Story Musgrave disses ISS

Like the Space Shuttle, the concept was sound, but we received the wrong
station in the wrong orbit, for the wrong purposes.
Von Braun's plan for the use of a space station was right on the money for
the future of spaceflight - to use it as a stepping stone to the moon and
planets; instead, we placed it in an orbit unusable for trips outside LEO
b/c we had to have it in an orbit the Russians could get to.
In the very early 80's, there were studies and designs for a "Space
Operations Center" complete with Orbital Maneuvering Vehicles (to haul
payloads to GEO, and possibly eventually the Moon and Lagrange points).
If we had stuck with that, coupled with a better shuttle design, we could
have made some of the progress along the lines drawn out in the mid-80's
NASA publication, Pioneering the Space Frontier.
Instead, visionless bueracratic hacks spun up the PR machine for budget
dollars and trimmed down the plan to the point of making it completely
useless.
Don't get me wrong, a part of me is still glad we have at least SOME means
of keeping humans in LEO, but what's the point of endlessly spinning our
wheels up there if we don't move beyond?
We already KNOW the effect of zero-g on humans, we don't need to do any
further study on that to go to Mars and the Moon and Asteroids!



"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Apr 22, 4:35 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
You have been served, space station:

I guess the general idea is that the U.S. either has to keep spending
money on the Space Station, or they would have to hand it over to the
Russians as a gift. I can see no other reason to waste money on it.

John Savard

On Apr 25, 2:49�pm, "Joseph S. Powell, III" wrote:
Like the Space Shuttle, the concept was sound, but we received the wrong
station in the wrong orbit, for the wrong purposes.
Von Braun's plan for the use of a space station was right on the money for
the future of spaceflight - to use it as a stepping stone to the moon and
planets; instead, we placed it in an orbit unusable for trips outside LEO
b/c we had to have it in an orbit the Russians could get to.
In the very early 80's, there were studies and designs for a "Space
Operations Center" complete with Orbital Maneuvering Vehicles (to haul
payloads to GEO, and possibly eventually the Moon and Lagrange points).
If we had stuck with that, coupled with a better shuttle design, we could
have made some of the progress along the lines drawn out in the mid-80's
NASA publication, Pioneering the Space Frontier.
Instead, visionless bueracratic hacks spun up the PR machine for budget
dollars and trimmed down the plan to the point of making it completely
useless.
Don't get me wrong, a part of me is still glad we have at least SOME means
of keeping humans in LEO, but what's the point of endlessly spinning our
wheels up there if we don't move beyond?
We already KNOW the effect of zero-g on humans, we don't need to do any
further study on that to go to Mars and the Moon and Asteroids!

"Quadibloc" wrote in message

...
On Apr 22, 4:35 pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

You have been served, space station:

I guess the general idea is that the U.S. either has to keep spending
money on the Space Station, or they would have to hand it over to the
Russians as a gift. I can see no other reason to waste money on it.

John Savard

We should of kept saturn, easy launch method for new stations each 5
to 10 years, launched full up, fuilly equipped crew wouldnt have to
waste so much time....

servicing equiptement jammed in confined space, or launching empty
modules then sending more vehicles to add equiptement.......

at this point theres no reason to keep ISS it should be gifted to
partners or anyone who wants and is willing to pay for it.

or be deorbited into pacific.......

On 4/25/2010 10:49 AM, Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
Like the Space Shuttle, the concept was sound, but we received the wrong
station in the wrong orbit, for the wrong purposes.
Von Braun's plan for the use of a space station was right on the money for
the future of spaceflight - to use it as a stepping stone to the moon and
planets; instead, we placed it in an orbit unusable for trips outside LEO
b/c we had to have it in an orbit the Russians could get to.

Von Braun stuck his into a 1,000 mile high polar orbit so it could among
other things do military reconnaissance and possibly bomb the Russians.
I don't know how that would affect launching things to other planets
from it, but if you can launch it from polar orbit you can probably
launch it from the ISS also.
Unfortunately the altitude of the orbit would have left the crew dead
from radiation in no time flat as he had stuck it into the inner Van
Allen belt.

Pat

In sci.space.history Joseph S. Powell, III wrote:
Like the Space Shuttle, the concept was sound, but we received the
wrong station in the wrong orbit, for the wrong purposes. Von
Braun's plan for the use of a space station was right on the money
for the future of spaceflight - to use it as a stepping stone to the
moon and planets; instead, we placed it in an orbit unusable for
trips outside LEO b/c we had to have it in an orbit the Russians
could get to.

The added irony being that soon the Russians will be able to loft
Soyuz from Kourou.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

On 4/26/2010 9:50 AM, Rick Jones wrote:


The added irony being that soon the Russians will be able to loft
Soyuz from Kourou.

At the moment, the Kourou pad is only set up for unmanned Soyuz booster
operations.
It would present a problem as to where to land the Soyuz crew anyway, as
their orbital inclination would be too low to return to Russia or
Kazakhstan.
The Kourou Soyuz pad appears to be a more simple in design than the one
at Baikonur:
http://www.arianespace.com/news-soyu...ite_update.asp
Without the two big folding servicing arms that allow personnel access
to the upper stage and Soyuz spacecraft fairing area:
http://cs.astrium.eads.net/sp/Spacec...ort/Amos_2.htm
http://www.asc-csa.gc.ca/images/soyuz-12.jpg

Pat

In message tatelephone
Pat Flannery wrote:

On 4/26/2010 9:50 AM, Rick Jones wrote:


The added irony being that soon the Russians will be able to loft
Soyuz from Kourou.

The Kourou Soyuz pad appears to be a more simple in design than the one
at Baikonur:

Interesting. They'd originally been talking about vertical integration
at Kourou but the construction pictures definitely look like they're
going to be putting them together flat, not even something to add the
payload at the pad as happens with the Arianes unless that comes last.

Anthony

On Apr 27, 3:07�am, Anthony Frost wrote:
In message tatelephone
� � � � � Pat Flannery wrote:

� On 4/26/2010 9:50 AM, Rick Jones wrote:
�
�
� The added irony being that soon the Russians will be able to loft
� Soyuz from Kourou.
�
� The Kourou Soyuz pad appears to be a more simple in design than the one
� at Baikonur:

Interesting. They'd originally been talking about vertical integration
at Kourou but the construction pictures definitely look like they're
going to be putting them together flat, not even something to add the
payload at the pad as happens with the Arianes unless that comes last.

� � � � � Anthony

thats how soyuz is normally done, because of weather at launch site...

probably a lot easier for pad rats and returning to assembly building
is easy.

On 4/26/2010 11:07 PM, Anthony Frost wrote:


Interesting. They'd originally been talking about vertical integration
at Kourou but the construction pictures definitely look like they're
going to be putting them together flat, not even something to add the
payload at the pad as happens with the Arianes unless that comes last.

Here's how they are going to do it, and it's very strange:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kourou_els.html
The Soyuz, minus payload, will be rolled out horizontal and then erected
on the pad; then a giant shelter building, riding on tracks, will roll
over the booster and lower the payload into place atop it, then stay in
place to give it climate control until just before launch, when it will
roll back away to expose the booster for liftoff.
This would allow it to be upgraded for manned launches at some future
point if desired.
The concept of the mobile shelter building reminds me of how the
Vandenberg Shuttle launch facility would have worked, where the Shuttle
got clamshelled in between two mobile structures:
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/3981.html

Pat

In message tatelephone
Pat Flannery wrote:

On 4/26/2010 11:07 PM, Anthony Frost wrote:

Interesting. They'd originally been talking about vertical integration
at Kourou but the construction pictures definitely look like they're
going to be putting them together flat, not even something to add the
payload at the pad as happens with the Arianes unless that comes last.

Here's how they are going to do it, and it's very strange:
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/kourou_els.html
The Soyuz, minus payload, will be rolled out horizontal and then erected
on the pad; then a giant shelter building, riding on tracks, will roll
over the booster and lower the payload into place atop it, then stay in
place to give it climate control until just before launch, when it will
roll back away to expose the booster for liftoff.

Aha, just the payload. Right.

The concept of the mobile shelter building reminds me of how the
Vandenberg Shuttle launch facility would have worked, where the Shuttle
got clamshelled in between two mobile structures:
http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/3981.html

The Ariane 5 has something similar. I thought they did the final payload
integration at the pad which is why they'd planned the Soyuz operations
the same way, but apparently it's done in a second fixed building and
the pad structure is just for environment and last minute acces.

Anthony