The shuttle can't complete the ISS - do the math ....

[vt_hokie]

...make that 11 flights...just noticed my error! Hey, what can I say, I can't add! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I don't think the shuttle flew at all Radar after the Challenger accident for like for years until 1990....?</font>/i><br /><br />They resumed flying in 1988 with flights STS-26 and STS-27 that year.<br /><br />While not the original list I used (still can't find it), there is a nice list by year of shuttle missions at:<br />http://www.spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/archives/index.html<br /><br />You can click on a year to see all the flights for that year. And then you can click on a flight to get details about that flight including crew members, landing information (STS061-B rolled 10,759 feet over 78 seconds), and lots of other details.<br /></i>

 

[soccerguy789]

The ISS is going to get scaled back again. It was only origonally planned to last 15 years. a space station should not take more time to build that it takes to destroy. unfortunitly, I think the ISS is doomed, I can see a few more modules and hopefully the trusses being put on, but thats all. What really bothers me is that we are just throwing the whole shuttle program out the window in 2010. The reason the shuttle looks so expensive is because we were using a heavy launch vehicle to carry 6 people into orbit! the shuttle actually very rarely caried cargo before the space station. If the pentagon hadn't abandoned the shuttle for all thier cold war plans, like recovering satalites, and such, it would have had a better launch rate, and come out looking like a worthwile prgram (plus we might have gotten those fly-back boosters wee always wanted)The thing is, now that we are planning all these exploration prgrams, we could actually use the shuttle and just as we plan to retire it. think about it. we could use the shuttle to bring things like the lunar lander, CEV, and even propulsuion stages, back down to the surface. now they are reusable, and you dont need to worry about putting heavy heat shields on them. both beoing and lockheed CEV lunar missions could be achieved with a shuttle launch and a shuttle derived launche vehicle launch. the shuttle sdtays at the station during the lunar mission and picks up all modules that it can take to the surface, and brings them home! even if it doesnt work, it would be great just to have another working ship in our fleet just to keep it diverse. thinnk of all the trouble we would be saving ourselves today if we had just kept the apolo program and hardware in the closet in case we decided to go back

 

[cuddlyrocket]

The Shuttle missions to bring back down other spacecraft would cost more than simply building new ones.

 

[le3119]

Can the Shuttle fleet complete 5 construction missions per year for 5 years, retiring on schedule in 2010? We have Discovery, Atlantis and Endeavour and suppose that the orbitors were to make 1, 2 and 2 annual flights to ISS respectively. If NASA recommits to the STS program, getting to the "finish line" with completion of the ISS before retirement, then I say - quite likely. <br /><br />

 

[henryhallam]

How much does the OBSS (sensor boom) weigh? Is there enough mass margin to carry it as well as the RMS and the heaviest remaining module for ISS construction?<br /><br />I am very much in favour of the idea to fix the PAL ramp issue, then continue the remaining flights without further ET modification, just very careful surveying prior to reentry.

 

[najab]

><i>Wow, how much will the costs be for launching that many. How much higher then lets say 3 flights a year?</i><p>Not much higher, really. A couple hundred million to half a billion.</p>

 

[lampblack]

Does the potential rate of 7-8 flights per year take into account the new requirements for lighting/in-flight photography?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#0000ff"><strong>Just tell the truth and let the chips fall...</strong></font> </div>

 

[najab]

Lighting no, photography yes.

 

[najab]

You would have to ask someone from NASA.

 

[najab]

shuttle_guy does not and has never worked for NASA. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[CalliArcale]

For those who may be confused about NASA possibly allowing night launches again.....this is because the radar imagery was so good for STS-114. Light may not be neccesary if they can image the Shuttle in other electromagnetic wavelengths. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

I wonder what the tank camera would look like at night, and whether there is any virtue in going to NIR or MWIR on it....<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>