Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

Cardman ) writes:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:20:49 -0400, John Doe wrote:

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 ?).

Deceased. Nothing more than broken bits.

There are still two part complete Buran Shuttles out there. One in
Moscow and one in Germany.

And because its name was/is "Buran", it wouldn't have been confused with
the NASA "Shuttle".

Unless someone looked at it. ;-]

The NASA shuttle may be grounded, but as of now, there are still plans
to make it fly.

NASA has little choice in that. Congress would not allow them to
cancel the only US manned space launch system, until a replacement
system is available.

They had no problem with ending Apollo in 1975, when Columbia's first
flight was expected to be four years later...

For example. If the CEV turns out to be an unworkable disaster, then
NASA would indeed have to use the Shuttle beyond 2010.

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.

The word "shuttle" was never owned by NASA. The correct term I guess
is the "US Space Shuttle". So the Americans will have to lump the idea
if they ever call this EU/Russian project the "Kliper Space Shuttle".

Klipper is more likely to retain its name when it flies as opposed to
being called "shuttle".

Kliper is the Russian project name. The term "shuttle" describes the
function of a vehicle. I have no idea if they will ever put these two
words together.

Same for CEV if it is ever built. Soyuz has retained its name over the
years.

And the US Space Shuttle had no other name.

STS, aka Space Transportation System. See Dennis Jenkins' authorative
book of the same name.

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

That can happen. Many people can also catch the "shuttle" to work.

In fact in my town there is a bus "shuttle service" running between
the town center and Europe's largest shopping complex.

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

Only in the USA.

And, on BBC, which called the Discovery the " shuttle "...

Andre

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

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:55:21 -0500, JazzMan
wrote:

Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:

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.

One of the best things in life, chocolate, is an exception to that.

Then there are s'mores, with a melted marshmallow melting the
chocolate....

Mary


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

(Andre Lieven) wrote in
:

Cardman ) writes:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:20:49 -0400, John Doe wrote:

The NASA shuttle may be grounded, but as of now, there are still
plans to make it fly.

NASA has little choice in that. Congress would not allow them to
cancel the only US manned space launch system, until a replacement
system is available.

They had no problem with ending Apollo in 1975, when Columbia's first
flight was expected to be four years later...

And managed to destroy a good percentage of the US operational experience
base in human spaceflight in the process. Remember, experience resides in
individuals, not institutions.

I would hope they learned from that mistake, but sadly I would not be
surprised if they did not.

--
JRF

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

In article , Cardman
wrote:

In all there were five Buran Shuttles. The main Buran Shuttle made it
into space and back, then in 2002 was destroyed when the hanger roof
collapsed. Ptichka was the most complete other Shuttle, which I
believe is now in Gorky Park in Moscow.

As I'll be in Russia for a little over a week starting Saturday (6 days
in St. Petersburg, 3 or so in Moscow), are there any other interesting
space sites to see in the area? I now have Gorky Park on my list

--
Chris Mack "Refugee, total ****. That's how I've always seen us.
'Invid Fan' Not a help, you'll admit, to agreement between us."
-'Deal/No Deal', CHESS

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:
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.

The next step in space evolution would be to have the tools and
documentation to allow the ISS crewmembers to perform the forensic
analysys of failed components. (assuming CMGs could be fitted through
airlock hatch, or at least a CMG with creative use of an empty MPLM with arm.

(vacuum, in MPLM, arm keeps it away from CBM hatch. EVA cremembers put
failed CMG in MPLM. close hatch. Arm then berths MPLM to node. They then
repressurise MPLM and can then work in the MPLM to dissect the CMG).


If CMGs cannot fit through any of the station's hatches, then it is a
design issue. For a mars expedition ship, perhaps it should be a
requirement that every device have the ability to be brought back in for repair/analysis.


The ability to dissect failed components (and possibly repair them)
on-board the station would greatly alleviate the lack of the shuttle's
ability to return gear to earth.

On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 05:08:02 GMT, Alan Anderson
wrote:

Buran doesn't have engines at the back that need protecting.

I found some interesting Buran photos that you may desire to closely
look at...
http://www.lindenhillimports.com/buran.htm

That I believe is their only surviving v2 model. Certainly there are
major changes design changes from their only Buran v1 model that went
into space and back.

Cardman.

"Jorge R. Frank" ) writes:
(Andre Lieven) wrote in
:

Cardman ) writes:
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 20:20:49 -0400, John Doe wrote:

The NASA shuttle may be grounded, but as of now, there are still
plans to make it fly.

NASA has little choice in that. Congress would not allow them to
cancel the only US manned space launch system, until a replacement
system is available.

They had no problem with ending Apollo in 1975, when Columbia's first
flight was expected to be four years later...

And managed to destroy a good percentage of the US operational experience
base in human spaceflight in the process. Remember, experience resides in
individuals, not institutions.

Sure, but is six years that big a deal, when The Next Thing is being
worked on ( As it was in 1975-1981 ) and shows promise of really opening
up the astro flight rates ?

I would hope they learned from that mistake, but sadly I would not be
surprised if they did not.

True enough, but as funding is in the hands of the politicians, thats
not an issue one can really fault NASA for.

Andre

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

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.

Cardman wrote:
I found some interesting Buran photos that you may desire to closely
look at...
http://www.lindenhillimports.com/buran.htm

That I believe is their only surviving v2 model. Certainly there are
major changes design changes from their only Buran v1 model that went
into space and back.
Incorrect. That is Buran "aerodynamic prototype" test article BTS-02
GLI. It was equippedd with four jet engines to test subsonic flight,
approach and landing.
http://www.buran.ru/htm/anabst.htm
http://www.buran.ru/htm/anabst2.htm

Andre Lieven wrote:

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

Until it flies, and flies successfully, I don't count it. Period.
PR flyers are a dime a dozen. Flown systems are the real thing.


ATV is more realistic than HTV, Klipper or CEV. They've already fitted
the station with the gear to let its guidance system dock. The first
flight ATV has been built. ATV has a lot of conventional technologies:
MPLM shell for cargo module. Russian made docking module. Ariane 5 for
launcher. But there is also a lot of new stuff (guidance, propulsion
for orbiting tug etc).

It is already late. And likely to see more delays while they debug the
vehicle. And hopefully the modified Arianne 5 won't blow up when it
launches ATV.

So yes, you can't bet your life on ATV yet. But it is far from being
vapourware.

HTV on the other hand is a big question mark. ESA has experience with
Arianne 5. How much experience does Japan have with launchers ?