Sign in to follow this  
Zef'No

Shuttlecraft Galileo on display at NASA

Recommended Posts

Zef'No   

The original, life-size shuttlecraft from The Galileo Seven has been fully restored and will go on permanent display at NASA's Johnson Space Center Houston in Texas as of tomorrow. The event will feature a panel of sci-fi actors discussing the genre's influence on real space exploration.

galileo-shuttlecraft-restor.jpg?1375191284

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Going to Texas this December; maybe I can persuade Mrs Vie for us to do an unscheduled fly-by of Houston.... ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh, it really looks shiny!

Yes, but does it still fly? :laugh:

I wouldn't want to be the one who has to test that. *afraid of flying* ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ooooh, it really looks shiny!

Yes, but does it still fly? :laugh:

I wouldn't want to be the one who has to test that. *afraid of flying* ;)

And considering how often the shuttlecraft went 'out of control' on TOS, I don't blame you; even with Spock driving.... :laugh:

It amazes me how much passion we ST fans put into the restoration of props and sets from the show (or how much we bid on them at auctions); it's almost as though we all collectively want that future so badly, we try our best to make it concrete somehow...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll strap some rockets on it and make it fly...If I crash it....ummm just tell em Chakotay did it.....

Awesome idea! They'll just magically come up with a new one - like they always did on Voyager when one of the shuttles crashed, haha.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll strap some rockets on it and make it fly...If I crash it....ummm just tell em Chakotay did it.....

Awesome idea! They'll just magically come up with a new one - like they always did on Voyager when one of the shuttles crashed, haha.

Or you could add a bunch of needless knobs and switches to the cockpit, make it about 30% uglier and call it "The Alpha Flyer." :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and chakotay crashed like 15 of the 20 crashed Voyager shuttles, so NASA would be sure to believe me. They should strap that thing to a space shuttle tank and rockets. Give all new meaning to "space SHUTTLE". They should work on making it usable. But no, the president administrations would cut all funding for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and chakotay crashed like 15 of the 20 crashed Voyager shuttles, so NASA would be sure to believe me. They should strap that thing to a space shuttle tank and rockets. Give all new meaning to "space SHUTTLE". They should work on making it usable. But no, the president administrations would cut all funding for that.

Sorry, but I must clear up a misperception here. The current president hasn't 'killed' the manned space program. The space shuttle was retired in the previous administration (and rightfully so, IMO). The shuttle's retirement was preordained in 2004; with the last scheduled shuttle flight for 2010 (it got extended by another year thanks to NASA advocates on capital hill; the international space station needed the extra flights to complete the station, per international agreement).

As for the cancellation of the 'return to the moon' project "Constellation"? My cousin (who works at Caltech) was brought on board for that one; ALL of the funding for it was pulled from the unmanned program, which means it was stealing from Peter to give Paul a paltry allowance. The current administration wisely cancelled it, as it had NO funding anyway. It was nothing more than a PR stunt; not a serious effort to return American astronauts to the moon.

So please; don't blame our lack of ability to send American astronauts into space on the current administration. If anything, there has been a new (and thriving) effort to drive private enterprise into developing the means to get astronauts into orbit. Space X (Elon Musk's space company) has had tremendous success sending an unmanned version of their dragon (reusable) capsule to the space station for supply runs; and a manned version of Dragon (a 7 seater) is due to take flight within two years. This was started with government financial and development incentives from the current administration (including appeals from NASA's current chief Charles Bolden, a former shuttle astronaut himself). This task handoff to the private sector of low-earth orbital chores would actually free up NASA to focus on it's successful unmanned programs and concentrate on international projects to send astronauts towards asteroid rendezvous and future Mars missions.

I look at NASA's future as sort of an FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) sort of role; more regulation and oversight as private enterprise picks up the gauntlet and begins to TRULY open up space for the average person someday (Virgin Galactic's new spaceport in New Mexico; and the Spaceship Two; expected to ferry its first passengers into space next year).

I've seen the manned version of the Dragon capsule (in Pasadena last year) and it's an impressive ship (even more so considering it is made from a private space company and not NASA). They'll get the job done, I've no doubt of that... and at a fraction of the cost of the expensive, cumbersome (and dangerous) space shuttle. Think of the new private fleet of smaller reusable capsules as the small hybrid cars to the shuttle's big, bloated SUV.

7726665878_906b180460.jpg7726653894_44bda93569.jpg

Photos I took of the Dragon manned space capsule from last year's Planetfest 2012 in Pasadena, CA. The unmanned version of this capsule has already flown several resupply missions to the international space station.

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BEFORE you bash the shuttle program, it was the most reliable space vehichle. 2 mishaps out of hundreds of launches is actually a good record. Compare it to the success records of those dern rockets. Im not comfortable that we are relying on the russians to get us to the Iss, when relations keep getting tense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BEFORE you bash the shuttle program, it was the most reliable space vehichle. 2 mishaps out of hundreds of launches is actually a good record. Compare it to the success records of those dern rockets. Im not comfortable that we are relying on the russians to get us to the Iss, when relations keep getting tense.

Actually, the Soyuz capsule holds that record.

They've been flying (with only minor modifications) since 1967 (45 years) and with only 4 deaths (Vladmir Komarov in Soyuz 1 and the three man crew of Soyuz 11). The space shuttle has flown 31 years with 14 fatalities.

I'm not comfortable with relying on the Russians to get American astronauts either. Hence the reason I'm glad the private sector is showing such zeal and enthusiasm in developing a replacement space capsule to do just that. The fairly routine task of going to and from the ISS costs NASA a LOT of money (not aided by the fact that the Russians overcharge us for seats, too). But the private sector has demonstrated that they are more than capable of getting cargo (and soon people) to and from orbit a LOT less expensively than the space shuttle (which was too cumbersome for its own good). And there is NO reason to launch crew and cargo TOGETHER in a single, very heavy, complex vehicle when NASA has already successfully mastered orbital rendezvous (back in the Gemini program in the 1960s).

Speaking of the private sector, Space X also recently had (2 days ago, in fact) the first successful test of a new vertically landing reusable booster! Not exactly small potatoes....

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think once privateers have conquered space it will be the wild west again. There is no way you can govern a needle in a haystack. It will be the firefly future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think once privateers have conquered space it will be the wild west again. There is no way you can govern a needle in a haystack. It will be the firefly future.

That's possible, although a bit unlikely (at least in the immediate future). And one of the biggest contracts private space entrepreneurs try to win are those big, fat, juicy government contracts.

And people said similar things about air travel (that it would turn into a lawless zone up in the sky) when it first began to bloom (see: the late Howard Hughes' infamous battles with congress on capital hill). But even though it's impossible to discipline or regulate an object or personnel in space? They have to come down sooner or later.... ;)

And there are already laws against 'claiming' space bodies such as the moon or Mars for any one nation. And the nuclear test ban treaty of 1963 forbids nuclear explosions in space; although it doesn't specify against thermonuclear power plants (using radioactive decay) such as the types used in the Voyager probes, Cassini or Curiosity. That could be an interesting wrinkle...

Edited by Sehlat Vie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...and chakotay crashed like 15 of the 20 crashed Voyager shuttles, so NASA would be sure to believe me. They should strap that thing to a space shuttle tank and rockets. Give all new meaning to "space SHUTTLE". They should work on making it usable. But no, the president administrations would cut all funding for that.

Sorry, but I must clear up a misperception here. The current president hasn't 'killed' the manned space program. The space shuttle was retired in the previous administration (and rightfully so, IMO). The shuttle's retirement was preordained in 2004; with the last scheduled shuttle flight for 2010 (it got extended by another year thanks to NASA advocates on capital hill; the international space station needed the extra flights to complete the station, per international agreement).

As for the cancellation of the 'return to the moon' project "Constellation"? My cousin (who works at Caltech) was brought on board for that one; ALL of the funding for it was pulled from the unmanned program, which means it was stealing from Peter to give Paul a paltry allowance. The current administration wisely cancelled it, as it had NO funding anyway. It was nothing more than a PR stunt; not a serious effort to return American astronauts to the moon.

So please; don't blame our lack of ability to send American astronauts into space on the current administration. If anything, there has been a new (and thriving) effort to drive private enterprise into developing the means to get astronauts into orbit. Space X (Elon Musk's space company) has had tremendous success sending an unmanned version of their dragon (reusable) capsule to the space station for supply runs; and a manned version of Dragon (a 7 seater) is due to take flight within two years. This was started with government financial and development incentives from the current administration (including appeals from NASA's current chief Charles Bolden, a former shuttle astronaut himself). This task handoff to the private sector of low-earth orbital chores would actually free up NASA to focus on it's successful unmanned programs and concentrate on international projects to send astronauts towards asteroid rendezvous and future Mars missions.

I look at NASA's future as sort of an FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) sort of role; more regulation and oversight as private enterprise picks up the gauntlet and begins to TRULY open up space for the average person someday (Virgin Galactic's new spaceport in New Mexico; and the Spaceship Two; expected to ferry its first passengers into space next year).

I've seen the manned version of the Dragon capsule (in Pasadena last year) and it's an impressive ship (even more so considering it is made from a private space company and not NASA). They'll get the job done, I've no doubt of that... and at a fraction of the cost of the expensive, cumbersome (and dangerous) space shuttle. Think of the new private fleet of smaller reusable capsules as the small hybrid cars to the shuttle's big, bloated SUV.

7726665878_906b180460.jpg7726653894_44bda93569.jpg

Photos I took of the Dragon manned space capsule from last year's Planetfest 2012 in Pasadena, CA. The unmanned version of this capsule has already flown several resupply missions to the international space station.

I don't think the current administration is solely to blame for the current state of NASA, but I do feel the government (any recent administration) does not treat the space program with the dignity it deserves. It's a cultural icon of this country and not some little special interest group one throws money at from time to time.

The future is in space and a lot of technology we enjoy comes from NASA. Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a very persuasive argument (and a much better one than I could muster) on this subject. All the money we spend on frivolous things could be going to NASA. Or maybe a certain recent war... :soapbox:

On the issue of the commercialization of the space program, I'm not sure how I feel about that. It is nice to see it surviving in another medium, but it just looks like an excuse to get people to pay for an exorbitant amount of money for the dream of going to the stars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a very persuasive argument (and a much better one than I could muster) on this subject. All the money we spend on frivolous things could be going to NASA. Or maybe a certain recent war...

Tyson also has that great quote, "Asteroids are nature's way of saying, 'how's that space program coming along?' " :laugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a very persuasive argument (and a much better one than I could muster) on this subject. All the money we spend on frivolous things could be going to NASA. Or maybe a certain recent war...

Tyson also has that great quote, "Asteroids are nature's way of saying, 'how's that space program coming along?' " :laugh:

Haha! That man is a genius.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson makes a very persuasive argument (and a much better one than I could muster) on this subject. All the money we spend on frivolous things could be going to NASA. Or maybe a certain recent war...

Tyson also has that great quote, "Asteroids are nature's way of saying, 'how's that space program coming along?' " :laugh:

Haha! That man is a genius.

Indeed he is. He is one of my few 'heroes'; I was sooo geeked out when I met him last year. I'll take that memory to the urn... :thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best way to stop an asteroid is to alter its course, put it in orbit, and use it as a natural resource satilite, while mining it, put monster rockets on it to dispose of it into the sun when we are done...has anyone not seen any of the Mobile Suit Gundam series? .... we need much bigger space stations though...and ones that dont take 15 years to complete.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Best way to stop an asteroid is to alter its course, put it in orbit, and use it as a natural resource satilite, while mining it, put monster rockets on it to dispose of it into the sun when we are done...has anyone not seen any of the Mobile Suit Gundam series? .... we need much bigger space stations though...and ones that dont take 15 years to complete.

The bigger the station? The longer it'll take to complete. Even a Saturn V would take quite a few runs to assemble something of the ISS's size (let alone bigger). People already complain that the government 'wastes' too much money on space; they'd never approve a budget for another space station. The budget hounds would shoot it down in flames before it even came to the serious proposal stage (even though NASA's entire budget averages out to less than half a penny per tax dollar... go figure!).

You don't need a space station to alter an asteroid's course; it could be done with all kinds of methods that focus on using counter gravities (gravitational 'nudges' using multiple orbiting spacecraft, which would subtly alter the asteroid's heading), rockets planted on the asteroid itself (perhaps even automated propellent factories as well; assuming the asteroid has any water ice, as some do) or even the current 'lassoing' technique under investigation right now at NASA. At any rate, asteroids are (IMO) a priority with the space program (or they should be). Sooner or later, there will be one with our name on it and we'd best be ready when it comes a callin'....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, the Soyuz capsule holds that record.

They've been flying (with only minor modifications) since 1967 (45 years) and with only 4 deaths (Vladmir Komarov in Soyuz 1 and the three man crew of Soyuz 11). The space shuttle has flown 31 years with 14 fatalities.

That's something that really irritated me about the latest season of The Big Bang Theory. These four super-geniuses with however many IQ points and working knowledges of the entire universe should never display such xenophobia as they do when discussing Soyuz. I'm not impressed by the direction Russia is heading in by any means, but surely they'd know that Soyuz is by far the safest and most reliable spacecraft ever built - rather than going "it must be shit because it's from Russia." Grrr.

Anyway. I remember years ago looking at a picture of the shuttle from TFF decaying and falling apart in the Paramount lot. I'm glad this one has escaped a similar fate!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this