Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

On 20 Aug 2005 02:36:24 -0700, "Alex Terrell"
wrote:


Combined with an Arianne or Proton launcher, than can put 20 tons into
orbit, what can the shuttle do that this can't do?

10 more tons. Lower-g launch and landing. Serve as an orbiting
construction site.

Only land 14 tons from Space, and there's not much demand for this
service.

Actually, yes there is. See MPLM, which never comes home empty.

Brian

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.

Brian

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:46:15 +0200, nmp wrote:


While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far.

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

The name "Shuttle" has become too closely associated with the U.S.
Space Transportation System. Both CEV and Kliper have been called "New
Shuttles" in the popular press, although neither is anything like the
STS. That is dangerous, because if the general public thinks you're
out to build a giant reusable manned spacecraft like the U.S. STS,
you're likely to run into trouble getting political and financial
support. ("What? You're going to build ANOTHER Shuttle? Haven't you
learned your lesson? What d'ya mean it's a lot smaller and safer, it's
still a SHUTTLE isn't it?")

A new name should be chosen for the CEV/Soyuz/Kliper class of
spacecraft. "Ferry" mentioned elsewhere doesn't seem quite right,
either.

Brian

"nmp" wrote in message
news
Op Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:23:27 +0000, schreef Rand Simberg:

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:



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.

Nobody is demanding anything. It's just practical to call a space shuttle
a space shuttle, especially if said vehicle is indeed performing shuttle
services in space.

Hallo nmp,

;-) paarlen voor de zwijnen...

hij wil het niet begrijpen (hij begrijpt het heus wel).

groeten,

Rene

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:46:15 +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 00:35:13 -0400, schreef John Doe:

Jim Oberg wrote:
It's all but official-Russia and Europe will soon embark on a
cooperative effort to build a next-generation manned space shuttle.

While this is a most interesting development, it is not a shuttle
replacement, by far.

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.

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.