 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 20072007 shuttle launch schedule
Here is NASA's tentative 2007 shuttle launch schedule. I believe this will be a great year for the shuttle and space station programs U.S and international partners (vehicles, equipment, crews, technicians, engineers, managers and administrators), with five planned iss construction missions including adding 2 truss segments, another set of solar arrays, the crucial node 2, and the increased science capacity with the Columbus laboratory, and Kibo module. http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html "March 16* STS-117 STS-117 will deliver a second starboard truss segment and a third set of solar arrays and batteries during the Space Shuttle Program's 21st mission to the International Space Station. June 28* STS-118 STS-118 will deliver the S5 Truss and will be the twenty-second mission to the International Space Station. Sept. 7* STS-120 STS-120 will be the twenty-third mission to the International Space Station and deliver the U.S. Node 2. October* STS-122 STS-122 will deliver the Columbus European Laboratory Module and will be the twenty-fourth mission to the International Space Station. December* STS-123 STS-123 will deliver the pressurized section of the Kibo Japanese Experiment Logistics Module on the twenty-fifth mission to the International Space Station." tom I heard a rumor that the schedule shifted out and the Dec mission is now in Jan 08. > Here is NASA's tentative 2007 shuttle launch schedule. I believe this > will be a great year for the shuttle and space station programs U.S and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > tom >http://www.nasa.gov/missions/highlights/schedule.html >"March 16* STS-117 >June 28* STS-118 >Sept. 7* STS-120 >October* STS-122 >December* STS-123 Reportedly, STS-122 is now targeted for November 5 and STS-123 for mid-January 2008. Brian Not a real shocker. The schedule as it was seemed to be agressive. If your going to do it, you might as well do it right. SB > Here is NASA's tentative 2007 shuttle launch schedule. I believe this > will be a great year for the shuttle and space station programs U.S and [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > tom >Not a real shocker. The schedule as it was seemed to be agressive. If your >going to do it, you might as well do it right. But it looks like the STS-122 delay was caused by Space Station conflicts, not Shuttle processing. The 2008-2009 delays were a result of adding the Hubble mission and deciding to fly Atlantis one addition mission. Brian Interesting. Thanks Brian. >>Not a real shocker. The schedule as it was seemed to be agressive. If >>your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Brian Lets hope that the next administration does the right thing for manned spaceflight. I would suggest killing Orion and Ares, ordering two additional shuttle orbiters to replace those lost, and beginning work on a realistic shuttle replacement or replacements. A 1959 vintage model T Apollo II spam in a can capsule is not the way to go. > Not a real shocker. The schedule as it was seemed to be agressive. If > your going to do it, you might as well do it right. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >> >> tom > Lets hope that the next administration does the right thing for manned > spaceflight. I would suggest killing Orion and Ares, ordering two > additional shuttle orbiters to replace those lost, and beginning work on a > realistic shuttle replacement or replacements. A 1959 vintage model T > Apollo II spam in a can capsule is not the way to go. shuttle costs too much to operate. shut down shuttle give ISS to russia take all the money and invest it 2 ways robotic expoloration all over solar system use other 1/2 of money for manned launchers by private industry Another approach is permanent unmanning of shuttle, so it can continue to fly. with a replacement manned launcher whatever occurs ideally the pads 39 a and b would be permanetely stacked one with a apollo mock up the oher with enterprise under a big glass bubble. tourists would flock to see it, get the visitors to the pads > Lets hope that the next administration does the right thing for manned > spaceflight. I would suggest killing Orion and Ares, ordering two > additional shuttle orbiters to replace those lost, and beginning work on a > realistic shuttle replacement or replacements. those 2 replacement shuttles should already incorporate almost all the improvements NASA has done and would like to be done. And shuttles should be considered semi-disposable with a new one coming out every couple of years with improvements. One day, enough improvements will have been made to truly make the shuttle reusable at which point they can be built to last a lot longer. And yes, NASA will have to learn to live with different generations of Shuttles , just like airlines have lived with different generations of 737s, 747s etc. But guess what ? It ain't gonna happen. Those who are against the shuttle have a louder voice and there is nobody left to defend the shuttle. The USA will have a token manned presence in space without more capabilities than russians (and eventually chinese). > But guess what ? It ain't gonna happen. Those who are against the shuttle > have a louder voice and there is nobody left to defend the shuttle. > > The USA will have a token manned presence in space without more > capabilities than russians (and eventually chinese). is there ANY way a shuttle like vehicle could have a low cost to orbit and be as safe as a expendable? > is there ANY way a shuttle like vehicle could have a low cost to orbit > and be as safe as a expendable? Is there any way that a Caterpillar crane will have the same fuel efficiency as a Smart car ? A shuttle will always cost more than a Soyuz. But it does a hell of a lot more and has far more capabilities. Going back to Apollo simply duplicates Soyuz' capabillities. And it is unlikely to cost less than Soyuz. From a humankind point of view, it is better to have one Soyuz and one Shuttle than to have two Soyuz and no Shuttle. Shuttle brings unique capabillities to work and build complex things in space. Just because Shuttle "beta" ended up costing a lot more than promised doesn't mean that Shuttle successors would also be as flawed. Lets say a real challenge were given to NASA : send a man to Mars and bring him back safely by 2020. You would need some form of shuttle vehicle to assemble the expedition ship in LEO and load it up with the supplies needed for that journey. Start building new/improved shuttles now, and you would have the tools ready to start assembling the ship. Ditch the shuttle now and repace it with some simple CEV, and you won't have any tools to build anything significant in space. In fact, the russians, French and Japanese (if they ever complete HST) will have more space capabilities than the americans because of their primitive cargo delivery capabilities compared to the shuttle. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.