Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Space Shuttle Life To Be Extended?  
User currently offlineJFKTOWERFAN From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1100 posts, RR: 15
Posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 5623 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
DATABASE EDITOR

Possibility of extending the Shuttle retirement out till 2015. Not surprising with the Orion delays.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,413904,00.html

Corey


C'mon Man
21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBWilliams From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 212 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5565 times:

Fantastic news, IMO.

I know that some will disagree with me on here, but the fact of the matter is that the STS is an effective means of getting people and cargo into space and is relatively reliable in achieving those means.


Ares, on the other hand, is a mess right now, and as much as I like the Ares design, retiring the Shuttle to focus on Ares and putting us at the will of the Russians for our space-lift capacity is dangerous. I really hope that the Ares project stays alive, but having our own active space program is essential for our continued development in space, particularly the ISS.


A question: if the Shuttle is indeed retired in 2010, how do we maintain Hubble if something happens to it before Ares comes online and can be used for manned missions? Is it just left to float in space hoping it doesn't hit anything or deorbit until we can get to it?



Regards, Brad Williams
User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3505 posts, RR: 29
Reply 2, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5535 times:

Goodbye moon...

But if it is possible to continue the Shuttle life until 2015 AND continue Orion (= Scrap Ares I and develop a good rocket instead), this could be a good thing.

ISS is finished around 2010. Keeping the capacity to bring down heavy experiments from the ISS could help the science on the ISS.

But I believe it when I see it. According to an article I read today, Obama is actually starting to understand the importance of NASA for the elections, as Florida is a decisive state.


User currently offlineDeltaGuy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 3, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 5522 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
According to an article I read today, Obama is actually starting to understand the importance of NASA for the elections, as Florida is a decisive state.

You bet it is. But he has pretty much promised to axe NASA funding to support his social(ist) agenda programs.

Oddly enough, in his little speech he talked about watching some Apollo astronauts return from the moon, and saying Americans can do anything: if he's left to run the country, that's a sight we surely won't see again.

DeltaGuy


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 4, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 5510 times:

I don't think this is a good idea.
Every $ spent on running the highly expensive STS is money lost for the future.
And what if another is lost? Horrible to think it, but not impossible. Who after all the mods done after Challenger saw what would happen to Columbia coming?

To the Russian issue, they have a stake in ISS too, even if relations continue to chill, they'll not want to undermine a project where their involvement is a matter of prestige to them.
And let's face it, prestige is behind a lot of their actions.
Russia, whatever we think of the current leadership, is not the USSR, hermetically sealed off from the economic life of the rest of the world.
(It's like the threat of cutting off fossil fuel supplies to major Western nations, that would be the fossil fuels that are actually keeping their economy afloat? So if they do this, they lose too).

Remember the 1975 Apollo-Soyuz mission? Part politics, but also a genuine part of an effort to ensure that if it became necessary, a US space craft could potentially rescue a Soviet one, or visa-versa. The main technical effort here was after all developing compatible docking.

In the depths of the Cold War, the US sold some of it's grain surplus to the USSR

I really do not think you can judge what a potential President will do with NASA, before, assuming they win, they actually get to office.
(When all the competing political, economic and strategic factors really get thrashed out).

Look at Bush 1's grand plan, pure pie in the sky, so fuzzy, grand, expensive, it did more harm than good, making any discussions of anything more than Low Earth Orbit poisonous for years.

To credit the current Bush for the current plan is fair, but, the real spending occurs after he's left office, the massive deficit and trillions pissed away in Iraq undermines even that.
(I understand that in terms of money, thankfully not lives, the US will easily spend more in Iraq than they did in Vietnam by the end of the decade. Look how that 1960's conflict and it's financial burden had a part in ending anything more than the initial Apollos and one Skylab).

Let's also not forget that the current planned programme came about in large part due to the loss of Columbia . Suddenly running the Shuttle for 15-20 more years became un-viable.

As a gut feeling, even though directly not related, I have a problem with the idea that people who want Creationism taught in schools as 'science' ' like McCain's prospective VP, like much of the GOP, will ever be into space exploration. Anti science backwards fundamentalism does not fit well here.

I hate to say this as a admirer of the US Space Programme, but the biggest obstacle of all, since as a democracy a large degree of consent is needed, might be that swathes of the US public have gone, in recent years, fundamentally (excuse the pun), irrational.
Maybe it was always there, below the surface, but one party has egged it on for years now.

Science is science, you either support it or you don't.
(Soon, the large collider at CERN in Europe will start work. The US was going to have a project like this, it was cancelled in the early 1990's. Now the then deficit, other priorities, had a major part to play. But consider how one GOP lawmaker saw it. At a hearing, he asked whether this project could 'prove god exists'. When the answer was a sensible and logical one, his support was lost).

I know some will not like that, I'm not having a go, or mocking, but as seen from abroad, from a nation at the forefront of so much discovery and exploration, it's shocking.
To be frank, any politician here coming out with this sort of creationism stuff would be laughed at and mercilessly satirised.

Maybe another factor in the programme announced in 2004, was that a few months before, China got into manned spaceflight too.
Maybe some felt, if we do nothing, in 20 or 25 years, they'll be on the Moon and the US won't.
How would that play as a symbol of, perhaps, a US decline and a Chinese rise?


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 5, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 days ago) and read 5387 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
But if it is possible to continue the Shuttle life until 2015 AND continue Orion (= Scrap Ares I and develop a good rocket instead), this could be a good thing.

If they want a 'good rocket' , they can look at man-rating the Delta IV. It certainly has the ability to toss an Orion into LEO, with margin.

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
I don't think this is a good idea.
Every $ spent on running the highly expensive STS is money lost for the future.
And what if another is lost? Horrible to think it, but not impossible. Who after all the mods done after Challenger saw what would happen to Columbia coming?

No doubt the STS is an expensive capability to maintain. It does have unique capabilities, though.

After the upcoming Hubble Servicing Mission, I'm not sure another is needed before launch of the Webb Space Telescope, which should eclipse even Hubble. So, no more need for servicing missions to Hubble.

The key is the pace of the Orion program. If 2014 for an initial mission, and 2015 for operational capability can be adhered to, then retiring STS in 2010, or maybe 2011, should not be a big problem.

I agree the Russians will play ball on access to ISS as it is in their interests, both scientifically and prestige-wise, to do so.

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
As a gut feeling, even though directly not related, I have a problem with the idea that people who want Creationism taught in schools as 'science' ' like McCain's prospective VP, like much of the GOP, will ever be into space exploration. Anti science backwards fundamentalism does not fit well here.

I hate to say this as a admirer of the US Space Programme, but the biggest obstacle of all, since as a democracy a large degree of consent is needed, might be that swathes of the US public have gone, in recent years, fundamentally (excuse the pun), irrational.
Maybe it was always there, below the surface, but one party has egged it on for years now.

Science is science, you either support it or you don't.
(Soon, the large collider at CERN in Europe will start work. The US was going to have a project like this, it was cancelled in the early 1990's. Now the then deficit, other priorities, had a major part to play. But consider how one GOP lawmaker saw it. At a hearing, he asked whether this project could 'prove god exists'. When the answer was a sensible and logical one, his support was lost).

The wacki-ness of the uber-right is an amazing thing to see, GDB. I agree much of the American public has lost its' mind in the past 20-30 years. It's interesting to note, as a reader of many religious books, that while the mega-churches preach self-attainment and success, what Jesus (or Jehoshua Ben-David, perhaps more accurately) talked about was not 'me', it was 'them'. Do for 'them', not yourself. One of the reasons I sponsor foster children in the 3rd world.

The LHC at CERN is going to be a marvel, and I suspect (==hope ?) that the Higgs boson will be evidenced there. The Yanks had the SSC (Superconducting Super Collider) which was going to be built in Texas, but canned it. We had a piece of the action to model the helium cooling jackets on the beast, since our software has a unique ability to model horizontal fluid flow and heat transfer [peculiar to CANDU reactors], but, alas, no joy at the end.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 960 posts, RR: 51
Reply 6, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 20 hours ago) and read 5333 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 2):
Goodbye moon...

Goodbye moon before 2020, but certainly not goodbye moon forever.

As excited as I am to return to the Moon, I think NASA needs to eat their vegetables and support the ISS properly before moving on to something new. Even if it's just a serial flow of 2 logistic flights per year through 2012-2013, it will go a long way towards getting scientific return from our investment.

But the fact that NASA thinks they may need to fly the Shuttle past 2010 doesn't speak loads of confidence for COTS. Ripple effect of the Falcon I - Flight 3?

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
And what if another is lost? Horrible to think it, but not impossible. Who after all the mods done after Challenger saw what would happen to Columbia coming?

Well after both accidents, there was a re-analysis of the entire system beyond the particular point of failure that led to the LOC/LOV. After Challenger, there was a great deal of effort made to make engine-out abort modes more survivable even though the SSME did their job perfectly on STS-51L. After Columbia, bolt-catchers were added to the SRB attach points to prevent damage during SRB sep even though they caused no problems on STS-107.

Arguably, there has never been a safer time to fly the Shuttle than now. Missions are more closely examined than ever, and missions lately have been setting new standards for "cleanliness" during flight.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 7, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5307 times:

I take your point DFW and agree, but the whole STS system, it's config, it's just fundamentally complex and prone to all sorts of problems, problems which the elegant simplicity of the traditional capsule atop a stack avoids.

Looking for a fundamental science return from ISS might just be trying to find the end of a rainbow.
The best that can be said of it is that it's has allowed a continuation of long endurance manned flight, which has been more important for the US than with Russia, since they had those decades of Salyut and Mir behind then already.
The work in putting it together and running it has been valuable too.

Pity the price tag was so high, but with the end of Saturn/Apollo/Skylab 35 years ago, it was never going to be cheap or easy without that heavy-lift launch capability again.
ISS did also, along with the Mir missions preceding them, finally provide a regular use for the Shuttle as designed.
Aside of course from the Hubble flights. The rest? Apart from the testing, often very dubious, trying to compete with unmanned vehicles for satellite launches being the prime example.
Both Shuttle and ISS were oversold, (even more so the Freedom station), I don't blame NASA for that as they had to work within the political and well as cost constraints imposed.

When they were given a simple, clear, fixed task, in 1961, look how they shined.
We did not realise it then, in fact not until the USSR collapsed and the facts behind the Soviet Moon programme emerged, but Apollo also proved the bankruptcy of the Soviet system in a very profound way.

That is, a state directed autocracy, with set plans throughout the society, with no need for political consent, utterly failed to match NASA here.
It was not the US, with all those private contractors, all the posturing and need for political consensus, that had the mass rivalry between teams and even people, that had the damaging interference and lack of direction.
It was the Soviet programme. Quite the reverse of what conventional wisdom would expect.
It was a sort of space age version of Jesse Owens at the 1936 Fuhrer-Lympics, it utterly disproved the whole logic supposedly justifying the respective systems.


User currently offlineMoo From Falkland Islands, joined May 2007, 3865 posts, RR: 5
Reply 8, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 5299 times:



Quoting JFKTOWERFAN (Thread starter):
Possibility of extending the Shuttle retirement out till 2015. Not surprising with the Orion delays.

I've been waiting for this to happen ever since relations with Russia got shitty earlier this year - the exemption NASA enjoys from the Iran Non-proliferation Act expires in 2011, meaning they could no longer purchase seats or manned capacity from Russia to service the ISS. With things going the way they are, getting the exemption renewed would be political suicide, so the only acceptable outcome would be an extension of the Shuttle program.


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 5250 times:

The people who support Direct may be behind this, partly. They are desperate to stop Griffin from destroying the ET tooling and many other elements of the shuttle infrastructure that they need. If this is prohibited by congress as a way to hedge bets, that goal would be accomplished. At least, that is what I gather from the discussions at www.nasaspaceflight.com.

Quoting DeltaGuy (Reply 3):
Oddly enough, in his little speech he talked about watching some Apollo astronauts return from the moon, and saying Americans can do anything

This is an example of the "man in the moon" fallacy. Putting a man on the moon does not prove that a nation can do anything it sets it's mind to. Space achievements are irrelevant to any debate over whether or not unrelated earthbound initiatives are worthwhile. It is far easier to put a man on the moon than it is to change human nature, and that is what one would have to do to make Obama's brand of big government "change" work well in the long term.

Quoting GDB (Reply 4):
As a gut feeling, even though directly not related, I have a problem with the idea that people who want Creationism taught in schools as 'science' ' like McCain's prospective VP, like much of the GOP, will ever be into space exploration

Those kind of people(and I'm one of them, mostly. I particularly have misgivings about both the beliefs and tactics of many creationists) tend to be really into patriotism. And make no mistake about it, the manned space program is not about science but it is about symbolic achievements by one's country. That is why in general there is more support for manned space flight from the right than from the left. There are a few treehuggers who like space. The leftist support for government sponsored manned space that does exist tends to come from the environmental movement. But for the most part, if you look at pro-space webpages, you see nationalistic or libertarian thinking. The nationalists support international space activities for the same reason they support the US Olympic team - they want their country to be a highly visible part of the world. The libertarians tend to think that we would be all over the solar system if only government would stop trying to control everything. Obama style socialism is relatively rare, as is religious conservatism.

Most irrational opposition to space activities has come from the left. There arn't many Republicans among those who protest the launch of any spacecraft(like Cassini) that contains an RTG, or who hate projects like JIMO. Republicans did not insist on spending money on Triana(aka Goresat). Those that control the purse strings of science from day to day, when they are political at all, tend to be academic leftists. A lot of science depends on government money, so it is in the perceived self interest of many scientists to support big government in most of its forms. Because of these factors, I believe that there is a lot more left wing influence on science then there is right wing influence. The media plays up a few clumsy attempts by right leaning politicians to control science - but the far more dangerous and pervasive influence comes from the left.


User currently offlineConnies4ever From Canada, joined Feb 2006, 4066 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 5105 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 9):
And make no mistake about it, the manned space program is not about science but it is about symbolic achievements by one's country.

Cloudy-

Absolutely agree with you on that. Apollo was more about the Cold War than science. Mine is bigger than yours, more or less. And the crew were very aware of that, justifying the risks they took. IIRC NASA big heads thought they would lose 1 of 3 crews on the first set of lunar missions.

As for lefty-righty feelings or support for space, I don't buy your argument. By most American standards, I'm a lefty (although a centrist for Canadians), but I buy into the space program. We (Canadians, I mean) need to do more: remote sensing in particular, but manned spaceflight also. We have currently 2 MS slated for flights to ISS in the next 2 years, Julie Payette on STS-127 and Bob Thirsk on Soyuz TMA-15.

I was in the competition in the 80s, got close, but, alas, was found lacking. I still lie awake wondering what it looks like from 400km up.



Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
User currently offlineWESTERN737800 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 693 posts, RR: 2
Reply 11, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 5056 times:

This is good news. I'd hate to see the U.S. without manned spaceflight capabilities for an extended time. Being dependent on the Russians just doesn't seem like its in our best interest.


Bring back Western Airlines!
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 4988 times:

I would like to see Congress boost NASA's budget for a year or two, the same way it did to pay for Endeavour after the Challenger accident. But this time, Congress should fund continued Shuttle operations through 2012 or so at 4 flights per year (some say 2 per year, but that's really not any cheaper than 4), while directing NASA to accelerate Orion using the fastest method available to get it flying by 2012. That would mean NASA would have to choose one of the existing EELVs (Atlas 5 or Delta IV) or a faster option such as DIRECT instead of building the Ares I (which is problem-plagued, turning into a money pit and calendar killer.)

The Shuttle doesn't need to keep flying until 2015, we just need it to cover the shortest practical gap, which would be 2-3 years with a sensible system like Delta IV/Orion or Direct/Orion.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3505 posts, RR: 29
Reply 13, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 4971 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 12):

The Shuttle doesn't need to keep flying until 2015, we just need it to cover the shortest practical gap, which would be 2-3 years with a sensible system like Delta IV/Orion or Direct/Orion.

Are you really sure you get a man-rated Orion Spacecraft by 2012? That is 4 years from now!


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 4936 times:



Quoting TheSonntag (Reply 13):
Are you really sure you get a man-rated Orion Spacecraft by 2012? That is 4 years from now!

It would be close, but by most accounts, the delays in Ares/Orion slipping to 2014 are due to Ares, not Orion. If they go with Direct, they can stop all the weight-reduction programs right then and there and concentrate on getting Orion flying as-is (Direct has payload capacity to spare and weight is no problem.)


User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 4923 times:

How much redesign would be required to put the Orion on Delta IV? So far it has been designed with the assumption that Ares I would be the booster.

If I recall correctly Delta IV would require some upgrades to lift Orion. The published figures don't really apply because of the extra performance need to reach the ISS's high inclination orbit. Also, a manned spacecraft cannot follow the optimum path to orbit due to the need to preserve abort options and to keep acceleration below an acceptible maximum. At least, that is what I gather from what I've read.


User currently offlineGDB From United Kingdom, joined May 2001, 13165 posts, RR: 78
Reply 16, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 4890 times:

I have never seen a problem with Apollo and that era of space exploration in general, being powered by the Cold War.
If that's what it took.......
Though you can argue this meant a 21st century programme being carried out in the 60's and 70's.

(You can argue it really came out of WW2, certainly the rocket technology. Though I do wonder if Von Braun would have been as welcome in the US if one plan, to launch V-2's from surfaced, modified U-Boats at US East Coast cities like Washington and NY, had occurred-I doubt that plans for a larger rocket fired from Germany was ever possible given with state of their war effort and general position by then).

Many of the great explorations of Earth, were done on the back of competition between nation states and Columbus did not set out for altruistic reasons.

If Shuttle could be extended a year or two, without adversely affecting the Orion development and timescales, then OK. But not 5 years, I have a problem with the idea that NASA could go from STS to Orion within months of each other. Would it not strain not only financial but technical and personal resources?


User currently offlineCURLYHEADBOY From Italy, joined Feb 2005, 940 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 4826 times:



Quoting BWilliams (Reply 1):
Fantastic news, IMO.

I know that some will disagree with me on here, but the fact of the matter is that the STS is an effective means of getting people and cargo into space and is relatively reliable in achieving those means.

Totally agree with you, and I sort of expected that to happen, more time is needed to re-think all possible following projects that have to be more cost-efficient and sustainable. Leaving a gap in US manned spaceflight would be a shame.



If God had wanted men to fly he would have given them more money...
User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4802 times:



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 15):
If I recall correctly Delta IV would require some upgrades to lift Orion.

It would need extra fault tolerance and the improved RS-68 engine. The fault tolerance is fairly straightforward and the improved engine is already in the pipeline for the Air Force. Both should be flightworthy well before the Orion itself will be (and years sooner than Ares I). We'd probably also want to build Launch Complex 37A with a dedicated crew access arm, etc., so we don't interfere with existing Delta IV ops at 37B.

Quoting Cloudy (Reply 15):
Also, a manned spacecraft cannot follow the optimum path to orbit due to the need to preserve abort options and to keep acceleration below an acceptible maximum.

The updated regenerative cooling nozzle RS-68 engine handles most of that (which the EELV crowd insists was an exaggerated problem in the first place.) Also, those concerns were for the fully-loaded lunar variant. The ISS variant can and will be considerably lighter, as it won't need all those tons of fuel to launch out of lunar orbit for the return trip. We should use what we have now or can very quickly have to get the ISS support, and then upgrade EELV later for the lunar missions (say, with an improved second stage powered by RL-60) to close the performance gap, if there is one.


User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8397 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4720 times:



Quoting GDB (Reply 7):
I take your point DFW and agree, but the whole STS system, it's config, it's just fundamentally complex and prone to all sorts of problems, problems which the elegant simplicity of the traditional capsule atop a stack avoids.

As a semi professional statistician, I think the Shuttle is too dangerous for humans. Almost anything is safer than taking a ride in a Shuttle. Sad but true. I'd never take those odds.


User currently offlineThorny From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 20, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4718 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 19):
As a semi professional statistician, I think the Shuttle is too dangerous for humans. Almost anything is safer than taking a ride in a Shuttle. Sad but true. I'd never take those odds.

Statistically, the difference between Shuttle and Soyuz is insignificant, yet no one says Soyuz is too dangerous for humans.


User currently onlineTheSonntag From Germany, joined Jun 2005, 3505 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (5 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 4703 times:



Quoting Thorny (Reply 20):
Statistically, the difference between Shuttle and Soyuz is insignificant, yet no one says Soyuz is too dangerous for humans.

I wouldn't go so far, as the Safety of Soyuz was, indeed, questioned by some in the recent months, otherwise they would not have removed those bolts on board anyway.

But the real question is, which safety standard is acceptable for space travel? If we would apply a zero-only standard, Apollo would have been a murderous undertaking, as its risks were much higher.

Space travel is more dangerous than travelling on airplanes.

Or, said in another way: Look how many military pilots are killed every year in flying accidents. If we were to apply civilian standards to military flying, all airplanes worldwide would have to be grounded. Yet, in military operations casualties are accepted.

I think space travel must be as safe as possible, and Shuttle did indeed not have a satisfying safety record. Soyuz didn't impress totally either, especially the last two landings came a little bit too close, but it still did not have fatal accidents for a long time, which is why I do not think it is fair to compare Shuttle to Soyuz directly, also because the effort taken for Security on Shuttle flights seems to be much higher (and therefore much more expensive) than the Safety measures required for Soyuz.

Regardless of that, I do think that 100% safe space travel is not possible. However, a successor to Shuttle must be better than Soyuz and Shuttle.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Space Shuttle Life To Be Extended?
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Space Shuttle Return To Flight May 15. Too Early? posted Tue Mar 1 2005 20:44:38 by UAopsMGR
NASA: Shuttle Resumption To Be Delayed Further posted Fri Oct 29 2004 23:37:50 by ConcordeBoy
I Used To Think The Space Shuttle Was Huge! posted Sat Aug 20 2005 15:53:06 by ACAfan
Space Shuttle Reentry Speed posted Mon Jun 23 2008 13:52:52 by Confuscius
Thunderstorm Pix From Space Shuttle posted Thu Jun 12 2008 13:12:02 by OPNLguy
Space Shuttle Landing Speed posted Sat May 24 2008 16:04:02 by Flexo
KC-45 To Be Built In Up To 13 Lots (years) posted Sun Mar 16 2008 07:03:17 by KC135TopBoom
RAF Mrtt To Be Built In USA? posted Fri Feb 29 2008 16:00:35 by KennyK
Former Boeing Engineer Charged In Selling Shuttle Info To China.... posted Mon Feb 11 2008 11:06:36 by OA260
What Is The Deal With The Space Shuttle? posted Sun Jan 6 2008 21:01:20 by BR715-A1-30

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format