Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

"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

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.

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

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.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
We didn't just do weird stuff at Dryden, we wrote reports about it.
or

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.

"Reunite Gondwanaland " ) writes:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

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.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

Not from a position of doubt, but rather, from a position of eager
interest in more details on this topic, can you point me at some
places to find out more of this ?

Thank you.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.

Andre

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

Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:01:43 GMT, Cardman wrote:

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.

Its only flight wasn't really all that successful. It just barely
missed being so badly damaged by aerothermodynamic heating that it
broke up in mid-air. It was so damaged that it couldn't be flown
again.

As you say, it was an interesting vehicle and it's too bad they had so
much damage, but I wouldn't really classify it as being better than
the Orbiter. The Orbiter only melts its structure if something goes
wrong, after all.


Ahh, but in life in general, most things don't melt unless something
goes wrong.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

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