Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

Brian Thorn ) writes:
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?

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

On 21 Aug 2005 01:51:51 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


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

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority. But the ability to get along
without Shuttle seems to me to be simply a matter of money: how many
ATVs are the Europeans willing to pay for. How many more Soyuz or
Progress missions can the Russians scrape up the money for?

Brian

For the Europeans, the answer is : not one more... the only question
being to know if ESA can afford to complete the development... there
are so many issues left unsolved, software wise, and no money left

wrote in message
ups.com...
For the Europeans, the answer is : not one more... the only question
being to know if ESA can afford to complete the development... there
are so many issues left unsolved, software wise, and no money left


No money left? I think ESA is wiser than NASA: investing more in scientific
spacecraft than prestigious spacecraft...

Rene

Brian Thorn ) writes:
On 21 Aug 2005 01:51:51 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:

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

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

As neither ATV or HTV as yet exist, I will not count on them,
for about the same reason that I won't count on VentureStar or
Hermes.

It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority. But the ability to get along
without Shuttle seems to me to be simply a matter of money: how many
ATVs are the Europeans willing to pay for. How many more Soyuz or
Progress missions can the Russians scrape up the money for?

And, how will they lift the remaining designed-to-fly-inside-of-
shuttle parts up, without said shuttle ?

Andre

--
" I'm a man... But, I can change... If I have to... I guess. "
The Man Prayer, Red Green.

Andre Lieven wrote:
Brian Thorn ) writes:
What is it about ISS that precludes its operation without Shuttle?

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

As neither ATV or HTV as yet exist, I will not count on them,
for about the same reason that I won't count on VentureStar or
Hermes.

I go to www.esa.int, click on "human spaceflight", click on
"ATV", click on "Multimedia", and then can see a bunch of
photos of the first ATV hardware in largely assembled condition.

ATV exists. It's not complete yet, and a year from flying roughly,
but it exists.


-george william herbert

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2005 01:51:51 GMT, (Andre Lieven)
wrote:


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

Delivery and removal of tonnage loads of hardware and consumables,
along with significant orbital re-boosts.

Soyuz/Progress cannot do all that.

Soyuz/Progress, ATV, and HTV can, however.

It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority.

And you'll have to send replacements more frequently, since you'll have no
real idea why they keep failing if you can't bring the failed ones back to
the ground intact.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

On 21 Aug 2005 15:09:15 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:


It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority.

And you'll have to send replacements more frequently, since you'll have no
real idea why they keep failing if you can't bring the failed ones back to
the ground intact.

This is all just SO encouraging when we're talking about going to the
Moon and Mars. "We want to build a moon base, but don't ask us to keep
a CMG working or go up 300 miles to Hubble, it's too hard..."

Maybe we should just pull the plug on NASA now.

Brian

Brian Thorn wrote in
:

On 21 Aug 2005 15:09:15 GMT, "Jorge R. Frank"
wrote:

It's not a perfect solution, of course. Working out a way to send up
replacement CMGs would be a priority.

And you'll have to send replacements more frequently, since you'll
have no real idea why they keep failing if you can't bring the failed
ones back to the ground intact.

This is all just SO encouraging when we're talking about going to the
Moon and Mars. "We want to build a moon base, but don't ask us to keep
a CMG working or go up 300 miles to Hubble, it's too hard..."

No one's saying it's *too* hard. What *I* am saying is that we don't know
how to build manned space systems for long-term reliability because up
until now, we've never *had* to - everything has either been in LEO, where
servicing/replacement is relatively easy, or on relatively short (14 days)
jaunts outside of LEO.

Maybe we should just pull the plug on NASA now.

Or maybe we should just commit to *learning* how to solve the problem in
the relatively safe confines of LEO before setting out for Mars. Say, on
ISS.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

Brian Thorn wrote:
This is all just SO encouraging when we're talking about going to the
Moon and Mars. "We want to build a moon base, but don't ask us to keep
a CMG working or go up 300 miles to Hubble, it's too hard..."

Maybe we should just pull the plug on NASA now.


No. Au contraire. This is the real science being done in space right
now. NASA may talk about watching crystals grow in a test tube as the
science, but the real stuff is testing items such as CMGs, Elektron,
CDRA, laptops etc and anything else that has failed or given many
hiccups and learning why it does this and how to fix it.

So while it makes NASA look "incompetant" when you hear about CMG
failures, or make russians look stupid with Elektron's colourful
history, these are very valuable experiences and both NASA and Russia
should be learning a lot from it.

The EVA to pick a piece of lint out of the tiles near the nose landing
gear door was probably a no brainer for the crew. But to NASA, it was a
major "push the boundaries" event, similar to the first EVA with only 2
crewmembers on the station which NASA procedures stated was impossible
to do, but which the crew showed was quite possible to get done and thus
pushed the boundaries.


A lot of the restrictions are ground based due to rules/procedures
written a long time ago, and it takes certain events to get NASA to give
the OK to do something which in the past was judged too "out there".
The fact that NASA now feels confident enough to relax some of those
rules is a good sign that NASA is gaining experience and confidence in
its ability to do new stuff and push the boundaries in space.

There is progress being made due to the failure of devices.