Launch of space shuttle

  • Thread starter stoned
  • Start date
  • #51
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,903
2,204
Mixing units is easy to do. The pros do it often enough. :biggrin:

25,000 mph (7 mi/s) [ 40547 km/h / 11.3 km/s] is the escape velocity from the earth's surface, ignoring friction. Space Shuttle is designed for LEO orbits only - so it does not carry enough fuel to get up to escape velocity.
 
  • #52
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,435
5
Each time I see shuttle lifting off I admire your country. When Nasa puts astrounauts in orbit, they are representing all of us above there. It is an achievement of the whole mankind to watch how a machine of cents of tons is able to take off and fly to space. We feel everybody americans in this day.

Congratulations.
 
  • #53
81
0
Clausius2 said:
Each time I see shuttle lifting off I admire your country. We feel everybody americans in this day.

Congratulations.
you are right in some way, but it could be much better if americans would spend 300 billion $ + on space exploration instead on killing people in iraq and around the world.
 
  • #54
Mk
1,984
3
I'm personally for particle accelerators more.

I went, got a maximum access ticket, and saw it. The shockwave is amazing.

Anyone else go?
 
Last edited:
  • #55
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,435
5
stoned said:
you are right in some way, but it could be much better if americans would spend 300 billion $ + on space exploration instead on killing people in iraq and around the world.
Agreed. All these budgets for Iraq's war are enhancing a loose of money for scientific issues. A pity. :yuck:
 
  • #56
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
11,490
52
I just read that this launch had a problem again with a piece of foam breaking off from the fuel tank, the same thing that happened to Columbia! They don't think it hit anything this time, but will be checking it out before letting the shuttle return (contingency plan is they head to the International Space Station and await Atlantis to come get them). I hope they were as lucky as they think and it didn't hit anything or cause any damage.

SPACE CENTER, Houston (AP) - NASA grounded future shuttle flights Wednesday because a big chunk of insulating foam flew off Discovery's fuel tank during liftoff - as it did in Columbia's doomed mission - but this time apparently missed the spacecraft.
"Until we're ready, we won't go fly again. I don't know when that might be," shuttle program manager Bill Parsons told reporters in a briefing Wednesday evening.
He and other managers do not believe the flying debris that snapped off the external fuel tank harmed Discovery, threatening a safe return of its seven astronauts.
"Call it luck or whatever, it didn't harm the orbiter," Parsons said. If the foam had broken away earlier in flight - when the atmosphere is thicker, increasing the acceleration and likelihood of impact - it could have caused catastrophic damage to Discovery.
http://apnews.excite.com/article/20050728/D8BK4N00D.html
 
  • #57
Mk
1,984
3
No damage at all, nothing to worry about. I'm thinking its probably just unlucky.
 
  • #58
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
The shuttle program is grounded until further notice.

This may be the death rattle...?
 
  • #59
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,435
5
I am really sad about the delaying of next Nasa manned trips to space announced.

I forecast Nasa is not going to fly in 5 or 10 years. And I think we won't see the Space Shuttle again as we know it nowadays. They will rush to develop a new spacecraft, maybe based in Scramjet concept. All this stuff benefites Europe and Russia. E.S.A. is going to acquire new superior roles and Soyuz spacecraft is going to be the vehicle for manned missions for next years.

This is my opinion.
 
  • #60
81
0
they are going to send another suttle to rescue astrounauts aboard ISS, what if rescue shuttle also suffers same damage, then another and another...
 
  • #61
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Ivan Seeking said:
The shuttle program is grounded until further notice.

This may be the death rattle...?
With no replacement on the horizon, they're really between a rock and a hard place on this one. I don't think they have much choice but to keep the shuttle operational for another 15 years.
 
  • #62
FredGarvin
Science Advisor
5,066
8
Bring back the Saturn 5.
 
  • #63
81
0
thank god we have russians and their rockets.
 
  • #64
53
0
just bring out the UFO's from area51 already, what are these ppl waiting for lmao
 
  • #65
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
FredGarvin said:
Bring back the Saturn 5.
We can't, a good share of the documentation was destroyed.
 
  • #66
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I think it's time to call some real experts: Burt Rutan and his clan. :biggrin:
 
  • #67
Mk
1,984
3
Ivan Seeking said:
We can't, a good share of the documentation was destroyed.
A popular urban legend, started in 1996, states that NASA has lost or destroyed the blueprints or other plans for the Saturn V. Plans still exist on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

The Space Shuttle was initially conceived to work with the Saturn V - Space Shuttle would handle space station logistics, while Saturn V would launch components. Lack of funding tore the plan apart the US and the world is still without a heavy-booster. Continued production would have allowed the ISS to be finished with a handful of launches, though it is unlikely that future engineers will find the plans very helpful after +40 years of rocket science advancements.
 
  • #68
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
Mk said:
A popular urban legend, started in 1996, states that NASA has lost or destroyed the blueprints or other plans for the Saturn V. Plans still exist on microfilm at the Marshall Space Flight Center.

Interesting. Are you sure which is the legend; are you sure that we have a complete set of all documentation? I heard this from an engineer, well, actually, two, that worked with NASA. Edit: They made it sound like common knowledge in the industry that we no longer know to build and fly a S5.
 
Last edited:
  • #69
4
0
Wow, i think they they sound like a warehouse guards, that accoutns for why they talk like they are the only on this planet :zzz:
 
  • #70
23
0
Fixing the shuttel's fragile tiles?

stoned said:
for the price of one shuttle launch they could easilly design and build good reusable automatic launch system.
Speaking of designing a new space shuttle. How about letting
Burt Rotan try his ideas out and see what he comes up with?
Seems like his team has had pretty good luck so far with his
Space Ship One. One more question: How does the Russian supply
ship work with no problems? Or do they have trouble with the
"Tiles" coming off and they are never reported? Or do they
even have tiles on the Russian ships? How do they prevent
the supply ships from burning up on reentry?
 
  • #71
23
0
russ_watters said:
With no replacement on the horizon, they're really between a rock and a hard place on this one. I don't think they have much choice but to keep the shuttle operational for another 15 years.
The guys at Palmdale/Skunk Works designed the Lockheed SR-71;
the fastest,highest flying jet besides a bunch of other kinds
of winners during World War II,so just give them the job of
designing and building a new space SHIP. Heck with an Earth
Orbitor...we want a ship to take us to MARS! :smile:
 
  • #72
Mk
1,984
3
Ivan Seeking said:
Interesting. Are you sure which is the legend; are you sure that we have a complete set of all documentation? I heard this from an engineer, well, actually, two, that worked with NASA. Edit: They made it sound like common knowledge in the industry that we no longer know to build and fly a S5.
Another interesting point, one that only caressed my mind now that I look back on it. I don't know.

It seems like there is plenty but maybe not enough to fully construct a new Saturn V.
 
  • #73
81
0
they never let Rutan to work on NASA space vehicles, thousands of engineers from NASA would loose then their jobs and that is no good.
 
  • #74
Clausius2
Science Advisor
Gold Member
1,435
5
stoned said:
they never let Rutan to work on NASA space vehicles, thousands of engineers from NASA would loose then their jobs and that is no good.
It would be a disgrace if Nasa release all the technical capability on a guy like Rutan. A complete failure. He can build a plane which is able to reach space, but he and any of his planes would not have the same reliability than a Nasa design. Releasing the responsability of space vehicles to Rutan would be an insult and an offence to a lot of valuable researchers who are working on this stuff all over the world (not only in the US), and an insult to those who work everyday for the quality controls of space missions and space vehicle components. I would be ashamed of Nasa.
 
  • #75
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
176
I was kidding a bit about Rutan but his brand of innovation can lead to great results. But now NASA faces the hard questions: After two and a half years and a billion dollars spent to solve the problem that we just saw again, what are you going to promise next? How many more billions will it take, and how can we know that it would work the next time?

It has also been suggested that any future shuttle launches, if there are any more, may be unmanned.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Launch of space shuttle

  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
9
Views
16K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
49K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
37
Views
9K
Top