The Shuttle and American Space Program - A New Strategy

Discussion in 'Chit Chat' started by SouthAmerica, Jul 13, 2005.

  1. Chinese space shuttle

    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
     
    #21     Jul 28, 2005
  2. Nasa next space shuttle----x-37


    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
     
    #22     Jul 28, 2005
  3. You people really do not know what you are talking about.

    Yes the Shutel airframe is 30 years old but the internals are mostly newer technology. The Shutlte go through a major upgrade cycle about every three years.

    The Chineese ship is nothing more than a soviet Soyuz that has been slightly enlarger by a few inches. It still uses old school technology.

    In the space busniess, technology is not all that counts. The latest and greatest does not always provide the best solution to the problem. Hence the reason the Soviet Soyuz is still flying while the Shuttle is being grounded.
     
    #23     Jul 29, 2005
  4. Ironically, its probably the old technology that will effect the future most-a bit of space junk could take out anything thats been designed or envisaged so far.
     
    #24     Jul 29, 2005
  5. I have posted enough about NASA a long time ago.

    As to your: "I hope not, but I agree America needs to get on the ball”, don't forget that when NASA started about 1970, the US didn't have a $41billion ticket for bringing its illegal immigration in compliance with its laws.

    If this trend continues, by 2050 Americans may definitely "get on the ball again" by hiring themselves out as cheap unlawful labor for the Chinese.

    So "getting on the ball" ain't that straightforward these days!
     
    #25     Jul 29, 2005
  6. Hey Burtakus,

    You must be a wise guy. Don't you really know that the last couple of times the main problem with the " Shutel"(sic) was in fact on the outside, not the inside!
    :D
     
    #26     Jul 29, 2005
  7. Spend the money on the power grid.
     
    #27     Jul 29, 2005
  8. Yes, I am accutely aware that the problems have been on the outside, primarily from ET shedding striking the orbiter and damaging the thermal protection system. This is a design flaw more than anything else. Had the Shuttle been deisgned with the orbiter on top of the ET instead of mounted to the side and lower down then the ET foam shedding would not be a problem.
     
    #28     Jul 29, 2005
  9. Yeah, but it might have raised some minor technical problems like how the shuttle main motors are going to work when they're pointing straight at their own fuel source.

    If you put the motors on the external tank it's not a space shuttle anymore, it's basically Saturn V.

    Martin
     
    #29     Jul 29, 2005
  10. I always enjoyed the tour at the Cape, where they show visitors all of this great technology that NASA has developed over the years. Especially striking was the image of a frying pan... wow NASA invented Teflon! I think that was it though.
     
    #30     Jul 29, 2005