We build five shuttles for space and the Enterprise which never was used in space.Two have failed with loss of crew.If we are not going to retire the fleet we should build an escape pod. All ships have life boats. I can not see this old fleet been used with its problems.
2007-08-13 13:21:36 · 9 answers · asked by radio309 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
Space explosions tend to happen too fast for people to get unstrapped and into an escape pod. However, for cases like the space shuttle with a rip in it, there should be escape pods-because it obviously is possible for there to be a problem and for us to find it before it managed to kill anyone.
2007-08-13 13:32:08 · answer #1 · answered by Echo 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hey, I know that this might sound a little strange, but check this out...The shuttle is THE ESCAPE POD. It just also happens to have a cargo bay attached to it.
The problem being faced here with the recent shuttle damages is related to ice formation while the rocket
was assembled, fueled and waiting to go... Seems like
maybe they need some DE-ICERS that work while the
rocket is still on the pad.
Also, it would help to have a good repair kit on the ISS
and on the shuttle itself. All astronauts should be trained
in the repair of Shuttle skins so that when repairs are
necessary, then can actually be done rather easily.
During the re-entry flight, you only get one shot at coming home. I do not think it is possible to abort at the last moment and go around. The Shuttle is after all nothing but a huge glider. A better than 50 - 50 survival rate sure would be nice.
Regarding your example of a ship and a life boat...
The International Space Station is the ship.
The Shuttle is the Life Boat.
2007-08-13 13:37:45 · answer #2 · answered by zahbudar 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Its not that NASA hasn't tried--several times. Congress won't fund it--and killed two programs NASA did have going to do jsut that in the 1990s (the Delta Clipper (McDonnell Douglas) and the VentureStar (Lockheed)). They are building a "replacement" for the Shuttle--but it's primarily just a reconfiguration of older technology. Congress and the Bush administration rejected a NASA proposal following the Columbia disaster to develop a second-generation Shuttle. NASA has their faults--but this one isn't theirs--it belongs squarely in Congress' lap. And--to Simon H--sorry. Bush gutted the NASA budget before the Columbia disaster--including safety measures that could have saved the astronauts, cut it again afterward, and refused to support a true nexxt-gen craft. That "new" spacecraft you talk about consists of : 1) a solid rocket booster of the type currently used by the Shuttle; 2) a second stage using an engine and fuel tank of the same type as the Shuttle and 3) an Apollo-style capsule with some refinements, but that is essentially 1960s technology. And the talk about a "return to the moon" is nothing but rhetoric--no funding has been allocated-orrequested by the Bush administration.
2016-05-17 06:25:54 · answer #3 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The space shuttle is being retired, actually. It's being replaced by a souped-up version of the Apollo program, to be known now as Orion. The shuttle program showed us the benefit of vertical stack configuration, putting the crew module above the rest of the craft. It makes for easier escape/abort scenarios, as well as eliminating the chance that debris from the booster hits and damages/destroys the crew module.
I'm not sure where I heard this, but supposedly there was the possibility of making the cabin portion of the shuttle orbiter be detachable with parachutes in case of an abort scenario. I think this is doable, but with the short time left in the shuttle program's lifespan, a retrofit wouldn't be worth the expense. Space travel is still a very dangerous business, and those involved are fully aware of them, and want to go despite them.
2007-08-13 13:30:02 · answer #4 · answered by ZeroByte 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well NASA will not try to repair the shuttle.It will go to plan B.Plan B was used on the last shuttle that killed our hero's.Plan B say it will make it.Plan C build the escape pods that cost MONEY! I feel for the next few years NASA will go with low cost Plan B.
2007-08-18 20:32:07 · answer #5 · answered by bboy244 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The new shuttle will have a series of launch abort systems so that the crew will hopefully be able to escape safely in an emergency situation.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/content/?cid=5005
2007-08-13 13:37:01 · answer #6 · answered by Jason S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yeah, they should have an "Ejection-Seat" just like all the planes they got. Coming back to earth, at let's say, a gagillion miles an hour, and the wing starts to disenegrate, you could just hit the big red button, and "POW", right out the top with your ejection seat, deploy the shute, and plummet safely to the earth's surface. See, it don't take a million dollars worth of schoolin' to figure that one out.
2007-08-18 22:06:52 · answer #7 · answered by Felipaa' 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most explosions happen at the last minute.
dude. the shuttle is old news. its time to move on.
http://www.virgingalactic.com/flash.html
book a flight in the new "shuttle"
made from designers of SpaceshipOne
http://www.scaled.com/projects/tierone/
2007-08-13 13:29:16 · answer #8 · answered by Mercury 2010 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think they should use the Enterprise, so if anything goes wrong they can always be beamed back to Earth by Scotty
2007-08-13 13:28:02 · answer #9 · answered by zorrodelavega (quelo) 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋