Shuttle flying till at least 2015

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439

Well, I'd always supposed this might be an option, but it remains to be
seen if the money is forthcoming. Space no matter how you look at it is very
cheap in its amount taken from the population of the US, so there did not
ought to be a problem.

On the political side, I think its dangerous to assume that Russia is
totally anti US, in many ways, their early foray into completely market
driven economy and democracy ended due to the greed and criminality of
some, and the kind of half way house they have now has, no matter what
outsiders think, gone down well with the masses in Russia. National pride
needed to be repaired and I suspect a lot of the posturing etc, has been due
to this aspect being 'spun'. Of all countries, the US should know spin when
they see it.

As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed counties with dubious
regimes did it, oh now never...:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"space geek" wrote in message
...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439

as to soyuz being too small first what job and how many people do you
need to launch at one time?

I think the upgraded apollo size capsule holding 5 was enough, the CEV
7 was unnecessary, it was nasas attempt to need a new launch system,
and pay off existing contractors

the apool upgrade could hold 7 in a emergency return from orbit
situation.

more people thanks to the shrinkage of electronics in all these years

on dismantling the ET production hardware what plans were in place if
a ET were somehow damaged or lost in transit?

was there one extra one being held in reserve?

space geek wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439

Agree with concept, but that articel is for the wrong reasons.

They should agree to extent the 2010 deadline simply because the
original 2010 deadline (after which shuttles would have to go thorugh
recertification) was based on a much sooner return to flight than what
actually happened.

So, based on the current flight rate since the CAIB report and now, they
should be able to justify a push back of a couple of years of the
shuttle retirement deadline.

And it isn't because the russians are unreliable, it is simply because
the shuttle provide unique capabilities that neither the russians can
duplicate, nor the americans once shuttle is retired.

Adding a few flights would allow sending more hardware to the station
and perhaps even convert an MPLM for permanent duty as a storage module
on station.

Once the shuttle is gone, humanity loses a very unique tool that had
made mankind's use of space far more advanced.

On Dec 23, 10:39 am, John Doe wrote:

Once the shuttle is gone, humanity loses a very unique tool that had
made mankind's use of space far more advanced.

Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money
trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO.

wrote:
Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money
trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO.



The shuttle allowed NASA to develop technologies and procedures to build
big stuff in space, as well as properly resupply said big stuff
(including bringing back stuff).


The accounting problems at NASA is what forced the government to prevent
NASA from completing the inflatable module, from doing R&D on a mars
expedition etc. It wasn't the shuttle per say.


Is there budget TODAY for NASA to develop its equivalent to the Kurs
docking system so that NASA could continue to resupply the station
(albeig via the useless PMA narrow hatches) ? Or is that just "we'll do
that later on" ?

When you consider that orion isn't even assured of being built, the
"we'll do that later on" is even more of a pipe dream.

In the end, even if orion is built, NASA will use uit for a couple of
weekend camping trips to the moon and then simply emulate soyuz to the
station. That is all orion is good for. It offers no ability to build
lartge structures or dock/berth large cargo items to and from a worksite
in space.

And it most certaintly won't get people to mars. It is a dead end
technology in terms of space exploration, but it might be a tad cheaper
than shuttle to just ferry people between ground and ISS.

If the real goal is to go to a new destination (mars being the obvious
one), then the shuttle is far more useful than some glorified 1960s
capsule because to go to mars, you need to assemble something even
bigger than ISS in LEO before you can send it off.

On Dec 23, 12:24 pm, John Doe wrote:
wrote:
Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money
trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO.

1. The shuttle allowed NASA to develop technologies and procedures to build
big stuff in space,

2.as well as properly resupply said big stuff
(including bringing back stuff).


1. No There are no new "technologies" involved. All that was needed is
experience. Any manned vehicle could have done this, the shuttle
itself is not required. The ISS could have build using the MIR
paradigm, which didn't use a shuttle. The ISS could have been
designed around ELV launches using a tug and manned capsules. The
ISS was designed around the shuttle to keep the shuttle in business.
So the shuttle did not enable the ISS, the ISS enabled the shuttle

2. Very little of import has been returned by the shuttle. LDEF is
the only large one. the remaining (middeck locker size) could be done
by a capsule.

wrote:

1. No There are no new "technologies" involved. All that was needed is
experience. Any manned vehicle could have done this, the shuttle
itself is not required. The ISS could have build using the MIR
paradigm, which didn't use a shuttle. The ISS could have been
designed around ELV launches using a tug and manned capsules. The
ISS was designed around the shuttle to keep the shuttle in business.
So the shuttle did not enable the ISS, the ISS enabled the shuttle

Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually
studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a
Station have been welded at the hip since Day One.

And I shouldn't have to point out that your proposed methods would
have been just as expensive as doing it the way we are.

2. Very little of import has been returned by the shuttle. LDEF is
the only large one. the remaining (middeck locker size) could be done
by a capsule.

Right. They haven't reflown a payload bay experiment after improving
it, and they haven't reflown an entire mission after an abort. Oh,
wait - they done both.

On top of flying Spacelab and Spacehab multiple times.

On top of returning the Hubble servicing fixtures to earth for
re-use... _multiple times_.

I'll be the first to agree that Shuttle is an overpriced dinosaur, but
only a dammfool thinks that a capsule could come anywhere close to
performing the jobs it has.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

On Dec 24, 3:01 am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:

1. Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually
studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a
Station have been welded at the hip since Day One.

2. And I shouldn't have to point out that your proposed methods would
have been just as expensive as doing it the way we are.

3. Right. They haven't reflown a payload bay experiment after
improving
it, and they haven't reflown an entire mission after an abort. Oh,
wait - they done both.
On top of flying Spacelab and Spacehab multiple times.

4. On top of returning the Hubble servicing fixtures to earth for
re-use... _multiple times_.

5. I'll be the first to agree that Shuttle is an overpriced
dinosaur, but
only a dammfool thinks that a capsule could come anywhere close to
performing the jobs it has.

1. I am not one who "studied" the shuttle. I worked on over 30
shuttle payloads including 15 spacehab flights. additionally, I
worked on manifesting payloads onto shuttle. So I can take your
comments with a grain of salt since you are only a spectator

2. BS. An ELV based architecture like MIR would be cheaper. Two
ELV launches are cheaper than one shuttle launch.

3. It was shown that the Atlas series of payloads would have been
cheaper to fly on ELV missions. They would have flown more often and
for longer periods. Life and material science experiments could have
flown more times and longer on FOTON type spacecraft. There are
better and cheaper ways to get an experiment to and from space vs
using the shuttle. So what if the shuttle reflew the same spacelab
complement. Spacelab was just as expensive to use as the shuttle.
Another FOTON would be cheaper.

Name a major scientific finding or break through from a experiment on
Spacehab or Spacelab mission. I knew what was flown. Sometimes an
experiment reflew just to make sure there was a full complement, even
though the experimenter wasn't ready (no time to analyze previous
results or time to make new mods). Also some bogus experiments flew.

4. It would have been cheaper and better if the HST was ELV launched
and not associated with the shuttle. Instead of being in LEO which is
not a good viewing orbit, L2 orbit like JWST would be better. Instead
of revisits, just fly new telescopes with new instruments. The
telescopes would be cheaper since they wouldn't have to be manrated
and EVA serviceable. The cost of the shuttle launches, EVA training,
new instruments, etc could fund a fleet of telescopes

5. Only a dammfool thinks the shuttle paradigm is the only way of
doing things.

Most of the payloads didn't need a crew or the shuttle services. It
would have been cheaper to fly new satellites vs having the shuttle
repaired them. Missions were designed around the shuttle vs designing
around payload requirements. A capsule base paradigm would have been
cheaper, safer and got more done.

Skylab and MIR were built without a shuttle and so could have been the
ISS.

The USA space program could have been further along without the anchor
of the shuttle.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, those of us who have actually
studied the Shuttle know full well that the Shuttle and some form of a
Station have been welded at the hip since Day One.


Of course they have. You have a tool and you build structures based on
what that tool is capable of.

Russia didn't have a functioning shuttle or manipulator arm, so their
modules are far more primitive and their capabilites to build space
structures far more limited. They do not have the ability to have CBM
size hatches (those hatches as well as the MPLM were one of the big
things that were learned from the experience on MIR, and those are the
very things that NASA will lose when it abandons the shuttle because it
will revert to the small russian sized hatches on the PMA modules.

Compare the size of the russian modules with that of the USA modules.
And look at the intricate parts that the shuttle was able to fly up
there, including the truss, the station robotic arm as well as the solar
panels and the truss "railway" system.

It would be possible to emulate this by having some rocket with the PMA
docking hardware at the front, and a cavernous cyclinder that would
emulate the shuttle's cargo bay. The rocket would hard dock on a PMA,
and then the station arm would pick up the cargo from the rocket. This
would allow one to send odd shaped ojects to the station.

But such a system would make it harder to start a new station from
scratch. (since until that new structure has an arm, that rocket would
be useless).

So, you would end up having some modules like the russian ones,
outfitted with their own guidance and rockets (each being different),
and some outfitted with cavernous hull that would carry the cargo. SO
you end up with different orbital ships instead of just the shuttle.