NASA, in trouble? Debris from 'Atlantis' 19 replies

  • 1
  • 2

Please wait...

Dave-Mastor

Thus, I refute thee.

50 XP

7th May 2004

0 Uploads

794 Posts

0 Threads

#11 11 years ago

How exactly did this thread turn from news on the space shuttle to a 'let's bash the US on where they spend thier money' thread? Some people are never satisfied. I'd state some very important reasons for the US's military spending, but this really isn't the place. I really wonder what design they're going to come up with after the current series is retired. If it will be something similar, or completely different. After all, the current design is kind of... iconic.




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

136,505 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#12 11 years ago

all I know is the NASA tech needs to take a significant leap and that's gonna take some MO-ney....:naughty: nowhatamean?

we can't fly in tin cans to moon anymore...lets get some scramjet, SRB hybrid into orbit, something reuseable and immediately returnable in a matter of days not a month.




crisissuit3

We will rule you

101,365 XP

17th August 2007

0 Uploads

9,209 Posts

0 Threads

#13 11 years ago
Saquist;4203276all I know is the NASA tech needs to take a significant leap and that's gonna take some MO-ney....:naughty: nowhatamean? we can't fly in tin cans to moon anymore...lets get some scramjet, SRB hybrid into orbit, something reuseable and immediately returnable in a matter of days not a month.

or at least fix up some of the old spacecrafts...




Crazy Wolf VIP Member

Snipes With Artillery

277,420 XP

22nd March 2005

0 Uploads

27,192 Posts

0 Threads

#14 11 years ago

How much would it cost to build a new space shuttle from the current design? I don't think there is anything seriously wrong with the design, I think the main issue is the age of the fleet.




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

136,505 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#15 11 years ago

The design is to complicated...It works but with a tremedous ground crew...




*The.Doctor

Trust me, I'm a Doctor

102,440 XP

25th November 2003

0 Uploads

9,964 Posts

0 Threads

#16 11 years ago
Crazy WolfI think the main issue is the age of the fleet.

Its the age of the shuttles themselves (which only 3 are still in use), and the fact that the hull design itself is 20+ years old. We should be able to build a much better ship with all the new knowledge and stuff we've got in that time. Found this on wikipedia:

NASA announced that 24 helium and nitrogen gas tanks, named Composite Overwrap Pressure Vessels, in Atlantis are older than their designed lifetime (designed for 10 years, later cleared for another 10 years but in service now for 22 years). NASA said it cannot guarantee any longer that the vessels on Atlantis will not burst or explode under full pressure. Therefore, the vessels will only be at 80 percent pressure as close to the launch countdown as possible, and the launch pad will be cleared of all but essential personnel when pressure is increased to 100 percent. A launch pad explosion could damage parts of the shuttle and even wound or kill ground personnel. An in-flight failure to the vessels could even result in the loss of the orbiter and its crew. Because the original vendor is no longer available, the vessels cannot be rebuilt before 2010, when the shuttles are scheduled to be retired.

I think that says something about the state of the shuttles and NASA, Its "we don't know whether it will blow up or not, so lets just not have people around it just in case". :rolleyes:




Guest

I didn't make it!

0 XP

 
#17 11 years ago

As has been said, it isn't designing a new shuttlecraft thats the difficult part, its paying for it. While perhaps it would be possible to make a nice shiny new reusable orbiter by cooperating with the USAF, I fear that military involvement might lead to the militarisation of space. I've already heard stories that the USMC are very interested in developing a form of orbital insertion, and if such a spacecraft could be built using similar flight techniques to that commerical jobby a few years back, then a (relatively) cheap way to project military force across the globe using space bound transports is feasible. Every weapon in history had a counter developed soon after it was used (minus the Atomic Bomb) and therefore, it wouldn't be long before someone like China might decide to make some form of Ultra-High Altitude/Space capable Interceptor (much like an updated MiG-31 I'd imagine) to defend against such an incursion (although the US is very unlikely to attack China, they still wouldn't like the idea of being pretty defenceless against a particular form of attack now would they). If their are armed interceptors, then there would naturally be a need to arm the transports or develop some form of escort fighter. Not to get too far fetched here but they already made that 747 with a Chemical laser on it, and I believe I saw video of some Israeli truck mounted laser used to blow up incoming AGMs. In space, such a laser would not suffer beam dispersal due to atmospheric conditions, and so would have a far greater effective range. Result? Well actually in the end it might be a good thing. The massive development of military aircraft during the First World War allowed the development of commerical air travel in the 20s and 30s, and the development of large, pressurised, aircraft and jet propulsion in the Second World War allowed the development of Commercial Jet travel in the 60s. The militarisation of space may lead to new developments in atmospheric shielding, propulsion and materials that could all be put to good use in some form of Spaceliner, initially for surface to surface travel, and eventually interplanetary travel. Anyways, all veeeeeery offtopic. I sincerely hope the Atlantis isn't damaged, but without sounding too gruesome another accident may make the government realise it desperate needs to fund the space programme better. Hey, with China on the up space programme wise, maybe we could see a second space race, this time between the USA and China. That'd sure get money rolling back into NASA wouldn't it?




crisissuit3

We will rule you

101,365 XP

17th August 2007

0 Uploads

9,209 Posts

0 Threads

#18 11 years ago

wait after just realizing this. i remember that my history teacher was talking about a satelite falling to earth an i think he was talking about atlantis. (man im pretty slow) but anyway is there some sort of location where the debris will fall to?




emonkies

I'm too cool to Post

50 XP

17th July 2003

0 Uploads

15,096 Posts

0 Threads

#19 11 years ago

Last I saw NASA wasnt going with a reuseable shuttle design. They were going back to something similar to a Apollo command module and a Atlas II rocket that was cheap, seemed reliable, and could carry a payload section like tehy did in the 60's.

IMHO in this day and age seems like the US could launch a preprogrammed or remote controlled module that could place a payload object close enough to the ISS that teh ISS could retrieve it and bring it in close to attach.

Werent the Soviets using robotic supply pods to bring supplies to MIR? They did have that ramming accident, hence my suggestion to bring it in close but not close enough to dock with the station, maybe parallel to it.




Psychokenesis

I'm too cool to Post

136,505 XP

16th October 2003

0 Uploads

13,428 Posts

0 Threads

#20 11 years ago

They'll have to build it from scratch right...every single time...That's what worries me.




  • 1
  • 2