ANOTHER repair??? Can we get the Japanese to build the next Shuttle?

[FormerDittoHead]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8806241/

Kind of reminds me of the last two American cars I owned...

On a similar point, can I suggest we ditch the shuttle for something fundamentally different (better)?

I saw this deal on the History channel proposing that (reusable) supersonic jets be used to get the she-bang to the edge of the atmosphere, and then rockets take over from there. Kinda like a flying platform.

Maybe something in reverse can be done so it doesn't have to take the "superheated" re-entry and take it a little slower?

I'm just looking at this whole shuttle thing and I think it's time to start over.

[Lindacooks]

1. The shuttle is 1970s technology.

I would hope that we've progressed a lot since then, although with Repukes not wanting to fund science, you never know.

[Justitia]

2. LOL. Agreed. -eom

[Swede]

3. They made them reusable to save money.

Hasn't worked out so well. But in the big picture maybe it will.

[Spider Jerusalem]

4. I think the shuttle concept needs to be scrapped...

in favour of a less expensive design that's used once or twice, instead...the problems with the shuttle seem to make it pretty obvious that repeated exposure to cold soak and the stresses of re-entry limit the useful life of any space vehicle, not to mention the problems incurred due to the tiled heat-shielding being easily damaged at liftoff.

[brooklynite]

5. Not so much an issue of WHO, but of WHEN

US technology can address the needs of a 21st century spacecraft, if we choose to apply it. The reality is that we simply don't have the drive of the '60's Appolo program, r the desire to spend the money on it. The Shuttle was rolled out in the '70s, based on '60s technology and design concepts, and we're still flying them today. This is the equivalent of going to the moon based on designs from the '30s. My concern is that, rather than looking ahead to the 21st century notion of a fully self-functioning spacecraft (lift / orbit / return), NASA seems to be returning to the notion of a '50s/'60s-style capsule.

[Democrats_win]

6. X-33 was planned as a replacement, but was cancelled in 2001

But it will live on forever in fiction: In Dan Brown's "Angels and Demons" it was used to fly Robert Langdon, the book's hero, from the U.S. to CERN in Europe in record time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

--snip
The X-33 was a technology demonstrator for NASA's "next-generation" of space launch vehicle named Venture Star.

Construction of the prototype was some 85% complete when the program was cancelled by NASA in 2001, after a long series of technical difficulties including flight instability and excess weight. In particular, the composite liquid hydrogen fuel tank failed during testing in November 1999. The tank had to be composite to be light enough in order for the craft to operate, but NASA came to the conclusion that the materials technology of the time was simply not advanced enough for such a design.

NASA had invested $912m in the project before cancellation and Lockheed Martin a further $357m. Lockheed Martin deemed that the business case to continue development privately without government support was unviable.
--

The Orbital Sciences X-34 was intended as a low-cost testbed to demonstrate "key technologies" integratable to the Reusable Launch Vehicle program.

It was intended to be an autonomous pilotless craft powered by a Fastrac rocket engine capable of reaching Mach 8, and performing 25 test flights per year. However the unpowered prototype had only been used for towing and captive flight tests when the project was cancelled in 2001 on cost grounds.

[oneold1-4u]

7. Womens intuition

Hope any women aboard tell those big brave macho males to ride on home in their counter parts cheap humvee and they will wait for that russian woman to come get them!