Will Nasa accellerate a shuttle replacement?

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: HombrePequeno

Originally posted by: exp
Yeah, what the heck ever happened to the shuttle replacment program anyway? I could've sworn they had an X-something shuttle in the prototype phase a few years ago. I even remember seeing photos of it.

The X-33 was 80% complete when they decided to kill it off.

I believe now they're proposing a smaller shuttle similar to the CRV design that will be placed on top of a booster to serve as a transfer vehicle until we can be a real successor to the shuttle.

probably 80% complete with another 80% left remaining

Honestly, I've always thought a single stage to orbit crew vehicle was a stupid idea. Why keep all of that weight aboard? The stuff we got from developing the aerospike engine was great though.

 

[Queasy]

I read an article a couple of weeks ago about the space station. There was a bit in there about building a space plane solely for the purpose of transporting humans to and from the space station. There would be a seperate vehicle (I think it was a conventional rocket) that would be used to truck payloads up.

Makes sense because using the current shuttles has always been very expensive...more expensive than rockets. The main reason it has been kept is because of the morale and status factors.

 

[NokiaDude]

The problem with the Space Shuttle Coloumbia is that they WERE NOT designed to last 20+ years. NASA has been given too many budget cuts, they desparately need a new fleet of space shuttles. Coloumbia would have not lasted until 2010.

 

[Grasshopper27]

Originally posted by: NokiaDude
The problem with the Space Shuttle Coloumbia is that they WERE NOT designed to last 20+ years. NASA has been given too many budget cuts, they desparately need a new fleet of space shuttles. Coloumbia would have not lasted until 2010.

Not true...

They have been refurbished and rebuilt several times. Columbia was just overhualed and refurbished last year with hundreds of improvements.

They were designed to fly into space 100 times each over a 30 year lifespan. Columbia flew 28 times into space. Discovery has actually flown more times into space, 30 if the reports are accurate.

You're right about the budget cuts however. New shuttles are not required, a shuttle replacement is...

Hopper

 

[guyver01]

The shuttles were designed for 100 flights... the Columbia only had about 28.... and the shuttle fleet is probably the most inspected vehicle on the planet... the shuttles are literally disassembled and reassembled after every flight. Age definitely isnt a factor with them.

Hell.. the DC-10 is almost 20+ years old, and they're still flying. Most cars are running on designs that are over 20+ years old.

The shuttle fleet is due for a technological breakthru in engine technology tho. NASA needs to look into adapting ION engines for the shuttle fleet.

 

[HombrePequeno]

Originally posted by: guyver01
The shuttles were designed for 100 flights... the Columbia only had about 28.... and the shuttle fleet is probably the most inspected vehicle on the planet... the shuttles are literally disassembled and reassembled after every flight. Age definitely isnt a factor with them.

Hell.. the DC-10 is almost 20+ years old, and they're still flying. Most cars are running on designs that are over 20+ years old.

The shuttle fleet is due for a technological breakthru in engine technology tho. NASA needs to look into adapting <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nasa.gov/extend/HP_ELT_Feature_03.html" target=blank>ION</a> engines for the shuttle fleet.

Ion engines are nice and all but they don't provide near enough thrust to get the shuttle off the ground. I guess we could always use a NERVA engine for launches but the anti-nuclear crowd would sh!t a brick over it.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: guyver01
The shuttles were designed for 100 flights... the Columbia only had about 28.... and the shuttle fleet is probably the most inspected vehicle on the planet... the shuttles are literally disassembled and reassembled after every flight. Age definitely isnt a factor with them.

Hell.. the DC-10 is almost 20+ years old, and they're still flying. Most cars are running on designs that are over 20+ years old.

The shuttle fleet is due for a technological breakthru in engine technology tho. NASA needs to look into adapting ION engines for the shuttle fleet.

The DC-10 isn't subject to the kind of stress that the shuttles have to endure during take off & re-entering.

 

[guyver01]

Originally posted by: lowtech
The DC-10 isn't subject to the kind of stress that the shuttles have to endure during take off & re-entering.

The DC-10 also isn't rebuilt after every flight

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

With the Iraqi war, it is going to be a hard sell to get a new shuttle. Besides that, the shuttle did not deliver what was expected (or promised) namely cheap transport into space. In reality we need a big dumb booster. Be more cost efficient.

 

[dakata24]

from what i heard on the news, the re-entry back to earth was basically done by auto-pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia. any idea on when the crew takes control for the landing or is that also done by auto-pilot..

if that was the case, would it be possible in future generation spacecraft to create some sort of protective capsule in which the crew could go in, that was equipped with all the equipment needed to operate the space shuttle (since the re-entry is auto-pilot) and if something happened have an ejection system like a fighter jet has.. and the capsule being able to withstand the friction/etc of re-entry back to earth (or explosion of the space shuttle itself). also watching the nasa news conference. it sounded like as if there was a problem, there really wouldnt have been anything they could have done to correct the error.

it's too bad that the space shuttle didnt have something equivalent to a black box.. hopefully some of the equipment will be salvageable/found in order to find and correct the problem..

RIP

 

[sharkeeper]

Ad Campaign

Cheers!

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: dakata24
from what i heard on the news, the re-entry back to earth was basically done by auto-pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia. any idea on when the crew takes control for the landing or is that also done by auto-pilot..

if that was the case, would it be possible in future generation spacecraft to create some sort of protective capsule in which the crew could go in, that was equipped with all the equipment needed to operate the space shuttle (since the re-entry is auto-pilot) and if something happened have an ejection system like a fighter jet has.. and the capsule being able to withstand the friction/etc of re-entry back to earth (or explosion of the space shuttle itself). also watching the nasa news conference. it sounded like as if there was a problem, there really wouldnt have been anything they could have done to correct the error.

it's too bad that the space shuttle didnt have something equivalent to a black box.. hopefully some of the equipment will be salvageable/found in order to find and correct the problem..

RIP

Well the area of the shuttle that they are in during takeoff and re-entry is designed to with stand 20Gs I believe and I assume built to withstand a crash, but nothing of this magnatude. That's why they've found a helmet and charred remains, they were not entirely vaporized. An ejection at 200,000 feet is just not feasable the way I see it, a parachute would not do anything until around under 100k feet I think.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: dakata24
from what i heard on the news, the re-entry back to earth was basically done by auto-pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia. any idea on when the crew takes control for the landing or is that also done by auto-pilot.. if that was the case, would it be possible in future generation spacecraft to create some sort of protective capsule in which the crew could go in, that was equipped with all the equipment needed to operate the space shuttle (since the re-entry is auto-pilot) and if something happened have an ejection system like a fighter jet has.. and the capsule being able to withstand the friction/etc of re-entry back to earth (or explosion of the space shuttle itself). also watching the nasa news conference. it sounded like as if there was a problem, there really wouldnt have been anything they could have done to correct the error. it's too bad that the space shuttle didnt have something equivalent to a black box.. hopefully some of the equipment will be salvageable/found in order to find and correct the problem.. RIP

There was such a concept, but it was too heavy and expensive. I do not know if there is a black box recorder, but remember the whole thing is a giant black box transmitting data. I am sure something will show in the data stream, but interpreting it might be tricky.

 

[dakata24]

There was such a concept, but it was too heavy and expensive. I do not know if there is a black box recorder, but remember the whole thing is a giant black box transmitting data. I am sure something will show in the data stream, but interpreting it might be tricky.

during the nasa news conference (the one at 2:15pm Central i believe where they were taking reporters questions) it was said that the space shuttle didnt have something equivalent to an airplane blackbox.. though the nasa guy said that they had instruments that monitor sorta the same stuff on the shuttle.. i guess just not in a protective box like a blackbox. he was hoping that they would be able to recover it intact... to determine the cause of the explosion/whatever happened during re-entry.

 

[DanTMWTMP]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: MacBaine

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: charrison
NASA was planning on replacing the shuttle starting in 2010. This these plans will be accellerated now?

The 20 year old shuttles are probably getting near the end of the usable lifecycle.

Not with constant budget cuts.

Maybe they can put the old ones on Ebay...

Well NASA has had to resort to buying spare parts off ebay. Shuttle electronics are 20+ years old now and it is becoming harder to find spare parts.

is that true??...

RIP to the crew ...sigh....well, they exited w/ glory i guess....exited doing what they love the most......

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: BillGates
I hope they don't make any replacement.... Too much money is wasted in the space program IMO. It seems like every other month there is some 500 million dollar unmanned rocket destined to take pretty pictures of something 4820240 light years away blowing up on the launch pad. I wonder what percentage of an individual's taxes go to NASA?

at the rate we're destroying and using up our resources here on earth you better hope we spend more on it so we can get some people off the planet. if you want your children and their children to be able to maintain your lifestyle, there's simply no alternative other than space.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: guyver01
The shuttles were designed for 100 flights... the Columbia only had about 28.... and the shuttle fleet is probably the most inspected vehicle on the planet... the shuttles are literally disassembled and reassembled after every flight. Age definitely isnt a factor with them.

Hell.. the DC-10 is almost 20+ years old, and they're still flying. Most cars are running on designs that are over 20+ years old.

The shuttle fleet is due for a technological breakthru in engine technology tho. NASA needs to look into adapting <a class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.nasa.gov/extend/HP_ELT_Feature_03.html" target=blank>ION</a> engines for the shuttle fleet.

actually most cars aren't running on 20 year old designs, with a couple of exceptions, for instance the ford mustang.

 

[Tripleshot]

I believe a replacement for the space shuttle has been undergoing testing in the Nevada desert for some time now. I do know that experiments have been going on with craft that can take off, reach space,do their job, and then land again very much as a regular aircraft does.

If anything, that will probably be the next phase we are headed for. It is too important a calling (space exploration) to abandon because of this and the Challenger accident.

We must forge ahead and make what these brave,couragous souls worth what they died for. The experiments they carried on this mission where to help mankind, and all that the NASA program does helps mankind, in ways we take for granted today, and in ways we still have ahead to see.

These brave astronauts are with their Heavenly Father now, and in His care, they see the value of all they were placed on earth to do. It is but a blink in time, on the grand scale of things, before they will be reunited with who they loved and who loved them.

We mourn not their going, for they are with God, but our loss of not having them with us now.

 

[lowtech1]

Originally posted by: guyver01

Originally posted by: lowtech
The DC-10 isn't subject to the kind of stress that the shuttles have to endure during take off & re-entering.

The DC-10 also isn't rebuilt after every flight

Rebuilt doesn?t mean that every part are replace. It is possible to over look metal fatigue even with modern x-ray scan.

 

[tcsenter]

at the rate we're destroying and using up our resources here on earth you better hope we spend more on it so we can get some people off the planet. if you want your children and their children to be able to maintain your lifestyle, there's simply no alternative other than space.

Plenty of alternatives. War is usually the most common.

And at the rate we're developing the technology to explore space, better make that "if you want your great, great, great, great, great, great, grand children...."

That presumes there is a hospitable planet in the Alpha Centauri system. A phenomenally huge "if". The notion of terraforming a planet which otherwise is uninhabitable is even more fantastical.

Perhaps by then we will perfect some sort of suspended animation and our computers will be powerful enough to 'rove' star systems analyzing and identifying candidates, then it wakes us up when it finds one.

IOW, we're all gonna die and only the cockroaches will be left to pick our bones dry.

 

[rockyct]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: dakata24
from what i heard on the news, the re-entry back to earth was basically done by auto-pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia. any idea on when the crew takes control for the landing or is that also done by auto-pilot.. if that was the case, would it be possible in future generation spacecraft to create some sort of protective capsule in which the crew could go in, that was equipped with all the equipment needed to operate the space shuttle (since the re-entry is auto-pilot) and if something happened have an ejection system like a fighter jet has.. and the capsule being able to withstand the friction/etc of re-entry back to earth (or explosion of the space shuttle itself). also watching the nasa news conference. it sounded like as if there was a problem, there really wouldnt have been anything they could have done to correct the error. it's too bad that the space shuttle didnt have something equivalent to a black box.. hopefully some of the equipment will be salvageable/found in order to find and correct the problem.. RIP

There was such a concept, but it was too heavy and expensive. I do not know if there is a black box recorder, but remember the whole thing is a giant black box transmitting data. I am sure something will show in the data stream, but interpreting it might be tricky.

There was data constantly streaming down from the many sensors, so they didn't need to have a black box. They knew that sensors were failing in the left wing, possibly because a piece of insulation hit it during takeoff, and the tires reported zero pressure and sensors reported excessive heating. Then they lost signal.

 

[ultimatebob]

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: lowtech
NASA would get a lot more done if Bush sr or jr divert a small portion of the money from their war budget to the research fund.

NASA has become just another bloated beaucratic mess. It is funded mostly for political payback with space exploration and to better humanity a distant goal.

Like the military, it should be completely revamped as far as the purchasing and bidding on contracts.

Imho, if the same money we've spent on space by NASA were to have been spent by private industry, we'd be vacationing on the moon by now!

True, but we probably would have also had a few hundred people die in the process. Private industry is all about going with the lowest bid, and cutting costs to the bare minimum. In space, such an economic system is not safe or practical. One main reason that NASA launches cost so much is the numerous safety checks they perform and redundant systems that they add to their spacecraft. It kills the budget, but it has saved lives in the process.

 

[Tominator]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: lowtech
NASA would get a lot more done if Bush sr or jr divert a small portion of the money from their war budget to the research fund.

NASA has become just another bloated beaucratic mess. It is funded mostly for political payback with space exploration and to better humanity a distant goal.

Like the military, it should be completely revamped as far as the purchasing and bidding on contracts.

Imho, if the same money we've spent on space by NASA were to have been spent by private industry, we'd be vacationing on the moon by now!

True, but we probably would have also had a few hundred people die in the process. Private industry is all about going with the lowest bid, and cutting costs to the bare minimum. In space, such an economic system is not safe or practical. One main reason that NASA launches cost so much is the numerous safety checks they perform and redundant systems that they add to their spacecraft. It kills the budget, but it has saved lives in the process.

Sorry, but if you had ANY idea what suppliers do to get government contracts, you'd know how wrong you are. NASA and the military use contracts for influence. They must have racial quotas and hundreds of regulations are circumvented just to subsist at all. $400 toilet seats are only the tip of the iceburg.

I've dealt with the Air Force and it's quigmire of idiotic regs. They are designed to PREVENT improvement and efficency. They EXCLUDE viable alternatives.

Government, that is NASA, is ONLY funded to garner dependency. Every other endevor is secondary.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: ultimatebob

Originally posted by: Tominator

Originally posted by: lowtech
NASA would get a lot more done if Bush sr or jr divert a small portion of the money from their war budget to the research fund.

NASA has become just another bloated beaucratic mess. It is funded mostly for political payback with space exploration and to better humanity a distant goal.

Like the military, it should be completely revamped as far as the purchasing and bidding on contracts.

Imho, if the same money we've spent on space by NASA were to have been spent by private industry, we'd be vacationing on the moon by now!

True, but we probably would have also had a few hundred people die in the process. Private industry is all about going with the lowest bid, and cutting costs to the bare minimum. In space, such an economic system is not safe or practical. One main reason that NASA launches cost so much is the numerous safety checks they perform and redundant systems that they add to their spacecraft. It kills the budget, but it has saved lives in the process.

The cost of putting things in orbit is much cheaper than putting people in orbit.

 

[dakata24]

Originally posted by: rockyct

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: dakata24
from what i heard on the news, the re-entry back to earth was basically done by auto-pilot of the Space Shuttle Columbia. any idea on when the crew takes control for the landing or is that also done by auto-pilot.. if that was the case, would it be possible in future generation spacecraft to create some sort of protective capsule in which the crew could go in, that was equipped with all the equipment needed to operate the space shuttle (since the re-entry is auto-pilot) and if something happened have an ejection system like a fighter jet has.. and the capsule being able to withstand the friction/etc of re-entry back to earth (or explosion of the space shuttle itself). also watching the nasa news conference. it sounded like as if there was a problem, there really wouldnt have been anything they could have done to correct the error. it's too bad that the space shuttle didnt have something equivalent to a black box.. hopefully some of the equipment will be salvageable/found in order to find and correct the problem.. RIP

There was such a concept, but it was too heavy and expensive. I do not know if there is a black box recorder, but remember the whole thing is a giant black box transmitting data. I am sure something will show in the data stream, but interpreting it might be tricky.

There was data constantly streaming down from the many sensors, so they didn't need to have a black box. They knew that sensors were failing in the left wing, possibly because a piece of insulation hit it during takeoff, and the tires reported zero pressure and sensors reported excessive heating. Then they lost signal.

from what i understood from the nasa press conference, they also thought it might have been transmission problems.. and made it sound like it was common.. thus the reason why they didnt worry when the left wing sensors went out to when they msgd about the low tire pressure.

i think a voice recorder blackbox that is totally independent of the onboard equipment/power supply would be a good idea though. and if communications were the first thing to go, it might get data that wasnt in the data stream that would be helpful..