http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/space/07/27/space.shuttle/index.html

Well, looks like the Discovery is in trouble (our prayers go out to you in the shuttle). Should we get a new type of spaceship or not? Perhaps a Millenium Falcon inspired one, or maybe one with some kind of enregy shield? Suggestions?


-KnightRider2000

Yes!

Carrack Cruiser here I come! *builds one for NASA*

How did I know there was Star Wars being mentioned in the thread? Hmm...

They've been working on finding a shuttle replacement, but may I be the first to say:

JESUS CHRIST, JC, OLD NEWS!

/fgr

As far as I can see, there's nothing wrong with the actual shuttles, it's just the launch aid that is crumbling and causing the debree to fly off and hit into the shuttle. The shuttle itself need not be replaced, just need a new type of cover for the main temp booster.

Yes they do, those shuttles are HELLA old, you can't exect these things to keep blasting off into space forever. I mean, look how many problems they have had just to launch the damn thing, and something STILL goes wrong. Not a good sign.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]They've been working on finding a shuttle replacement, but may I be the first to say:

JESUS CHRIST, JC, OLD NEWS!

/fgr[/QUOTE]

Old, how? Today is the 27th, and the shuttle was launched today (or yesterday?).

I vote for the sleek style of a lambda class imperial shuttle.

if they hadn't cancelled the replacement that was 75% complete 2 years ago before columbia they wouldn't be in this situation now...

they had virtually completed all the hard work and just had to put everything together, then they go cancel it....stupid if you ask me.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]They've been working on finding a shuttle replacement, but may I be the first to say:

JESUS CHRIST, JC, OLD NEWS!

/fgr[/QUOTE]


Jesus Christ, JC, that was anna neverozcan'tspell!


"They'll kill you! They won't even blink an eye!"

"Niether did I."

Theres nothing wrong with the shuttle besides:

-It has to be almost completely rebuilt every time it comes back
-It was outdated by the time they made it
-It hasn't met any goals set by NASA

:p


It's ridiculous NASA can't get funding to make new vehicles even though they've got plenty of concepts that would be better than the shuttle.

Hmmmmm... nice. :p

How bout an Imperial Landing Craft too?


-KnightRider2000

The chance of disaster for the Discovery is also twice that of what the Columbia's was.

No matter what NASA does with the shuttle though, it will never be safe. Even for the fuel sensor problem alone, they said they tried fixing it from 200 possible causes, yet they still don't know if they fixed it.

Being that NASA's space shuttle is one of the most (if not the most) complicated machine built - to have one system go wrong every launch is not extremely surprising. So to have people state the shuttle has problems every launch is an extremely ignorant comment.

Foam has been hitting the space shuttle every launch. Period. There's usually been tile damage on every shuttle when they inspect it once it returns. Once had over 100 tiles damaged. NASA got the feeling though that "It happens and we're fine" and that's what doomed Columbia. If the foam had hit one RCC panel over, Columbia probably would've made it home. Instead, it hit in exactly the worse spot possible for it.

It seems that the problem was not fixed entirely from Columbia. They fixed the foam area from the bipod part where it fell off and hit Columbia, but it seems that it wasn't enough.

Like it or not, NASA will be working on a new shuttle for 2010. The current shuttle fleet will be retired by 2010 since as of right now they will have to be recertified to fly by 2010. To do this would mean to look at every possible system on the shuttle, inspect every piece...etc. The costs would be astronomical *no pun intended*.

A new system is needed for exploring space, but what that is I'm not sure. NASA did get a good backing from Congress recently on their budget, which has been a help for NASA. Figuring that roughly 5 cents of every tax payer's dollar went into the space program in the Apollo days, and now its less than once cent of every dollar goes into NASA, cost is a major issue.

Once they can get over that hurdle of a cost efficient vehicle then it will be smoother ground for the engineering crew. However, the shuttles will be used till the Space Station is finished, after that...then I'm sure we'll see a lot more movements against NASA starting a new vehicle. People think the money is being wasted, and right now the space station is one of the core reasons people feel the shuttles must be used - since its an international project. Once its complete, then I'm sure will start seeing movements against NASA. (Same way we saw it against NASA after Columbia)

I think they should pour all availble funding into a new fleet design. But in the mean time, use the ships they have. Inspect for damage, repair the damage, but don't let them go to waste.

We need a new shuttle. We've needed a new ship since the 80s.. They have systems that were designed using slide rules. SLIDE RULES*





*This statement is based completely outside the realm of research. It may or may not be true.

Well the shuttle is probably best summed up by a poor farmboy we all know:

http://www.soundamerica.com/sounds/movies/S-T/Star_Wars/junk.wav


-KnightRider2000

[QUOTE=James Bond]if they hadn't cancelled the replacement that was 75% complete 2 years ago before columbia they wouldn't be in this situation now...

they had virtually completed all the hard work and just had to put everything together, then they go cancel it....stupid if you ask me.[/QUOTE]

The X11, or an actual new shuttle? Because they've had a lot of potential replacements, but none of them are as durable as the shuttle. Think about it--how many missions have the current shuttles been through with only one of them ending in disaster? The shuttles are also the only spacecraft on earth that are worthy for multiple flights. Etc.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]with only one of them ending in disaster?[/QUOTE]

2, Challenger.

The shuttles should have been scrapped and redesigned by now. A few of these shuttles are 20 years old, for f***s sake.

The most dangerous part of a shuttle mission is reentry, if my memory serves me correctly. You have to hit the atmosphere at a certain angle, or the shuttle is toast b/c of friction caused by hitting air molecules at high speed. Space ship one solved this problem by creating maximum wind resistance, thereby slowing itself down so it didn't heat up as much. Space ship one also was designed so it was able to more or less land itself (due to the fact that it could turn itself right side up and stay that way) , according to a 60 minutes feature. This new technology should be licensed to NASA.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]The X11, or an actual new shuttle? Because they've had a lot of potential replacements, but none of them are as durable as the shuttle. Think about it--how many missions have the current shuttles been through with only one of them ending in disaster? The shuttles are also the only spacecraft on earth that are worthy for multiple flights. Etc.[/QUOTE]
You forgot the Challenger.

Meh, let's just go for larger space ships already... Star Destroyer, anyone?

But if you look at the current Space Shuttle system Page, they've always had that potential for problem - if they dont' hit atmosphere right - since the days of Mercury.

The real danger like you said is the heat, and the only reason Columbia broke apart was because of the hole in the left wing. It let in plasma which started melting it from the inside and changing the shape of the wing. The tiles are designed to withstand the heat, the hard part is keeping them intact during the launch process. I seriously doubt even if the shuttle had had different reentry procedures, the heat from the atmosphere even at a reduced speed would have affected the shuttle.

The shuttle is pretty much designed to land itself though. There is some piloting features - yes - but for the most part the shuttle is just gliding back to Earth on autopilot. Performing the rolls and turns to slow it down enough for landing.

There's a really good book out called Comm Check - which is on Columbia's last flight. One of the last chapters in the book goes through the entire timeline of reentry for Columbia and what the orbiter was doing. The computers knew that there was a drag on the left side because of the hole and were firing rockets to try and straighten it out. It's actually really compelling how it combines what the computer was trying to do verse the inevitable destruction occuring inside the wing.

The 'joystick' the commander could've used to break autopilot was pushed all the way to the side (which lets the commander take manual controls) but they believe the shuttle flew itself on autopilot to the end, and the reason the joystick was pushed was because of an astronaught being shoved against it when the orbiter started breaking apart and flipping foward over and over.

The point is, I'm not sure if there really is a possible way to avoid so much heat with an object as large as the orbiter for reentry. The real problems NASA must fix is keeping the tiles intact from launch. Reentry is dangerous - yes, but no matter what NASA does there is that chance for failure. I believe there's this one statistic from NASA that gives every launch a 1/500 chance of being a catosrophe.

And again, the shuttle will never ever be safe. NASA admits this. No matter how they modify it or change it, the shuttle will always have the potential for a fatal end.

They need a new shuttle program though, or some vehicle to get into space and reusable. With 40% of the orbiters gone, another fatal accident would not only stop the shuttle program for sure, but make it extremely unlikely to get Congress's backing for a new program. Thus, why NASA HAS to start construction on a new vehicle.

Two words: Venture Star.

" WE SHALL BURN THEIR WORLD TO ASHES!!!!

i vote we build hatahk vessels.

I kinda know how they work ~_~

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

Maybe some sort of ion or magnetic shield to protect the ship from the intese heat and friction? Is that possible? It just needs to stay on long enough for re-entry, but can we do it from today's or even tomorrow's technology?


-KnightRider2000

Personally, I think of all the launches done with the shuttle fleet, two disasters in twenty years is an impressive record. I'm not trying to diminish the tragedies. Think about all the potential things that could go wrong just trying to get off the ground. I believe NASA built a rather robust vehicle. I'm sure that as these things age, they will be prone to more disasters. Robust they may be but, not indestructable.

NASA sucks. Give the tax money back to the people and let capitalism do the space exploration. It's high time that we privatized space.

They're not going to replace the shuttle with the Venture Star. That idea has been around for...god...nearly a decade now? My uncle assures me it's not a viable replacement.

Jedi Legend--that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've heard. Privatized space exploration is still in its infancy--hell they can barely break the atmosphere, much less achieve orbit and explore space. NASA is most definitely our best chance for space exploration.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn1.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zi.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/rlv-03a.html

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-02p.html

As a side note:

http://www.skyramp.org/index.htm

http://www.memagazine.org/backissues/february2000/features/birds/birds.html

When you consider that the reason the Columbia tragedy happened was with them becoming lax in safety precautions, it's just a recipe for things to happen again. If they were to go back to using the shuttle program exactly as they did before Columbia happened, it'd be letting the potential for the same disaster to grow.

When public interest declines again, as it always has, then funding gets pulled and they can't afford to do all those safety procedures like normal. That's when crap starts to happen.

Personally, I think they need get so in-depth with designing a shuttle replacement that they should allow the public to submit ideas as well. Not like a "just email us a drawing" sort of thing, but get all those people who were working for the X-prize and whatnot.

Oh yeah, and Burt Rutan and John Carmack own you.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]
Jedi Legend--that's gotta be the stupidest thing I've heard. Privatized space exploration is still in its infancy--hell they can barely break the atmosphere, much less achieve orbit and explore space. NASA is most definitely our best chance for space exploration.[/QUOTE]

You've obviously done a lot more research than me on the topic, I bow down to your infinitely warranted response. I'd engage you, but I've seen your mad debate skills and ability to call people names in the past and can't take the heat.

Yeah Yoshi. read this link Commander 598 posted that explains why you're wrong.

I think we should focus on developing technology that can actually GET US SOMEWHERE, instead of this piddly crap we pull now.


I WANT TO LIVE ON THE MOON, SUCKAS.

Wait, how does that article prove that I'm 'wrong'. Explain.

how about a moldy crow?

Keep my mom outta this dangit

if(getThingFlags(source) & 0x8){
  do her}
elseif(getThingFlags(source) & 0x4){
  do other babe}
else{
  do a dude}

venture star = x33, which they had half finished building when they cancelled it...



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/09/25/troubledspaceship.ap/

they went for a high risk, high pay-off and I think nearly made it, it was delayed and still had a lot of problems but certain aspects of its design were fully functional, like the engines.

[QUOTE=James Bond]venture star = x33, which they had half finished building when they cancelled it...



http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/space/09/25/troubledspaceship.ap/

they went for a high risk, high pay-off and I think nearly made it, it was delayed and still had a lot of problems but certain aspects of its design were fully functional, like the engines.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. Like I said, it got nixed and isn't going to be making a comeback anytime soon.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Wait, how does that article prove that I'm 'wrong'. Explain.[/QUOTE]

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn3.html
Page 3. If you didn't read it...




Indeed.



L5 is a much better place.