SpaceBanter.com - View Single Post

**J. Clarke[_2_]** · November 30th 11, 07:54 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history

In article 77afbd3e-fed7-46a4-98e6-
, says...

On Nov 29, 1:26*pm, Matt Wiser wrote:
On Nov 29, 3:07*am, bob haller wrote:

He did by authorizing ET-122 be restored from Katrina damage and using
ET-138 on an actual flight and not held in reserve for a rescue
flight. The only remaining complete, flightworthy tank is ET-94, the
last Light Weight Tank, heavier than the Super Light Weight Tanks
(ET-96 and up, ET-95 was never built, neither was ET-7) used for Space
Station missions, and thus not really suitable for Station work.

I believe there were 3 more in the works (I'd have to wiki/google it but my
browser is acting up right now.)

And ET-94 was usable, just limited the payload. *Which for post construction
flights was less of an issue.

Brian

nasa stated publically the chance of a lost vehicle and crew was like
30% if it continued flying.

no one wanted to see another orbiter destroyed, and another flight
crew lost.......

the problem wasnt ending the shuttle program.

the problem was the **** poor political driven replacement choice.

if nasa had choosen to put a new capsule on top of a expendable atlas
or delta, and we would of been flying by now.

And this from someone who wants to end HSF? Btw, Bobbert, Orion wasn't
going to be flight-ready under CxP until 2013 under their original
plan, and not until 2015 under the final CxP plans. Again, being
naive, technologically ignorant, politically ignorant, and
disregarding anything that clashes with your fantasies won't get you
anywhere.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa could of mated a new capsule and service module on a existing
expendable very quickly and not had to design a new booster at all.....

Is there a man-rated expendable available other than Soyuz?