Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

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

nmp wrote:
Wrong. Noone has said that the shuttle that (apparently) is going to be
built by Europe and the Russians is in fact a *replacement* for the
American shuttle, AKA the STS.

Yes, one comment was made in this newsgroup (sci.space.shuttle) to the
effect that it would replace the shuttle.

If they had said "it would be A shuttle", it would be fine. But
replacing THE shuttle isn't. Because there is only one shuttle right
now, replacing THE shuttle means replacing that Shuttle vehicle operated
by NASA.

People need to understand the CEV and Klipper will not fill all the
functionality/capabilities that will be lost when NASA grounds its shuttles.

The russians do have a space tug capable of bringing some types of cargo
to the station. Europe will have ATV which will be able to dock to the
russian ports on the station. Japan may have HTV which will be able to
approach the station and let the station's arm grab it and then berth
it. But the USA will have nothing of that capability once shuttle
retires, unless it starts working on it now.

ATV will be restricted by the small hatch sizes on the russian segment.
HTV will not be able to return gear to the ground. (neither ATV or Progress).

Klipper will have very limited cargo capacity (but vast improvement over Soyuz).

You can criticise the Shuttle all you want. It may be expensive, it may
have problems with its tiles/foam. But as a vehicle, it is extremely
capable in space.


A bit like a penguin. Walks funny and slow and very vulnerable on
ground, but once in water, is a great sleek animal that goes very fast.
Once in space, the shuttle has capabilities that are unmatched, but on
the atmosphere/ground, it is quite vulnerable and handles like a brick.


The shuttle isn't a ferrari. It is a huge dump truck. Designed to do
work in space.

The Shuttle also manages to do with one launch what will require 2
launches when it is retired: launch the cargo in one rocket, then launch
the crew to perform assembly of that cargo.

Without the shuttle, the space station concept becomes even more
important. By having permanent presence in space, when you want to
assemble the mars ship, some unmanned cargo launchers may lauch modules
up and then you can use the space station crews to connect everything
together and complete the assembly of that module. Otherwise, you need
2 launches, one for cargo and one for workers to complete assembly.

Brian Thorn wrote:

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



Space Van?

Pat

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 17:52:42 -0400, John Doe wrote:

Yes, one comment was made in this newsgroup (sci.space.shuttle) to the
effect that it would replace the shuttle.

If they had said "it would be A shuttle", it would be fine. But
replacing THE shuttle isn't. Because there is only one shuttle right
now, replacing THE shuttle means replacing that Shuttle vehicle operated
by NASA.

I have found it funny to read that some people here do not know the
definition of the word "shuttle". That being a transport vehicle used
to carry people frequently and efficiently between two places.

So any spacecraft used to carry astronauts, cosmonauts, euronauts and
space tourists between the ground and the ISS can be correctly called
a "shuttle". Although you just have to question the efficiency, when
these are not exactly daily flights.

People need to understand the CEV and Klipper will not fill all the
functionality/capabilities that will be lost when NASA grounds its shuttles.

Certainly, but I would believe that some Shuttle aspects would be
unimportant.

Like the Shuttle's ability to bring large items back to the ground. As
once it is up there, then there is no point in bringing it back down,
when you would only have to pay to launch it again.

The russians do have a space tug capable of bringing some types of cargo
to the station. Europe will have ATV which will be able to dock to the
russian ports on the station. Japan may have HTV which will be able to
approach the station and let the station's arm grab it and then berth
it. But the USA will have nothing of that capability once shuttle
retires, unless it starts working on it now.

So the USA comes last in that race.

ATV will be restricted by the small hatch sizes on the russian segment.
HTV will not be able to return gear to the ground. (neither ATV or Progress).

Maybe due to the "crap" from the ISS being considered expendable.

Anything that they do need to bring back down, which is of a smaller
size, can certainly be brought down in the Clipper or CEV.

Klipper will have very limited cargo capacity (but vast improvement over Soyuz).

Well it is designed to carry six people about. I expect that they
could make a cargo version had they wanted, but both Russia and Europe
now have independent cargo systems.

You can criticise the Shuttle all you want. It may be expensive, it may
have problems with its tiles/foam. But as a vehicle, it is extremely
capable in space.

Not really. The Shuttle has far too much mass to be efficient in
space.

Now had they chopped the wings off, removed the SSMEs, and even
removed the cargo hull, then the Shuttle would be a lot more
efficient. You can then begin to see that the Shuttle would then be
more CEV / Clipper like.

Bridge the gap in giving your CEV an efficient airlock, and a good
grapple arm, and a better engine no doubt, then you would have your
ideal orbital tug with repair facility.

A bit like a penguin. Walks funny and slow and very vulnerable on
ground, but once in water, is a great sleek animal that goes very fast.
Once in space, the shuttle has capabilities that are unmatched, but on
the atmosphere/ground, it is quite vulnerable and handles like a brick.

It will always be a brick. Ground and space.

The shuttle isn't a ferrari. It is a huge dump truck. Designed to do
work in space.

Any efficient orbital vehicle does not need wings, SSMEs, and even a
cargo hull.

The Shuttle also manages to do with one launch what will require 2
launches when it is retired: launch the cargo in one rocket, then launch
the crew to perform assembly of that cargo.

For a much lower cost. One SRB to launch the CEV, then a second one to
launch the cargo. The saving from the handling of the ET and Shuttle
can give you an idea of the price reduction.

You could well launch around 8 of those for every Shuttle launch, but
it remains to be seen what NASA can do. Still, to move as much people
and cargo as about four Shuttle launches would be nice.

Without the shuttle, the space station concept becomes even more
important. By having permanent presence in space, when you want to
assemble the mars ship, some unmanned cargo launchers may lauch modules
up and then you can use the space station crews to connect everything
together and complete the assembly of that module. Otherwise, you need
2 launches, one for cargo and one for workers to complete assembly.

Such a shame that the ISS is in the wrong orbit to do that.

You also do not need a space station to build a spaceship. You have
the ISS construction as proof of that concept.

Cardman.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:39:25 +0200, "Rene Altena"
wrote:

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

They tend to label it under a "space shuttle".

You can read more about it here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buran

Kind of a shame that this one never had more use than the one
successful auto flight. As the Buran seemed to be a better "space
shuttle" than the US Space Shuttle is.

Obviously, having to launch all that mass in the first place, was
never a good idea. So the Russians were no doubt better off that it
did not get to replace Soyuz in the end.

Cardman.

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 ?

You really want to know?
The american mission (if accepted) is to go very soon to the Moon, Mars and beyond because they dream to go NOW (cf. Star Trek etc...).
The european mission (if accepted) is to be ready for when they'll need to go or for when they'll need to be ready to go or for when it will be clear that one day they'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 easily).
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 want to go in space... People are unaware of the true importance of captain Kirk and Spok etc... (you saw Griffin in a recent speeche? He said: "I'm like Spok"...) and remember the shuttle "Enterprise" from Star Trek etc...
Without the "Star Trek" fiction: no space exploration!!!......
Rémy