Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Shuttle to head for launch pad
Topic Started: Apr 6 2005, 12:21 PM (430 Views)
digifan2004
Member Avatar
Electronic genius
cptjeff
Jun 5 2005, 11:33 PM



To digifan's comment about the Enterprise,
that would be possable, but not likely. it would be extermly expensive, and it's pretty likly that the spaceframe has deteriorated soem without any maitainance for the past 20 years, so it would be an extermly expensive propasition to do that, becase you have to go over every square millimetere of every bit of the frame, and skin, replace a lot of it, check and replace the tiles, give the systems a complete overhaul (still 80's tech on there) and functional full powere engines have never been instaled. It would be much cheaper to build a new one, and if you're going to build a new one, go with the new design that needs no external tank, ect. Those add up too.
I say take it out of the smithsonian and take it for more tests- use it to test new systems, just keep it in the atnoshere. that would be much cheaper, and it would make sense as far as practiacl testing goes.


I understand the implications but I was thinking more along the line of using the name "Enterprise" as the name of the next shuttle. That would be quite cool and a fitting tribute to Star Trek and Gene Roddenberry's legacy. Afterall many modern NASA officials, staff and scientists were inspired by GR's "wagon train to the stars" idea and to choose science as a professional career. :yes:

The update report said Space Shuttle Discovery should be ready for a mid July launch. Does it ever make you wonder why it take so long to equip the shuttle and getting it for launch?
:headscratch:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
It wasn't supposed to... NASA sold the shuttle to the government as taking less than 30 days to turn around (14 days in an emergency), and cutting down launch costs to under $1000 a pound. Currently, turnaround is five months, takes a crew of thousands, and launch costs are higher than Apollo (in like dollars).

This is why I still support private industry getting into the space business.

I wouldn't mind going into orbit in a spacecraft festooned with Microsoft stickers at all... just as long as operators didn't need to reboot everything during some critical maneuver.

Oh, regarinding the original Enterprise shuttle. It was never meant to fly in space. It was a testbed only. I don't even think it had support framing for engines.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
digifan2004
Member Avatar
Electronic genius
Here is the latest news on the shuttle. NASA had been granted a green light. Let's hope they will succeed this time. :yes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

digifan2004
Jun 11 2005, 06:35 PM
Let's hope they will succeed this time. :yes:

Yeah, let's hope so....
| Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
Admiralbill_gomec
Jun 10 2005, 10:59 AM
It wasn't supposed to... NASA sold the shuttle to the government as taking less than 30 days to turn around (14 days in an emergency), and cutting down launch costs to under $1000 a pound. Currently, turnaround is five months, takes a crew of thousands, and launch costs are higher than Apollo (in like dollars).

This is why I still support private industry getting into the space business.

I wouldn't mind going into orbit in a spacecraft festooned with Microsoft stickers at all... just as long as operators didn't need to reboot everything during some critical maneuver.

Oh, regarinding the original Enterprise shuttle. It was never meant to fly in space. It was a testbed only. I don't even think it had support framing for engines.

Accually, they used to be able to do that- back in the 80's. the operational lifetime of the shuttle was 20 flights each. they had a fleet of five, so that means about 20 flights per orbiter. However, since the challenger disaster NASA has played it safe, and after each one had flown it's operational lifetime, they had to do new things with them. every five flights, the shuttle is stripped down to almost the spaceframe, inpected, and refitted. Takes about three months to do all that, and then they re-certify it for flight.

The next Generation Shuttle Oribter Project should be putting out a design soon.
accually, the current head of that, who I talked with, was one of the fans who sent letters into Ford asking him to rename the shuttle, so it's likly that the fist of the next design will be an enterprise as well.

Oh, and the current enterprise does have support framing for engines- it just has loads of ballast instead of engines and tanks- but the framework is there.

as for private space industry? Why not? Just so long as we don't destroy all of the natural rescorces up there like we've done in the name of profit down here. Space should be a tourist busness With the only exeptions being satelite launching.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Destroy the natural resources up there? Where? The moon? Mars? The asteroid belt? The Oort Cloud? What resources have been "destroyed" here?

Jeff, we are the dominant species in this solar system. There is no intelligent life on any other planet, asteroid, comet, or moon. Resources are meant to be used, not ignored. These resources are ours.

By the way, each shuttle was designed for a projected lifespan of 100 launches over ten years. They were supposed to be used on a near-monthly basis (per shuttle) and then replaced because of all the money they saved in launches, coupled with our expanding the space program. Costs per pound never dropped below Apollo levels.

I would also like a source on your comments for the Enterprise shuttle design...
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
several books from people like gene kranz, as well as astronouts who've gone up in shuttles. you can also see the tread I posted a link to earlyer- when I talked with a seinior engineer at NASA langley... I mentioned that it was about time for a replacement- it went something like this:
Me: And the shuttle's about due for a replacement soon...
Him(I forgot to get his name- :banghead:) :Yeah, the shuttle fleet- which used to be mad3e of five shuttles, you know, was designed for a hundred flights. we've really exceeded that...
Me: I know. So how do they continue operating?
Him: Long techincal description about refiting and inspecting shuttle, mentioned earlyer.

anyway, the Enterprise came up in conversation- he mentioned that it could be used as an emergency measure, but they would have replace the ballast with accual engines and fuel tanks- the supports are there, it is a complete frame. Endeavor was one of two stress testing frames- the other was the Enterprise, and Endeavor is in active service.

so you could say I got it straight from the horse's mouth. [/cliche]
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
Jeff, you're wrong. It wasnt 100 total flights for the entire fleet. It was 100 flights for each vehicle. And, they didnt start out with 5. Enterprise made her first flight in 1977. Columbia, first in space, in 1981. Enterprise was supposed to be the second shuttle to fly in space, but Challenger was built instead, and flew in 1983. Discovery first flew in 1984, Atlantis in 1985, and Endevour in 1992.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
cptjeff
Captain of the Enterprise-J
tell that to the folks over at NASA. It was a fleet of four- sorry, my mistake- that 100 flights were planned before a replacment was developed and flown. Endeavor was built to replace challenger.

and Enterprise was never meant to fly in space. It was a stress testing frame with controls. it was supposed to have been named constituton, but Trek fans wrote to the president. (Ford)

Another interesting fact that you can learn if you talk to people who accually work in the field: the shuttles were only meant to fly 20 missions apeace before they would have to start stripping them down and rebuilding them every couple of flights.

US, I understand tha tyou may not belive me, but 'I am right' is not as credable as 'I have had a technical conversation with a seinior NASA engineer, who specalizes in shuttles.'
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
8247
Member Avatar
Apparently we look like this now
Ok, Jeff. You're right. I guess that your one conversation with a NASA engineer makes my entire childhood and teen years listening to my grandfather (who is a retired NASA mission control specialist from the Apollo AND shuttle programs) endlessly go on and on about space shuttles irrelevant.

I'm not saying that you are full of it. I do think you misunderstood him.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
« Previous Topic · Science and Technology · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus