NASA Set To Approve New Unpressurized Logistics Carrier for Space Shuttle Fleet

I found this article, and especially the link to the NASA PDF
(CR_SSCN_009593A.pdf), very interesting.

NASA Set To Approve New Unpressurized Logistics Carrier for Space Shuttle
Fleet
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18344

Keith's position on this seems a bit knee-jerk to me, but it makes you
wonder if NASA asked Spacehab if they could provide enough carriers (these
appear similar to their Integrated Cargo Carriers) to meet the needs of the
shuttle/ISS program.

Here's a link to a story about Spacehab's Integrated Cargo Carriers:
http://www.spaceandtech.com/digest/s...000-027b.shtml

This Spacehab page has a link to a PDF about their Integrated Cargo
Carriers:
http://www.spacehab.com/sfs/carriers.htm

So why develop new carriers when Spacehab has something that looks (on the
surface) like it would work?

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

So why develop new carriers when Spacehab has something that looks (on
the
surface) like it would work?


Jeff

Pure pork, trying to extrasct the last buck out of a dying program. at
lewast it should of been safety related....

Jeff Findley wrote:
So why develop new carriers when Spacehab has something that looks (on the
surface) like it would work?

Because NASA's real purpose in life is to give lucrative contracts to
some companies. In this case, keep Spacehab alive with new contracts
despite the shuttle standing down in a couple of years and all the
hardware the shuttle is meant to transport having already been built to
use existing shuttle hardware.

Not too different than NASA imposing SRB and ET concepts on the new CEV
just so Thiokol and Michoud could continue to get NASA money post Shuttle.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18344

Well, my reaction is the same as to a lot of shuttle/station news
these days. I don't see what's going to happen with fitting 30
shuttle flights worth of payloads into 15 flights (or whatever the
exact numbers are).

Are we dealing with planning processes which have been underway for a
while and haven't caught up with the delays? Or is there an implicit
assumption that the shuttle will fly beyond 2010? Or is it just a
matter of everyone fighting for their payload and some will win and
some will lose?

Jim Kingdon wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18344

Well, my reaction is the same as to a lot of shuttle/station news
these days. I don't see what's going to happen with fitting 30
shuttle flights worth of payloads into 15 flights (or whatever the
exact numbers are).

Are we dealing with planning processes which have been underway for a
while and haven't caught up with the delays? Or is there an implicit
assumption that the shuttle will fly beyond 2010? Or is it just a
matter of everyone fighting for their payload and some will win and
some will lose?

Some already have. I believe a Japanese and Russian segment have each
been eliminated from the shuttle manifest. The rest I suppose was a
matter of cutting down on logistics flights to come up with the 18-19
number.

-A.L.

18 / 19 will never happen, might get 10, at best. with safety first
standdowns will be a regular occurence.

Bob Haller wrote:
18 / 19 will never happen, might get 10, at best. with safety first
standdowns will be a regular occurence.

Would you actually CONTRIBUTE to the discussion. Your statement has
nothing to do with how they came up with the new goal of 18-19 flights,
which was the topic being discused.

-A.L.

The new goal is a pipe dream assuming no futher significant safety
stand downs, and great performance. This while foam loss is still
grounding the program.

Dream on, things just arent that good....

Andrew Lotosky wrote:
Bob Haller wrote:
18 / 19 will never happen, might get 10, at best. with safety first
standdowns will be a regular occurence.

Would you actually CONTRIBUTE to the discussion. Your statement has
nothing to do with how they came up with the new goal of 18-19 flights,
which was the topic being discused.

-A.L.

Bob is incapable of any sort of rational thought. He only responds to
emotions and emotion-based arguments.

What brings him to this newsgroup, I don't know - perhaps no one in his
real life will listen to him irrationally whine and gnash his teeth.

It's best to just killfile him.

On 16 Oct 2005 02:17:34 -0400, Jim Kingdon wrote:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=18344

Well, my reaction is the same as to a lot of shuttle/station news
these days. I don't see what's going to happen with fitting 30
shuttle flights worth of payloads into 15 flights (or whatever the
exact numbers are).

Are we dealing with planning processes which have been underway for a
while and haven't caught up with the delays?

My read is that there are some flights, particularly resupply flights,
which run out of cargo bay volume before they run out of upmass. So
this contract is designed to squeeze in more spares on some flights by
using a more space-efficient carrier.

Brian