Shuttle Derived to complete ISS?

Grypd · 2006-04-02 05:15:14

Finally Bush gets it and speaks out:
"And quite frankly I want to see Americans and our international friends in orbit sooner rather than later. And more importantly I want to see them in an all America rig and not some spam can from Russia that any tourist with a spare $20 million dollars can hitch a ride in.
Space Daily article dated April 1
and Bush cancels space program

Mars_B4_Moon · 2006-04-02 12:04:02

GCNRevenger you seem to be a smart guy with a huge knowledge of the Apollo missions, Nuclear studies and rockets but your info on ISS, space labs studying material and bio-science are all deeply flawed. The United States beat those commies to the Moon but the Russians were never done, their research on spacelabs and bio-domes have been light-years ahead of NASA while the USA builds expensive Biosphere failures. Griffin isn't going to start suddenly stick astronuats and space-labs on top of an EELV, neither Boeing nor Lockheed can match your 30MT payload. Your idea of shooting Labs into Earth orbit is wrong and dangerous, this is exactly what STS-107 was about it was a spacelab mission that lasted a few days and then came back in tragedy.

We can't just launch unmanned random capsules into space to do research on materials or biological studies, we tried those types of efforts before, we've been there done that with OFO, SPAS, Biosat, and WSF and the science returned was very, very limited - therefore it was decided that we need people or astronauts in a much larger space facility to overlook these experiments and apply changes when needed. There was also the fact that we needed not just to look at material stuides but to also study the human body in space as well as watching physical and psychological changes. The USA beat the Ruskies with Apollo but was still light years behind Russia when it came to Biospheres, Spacelabs and biological studies, so another alternative given by NASA was to launch those experiments with astronauts using STS-spacelabs which costs an absolute fortune and Shuttle needs over a billion dollars per launch. Another great flaw on the STS Shuttle system was that Shuttle could only stay in space for a few days and therefore unlike Salyut or Skylab or MIR they Shuttle boys at NASA could not do these lab experiments over a long period of time, plus the Shuttle transport is dangerous.

The only really good science lab we had was Skylab, and Skylab was a good lab which did some amazing scientific and medical experiments but once we got stuck with Shuttle-lab the Russians went light-years ahead of us with their manned and unmmaned space labs like Salyut IV, Salyut V, Foton, MIR, Salyut VI, Bion, Salyut VII, the Russians have clocked up some amazing studies and Russians have been in space for double the time that NASA has. After the Challenger disaster our Shuttle really didn't have much of a purpose so Reagan got the thing trucking up and down to MIR so we could finally do some real science and real spacelab studies, ISS was then meant a 'bigger-MIR' and to live-up to work done by Salyut, Skylab or MIR but because they designed most of the modules, plants and solar-pannels to be lifted by the Shuttle dinosaurus it meant the ISS has been in half-built status for a long time and the ISS has started to become a failed project. Today Griffin has been looking at the future of US manned space flight and there are only 2 manned transports he is will to go at for the USA over the next 20 years and that is the old truck known as STS-Shuttle (minus foam debris) and the CEV/CLV 'Stick' or a single Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) with a big CEV on top so by the time we have your 'Space-Lab' ready the 50th anniversary for Apollo will have come and gone or even worse somebody like the Euros, Russians or Chinese will have stuck their flag into the Moon or Mars.

John Creighton · 2006-04-02 17:07:12

GCNRevenger you seem to be a smart guy with a huge knowledge of the Apollo missions, Nuclear studies and rockets but your info on ISS, space labs studying material and bio-science are all deeply flawed. The United States beat those commies to the Moon but the Russians were never done, their research on spacelabs and bio-domes have been light-years ahead of NASA while the USA builds expensive Biosphere failures. Griffin isn't going to start suddenly stick astronuats and space-labs on top of an EELV, neither Boeing nor Lockheed can match your 30MT payload. Your idea of shooting Labs into Earth orbit is wrong and dangerous, this is exactly what STS-107 was about it was a spacelab mission that lasted a few days and then came back in tragedy.

We can't just launch unmanned random capsules into space to do research on materials or biological studies, we tried those types of efforts before, we've been there done that with OFO, SPAS, Biosat, and WSF and the science returned was very, very limited - therefore it was decided that we need people or astronauts in a much larger space facility to overlook these experiments and apply changes when needed. There was also the fact that we needed not just to look at material stuides but to also study the human body in space as well as watching physical and psychological changes. The USA beat the Ruskies with Apollo but was still light years behind Russia when it came to Biospheres, Spacelabs and biological studies, so another alternative given by NASA was to launch those experiments with astronauts using STS-spacelabs which costs an absolute fortune and Shuttle needs over a billion dollars per launch. Another great flaw on the STS Shuttle system was that Shuttle could only stay in space for a few days and therefore unlike Salyut or Skylab or MIR they Shuttle boys at NASA could not do these lab experiments over a long period of time, plus the Shuttle transport is dangerous.

The only really good science lab we had was Skylab, and Skylab was a good lab which did some amazing scientific and medical experiments but once we got stuck with Shuttle-lab the Russians went light-years ahead of us with their manned and unmmaned space labs like Salyut IV, Salyut V, Foton, MIR, Salyut VI, Bion, Salyut VII, the Russians have clocked up some amazing studies and Russians have been in space for double the time that NASA has. After the Challenger disaster our Shuttle really didn't have much of a purpose so Reagan got the thing trucking up and down to MIR so we could finally do some real science and real spacelab studies, ISS was then meant a 'bigger-MIR' and to live-up to work done by Salyut, Skylab or MIR but because they designed most of the modules, plants and solar-pannels to be lifted by the Shuttle dinosaurus it meant the ISS has been in half-built status for a long time and the ISS has started to become a failed project. Today Griffin has been looking at the future of US manned space flight and there are only 2 manned transports he is will to go at for the USA over the next 20 years and that is the old truck known as STS-Shuttle (minus foam debris) and the CEV/CLV 'Stick' or a single Solid Rocket Booster (SRB) with a big CEV on top so by the time we have your 'Space-Lab' ready the 50th anniversary for Apollo will have come and gone or even worse somebody like the Euros, Russians or Chinese will have stuck their flag into the Moon or Mars.

Well, I suppose we then have to ask which is more important zero g science? Is it biological science or material science? Certainly biological science is more populare as an aging population desperately wants to cheat death, but material science has the potential to yield new types of products to help give a greater economic purpose to space. Additional, zero g material science helps further our understanding of fundamental physics and engineering.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2006-04-02 05:15:14

Re: Shuttle Derived to complete ISS?

#27 2006-04-02 12:04:02

Re: Shuttle Derived to complete ISS?

#28 2006-04-02 17:07:12

Re: Shuttle Derived to complete ISS?

Board footer