If the shuttle system is destroyed in the storm

Whats the future of manned space?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:08:58 -0700, bob haller wrote:

Whats the future of manned space?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

The storm's tracking to the south now, looks like Palm
Beach will be destroyed instead. Go attach your morbid
fascinations there.

But it's a valid question, and an interesting wrench in
the current political process. What would Bush/Kerry
do? I'd have more confidence that Bush would respond in
a way we'd appreciate, less so for Kerry.

I suppose if the Shuttle program was involuntarily shut
down by a natural disaster, the decision would have to be
whether completing ISS would be worth the investment in
whatever rebuilding would be necessary to restore Shuttle
launch capability. That seems unlikely, I admit.

(A mini-VAB could be done, but could ISS hang on for three
or so years, or however long a crash program to restore
launch capability would take?)

Forcibly terminating Shuttle/ISS would at least free up
a few billion annually for other things. I can only hope
that it results in Something Better, but I'm yet to
be convinced that a sudden change in course like this
would necessarily be better. So far, I don't really like
any of the choices for routinely getting humans into
low orbit with a decent cargo capability.

We are going to really miss having Shuttle, no matter
what happens this weekend.

--Damon

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:17:51 -0700, Damon Hill
wrote:

Forcibly terminating Shuttle/ISS would at least free up
a few billion annually for other things.

The few billion annually wouldn't stay in the space program, that much
is certain.

Brian

"Damon Hill" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 07:08:58 -0700, bob haller wrote:

Whats the future of manned space?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

The storm's tracking to the south now, looks like Palm
Beach will be destroyed instead. Go attach your morbid
fascinations there.

But it's a valid question, and an interesting wrench in
the current political process. What would Bush/Kerry
do? I'd have more confidence that Bush would respond in
a way we'd appreciate, less so for Kerry.

I suppose if the Shuttle program was involuntarily shut
down by a natural disaster, the decision would have to be
whether completing ISS would be worth the investment in
whatever rebuilding would be necessary to restore Shuttle
launch capability. That seems unlikely, I admit.

(A mini-VAB could be done, but could ISS hang on for three
or so years, or however long a crash program to restore
launch capability would take?)

Forcibly terminating Shuttle/ISS would at least free up
a few billion annually for other things. I can only hope
that it results in Something Better, but I'm yet to
be convinced that a sudden change in course like this
would necessarily be better. So far, I don't really like
any of the choices for routinely getting humans into
low orbit with a decent cargo capability.

We are going to really miss having Shuttle, no matter
what happens this weekend.

What about using ELV's for the remaining sections and ('skuze me) Soyuz
(yes, bought from the Russians; don't come back at me with "can't be done -
laws don't permit it" when you know laws can change in a heartbeat when
necessary) for crews?

Question (where have I heard this before?): How long would it take with a
"crash program" to build an Apollo-like vehicle for use with Delta IV?
There was a thread a couple of days ago along similar lines.

--
Alan Erskine
We can get people to the Moon in five years,
not the fifteen GWB proposes.
Give NASA a real challenge

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Whats the future of manned space?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Why do you attempt to make "predictions" when it's clearly too late to do
anything about the problem? You're not helping to solve any problems by
doing so. The decision to put KSC where it is happened decades ago.

Since I'm posting from work, I can't say what I really think. :-P

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Whats the future of manned space?
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

Simple, we send you up without any capsule! :-)

Brian

--

Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________






---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.745 / Virus Database: 497 - Release Date: 27/08/2004

Forcibly terminating Shuttle/ISS would at least free up
a few billion annually for other things.

The few billion annually wouldn't stay in the space program, that much
is certain.

Brian

I disagree, others have posted the shuttle budget is 5 billion a year...

5 billion a year would pay for a nice new capsule system
HAVE A GREAT DAY!

"Alan Erskine" wrote in
:

What about using ELV's for the remaining sections

What makes you think either will still be around? The EELV pads and
facilities are just a few miles south of the shuttle pads; the SSPF (where
the remaining ISS modules are stored) is just a couple miles south of the
VAB. If KSC is hit by a storm powerful enough to destroy the shuttle
program, it's highly likely that the others will also sustain critical
damage as well. Not that it really matters in the case of the SSPF; even if
the ISS modules aren't destroyed, they'd have to be pretty much redesigned
and rebuilt in order to fly on any existing ELV.

and ('skuze me)
Soyuz (yes, bought from the Russians; don't come back at me with
"can't be done - laws don't permit it" when you know laws can change
in a heartbeat when necessary) for crews?

OK then, I won't come back with "can't be done." I'll come back with
"probably won't be done." In order for a change in the law to be
"necessary", lawmakers would have to perceive that ISS is more important
than Iran nonproliferation. The overwhelming, bipartisan consensus says
otherwise.

--
JRF

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

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message ...
"Alan Erskine" wrote in
:

What about using ELV's for the remaining sections

What makes you think either will still be around? The EELV pads and
facilities are just a few miles south of the shuttle pads; the SSPF (where
the remaining ISS modules are stored) is just a couple miles south of the
VAB. If KSC is hit by a storm powerful enough to destroy the shuttle
program, it's highly likely that the others will also sustain critical
damage as well. Not that it really matters in the case of the SSPF; even if
the ISS modules aren't destroyed, they'd have to be pretty much redesigned
and rebuilt in order to fly on any existing ELV.

and ('skuze me)
Soyuz (yes, bought from the Russians; don't come back at me with
"can't be done - laws don't permit it" when you know laws can change
in a heartbeat when necessary) for crews?

OK then, I won't come back with "can't be done." I'll come back with
"probably won't be done." In order for a change in the law to be
"necessary", lawmakers would have to perceive that ISS is more important
than Iran nonproliferation.

No, the lawmakers would have to perceive that the ISS is more
important than upsetting Israel. After all, the whole Iran
NonProliferation Act was passed under the pressure of the pro-Israeli
lobby, since Israel wants to dominate the middle east with its nuclear
weapons and doesn't want Iran to have a deterrent.

"bob haller" wrote in message
...
Forcibly terminating Shuttle/ISS would at least free up
a few billion annually for other things.

The few billion annually wouldn't stay in the space program, that much
is certain.

Brian

I disagree, others have posted the shuttle budget is 5 billion a year...

5 billion a year would pay for a nice new capsule system

You miss the point. What's to prevent the Congress, Senate, and
Administration from cutting NASA's budget by 5 billion a year if the program
is brought to an abrupt end by a natural disaster? They could argue that
the money be better spent as disaster relief money.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.