frequent critic of the shuttle and ISS, I wouldn't mind seeing (1) a little more build out of the ISS to support more people (how few flights would that take?), and (2) a mission to Hubble.<br /><br />Regarding (1), I would like an ISS that can support more than 3 people. If a small number of flights can bring that up to 5-6, that would be great.<br /><br />Regarding (2), Hubble is probably the most widely supported NASA effort in the general public and maybe Congress. Besides any additional science that a Hubble mission might support, it would help bolster relations with the people who pay the bills.</i>

 

[cyrostir]

remeber hubble is being replaced by the james webb space telescope <br />http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/

 

[najab]

Could you please stop posting until you have something worth saying? JWST does <b>NOT</b> replace all the capabilities of HST. Besides which, HST is flying <b>now</b>, JWST is probably not going to come online till 2010 at the very earliest - and NASA doesn't even have a launch vehicle capable of putting it up there!

 

[frodo1008]

I believe spacefire, that comments like this one could be construed as possible material for discipline by the moderators!! Those of us who wish to learn and debate space oriented subjects do not need this kind of post! <br /><br />At the very least I would suggest that you go over to free space where this kind of nastiness is a way of life for some!!<br /><br />As to the shuttle (or the STS system as those knowledgeable would say) it is neither perfect nor a failure. The entire STS system is not what NASA wanted back when looking for a replacement to the ELV types of vehicles that were depended upon for space work at the time. IF you would take the time to study the actual history of the STS system you would discover that NASA originally wanted a truly two-stage-to-orbit completely reusable system (which would have been far safer and less expensive in the long run). OF course, in its infinite wisdom the congress at that time considered the development of such a system (admittedly larger than Rutan’s recent developments, but quite similar in principle) too expensive, as we were funding the fiasco in Viet Nahm at the time. So NASA had to come up with something that congress would pay for. In order to do this NASA had to get in bed with the Air Force as anything the military wants it usually gets from congress. And this resulted in the current system. Indeed the current system is a kluge (as its many critics would say), but it has proved to be a magnificent kluge over the years (as people who have actually experience working on its parts like myself would say). The accomplishments of the current STS system are FAR too great to even attempt to list in any individual post! However, one stands out over all the others to me at least. That is the rescue of the Hubble. Without the shuttle and its capabilities this greatest of all scientific instruments of the last century would be just so much junk!! I think that if you could ask any one of the 14 people who gave t

 

[spacefire]

sorry frodo but just how good is the ISS gonna be for science? Even before the Columbia accident, it had been scaled down drastically from the 7 crew configuraion to just 3 people. I view the ISS as a failure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

Would it really be better to start a new thread? Now that I think about it maybe it would as this thread was about the STS and not the ISS.<br /><br />How about a title like "The usefullness of the ISS"?<br />I know, I have never been very good at small talk or making up catchy items. If you have a better title, please give it to me!!

 

[gunsandrockets]

"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."<br /><br />Where are you getting that data? According to all the sources I can find the Zarya and Zvezda mass 20 tonnes each, well within the launch capacity of the Proton whereas the Shuttle can only manage 12.5 tonnes up to the orbit of the ISS.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/pro8k82k.htm<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/isszarya.htm<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/issvezda.htm<br /><br /><br />"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."<br /><br />What? Are you sure you aren't confusing that with the much more recent Shuttle mission to launch the American Destiny module? As far as the sources I can find the Russian modules were fully equipped and the only Shuttle mission that followed closely was STS-88, when Endeavor brought up the American Unity module (11.6 tonnes) and docked it with the Zarya.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/issunity.htm<br /><br />"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."<br /><br />To lift the combined 40 tonnes mass of the Zarya and Zvezda modules the Space Shuttle with it's 12.5 tonne capacity would have

 

[najab]

><i>According to all the sources I can find the Zarya and Zvezda mass 20 tonnes each, well within the launch capacity of the Proton whereas the Shuttle can only manage 12.5 tonnes up to the orbit of the ISS.</i><p>I suggest, therefore, that you check your sources. Destiny weighed over 14 tonnes, and was lifted by Shuttle to ISS. I stand by my original statement: the Shuttle can lift about 16,700kg to Station, and the only modules so far which exceed that were Zarya and Zvezda.<p>><i>As far as the sources I can find the Russian modules were fully equipped...</i><p>No, they weren't. They were <i>almost</i> fully equipped, but they had to bring up some additional items (like the toilet and additional batteries) on STS-106.</p></p></p>

 

[arkady]

I vividly remember that day in April 1981. I was but a wee lad glued goggle-eyed to the tv screen watching the first flight of the shuttle. This was my moonlandings in a sense. It was the start of a keen interest in space exploration. <br /><br />I lack the knowledge to recognize whether or not the shuttle is outdated. What makes me a bit sad though is the lack of perspective often encounter when people criticize the shuttle. STS 1 was almost 25 years ago! To me it embodied the efforts to explore space, and it will always hold a special place in my heart, however well it measures up to todays standards. <br /><br />Feel free to remain critical to the technical issues involved, but do not belittle the effect it has had as an inspiration to people all over the planet. To me it represents the prowess and ingenuity of your nation better than any man. <br /><br />It is actually possible to criticize without disrespecting. <br /><br /><br />P.S This wasn't (obviously) a reply to NajaB's post, but a comment on the thread in general. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "<font color="#0000ff"><em>The choice is the Universe, or nothing</em> ... </font>" - H.G Wells </div>

 

[cyrostir]

um what capabilities does hubble have that the JWST is not going to have? Hubble is just another glory object, another heirloom that old nasa folks and mean IT teachers want to cherish and keep <br />the whole point of JWST is to replace the old with the techonologically advanced new

 

[najab]

><i>um what capabilities does hubble have that the JWST is not going to have?</i><p>That, my abrasive and apparently ignorant friend, is some research you will have to do yourself. My advice to guide you: look at the portion(s) of the EM spectrum that the two telescopes are designed to cover.</p>

 

[henryhallam]

Never mind

 

[drwayne]

"um what capabilities does hubble have that the JWST is not going to have? Hubble is just another glory object, another heirloom that old nasa folks and mean IT teachers want to cherish and keep"<br /><br />Interesting. Tell me, do you ever read your posts after you type them, and think about what they say? <br /><br />After admitting that you do not know how the telescopes in question compare (while simultaneously showing you are too lazy to do a little googling to find out), you write a strongly worded opinion about one of the telescopes.<br /><br />Consider how vacuous that looks. <br /><br />Now, you can learn from what I just told you, or you can be insulted, that is entirely up to you.<br /><br />One last point to ponder. Regular posters to this board include Ph.D. physicists, chemists, engineers, software enginners and people who have been involved in the space program back to its inception. And, remarkably, this is a very egalitarian group. There is much to learn here, and much room to grow. You would aid yourself in that growth process if you cut back on the "Look at me, I'm cool, I expressed an opinion", and listened. If you have a question about why something is the way it is, ask. But ask like you are asking a question where you want the answer, not like you are trying to say "You're wrong!". You may be surprised and learn something new. I know I do. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

"I suggest, therefore, that you check your sources. "<br /><br />I provided a convenient link to my sources. You provide...?<br /><br />"Destiny weighed over 14 tonnes, and was lifted by Shuttle to ISS."<br /><br />Oh? Is that the full weight of Destiny with all 23 racks (each of 550 kg)? Or the Destiny of only 5 racks that was to be fully outfitted by later missions?<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/craft/issstiny.htm<br /><br />"I stand by my original statement: the Shuttle can lift about 16,700kg to Station,"<br /><br />Actually that's the first time you provided such a number, which doesn't even add up with your original claim...<br /><br />"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. "<br /><br />Even according to your own numbers, you are still off by one tonne. Unless of course you are now going to claim the Russian modules are only 19 tonnes instead of 20 tonnes!<br /><br />I'll stand by my source until provided with a better source. According to...<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttle.htm<br /><br />...the Shuttle can only lift 12.5 tonnes to the ISS. Perhaps the Shuttle once it is equipped with the new lightweight Lithium-Aluminum External Tank can improve on that number, but that isn't the question. The question is how much could Shuttle lift at the time Proton lifted the Russian modules to the ISS?<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[haywood]

Well said, drwayne!<br />

 

[frodo1008]

Yes drwayne that was a VERY good post! The only thing I would even add at all is that most of the posters who really want to learn have also developed the ability to say, "Hey I was wrong on that point." or just simply, "I goofed!". It dosen't even destroy ones ego to do this!<br /><br />