Wipeout Our Current Space Program ???

As far as those questioning the need for human space exploration I
personally think it's one of the most important activities we should be
doing today. I don't know why, I don't have a good reason except I would
like to believe that humans can safely travel through space. Just chalk it
up to human vanity and the need to know.

As far as trashing the shuttles and the station I suppose we could but they
are still extremely viable and we have spent far more on B.S. than we ever
have on our space program. If we trashed the station then we wouldn't have
the ability to keep people in space for extended periods meaning that any
trip to Mars is just a dream.

But what if ???

What if we built one or two large reliable space craft in orbit. They would
not be intended to land on Earth so forget the heat problems. It would be
accessed by the mini shuttle that is planned for 2012. They would be
intended for astronauts to take very long trips, around the Moon, asteroid
and comet visits, maybe a trip around Mars. That would solve several
problems reasonably without the added risk of landing humans in alien
evironments which can come later.

Is this an idea or would it just be as bad as our current shuttles and
station ???

"Skorpious" wrote in message
...
But what if ???

What if we built one or two large reliable space craft in orbit. They
would
not be intended to land on Earth so forget the heat problems. It would be
accessed by the mini shuttle that is planned for 2012. They would be
intended for astronauts to take very long trips, around the Moon, asteroid
and comet visits, maybe a trip around Mars. That would solve several
problems reasonably without the added risk of landing humans in alien
evironments which can come later.

Is this an idea or would it just be as bad as our current shuttles and
station ???



These deep space shuttle ideas have been around a long time, at least since
the early 1950s when von Braun popularized his ideas for lunar bases and
manned Mars missions. They are usually part of a scheme to build a permanent
space transportation infrastructure connecting the surfaces of the Earth,
Moon and Mars. NASA has studied such concepts since the late 1950s,
continuing to the present.

The weak link in these ideas invariably turns out the be the cost of getting
to the first node in this system, namely low Earth orbit (LEO). See Harry
Stine's book "Halfway to Anywhere" for the details. NASA's shuttle was
supposed to solve this problem. In 1970-71 it was hyped and sold to the
White House, Congress, the OMB and the taxpayers as the means for low-cost,
assured access to space. Unfortunately, the $200 per pound of payload
promised by the shuttle proponents back then has turned out to be about
$10,000 per pound (a 5000% underestimate).

Lotsa people today believe that the real problem is NASA which is slammed as
a bungling, bloated bureaucracy that has tied the shuttle in wads of
unnecessary and expensive red tape. Actually, the problem lies in the
technology. The Apollo era technology embodied in the present shuttle is too
brittle and unreliable to reduce operating cost below about $500M per launch
(today's bucks). Unfortunately, however, it's the only technology we have.
Research on launch vehicle and manned spacecraft technology has been in
stasis for the past 30 years. And with the available $3-4B per year for this
kind of stuff going to patch up the present shuttle and keep it operating,
these space transportation infrastructure ideas keep receeding into the dim
and distant future. It's fun to think about these things, but I wouldn't get
my hopes up too high.

Later
Ray Schmitt

Ray,

That was actually thoughtfull and informative which is something I never
expect from this group. I have also learned to not expect much when it
comes to our space program. I know that eventually all these things will
come and more than likely from the private secter, (thinking of todays
airlines for an example). For those who do advocate getting rid of the
space station, if it is gone then how do we build and astronaut core with
space experience ??? Or is that no longer important because we shouldn't be
sending people into space anyway ???



"Skorpious" wrote in message
...
As far as those questioning the need for human space exploration I
personally think it's one of the most important activities we should be
doing today. I don't know why, I don't have a good reason except I would
like to believe that humans can safely travel through space. Just chalk
it
up to human vanity and the need to know.

As far as trashing the shuttles and the station I suppose we could but
they
are still extremely viable and we have spent far more on B.S. than we ever
have on our space program. If we trashed the station then we wouldn't
have
the ability to keep people in space for extended periods meaning that any
trip to Mars is just a dream.

But what if ???

What if we built one or two large reliable space craft in orbit. They
would
not be intended to land on Earth so forget the heat problems. It would be
accessed by the mini shuttle that is planned for 2012. They would be
intended for astronauts to take very long trips, around the Moon, asteroid
and comet visits, maybe a trip around Mars. That would solve several
problems reasonably without the added risk of landing humans in alien
evironments which can come later.

Is this an idea or would it just be as bad as our current shuttles and
station ???

"Skorpious"
That was actually thoughtfull and informative
which is something I never
expect from this group.

Shove it up your ass.

Ray Schmitt

-Unfortunately, the $200 per pound of payload
-promised by the shuttle proponents back then has turned
-out to be about $10,000 per pound
-(a 5000% underestimate).

-Lotsa people today believe that the real problem is NASA
-which is slammed as a bungling, bloated bureaucracy
-that has tied the shuttle in wads of unnecessary and expensive
-red tape.

The initial cost estimates were based on weekly flight rates. In this
way, the high cost of the bloated bureaucracy would be divided among 52
flights. The only way to get this number of flights would be if the
processing for flight consisted of attaching the SRBs, attaching and
refueling the ET, wash the windows, and launch.

The current flight processing involves engine swaps, thousands of man
hours of maintenance, and 4x per year flight rates. So the bureaucratic
cost of the PhD chair-warmers and his rug-rat's dental work is a
significant fraction of the dollars per pound on orbit.

Assuming that there have been incremental advances in technology in the
interim, a next-gen shuttle should endeavor to increase maintainability
of the vehicle, or to put it another way, reduce the number of
maintenance items required.

My light social comentary
That was actually thoughtfull and informative
which is something I never
expect from this group.

Ray's thoughtfull reply
Shove it up your ass.

My ass was so not expecting that. In fact it still stings.
Please be advised that I will treat posts and replies
to this newsgroup with nothing but the utmost respect
from this point on.

And thank you for the answer to my question.