Time for a new Shuttle design?

Infern0

Infern0

Banned
the shuttle has far outlived it's usefulness IMO (i dont belive it was designed to be in service as long as it has? correct me if im wrong)

is it time to build a new shuttle? or is space exploration and development just not as important to us now?

discuss

A 9cm gouge in space shuttle Endeavour's heat shield appears to have penetrated its thermal tiles and reached the shuttle's belly.
A grapefruit-sized piece of insulating foam broke free from Endeavour's fuel tank and struck the ship as it launched from Florida on Wednesday.
NASA is now considering whether a risky spacewalk is needed to repair the gouge before the shuttle returns to Earth's atmosphere, the Associated Press reports
Debris flies from shuttles at every launch, but the US space agency has taken steps to curb the problem since shuttle Columbia disintegrated while returning to Florida in 2003, killing the seven astronauts on board.
That accident was blamed on a briefcase-sized piece of flying tank foam that struck Columbia's wing during launch and put a sizable hole in the heat shield.
The damage went undetected, which is why NASA now conducts at least three damage inspections during each flight, including the photos taken by the station crew as the shuttle approaches for docking.
The shuttle is covered with ceramic heat-resistant tiles and carbon panels to protect its aluminium skin from melting during the plunge back through the atmosphere for landing. Temperatures around the damage site can reach up to 1,093 degrees Celsius.
NASA officials also had good news about the main US computer on the space station, which suddenly crashed at the weekend, forcing backup computers to take over.
Station flight director Joel Montalbano said the crash appeared to be a software problem and, after trouble-shooting, the computer would be returned to operation.
While NASA dealt with the two problems, astronauts Rick Mastracchio and Dave Williams completed the main task of Endeavour's mission by bolting a new beam on to the space station during a six-hour spacewalk.
Installation of the 3.4-metre and two-tonne aluminium extension was another step toward planned completion of the $US100 billion ($NZ134 billion) international project by 2010.
Endeavour is scheduled to return to Earth on August 19 but NASA has said it may extend the mission by three days.
The shuttle crew includes teacher-turned-astronaut Barbara Morgan, the backup to fellow teacher Christa McAuliffe, who died in the 1986 after-launch explosion of shuttle Challenger.
With Reuters
Click to expand...
 
bulldogg said:
By all means invest some of NZ's GDP into taking the next step. :)
Click to expand...


thanks for your input


(oh, and by the way, NZ is still waiting on the royalty check from your use of atomic energy to arrive)


but seriously, i dont want to make this about borders and such, but i think we all have a lot to gain from the development of space, but since the end of the cold war (actually, since before that) all the drive seems to have gone from expanding our reach.

as i mentioned in my first post, my understanding is that the STS was never designed to be in the air as long as it has been.

so, apart from NZ not apparently pulling it's wieght in the NATIONAL aeronautics and space adminstration, any thoughts?
(also bulldog, you may want to have a wee search for a place called Waihopo...thats our part of your space program)
 
Last edited:
I think Shuttle will be retired for good in 2010 as NASA stated after Columbia disaster 4 yrs ago! by then, ISS will be built and other vehicles will replace the American built Shuttle!
 
phoenix80 said:
Did you know that RNZAF has no combat aircrafts??
Click to expand...
to a degree you are correct as we retired our our ageing fleet of A-4k Skyhawks. there was talk of NZ buying some f-16c's from the US that were origionally destined for pakistan, but the order got denied when they tested their first nuke.

ironic considering the US state department blocked the sale of those aircraft to NZ due to our anti-nuke stance.

I think they invest most of their GDP into socialist programs
Click to expand...


such as free education, and universal healthcare? correct.

but we have recently upgraded our naval forces substantially, which to be perfectally honest will serve us much better than fighter aircraft considering our geographic location.

now, i think i have answered your statements with a lot more respect than they deserve, if you want to suggest that NZ is a bastion of communism, or doesn't pull it's own wieght in this world, feel free to create your own thread about it and i will debate you vigorously.
 
Infern0 said:
to a degree you are correct as we retired our our ageing fleet of A-4k Skyhawks. there was talk of NZ buying some f-16c's from the US that were origionally destined for pakistan, but the order got denied when they tested their first nuke.

ironic considering the US state department blocked the sale of those aircraft to NZ due to our anti-nuke stance.




such as free education, and universal healthcare? correct.

but we have recently upgraded our naval forces substantially, which to be perfectally honest will serve us much better than fighter aircraft considering our geographic location.

now, i think i have answered your statements with a lot more respect than they deserve, if you want to suggest that NZ is a bastion of communism, or doesn't pull it's own wieght in this world, feel free to create your own thread about it and i will debate you vigorously.
Click to expand...

Its funny you would mention those F16s as I got a tour of them while in the US however I don't agree that sacrificing the air force combat wing for increased naval capacity was a good idea.

We are a small island nation with next to no chance of defending ourselves against a much larger aggressor (accept Australia because we own their breweries and Bondi beach :lol:) the only chance we have is to defend long enough for allied support to arrive and sadly a couple of logistics ships, a banana boat and some dodgy frigates that cant handle the southern ocean really wont cut it but a decent air force will.
 
Last edited:
Infern0 said:
thanks for your input


(oh, and by the way, NZ is still waiting on the royalty check from your use of atomic energy to arrive)


but seriously, i dont want to make this about borders and such, but i think we all have a lot to gain from the development of space, but since the end of the cold war (actually, since before that) all the drive seems to have gone from expanding our reach.

as i mentioned in my first post, my understanding is that the STS was never designed to be in the air as long as it has been.

so, apart from NZ not apparently pulling it's wieght in the NATIONAL aeronautics and space adminstration, any thoughts?
(also bulldog, you may want to have a wee search for a place called Waihopo...thats our part of your space program)
Click to expand...
What's with all the bleeding sarcasm ffs?!?! I was serious. I wasn't taking a crack at NZ. **** me you people are too god damned sensitive. **** having a conversation with any of you.
 
MontyB said:
Its funny you would mention those F16s as I got a tour of them while in the US however I don't agree that sacrificing the air force combat wing for increased naval capacity was a good idea.

We are a small island nation with next to no chance of defending ourselves against a much larger aggressor (accept Australia because we own their breweries and Bondi beach :lol:) the only chance we have is to defend long enough for allied support to arrive and sadly a couple of logistics ships and banana boat and some dodgy frigates that cant handle the southern ocean really wont cut it but a decent air force will.
Click to expand...

You're on an Island, and like you said a small Island, but not very small in my own opinion of Islands, so, you need Subs and Anti-Ship Cruise Missiles.... and Allies.
 
Air power trumps sea power. Mitchell proved that some time ago. Just take a look at Taiwan's defensive strategy. Missile defense and air superiority fighters. Monty's spot on on this one.
 
It's pretty much where everyone is going. Almost every country in the world puts Air Force above Navy.
A strong Navy is usually a power projection tool rather than a defensive tool.
 
Well, just how would someone attack New Zealand without a Navy? Nuke them with an ICBM? Fighters would be of little defense against such.

Australia is close, but as Monty has pointed out the people in New Zealand do not seem worried about such things.
 
the_13th_redneck said:
It's pretty much where everyone is going. Almost every country in the world puts Air Force above Navy.
A strong Navy is usually a power projection tool rather than a defensive tool.
Click to expand...

Well it seems everyone but Middle Eastern countries who still seem fixated on armour.
 
awesome to see just how off topic this has got. (maybe one of our mods could split it off into a seperate topic???)

i think in our (new zealands) position, military spending is a gamble, you can think about a worst case scenario, which will work just fine if you have the funds, or clear threat to justify it, or you can spend your money on things you will actually use.

we have an extremely large coastline to patrol, and a truely massive exclusive economic fisheries area to police. when you add that to our comitments to our pacific island nieghbours, then in my belief at least, our naval vessels were well outdated.

the new ANZAC class frigates, and inshore patrol vessels are a valid purchase. not only that but the army has been recieving new comms gear, AT missiles, LAV's and Pinzguar vehicles.

i think if it ever got to a situation where we had to defend against a fleet bent on taking on NZ, 30 or so fighters would hardly bother them


it's a game of long odds, but bar indonesia and i dont think NZ even HAS a credible threat to it's soviegnty (unless a cricket or rugby match against Australia goes particularly badly)


***bulldog, i'll appologise, i obviously have taken your initial comment not in the way it was meant.
 
Last edited:
Gator said:
Well, you do live longer than we do in the United States of America......

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_life_expectancy

A lot longer.
Click to expand...

Move there! or even go to Cuba. It's number 37...

MontyB said:
Well it seems everyone but Middle Eastern countries who still seem fixated on armour.
Click to expand...

Not really!

Check recent arms purchases by UAE, Oman, Kuwait, Egypt, Israel, Syria and Saudis... And what you see is that they are ONLY buying new aircrafts or airplane ordnance.

Lockheed Unveils Shuttle Replacement - A PM Exclusive

Space Shuttle Replacement

Aeronautics - X-33 Shuttle Replacement

SPACE.com -- NASA to Accelerate Plans for Shuttle's Replacement
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm ambivalent about the space programme. Originally it was how we developed our nuclear delivery packages but today I have no idea wtf they are on about. Space tourists, ceramic tile durability tests, commercial satellite launching? So much of it is classified that I am forced to trust that my government is not simply doing this to be able to say they are doing it and that it is serving some useful purpose, what that is fukifiknow. Too many star wars movies when these people were young and impressionable. I personally know one astronaut, a doctor from Indiana, David Wolf. He is(was?) a fighter pilot with the INARNG (public knowledge no PERSEC issues here) and I've flown with him in my ex-father-in-law's Super Decathlon. He's a great pilot and a brilliant doctor and when I pressed him about this very question, wtf are we doing up there and he said "All I know is what I did, check on the human body's responses to weightlessness." Ok, great, so are we planning to send people en masse to outer space? Not feasible. Are we developing a weapon which will remove our enemy's gravity? Someone needs to try decaf if that's what they're thinking.

Bottom line I can't say whether or not this expenditure on NASA and space flight is justified since I don't know what they are doing up there. And that ignorance leads me to believe tackling homelessness in veterans or improving teacher education would be a better use for my tax dollars, but not with any real conviction.

And Inferno spot on and I accept your apology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top