Fight to Save Shuttle

ed kyle wrote:

The danger is that shuttle is abandoned, but CEV
development is subsequently stalled (for any of a variety
of possible reasons), bringing an end to U.S. human
spaceflight for the forseeable future.

Exactly what is the "danger", Ed? There was was a ~5 year gap in US
manned space capability back in the 1970s. The nation didn't miss
it.

Sad to say but manned space is not a "must have" capability.

Jim Davis

In article ,
Jim Davis wrote:
Sad to say but manned space is not a "must have" capability.

According to Brownback, we need to send astronauts back to the moon to
claim the "sweet spots".

Maybe he was influenced by Wallace and Gromit.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article ,
(ed kyle) wrote:

First let me say that I think that space shuttle should
be retired and replaced as soon as possible. But I'm
having a big problem with this idea proported to be
proposed on Wednesday by Pres. Bush to abandon shuttle
outright, with a several-year gap before another U.S.
crewed capability (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is developed.

If this is the actual proposal, it is a very bad idea.
The danger is that shuttle is abandoned, but CEV
development is subsequently stalled (for any of a variety
of possible reasons), bringing an end to U.S. human
spaceflight for the forseeable future.

That seems to assume that only the government can build a man-rated
launcher. It also assumes that the government is the only customer for
a man-rated launcher. Both of these assumptions are a bit suspect, I
think.

Taking the first one: if we really want to put some U.S. employees in
space, and assuming no shuttle and no replacement NASA launcher, then
there are several options. One (which is rumored to be part of the
plan) is to purchase launches from other spacefaring nations. But
another is to purchase launches from any other company that can provide
them. Yes, I realize that there are no such companies currently, but if
the price were right, there could be in fairly short order. SeaLaunch,
for example, could probably be man-rated. SpaceX (which I expect will
be flying the Falcon I very soon) could man-rate its I or V booster,
again, if there were sufficient demand. Indeed, we might all be better
off if NASA simply supplied the market, and stayed out of the
engineering and operations details.

Taking the second assumption: space tourism is about to take off in a
big way. By the time ISS is completed and the shuttle fleet retired, we
will at least have a suborbital tourism industry. To the extent that
this industry will largely consist of U.S. companies flying U.S.
passengers, this constitutes "U.S. human spaceflight," don't you agree?

Besides, even if the U.S. is out of the human spaceflight business for a
few years, I'm not convinced that would necessarily be a bad thing.
Things have stagnated for so long, I'm starting to think that anything
that shakes up the space industry can't hurt, and just might help.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

I'm not sure that this is such a bad idea, since it's coming attached to a
major, new space effort. If Bush's Moon base idea gets canned, something
equally large will replace it, which will make up for the lack of a
shuttle.

And RLV development won't be dead, because Dick Rutan's SS1 looks like the
leading candidate for the X-Prize, and if he wins, I believe that a scale-
up to orbital capabilities will probably follow.

And just think of what we could do if we re-directed all that money into
the planetary exploration effort. I believe that this is currently where
the most inspiring work is being done. If we redirect all that cash, it
should be much more inspiring to average people than all the routine, late
and uninspired work that was being done on the shuttle.

The danger will be that there will be no support for the ISS, and that
Bush's Moon base will turn into a gargantuan black hole for NASA's money,
like the ISS did, and suck it out of the planetary exploration program.
There was a time when outer space construction projects were considered
visionary, but that time is past.

I don't think that the same is true for lunar construction projects yet,
but that day may come before the project is completed, like it did for the
ISS. Then we'll have to watch all that money thrown away with another
major cancellation.


(ed kyle) wrote in
om:

First let me say that I think that space shuttle should
be retired and replaced as soon as possible. But I'm
having a big problem with this idea proported to be
proposed on Wednesday by Pres. Bush to abandon shuttle
outright, with a several-year gap before another U.S.
crewed capability (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is developed.

If this is the actual proposal, it is a very bad idea.
The danger is that shuttle is abandoned, but CEV
development is subsequently stalled (for any of a variety
of possible reasons), bringing an end to U.S. human
spaceflight for the forseeable future.

The U.S. should, IMO, develop CEV promptly, but keep
shuttle flying in the interim. The cost to keep shuttle
going is what, $2.5 billion per year?

- Ed Kyle

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 20:56:36 GMT, in a place far, far away, John
Schutkeker made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


I'm not sure that this is such a bad idea, since it's coming attached to a
major, new space effort. If Bush's Moon base idea gets canned, something
equally large will replace it, which will make up for the lack of a
shuttle.

And RLV development won't be dead, because Dick Rutan's SS1 looks like the
leading candidate for the X-Prize, and if he wins, I believe that a scale-
up to orbital capabilities will probably follow.

Burt's vehicle will not scale up to orbital capabilities.

On 12 Jan 2004 15:08:16 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(vthokie) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

My problem is with the fact that Bush's plan makes no mention of
reusable launch vehicle development. Abandoning RLV concepts in favor
of Apollo style capsules and expendable launch vehicles will do
nothing to make access to space more affordable or routine.

I'm happy to see NASA get out of the RLV business. They've done
nothing but screw it up.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

Burt's vehicle will not scale up to orbital capabilities.

What do you base this statement on?

Joe Strout wrote in news:joe-
:

space tourism is about to take off in a
big way. By the time ISS is completed and the shuttle fleet retired, we
will at least have a suborbital tourism industry.

Why do you say this? If anything, it seems that orbital tourism on the
ISS, was doing much better than sub-orbital tourism, at least until the
Columbia broke up. You gotta give the Russians credit for that one. I
guess there are some advantages to having weak ethics and a desperation for
cash, because they sure led the curve on this idea.

In article ,
John Schutkeker wrote:

Joe Strout wrote in news:joe-
:

space tourism is about to take off in a
big way. By the time ISS is completed and the shuttle fleet retired, we
will at least have a suborbital tourism industry.

Why do you say this?

Because the X-Prize will be won this year, almost certainly by
SpaceShipOne, with several other contenders probably acheiving the same
target within the next few years. While Scaled has said they have no
plans to commercialize SS1, I doubt that Paul Allen spent $20M to
develop a new kind of craft just to collect a $10M prize and a big lawn
ornament. And other contenders, such as Armadillo (IIRC), have
explicitly stated that suborbital tourism is their goal.

So, I expect we'll see routine suborbital tourist flights within five
years or so.

If anything, it seems that orbital tourism on the
ISS, was doing much better than sub-orbital tourism, at least until the
Columbia broke up.

Well, yes, because there hasn't been a suborbital tourist craft. Now
there's one going through careful, steady testing (just broke the sound
barrier a couple weeks ago), and others sure to follow.

You gotta give the Russians credit for that one. I
guess there are some advantages to having weak ethics and a desperation for
cash, because they sure led the curve on this idea.

I do give them credit for that, and I don't agree with your "weak
ethics" crack. There's nothing unethical about making a profit in
space. The Russians are doing the right thing; it's the U.S. that's
standing in the way of progress there.

Cheers,
- Joe

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'

Joe Strout wrote in
:

In article ,
John Schutkeker wrote:

Joe Strout wrote in news:joe-
:

space tourism is about to take off in a
big way. By the time ISS is completed and the shuttle fleet
retired, we will at least have a suborbital tourism industry.

Why do you say this?

Because the X-Prize will be won this year, almost certainly by
SpaceShipOne, with several other contenders probably acheiving the
same target within the next few years. While Scaled has said they
have no plans to commercialize SS1, I doubt that Paul Allen spent $20M
to develop a new kind of craft just to collect a $10M prize and a big
lawn ornament. And other contenders, such as Armadillo (IIRC), have
explicitly stated that suborbital tourism is their goal.

So, I expect we'll see routine suborbital tourist flights within five
years or so.

I agree with everything you've just said except the tourism part. You are
assuming a market that may or may not exist. Although there is clearly a
market for tourism on the ISS, those flights last days, and the visitor is
allowed to hang around on the most prestigious piece of hardware America
owns, with substantial room to move. A sub-orbital flight only lasts about
fifteen minutes, which is hardly enough time to interest the majority
of status seekers.

There will quite likely be a non-tourism market, like the one for the
"vomit comet." And someone else in the group kindly pointed out that SS1
could be used as a sounding rocket, which addresses my concern about
finding commercial uses that will have any substantial quantity of traffic.
But to make the leap from this to tourism is a groundless assumption.

Well, yes, because there hasn't been a suborbital tourist craft. Now
there's one going through careful, steady testing (just broke the
sound barrier a couple weeks ago), and others sure to follow.

And there will be a small number of people interested in making the ride,
but not enough to justify the unrecouped $10 million development cost.

You gotta give the Russians credit for that one. I
guess there are some advantages to having weak ethics and a
desperation for cash, because they sure led the curve on this idea.

I do give them credit for that, and I don't agree with your "weak
ethics" crack. There's nothing unethical about making a profit in
space. The Russians are doing the right thing; it's the U.S. that's
standing in the way of progress there.

I never said that space tourism was unethical. I said that it grew out of
Russian's general tendency toward weak ethics, which is demonstrated in
other aspects of their society. I also agree that it's a good idea, but
the thought never occurred to us, because we weren't willing to consider
outrageous ideas like that.