Things look like they could get ugly for NASA

[Jon P. Inghram]

Sorry KvH. I don't think the picture is even real at all, looks photoshopped. I found another version that has way more color, and looks rather odd:

[Dr Mordrid]

And if you change the angle of attack enough to make the heat lower you end up landing the SOB in the mid Atlantic

Lets face the REAL truth:

NASA is at the mercy of the budgeting whores in Congress and the Senate and they have been taking every opportunity to raid NASA's budget for their pork projects. Faced with limited resources and the demands of multiple tasks safety was sacrificed, as usual.

What needs to be done:

We NEED a new spacecraft made using modern technologies. To accomplish this we MUST restart the X-33 and Venture Star projects.

The X-33 testbed was half built, and its launch pad nearly completed, but was cancelled because of a problem that came up with a fuel tank design. Instead of doing what should have been done with such a problem (redesign) they cancelled the whole program in a penny-wise/pound-foolish display of stupidity.

Also: it is also essential that the VASIMR plasma engine get even more support than it was to get. This is the engine that will make manned missions past lunar distances a reality and it's essential we get its development on the fast track.

In the mean time NASA should orbit the shuttle at an inclination and altitude so that a medium sized burn could get it to the space station in an emergency. There they the shuttle could be examined close up and they could be housed, if necessary, until a rescue mission could be mounted.

Eventually the space station will get a CRV (crew return vehicle) that could be used to bring back a stranded crew. Who knows....maybe they could even launch a CRV to a disabled shuttle in another orbit....if someone got smart all of a sudden.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/crv/

Dr. Mordrid

[Dilitante1]

the obvious question in my head is why wasn't the wing inspected in space? They have a repair kit with tiles and adhesive. The MMU would have allowed an up close inspection that the NASA engineers could have seen as well ending any discussion of what damage if any happened on launch.

[Dr Mordrid]

The DON'T have a space capable repair kit according to those NASA types on TV of late. The other problems are;

1. they didn't have the arm on this mission. The didn't think they'd need it , but even if they did have it the arm can't reach that far under the orbiter, so its camera most likely would not have done any good.

2. there are not handholds on the bottom of the oribiter to hold on to while using a tool.

3. no MMU's on this mission either.

In short; they were screwed. Even if they saw anything wrong with the tiles around the left landing gear door they couldn't actually DO anything about it.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

Originally posted by Jon P. Inghram
Sorry KvH. I don't think the picture is even real at all, looks photoshopped. I found another version that has way more color, and looks rather odd:

The light is coming from the wrong direction.. you're right. I knew something was bothering me about that original photo.

Doc, don't you think it would be wise to take those items along on every mission? It took the Titanic disaster to get serious about lifeboats, maybe the death of these people will convince the thick-skulled NASA administrators to take some basic tools along now just in case.

[Rags]

Originally posted by Wombat
Actually, I don't think they knew. The astronauts <I>could</I> have hung out at the ISS, if they thought they were hosed. Another shuttle, or a couple of Soyuz, could have gotten them.

Sorry, no space station. The shuttle was way out of the same orbit and the fuel that would have been required to achieve connection to the space station wasn't there. Also there are special equipments required to get into the station, and that wasn't on board.

The closest the next shuttle could have been up for flight was 3 weeks from today, and that is pushing it. The mission control for the shuttles have no provisions for controlling two at once.

It's too far fetched. Sorry.

Rags

[GT98]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid

Eventually the space station will get a CRV (crew return vehicle) that could be used to bring back a stranded crew. Who knows....maybe they could even launch a CRV to a disabled shuttle in another orbit....if someone got smart all of a sudden.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/crv/

Dr. Mordrid

Too bad the funding got pulled for it during the last adminstration

[Elie]

I thought Bush allocated half a billion dollars to NASA as of late?

Am I missing something here?

[K6-III]

Originally posted by Dr Mordrid
And if you change the angle of attack enough to make the heat lower you end up landing the SOB in the mid Atlantic

Lets face the REAL truth:

NASA is at the mercy of the budgeting whores in Congress and the Senate and they have been taking every opportunity to raid NASA's budget for their pork projects. Faced with limited resources and the demands of multiple tasks safety was sacrificed, as usual.

What needs to be done:

We NEED a new spacecraft made using modern technologies. To accomplish this we MUST restart the X-33 and Venture Star projects.

The X-33 testbed was half built, and its launch pad nearly completed, but was cancelled because of a problem that came up with a fuel tank design. Instead of doing what should have been done with such a problem (redesign) they cancelled the whole program in a penny-wise/pound-foolish display of stupidity.

Also: it is also essential that the VASIMR plasma engine get even more support than it was to get. This is the engine that will make manned missions past lunar distances a reality and it's essential we get its development on the fast track.

In the mean time NASA should orbit the shuttle at an inclination and altitude so that a medium sized burn could get it to the space station in an emergency. There they the shuttle could be examined close up and they could be housed, if necessary, until a rescue mission could be mounted.

Eventually the space station will get a CRV (crew return vehicle) that could be used to bring back a stranded crew. Who knows....maybe they could even launch a CRV to a disabled shuttle in another orbit....if someone got smart all of a sudden.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/crv/

Dr. Mordrid

Personally, I don't believe that this approach will ever change the number of people flying in to space due to the inherent complexity of a reusable vehicle and the need to dissassemble and reassemble the vehicle per NASA guidelines every mission.

A better approach would be to go back to the capsule design for manned spaceflight using existing expendable boosters like the Atlas V and Delta IV, and perhaps sell a few to the French to mount on the Ariane 5. As for heavy-lift cargo capability for NASA's needs, nothing would be better than to get a SaturnV/Energia class booster.....

[KRSESQ]

I expended a considerable amount of energy back in the early '90's, fruitlessly lobbying for the resurrection of the Saturn 5.

My logic was that a single Saturn 5, at 250,000 lbs launch capacity, has a minimum of 4 times the payload of an average space shuttle. Modern engineering techniques could get that capacity even higher, AND reduce manufacturing/launch costs. Even with the expendability factor, one Saturn 5 could be cheaper than 4 shuttle launches.

Send high-mass payloads up on expendables and people up on more appropriately designed vehicles. Simple, right? Logical, right?

Friggin' politicians.

Kevin

[Wombat]

Originally posted by Rags
Sorry, no space station. The shuttle was way out of the same orbit and the fuel that would have been required to achieve connection to the space station wasn't there. Also there are special equipments required to get into the station, and that wasn't on board.

The closest the next shuttle could have been up for flight was 3 weeks from today, and that is pushing it. The mission control for the shuttles have no provisions for controlling two at once.

It's too far fetched. Sorry.

Rags

It's not TOO farfetched. Hell, if they could repair Apollo 13, they could have saved these guys. They had a shuttle, the ISS, the Soyuz, and at least a space suit or two. They could have pulled something off.

If they knew the wing was that damaged, they should have at <I>least</I> flattened the tire. The word from the Ball & Lockheed engineers(locals) is (and this is within an hour of the crash, before they were announcing theories):
1. Tile damage near wheel well.
2. Well takes the heat.
3. Tire takes the heat, blowing to bits and resulting in one f*cked shuttle.

[thop]

The picture is likely not photoshoped as it is just a sreenshot taken from a movie that was taken on the 5th flight day while sharon was speaking to the the israeli astronaut. It was shown on Israeli TV.

[KvHagedorn]

Look, if that pic was beamed down to Earth and it really was the shuttle wing, how could anyone be shocked at what happened? They would have been saying nervously, "Houston, we have a problem!" and the whole world would be looking in. Aside from that, how do you account for the weird protuberances? It can't be the wing.

[GT98]

Originally posted by KRSESQ
I expended a considerable amount of energy back in the early '90's, fruitlessly lobbying for the resurrection of the Saturn 5.

My logic was that a single Saturn 5, at 250,000 lbs launch capacity, has a minimum of 4 times the payload of an average space shuttle. Modern engineering techniques could get that capacity even higher, AND reduce manufacturing/launch costs. Even with the expendability factor, one Saturn 5 could be cheaper than 4 shuttle launches.

Send high-mass payloads up on expendables and people up on more appropriately designed vehicles. Simple, right? Logical, right?

Friggin' politicians.

Kevin

Yeah its more cost effective getting the parts into space...but how are you gonna put them together without a shuttle or something like that? Its been done, but the Shuttle makes it easier to do.

[Dr Mordrid]

Anyone care to bet that the X-33 and Venture Star get a new look, especially since much work has already been done?

As for heavy lift vehicles; how about the Delta IV, which is almost totally new hardware (80% fewer parts than previous designs)? A heavy lift version capable of putting 51,000 lbs to low earth orbit is due for testing this year.

The problems with Satrun V is the same as with the shuttle:

1. too expensive

2. too complex

3. too man-hour intensive to maintain & prepare

All of the above make it too inefficient

And don't forget that Saturn V had that heavy lift for a reason: boosting payloads past earth orbit by brute force. There are better ways to do moon and deeper missions; VASIMR for one.

Dr. Mordrid