Colombia shuttle

[Patrick Degan]

The shuttle program is basically dead at this point. It will have to be grounded for an investigation but that will take so long (years) that there will be no point in reactivating the fleet afterwards.

There is a very real risk that the space age is now over. The only replacement on-offer (a mini-Shuttle launched on an ELV) is decades away and NASA should lack the public confidence of the US government to be given the money to build a replacement. The ISS can't keep operating--and certainly can't be completed--in the absense of the shuttle for a prolonged period. The station may need to be abandonded.

The shuttle programme is by no means dead. In point of fact, NASA couldn't afford to permanently ground the fleet; the space shuttle is literally the only heavy-lift launcher we've got in the inventory. Every large military, commercial, and scientific satellite has been designed and configured for the shuttle cargo bay for the past twenty years. None of them could possibly go up on an Atlas-Centaur or Delta III, or even a Titan 34D (which I think has been retired from service, but I'm not certain). Too massive. For better or worse, its the shuttle or nothing as far as those launches are concerned. That's one reason right off why they're not going to ground the fleet forever.

As for the ISS, it's future is uncertain at this point. The grounding of the shuttle fleet is going to junk the current construction schedule and they may never get it back up to speed. So either they're simply going to add on smaller modules launched up on Proton rockets or they're simply going to halt the project where it is, and ISS is reduced to an experimental platform and nothing more.

I'd forget about Mars by 2010 dreams; that wasn't ever really going to happen anyway. For anything like that to be even remotely feasible, they'd have needed to have started on the project twenty years ago, and no such craft capable of sustaining a crew for a months-long mission could be built on Earth; that means orbital assembly facilities which don't exist and aren't likely to be built anytime soon. Furthermore, they still haven't solved problems in regards to protecting astronauts from rhe radiation hazards or sustained zero-g and have anybody functional enough to be able to actually walk on the surface of Mars. Nobody wants to front the level of funding for the effort in any case and there is no political, military, or commerical reason at this point to justify the mission.

[TrailerParkJawa]

Furthermore, they still haven't solved problems in regards to protecting astronauts from rhe radiation hazards or sustained zero-g and have anybody functional enough to be able to actually walk on the surface of Mars. Nobody wants to front the level of funding for the effort in any case and there is no political, military, or commerical reason at this point to justify the mission.

They also have not figured out if they can keep the crews from going nutso on such a long voyage. I think they greatest obstacle is gonna by psychological and not technical.

Did anyone see the clip on CNN where they showed a helmet? I thought that was pretty inconsiderate of the families, IMHO.

[phongn]

The shuttle programme is by no means dead. In point of fact, NASA couldn't afford to permanently ground the fleet; the space shuttle is literally the only heavy-lift launcher we've got in the inventory. Every large military, commercial, and scientific satellite has been designed and configured for the shuttle cargo bay for the past twenty years. None of them could possibly go up on an Atlas-Centaur or Delta III, or even a Titan 34D (which I think has been retired from service, but I'm not certain). Too massive. For better or worse, its the shuttle or nothing as far as those launches are concerned. That's one reason right off why they're not going to ground the fleet forever.

Commercial payloads ceased on the Space Shuttle after Challenger, as did most of the military payloads.

The Air Force developed Titan 4 to do their heavy lifting, which is now being replaced by Atlas V and Delta 4, both of which are quite powerful.

[TrailerParkJawa]

I did not realize the shuttle passed over us. Is it possible to see it at that point? I guess it is moot anyway, there is 100% cloud cover where I am.

IMHO, not a chance. We in Orlando have trouble seeing it much of the time. They use a VERY steep descent angle and flare at the last second fto prevent stalling. Remember, it was 39 miles up over Texas.

actually from the previously posted theories about the left wing, it sounds very much like a heat-induced tire explosion, or other type of damage to the ventral surface and structure of the wing which caused the vehicle to zipper at the left wing root. It wouldnt have taken much of a breach in the wing skin for such an event to occur.

Yeah, I tried to reason out a theory for that based on what I heard from NASA via CNN (namely, 39 mile altitude, 12500 mph, 57 degree left bank, tire pressure abnormal, hydraulic temperature abnormal). I posted my theory on page 5, post 3.

They just had a news report that many local people got up this morning to watch it fly over. Fremont was decked in with fog and clouds, but evidently in other parts of the area you could see it with binoculars or a camera. I think they said it was 45 miles up at that time. One of the watchers was a Aerospace Eng and he said something did not look right about the flight but it could be just his opinion. Anyway, they people who got up to watch are all space buffs and most of them seem pretty shaken.

[Patrick Degan]

Commercial payloads ceased on the Space Shuttle after Challenger, as did most of the military payloads.

The Air Force developed Titan 4 to do their heavy lifting, which is now being replaced by Atlas V and Delta 4, both of which are quite powerful.

Point taken. And the Titan, Atlas, and Delta are fine rockets, to be certain. But none of them could get anything weighing more than 39500 pounds off the ground. Furthermore, certain satellites and spaceprobe designs will not fit into the payload containers of the standard rockets. A good chunk of our space capability is still slaved to the Space Shuttle.

[Frank Hipper]

TrailerParkJawa said:

Did anyone see the clip on CNN where they showed a helmet? I thought that was pretty inconsiderate of the families, IMHO.

News organizations couldn't care less for anyone's grief, our local ABC affiliate here in Phoenix was describing a "charred human torso and skull" found in Louisiana. They make me fucking sick, man!

[Howedar]

I suspect that was bullshit. I can't imagine human parts surviving reentry that well.

[phongn]

Commercial payloads ceased on the Space Shuttle after Challenger, as did most of the military payloads.

The Air Force developed Titan 4 to do their heavy lifting, which is now being replaced by Atlas V and Delta 4, both of which are quite powerful.

Point taken. And the Titan, Atlas, and Delta are fine rockets, to be certain. But none of them could get anything weighing more than 39500 pounds off the ground. Furthermore, certain satellites and spaceprobe designs will not fit into the payload containers of the standard rockets. A good chunk of our space capability is still slaved to the Space Shuttle.

Delta 4 Heavy can shove 50,800 lb to LEO and has a 5-m payload fairing diameter. It's quite good for launching.

Atlas V 551 can throw 22,050-kg to LEO, no idea on the fairing diameter.

They'll work for the majority of satellite and probe designs, and IIRC do we even launch any more that require the large size of the Space Shuttle?

[Korvan]

At least shuttle debris isn't showing up on Ebay... yet. However, a search on Ebay using "shuttle Columbia" turned up 31 pages of results. I think there are some people with hat making equipment who do nothing but wait around from some disaster to happen.

[MKSheppard]

Finally explain me why you should spend a lot for money for a single symbolic trip that once made would leave you without a space program.
What you are suggesting is precisely what happened in the 60's.You spent a lot of money for the earth to moon trip,declared victory and then nearly dismantled the NASA.

Somone explain to Piett about the Apollo Applications program put together
by von Braun, that included colonies on the Moon....it got cancelled by
Richard Nixon

[Kelly Antilles]

I wonder... had they landed in California, would they have made it?

[The Dark]

Atlas 5 Heavy is (by engineering estimates) capable of 57,000 pounds, as compared to the shuttle's 60,000 pound maximum. Should be more reliable, too, as it uses kerosene instead of liquid hydrogen. I doubt most payloads fall into that 1.5 ton gap that the shuttle can carry but the Atlas 5 Heavy can't. The only advantage is the orbiter's ability to bring payloads back down. It's capable of returning with a 30,000 pound payload.

[Admiral Valdemar]

I wonder... had they landed in California, would they have made it?

Doubtful considering they needed to lose speed hence the long glidepath. The wing would still have caused problems no doubt.

[MKSheppard]

[The Dark]

I wonder... had they landed in California, would they have made it?

Doubtful considering they needed to lose speed hence the long glidepath. The wing would still have caused problems no doubt.

Very doubtful, since they would have flown the same flightpath in atmosphere, merely over the Pacific and California rather than the US, Gulf of Mexico, and Florida (if all had gone right). Heck, the deorbit maneuver began over the Indian Ocean. The only real difference would have been that the wreckage would have been out near Hawaii rather than in Texas (slight exaggeration probably, but the debris would've ended up in the Pacific).

[Darth Wong]

While I would love nothing better than to see billions pumped into NASA, we do not NEED the space program right now. We do not NEED a colony on Mars, and quite frankly we really don't NEED an International space station. America needs to spend its finite resources on what matters right now, like affordable health care etc. Once we get these problems solved then we can spend the necessary billions on a space program. I don't want the space program abandoned or neglected, but unless the experiments they do in space becomes necesary to medical research etc I wouldn't support any great expenditures in that area.

When the first wheel was being painstakingly carved by the first man to invent it, I'm sure a woman was saying "will you stop fucking around with that thing and go carry that stuff up to the cave?"

[phongn]

I found some pictures of the wreckage...

http://www.ktre.com/Global/story.asp?S= ... v=2FH4Dhka

[Patrick Degan]

Delta 4 Heavy can shove 50,800 lb to LEO and has a 5-m payload fairing diameter. It's quite good for launching.

Atlas V 551 can throw 22,050-kg to LEO, no idea on the fairing diameter.

They'll work for the majority of satellite and probe designs, and IIRC do we even launch any more that require the large size of the Space Shuttle?

I stand corrected, then. My most recent sources on American rocketry evidently are not sufficently updated. In reference to your question, it seems that the only things which would absolutely require the shuttle would seem to be specialised vehicles like the Hubble and componnents for the space station. That and the capability to bring payloads down to the surface, as Dark reminds us.

On another point, it's nice to see the old workhorse Atlas has undergone yet another upgrade and is still chugging along.

[The Dark]

Oh, yeah, there was some celebrating around here when that Russian engine proved it would work . Not one of my father's projects, but everyone in the company gave a big sigh of relief, since it gives us a foot up, being able to chuck almost twice as much as anyone else. The only rocket more powerful than Atlas V was Saturn V...


OK, frightening thought just popped in my mind. I know it would never work, but what if we harnessed 2 Atlas Vs together like the Solid Rocket Boosters of the Shuttle launch system? My mind just boggled.

[Patrick Degan]

OK, frightening thought just popped in my mind. I know it would never work, but what if we harnessed 2 Atlas Vs together like the Solid Rocket Boosters of the Shuttle launch system? My mind just boggled.

It'd be better simply to steal the Energiya/Buran design from the Russians. Or, revive the old DynaSoar concept with a craft you can stick on top of an Atlas V and designed with a bay large enough to hold collapsable manipulator arms for orbital repair missions, space station construction, and a docking module.

[Enlightenment]

When the first wheel was being painstakingly carved by the first man to invent it, I'm sure a woman was saying "will you stop fucking around with that thing and go carry that stuff up to the cave?"

Not a good analogy. Wheels have a demonstratable and significant benefit for human existance. In contrast manned spaceflight has no benefits. Like art, sport or expeditions to climb Mount Everest, manned spaceflight has no constructive purpose above and beyond asthetics or vanity.

NASA and other government human spaceflight programs are not a step on some quasi-religious spread of humanity from Earth to space and must not be thought of as such. Government space programs are simply manifestations of nationalism and make-work projects (pork) for domestic industry. These projects and expressions will never, ever, evolve from sending very small groups of hand-picked geniuses to twiddle their thumbs in orbit to anything resembling a tourism or colonization effort that could lead to anyone with the money being given the opportunity to experience weightlessness or walk on mars.

In the grand scheme of things Columbia's destruction will have no effect whatsoever on the idealized delusions that some people have about the spread of humanity into space. The incident will have no effect because no existing human spaceflight program is even remotely leading in the direction of colonization or the opening of space to tourism. The incident will also have no effect because humanity will never spread to space. There is simply no economic inventive to put large numbers of people offworld do anything.

Most pure research can be done by robots (Hubble, Cassini, etc, etc). More challenging research such as Martian geological surveys can be performed by small numbers of people controlling large numbers of robots. Nowhere in any of this is a requirement for the kind of offworld population base that some people regard--with a decidedly religious zeal--to be a fundamental part of human destiny.

Don't think of Columbia as some kind of setback in human expansion into space as this option was never on the cards in the first place. The loss of Columbia is in some sense tragic but thousands of people die every day in accidents. Unlike those who get killed in the mundane daily struggle commuting from home to work, the Columbia crew died doing something that was very likely their lifelong dream. Their deaths aren't all that much different than those of people who climb everest and get killed in storms.

Statistically the Space Shuttle is a deathtrap even by space launch standards. However anyone who was able to pass the selection and training process to ride a flying bomb has been educated more than well enough to recognize this. The crewmembers would not have been there if they were not prepared to accept the risks.

[phongn]

I stand corrected, then. My most recent sources on American rocketry evidently are not sufficently updated.

I noticed it when you posted the Titan 34

In reference to your question, it seems that the only things which would absolutely require the shuttle would seem to be specialised vehicles like the Hubble and componnents for the space station. That and the capability to bring payloads down to the surface, as Dark reminds us.

Indeed - and even space-station assembly can be done without a manned orbiter (Mir didn't have the luxury of a space shuttle). It was good for HST, though, since it needed glasses

On another point, it's nice to see the old workhorse Atlas has undergone yet another upgrade and is still chugging along.

It even uses Russian engines now

[phongn]

OK, frightening thought just popped in my mind. I know it would never work, but what if we harnessed 2 Atlas Vs together like the Solid Rocket Boosters of the Shuttle launch system? My mind just boggled.

It'd be better simply to steal the Energiya/Buran design from the Russians. Or, revive the old DynaSoar concept with a craft you can stick on top of an Atlas V and designed with a bay large enough to hold collapsable manipulator arms for orbital repair missions, space station construction, and a docking module.

The Russian space shuttle project is long dead; I doubt you can get it operational anymore. DynaSoar was an interesting concept, yes. Pity that it was killed in the 1960s (the USAF was most unhappy about that)

[Patrick Degan]

The Russian space shuttle project is long dead; I doubt you can get it operational anymore. DynaSoar was an interesting concept, yes. Pity that it was killed in the 1960s (the USAF was most unhappy about that)

I was talking about the basic design concept; I know there are no Burans other than the one which did one unmanned flight and is now a theme park attraction. What a waste, that.

[Shaka[Zulu]]

note: Massive snippage

In contrast manned spaceflight has no benefits. Like art, sport or expeditions to climb Mount Everest, manned spaceflight has no constructive purpose above and beyond asthetics or vanity.

These projects and expressions will never, ever, evolve from sending very small groups of hand-picked geniuses to twiddle their thumbs in orbit to anything resembling a tourism or colonization effort that could lead to anyone with the money being given the opportunity to experience weightlessness or walk on mars.

The incident will also have no effect because humanity will never spread to space. There is simply no economic inventive to put large numbers of people offworld do anything.

Most pure research can be done by robots (Hubble, Cassini, etc, etc). More challenging research such as Martian geological surveys can be performed by small numbers of people controlling large numbers of robots. Nowhere in any of this is a requirement for the kind of offworld population base that some people regard--with a decidedly religious zeal--to be a fundamental part of human destiny.

Statistically the Space Shuttle is a deathtrap even by space launch standards. However anyone who was able to pass the selection and training process to ride a flying bomb has been educated more than well enough to recognize this. The crewmembers would not have been there if they were not prepared to accept the risks.

while I agree about it being a deathtrap, dont you think you are being a tad pessimistic? (I suppose it comes with being a curmudgeon, but damn man...)