Things look like they could get ugly for NASA

[Evildead666]

you still need to get the people up there tho...and back. safely.
why not.
they could concentrate on that.

[K6-III]

In that case we should emulate the Russians as the Chinese are now doing...

[Evildead666]

yup.
Not sure if the chinese (or anyone) would use the moon as a tactical platform....

[GT98]

Originally posted by K6-III
In that case we should emulate the Russians as the Chinese are now doing...

I'm not sure if thats the best thing to do...Soyuz is over 30 years old and I'm not sure how much more you can do with it besides just using it as a ferry for people into space.

The shuttle is complex and theres been alot of research with various X-plane programs to replace the Shuttle. Check out the X-33/34 and some of the newer ones like X-40A Projects. Too bad that the X-33/34 where canned....they had alot of promise to replace the shuttle

[K6-III]

Soyuz was originally designed as a lunar capsule. When it was seen that the Russians weren't going to the moon, it was redesigned.

I am not advocating for a clone of Soyuz, just something very similar...

[GT98]

Originally posted by K6-III
Soyuz was originally designed as a lunar capsule. When it was seen that the Russians weren't going to the moon, it was redesigned.

I am not advocating for a clone of Soyuz, just something very similar...

Just a curious question.....is it cheaper to have a single shot/use capusle like Soyuz or multiple use Space shuttle over the long term? The Shuttle is a bit more flexable when compairing the two, but I would agree that Soyuz is more "safe" due to it being less complex design and has less that could go wrong with it...but why take a step backwards?

[SteveC]

Originally posted by thop
Just news came in that the movie/picture was probably misinterpreted, as it was taken from one of the windows by the israeli astronaut and they say you cannot see the wings (or at least that part of it) from any of the windows. So it is probably another part of the ship.

Also what appears to be crackles could also be cables. Nobody seems to really know though, at least NASA isn't saying anything about it.

On a second though i don't think cables are on the outer side of the shuttle or are they?

I've also read/heard this - supposedly it is a picture of the payload bay. The 'crack' or 'scratch' on the right is a fold in a thermal blanket, the one on the left is a cable.

From another forum:
The only area that might have be visible is the leading edge of the wing. The wing leading edges are made up of RCC (reinforced carbon-carbon) and any strike from the ET's insulating foam will cause no damage. The foam itself is very light weight, a 6 inch cube block is like holding a scrunched up carrier bag, practicaly no weight at all. Even large segments the size of which we saw come off the tank during launch have little weight and shatter disperse easily

[Brian R.]

Unless the insulation was sitting in the rain for days getting wet and then frozen when the liquified gaseous fuel was loaded. Then the foam is much heavier and more able to cause damage upon impact with the wing.

[Dr Mordrid]

The estimate was that the foam weighed in at just over a kilogram. How well do you think a tile would do with that hitting it at ~ MACH 1?

I still can't believe they thought the impact would be "inconsequential"

Dr. Mordrid

[K6-III]

Originally posted by GT98
Just a curious question.....is it cheaper to have a single shot/use capusle like Soyuz or multiple use Space shuttle over the long term? The Shuttle is a bit more flexable when compairing the two, but I would agree that Soyuz is more "safe" due to it being less complex design and has less that could go wrong with it...but why take a step backwards?

MUCH cheaper!!!

The Soyuz is $30 million per launch. The Shuttle is $500 Million per launch and $2 billion per vehicle. You could launch 15 Soyuz's for the price of one shuttle launch....

As for your question of why take a step backwards: the shuttle wasn't a step forward in the first place. Capsules are and will remain for the forseeable future the more efficient and economical choice.

Another benefit to a small capsule design is the capability to use a single peice ablative heatshield....

[Greebe]

As for your question of why take a step backwards: the shuttle wasn't a step forward in the first place. Capsules are and will remain for the forseeable future the more efficient and economical choice.

Since when was money the defining point in whether a spacecraft is going technologically backward?

Capsules are far to small to do many experiments, limited # of astronauts can be sent up, let alone the repair capabilities of the shuttle.... yeah I'd like to see these things done from a capsule.

But don't get me wrong... back in the 70's when they were looking at which shuttle design to go with many balked at their choice. There was one on the drawing board that was smaller/with much smaller cargo bay that would have cost half as much to launch, had the space to carry repair parts, and an arm could easily be added to perform repairs. I was all for this design... launch satelites with a heavy lift vehicle and IF there was any needed service to be done, send up this to preform said repairs.

What wasn't takin into consideration in the day was inflation. This drove all costs up (let alone delays in the entire project/ball dropping et al) by >3x the original cost estimates.

[KRSESQ]

What I'm wondering is why the experiments being conducted aboard Columbia weren't being conducted by the Space Station crew, instead? Now that the ISS is up there, it should be doing all of the on-orbit "science" that the Columbia and most previous shuttle flights did in the past. That's what it was built for, wasn't it? There's no reason for the Space Shuttle to be doing that kind of stuff anymore, except politics. The only thing the Space Shuttle should be used for anymore is to expand, maintain, and supply the ISS.

Kevin

[Dr Mordrid]

I have to disagree that capsules are the best/most economiocal solution. They only hold 3 people at this point so you would need 2-3 launches to ferry up a crew of specialists.

Designing a new 7 person capsule could be done, but work on a vehicle that may well work has already been done: the CRV (crew return vehicle; aka the X-38) for the space station. Just buck it up for repeated launches and you have your 7 person crew ferry/escape module.

http://www.geocities.com/spacetransport/x38.html

http://nasaexplores.com/lessons/01-026/

There is no need for a huge cargo bay since ferrying heavy loads can be best done using the Delta IV or Atlas V boosters. A modded one for just 2-3 crew members + some gear could be used for satellite repairs.

Funding was cancelled for the X-38, but restored by the Bush administration a few months ago. Smart move, but I'd go that one better: build and store a couple mounted to solid fuel boosters so they could be launched as shuttle rescue vehicles.

Using a larger cabin style for long manned missions (Mars etc.) would not require re-entry if you use the space station as a base and would provide more home-style facilities in the form of cabins for individual crew members.

These are already under construction in the form of inflatable habitats for use on the space station (Space Station Habitation Module) and they can also be adapted to long manned missions (TransHab for Mars);




These habitats also offer radiation and micrometeorite protection.

Dr. Mordrid

[cjolley]

Think outside the box folks!

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,57536,00.html

chuck

[Dr Mordrid]

I doubt it could even support its own weight during construction.

Dr. Mordrid