A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA studies new booster (UPI)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old March 1st 04, 10:14 PM
Dr. O
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)


"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
Most of these I actually find kind of worrisome.
A robotic shuttle could eat massive amounts of money and free up very

little
for a moon program.


Why is that? Its only electronics. The Shuttle is already highly

automated, it
launches by itself and it could land by itself.

The only thing you get is a little more mass and now need to risk men.

You need to check the tiles, the engines, and everything else the shuttle
requires.
There is no savings in manpower or other equipment.
You still need to do basically everything you do for a manned shuttle.

So it still costs $3 billion dollars plus.
Which means there is no money freed up to go to the Moon.


No, you're mistaken. The variant chosen will be a cargo module on top of the
current Shuttle tank, probably with engines in it, a Shuttle-C type system,
but not reusable. That will markedly reduce costs as most of the money spend
by the Shuttle program is making sure the manned vehicle doesn't blow up.


  #13  
Old March 1st 04, 11:42 PM
Dholmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)


"Dr. O" dr.o@xxxxx wrote in message
...

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...

"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
Most of these I actually find kind of worrisome.
A robotic shuttle could eat massive amounts of money and free up very

little
for a moon program.


Why is that? Its only electronics. The Shuttle is already highly

automated, it
launches by itself and it could land by itself.

The only thing you get is a little more mass and now need to risk men.

You need to check the tiles, the engines, and everything else the

shuttle
requires.
There is no savings in manpower or other equipment.
You still need to do basically everything you do for a manned shuttle.

So it still costs $3 billion dollars plus.
Which means there is no money freed up to go to the Moon.


No, you're mistaken. The variant chosen will be a cargo module on top of

the
current Shuttle tank, probably with engines in it, a Shuttle-C type

system,
but not reusable. That will markedly reduce costs as most of the money

spend
by the Shuttle program is making sure the manned vehicle doesn't blow up.

One would hope that is the way they go.
That would allow savings and heavy launch mass.
A win win situation.


  #15  
Old March 2nd 04, 04:26 AM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Nonsense. The Orbiters are much too valuable.


Really? How much value do they generate? Seems to me, the Shuttle can't be
operated profitably. What we need is a Shuttle we really don't have to worry
too much about after it has delivered its payload. The Shuttle C is one
approach, but what if we make an automated flyback shuttle that is cheap enough
so that we can build many more. In other words if the shuttle returns its a
bonus, otherwise we used a new shuttle right out of the factory. The shuttles
are cheaply built and don't have many fail-safe systems for reentry. Reentry
saves on costs for building more, but we are not going to hold up a launch
based on uncertainty on the heat shield, if it works we get to use it again,
but if it doesn't their are other shuttles. The thing is we mass produce the
shuttle. If you want to launch 1 shuttle a week for the next year you build 52
shuttles. The shuttles are cheap and expendible. Ideally a shuttle should cost
no more than an external tank.

Tom
  #16  
Old March 2nd 04, 04:29 AM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Nonsense. Do you think astronauts are the only people whose lives are
worth anything?

The only thing an unmanned orbiter would do is increase the risk to
people on the ground.


This is not Trantor! Their are only 6 billion people living on Earth and the
chance of a piece of space debris hitting someone on the head is small. I
suppose you've never been outside of your city and you think the whole world is
one sprawling metropolis.

Tom

Tom
  #20  
Old March 2nd 04, 09:25 PM
Sander Vesik
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

TKalbfus wrote:
Nonsense. The Orbiters are much too valuable.


Really? How much value do they generate? Seems to me, the Shuttle can't be
operated profitably. What we need is a Shuttle we really don't have to worry


Well, their value cannot be less than what it would take to full-fill the present
plans for shuttle flights using Soyuz launches bought from Russians.


Tom


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Station 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 11:14 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.