Extending the Shuttle programme.

lord lucan

This looks interesting:http://ipp.gsfc.nasa.gov/mmo/index.php

lord lucan

I'll be having a go at this over xmas too.:)

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

lord lucan

As we head into an uncertain 2010 for NASA,what was their top achievement in 2009? Vote here:http://www.nasa.gov/news/09_YIR_poll.html

Conor108

Competition for the mission patch for the final shuttle mission.

Link!

lord lucan

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/01/battle-of-the-heavy-lift-launchers-monster-200mt-vehicle-noted/

lord lucan

A good synopsis of last years NASA programme:

PT 1:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/2009-nasas-shuttle-satellite-telescope-triumph-2009/

PT 2:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/12/water-moon-ares-i-x-logistics-iss-future-aspirations-2009/

Capt'n Midnight

The shuttle was a solution to a problem that didn't really exist. it was made too big so it could take the military loads (Hubble is a spy satellite pointing the wrong way) , but the military used their own launchers instead. Otherwise it just did what dynasoar could, only twenty years later and way over budget.


The Russians still use what is essentially a modified 1950's ICBM to send people into space, because it works.


There is a saying in America 'if it works it's obsolete.'


I take it no one needs reminding just how few Saturn 5's (or Energia's ) would have been needed to build the ISS especially if they had gone for a wet lab configuration.

ynotdu

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The shuttle was a solution to a problem that didn't really exist. it was made too big so it could take the military loads (Hubble is a spy satellite pointing the wrong way) , but the military used their own launchers instead. Otherwise it just did what dynasoar could, only twenty years later and way over budget.


The Russians still use what is essentially a modified 1950's ICBM to send people into space, because it works.


There is a saying in America 'if it works it's obsolete.'


I take it no one needs reminding just how few Saturn 5's (or Energia's ) would have been needed to build the ISS especially if they had gone for a wet lab configuration.

check out the one 'heavy'payload saturn IB did launch{Skylab}and what an inappropiate vechicle it was for heavy lifting.

check out the command module which was the only part that returned from the Apollo/Saturn V combination.

Saturn V was a magnificent launch vehicle built for a specific purpose,it could no more have built the ISS than a Chinese lantern.

There were very few military Shuttle launch's{3 at most i think,but i will let You research that:D}
There was quite an outcry about NASA being used by the military,one interesting fact is that only one Shuttle landed at a base other than KSC or Edwards,that was a military mission.

The Soviets built but never flew their own Space Shuttle into Space,it was a copy of the American one,based on espionage passed to them.They also built a hugh launch vehicle meant for moon orbit and beyond but it exploded killing many way beyond the 'safety' area.

If Hubble is a spy telescope it must be spying on Amobea's{who knows may'be some of them are Taliben?}

Soyuz has proven itself to be far more than a glorified ICBM!
as a matter of fact looks like the USA may need it badly!:pac::pac::pac: