"Michael P. Walsh" wrote in message
...
I know I am getting into an old argument, but I can't resist sticking my
nose into it.

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
"Von Fourche" wrote in
ink.net:

Ok, from what I've read on this group it sounds like the shuttle
was a
not so good space vehicle with its wings and all that.

That's what you'll get from most of this group, but it's learning the
wrong
lesson from the shuttle. Wings are not necessarily a bad thing on an
Earth-
to-LEO spacecraft.

The wings are useful on return from LEO to the ground so you can land,
as the Shuttle does. If you are going to have a reusable vehicle or even
just a recoverable has anyone done an analysis about how much greater
the payload capacity would be if a simpler capsule rather than a winged
recoverable vehicle was used?

The Shuttle is a very inefficient vehicle for delivering payload to orbit.
Check the total weight delivered to orbit as compared to the Shuttle
payload. Most of the weight delivered to orbit is returned back to
earth, the final payload fraction is quite low.

In retrospect, it would have been less expensive to build a smaller
Shuttle for transfering people and small payloads to orbit and a
larger, less complex expendable vehicle to deliver larger payloads.
Such as vehicles studied under the Ten Tonne Orbital Carrier
by NASA back in the mid 1960's.

I used the "Tonne" spelling whereas the NASA study used "Ton"
because it was misunderstood at one of the study, companies, Lockheed
Burbank,
as being 10 short tons (2000 lb. tons) and the ex-Germans at NASA were
talking metric tons.

Of course, things weren't supposed to work out the way they did. There
were supposed to be many more flights and a much lower cost vehicle.


But how can
the future U.S. space vehicle not be able to carry satellites or carry
a robotic arm to fix satellites up in space? You could argue that
satellites in space are one of the most important things for the U.S.


It doesn't have to be the same vehicle and the Air Force would like a
nice robotic vehicle to do satellite repair.

You can also argue that at current (low) launch rates, ELVs can do the
job
more economically. Using a reusable vehicle makes sense only if the
flight
rate is high.


Quite correct.

So NASA is building a new vehicle (CEV) without the capability to
fix
satellites and also doesn't have a lab/living area like the currently
shuttle?
Isn't this a step back and not a step in the future?

Yes.


--
JRF


I don't see why a Shuttle replacement would need a lab/living area as long
as the ISS or other manned orbital stations are kept operational.

Getting rid of both the Shuttle and ISS sounds to me like the quickest
way to destroy US space capabilities in the near future.



Is the U.S. government/NASA really behind the ISS? I don't follow the
U.S space program like everybody else here, but I get the felling that most
Americans couldn't care less about the ISS.