 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / January 2008Shuttle flying till at least 2015
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439 Rubbish. The Russians are far more reliable than NASA. When's the last time a Progress or Soyuz blew up in ascent or descent? NASA will be very lucky to get the shuttle to complete its previously announced flight scheduled. Everyone knows one more catastrophy and it's all over except for retirement of the last remaining vehicle to a museum. Il mittente di questo messaggio|The sender address of this non corrisponde ad un utente |message is not related to a real reale ma all'indirizzo fittizio|person but to a fake address of an di un sistema anonimizzatore |anonymous system Per maggiori informazioni |For more info https://www.mixmaster.it Well, I'd always supposed this might be an option, but it remains to be seen if the money is forthcoming. Space no matter how you look at it is very cheap in its amount taken from the population of the US, so there did not ought to be a problem. On the political side, I think its dangerous to assume that Russia is totally anti US, in many ways, their early foray into completely market driven economy and democracy ended due to the greed and criminality of some, and the kind of half way house they have now has, no matter what outsiders think, gone down well with the masses in Russia. National pride needed to be repaired and I suspect a lot of the posturing etc, has been due to this aspect being 'spun'. Of all countries, the US should know spin when they see it. As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed counties with dubious regimes did it, oh now never...:-) Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. Blind user, so no pictures please! > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439 as to soyuz being too small first what job and how many people do you need to launch at one time? I think the upgraded apollo size capsule holding 5 was enough, the CEV 7 was unnecessary, it was nasas attempt to need a new launch system, and pay off existing contractors the apool upgrade could hold 7 in a emergency return from orbit situation. more people thanks to the shrinkage of electronics in all these years on dismantling the ET production hardware what plans were in place if a ET were somehow damaged or lost in transit? was there one extra one being held in reserve? > As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed counties with dubious > regimes did it, oh now never...:-) > > Brian I think I'd put the U.S. history of arms sales up against the USSR/Russian history any day. Yes the U.S. has sold conventional weapons to many countries (though France probably sells more arms globally when one compensates for their smaller population). What the U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales). At this point in time, Russia/Putin is reflexively anti-US. Even to the point of doing stupid things almost solely because it annoys the U.S., in spite of the fact they they will almost certainly live to rue the day that they did said stupid things (i.e. helping nearby Iran go nuclear - perhaps one day Mother Russia will have to deal with nuclear Chechen rebels armed by Iran - I certainly hope not). > > As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed �counties with dubious > > regimes did it, oh now never...:-) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > perhaps one day Mother Russia will have to deal with nuclear Chechen > rebels armed by Iran - I certainly hope not). well the us by mucking in so much of the worlds business all about oil has but a big terrorist target on us. add miss treating / torture with secret prisons and GITMO. after the coming election many prisoners who were picked up for bogus reasons, like wearing the same model wristwatch as a terrorist will be released and go home, hating america and spreading the word on what @!#%$^% we are. which will certinally generate more hatred and terrorists. cant say I blame them........... > U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and > Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales). Iran has signed the NPT and for the last couple of years at least, has abided by its rules and declared what it was doing. Even the CIA has now publically admitted that there was no factual information to support the Bush factual accusations that Iran was building "nukular" bombs. Meanwhile, Israel refuses to sign the NPT and its onwership of nuclear bombs in a rather sensitive part of the middle east continues to be condoned by the USA who hasn't lifted a finger to try to get Israel to sign the NPT. Similarly, India refuses to sign the NPT , and Bush has recently decided to sell them nuclear technology and nuclear fuel (I assume "nukular" is a USA trademark for nuclear stuff :-) India is right next to Pakistan which is is under military dictatorship and whose military has control over the bombs. Not exactly a very stable area, especially when you consider both countries still have unreseoved land disputes. > At this point in time, Russia/Putin is reflexively anti-US. The world is anti-USA. Putin is simply playing the public opinion game to win support. Had the USA public not re-elected Bush in 2004, things would be quite different now. >> U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and >> Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales). [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > to win support. Had the USA public not re-elected Bush in 2004, things > would be quite different now. No true. The former Soviet Union (and indeed many other parts of the world) have consistently been anti-U.S. through both Republican and Democratic (i.e. Clinton) administrations. As the world's sole remaining superpower (at least for the time being) a great deal of antipathy would be expected purely out of envy alone. The one sin that will never be forgiven is success. > http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439 Agree with concept, but that articel is for the wrong reasons. They should agree to extent the 2010 deadline simply because the original 2010 deadline (after which shuttles would have to go thorugh recertification) was based on a much sooner return to flight than what actually happened. So, based on the current flight rate since the CAIB report and now, they should be able to justify a push back of a couple of years of the shuttle retirement deadline. And it isn't because the russians are unreliable, it is simply because the shuttle provide unique capabilities that neither the russians can duplicate, nor the americans once shuttle is retired. Adding a few flights would allow sending more hardware to the station and perhaps even convert an MPLM for permanent duty as a storage module on station. Once the shuttle is gone, humanity loses a very unique tool that had made mankind's use of space far more advanced. > Once the shuttle is gone, humanity loses a very unique tool that had > made mankind's use of space far more advanced. Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO. > Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money > trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO. The shuttle allowed NASA to develop technologies and procedures to build big stuff in space, as well as properly resupply said big stuff (including bringing back stuff). The accounting problems at NASA is what forced the government to prevent NASA from completing the inflatable module, from doing R&D on a mars expedition etc. It wasn't the shuttle per say. Is there budget TODAY for NASA to develop its equivalent to the Kurs docking system so that NASA could continue to resupply the station (albeig via the useless PMA narrow hatches) ? Or is that just "we'll do that later on" ? When you consider that orion isn't even assured of being built, the "we'll do that later on" is even more of a pipe dream. In the end, even if orion is built, NASA will use uit for a couple of weekend camping trips to the moon and then simply emulate soyuz to the station. That is all orion is good for. It offers no ability to build lartge structures or dock/berth large cargo items to and from a worksite in space. And it most certaintly won't get people to mars. It is a dead end technology in terms of space exploration, but it might be a tad cheaper than shuttle to just ferry people between ground and ISS. If the real goal is to go to a new destination (mars being the obvious one), then the shuttle is far more useful than some glorified 1960s capsule because to go to mars, you need to assemble something even bigger than ISS in LEO before you can send it off. > behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > > Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money > > trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO. > > 1. The shuttle allowed NASA to develop technologies and procedures to build > big stuff in space, 2.as well as properly resupply said big stuff > (including bringing back stuff). 1. No There are no new "technologies" involved. All that was needed is experience. Any manned vehicle could have done this, the shuttle itself is not required. The ISS could have build using the MIR paradigm, which didn't use a shuttle. The ISS could have been designed around ELV launches using a tug and manned capsules. The ISS was designed around the shuttle to keep the shuttle in business. So the shuttle did not enable the ISS, the ISS enabled the shuttle 2. Very little of import has been returned by the shuttle. LDEF is the only large one. the remaining (middeck locker size) could be done by a capsule. >1. No There are no new "technologies" involved. All that was needed is >experience. Any manned vehicle could have done this, the shuttle [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >ISS was designed around the shuttle to keep the shuttle in business. >So the shuttle did not enable the ISS, the ISS enabled the shuttle Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a Station have been welded at the hip since Day One. And I shouldn't have to point out that your proposed methods would have been just as expensive as doing it the way we are. >2. Very little of import has been returned by the shuttle. LDEF is >the only large one. the remaining (middeck locker size) could be done >by a capsule. Right. They haven't reflown a payload bay experiment after improving it, and they haven't reflown an entire mission after an abort. Oh, wait - they done both. On top of flying Spacelab and Spacehab multiple times. On top of returning the Hubble servicing fixtures to earth for re-use... _multiple times_. I'll be the first to agree that Shuttle is an overpriced dinosaur, but only a dammfool thinks that a capsule could come anywhere close to performing the jobs it has. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL 1. Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually > studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a > Station have been welded at the hip since Day One. 2. And I shouldn't have to point out that your proposed methods would > have been just as expensive as doing it the way we are. 3. Right. They haven't reflown a payload bay experiment after improving > it, and they haven't reflown an entire mission after an abort. Oh, > wait - they done both. > On top of flying Spacelab and Spacehab multiple times. 4. On top of returning the Hubble servicing fixtures to earth for > re-use... _multiple times_. 5. I'll be the first to agree that Shuttle is an overpriced dinosaur, but > only a dammfool thinks that a capsule could come anywhere close to > performing the jobs it has. 1. I am not one who "studied" the shuttle. I worked on over 30 shuttle payloads including 15 spacehab flights. additionally, I worked on manifesting payloads onto shuttle. So I can take your comments with a grain of salt since you are only a spectator 2. BS. An ELV based architecture like MIR would be cheaper. Two ELV launches are cheaper than one shuttle launch. 3. It was shown that the Atlas series of payloads would have been cheaper to fly on ELV missions. They would have flown more often and for longer periods. Life and material science experiments could have flown more times and longer on FOTON type spacecraft. There are better and cheaper ways to get an experiment to and from space vs using the shuttle. So what if the shuttle reflew the same spacelab complement. Spacelab was just as expensive to use as the shuttle. Another FOTON would be cheaper. Name a major scientific finding or break through from a experiment on Spacehab or Spacelab mission. I knew what was flown. Sometimes an experiment reflew just to make sure there was a full complement, even though the experimenter wasn't ready (no time to analyze previous results or time to make new mods). Also some bogus experiments flew. 4. It would have been cheaper and better if the HST was ELV launched and not associated with the shuttle. Instead of being in LEO which is not a good viewing orbit, L2 orbit like JWST would be better. Instead of revisits, just fly new telescopes with new instruments. The telescopes would be cheaper since they wouldn't have to be manrated and EVA serviceable. The cost of the shuttle launches, EVA training, new instruments, etc could fund a fleet of telescopes 5. Only a dammfool thinks the shuttle paradigm is the only way of doing things. Most of the payloads didn't need a crew or the shuttle services. It would have been cheaper to fly new satellites vs having the shuttle repaired them. Missions were designed around the shuttle vs designing around payload requirements. A capsule base paradigm would have been cheaper, safer and got more done. Skylab and MIR were built without a shuttle and so could have been the ISS. The USA space program could have been further along without the anchor of the shuttle. >1. Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually > studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >worked on manifesting payloads onto shuttle. So I can take your >comments with a grain of salt since you are only a spectator In other words, you not only don't know what the f.ck you are talking about - you are deluded enough to think that totally unrelated experience will impress us into believing you are worth listening to on the topic you've already admitted you don't know anything about. <snippage bullshit evasive handwaving where you merely prove your near total ignorance and introduce semantic games as a substitute for adressing the issues.> D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > In other words, you not only don't know what the f.ck you are talking > about - you are deluded enough to think that totally unrelated > experience will impress us into believing you are worth listening to > on the topic you've already admitted you don't know anything about. You are the clueless and delusion one. I meant I have first hand experience in shuttle payload integration, shuttle operations, ISS cargo operations and ELV integration/operations vs some j.rkoff (insert Derek Lyons) who doesn't know a.shole from an O ring since he only "reads" and "studies" about the shuttle from websites and books. You have no experience or basis to make any claims about the shuttle operations nor make disparaging comments about me. How do you back up your incorrect opinions? My experience is exactly related to this topic. My spacehab experience is applicable since I was responsible for getting the experiments on and off the module before and after flight. I got to know many of the experimenters and the politics between Spacelab/Spacehab. I was also responsible for all the MIR and ISS logistics items. When I was in the USAF, I was in the payload manifesting office and worked on developing cargo complements for the shuttle and the movement of DOD payloads off the shuttle and onto ELV's. I know the shuttle capabilities very well and the negative issues/constraints of flying payloads on it. I have worked on launch vehicle spacecraft integration for MER, MRO and MSL. I also participated in the OSP program and know and worked the issues associated with manrating a launch vehicle. So don't bother responding because you are the one who doesn't know what the f.ck he is talking about. And if you claim you know something, it will be because I told you >You are the clueless and delusion one. <snip> ...You know, after reading that mass drivel, I'm starting to hear the same sort of total bullshit that ~CT was spouting when he first showed up around here - you elders remember as well as I do the claims of "well, I'm experienced in the industry, but I won't give you any proof to back up my credentials". Who is this clod, anyway? *Does* he have the credentials he claims, or is he just another troll trying to put on a facade much in the same way destined-for-Hell trolls like Hoaxland and Maxson love to foist? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >You are the clueless and delusion one. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to back up my credentials". Who is this clod, anyway? *Does* he have > the credentials he claims, 1. It isn't BS. 100% the truth 2. I have the credentials (go to NASASpaceflight.com) 3. Clod? And what makes your opinion worth anything more? >1. It isn't BS. 100% the truth ...Truth doesn't need threats, insults and rhetoric. >2. I have the credentials (go to NASASpaceflight.com) ...And lemme guess: it's only accessable through their L2 bullshit. No, sorry, *you're* the one who's credibility is questionable. Either you cough up the direct links to prove your babble is anything but, or accept the derision as apropos. >3. Clod? And what makes your opinion worth anything more? ...It's worth more than yours, obviously. People around sci.space.* know my credentials, and most of the regulars - including Henry, JimO and Mary - have known my legitimacy for over a decade. You, on the other hand, pop in here like you own the place, and make some really outlandish claims about the reality of the space program that are so far off the mark that your mental health is not in question, but is clearly *out* of the question. Bottom Line: WRT your "credentials" and the links, put up or shut up. Although, I will admit the latter is probably more preferable. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > >2. I have the credentials (go to NASASpaceflight.com) > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > and Mary - have known my legitimacy for over a decade. You, on the > other hand, pop in here like you own the place, 4. and make some really > outlandish claims about the reality of the space program that are so > far off the mark that your mental health is not in question, but is > clearly *out* of the question. 2. Clearly a case of the sour grapes. You are just another outsider trying to look in and resents that other have more inside and real knowledge. My credentials are in the open forum on there. L2 is a great resource. 3. "People around sci.space.*" Stop right there, you just lost your credibility with that statement. Anyone with credibility is on other sites, including JimO. Plodding around usernet does not bring credibility. You are no more credible than gaetanomarano 4. Only outlandish to someone who has no experience in the space program. My points are all valid. >> 1. It isn't BS. 100% the truth > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > OM Ok, you want to question credentials OM? What are your credentials? > >1. It isn't BS. 100% the truth > > ...Truth doesn't need threats, insults and rhetoric. > ...It's worth more than yours, obviously. People around sci.space.* > know my credentials, and most of the regulars - including Henry, JimO > and Mary - have known my legitimacy for over a decade. You, on the Ah, yes. I remember Henry, Mary and JimO. They were intelligent, knowledgeable, articulate, and interesting to read. They have all wandered off, perhaps discouraged by the drooling shuttle fans who call themeelves "regulars". Now that we have someone new who seems to know what he is talking about, I hope he too does not get discouraged and leave. John Halpenny > > >1. It isn't BS. 100% the truth > > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > know what he is talking about, I hope he too does not get discouraged > and leave. Say what? Mary SignatureMary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it. reunite.gondwana@gmail.com or miliff@qnet.com Visit my new blog at http://thedigitalknitter.blogspot.com/ > Ah, yes. I remember Henry, Mary and JimO. They were intelligent, > knowledgeable, articulate, and interesting to read. They have all > wandered off, perhaps discouraged by the drooling shuttle fans who > call themeelves "regulars". Now that we have someone new who seems to > know what he is talking about, I hope he too does not get discouraged > and leave. I believe they're all still here. JimO has always been an occasional poster. Henry has been having computer problems, but has posted a few messages over the last few months. And Mary just replied to your posting. ;-) Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > <j.halpe...@rogers.com> wrote in message And Mary just replied to your posting. John sees more postings from Mary in another group than he does here, but part of that is that Real Life has been interfering with Mary's posting time. But if the ET needed "tea cozy" insulation, Mary would be on top of it! (hey, Jeff, just noticed you also post to an MD group. Knew you had good taste!) /dps > (hey, Jeff, just noticed you also post to an MD group. Knew you had > good taste!) Yep, that's me. I don't use my MD equipment much anymore. I used to MD's primarily for transferring cut music from my daughter's dance teacher to the PC where I could do some more clean-up and burn the result to a CD (optical digital output from an MD deck into my PC's sound card). A year ago, her teacher finally got a new PC and now she does the cutting herself. I used to use my portable MD player every day in my van on the commute to work (plugged into the Aux input on my aftermarket head unit), but once the kids "upgraded" to iPod Nano's, I started using their "obsolete" iPod Video in the van. I don't think the sound is quite as good as an MD recording in SP mode, but the van isn't the best listening environment and now I can take most of my music library with me and not worry about having to swap MD's while driving (it's only a 30 GB iPod). I'm afraid MD's are a dying format these days. Not quite as bad as Betamax though. ;-) Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > I'm afraid MD's are a dying format these days. Not quite as bad as Betamax > though. ;-) I am afraid you're right, but I'm still gathering while I can. 37 hours on 1 Hi-MD gets me a pretty complete shot of the weekend programming I am interested from a local radio station (I have an HD radio to pull the signal in). When I'm limited to MDLP, I still get most of what I want in 3 5-hour pieces. The bigger problem is getting enough time to listen. I've been adding microphones, slowly, so I can record trackside sounds, tying into another hobby. The MD is also handy for picking up stuff that is steamed on the net but not available on demand. And when some walked off with my RH10, they didn't take my whole music collection. /dps >> I'm afraid MD's are a dying format these days. Not quite as bad as >> Betamax [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I've been adding microphones, slowly, so I can record trackside > sounds, tying into another hobby. Field recording is where MD really shines, but I've never used mine for this purpose. I've seen a stereo microphone made for the iPod to do recordings, but I'm guessing the quality would be worse than a "real" mic attached to a MD recorder. > The MD is also handy for picking up stuff that is steamed on the net > but not available on demand. > > And when some walked off with my RH10, they didn't take my whole music > collection. Most everything I own is on CD and on my PC, so losing the iPod doesn't mean losing the music library. In fact, really can't fit everything that's on the PC onto the iPod all at one time. I'd guess maybe 1/2 my collection actually fits on the iPod, and that's in lossy MP3 format. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein > I believe they're all still here. JimO has always been an occasional > poster. Henry has been having computer problems, but has posted a few > messages over the last few months. And Mary just replied to your posting. > ;-) > > Jeff Talking of which, anyone heard from Rusty? His lack of postings here is conspicuous... >> In other words, you not only don't know what the f.ck you are talking >> about - you are deluded enough to think that totally unrelated [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > only "reads" and "studies" about the shuttle from websites and > books. Ah fun fun. Got to love how well everyone here gets along. Here's part of the issue and this applies to just about anyone in ANY field. Expertise in a specific area does not necessarily grant you authority to speak for the field in general. For example, to pick on Derek, I wouldn't question him on say launch procedures for a Trident nuclear missile. However, if we started to discuss mining operations for Uranium and the delitorous health effects it has on the local population, while I may grant him a bit more credibility than my Uncle Duffy on the subject, I wouldn't treat his word as golden nor not question it. Or even more close to him, if we were discussing McNamera's work and impact on the nuclear sub program as a whole, while I'd grant Derek might have some more first hand knowledge, I wouldn't immediately grant him a pass on knowing McNamera. He'd have to "earn his street cred" there. Hell even if we're discussing the strategic implications of the switch from the Seawolf class submarines to the Virginia class I wouldn't accept what he had to say on face value. And in fact, given how close he is to the situation, there's a very good chance I might question it even MORE than normal since it's often the case that a person that deeply involved can't see the forest for the trees. Now, switch roles a bit. You come in here, obviously with a number of credentials (and unlike OM I'm willing to trust you on these) and trying to argue from authority. Something that rarely works. Your experience is topical definitely, and welcome and there are definitely areas I find us in agreement. But please understand that there's also times that people such as Derek and myself are going to disagree with you (and even with the applicability of your experiences) and want to see more cogent arguements. In another email you comment on OM's comments in regards to Henry, Mary and others. While certain people here have definitely earned their street cred, none of them are above approach. We may joke about how Henry is infalliable, but the fact of the matter is a number of us have corrected him on factual issues and definitely questioned him on his opinions. Mary may be the Grand Dame around here and we treat her like a lady (generally because she ACTS as such), we hardly give her a free pass (and nor would she want us to.) So, please continue in the discussion and debate, but realize that credentials are only 1/2 the battle here. > You have no experience or basis to make any claims about the > shuttle operations nor make disparaging comments about me. How do you [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > what the f.ck he is talking about. And if you claim you know > something, it will be because I told you SignatureGreg Moore SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available! Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html ><snippage bullshit evasive handwaving where you merely prove your near >total ignorance and introduce semantic games as a substitute for >adressing the issues.> ...If it quiffs like a ~CT, and it babbles like a ~CT, then... OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >> <snippage bullshit evasive handwaving where you merely prove your near >> total ignorance and introduce semantic games as a substitute for [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OM It's spelled "queef" fucktard. You know, like when your mother queefed you out all those years ago. If it whines like an OM, and it queefs like an OM ..... etc. etc. > Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually > studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a > Station have been welded at the hip since Day One. Of course they have. You have a tool and you build structures based on what that tool is capable of. Russia didn't have a functioning shuttle or manipulator arm, so their modules are far more primitive and their capabilites to build space structures far more limited. They do not have the ability to have CBM size hatches (those hatches as well as the MPLM were one of the big things that were learned from the experience on MIR, and those are the very things that NASA will lose when it abandons the shuttle because it will revert to the small russian sized hatches on the PMA modules. Compare the size of the russian modules with that of the USA modules. And look at the intricate parts that the shuttle was able to fly up there, including the truss, the station robotic arm as well as the solar panels and the truss "railway" system. It would be possible to emulate this by having some rocket with the PMA docking hardware at the front, and a cavernous cyclinder that would emulate the shuttle's cargo bay. The rocket would hard dock on a PMA, and then the station arm would pick up the cargo from the rocket. This would allow one to send odd shaped ojects to the station. But such a system would make it harder to start a new station from scratch. (since until that new structure has an arm, that rocket would be useless). So, you would end up having some modules like the russian ones, outfitted with their own guidance and rockets (each being different), and some outfitted with cavernous hull that would carry the cargo. SO you end up with different orbital ships instead of just the shuttle. 1. Russia didn't have a functioning shuttle or manipulator arm, so their > modules are far more primitive and their capabilites to build space > structures far more limited. 2. They do not have the ability to have CBM > size hatches (those hatches as well as the MPLM were one of the big > things that were learned from the experience on MIR, and those are the > very things that NASA will lose when it abandons the shuttle because it > will revert to the small russian sized hatches on the PMA modules. 3. Compare the size of the russian modules with that of the USA modules. > And look at the intricate parts that the shuttle was able to fly up > there, including the truss, the station robotic arm as well as the solar > panels and the truss "railway" system. 4 It would be possible to emulate this by having some rocket with the PMA > docking hardware at the front, and a cavernous cyclinder that would > emulate the shuttle's cargo bay. The rocket would hard dock on a PMA, > and then the station arm would pick up the cargo from the rocket. This > would allow one to send odd shaped ojects to the station. 5. But such a system would make it harder to start a new station from > scratch. (since until that new structure has an arm, that rocket would > be useless). 6, So, you would end up having some modules like the russian ones, > outfitted with their own guidance and rockets (each being different), > and some outfitted with cavernous hull that would carry the cargo. SO > you end up with different orbital ships instead of just the shuttle. 1. Incorrect, the MIR had an EVA arm and the additional modules had small arms to move them around the docking node. The Mir modules weren't "primitive", they were more advanced and were self sufficient 2. CBM hatches was not a lesson from the MIR program. It is just a nice to have. But that is not loss when the Shuttle goes away, Spacex, HTV and any COTS vehicle are going to use the CBM's and not the PMA's. 3. The differences between russian and US modules sizes are insignificant, but the Zvezda is bigger than Destiny. All the other ISS parts (truss, solar arrays, etc )could have been designed to fly on an ELV. An ELV is going to deliver a European arm to the Russian segment of the ISS. There is nothing special about the cargo bay of the shuttle. 4. Delta IV, Atlas V and Proton have payload fairings wider than the shuttle cargo bay. and they can handle the same length payloads. 5. The first piece put into space could have an arm. It is just how you design the system. There is no reason a station could be assembled without a shuttle. 6. No, a common tug would just have to be designed that would deliver the hardware to the assembly area. No real problem. the large fairings already exist On Dec 24, 12:07�pm, behlin...@gmail.com wrote: > 1. � Russia didn't have a functioning shuttle or manipulator arm, so > their [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > the hardware to the assembly area. �No real problem. �the large > fairings already exist cleary the unreal hgh cost of shuttle...... that money could of been spent other ways, and nasa wasted millions studying but never building a new manned system to keep the jobs program going. nasa main mandate is too keep the pork squealing at any cost. even the lives of astronauts. the shuttle should of never been designed with launch boost escape >> Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually >> studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a >> Station have been welded at the hip since Day One. > >Of course they have. You have a tool and you build structures based on >what that tool is capable of. Wrong. The 'tool' and the object the tool was to work on evolved together. They are not independent creations. D. SignatureTouch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/ -Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings. Oct 5th, 2004 JDL > >> Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually > >> studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They are not independent creations. Again you could be more wrong. The shuttle was not designed with the ISS in mind ("the" ISS and a space station are not the same thing). they were designed over 15 years apart. the ISS was designed around the shuttle capabilities. The shuttle design has not had any major evolutions since its first flight that have changed the approach to ISS assembly and operations >>> Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually >>> studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > They are not independent creations. It's arguable that the shuttle came first. Once DOD signed up to use the shuttle, the payload bay grew to 15' dia x 60' long. Prior shuttle concepts were much smaller, intended to *service* a space station rather than build one. Once the US decided that STS was going to be *the* US Space Transportation System, all station concepts naturally assumed that the shuttle would be used to launch and service them. I really liked some of the Saturn V launched space station concepts. You can launch a pretty big honking station on a Saturn V (like the concepts that were the same diameter as the first and second stages). When your choice of launch systems is fixed (i.e. a NASA specific launch vehicle like Saturn V or Shuttle), it's no surprise that payloads get designed around the idiosyncrasies of the launch vehicle. Jeff SignatureA clever person solves a problem. A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.