View Single Post
  #3  
Old February 11th 04, 06:33 PM
John Schutkeker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Getting the shuttle back into the air

jeff findley wrote in
:

What you're talking about is similar to the vehicle NASA has wanted to
evacuate the crew from ISS in an emergency. They've wanted this for
decades. They don't have it yet because such a thing is neither cheap
nor easy to do. Eventually the CEV will be capable of such a mission,
but the shuttle won't be around when the CEV starts to fly manned
missions.


NASA has an ISS evacuation module, but I assume that it's only large enough
to hold three people, since ISS never has very many crew members. Besides,
if the Shuttle crew docked with the ISS and used their escape capsule to
return to earth, then the ISS would be without an escape capsule.

I'm suprised you think that this would be a difficult and expensive
prospect. All you need to do is get to LEO and stay aloft long enough to
evacuate the crew. The mission is extremely short, and the equipment
requirements look like the absolute minimum to me. It looks like the rough
equivalent of a Gemini mission.

The real reason to end the shuttle program is that it costs too much
to keep going and there aren't that many orbiters left even if you
wanted to keep flying them.


I accept this, but apparently the plan is to keep it going until the ISS is
finished, which sounds like it will take a number of missions, yet. And
there is talk about adding one last mission to keep the Hubble aloft, too.
Will they do all this without benefit of evacuation or repair capability,
and if they do that, won't that spit in the face of CAIB's recommendations?

once the fuel cells run dry, you really can't recover the vehicle.


Does this eliminate the possibility of launching with enough fuel to keep
the fuel cells going for 18 months in a hibernation mode, or would that
require an entire shuttle bay full of fuel.