Shuttle etc

Might I just throw ihnto the mix here the point that it seems to me that the
Shuttle was a great idea, and despite its problems, a lot of what is not
known about space travel would not be known if we had just piled into minute
cramped tin cans.

The sad part is that the development of its successor has been stifled for
many years, resulting in an ageing fleet and an effective end to how much
more reliable it can be made without a complete rebuild, or rethink.

I'd only see passenger craft if it was needed, and at present, it seems, it
is not. I imagine more capsules, and maybe, just maybe a small space plane
if it can be justified.

Increasingly, the goings and comings to and from what we may build in Earth
orbit or on the moon are just that, Commuting, and nobody really seems to
care how ungainly this is, its functional.

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free, so there!
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.560 / Virus Database: 352 - Release Date: 08/01/04

"Brian Gaff" writes:

Might I just throw ihnto the mix here the point that it seems to me that the
Shuttle was a great idea, and despite its problems, a lot of what is not
known about space travel would not be known if we had just piled into minute
cramped tin cans.

The sad part is that the development of its successor has been stifled for
many years, resulting in an ageing fleet and an effective end to how much
more reliable it can be made without a complete rebuild, or rethink.

Partly because NASA has had no clear direction for the craft. First
it's a CRV (crew recovery vehicle, or "lifeboat" for ISS). Then it
was a CRV/CTV (crew transfer vehicle, or crew transport to/from ISS).
Now it's a CEV (crew exploration vehicle), which will have
some requirements that are much different than a CRV/CTV.

If space policy in the US wasn't so schizophrenic, perhaps NASA
wouldn't be faced with changing requirements every year or two as it
has all throughout the space station program.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Brian Gaff wrote:

Might I just throw ihnto the mix here the point that it seems to me that the
Shuttle was a great idea, and despite its problems, a lot of what is not
known about space travel would not be known if we had just piled into minute
cramped tin cans.

The sad part is that the development of its successor has been stifled for
many years, resulting in an ageing fleet and an effective end to how much
more reliable it can be made without a complete rebuild, or rethink.

I'd only see passenger craft if it was needed, and at present, it seems, it
is not. I imagine more capsules, and maybe, just maybe a small space plane
if it can be justified.

Increasingly, the goings and comings to and from what we may build in Earth
orbit or on the moon are just that, Commuting, and nobody really seems to
care how ungainly this is, its functional.

Brian

You remind me of how ambitious the 1986 menifest was...16 shuttle
missions...with one launch less than 10 days after a landing. And of course, the
DoD missions from Vandenburg. That was an exciting time to look ahead, but
obviously it was all haulted in its tracks because it was imply too ambitous and
dangerous.

And to think the original idea was to have a shuttle launch almost every week!

Mark

I agree.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.


"Brian Gaff" wrote in message ...
Might I just throw ihnto the mix here the point that it seems to me that the
Shuttle was a great idea, and despite its problems, a lot of what is not
known about space travel would not be known if we had just piled into minute
cramped tin cans.

The sad part is that the development of its successor has been stifled for
many years, resulting in an ageing fleet and an effective end to how much
more reliable it can be made without a complete rebuild, or rethink.

I'd only see passenger craft if it was needed, and at present, it seems, it
is not. I imagine more capsules, and maybe, just maybe a small space plane
if it can be justified.

Increasingly, the goings and comings to and from what we may build in Earth
orbit or on the moon are just that, Commuting, and nobody really seems to
care how ungainly this is, its functional.

Brian

On Wed, 14 Jan 2004 11:22:39 -0500, Mark Lopa wrote:

.with one launch less than 10 days after a landing.

Er, that was achieved in 1995. STS-71 landed July 7, STS-70 launched
July 13.

Brian