Well since I wrote the op-ed piece I'll add to this discussion.

1) Yes you can reuse Apollo type Command Modules.

Remember NASA launched Gemini 2, then gave it to the USAF who carved a
hatch in its heat shield, then re-launched it on the first and only
MOL flight. It was recovered in good shape and I believe is still on
display at the USAF Museum at the Cape.

But do you want to reuse the CM? I doubt it. For one thing if you, by
some miracle, got Congress to fund Apollo Redux, the contractor will
build five or ten, then shut the production line down. Then you start
losing them over time and you're in the same state NASA is in today
after losing 40% of its Shuttle fleet in two decades of flight: the
other side of the coin of reusability is "losability." Much better to
have the production lines open.

If NASA keeps flying Shuttles, some day they will run out of Shuttles.
Russia, on the other hand, just keeps building Soyuzes. We should have
followed their model: Even though they built a Shuttle, they never
discarded their Soyuz technology. If the US had kept Apollo CSM/Saturn
1B technology, we'd be a lot better off today than we are, waiting for
the Shuttle to return to flight.

Is it cost effective to reuse a CM? Who knows? But note that NASA goes
to a lot of trouble to recover and reuse the Shuttle SRBs even though
studies have determined it would be cheaper to throw them away.

I submit that NASA is chasing a chimera with reusability and would be
better off if it gave up on that notion.

2) You don't need Carrier Task Groups deployed for contingency
landings Even if your flying an Apollo type CSM. Does Russia deploy
Naval vessels for Soyuz? Heck no. You solve the contingency landing
zone problem by giving the craft sufficient on-orbit loiter time to
hit any landing zone. I prefer Kansas, or Edwards, but you also have
the vast steppes of Russia (where more than a few manned missions have
ended, right?) or even the Australian Outback if you needed it.

3) And you don't even need all that much open space. Apollo did have
some, albeit modest, cross range capability, since its center of
gravity was offset. Enough to avoid bad terrain on landing is all you
need. Plus, Apollo landings were very accurate. So land landings are
not a particular challenge.

4) Proponets of OSP "wings and wheels" approaches like to tout the
gentle low g reentry, supposedly so injured crewman will not suffer
adverse effects. But Apollo LEO reentries only pulled a little more
than three Gs max. I submit if a cremember is too ill to manage 3 gs,
he probably is beyond help.

And the one major advantage of reviving the manufacture of Apollo CM
vehicles is it opens the possibility of going back to the moon. You'll
never be able to justify the payload hit you'd suffer by hauling wings
and wheels all the way to the moon where they are of absolutely no
use. But once again having a CSM, you could at least entertain the
notion of going back.

Bottom line is: The next Shuttle disaster will be the last one. I am
sure the political fallout of losing another orbiter will surely end
the program.

So does NASA roll the dice every time it flies a Shuttle, hoping it
will return in one piece? Or does it get on with the task of replacing
it? If NASA does lose another Shuttle before a replacement is
operational, it will likely mean the end of US manned spaceflight.

As I said in the op-ed piece: Use the Shuttles to finish Space
Station construction, then retire the fleet. An updated Apollo CSM
then takes over crew rotation and an unmanned cargo carrier--a Jumbo
Progress vehicle--takes over logistics for resupply.

Then back to the moon....

"Phil A. Buster" wrote in message ...
"Michael Gallagher" wrote in message
...
[carbon copy of this message being e-mailed to the man himself]

Hi, All..

Saw Thomas Frieling's piece in Spaceflight. Very nice!

No strong feelings either way on whether the shuttle should be ultimately
replaced by either a manned capsule or a small spaceplane, but this brings
up a question I've had in mind for a long time:

Would it be possible to build a reusable CAPSULE? Obviously, it would be
launched on an ELV and still have a disposable SM, but why not build a
series of capsules that can be used repeatedly and save a little money?
The
reusability concept must have some validity to it!


It is certainly possible. The bigger question is whether it is cost
effective. According to a number of articles I've seen over the years, NASA
found that returned Apollo capsules were in surprisingly good condition, and
actually did give some thought to reuse. It was not pursued because of the
limited scope of the program and the adequate number of capsules
manufactured and available at the time. I have occasionally wondered if
Russia reuses any Soyuz components. They don't as far as I know, but I
have never seen it discussed one way or the other. One would think that a
certain amount of hardware (e.g. radios and the like) should be readily
reusable, regardless of the bigger issue of the capsule itself.