On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 23:21:29 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 00:08:37 +0100, in a place far, far away, Cardman
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

NASA is fully welcome to work out all the exact details and costs
involved in this plan. I have said what I came hear to say and no one
has yet given me a good reason why it should not be done.

Because it would be various combinations of being physically
impossible and economically ridiculous. No detailed analysis is
required to know this, if one understands basic physics,

I know basic physics, where nothing I have said charges this.

And if NASA knows basic physics, then why did it not put the ISS into
a much more useful orbit?

the nature of the shuttle systems,

So it cannot be maintained in orbit then? That to me sounds like the
usual "we simply do not want to do it" rubbish.

Well it seems to spend many days up there perfectly fine, where I can
only see that refueling and recharging would keep it running longer.

Sure there would be long term problems, but either you could then
scrap the Shuttles one by one in favour of something new, or you could
use this huge launch capacity to build a Shuttle servicing station.

Whatever NASA plans to do after the Shuttle won't be cheap, where this
could be the cheapest of the available options.

and the basis of space systems costs.

I estimate lower launch costs than with the Shuttle, where no one has
even began to prove that wrong.

And certainly some of my ideas are not cheap, but NASA has been
thinking along this line itself a fair amount. As how do they plan to
go to the moon? Fairy dust?

We do. You clearly don't, by your own admission.

You are also not proving me wrong, where either your ego is too large
or you cannot.

So name one single item on the Shuttle that would soon expire and
could not be replaced in orbit? Go on, I dare you. ;-]

Cardman.