[Destro]

I welcome all comments-thoughts.

[AdA$tra]

I really think we all want to know what caused this but grounding the entire fleet is uncalled for. It isn't like they are going to find an inherent problem with all the shuttles that only shows up after 107 shuttle missions.

[Alberta's Child]

Good post. We have to give credit where credit is due -- the U.S. is far ahead of the Russians in terms of technology, but when it comes to doing "ordinary" tasks in space the Russians have been doing it for so long that they're much better at it than we are. This is precisely why the ISS is a joint U.S.-Russian effort -- The U.S. does what it does best, and the Russians do what they do best.

The real advantage of unmanned flight is that you don't have to factor human safety into major decisions.

[Palladin]

These are very convincing arguments. I agree, the space shuttle is now an anachronism.

[Brad C.]

Bump for a later read

[Crusader21stCentury]

We should now rethink our space transportation system, what we need are three different vehicles if we are truly serious about conquering space.

“THE TANKER”
We need a heavy lift un-manned vehicle for bringing materials and supplies into orbit.
We have done this before; it was called the Saturn V.

“THE BUS”
We need a truly maneuverable personnel carrier. It must be lightweight, capable of launch and powered during landing.
This vehicle would have survivability as its primary mission.

“THE TRAILER”
For the times that we need to bring equipment and materials back, this vehicle would be similar to the current shuttle, but would have an escape capsule for a cockpit and only two or three member crew.
It would only be used for returning equipment not for bringing anything into orbit.

“SPACE STATIONS”
As to the foolishness of the current International Space Station, it is a complete waste of money.
It has been re-designed for cost reductions to the point of total failure.

We should do what we can to place at least one station (if not three for communications) in geo-synchronous orbit
and to then place a station where it will do us the most good with less need for fuel to maintain an orbit. LaGrange Points
At this station is where we build the launch facilities for planetary exploration.

[withteeth]

You remind me of how FR used to be. Excellent post.

[Mark Felton]

Debris Photos (post them here)

[VietVet]

What can I say? My heart is broken. I wanted to be an astronaut myself, when I was young. It is as if my own brothers and sisters had died.

But that is no reason to stop the manned flight program, and for the immediate future, that means the Shuttle. The Shuttle and the Soyez are the only manned space craft at this time.

The investigation into the causes has already begun. Quite probably a change in procedures, such as requiring an EVA inspection before each descent from orbit will be instituted. Engineering changes to the remaining Shuttle craft may be recommended. But like a rider who is thrown from a horse, we as a nation must get back in the saddle as soon as possible.

There is no perfect technology. Accidents will happen, and brave men and women will die. That is why we treat the astronauts as heroes.

IMO, Congress must fund a program to replace the shuttles as soon as possible. The new shuttles ought to incorporate everything we have learned about structure and materials in the last 30 years (yes, the Shuttles' basic design is that old), but otherwise should be as much off-the-shelf as possible; there isn't time at the moment for R&D and exotic new designs, which might take years to work out. The Shuttle is a proven design, with 20 years of 98% accident free service behind it.

Indeed, let us build 20 new shuttles, three right away (and I am perfectly aware that 'right away' means years of work; I mean start right away): the Enterprize II, the Challenger II and the Columbia II. And after that, we can build one every year (or however fast we can) to replace the existing fleet: the Grissom through the Ramon.

This would revive our Space Program. The increased number of Shuttles, closer to the original concept of the number which would be used, would permit the accomplishment of many projects on "hold", and some in danger of abandonment, for lack of launch vehicles and payload capacity.

Replacing the lost and aging Shuttles with existing technology is only the start. The next step would be designing and building new space craft to do the Shuttle's job, and to do new jobs. The first such new design might be an orbit to orbit shuttle, a craft never intended to re-enter Earth's atmosphere, but to go from the ISS to other sattlites, even those in high earth or geosynchronous orbit, carrying supplies and technicians to repair and replace malfunctioning sattlites and remove no longer needed ones. A second new design might be a smaller shuttle, intended to use existing Atlas-Centaur, Titan II or Soyez launch boosters. If the Shuttle is a truck, this would be amore of a space going mini-van. One of its principle missions might be to ferry personnel to and from the ISS, as well as carry smaller amounts of supplies. These projects could use existing technology.

The third, and truely long-term project would be to develop a new vehicle and system, using new technologies, which would replace the Shuttles. We could restart some of those programs which were cancelled because "the technology did not exist yet." We could refurbish the Russian's Buryan space craft. We could revive the idea of launch from aircraft, and single stage surface to orbit projects, and laser powered launches.

We can change NASA from a budget driven bureaucracy back to a goal oriented active agency. This would revive our high tech industry at a time when it is floundering, not because of technical problems, but because of business problems. And it will proclaim to ourselves and to the World, that America does not let such tragedies set us back. Rather they inspire us to try harder to go farther.

"Ad astera per ardua"

VietVet

[onedoug]

May I ask you to look at post #14 of this thread?

Best.