2003 Columbia Disaster

Not that I know of as it cost to much besides unfortunatly the shuttle will only fly 16 more time before it is grounded this includes the up coming atlantis launch to resupply the iss and yes the shuttle has a 30 degree reentry angle

Very sad about columbia

Jamie4590 wrote:

Is it because of a change in technology that shuttles are now used or does NASA still have projects that use the re-entry capsule?

The idea was that the shuttles would be reusable (to save money), and allow a more controlled landing. Being able to fly to the desired landing site and land in a more-or-less horizontal direction is a lot more gentle on what's inside than dropping straight down on a parachute.

Besides delivering cargos into space, the shuttle is supposed to be able to return items intact from space for reuse (like the cameras from the Hubble, and the astronauts). Hardware for space flight is built as light-weight as possible, because it is so expensive to lift it into orbit. The acceleration and vibration of launch is tough, but landing can be even tougher-- hence the desire to land on a runway instead of dropping straight down on a parachute.

I have heard that there was some consideration of returning the entire Hubble Space Telescope to Earth in the shuttle, but that it would not survive the landing.

The Russian Space Agency still uses capsules for re-entry, and NASA still makes use of Russian flights for both supplies and crew, so yes, you could say that NASA still uses capsules for re-entry.

NASA (and others) also use capsule-style entry vehicles for unmanned probes, like the Mars Rovers, Stardust (when it returned to Earth), and the Huygens probe (entering the atmosphere of Titan), to name a few.

Ed

the future of space travel?

amongst other things, the use of idyllic rocket vertical take off may just end with the shuttle as it is just so inefficient and expensive. ideas such as the rutan's space ship one (taken from dropping jet fighters from b52's) seem to be much more likely not only for the much smaller cost (re-usable launch vehicle, horizontal take-off) but also a much safer way of getting i
up high

The biggest problem is that NASA doesn't really have the budget to develop anything, so they will use the current system until the wings fall off. Actually, that already happened.

Now they will apply bandaids and proclaim all is well...until the next disaster. If the shuttle were a plane, major carriers would be retiring it from their fleet.

hinch wrote:

the future of space travel?

amongst other things, the use of idyllic rocket vertical take off may just end with the shuttle as it is just so inefficient and expensive. ideas such as the rutan's space ship one (taken from dropping jet fighters from b52's) seem to be much more likely not only for the much smaller cost (re-usable launch vehicle, horizontal take-off) but also a much safer way of getting i
up high

Where is the rest of it? 😂 ...an ugly little spud compared to the shuttle.
p.s. I've been looking for an excuse to use that emotion for ages!!!

Actually, I don't think it is anything more than a mock up. Truth be told, the space shuttle is much larger than it needs to be for the majority of its missions. Large items can surely be launched separately and then assembled, moved, played with by a later launch of a much smaller reuseable vehicle.

Hopefully, a future vehicle will be simpler, safer and have a supply of fuel on board so that one doesn't have to perform a dead stick landing of a flying brick every time.

OK heres the thing the shuttle has 16 more flights those missions to resupply the iss once those those 16 flight are done the shuttle is done then Nasa will be looking into different spacecraft so talking about a budget what other space craft can resupply the iss none imagine how much it would cost if they were to come up with a new space craft yes I agree the shuttle is aging an once the mission of the shuttle is done we will be going on the much safer spacecraft

P.S The shuttle is going up this month I belive it is Atlantis

What landing system do the space shuttles use? Is it an ILS and on the same frequency?

sort of, just a 30degree approach...

bruce dickenson landed the shuttle simulator manually - that can't have been in one take 😛

i really like the brits take on space travel with spaceship one: take an old learjet, rip it apart and stick some hydrogen fuel on. take off like a normal plane, drop wooooooooosh, play in space, re-enter slowly like a seed helicopter, fold the wings to normal and land.

clever stuff.

the 'shuttleski' shown above is a concept, but it looks like it will come to reality. it's small, cheap and simple.

Does anyone know the type of budget NASA works with?

Jamie4590 wrote:

Does anyone know the type of budget NASA works with?

Let me introduce you to google.com. In under a second it pointed me to http://www.nasa.gov/about/budget/

I wanted to discuss it with others who might have information thats difficult to unearth. This is where the well worn 'google' suggestion falls down. Thanks for the link though. Perhaps I should reimburse you for your time and trouble.

Is your surname Meldrew?

Jamie4590 wrote:

Is your surname Meldrew?

🙄 http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/reports/archive/features/victor_meldrew.shtml

hinch wrote:

i really like the brits take on space travel with spaceship one:

The brits? Other than using Richard Branson's money, Spaceship One was built by the yanks, not the brits. Burt Rutan is an american, and his Scaled Composites company is located in Mojave, California.

Ed

Guest Ed wrote:

hinch wrote:

i really like the brits take on space travel with spaceship one:

The brits? Other than using Richard Branson's money, Spaceship One was built by the yanks, not the brits. Burt Rutan is an american, and his Scaled Composites company is located in Mojave, California.

Ed

Actually the first "seed money" was from Paul Allen, of Microsoft fame.
I think 10 million.

Guest Ed wrote:

hinch wrote:

i really like the brits take on space travel with spaceship one:

The brits? Other than using Richard Branson's money, Spaceship One was built by the yanks, not the brits. Burt Rutan is an american, and his Scaled Composites company is located in Mojave, California.

Ed

Oh, wait, I see that Branson's money didn't come in until later (he has funded other projects with Scaled Composites); Spaceship One was funded by Paul Allen, one of the cofounders of Microsoft. So the brits had nothing to do with it.

The whole concept of launching a rocket plane from a bomber goes back to the 1940's, though, and the X-1. Oribital Sciences is still using that technique to launch the Pegasus rockets, using an old L-1011, I believe. Those are not manned launches, of course.

Ed

Are the Virgin Galactic flights intended to break free of earths atmosphere or fly just underneath it? Its something like FL1200 isn't it?

Jamie4590 wrote:

I Perhaps I should reimburse you for your time and trouble.

You can't afford it. 😂

Jamie4590 wrote:

Are the Virgin Galactic flights intended to break free of earths atmosphere or fly just underneath it? Its something like FL1200 isn't it?

I believe they are intended to be sub-orbital, but that would still put them above "most" of earth's atmosphere. You've got to get WAY out there to be completely above the atmosphere.

Ed

Is the entire shuttle sealed? If so how are the gyroscope instruments powered?

99jolegg wrote:

Jamie4590 wrote:

Is your surname Meldrew?