SLS alternatives

In article ,
says...

bob haller wrote:
The columbia loss killed the shuttle program, sure the vehicle cost a
couple billion but the program ended because the design killed 2
crews.

Don't be silly. The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On
Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. *The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

Jeff

ISS assembly was cut short because there wasnt time to launch all the
modules, some unflwn ones are in storage...

In article 7b3b675b-0bdb-48c9-b987-2a174ece6b01
@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...

On
Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. *The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

ISS assembly was cut short because there wasnt time to launch all the
modules, some unflwn ones are in storage...

You make it sound like these modules are ready to fly. They're not.

For example, the CAM module fell victim to cost overruns and schedule
issues. It is currently a partially completed aluminum shell sitting
outside in the elements, which I would not consider to be "in storage".
The HAB module suffered a similar cancellation, but its shell was used
for ground based research, which isn't exactly "in storage" either.

So, what ISS modules truly are "unflown" and "in storage"?

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Nov 5, 2:22*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7b3b675b-0bdb-48c9-b987-2a174ece6b01
@j18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com, says...



On
Don't be silly. *The program ended because the vehicles got old.

I think you're both over simplifying, so I'll throw in a third over
simplification. *The program ended because once ISS assembly was
"complete", the need for the shuttle vanished.

ISS assembly was cut short because there wasnt time to launch all the
modules, some unflwn ones are in storage...

You make it sound like these modules are ready to fly. *They're not.

For example, the CAM module fell victim to cost overruns and schedule
issues. *It is currently a partially completed aluminum shell sitting
outside in the elements, which I would not consider to be "in storage".
The HAB module suffered a similar cancellation, but its shell was used
for ground based research, which isn't exactly "in storage" either.

So, what ISS modules truly are "unflown" and "in storage"?

Jeff

nasa has said the incomplete modules would be used for a new station
around the moon, at a libration point

In article 36d0cafa-c0da-427c-b954-535db9eea774
@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 5, 2:22*pm, Jeff Findley wrote:

You make it sound like these modules are ready to fly. *They're not.

For example, the CAM module fell victim to cost overruns and schedule
issues. *It is currently a partially completed aluminum shell sitting
outside in the elements, which I would not consider to be "in storage".
The HAB module suffered a similar cancellation, but its shell was used
for ground based research, which isn't exactly "in storage" either.

So, what ISS modules truly are "unflown" and "in storage"?

nasa has said the incomplete modules would be used for a new station
around the moon, at a libration point

Proposal only, and from what I've seen in the "pretty pictures", not the
"big" modules like CAM and HAB. And I'd like to reinforce the fact that
there are *not* modules sitting in a warehouse somewhere in "ready to
fly" condition. Proposals to "reuse" unflown ISS modules surely include
money to finish the modules and re-work them as needed.

These things aren't Lego's. Integration is hard and will take time and
money.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer