NationStates Jolt Archive

Here is an issue I would like to hear other peoples judement on!

Do you think NASA should of stoped the space shuttle because of the damage that was reported?

It reported something fly off the wing during liftoff.

Please tell me your oppinion!

I think they should of called them back and if it was ok send them back! Maybe they could of fixed it at the space station thay were heading for?
I dont know!

There is always debris comming off during launch it can't be stopped. Its very hard to tell if it was damaged. They could call them back but they would not be able to send em back because they would have to Jetison the SRB and the EFT and refuel costing millions.

You can't just call back a shuttle that easy. Every launch costs a good chunk of money, that fuel tanks and huge take off engines are not reusable like the shuttle is. Not to mention, you can't just go back to Earth once you are up there. You have to wait a day for the Earth to revolve and then they have to enter at a certain spot called a "window" and hope that thier trajectory is correct or they could end up landing in China. (That was exageration, but you get the point)

As far as the shuttles go. They are old, they need to rebuild new ones from scratch. because they are tying to hold them together with duct tape now days.

You can't just call back a shuttle that easy. Every launch costs a good chunk of money, that fuel tanks and huge take off engines are not reusable like the shuttle is. Not to mention, you can't just go back to Earth once you are up there. You have to wait a day for the Earth to revolve and then they have to enter at a certain spot called a "window" and hope that their trajectory is correct or they could end up landing in China. (That was exaggeration, but you get the point)

As far as the shuttles go. They are old, they need to rebuild new ones from scratch. because they are tying to hold them together with duct tape now days.



Actually...the fuel tank is the only part of the shuttle not re-used. Those huge engines you speak of (The SRB's) are jettisoned from the tank 2 minutes after launch where 3 1 ton parachutes lower them into the Indian Ocean where they are retrieved and brought back repaired-refueled and used again.

Just thought I'd point that out.

Shouldn't this be in the "General" boards? It's not about the issues that we get in Nationstates, and that's what this forum is for.

Shouldn't this be in the "General" boards? It's not about the issues that we get in Nationstates, and that's what this forum is for.
Correct.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v488/frisbeeteria/moved_sm.jpg

No, they shouldn't have cancelled the flight. Besides, it was way too late for that by the time that damned foam insulation flew off.

What they need to do is get a clue!

NOTE TO NASA: Lose the damned foam, you dimwits!

You know, I understand that I know more about the space program than most people, but I thought it was common knowledge that you CAN'T JUST TURN THE SHUTTLE AROUND DURING LIFT-OFF!

In order to stop the launch in mid-flight, you need to make an emergency landing in Africa, which has never been done, and can only be done after the SRBs have been seperated, since you cannot stop them once they fire.

Also, of course, it's more dangerous to make an emergency landing than to send them up and back again, even with the possibility of damage.

Well, the shuttle isn't one of those space ships you see in the movies with relatively unlimited power supply and force shields. To me, it's like the biplane of the space ships in the future.

No, they shouldn't have cancelled the flight. Besides, it was way too late for that by the time that damned foam insulation flew off.

What they need to do is get a clue!

NOTE TO NASA: Lose the damned foam, you dimwits!
I'm pretty sure the last time they got rid of the foam the shuttle landed in Texas (well, most of it anyway).

Here's an idea!
Drop the F-22 fighters and the Star Wars system and build the most awesome super spaceship ever. You'll have enough money left over to cure cancer and end world hunger....

This thread reminds me of that matress commercial they play late at night. One lady says something like "This truely is 'space-age' material."

I laught every time I hear that. The "space age" is about 3 decares ago. Hell, I believe we're already passed the information age and headed on into another "tech" age that has yet to be coined (but will probably have something to do with fuel effeciency).

I wouldn't go cover my space ships with foam to protect them from heat as with most foam, it crumbles and falls off. Foam is short-term once use product which is designed to fall apart. The shuttle foam is better than that commercial stuff we all use, but it's still foam all the same.

They stopped it because something arose and they have to be very, very careful after what happened last time. They have to be 200% sure nothing bad could possibly happen, because if it does, then they'll likely be shut down for a long, long time. NASA is on it's last leg as it is.

What alternatives exist for the foam?

What alternatives exist for the foam?
Uhm, the people in Gitmo? They could replace the foam, right?

I wouldn't go cover my space ships with foam to protect them from heat as with most foam, it crumbles and falls off. Foam is short-term once use product which is designed to fall apart. The shuttle foam is better than that commercial stuff we all use, but it's still foam all the same.


The foam is not there to protect the ship from heat that's what the tiles are for. The foam is there to keep dew from freezing and ice building up on the fuel tank due to the extremely cold temp. of the fuel inside the tank.

Here is an issue I would like to hear other peoples judement on!

Do you think NASA should of stoped the space shuttle because of the damage that was reported?

It reported something fly off the wing during liftoff.

Please tell me your oppinion!
The foam came off while they were already lifting off, right? That is sort of central to my opinion here.
In my understanding, you can't very well just bring the shuttle back down. It's rocketing through the air at hundreds of mile per hour atop a pillar of flame. You can't just say "Oops, foam fell off, cut the engines!"
If the foam was actually going to do damage, I don't think we could have stopped it by landing again. If I'm understanding what happened the last time right, the damage would have happened just as the foam was falling off due to the foam itself causing damage, not some aftereffect caused indirectly by the foam. The only thing one could do for safety is to prevent the foam from falling off in the first place.

So no, they should not and probably could not stop the mission due to the foam, assuming my information is all correct.

If we learned anything from the recent contest (that one where that Steve guy flew to the edge of space and did it again) is that governments suck at science. Private enterprise is the way to go

By the way, there's no telling whether or not this is the first time foam has fallen off at launch...this is the first time they've had near as many camera angles on the shuttle...

As far as the shuttles go. They are old, they need to rebuild new ones from scratch. because they are tying to hold them together with duct tape now days.
And make them look cooler! :D

People keep saying that the space shuttle is old, but they fail to realize that it is continually upgraded. The space shuttles we have today are not the same as when they were first released. The engine and other systems are continually upgraded. They are more compareable to a restored classic car, than to a beat up old car.

Also, NASA is already working on the next generation but they are not done yet and have no need to rush it. The x-33 is on its way.

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/x-33.htm

I wouldn't go cover my space ships with foam to protect them from heat as with most foam, it crumbles and falls off. Foam is short-term once use product which is designed to fall apart. The shuttle foam is better than that commercial stuff we all use, but it's still foam all the same.
yes but the foam is covered by a something that can stand heat...some kind of metal or something

People keep saying that the space shuttle is old, but they fail to realize that it is continually upgraded. The space shuttles we have today are not the same as when they were first released. The engine and other systems are continually upgraded. They are more compareable to a restored classic car, than to a beat up old car.
I have heard that the computer systems are out-of-date.
Do you, by any chance, know whether that is true or not?

I have heard that the computer systems are out-of-date.
Do you, by any chance, know whether that is true or not?

No, I cant say for sure although it sounds false to me because I know for a fact that the mission control systems have undergone tremendous upgrades, and if the systems down here have improved it wouldnt make any sense that the systems onboard werent upgraded along with them. But I cant say for sure because I have no first hand knowledge of that. The main engine, however I can say for sure from first hand knowledge has undergone many upgrades since its invention and is continually adjusted and upgraded.

yes but the foam is covered by a something that can stand heat...some kind of metal or something

Nope the foam is just hard foam glued to the tank by.....let me remember what its called.

Should have.

I learnt to handle your modal verbs. Kindly, reciprocate!

/Pet peeve.

If we learned anything from the recent contest (that one where that Steve guy flew to the edge of space and did it again) is that governments suck at science. Private enterprise is the way to go
No, but yes.

You are confusing two acheivements at Scaled Composites. Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie were pilots that flew SpaceShipOne to "space" (100km/62.5 miles up) winning the $10 million Ansari X-prize for the Scaled Composites company. Scaled is owned by Burt Rutan. Steve Fossett (not Steve Guy ;) ) flew the Global Flyer around the world.

***

Calling back the shuttle after a foam-strike would be potentially disasterous. If the foam dislodged any of the very delicate ceramic tiles on the bottom, they would crack, several thousand degree gas would get inside, and we'd have a second Columbia incident on our hands (assuming it hit the bottom of the craft, and that it was high enough that atmospheric frictino would be a factor.)

What I, an aspiring Aeronuatical Engineer that dreams of working for Rutan at Scaled, thinks NASA should do, is; make a very thin carbon-fibre shell around the tank. That's what SpaceShipOne's tank was made out of. The shell would keep chunks of foam in. To compensate for the added mass of the shell, take out all the triple and quadruple back-up systems, even some of the secondaries. What use are they if the shuttle is going to burn up anyway?

And, while this is in use, cut the political fluff in NASA, give them private sponsors, change the motto from "Safety First" back to "Risk is our Business," and work on a replacement. And a Heavy-Lift Launch Vehicle.

People keep saying that the space shuttle is old, but they fail to realize that it is continually upgraded. The space shuttles we have today are not the same as when they were first released. The engine and other systems are continually upgraded. They are more compareable to a restored classic car, than to a beat up old car.

Also, NASA is already working on the next generation but they are not done yet and have no need to rush it. The x-33 is on its way.

http://www.fas.org/spp/guide/usa/launch/x-33.htm
I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but X-33 was cancelled. And FAS hasn't been updated for a few years.

Are you talking about the stopping of the program or asking Discovery to abort in the middle of lift off?

Either way, no. If you look at it, the maned space program has an impressive track record and is needed. The shuttle itself is not due for retirement till 2010ish or so (I think the last year I saw was 2012), and there is no replacement for the shuttle, which is needed for the ISS.

The foam, BTW, covers the main fule tank, which is filed with liquid hydrogen and oxygen and is very, very cold (obviously). The foam insulates the rest of the shuttle from the extream cold (it was a frozen O-ring that doomed Challenger).

I'm told there is some better ideas for that insulation, but would require an extream make over of the shuttle and cost a lot of money. It's hard to say if the program is worth it.

Spaceship-One, while an excellent event and worked to restore intrest in space is far from having the capabilities of the shuttle.

NASA needs to end the program simple as that, it is a HUGE waste of money. And this time they wasted hundreds of millions and didnt even fix the problem. If that happened in any other organization outside government everybody responsible for it would be fired. But governments never fire people and never downsize anything because they are like a teenager, he gets his money from his parents so he just flings the money all over the place because he doesnt know what it is like to actually work for it.

The space shuttle is due to be used till 2030 NASA has stated before Columbia, just after they canceled a project to build a better, cheaper shuttle. The fact the shuttles still even use tiles is proof enough of how outdated it is as better systems have been designed and used most recently on spaceship one, you notice it had no tiles to break off or any of that stupid.

But like i said the space shuttle is a government welfare project to provide jobs for geeks, it provides jobs for thousands over 5 states, even if its outdated, overpriced, deadly, and totally useless NOBODY in the US government will ever have the balls to cancel it, it would be political suicide to fire thousands of americans. I dont understand why but governments are always inefficent and wasteful, i think it has to do with my teenager comparison.

I'm told there is some better ideas for that insulation, but would require an extream make over of the shuttle and cost a lot of money. It's hard to say if the program is worth it.


As i said in mine comment, they just spent over 100 million NOT fixing it...so yeah, sounds likes its just as expensive.

And what the hell, their inventive ways of fixing things is just plain old chalk gun from home depot and a putty knife!? Some of the best brains in science supposedly and thats what they came up with? Why dont they try duct tape too. hey sometimes the simple things work the best, but geezus i bet you they spent millions on this chalk gun with putty knife plan.

I have a feeling alot of people that are posting in this thread don't really know alot about the Space Program. First, the Shuttle retires in 2010. The CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is going to be the next generation of Space craft, not a replacement for the Shuttle since it won't be capable of doing shuttle type missions. The CEV is designed to go the moon and mars, and beyond I suppose. Lockheed Martin and the team of Northrop Grumman and Boeing are competing to design and build the CEV, just like the Joint Strike Fighter program. The winner will be picked next year, instead of 2008 as was orginally planned so that the vehicle can be ready to go right when the remaining Shuttles are put on display.

http://www.space.com/news/ft_050517_cev_florida.html

When the Shuttle retires the race to the moon and mars will really start. The question is, can the US beat Russia, China, and India to it? The European Space Agency is planning on developing its own human flight technology but I don't think they are going to be competitors in the race to the moon and mars but maybe they will surprise the world.


"Rourke's Drift... It'd take an Irishman to give his name to a rotten stinking middle o' nowhere hole like this."

I remember the founder of Virgin Atlantic (the airline) Sir Richard Branson said the Space Shuttle Program is like an airline where 7% of the passengers don't come back alive.

If it wasn't for the lack of a real alternative, I'd say its time to send them to the museums.

During the Apollo program there was WAY to many mess ups and deaths costing billions. No one ever said that the Apollo Program is a waste of money and should be cancelled. Now TWO only TWO shuttles are lost and they are gay and need to be replaced they are a waste of money? Ok whatever mind you this is space travel its no easy task nor is it safe. Just read some of the crew members interviews for any shuttle mission and they all mention that they know the risk and do it anyway. Ok so if the shuttle was to dangerous no pilots or anything would be around so I think we're good. I say again loosing only 2 shuttles over the years is an amazing accomplishment in space technology. I mean come on people we are talking space travel....ITS NOT SAFE.

The fact the shuttles still even use tiles is proof enough of how outdated it is as better systems have been designed and used most recently on spaceship one, you notice it had no tiles to break off or any of that stupid.



To be fair, Spaceship One was travelling at Mach 3, the Shuttle orbits at approximately Mach 25 and is many times more massive. The velocity difference alone causes a 64 fold increase in the energy needed to bring the Shuttle to a stop, so it needs levels of heat protection that simply don't apply to Spaceship One.

As for the private vs public funding of spaceflight. I'm all for private companies competing to take us into space, but genuine innovation can currently only be provided by state funded space programmes (however rarely) as governments can afford to develop new technologies without worrying about their profitability.

I also think it's still going to be a long long time before we get private companies achieving orbital passenger flights. This isn't a knock at Rutan. What he achieved was incredible. However there's a very big gap between a Mach 3 capable vehicle and a Mach 25 capable one. I wish him all the best though.

We can't just END the shuttle program. They are the only craft capable of bringing the large payloads needed to the ISS. Soyuz is too small. What we need is a hold-over while we make a better shuttle. Something cheap, with no provisions for research equipment. Something big enough (perhaps based on the shuttle's design?) that can carry the shuttle's payload (or more!) and still send three or four ISS crew up.

While that is in use for a few years, a replacement could be made.

Gulf, comparing SS1 to the Shuttle is like comparing a scooter to a pick-up truck. It'd be better to compare SS1 with Mercury; more similarities.

SS1 is incapable of withstanding the heat of re-entry... unless they fold the wings back and present all that surface area; slowing it. (I can imagine Burt, confounded with this problem of burning up on re-entry, exclaiming; "Hey, let's do a slip!") That's why SS1 doesn't have tiles; Rutan used a different method to slow it down, so they weren't needed.


--Aaron (16 year old that squanders the money his parents give him.)

I have heard that the computer systems are out-of-date.
Do you, by any chance, know whether that is true or not?

Actually, the computer I'm on right now is more powerfull than the shuttle's computers were before the Columbia disaster. Since then, they've recieved a signifigant overhaul.

Remember that Columbia had the oldest computer system in the fleet. Not only was it an origional shuttle, but the others were given signifigant upgrades when they were re-fitted for the ISS

During the Apollo program there was WAY to many mess ups and deaths costing billions. No one ever said that the Apollo Program is a waste of money and should be cancelled. Now TWO only TWO shuttles are lost and they are gay and need to be replaced they are a waste of money? Ok whatever mind you this is space travel its no easy task nor is it safe. Just read some of the crew members interviews for any shuttle mission and they all mention that they know the risk and do it anyway. Ok so if the shuttle was to dangerous no pilots or anything would be around so I think we're good. I say again loosing only 2 shuttles over the years is an amazing accomplishment in space technology. I mean come on people we are talking space travel....ITS NOT SAFE.

Actually, there were three deaths, and it was during a 'plugs out' test, not even preparing for launch. And really, there were only three signifigant accidents, only one which caused a death, and only one other one that seriously threatened anyone.

Fact is, though, the shuttle is safer than earlier forms of spaceflight, but when you take 100 missions, accidents are bound to happen. Safer does not mean safe.

However, it's the best we have for now. It's an incredably important piece of technology, and the most advanced spaceship in the world. It does things no other craft can do, and it's incredably important that we get them up and running again. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be replaced, but it's not as much of a rush as people think.

Actually, there were three deaths, and it was during a 'plugs out' test, not even preparing for launch. And really, there were only three significant accidents, only one which caused a death, and only one other one that seriously threatened anyone.

Fact is, though, the shuttle is safer than earlier forms of space flight, but when you take 100 missions, accidents are bound to happen. Safer does not mean safe.

However, it's the best we have for now. It's an incredibly important piece of technology, and the most advanced spaceship in the world. It does things no other craft can do, and it's incredibly important that we get them up and running again. This doesn't mean that they shouldn't be replaced, but it's not as much of a rush as people think.


I agree and I was over doing it a bit about the Apollo program because I find it gay people think we should scrap the shuttle after only 2 accidents over the years of almost 150 flights now only 2 accidents after nearly 150 flights into space with the shuttle is pretty damn amazing. Looks like your the only one who actually reads anything I post after looking at some of the other posts also.