|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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....... |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Story Musgrave disses ISS
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TAL Story | Danny Deger | Space Shuttle | 2 | May 16th 07 08:09 PM |
The End of This Story | Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) | History | 15 | June 24th 05 08:17 AM |
Kudos to Musgrave | [email protected] | History | 38 | January 1st 05 08:24 PM |
Story Musgrave | Bryan Ashcraft | Space Shuttle | 70 | August 2nd 04 11:38 PM |