Does anyone know why the shuttle happened?

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
wrote:

:
:Again I disagree. NASA was already looking at Space Station designs
:build with Shuttles having payloads as small as 15,000 pounds. Yes you
:would be talking about more on orbit assembly, but you could also use
:the Titan IIID or Titan 34D to launch your core modules. It could
:hardly have been more expensive than the Station we've ended up
:building.
:

Note that one of the things that caused a rework of the whole ISS
design was that someone started looking at how much on-orbit assembly
was required (even using the Shuttle's large payload) and determined
that it could never actually be built. It would be incomplete when
maintenance was eating all available time, leaving none for further
assembly.

Yes, but that was also predicated on a launch rate of about 8 flights a
year. (which greatly reduced available manpower on orbit).

Give it a launch rate of say even 30 flights a year and that changes the
equation greatly.



"NASA was already looking" is hardly a recommendation, given that.


--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney

--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
: wrote:
:
: :
: :Again I disagree. NASA was already looking at Space Station designs
: :build with Shuttles having payloads as small as 15,000 pounds. Yes you
: :would be talking about more on orbit assembly, but you could also use
: :the Titan IIID or Titan 34D to launch your core modules. It could
: :hardly have been more expensive than the Station we've ended up
: :building.
: :
:
: Note that one of the things that caused a rework of the whole ISS
: design was that someone started looking at how much on-orbit assembly
: was required (even using the Shuttle's large payload) and determined
: that it could never actually be built. It would be incomplete when
: maintenance was eating all available time, leaving none for further
: assembly.
:
:Yes, but that was also predicated on a launch rate of about 8 flights a
:year. (which greatly reduced available manpower on orbit).
:
:Give it a launch rate of say even 30 flights a year and that changes the
:equation greatly.
:

Not so much, really. You can only do so much EVA no matter what.
Unless you're going to park Shuttles full of maintenance folks next
door to ISS in perpetuity, the Station as originally conceived wasn't
possible. Reducing the size of the pieces (by reducing the payload of
the Shuttle) just makes that worse.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...

Not so much, really. You can only do so much EVA no matter what.
Unless you're going to park Shuttles full of maintenance folks next
door to ISS in perpetuity, the Station as originally conceived wasn't
possible. Reducing the size of the pieces (by reducing the payload of
the Shuttle) just makes that worse.

Tht's the point. With say 30 flights a year you CAN basically park a
shuttle there in perpetuity.

And of course the "Station as originally conceived" would be very different
given those parameters.




--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:
: Not so much, really. You can only do so much EVA no matter what.
: Unless you're going to park Shuttles full of maintenance folks next
: door to ISS in perpetuity, the Station as originally conceived wasn't
: possible. Reducing the size of the pieces (by reducing the payload of
: the Shuttle) just makes that worse.
:
:Tht's the point. With say 30 flights a year you CAN basically park a
:shuttle there in perpetuity.
:

Parking *A* Shuttle there wouldn't be enough to get the place built
and maintained. It required too many hours of EVA.

:
:And of course the "Station as originally conceived" would be very different
:given those parameters.
:

Yes, it would be. It would have required even MORE hours of EVA to
put together and maintain. The original with big pieces wasn't
doable. Reduce the Shuttle payload and it becomes even less so.

Again, just because it was considered by NASA at some point doesn't
mean it was a good idea or even that it was possible.


--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .

Not so much, really. You can only do so much EVA no matter what.
Unless you're going to park Shuttles full of maintenance folks next
door to ISS in perpetuity, the Station as originally conceived wasn't
possible. Reducing the size of the pieces (by reducing the payload of
the Shuttle) just makes that worse.

Tht's the point. With say 30 flights a year you CAN basically park a
shuttle there in perpetuity.

Sure - if you want to abandon the 'pure' microgravity enviroment
that's touted as one of the main benefits of the space station.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:
Sure - if you want to abandon the 'pure' microgravity enviroment
that's touted as one of the main benefits of the space station.


Prior to Bush killing the shuttle and enabling research on a Mars
mission, NASA was not allowed to spend money to look into a manned Mars
mission, so the whole purpose of the station had to be changed and they
had to find some excuse for the station.

In reality, the real purpose of the station is to learn to build and
maintain (more important than build) structures/systems that can last a
long time in space so that when you mount a Mars expedition, you already
have core stuff that you know is working (and know how many spare parts
are needed).

Astronauts shouldn't be spending their days watching crystals grow in a
test tube, they should be spending their days debugging and fixing CDRA,
Elektron etc.

And from a martian expedition shop's perspective, there should be some
healthy debate on whether systems should be outdoors (like many are on
teh US segment) or indoors (like many are in the russian segment). In
particular, any CMG should be sized so that a failed unit can be brought
indoors for analysis and repair. The Airlock needs to be able to bring
in more than just the AE35 antenna.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
. ..

Not so much, really. You can only do so much EVA no matter what.
Unless you're going to park Shuttles full of maintenance folks next
door to ISS in perpetuity, the Station as originally conceived wasn't
possible. Reducing the size of the pieces (by reducing the payload of
the Shuttle) just makes that worse.

Tht's the point. With say 30 flights a year you CAN basically park a
shuttle there in perpetuity.

Sure - if you want to abandon the 'pure' microgravity enviroment
that's touted as one of the main benefits of the space station.


Sure, I'll abandon that. That's only one reason for a space station.
Again, with this level of infrastructure you have to start rethinking your
options. That includes options such as man-tended free flyers and the like.

Micro-gravity environment has been touted as a feature of THIS space
station, but certainly not all that NASA has proposed.



D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL



--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html