[rs79bm]

Of course, but it got cancelled because of the inordinate amount of funding it required. I would like to see new concepts designed that can do things more effectively and efficiently. We can do that, but it does require a lot of work.

[RayChuang88]

NASA last year had started to put out bids for engineering studies on a replacement for the Space Shuttle that would be flying in the next decade. It looks like that project will have to be accelerated with the unfortunate loss of Columbia. :-(

I agree it's time to revive the aerospace plane idea. Besides the fact you no longer need complicated vertical launch facilities, it also means the aerospace plane could operate from anywhere in the world that has at least a 12,000 foot runway. The only infrastructure improvements besides new hangers to store and service the aerospace plane is fuelling facilities for liquid methane or hydrogen slush fuel that the aerospace plane will need.

[ImaGraftedBranch]

Time to Revisit the Aerospace Plane Concept in Light of this Disaster Can we grieve, first?

[the_doc]

Thanks for the opinion. Sounds reasonable to me.

[canuck_conservative]

I don't get it.

"... the frozen slushy hydrogen was pumped THROUGH the aircraft, to the leading edges of the wings and nose first, then to less hot areas, then finally to the engines, where it was burned..."

The ship doesn't need to burn fuel on re-entry; the problem is an EXCESS of speed! Fuel is burned only at takeoff, to GET to orbital speed. Thus - what's left for re-entry cooling? Explain, please.

And liquid slush hydroden? Never heard of that.

[weikel]

Bump

[taxed2death]

It seems like an incredible waste of human life......just to study "dust". Couldn't this mission have been completed by an unmanned space drone?

[Eala]

it is perhaps time to revisit the intentions behind the now-cancelled National Aerospace Plane (the X-30) program.

I worked on the Shuttle program when its only flights were still in wind-tunnels ('73-'75). The Shuttles are long past their time -- but NASA has become so encumbered by bureaucracy I wouldn't expect to see anythng new without a HUGE infusion of cash. (It was while I was there, 30 years ago, that one of the scientists observed a bleak milestone attained: NASA's staffing had reached the level one bureaucrat for each researcher.)

[Eala]

the need for the Shuttle-type tiles

Those tiles were amazing stuff in their day. Tough enough to survive the rigors of re-entry, light enough for the application, and providing an amazing amount of insulation. But there was always concern about them -- the last program I worked on at NASA was an ultra-high-speed wind-tunnel test to see how well a tile would stand up to the dynamic forces encountered during re-entry.

[Brett66]

The Orbital Space Plane project could be sped up, it is time to think seriously where NASA should be going with it's launch system. A positive direction could result from this, where we get a safer, less complex, less expensive means of getting people into space. In an ideal world, NASA would simply buy tickets on a private company's launch system to get to the ISS. Unfortunately no private company has such a system but I expect that to change in the next decade.

[jaz.357]

Shuttle technology is 40 years old.

[LibKill]

I, for one, would think that a newer more reliable space bird would be a great memorial to these intrepid souls. But I can understand if others don't want to think about it just yet.

[RightWhale]

Airplanes are fine, but they have to re-enter the atmosphere. I would prefer the early space capsule design for getting back to earth over the ability to land near the airport snack bar. Re-think the whole concept and separate crewed launches from freight launches.

[alloysteel]

Using these space shuttles to operate our space program is like using DC-3's for the main routes on airlines in 2003. It could be done, but there aren't enough DC-3's to do the job satisfactorily, and they are inherently far more cumbersome and inefficient than the third and fourth generation jets which have replaced them.

If we started right now, how soon would the "scram-jet" be operational? What are our other options?

[no-s]

Look, the whole thing is still incredibly dangerous. Lives must be risked for manned spaceflight to succeed. We must honor the fallen by aggressively examining all aspects of the program.It's important to know what happened, how it happened, and especially why.

I feel the role of the government should be examined as well. Look at what has happened to all of the alternative launcher initiatives on the part of industry. Any that looked competitive with NASA were sabotaged financially by NASA. A program viable in all other respects must still operate with NASA's blessing.

All that is left of the fallen is an investigation, a memorial, and compassion for family and friends. We owe it to ourselves and the future to not let them die in vain. If we learn anything we must apply those lessons learned. And we must also look back to what is already well known, This is where I climb up on my soapbox, and please don't take this the wrong way.

Asking for a government solution here is asking for more of the same. NASA should be a research organization contracting out research. Building and operating a space fleet should not be in the NASA charter. There do exist current, viable contenders to NASA's space flight and research operations. This includes the Russian program, and private concerns currently operating outside the missle-launcher industrial complex, for example Kistler Aerospace comes to mind. We don't need cadillac programs. The most successful operating spacecraft available today is Soyuz, arguably 1950's era technology. If we want a replacement, a government program is the most backasswards solution, if at all possible. The competition and initiative required for a succesful NASP or SSTO is verifiably not present in the FedGov, or they would have already succeeded after 40 years of trying!

For further insight look up links to the Space Access Society. You won't find it at NASA, except in research.

[merak]

Shuttles were a good design for the 1970s. It's time for NASA, and America, to come into the 21st century with a new spaceplane that acts like a taxi or a truck, not the Titanic.

One way of looking at it is this: I wouldn't think of driving down I95 in a 20-year-old car; why would anybody want to go to space in a 20-year-old space vehicle?

[reg45]

hydrogen slush fuel

If liquid hydrogen is further cooled (almost to the solidification point) it would form a slush. You wouldn't want to cool it any further otherwise you would have solid hydrogen - that stuff would be hard to pump.