BBC: Last Shuttle flight a humiliation for the United States

On Jul 10, 3:02*pm, aemeijers wrote:
But to
replace it with slightly upsized Apollo-era technology, with nothing but
the crew cabin (maybe) being reusable? That is a step backwards. The
world needs a man-rated space plane, and use cheaper non-man-rated
expendables for the heavy lifting.

They still have the Titan.

The ISS can be reached by the Shuttle, and the Shuttle goes into low
Earth orbit - like a Mercury capsule.

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

It will probably still cost somewhat big bucks to get the Titan man-
rated again, but this would be 'way cheaper than anything they're
currently considering - yet it *does the job*.

We can go back to fancier ways of sending people into space when, and
if, we feel it's worth doing right and worth paying for - and will
continue to feel it's worth paying for long enough for it to happen.
If that happens, great. I'd like to see a return to ambitious manned
spaceflight.

But until it does, pretending just wastes money.

John Savard

Quadibloc wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

why isn't the DOD doing something with that massive budget?

Quadibloc wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

On Jul 10, 3:02*pm, aemeijers wrote:
But to
replace it with slightly upsized Apollo-era technology, with nothing
but
the crew cabin (maybe) being reusable? That is a step backwards. The
world needs a man-rated space plane, and use cheaper non-man-rated
expendables for the heavy lifting.

They still have the Titan.

The ISS can be reached by the Shuttle, and the Shuttle goes into low
Earth orbit - like a Mercury capsule.

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

It will probably still cost somewhat big bucks to get the Titan man-
rated again, but this would be 'way cheaper than anything they're
currently considering - yet it *does the job*.

We can go back to fancier ways of sending people into space when, and
if, we feel it's worth doing right and worth paying for - and will
continue to feel it's worth paying for long enough for it to happen.
If that happens, great. I'd like to see a return to ambitious manned
spaceflight.

But until it does, pretending just wastes money.

John Savard


Yes, I can see that. Dumping huge, expensive rocket stages into the
ocean instead of relative cheap, reusable fuel tanks..

VicXnews wrote in :

Quadibloc wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

why isn't the DOD doing something with that massive budget?


They are too busy saving the World from itself.

On 7/10/2011 4:03 PM, VicXnews wrote:
wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

why isn't the DOD doing something with that massive budget?

Because that doesn't make any military sense to do.
Besides:

A.) Gemini went up on a Titan II, which is no longer in service.
B.) It would take a major redesign to put a front docking collar on it;
the front cylindrical section is where the parachute is stored, with RCS
propellant tanks directly behind it and ahead of the crew compartment.
C.) ISS is a civilian, not military, space station.

You could have done manned docking and crew transfer with the Air Force
derivative of the Gemini, but it was going to use a hatch in the
heatshield to do it, not one at the front end.
The heatshield hatch was successfully tested on a unmanned Gemini
launched by a Titan IIIC, along with a mock-up of the Manned Orbiting
Laboratory (MOL).

Pat

On Jul 11, 3:49*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 7/10/2011 4:03 PM, VicXnews wrote:

*wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

why isn't the DOD doing something with that massive budget?

Because that doesn't make any military sense to do.
Besides:

A.) Gemini went up on a Titan II, which is no longer in service.
B.) It would take a major redesign to put a front docking collar on it;
the front cylindrical section is where the parachute is stored, with RCS
propellant tanks directly behind it and ahead of the crew compartment.
C.) ISS is a civilian, not military, space station.

You could have done manned docking and crew transfer with the Air Force
derivative of the Gemini, but it was going to use a hatch in the
heatshield to do it, not one at the front end.
The heatshield hatch was successfully tested on a unmanned Gemini
launched by a Titan IIIC, along with a mock-up of the Manned Orbiting
Laboratory (MOL).

Pat

NASA / Congress was STUPID.

At the time of columbias loss existing Atlas and Delta heavies could
of been paired with a capsule design carrying 4 astronauts and we
would of been flying by now.

But the pork piggie squealed want more money so nasa specked such a
large capsule that existing expendable boosters were too small.

and here we are today

On Jul 11, 6:17*am, bob haller wrote:
On Jul 11, 3:49*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 7/10/2011 4:03 PM, VicXnews wrote:
*wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

why isn't the DOD doing something with that massive budget?

Because that doesn't make any military sense to do.
Besides:

A.) Gemini went up on a Titan II, which is no longer in service.
B.) It would take a major redesign to put a front docking collar on it;
the front cylindrical section is where the parachute is stored, with RCS
propellant tanks directly behind it and ahead of the crew compartment.
C.) ISS is a civilian, not military, space station.

At the time of columbias loss existing Atlas and Delta heavies could
of been paired with a capsule design carrying 4 astronauts and we
would of been flying by now.

But the pork piggie squealed want more money so nasa specked such a
large capsule that existing expendable boosters were too small.

I agree that the Department of Defense should spend its money on its
job.

However, that NASA could have been given a budget to design some sort
of new capsule that would go on existing boosters, and to man-rate
those boosters, for the purpose of ISS resupply seems to make sense -
compared to Ares or the current rebranded Ares.

John Savard

On Jul 11, 11:31*am, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jul 11, 6:17*am, bob haller wrote:





On Jul 11, 3:49*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
On 7/10/2011 4:03 PM, VicXnews wrote:
*wrote in news:8ddf9d35-8c60-4397-8a35-
:

So: build an updated Gemini capsule with a port in the front, like on
the Apollo capsule, and one pilot astronaut can fly a mission
specialist to dock with the ISS. Manned spaceflight is possible, and
not much in the way of new technology is required.

why isn't the DOD doing something with that massive budget?

Because that doesn't make any military sense to do.
Besides:

A.) Gemini went up on a Titan II, which is no longer in service.
B.) It would take a major redesign to put a front docking collar on it;
the front cylindrical section is where the parachute is stored, with RCS
propellant tanks directly behind it and ahead of the crew compartment..
C.) ISS is a civilian, not military, space station.
At the time of columbias loss existing Atlas and Delta heavies could
of been paired with a capsule design carrying 4 astronauts and we
would of been flying by now.

But the pork piggie squealed want more money so nasa specked such a
large capsule that existing expendable boosters were too small.

I agree that the Department of Defense should spend its money on its
job.

However, that NASA could have been given a budget to design some sort
of new capsule that would go on existing boosters, and to man-rate
those boosters, for the purpose of ISS resupply seems to make sense -
compared to Ares or the current rebranded Ares.

John Savard- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

nasa specifially wrote the specs for a replacement manned launcher
after columbias loss so no existing expendable would be usable.

normal pork piggie congress run way to common today.

once it was clear ARES wouldnt work nasa should of appealed the end of
the shuttle......

On Jul 11, 10:37*am, bob haller wrote:

once it was clear ARES wouldnt work nasa should of appealed the end of
the shuttle......

As it *was*, the Shuttle had been kept running far too long. The
Shuttle fleet was old and unsafe, and we're very fortunate there were
no further disasters during the last few flights.

Back when it was still possible to construct additional Shuttles -
when Atlantis and Endeavour were built - the life of the Shuttle fleet
could have been extended by ordering additional Shuttles. But the time
for that is past.

The military has replaced the Shuttle with a smaller unmanned reusable
vehicle. It's unfortunate that because it _is_ so highly classified,
that, despite the fact that apparently it _is_ big enough to carry an
astronaut, NASA couldn't just use _that_.

Ah - Googling it, I find that it would "have to be completely
redesigned before" astronauts could be sent up in it, so that's not a
realistic option.

John Savard

On Jul 11, 10:37*am, bob haller wrote:

nasa specifially wrote the specs for a replacement manned launcher
after columbias loss so no existing expendable would be usable.

To be fair, this wasn't to send pork to the booster makers. This was
because no existing expendable would be useful for landing astronauts
on the Moon or on Mars.

The mission wasn't to send astronauts to the ISS, that was merely
incidental to ambitious space plans for which a Saturn V equivalent
was required.

Which is great, if indeed a plan to come up with such a ship would be
followed and adhered to - but that is apparently _not_ going to
happen.

John Savard