Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:58:58 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Rene
Altena" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that everything that goes up and down must be called
a shuttle. Should we rename elevators "shuttles"?

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Only by your definition, and that of others who share your narrow
viewpoint.

In article , John Doe wrote:

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far. It is a soyuz replacement. Falls quite short of
what the shuttle can do.

Whatever it is that the Shuttle does, it won't be doing it five years
from now. The future belongs to more rationally designed launchers and
vehicles.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:04:14 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Rene
Altena" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that everything that goes up and down must be called
a shuttle. Should we rename elevators "shuttles"?

So this European-Russian spacecraft is a shuttle.

Only by your definition, and that of others who share your narrow
viewpoint.

Aha! Already starting the ad-hominems?

No. You, like many, apparently don't understand the nature of an ad
hominem argument, which is to say that someone's position is invalid
because of some personal feature that is irrelevant to their stated
position. If I'd said you're a known liar and have smelly armpits,
so we shouldn't pay any attention to anything you say, that would be
an ad hominem. But I'm describing your particular belief on the
subject at hand, and those who, in their ignorance, share it, which is
not an ad hominem.

Pray tell: why do you think it was called the Space Shuttle to begin with?

They had to call it something. But it could have been called many
other things, in which case people like you would apparently
illogically insist that all space vehicles henceforth must be called
that thing. The fact that mistakes were made in the past doesn't
require us to perpetuate them ad infinitum.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:06:32 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Op Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:37:36 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:58:58 +0200, in a place far, far away, "Rene
Altena" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It may not be an STS replacement, but a shuttle it surely is.

Only if you think that the word "shuttle" means any partially reusable
vehicle that goes into and returns from orbit. That's not a
definition in any dictionary of which I'm aware.

The Shuttle is called 'Shuttle' because it is a Shuttle-service:
up-down-up-down-up-down-up-down etc. etc.

That doesn't mean that everything that goes up and down must be called a
shuttle. Should we rename elevators "shuttles"?

No, but why do we sometimes call airplanes, autobuses, trains "shuttles"?

Because we sometimes choose to. We are not required to. If you want
to call the Kliper a "shuttle" (or, for that matter a tail a leg),
you're free to do so, at least in the US, but that doesn't impose a
requirement on anyone else to do so.

The others with the narrow viewpoint, do they include the writers of
dictionaries and the people who named the US Space Shuttle, Space Shuttle?

Yes, if they demand that all space vehicles in the future be called
"shuttles."

Brian Thorn wrote:
On 20 Aug 2005 08:50:18 -0700, wrote:


What is the point of building a human access means to LEO which will be
operational in the 2010s ... could someone explain to me what is the
mission... what is the need ?


International Space Station. The US isn't backing out until 2015
(pretty much the 15 years agreed to in the first place) and there is
little reason to believe ISS will fall into the sea as soon as the US
pulls out.


Well, there is something of a concern about the US grounding Shuttle
before ISS finishes construction. And, Shuttle will be grounded years
before the 2015 date you cite.

So, the case for a second system is actually stronger than you indicate.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:34:43 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The others with the narrow viewpoint, do they include the writers of
dictionaries and the people who named the US Space Shuttle, Space Shuttle?

Yes, if they demand that all space vehicles in the future be called
"shuttles."

Zeurpiet.

Calling people names of which few in the newsgroup have any idea as to
the meaning is a waste of bandwidth. And childish.

Nobody is demanding anything.

OK, then expect people to correct you when you call something
something it's not.

It's just practical to call a space shuttle
a space shuttle, especially if said vehicle is indeed performing shuttle
services in space.

Really?

What are "shuttle services"? Shuttle delivered tens of thousands of
pounds of payload to orbit, acted as a temporary space station,
repaired satellites, provided crew transportation to and from orbit,
with EVA capability, rendezvoused with other large objects, sometimes
grappled them and put them in the payload bay, returned them to earth,
etc.

Which of those services will you arbitrarily accept aren't "shuttle
services," such that you can decide that any future vehicle that
doesn't provide them can and should still be called a "shuttle"?
Because Kliper will do very few of them.

wrote:
what is the meaning for Russia an Europe to continue to circle
endlessly in LEO while NASA is building the CEV with the goal to fly
twice a year to the Moon

Because going to the moon doesn't yield much in terms of experience in
designing and testing systems and lifestyles that help humans travel to
other planets for long duration trips.

Because going to the moon is no big deal. Attach a service module that
gives you ability to boost from LEO to moon and back and voila.

So while the americans will be busy re-enacting a trip they did back in
1969, europeans and russians will be busy really learning about how to
build/test stuff that works in 0g.

So when the time comes to go to mars, who do you think will have the
expertise and reliable systems needed to go there ? It won't be the USA.

Going to the moon is just a diversion. Good political ploy with little
in terms of advancing space travel.

And CEV itself will be useless to go to mars. You'll need something the
size of the space station abnd even bigger to get to mars and back (just
think about storage for supplies).


It isn't enough to say you have an O2 generator. You need to quantify
how much O2 it can really produce from the water you have on-board, and
how many spare parts you'll need for a trip lasting possibly 18 months.
(6 months to, 6 months from, and possibly 6 months around amrs while
most of crew are on surface).

Apply same to water, especially if you start having water recycling
systems to attempt to have a closed loop. If you rely on this to fly to
mars because you can't afford to carry enough water for the whole
journey, then you better make damned sure the stuff will work reliably
for the whole mission. And the only way to test it for long time is on
the ISS.

Also, once CEV has gone to moon and back a few times, you can bet that
moon trips will no longer be funded. From then on, CEV will be used to
get to the space station.

Politician's exentricities generally get weeded out over time and
government bodies return to normal reality.

The great think baout that CEV announcement is the lifting of the ban
imposed on NASA which prevented NASA from thinking about going to
Mars. Now, it should be able to plan station experiements
intelligently, instead of asking cremembers to watch crystals grow in a
test tube.

terminology of the term "shuttle".

Since currently, there is only one space vehicle that qualifies as a
shuttle, and it happens to be called "Shuttle", when one mentions
replacement for the shuttle, it can only mean a replacement for the NASA
operated STS system, commonly known as the Shuttle, that vehicle with
cargo doors on top, delta wings , which departs vertically attached to
some big tank and two glorified dynamite sticks and lands as a plane on
a runway.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:02:30 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Op Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:43:43 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 19:34:43 +0200, in a place far, far away, nmp
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Zeurpiet.

Calling people names of which few in the newsgroup have any idea as to
the meaning is a waste of bandwidth. And childish.

Zeurpiet = whiner

I knew that. Or at least something similar to that, though I'm not
sure that's the most precise word English word for it. And now that
you've told us, everyone can see that it wasn't even appropriate.

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
terminology of the term "shuttle".

Since currently, there is only one space vehicle that qualifies as a
shuttle, and it happens to be called "Shuttle", when one mentions
replacement for the shuttle, it can only mean a replacement for the NASA
operated STS system, commonly known as the Shuttle, that vehicle with
cargo doors on top, delta wings , which departs vertically attached to
some big tank and two glorified dynamite sticks and lands as a plane on
a runway.

How do you qualify the russian Buran spacecraft (even though it is out of
service)?

Rene