I think the ISS is too expensive and too high-profile to "mothball" for any length of time. We may continue sending individual astronauts up through the Russians via Soyuz; I don't think we'll be sending shuttles up any time soon.

[to AgoraBasta]

Exactly. Maybe this will make the politicians sit up and realize that you can't just keep cutting and cutting funding and expect things to work. Faster, Better, Cheaper rarely works.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Mokele Mbembe on 2003-02-01 12:37 ]</font>

Consider this: if a manned craft is damaged in an orbital mission and re-entry is impossible or dangerous, the ISS might be their only hope for survival until a rescue craft can be sent.
My prayers for the families and friends.

I just wish the hell they'd taken a closer look at the starboard wing tiles before reentry. I mean, we could've fixed it up there (if indeed that's what failed.)

I was not saying to kill the whole iss program, i just think we should wait to add any american additions unless the russian shuttles can take them up. Sorry for the cunfusion folks. Heck i am still reeling from the initial discovery this morning.

By "Russian shuttles", surely you mean the un-reusable capsules...?

I'm reeling, too...

There's no way to tell if the accident was caused by monies that were not applied. If it comes out that the accident was caused by a part that was not upgraded then of course I'll be outraged and I do not discount the possibility. There's really no evidence yet to say that the accident would not have happened with maximum funding.

I concur; I think the immediate and long-term causes of this tragedy need to be sorted out before anyone starts slinging around invectives (if we need that at all).

Doesn't the russian program have their own version of the shuttle? I thought they did.


You know, now that i have been thinking about my satement i might have been too harsh about it. I think that i was just acting on emotion and not thinking very clearly yet. I take back my satement about ISS. Maybe we can send the additions and the men throught other means. Ther reamining shuttles, unmanned craft, and other countries space programs. But i still think that we should closely study our current shuttle program and seriously think about replacing it very soon.

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

I had high hopes for the Roton vehichle that was being developed but then the developers went out of buisness.


http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...n_liftoff.html

I wonder if Buran is capable of being launched/docking with the ISS (remember when it was to be called Freedom? Is that still 'in effect'?)

The Russian version, the "Buran", had one unmanned flight and was mothballed afterwards. Most of the original pieces have been sold off I believe.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

Buran is, IIRC, a display bird only now. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

She was 21 years old...Buran is long dead. Soyuz (non-reusable) can deliver crew and payload there, it did so a few times. I have no idea of the supply of Soyuz vehicles, though, they are built to order.

[later addition]
There are enough Soyuzes&Progresses to run this year's full program through.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: AgoraBasta on 2003-02-01 13:16 ]</font>

I agree with the notion that we have invested too much money and resources into the ISS to just scrap it because of one mishap (not to downplay the severity of it, mind you). I could be wrong, but I see a delay in the program but an end.

As per the impact, as to why the Challenger seemed to hit harder than this one, I think, from what I remember, that at the time, we (Americans) had a sense of "invincibility," we had so much national pride in the shuttle program (we were still in the Cold War, and hey - we were ahead of the Russians), and we had not known any major nation-impacting disaster (the closest I had known was the attempted assassination on Pres. Reagan when I was in 5th grade - to me that had seemed so long ago as to be forgotten). Now we know we are not so invincible. I think 9/11 may have dulled the impact of the tragedy somewhat; tragedy still feels familiar, not foreign as it did in the mid-1980's.

There's also the fact that the Challenger contained a teacher and there was the emotional impact involved wih that. That is one ting that impacts me with this dhuttle flight - so many students had their hearts and souls in the science experiments going on in the shuttle. Can you imagine their marred pride and joy in this? They'll never see the final products of their designs as they should have.

I hopr this tragedy doesn't end the attempt to involve students and education in the space flight program. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif[/img]

I think the conclusions that the manned program will be canceled are overstated and premature. Common people on the street who have been interviewed are mostly repeating the same things that us space enthusiasts are saying - it is inherently dangerous, but it is still something we should do. NASA just gave a press briefing, stating they will find the cause, fix it for the future, and then move forward. NASA is circling he wagons, and the public at large seems to be with them.

It is a tragedy. Certainly there will be a detailed investigation, and caution regarding current activities. We will likely see a pause in the ISS build, because the Shuttle is the only vehicle for launching the elements. However, the Soyuz and Progress modules do travel to the ISS. The Soyuz modules are the current crew escape vehicles, and are cycled every 18 months or so. Progress resupply modules can be used to keep the crew in supplies.

I'm concerned about reboost. I think there are thruster packages on the ISS that handle that, allowing it to continue without Shuttle use. (Certainly that was the eventual plan, but I'm not sure where we are in assembly.) Assuming the thrusters can be resupplied via Progress or Soyuz, then ISS is fine. We can continue to use it via Soyuz till the Shuttle is cleared for return to flight and/or a replacement launch method is built.

Some "Space Historian" schmuck (Kenneth Zurreck?) was on talking about Columbia, and how it is the oldest shuttle. He was blaming it on that fact, and that "it has been refit several times". Um, yes, that means that it is in better shape. Yes, Columbia does not go to the ISS. This is primarily because it is the heaviest shuttle. The other shuttles were built with improvements in design. But that doesn't make Columbia a bad shuttle, just not compatible with ISS.

He also talked about the Auxiliary Power Units (APU). These are the power source used for the control surfaces on landing. He said these should be looked at and updated and replaced. He did add the disclaimer that he's not saying NASA flew a vehicle that was not flight ready, but just that he thinks these devices are old.

My projection is that the investigation will go on for some time. Right now I hear two likely possibilities - the APUs and the insulation bumping the wing on takeoff damaging the heat tiles. It will probably take some time to sort this out. However, I don't see the Shuttle Program being permanently canceled. We are still some time (numerous years) away from a replacement vehicle. I think that once an answer is found, the remaining shuttles will be cleared and resume flight. However, I doubt there will be a new shuttle built to replace Columbia. I suspect we will resume flight with the remaining three (Discovery, Endeavor, Atlantis), and NASA will work on the next generation launch vehicle to replace Shuttle by 2010 to 2015.

My concern for ISS is that a delay in continuing construction will give enough inertia for politicians to keep it from restarting. I hope not, but I'm concerned.

This just in - the President just declared that the manned space program will continue.

I'm wondering now if this might not actually give a boost to plans for a shuttle replacement. Recently they were been planning to extend the shuttle program even longer and had no immediate plans for a replacement. But it's becoming clear that NASA needs something new, and this might just force them to get something on the drawing board.

__________________
...And that, my liege, is how we know the Earth to be banana-shaped. --Sir Bedevere

http://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/orbtutor/page1.htm
http://quest.arc.nasa.gov/people/jou.../10-04-00.html
Cool diagram of ISS.
http://www.spacepix.net/iss/schematic.htm

Bush said "Our journey into space will go on."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2717221.stm

Unfortunately, Buran was mothballed years ago:
http://www.buran.ru/htm/molniya5.htm

No, there isn't the capability to do that.

And Columbia wouldn't have been able to rendevous with the ISS. It didn't have enough fuel aboard to perform the necessary orbital alterations.