Safely Home
Space Shuttle Discovery returned to earth this morning without incident, Thank God. The first test flight after the Columbia tragedy was declared an overwhelming success. In addition to docking with and resupplying the International Space station, techniques for repairing damage to the Shuttle were tested. Do to continued shedding of foam on the external fuel tank, the Shuttles will remain grounded for the foreseeable future, until a better adhesive can be found. The exploration of space continues tomorrow with the launch of the robotic satellite "Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter" This craft will further seek out water reserves on the Red Planet.
The Space Shuttle is an incredible feat of technology, being the most complex machine ever built by Man. My opinion is that it's time has come and gone. The same applies to the Space Station. One of the main reasons the Shuttle looks and operates like it does no longer exist. The military's use of it to capture and retrieve Soviet Soyuz capsules and their twin counterpart, spy satellites. If you superimpose a scale Soyuz over the Shuttle's cargo bay you'd see its an exact fit. No need to steal one when we get to ride in them all the time.
For manned spaceflight we can do better, safer and cheaper. This doesn't mean we should throw away the Shuttle completely. If you take the "Stack" and remove the Shuttle, you have a remarkably sound Heavy Lift rocket, with decades of reliability. This is known as the Shuttle C concept in space-geek circles. Replace the Shuttle with a gigantic, disposable cargo pod and Wa-Lah! No need for wings, landing gear, presurrized crew compartment,heat shielding tiles, windows,etc. The avionics would be simpler by an order of magnitude. Even the three main rockets engines on the orbiter could be replaced by a single modern engine on the pod. When an object is delivered to orbit, the pod can simply be deorbited and burn up into an ocean. Recovery and refurbishing of the solid rocket boosters would remain the same. This and maintaining launch facilities would also save experienced workers their jobs. To me it would be a shame to waste decades of perfecting this equipment just to start from scratch.
To be continued, including thoughts on new manned spacecraft and the missions we WILL fly.
posted by Libby Gone™ | 12:45 PM
13 Comments:
Kajun:
Are you being deliberately disingenuous? While it might be technically possible for the Space Shuttle™ to land on the Moon, how would propose it escape the Moon's gravity after the "simple matter" of external repairs were done? It really is rocket science, y'know!
Libby Gone™:
As you probably know, NASA is already working on the next generation of near-Earth vehicles, and private companies are doing so as well. Eventually the "terra-forming" of Mars will make it an excellent staging area for the mining of the asteroid belt. We not be around to see it, but unless "J.C." comes back before it happens, it seems inevitable...
kajun, I agree and will elaborate in a future post. The moon would be scientifically more valuable as about every damn experiment we can do in earth orbit has been ridiculously repeated by all three space faring nations since 1961.
Camo,
Despite Moonraker and Armegeddon the Space Shuttle could never practically be equipped to escape
earth orbit, making it as useful as the 1969 Chevy pickup it is. HAHA!The Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Transfer Vehicle, as well as Rutans work are part of the mold I'm scraping off my brain for an upcoming blog, stay tuned.
And too all, Thank you very much for stopping by and the input!
I see that a private company is trying to sell round trip tickets to the moon(circumlunar nonlanding flights) with Russian spacecraft. The Ruskies could not perform Podsadka in the sixties and I guarranty they cannot do it now. (earth orbit rendezvous between Soyuz and booster to accelerate to the moon and back).100 million to get blow up in low earth orbit!
Kajun:
The Space Station is where they performed the repairs. That was a pretty good purpose for it, don't you think?
Libby Gone™:
Exactly. It couldn't leave Earth without those massive boosters, nor could it depart the Moon under it's own power...although it could theoretically land there, but then it'd be stranded.
IMO the moon Station would be more scientifically viable as research into native materials could be pursued.
The shuttle and the space station enjoy a symbiotic relationship, each irrelevant without the other.
Camo,
I think the external retro packs and landing gear would rather make it nearly impossible to get that dinosaur to land on the moon, safely,intact.
Libby Gone™:
Puh-leeze! If the multi-billion dollar glider called the Space Shuttle can land safely on Earth, it could surely do so on the Moon, where there's only ¼ the gravity...
As far as space travel is concerned, in general, IMO the private sector is just getting into it. With all of the nano-, and other new technologies of today, and who knows what ?!? of tomorrow, what's coming up next will be phenominal! I certainly envy my son when I think of the things he'll see come to fruition in his lifetime!
Camo,
Are you pulling my chain? Glider is the key. No atomosphere on the moon. No gliding. Would have to add some kind of descent module.
I'll throw in my 2 cents.
Kajun is right... to an extent. Rather than call it a "space station" however, I'd call it a moon base.
However, there is a need for the space station ...a place where you can do long-term, zero-G experiments. A moon base would not be zero-G, and shuttle-type vehicles are OK for short-term, zero-G experiments... but not for long-term stuff.
Does that make any sense?
P.S. -- Praise be to God for the safe return of the astronauts.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Amen. I respect the humanity when the astronauts remembered not only Challenger and Columbia, but also Soyuz 1 and 11. That's class.
Apollo 1 also.....
Post a Comment
<< Home