No doubt. However there is no 'glory' in putting unmanned craft into space. NASA is a political entity. They NEED the human element to garner public support. There is indeed reason to the insanity, but then we live through mistakes....and others don't.
No doubt. However there is no 'glory' in putting unmanned craft into space. NASA is a political entity. They NEED the human element to garner public support. There is indeed reason to the insanity, but then we live through mistakes....and others don't.
No can do. The Russian spacecrafts can not take that amount of load and dock with the station at the same time.
Basically No Shuttle = No Space Station.
Just think of the advances humanity could achieve in space if we worked together as one planet. No separate nations, no war, no massive military spending. We could funnel so many more resources into technological advancement. Unfortunately mankind is still too primitive and shortsighted to accomplish this.
White House press briefing
Q Ari, can we come back to the shuttle. Can you give us an idea of what Administrator O'Keefe said to the President? And also in connection with the shuttle, the budget envisions an increase which went to the printer before, obviously, the disaster -- envisions an increase in the shuttle program by 23 percent. Is that the President's way of saying that the shuttle program was underfunded before?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, on the funding issue, as you know, funding for the NASA budget total will go from $15 billion in 2003 to $15.5 -- or .469 -- million in Fiscal Year 2004. Funding for the space shuttle itself will go from $3.2 billion to $3.9 billion under the budget, as was proposed this morning, as was prepared prior to the disaster involving the Columbia
Q Ari, can we come back to the shuttle. Can you give us an idea of what Administrator O'Keefe said to the President? And also in connection with the shuttle, the budget envisions an increase which went to the printer before, obviously, the disaster -- envisions an increase in the shuttle program by 23 percent. Is that the President's way of saying that the shuttle program was underfunded before?
MR. FLEISCHER: One, on the funding issue, as you know, funding for the NASA budget total will go from $15 billion in 2003 to $15.5 -- or .469 -- million in Fiscal Year 2004. Funding for the space shuttle itself will go from $3.2 billion to $3.9 billion under the budget, as was proposed this morning, as was prepared prior to the disaster involving the Columbia
The problem is that those heavy lift rockets do not take people and payload at the same time. So to deliver parts for the Space Station we have to put a module or parts in orbit, then send up crew with another rocket, dock with the new parts in orbit and then bring it to the space station.
I say no can do, not easily anyway. That was the beauty of the Shuttle.
shiner
Lifer
- Jul 18, 2000
- 17,112
- 1
- 0
Are you aware that there were designs for an unmanned version of the shuttle, the shuttle c, that would have been unmanned and used as a heavy lift vehicle. I'm not saying that a shuttle or something like it should not be used as a type of space truck, it just shouldn't be our only way into space and it should not be our every mission launch vehicle. It is far too expensive to operate to be used that way.
Man, that is uncanny. that is the exact thoughts I have had on how the space program should work. Atlas rockets to carry heavy, large pieces to low orbit and then smaller, reusable manned vehicles could tug them to the space station to be attached. You could build massive amount of those to be sent up, each with a unique special function for the life support of the space station, and parts to build a vehicle shuttle to the surface of the moon, for mineral extraction and colonization. It to would make a good location to launch further planetary expeditions because of the reduced gravity to overcome to get a vehicle launched and up to speed. Base it close to the polar cap and on the edge of thelight and drark side to capitilze on heating and cooling by convection.
Geeze, what an imigination you and I have.
Yes but there is still a need to get people up there to finish the station and it's not possible to just launch modules and stuff into orbit since they contain no intelligence to automatically dock.
So use a combination of shuttles and deltas. The russian rocket can ferry people 3 at time to the station.
And tell me how did the unmanned russian supply rocket dock at the station yesterday?
Because the russian capsule was designed to dock automatically. And part of the point of this thread was that the Shuttles may be crounded for a long time, so no combination of shuttle and deltas.
LOL!
I just want to add that the Shuttle was used to keep the Space Station in the correct orbit and prevent it from falling down into the atmosphere. How do you think 'out of the box' under those circumstances? There is no substitute at the moment that do all these things. Not in the near future and before the whole thing falls down and burn anyway.
The Russian supply rockets can not take over all duties from the shuttle.
Edit: spelling
The key word being currently. With the 500million dollar cost of each shuttle launch, you think something could be quickly designed as a substutite for many of those tasks.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 21K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter