Goodbye Atlantis!!!!

[john_316]

Its sad to see her go soon "2008" But its understandable with the price of the overhauls and everything...<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Here is another commercial opportunity for people. <br /><br />The Russians equipped one of their Buran shuttles with four turbojet engines so it can take off and fly under its own power. It made some 100 flights or so as I recall.<br /><br />I think someone ought to try to purchase Atlantis, put the Enterprise's rear cowling on it, and equip it with some jet engines. Then equip its payload bay with a bunch of airliner seats, and line the walls and ceiling with plasma HD screens, all tied in together. This would be to display a simulated "flight to space" including the ISS, Hubble, maybe some science fiction characters and aliens, etc..<br /><br />The shuttle would fly a 'vomit comet' style flight regime, giving everybody some time in zero G. Base it at Orlando airport and sell 45 minute rides for $100 bucks. <br /><br />This would be a good business to go into for some enterprising NASA employees who are about to get axed in the coming years when the shuttles are retired...

 

[frodo1008]

Actually, not a bad idea! How about the company you either head or are at least a part of? Heck, I would even be glad to see the government donate at least one shuttle to such an effort! Heck, if it turns out well, perhaps even adding another shuttle to the fleet!<br /><br />I would still like to see at least one of these magnificent vehicles put into pristine shape and donated to the Air asd Space Museum. where it could be viewed by all Americans on into future generations!!!

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

I was under the impression that the Orbiter's wings didn't create much lift, and they are were pretty poor gliders to boot? So wouldn't it be differcult to convert them to powered horizontal flight? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[no_way]

i was under the impression that the thing flies like a brick, so it might be a bit too much of a thrill for a thrill ride.

 

[henryhallam]

It would help to reduce some of the weight by removing the SSMEs, OPS, some of the life support equipment and maybe TPS. Still pretty difficult I think!

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Frodo-<br />They've already got ENTERPRISE, the other three should be preserved because we are going to want to use the unique capabilities of the Orbiters again someday. Sure, they are too expensive to be used in the near term space program, but once our space program gets going along the lines of where we thought it would be going back when we designed the Shuttle system, we're going to want them.<br /><br />I consider the Shuttle Orbiters to be akin to our Navy's aircraft carriers. If your goal is to simply get from "point A" to "point B" there are much cheaper ships than aircraft carriers, but if your goal is to master the seas, then a carrier is hard to beat, because of it's amazing capabilities. Same with the Shuttle Orbiters. We can get from "point A" to "point B" cheaper in a capsule, but when we need to really master LEO, a Shuttle Orbiter is the best thing ever built. Right now our space program is too anemic to really take advantage of the Shuttle Orbiter, but it won't always be, and when that day comes, we'll be glad to have the Orbiters again. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[superluminal]

Certainly the CEV's and HLV's are a necessity to the future. The should have been built immediately after Apollo. Not 34 years later.<br /><br /> The shuttle works well in earth orbit. <br /><br /> Find a NASA leader with a realistic workable vision.<br /> <br /> When do the American taxpayers get a say so in shuttle dismantle? I suppose never.<br /><br />We the public sat back and watched them dismantle Apollo a fantastic moon launch system. Now the shuttles. Yes good-bye shuttles. What a shame.<br /><br />No other system can do what the shuttle does.<br /><br /> Why doesn't anyone talk about the possibility of refueling the shuttles while in orbit? Why?<br /><br />It's a remarkable vehicle indeed. Most of the danger occurs during launch and re-entry. <br /> <br /> I do wonder if 34 years from now we'll regret the fact we mothballed such an important space tool.<br /><br />Look! I'm not anti- NASA at all, quite the contrary.<br /><br />I just don't understand why we the American People aren't allowed to pick who's in charge of NASA like we choose our own President. Or at least we should have some say so in space exploration leadership.<br /> I understand totally the cost of overhauling the shuttles.<br />I understand better that if the shuttles fuel and consumables were refueled in orbit, that it's work capability would be increased by a power of at least ten to the first power. <br /><br /><br />Vote the jerks out of Congress that oppose space exploration. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"They've already got ENTERPRISE"<br /><br />I thought I had read that Enterprise had been gutted inside.<br /><br />But then again, I seem to remember being young and good looking so my memories are dubious...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[steve82]

"I do wonder if 34 years from now we'll regret the fact we mothballed such an important space tool. "<br /><br />Yes we will, only I'd call it about 8 years from now. When we're in the middle of a long drawn out delay in implementation of the CEV and wondering why we dumped the orbiters that were at flying and, with all their supposed "flaws" were able to get the job done while we're still sitting on the ground watching tests fail and hearing about Billion-dollar overruns and delays in software development. Then, when the CEV finally flies and we look at the price tag, and compare it's capabilities to the STS, we'll be asking ourselves if we really should have gotten rid of the shuttle when we did.<br />

 

[nolirogari]

I love this talk of thrill rides- of course the FAA would NEVER allow such a thing and the lawyers would be licking their chops in hope that FAA did allow such a thing. <br /><br />Keep in mind that ALL NASA stuff is paid for in tax payer dollars and any use outside of museums is simply out of the question. We'll be lucky if it does not end up outside of KSC baking in the sun, or worse yet- chopped up and scrapped because the EPA finds it is a hazard to gator eggs. Keep your fingers crossed.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Maybe it is gutted, I don't know, I havn't been up there yet, but do you know what would really cool and inspire people?<br /><br />A Shuttle simulator. Sort of like "Mission Space" at EPCOT, but on the flight deck of one of the glass cockpit Orbiters. A quick 5 minute ride at 1 to 3 g's from lift-off, past SRB sep to MECO and an attitude change to bring to full, beautiful Earth into view, and than a firey re-entry, complete with plasma tube visuals to land at KSC. While you're "in space" it might be cool to see a fully completed space station in the distance, with a lot of cool activity, like a big construction project going on. Actually I don't know if that would inspre me or piss me off for the obvious reason, that being because we are not doing a lot of activity or construction, *AND WE SHOULD BE!!!!* <br /><br />That's a lot better than ruining a priceless piece of hardware that's still got some life left in her by putting her in a museam. <br /><br />*EDIT*<br />Mission Space is a ride at EPCOT that is a "Space Simulator". It's basiclly a centrafuge with a ring of enclosed cockpits that are able to pitch up and down according to the "flight profile" giving the illusion that you're sitting on your back, the engines fire, and you are climbing out accelerating at an increadible rate. It's without a doubt the coolest ride I've ever been on, but many people get sick on it. It's awesome! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Shuttle_Guy,<br />That's what I hear, I can't wait. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

News-<br />Maybe you have a point, when I was at the Air and Space Museum after I had just completed A&P school, I looked at the Apollo-Soyuz on display, and I was amazed at how much of the hardware looked like aircraft hardware, including safety wire and cannon plugs, I felt like it was "real" and that I could work on it. It became something "real" as opposed to "magical", not that "magical" is the right word, but I can't think of a better one. I felt like it was just a machine, built by a real person, and not some kind of Hollywood special effect. <br /><br />*EDIT*<br />Now that I think about it more, it was Skylab that impressed me the most. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

I just wish when they do put the shuttles in museums, that they offer special tours of the cabin, etc.<br /><br />I would gladly pay a few hundred dollars for being able to go in the cabin (supervised of course).

 

[dragon04]

<font color="yellow"> I was under the impression that the Orbiter's wings didn't create much lift, and they are were pretty poor gliders to boot? So wouldn't it be differcult to convert them to powered horizontal flight? </font><br /><br />Give a brick enough thrust and some control surfaces, and she'll fly. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

The thing about going inside of the Orbiters is that they are built so lightly that they don't even have floors that a person can walk on without special scafolding. These things are very fragile from what I understand. I really think that a nearly exact mockup, but heavier and tougher, would be better for the public. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Thank you, sir, I didn't know that. For years I've been thinking that only COLUMBIA and ENTERPRISE had real floors and that all Orbiters from CHALLENGER onwards didn't have them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

"Parting" is such sweet sorrow...<br /><br />

 

[mlorrey]

Yeah, half the drag of the orbiter is the back end. The Enterprise had that streamlined cowling mounted for the airdrop tests to reduce the drag. I am told that the Buran-jet has a pretty good range, even equipped with inefficient Russian engines. Given the Buran is a carbon copy of the US Shuttle, I think the shuttle should be able to fly pretty easily.<br /><br />I'm not too put out that the floor of the cargo bay isn't paneled. Setting it up like an airliner won't add that much mass to it, the wall and floor panels of normal airliners are actually pretty thin, of plastic plys pressed into monocoque and honeycome structural shapes. I've seen a company south of Seattle that produces such things for Boeing. They use the same presses that are used to produce plywood.<br /><br />I think the FAA would go gaga over it: fill the first few test flights up with FAA bigwigs, with a special virtual presentation for them, showing how much the FAA is going to grow the space tourism business, yadda yadda yadda. <br /><br />With a 60' x 15' cargo bay, you'd have room for two aisles, six seats across, and 26 rows with some space in front for zero g fun and for astronauts to give presentations, etc. That is 156 passengers. At $100 a pop, that is over $150,000 a flight in revenue.

 

[mikejz]

In case you're wondering the current commerisal company offering zero-g flights (i believe with a 727) charges about $3,000 a person. I expect a shuttle try ride would push $20,000 per person.

 

[mlorrey]

Depends on what your target market is. You can up your price to all the market can bear, or fly as many flights as you can and shoot for the Disney market.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Yeah, It's a 727. Amerijet is the operator contracted by Zero-G. I want that job, but Zero-G doesn't want to pay for what we have calculated the mainanence cost to be. Each parab. counts as 6 cycles, and each flight has 10 parabs. That equates to each flight equals 60 flights for maintanence costs. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[mikejz]

60!!!??? Wow<br /><br />is that unique to the 727 airframe or is that a general rule for all vomit-commit planes?

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

I think all of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>