Subsonic Radio

So, I was just curious how many people think we should continue the shuttle program, and how many people think it costs to much for what it is, and we should stop. Heard people discussing this topic the other night on the radio.

to go one way or the other, I'd have to see some kind of figures to determine cost versus profitability, and such.

I can say one thing, I think we need to either redesign or upgrade the shuttle fleet we have now. What with the disaster a couple years ago and the current problems (space blanket breaking apart and lodging in the wing).

Oh sure. There are many things to look at going forward, and a majority of the people believe we need something new. That being said, there are a few more years of planned lifespan of the shuttle fleet. There are people calling for no more flights, period.

Being a Sci-Fi fan, I think it's stupid not to pursue space travel.
But, I think the current system needs a major upgrade. First, fossil fuels are a very inefficent way of producing power compared to nuclear. They got nuclear down pat now. It's about time for them to figure out how to condence it and put it into the shuttle to power it.

NASA has so many problems - remember the metric-english issues and losing satalites to that? Russia has had much better sucess with the space flight issues and sounds like they'll be teaming with the EU for the new Soyuez projects. We could learn a lot from them...

Power is not the problem with the shuttle, it is lack of matter to use as fuel. In space, the only way to move about is to eject matter. If you had a nuclear reactor on board, you would have all of the energy you need, but nothing to move the ship. To reach the velocity needed for a feasible trip to Mars, you would need an awful lot of matter... That is the barrier.

Plus, do you think the environmentalists would ever let them launch a nucler reactor?

I may be wrong on this one but I believe that the shuttle is powered by a chemical reaction of liquid oxygen and hydrogen, and the all the clouds coming out of the tank is just water vapor. It's a pretty cool science experiment if you can get some hydrogen and manage not to blow yourself up.
-Cruiseguy

While it is true that the shuttle's main engines are a perfect stoichiometric ratio of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen (producing pure water on combustion), a large portion of what you see on takeoff is from the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). The SRB propellent is a mixture of roughly 70% (by weight) ammonium perchlorate (oxydizer), 16% aluminum (fuel), .5% iron oxide (a catalyst), 12% polymer (binder), and 2% epoxy curing agent. Believe me, you don't want to breathe this stuff in. Solid rocket fuel feels like and has the consistency of a pencil eraser.

The shuttle manuevering thrusters use hydrazine. H2N4. This stuff is nasty. 1-3 parts-per-million is lethal.

It looks like we won't have a replacement for a number of years, and the shuttle is needed to complete the space station. I think the real future for space lies with the private sector. Unfortunately, we just aren't there yet. The space shuttle never lived up to its promise. There was to be a shuttle going up every couple of weeks, taking commercial payloads for private industry. However, the original design was considered too expensive. The less expensive design that was built takes too long, and is much more expensive to turn around between flights. Regardless, I don't think we can turn our backs on the manned space program. For now, the shuttle is it.

NASA should not abandon space travel/discovery/missions/whatever... bu the shuttles themselves are ancient deathtraps and the fleet should be mothballed. You can't tell me technology hasn't progressed enough in the last 30 years that we can't do better than these rickety hunks o' junk...

So yes, the "shuttle program" should be ended. On to the next level of space exploration.

I see the shuttle fleet like that old car you still have. As long as it is running, you should use it for those last few trips to the grocery store (International space Station). Definitely need to look back to heavy lifting bodies if we want to go to Mars. The shuttles are due to be retired in 2010. Only five years left on them. I think they should make the ISS priority number 1 for the space shuttle and get going on new vehicles.

Club33Hopeful wrote:While it is true that the shuttle's main engines are a perfect stoichiometric ratio of two parts hydrogen to one part oxygen (producing pure water on combustion), a large portion of what you see on takeoff is from the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). The SRB propellent is a mixture of roughly 70% (by weight) ammonium perchlorate (oxydizer), 16% aluminum (fuel), .5% iron oxide (a catalyst), 12% polymer (binder), and 2% epoxy curing agent. Believe me, you don't want to breathe this stuff in. Solid rocket fuel feels like and has the consistency of a pencil eraser.

The shuttle manuevering thrusters use hydrazine. H2N4. This stuff is nasty. 1-3 parts-per-million is lethal.

Wow... i just got a flashback to chem class in college...



Rich

Well, At one point in my life I was studying Chemical Engineering at UC Berkeley, and I had an internship in the propulsion department at NASA. Does it show?

I just feel that they shouldn't completely give up altogether on using the shuttles, they should keep using them and develop new programs.

Now that I think about it, the Shuttle program should be replaced with a new more modern spacecraft program after all the technology is almost 25 years old.