Keep the shuttles flying

  • Thread starter Fallingstar1971
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
Well, here is an excuse to extend the shuttle again.

While developing Orion, use the shuttle fleet to retrieve larger defunct satellites. Give the countries who put it there an opportunity to do something about it, and if they fail, send up the shuttle. I foresee many many more launches and job securities with this approach.

Further more, as part of the "space" treaty or whatever they are calling the agreements regarding space exploration, Include a clause saying that you cannot put something in orbit without some system of retrieving it. Sure its costly, but just how badly do you want that sat in orbit. Bad enough to research retrieval methods?

The military could benefit as well. Sure said satellites would be defunct and mostly useless, but you could see what technologies are being used. What kind of metals were used in the construction. Compare it to previous notes and perhaps come up with a technological "curve" where you can guess what the next step would be.

And the most common sense way of thinking about it. Recycle the metals. Melt them down and make a new sat. How much gold and other precious metals go into these things that could be recycled?

It CAN be done, it SHOULD be done. It will create jobs, it will make space safer, and all the world will benefit. So why not do it?

Keep 2 of the shuttles flying. Give them THIS job. It has the space onboard to safely deliver the larger pieces that could be damaging to all life.

To have this capability and not use it is irresponsible to say the least.

If any other country is "worried" that the US may snoop around there tech, again, develop your own retrieval system.

The US can take the lead on this. Set a good example for others to follow.

Russia has shuttle tech that they could revive. With the two acting as one on this, space can be safer for the human race for generations to come. Not just the few that are working in space now.

China has the money, motivation and manpower. Get them on board as well and NOTHING will be beyond the reach of the human race.

Star
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
You can complain all you want, but it ain't gonna happen. The money spigot for the shuttle program is shut off, layoffs have started, and the infrastructure is being disassembled.

Can't fight reality.
 
F

Fallingstar1971

Guest
Not really a complaint, more of an alternative.

One with benefits for many, and not just a few.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
It still isn't going to happen. That horse has left the barn already.
 
L

LogicianSolutions

Guest
Well, here is an excuse to extend the shuttle again.

"While developing Orion, use the shuttle fleet to retrieve larger defunct satellites. Give the countries who put it there an opportunity to do something about it, and if they fail, send up the shuttle. I foresee many many more launches and job securities with this approach. "
Lol regardless of the shuttle program being dismantled, it's already out lived its safe life span. It'd be nice if not every shuttle blew up before being retired.

"Further more, as part of the "space" treaty or whatever they are calling the agreements regarding space exploration, Include a clause saying that you cannot put something in orbit without some system of retrieving it. Sure its costly, but just how badly do you want that sat in orbit. Bad enough to research retrieval methods?"
ROFLMAO Right this will work. We all know every UN resolution passed is followed and strictly enforced on the rare times they are not, as is the same with every treaty signed <--- ROF & Dieing of Laughter.

"The military could benefit as well. Sure said satellites would be defunct and mostly useless, but you could see what technologies are being used. What kind of metals were used in the construction. Compare it to previous notes and perhaps come up with a technological "curve" where you can guess what the next step would be. "
Lol yes um except we already know what our old satalites are made of and what the next step was, or did you mean satalites from other countries? Lol the middle east would put satalites up there that wuld blow up when we retrieved them. lol can you be our general now? :lol:

"And the most common sense way of thinking about it. Recycle the metals. Melt them down and make a new sat. How much gold and other precious metals go into these things that could be recycled?"
Um most of the materials are rather common and the rare ones are used with great limitations.
1 To keep costs down
2 To keep weight down. Gold incase you forgot is one of the heaviest elements.
You see Star the big issue with space toys is the sterile, dusty free components and seals and insolations that need to have zero flaws. i.e. Quality Control. Oh and of course they tend to use the very latest technologies. So the true cost of satalites is is the components used, the quality control, the transportation into space.

"It CAN be done, it SHOULD be done. It will create jobs, it will make space safer, and all the world will benefit. So why not do it?" If your goal is to keep space safe, simply ask for them to have the ability to go into a decaying orbit when their life span is ending. Failing that, I may support the military developing means to bring down satalites and space junk. Howere you will discover the leftist will attack such ideas as will most soveriegn countries who believe it's their right to do as they please in the space above their countries.

Keep 2 of the shuttles flying. Give them THIS job. It has the space onboard to safely deliver the larger pieces that could be damaging to all life.

To have this capability and not use it is irresponsible to say the least.

If any other country is "worried" that the US may snoop around there tech, again, develop your own retrieval system.

The US can take the lead on this. Set a good example for others to follow.

"Russia has shuttle tech that they could revive. With the two acting as one on this, space can be safer for the human race for generations to come. Not just the few that are working in space now." roflmao. Russia doesn't keep their nuclear power plants safe, why would they care about space junk? Besides if someday Russian wants to send a little orbiting mine to some station/satalite, it'd be much easier if there was a bunch of space junk for it to blend in with.

"China has the money, motivation and manpower. Get them on board as well and NOTHING will be beyond the reach of the human race."
Star, incase you haven't notice. China's has very few human rights for its common citizen. It likes to dominate and control and absorb surrounding nations. It has the worst polution rate of any industrial country, so much so that most of the state of California's polution comes from China. As for it's space program, the only "space program" they've invested in is a vague cover for a ICB missle program. China is thought to be researching nukes, not to level cities but rather for the E.M.P. effects on our power grids and possiblely our satalites. I'd cross China off your list.

So Star hopes this helps. (How many shuttles are left? 1 or 2?) I do think it'd be wise to give shuttles a final mission where it's given some space use. Maybe it could be left docked to the space station as a instant spare room. Maybe it could be loaded with supplies like air/water/fuels/filters/etc and sent off to a moon orbit by auto pilot and left there for future missions or emergency supplies.

Oh Star one final thing. The shuttle is 1980's tech. Why should we keep it? You should be advocating for a new better shuttle system. One that is totally free of detachable rockets. Oh and the U.S.S.R.'s shuttle was stolen from us and dismantled because it wasn't cost efective compared to rockets.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
>>The shuttle is 1980's tech. Why should we keep it?

Because we are replacing it with 1960's technology?

More specifically, Apollo was canceled because of its cost. Shuttle is about to be canceled because of cost. Constellation is as expensive as Shuttle, on a per-person and per-ton basis, and will at best limp along to the ISS. The lunar landings are being delayed, in part because no one can think of any mission that makes them worth the cost.

Maybe it's time for NASA to stop ignoring cost. Human spaceflight is not intrinsically expensive; the total cost of the fuel, the energy that puts the Shuttle in orbit is less than 1% of mission cost, vs over 50% for an airliner. The reason it is expensive is that current (30-year-old) technology requires an extremely large amount of maintenance, rebuilding, and new manufacturing for each flight. The technology demonstrator program was intended to find solutions to this problem, but it was canceled. Not because of cost, since it was pretty cheap, but because of a failure to consider anything beyond the next few years.
 
S

scottb50

Guest
LogicianSolutions":1kkgawjc said:
Well, here is an excuse to extend the shuttle again.

"While developing Orion, use the shuttle fleet to retrieve larger defunct satellites. Give the countries who put it there an opportunity to do something about it, and if they fail, send up the shuttle. I foresee many many more launches and job securities with this approach. "
Lol regardless of the shuttle program being dismantled, it's already out lived its safe life span. It'd be nice if not every shuttle blew up before being retired.

"Further more, as part of the "space" treaty or whatever they are calling the agreements regarding space exploration, Include a clause saying that you cannot put something in orbit without some system of retrieving it. Sure its costly, but just how badly do you want that sat in orbit. Bad enough to research retrieval methods?"
ROFLMAO Right this will work. We all know every UN resolution passed is followed and strictly enforced on the rare times they are not, as is the same with every treaty signed <--- ROF & Dieing of Laughter.

"The military could benefit as well. Sure said satellites would be defunct and mostly useless, but you could see what technologies are being used. What kind of metals were used in the construction. Compare it to previous notes and perhaps come up with a technological "curve" where you can guess what the next step would be. "
Lol yes um except we already know what our old satalites are made of and what the next step was, or did you mean satalites from other countries? Lol the middle east would put satalites up there that wuld blow up when we retrieved them. lol can you be our general now? :lol:

"And the most common sense way of thinking about it. Recycle the metals. Melt them down and make a new sat. How much gold and other precious metals go into these things that could be recycled?"
Um most of the materials are rather common and the rare ones are used with great limitations.
1 To keep costs down
2 To keep weight down. Gold incase you forgot is one of the heaviest elements.
You see Star the big issue with space toys is the sterile, dusty free components and seals and insolations that need to have zero flaws. i.e. Quality Control. Oh and of course they tend to use the very latest technologies. So the true cost of satalites is is the components used, the quality control, the transportation into space.

"It CAN be done, it SHOULD be done. It will create jobs, it will make space safer, and all the world will benefit. So why not do it?" If your goal is to keep space safe, simply ask for them to have the ability to go into a decaying orbit when their life span is ending. Failing that, I may support the military developing means to bring down satalites and space junk. Howere you will discover the leftist will attack such ideas as will most soveriegn countries who believe it's their right to do as they please in the space above their countries.

Keep 2 of the shuttles flying. Give them THIS job. It has the space onboard to safely deliver the larger pieces that could be damaging to all life.

To have this capability and not use it is irresponsible to say the least.

If any other country is "worried" that the US may snoop around there tech, again, develop your own retrieval system.

The US can take the lead on this. Set a good example for others to follow.

"Russia has shuttle tech that they could revive. With the two acting as one on this, space can be safer for the human race for generations to come. Not just the few that are working in space now." roflmao. Russia doesn't keep their nuclear power plants safe, why would they care about space junk? Besides if someday Russian wants to send a little orbiting mine to some station/satalite, it'd be much easier if there was a bunch of space junk for it to blend in with.

"China has the money, motivation and manpower. Get them on board as well and NOTHING will be beyond the reach of the human race."
Star, incase you haven't notice. China's has very few human rights for its common citizen. It likes to dominate and control and absorb surrounding nations. It has the worst polution rate of any industrial country, so much so that most of the state of California's polution comes from China. As for it's space program, the only "space program" they've invested in is a vague cover for a ICB missle program. China is thought to be researching nukes, not to level cities but rather for the E.M.P. effects on our power grids and possiblely our satalites. I'd cross China off your list.

So Star hopes this helps. (How many shuttles are left? 1 or 2?) I do think it'd be wise to give shuttles a final mission where it's given some space use. Maybe it could be left docked to the space station as a instant spare room. Maybe it could be loaded with supplies like air/water/fuels/filters/etc and sent off to a moon orbit by auto pilot and left there for future missions or emergency supplies.

Oh Star one final thing. The shuttle is 1980's tech. Why should we keep it? You should be advocating for a new better shuttle system. One that is totally free of detachable rockets. Oh and the U.S.S.R.'s shuttle was stolen from us and dismantled because it wasn't cost efective compared to rockets.

The Shuttle isn't really needed to do the things you are proposing, in fact a manned vehicle is not needed, it could be done robotically just as easy. Not that the Shuttle hasn't accomplished a huge amount, it's more the compromises that were made to create it make every launch and every re-entry and landing morbidly curious. A problem at ignition or before SRM separation means a total loss. Loss of an SSME at or before, separation, or shortly after leave very few, if any options.

With inspections and acceptance of launch damage probabilities landings are not quite as serious of a concern and the orientation and final descent are pretty well controlled, but without power there is still a window of uncertainty.

ARES and Dragon give launch protection that seems pretty creditable and multiple chutes with failure tolerance of at least one that helps considerably. Once in orbit there is no reason either couldn't be used like the Shuttle. You might have to put other payloads into orbit rather then launching them in the vehicle, but an EVA or using a manipulating arm to do work should be just as easy from either one as from a Shuttle.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
"China has the money, motivation and manpower. Get them on board as well and NOTHING will be beyond the reach of the human race."

>>"[China] likes to dominate and control and absorb surrounding nations."
China absorbed Tibet a couple centuries ago, while the US absorbed half of Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, and 500 Native American nations, and Hawaii.

>>It has the worst pollution rate of any industrial country, so much so that most of the state of California's polution comes from China.
China emits more pollution than the US in total, but the US emits much more per capita, so this would depend on your definition of "rate".

>>"As for it's space program, the only "space program" they've invested in is a vague cover for a ICB missle program."
Why on earth would China need a "cover" for its ICBM program? Like the US, it is a declared nuclear power and can openly test missiles. The launch vehicles used for manned Chinese launches are neither used as missiles no are they appropriate for such purposes.

>>"China is thought to be researching nukes, not to level cities but rather for the E.M.P. effects on our power grids and possibly our satellites. I'd cross China off your list."

Why on earth would China attack its biggest customer??? You should really read what Nixon and Kissinger had to say on this. Who would they sell to? Why would they lend us money? Chinese tend to be pretty pragmatic. Despite calling themselves Communist, they are actually more capitalist than we are because they want rapid economic growth. Human spaceflight is expensive and US taxpayers will not pay higher taxes to support it. The US cannot afford to go to the moon on money borrowed from China, and if we go, we would have to borrow the money to do it. Until we have the funds available, or will pay higher taxes, or can develop a cheaper way to go, it wold be as senseless as buying a house you cannot afford. In the meantime, if we are going to buy everything at Wal-Mart from China, we might as well ask them to join the ISS program and help pay for it.
 
L

LogicianSolutions

Guest
China absorbed Tibet a couple centuries ago, while the US absorbed half of Mexico, Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Cuba, and 500 Native American nations, and Hawaii.

Lol Vulture. China while perhaps doesn't officially own neighbors like Korea or Vietnam, they do control much of what these Asian countries do. But then again you're likely in support of our withdrawal from Vietnam where thanks to the dems and the press we snatched defeat from the jaws of victory and through our inaction allowed 3 million people to die.
As for America's mean expansion. Every territory we absorbed into the union is far better off then those we didn't It's like whining about slavery. Yes it was bad, but give me the choice of being a slave and my decedents living in a good, enlighten, wealthy country or me staying free and my decedents being either ruthless butchers or living under the rule of such people, I'll take slavery every chance I can. The only ones who have any reasonable complaints is the American Indians. However how long can one blame the past before they grow up and work hard to make the future better? Perhaps since my ancestors were from Europe, I still have the right to whine and hate Italy for the Roman cruelty my German and English ancestors endured. Perhaps I should hate the Moslem word because of their invasion of my french heritage. (of coarse the Spanish have a great deal more reason to hate them because they dominated Spain far more then France.)

China emits more pollution than the US in total, but the US emits much more per capita, so this would depend on your definition of "rate".
Lol
Our EPA guide lines make sure the pollution we do emit is far cleaner then that of China's factories. Our quality control insures our toys and other every day products are far safer. i.e. no lead poisoning, pesticides and herbicides are far less dangerous to us and our environment. If China's people have less pollution per "capita" then us because most of their population is kept in real poverty (not American poverty where we think someone is poor when they have a decent home, heat, indoor plumbing, enough food to eat to be fat, and cable TV and personal computers and free healthcare at every hospital). So tell me Vulture, do you want us to lower the standard of living for our poor to match China's so our pollution per capita will be less then theirs?

Why on earth would China need a "cover" for its ICBM program? Like the US, it is a declared nuclear power and can openly test missiles. The launch vehicles used for manned Chinese launches are neither used as missiles no are they appropriate for such purposes.

lol While China has nukes, they've have had little luck with their missiles and rockets, though they did get a big help from Bill Clinton when he had military technology (the software to get missiles/rockets from China to the US, before that they had a 1 in 7 chance, This is what the real conserves were upset about but all the press would push was monica) transferred out of the defense department and into some trade department where the person in chare was one of his appointments.

Why on earth would China attack its biggest customer??? You should really read what Nixon and Kissinger had to say on this.

lol So in your view no country that sells products to another country would want to invade/take over the country they sell too? lol Who ever says this has no clue of history and no clue of human nature especially our aggression. Though in today's world China may simply have to wait for the Dems and Reps to spend enough n thenask for land grants as payments. With the Dems rushing for the notion of one global government this maybe far closer then we think.

Who would they sell to? Why would they lend us money?

Well they'd keep selling to anyone who'd buy from them, including some former US citizens. Do you think once a country is taken over that all people there no longer trade? wtf

Chinese tend to be pretty pragmatic. Despite calling themselves Communist, they are actually more capitalist than we are because they want rapid economic growth.

Lol yes their capitalism is seen in the slave wages they pay their citizens. You do realize this past Olympics China actually closed down many of the factories around the city to reduce the smog to acceptable limits. Your know little of the greed and corruption that runs in China's and all communist governments. It's foolish views like yours that make this world far more dangerous. I don't care if you're fool enough to be a peace activist, however when you lie to yourself and others about reality you not only endanger your life but the lives of me and my decedents.

Human spaceflight is expensive and US taxpayers will not pay higher taxes to support it. The US cannot afford to go to the moon on money borrowed from China, and if we go, we would have to borrow the money to do it. Until we have the funds available, or will pay higher taxes, or can develop a cheaper way to go, it wold be as senseless as buying a house you cannot afford. In the meantime, if we are going to buy everything at Wal-Mart from China, we might as well ask them to join the ISS program and help pay for it.

ROFLMAO How short sighted and dumb can a view point be? Do you have no concept of how America has built it's wealth since the end of world war 2? Let me enlighten you. It is built by selling our technologies to other countries. We used to get these technologies from both the space program and the military. Sadly do to Our space program being cut by the dems and unopposed by the reps, it gives very little technologies to our wealth any more. Our main wealth now comes from the military when it declassifies technologies to be sold into public use. Micro waves, blackberries, are easily seen but methods for finding natural resources, military gear to allies, computers, the web, etc. Our country better wake the heck up and realize if we cut R&D from the government budget, we'll not have the money for half the welfare programs they love to give away. Of course since many on the left blame America for all problems in the world and think we're too wealthy and too well off, attacking and destroying our technology creators is a good thing to do to bring us down to the third world status of most of the world.

In all honesty people, it's time to stop letting your emotions trump logic.
 
V

vulture4

Guest
>>, it gives very little technologies to our wealth any more.

I agree 100%. NACA in the 1930's did not cross the Atlantic, but their airfoils and fairings made it possible for Lindberg to do it, and for our civil aerospace industry to lead the world and become our greatest exporter. There are people at every NASA facility who would like to create useful science and technology that would be of practical value and provide economic benefits to America, to make flying safer and more efficient, to advance the technology of satellites, build airliners fueled by hydrogen. There are no resources to do any of this, because every dollar is needed for Constellation, even though it advances no technologies. I work with an investigator who knows the cause and can find a cure for a horrible disease, all with technology and facilities at a NASA center, and we can't get $250K when it might save thousands of lives.
 
V

vattas

Guest
Star, do you have any idea how much it would cost to adapt the shuttles for the "missions" that you propose? Bringing down defunct satelites that weren't designed for it (I'm not even talking about absurdity and uselessness of it...) - that means to place a lump of metal with unknown CG into cargo bay and successfully land?
 
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
LogicianSolutions":1v2ogg49 said:
Lol Vulture.
Lol
lol
lol
Lol
ROFLMAO

I'm not sure if you have some kind of a drug problem or perhaps you are just trying to lay the condescension on thick in order to lend credibility to your opinions. I can tell you that for one, I skip past any post that takes this kind of an attitude in a debate. Contrary to your beliefs, your opinions are not the only ones with merit.
 
T

tampaDreamer

Guest
Star, this is not a cost effective method of accomplishing this task, pure and simple. The amount of space junk is so large that our 'full-speed-ahead' of 6 shuttle missions a year would not even make the smallest of dents in the problem, and that at a cost of many billions.

We need cost-effective space missions, not rocket scientist welfare programs.
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
As has been pointed out, orbital garbage scow is not a cost effective use for the shuttle in any way. Orbital cleanup is a big job to be sure, but it will require a dedicated solution, potentially even one from the private sector that would be far, far cheaper than trying to use the shuttles to go after individual pieces of junk, which is pretty much the least efficient way you could do it. Actually, I'm not sure you could come up with a less efficient way of doing it if you tried.

If we are going to spend lots of money on NASA, we might as well have them use it to create new technologies and new spacecraft that have tertiary uses to benefit other industries as well. Keeping a costly 30-year old space shuttle program going for sentimental reasons is just silly. Onward and upward.
 
M

MeteorWayne

Guest
And I repeat, it's a moot point. The shuttle program will end 9 flights from now. No amount of justification, whining, or any other input will change that. It's over.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.