Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

"Cardman" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 18:29:23 -0700, "Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary
Shafer)" wrote:

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

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.

Anyone interested can see a touchdown photo here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:%...%D0%BD_rus.jpg

You can see that the rear end is quite cooked. Looks to me like they
are missing the carbon wing edges. Not to mention that section of the
back of the US Shuttle to protect the engines.

Have you ever objectively looked at the US Shuttle after reentry? It looks
quite cooked to me on every picture!

Rene

"John Doe" wrote in message ...
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".

You know what 'Buran' means? Russia always gives symbolical, not functional
names. They would not call their 'shuttle' (that is wat it was!) 'Shuttle'.
They called it 'Snow storm'. I also heard 'Loejo' (storm) was one of the
possibilities.

Rene

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

Cardman wrote in
:

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.

Incorrect. The ability to bring failed ISS systems back to the ground for
forensic analysis is vital to learning how and why they fail, and helps us
design better systems.

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.

No, it's because they were counting on the shuttle to perform that role.




--
JRF

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

Cardman wrote in
:

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.

That's because most of Buran's purported capabilities were only
demonstrated on paper. A paper spacecraft can always be made to look better
than a real one.

--
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 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.

Chris J. wrote in
:

On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 12:37:15 -0500, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On 20 Aug 2005 08:50:18 -0700, wrote:

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 ?

International Space Station. The US isn't backing out until 2015
(pretty much the 15 years agreed to in the first place) and there is
little reason to believe ISS will fall into the sea as soon as the US
pulls out.

I'm clearly missing something here; Why is the US pulling out after
ISS completion? Isn't that analogous to spending decades and billions
to build a laboratory, and then withdrawing right as it actually can
begin full research operations?

In other words, why bother to build it in the first place under this
scenario? And more to the point, why bother continuing construction?
What am I missing here?

What you're missing (besides the politics) is the timeline. The shuttle
orbiters will be retired in 2010, at which time ISS assembly will be
declared "complete". The US will remain in the ISS program until 2016 (not
2015). So the US isn't withdrawing right after assembly complete; it will
continue using ISS for six years.

ISS has a design lifetime of 15 years. Depending on when you consider the
"clock" to have started, that could expire as early as 2013 (FEL+15) or as
late as 2015 (PMC+15). That doesn't mean that ISS will immediately become
unusable after that point, but it *does* mean that the components will be
exceeding their rated lifetimes, and will start failing at a higher rate.
At that point, maintaining ISS will become progressively more expensive.
The US has consciously decided not to remain a party to ISS after that.

--
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 Sat, 20 Aug 2005 23:46:57 -0700, in a place far, far away, Chris J.
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I'm clearly missing something here; Why is the US pulling out after
ISS completion? Isn't that analogous to spending decades and billions
to build a laboratory, and then withdrawing right as it actually can
begin full research operations?

Yes, if it's capable of doing "full research operations" in a cost
effective manner. It's not at all clear that this will ever be the
case for ISS.

In other words, why bother to build it in the first place under this
scenario?

To create/maintain jobs in Houston, Huntsville, California,
Washington, and Florida, and to promote "international cooperation"
and provide midnight basketball for the Russians

And more to the point, why bother continuing construction?

Because we think we have to honor the international agreements.

What am I missing here?

The politics.

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.