Europe to Join Russia in Building Next Space Shuttle

So basically since the development of a human spacecraft takes about
ten years (despite whatever rosy schedule they are trying to show us
now _ ATV will take at least ten years for instance), that means that
CEV and klipper are going really to be available in 2015, at the same
time when the ISS is starting its final years.

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.


Nope. The Russian mission is to find someone (ESA) to pay for a bigger
ship so they could lower the price a bit and carry more tourists
so they would pay for all those fancy Russian space ideas (including
Moon excursion if the competition goes there).

Regards,
NE

I take that from the following experience
1) Shuttle
started in 1972, development ended with the fourth shuttle flight in
1982
2) X38
started in 1996, when it was cancelled in 2002 first flight was
scheduled in 2005
3) ATV
decided in 1996
first flight now in august 2006, will probably slip to 2007

Need i continue ?

On 21 Aug 2005 11:47:59 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

So basically since the development of a human spacecraft takes about
ten years

No. Where did you come up with that number?

We-ll see in 2011.

Well the good point for Griffin is that since he will leave in early
2009, that's his successor who will have to explain the delays to the
Congress then.

The delays have already started btw. For instance LM and NGB have to
bid for the CEV Phase II and submit their proposal by the end of the
year. The only small detail is that the requirements are still not
there, since the outcome of the ESAS study are not cleared for release
yet. So how do you bid without requirements Should have been there
early August, already three weeks delay and counting. And this is only
the beginning.

wrote:
We-ll see in 2011.

Well the good point for Griffin is that since he will leave in early
2009, that's his successor who will have to explain the delays to the
Congress then.

The delays have already started btw. For instance LM and NGB have to
bid for the CEV Phase II and submit their proposal by the end of the
year. The only small detail is that the requirements are still not
there, since the outcome of the ESAS study are not cleared for release
yet. So how do you bid without requirements Should have been there
early August, already three weeks delay and counting. And this is only
the beginning.


You're assuming that there is really a bid process. Delays
really don't matter when you only have one or two contractors
and they are involved in developing the requirements.

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

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

On 21 Aug 2005 14:25:45 -0700, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

I take that from the following experience
1) Shuttle
started in 1972, development ended with the fourth shuttle flight in
1982
2) X38
started in 1996, when it was cancelled in 2002 first flight was
scheduled in 2005
3) ATV
decided in 1996
first flight now in august 2006, will probably slip to 2007

Need i continue ?

No, you've demonstrated the fallacy of your thought process
adequately, thanks.

This is called the fallacy of hasty generalization. These are far too
few data points from which to draw your conclusion. Not to mention
all the countexamples from the 1960s...

"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.