Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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.

Aha! Already starting the ad-hominems?

My my!

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

I am curious...

Rene

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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.

Maybe nmp can comment on this, but in the Netherlands, we would call you a
'zeurpiet' ;-)

Rene

My point is as a European

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

how will we get support from European people for such a plan

is it acceptable that 50 years later Europeans are in the same position
as in 1969 and have to watch the moon landing on TV

Pat Flannery wrote:

And then there is Russia's _really big_ space plan:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/lunar-05zl.html
Yeah... and they are going to send people to Mars... and build giant
space mirrors to thaw out Siberia... and... :-)


looks like Siberia's already thawing...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...546824,00.html

Moral of the story: be careful what you ask for.

--
Terrell Miller


"Suddenly, after nearly 30 years of scorn, Prog is cool again".
-Entertainment Weekly

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.

Originally Posted by

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 ?

The american mission (if accepted) is to go very soon because they dream to go now to the Moon, Mars *AND* beyond... of course (cf. Star Trek etc...). The european mission (if accepted) is to be ready for when we'll need to go or for when we'll need to be ready to go or for when it will be clear that one day we'll really need to be ready to go (Moon, Mars and beyond... of course)... and because american will go soon. The Russian mission (if accepted) is to go nowhere because there is no reason to go. But, because other nations want to go or want to be ready to go then they also want to go (and because they can go). The Chineese mission (if accepted) is to go soon because the other nations can go soon.
Conclusion: without the “Star Trek” fiction I wonder if the World would go in space...
Rémy