On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:52:42 -0400, John Doe wrote:

Yes, one comment was made in this newsgroup (sci.space.shuttle) to the
effect that it would replace the shuttle.

If they had said "it would be A shuttle", it would be fine. But
replacing THE shuttle isn't. Because there is only one shuttle right
now, replacing THE shuttle means replacing that Shuttle vehicle operated
by NASA.

I have found it funny to read that some people here do not know the
definition of the word "shuttle". That being a transport vehicle used
to carry people frequently and efficiently between two places.

So any spacecraft used to carry astronauts, cosmonauts, euronauts and
space tourists between the ground and the ISS can be correctly called
a "shuttle". Although you just have to question the efficiency, when
these are not exactly daily flights.

People need to understand the CEV and Klipper will not fill all the
functionality/capabilities that will be lost when NASA grounds its shuttles.

Certainly, but I would believe that some Shuttle aspects would be
unimportant.

Like the Shuttle's ability to bring large items back to the ground. As
once it is up there, then there is no point in bringing it back down,
when you would only have to pay to launch it again.

The russians do have a space tug capable of bringing some types of cargo
to the station. Europe will have ATV which will be able to dock to the
russian ports on the station. Japan may have HTV which will be able to
approach the station and let the station's arm grab it and then berth
it. But the USA will have nothing of that capability once shuttle
retires, unless it starts working on it now.

So the USA comes last in that race.

ATV will be restricted by the small hatch sizes on the russian segment.
HTV will not be able to return gear to the ground. (neither ATV or Progress).

Maybe due to the "crap" from the ISS being considered expendable.

Anything that they do need to bring back down, which is of a smaller
size, can certainly be brought down in the Clipper or CEV.

Klipper will have very limited cargo capacity (but vast improvement over Soyuz).

Well it is designed to carry six people about. I expect that they
could make a cargo version had they wanted, but both Russia and Europe
now have independent cargo systems.

You can criticise the Shuttle all you want. It may be expensive, it may
have problems with its tiles/foam. But as a vehicle, it is extremely
capable in space.

Not really. The Shuttle has far too much mass to be efficient in
space.

Now had they chopped the wings off, removed the SSMEs, and even
removed the cargo hull, then the Shuttle would be a lot more
efficient. You can then begin to see that the Shuttle would then be
more CEV / Clipper like.

Bridge the gap in giving your CEV an efficient airlock, and a good
grapple arm, and a better engine no doubt, then you would have your
ideal orbital tug with repair facility.

A bit like a penguin. Walks funny and slow and very vulnerable on
ground, but once in water, is a great sleek animal that goes very fast.
Once in space, the shuttle has capabilities that are unmatched, but on
the atmosphere/ground, it is quite vulnerable and handles like a brick.

It will always be a brick. Ground and space.

The shuttle isn't a ferrari. It is a huge dump truck. Designed to do
work in space.

Any efficient orbital vehicle does not need wings, SSMEs, and even a
cargo hull.

The Shuttle also manages to do with one launch what will require 2
launches when it is retired: launch the cargo in one rocket, then launch
the crew to perform assembly of that cargo.

For a much lower cost. One SRB to launch the CEV, then a second one to
launch the cargo. The saving from the handling of the ET and Shuttle
can give you an idea of the price reduction.

You could well launch around 8 of those for every Shuttle launch, but
it remains to be seen what NASA can do. Still, to move as much people
and cargo as about four Shuttle launches would be nice.

Without the shuttle, the space station concept becomes even more
important. By having permanent presence in space, when you want to
assemble the mars ship, some unmanned cargo launchers may lauch modules
up and then you can use the space station crews to connect everything
together and complete the assembly of that module. Otherwise, you need
2 launches, one for cargo and one for workers to complete assembly.

Such a shame that the ISS is in the wrong orbit to do that.

You also do not need a space station to build a spaceship. You have
the ISS construction as proof of that concept.

Cardman.