Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

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.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


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

How about Space Minivan?

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

Buran is history. There are no plans to fly it again. (what is the
status of the Buran that was in the hangar whose roof collapsed ?). And
because its name was/is "Buran", it wouldn't have been confused with the
NASA "Shuttle".


The NASA shuttle may be grounded, but as of now, there are still plans
to make it fly. Once NASA announces that Shuttles no longer will flty,
they become museum pieces and are no longer considered functional. They
become part of history. At that point, the word "shuttle" becomes more
generic and not so closely associated with the OV-10* vehicles operated
by NASA, unless you are associated with one of the museums that exhibit
one such vehicle.

Klipper is more likely to retain its name when it flies as opposed to
being called "shuttle". Same for CEV if it is ever built. Soyuz has
retained its name over the years.

It just so happens that NASA called its OV10* vehicles "Shuttles".

As long as the NASA space Shuttle is scheduled to fly, the word
"shuttle" will be closely associated with the NASA Space Shuttle (STS).

nmp wrote:

Space Van?



Hey, that would be my van!

http://images.google.com/images?q=vo...en+transporter



Is it made out of fibergrass, man? ;-)

Cheech

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:29:13 -0600, Charles Buckley
wrote:


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.

I'm still not convinced we haven't already seen the last Shuttle
flight, but in any case isn't the US position that it will use CEV to
go to/from ISS after Shuttle?

So, the case for a second system is actually stronger than you indicate.

What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

Brian

Rémy MERCIER wrote:

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 to see if they can take Europe to the cleaners with as much ease as
they took the U.S. to the cleaners with the ISS. :-D

Pat

Brian Thorn wrote:
I'm still not convinced we haven't already seen the last Shuttle
flight, but in any case isn't the US position that it will use CEV to
go to/from ISS after Shuttle?

What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

The ability to send new racks full of equipment up and back down.

The ability to bring back down failed devices (such as the failed CMG)
for a post mortem. Oh, and consider that first the first time, the
Russians will be able to look at an Elektron unit that failed in space
and really study it. It has never been possible on MIR to bring such
equipment back to find out exactly why it would fail. (The failed
Elektron came back in te MPLM with Discovery).


In a context where the ISS is used to test/debug systems that would be
used for long duration trips, the ability to bring back large pieces of
equipment for full analysis on earth is very important.

The USA experience on MIR showed that having large hatches and large
capacity to bring stuff not only up but also down was very valuable.
This is why you have CBM hatches on the US station, and why you have MPLMs.


The Japanese may be able to send HTV up which may replace some of the
MPLM functionlality, but it won't be able to return stuff to earth.