Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Here are some articles as to why we can't just point the space shuttle at the moon. It'll give you a little bit of information on the fuel needs alone to carry the extremely heavy shuttle to the moon.
Ok, I read your links...
But could you at least concede to me that it would be a good idea to leave one or two shuttles in space, attached to the space station...for like a emergency escape, glide back to earth module?
Doesn't that make sense?
Or leave them up there for the day technology catches up...and the astronauts indeed could fly them around....
Why is it that in the moon photos you can see into shadows? The only reason you can see into shadows on Earth is because the air reflects light in all directions. In the absence of an atmosphere, every shadow would conceal all details and be entirely black. But not so on those moon shots. Anyone want to explain that?
It cracks me up when people here immediately think that The Onion is an actual news source - it's BLATANT satire - but that fact appears to be lost on many of the posters here
But it often contains more truth than other sorces. Like the head line bubble popped quick we need another bubble.
Ok, I read your links...
But could you at least concede to me that it would be a good idea to leave one or two shuttles in space, attached to the space station...for like a emergency escape, glide back to earth module?
Doesn't that make sense?
Or leave them up there for the day technology catches up...and the astronauts indeed could fly them around....
Why waste them away at the Smithsoniam museum....
Well, i don't know if you are still reading this, but 1 good reason not to leave a shuttle in space is the possiblity of micrometeorites causing damage to the shuttle that would need to be repaired. Upkeep on the shuttle would be another task that the astronauts/cosmonauts/and others would have to do while hanging out at the ISS (International Space Station).
By the time the technology has "caught up", as you state, there will probably be a more logical design for travelling around in space.
When thinking of landing on different planets/moons/astro-whatevers, the current shuttle wouldn't be capable of making the landing. A different vehicle would be necessary. Now, the current shuttle could be used as the name indicates....but there would need to be another ISS up there for the shuttle to shuttle people/things to.
As an escape pod back to earth in the case of an emergency, I don't know why it isn't left up there, other than NASA doesn't plan on sending up a shuttle to pick up the pilots of another shuttle that is currently working. It's like following your buddy down to the garage to drop off his car so he has a ride back home....just more expensive. On the note of an "Escape vehicle"....refer to the following link.
[URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_Return_Vehicle[/URL]
Last edited by Reepime; 06-06-2010 at 10:00 AM..
Reason: fixing the link
10. It is uncertain who manufactured the flag that was deployed by the Apollo 11 crew. According to a NASA Press Release of 3 July 1969, "the Stars and Stripes to be deployed on the Moon was purchased along with several others made by different manufacturers at stores in the area around the Manned Spacecraft Center near Houston.
Moderator cut: Copyright violation -- please post a link and a "snippet" only, per the Terms of Service.
Last edited by Green Irish Eyes; 08-05-2010 at 08:48 PM..
Reason: Copyright violation
Well little-Acorn...everything I said makes sense...
1. why not leave a shuttle or two in space permanitly, rather than for it to waste away at a museum? I mean it's already built...already equipted...it could easily be converted to a space station or a vehicle to go to the moon or mars with...just leave it up in space attached to the station....
2. There is no resistance in space...no oxygen...so once something is in motion what's to stop it...except gravity, I guess...
It's about saving money and being practical...why build new space ships from scratch if we've already got 4 or 5?
1. There is no way that it could it easily be converted to a spacestation or go to the moon or mars. How would it land there. Why would you want to fly so much mass? How is the shuttle to be maintained as a station?
2. There is risistance. it is no absolute vacuum
3. If you want to go beyond LEO you need another ship. And if we do have 4 or 5 can you name them for me?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Leaving a Shuttle in Space.
