So Long, Space Shuttle...

http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/main/index.html

Sad that the current depression took it as a casualty. Space capsules just arent as romantic.

Capsules...man that almost sound like supositories... :D

Well, to be fair, they were getting old. The real victim was the plan to get a replacement ready in time. Though that USAF spaceplane might be able to be turned into something. :D

naaa they are keeping that one just for themselves...

Besides I dont think NASA plans to send a team of chiwawas to space anytime soon.

I think you're right, but I try to be an optimist. :P

I wonder if the Buran had the same draw backs as the space shuttle. Still a shame that there is no replacement ready and that United States ends up practically without space program.

Not without a space program, without a current manned capability. They still have plenty of resources for launching satellites, and there are programs in the private sector (using seed money from NASA) that hopes to be able to human-rate their rockets.

***snipped***there are programs in the private sector (using seed money from NASA) that hopes to be able to human-rate their rockets.

There are also firms not using money from NASA. (Virgin Galactic with SpaceShip 2 comes to mind.)

There are also firms not using money from NASA. (Virgin Galactic with SpaceShip 2 comes to mind.)

They are, at present, irrelevant to what NASA is doing. The ones with orbital capabilities are majorly funded (though not 100%) with NASA money. Spaceship 2 is suborbital and incapable of actually delivering a payload even if it were to somehow be made to reach orbit. ;)

Not to diss them, ofc, they're major heroes of mine for making things happen on commercial spaceflight, but they're not very relevant in this context. (It's also an interesting question of whether one should count it as an "american space program". Galactic is HQ'd in the US, and the manufacturer of the aircraft/spacecraft comboes is US, but funding and ownership of the operation is british. It's sort of like, is a Volvo still a swedish car when it's owned by a Chinese company? Brainbenders. :P )

The space shuttles aren't gone, we still fly SR-71's and F-117's.:D Awesome picture by the way.

They are, at present, irrelevant to what NASA is doing. The ones with orbital capabilities are majorly funded (though not 100%) with NASA money. Spaceship 2 is suborbital and incapable of actually delivering a payload even if it were to somehow be made to reach orbit. ;)

 

Not to diss them, ofc, they're major heroes of mine for making things happen on commercial spaceflight, but they're not very relevant in this context. (It's also an interesting question of whether one should count it as an "american space program". Galactic is HQ'd in the US, and the manufacturer of the aircraft/spacecraft comboes is US, but funding and ownership of the operation is british. It's sort of like, is a Volvo still a swedish car when it's owned by a Chinese company? Brainbenders. :P )

Ahh, you meant orbital vehicles. Got it.

@ Cali: I didn't know that we were still flying the Blackbird. That is pretty awesome.

It was a joke, both the SR-71 and the flying rock have been retired for a while. Either that or we just want people to think we are not flying them *thinks of RAH-66*

It was a joke, both the SR-71 and the flying rock have been retired for a while. Either that or we just want people to think we are not flying them *thinks of RAH-66*

Awwww, man. Methinks your second option to be more probable than it seems at first glance. We can only sit and think about what the Skunk Works has come up with that performs better than the Blackbird, but still falls under the definition of aircraft rather than spacecraft.

Virging Galactic and Scaled composites have a suborbital craft; but it is like touching space; it can't stay out there. Capsules may be cheaper but there is a big difference from landing like an airplane than landing like a pice of rock slowed with retro rockets and a parachute.

I repeat my question; was the Buran affected by the same issues as the space shuttle? was the Energia booster covered with foam like the space shuttle main tank? if not that by itself reduces some of the risks for external damage. Also the Buran engines could be turn off; unlike the space shuttle solid rockets; Why NASA didn't considered that arrangement to improve safety on the space shuttle? I still can't understand why the space shuttle program had to be scrapped; to me it is a big downgrade going from a space shuttle to a capsule. I wonder why they don't build a rocket like the Energia; that way you can carry heavier loads for space exploration like going to the moon and stuff; and if you need to carry 7 people to space you could just attach an engineless Endeavor.

ohh and there is a video of the f-117 flying this year; so it is not completely out of service; they may be using it for black ops; anyway we still don't know anything about the helicopters used to kill Osama soooo... there my be more secret craft than we know.

Capsules may be cheaper but there is a big difference from landing like an airplane than landing like a pice of rock slowed with retro rockets and a parachute...

...I still can't understand why the space shuttle program had to be scrapped; to me it is a big downgrade going from a space shuttle to a capsule.

The reason the space shuttle was retired, and the reason its not a big downgrade:

The space shuttle was supposed to be like this. Launch, complete mission, land, do quick checks and change cargo, launch again. This is what it was supposed to look like.

Instead... it looks like this.

The space shuttle is hardly reusable. Everything has to be checked, and lots of things have to be completely replaced every few flights or less. The more complicated something is, the more likely something is to break down, and it can hardly be considered optimal from an aerodynamic standpoint. Its not a step backwards when you can do the same job cheaper and safer with a capsule. The main problem with capsules is that they are less glamorous.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure this post is relevant:

The space shuttle can't be called a fixed-anything:

 

1. Big stuff is explosively blown away during take-off and entry into orbit.

2. Chunks of stuff melts/comes up during re-entry.

3. You have to practically rebuild the whole thing for each launch.

Anyway, melting or not, the space shuttle is the stuff dreams are made of. Finding a replacement as inspiring will be difficult.

Even though the Voyager spacecraft are doing the most extraordinary achievement ever (now returning data from 14 billion km from earth), it doesn't seem to thrill the crowds: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13715764

I was joking about the SR-71, the 117......I don't know. I saw that video of it flying like other people.

Some really really really cool pictures from the International Space Station showing Atlantis during re-entry!

http://spaceflightnow.com/shuttle/sts135/reentry/

^^^ Thats awesome!!!

I heard the original shuttle was not supposed to carry big equipment to space, but the program kept getting more and more duties tacked onto it so the shuttle kept getting bigger and bigger. We can launch satelites without people so the next shuttle only needs to be big enough to carry a few astronauts. I would think we should be able to make unmanned deliveries to the space station by now as well.

They do make unmanned deliveries to the ISS now. Its done by the ESA if I recall.

They do make unmanned deliveries to the ISS now. Its done by the ESA if I recall.

Last Shuttle mission ever ends when Atlantis lands.

http://video.uk.msn.com/watch/video/space-shuttle-atlantis-lands-in-florida/10r7w2dsn?from=CA2_News

To a shuttle.... Some pics in my album

http://foto.mail.ru/mail/vanveken/2163

Sad that the current depression took it as a casualty. Space capsules just arent as romantic.

You just aren't using the correct kind of capsule.