Shuttle program extension?

J Waggoner wrote:

As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built.

Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

On Sep 2, 2:59�am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
J Waggoner wrote:
As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built.

Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its
time to retire them as exhibits and build new pads for whatever
replaces the shuttle?

a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than
rebuilding 39 a and b.

so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program
cost?

its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so
rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather...
something every pad rat would likely appreciate

"bob haller safety advocate" wrote in message
...
On Sep 2, 2:59�am, (Derek Lyons) wrote:
J Waggoner wrote:
As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be
built.

Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

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

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

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

The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its
time to retire them as exhibits and build new pads for whatever
replaces the shuttle?

a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than
rebuilding 39 a and b.

so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program
cost?

its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so
rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather...
something every pad rat would likely appreciate

================================

A launch pad with a retractable roof? ?? ...!!

I think the problem here has two prime roots.

Root1 is the nontechnical/religious character of far too many
Americans. America is not a spacefaring nation.

Root2 is the system has politicians making engineering
decisions. Politicians make *really* bad engineers.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2008 Sep 02]

On Sep 2, 8:17*am, bob haller safety advocate wrote:


The current pads have lived a proud and historic life. Perhaps its
time to retire them as exhibits *and build new pads for whatever
replaces the shuttle?

No

a add on to existing ewxpendable pads would likely cost way less than
rebuilding 39 a and b.

No, it wouldn't be

so how much would a new pad set cost in comparison to the program
cost?


Too much

its likely low, and new pads could be built with a retractable roof so
rockets sitting stacked at the pad arent out in the weather...
something every pad rat would likely appreciate

No, that defeat the purpose of the VAB. The key is to minimize work
at the pad and do most of it in the VAB

Derek Lyons wrote:
Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.


No, you must use a Dean Drive equipped submarine:
http://davidszondy.com/future/space/dean_drive02.jpg

Pat

On Sep 2, 11:43�am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Derek Lyons wrote:
Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

No, you must use a Dean Drive equipped submarine:http://davidszondy.com/future/space/dean_drive02.jpg

Pat

so what could a replacement for 39A & B cost? what percentage of a new
launcher program would that be?

certinally if retractable roofs can be built over stadiums they could
in a fashion be built to protect a pad and vehicle.

would have to be perfect but keep thew rain off would certinally help.
workers do a better job when comfortable

I wonder how structurally sound they aRE AFTER ALL THESE YEARS? steel
re bar in salt environment is tough, rebar rusts and grows,

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
J Waggoner wrote:

As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built.

Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

More likely the shuttle will continue flying and Ares I problems will keep
getting worse, to the point where that program is cancelled.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in message
...
That conclusion may not include the shuttle; they may well decide that
COTS-D or a "Block I" Orion/EELV (or both) would make more sense than a
shuttle extension. Not only would a shuttle extension be expensive, it
would not provide emergency crew return capability from ISS while the
other two solutions could.

Hopefully the next administration will be adequately informed. Someone that
they think is credible needs to point out to them that EELV's are actually
capable of getting Orion to ISS. Switching to EELV means the end of Ares I,
which puts a huge dent in Griffin's plans for Ares V. I'm not sure he's
going to be willing to admit that EELV can actually replace Ares I for ISS
missions.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

On Sep 2, 4:18�pm, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" wrote in messagenews:kf6dnf7CA5ZxIyTVnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@gigan ews.com...

That conclusion may not include the shuttle; they may well decide that
COTS-D or a "Block I" Orion/EELV (or both) would make more sense than a
shuttle extension. Not only would a shuttle extension be expensive, it
would not provide emergency crew return capability from ISS while the
other two solutions could.

Hopefully the next administration will be adequately informed. �Someone that
they think is credible needs to point out to them that EELV's are actually
capable of getting Orion to ISS. �Switching to EELV means the end of Ares I,
which puts a huge dent in Griffin's plans for Ares V. �I'm not sure he's
going to be willing to admit that EELV can actually replace Ares I for ISS
missions.

Jeff
--
A clever person solves a problem.
A wise person avoids it. -- Einstein

yeah he upped the number of crew to be carried, so no existing
expendable could be used.

we need a large heavy lifter, how about shuttle C?

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 15:38:39 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
J Waggoner wrote:

As for the facilities if necessary Launch Pad C could always be built.

Between the great expense and difficulty for very little return, the
chances of that are roughly equal to the chances I'll sprout wings and
fly to the moon under my own power.

More likely the shuttle will continue flying and Ares I problems will keep
getting worse, to the point where that program is cancelled.

Jeff


This wasn't about the pads first all, that was an aside. If you want
to start a pad thread go ahead, be my guest.

There is no reason the shuttles can't be maintained thru 2020 if
necessary. Lets face it Griffin has been campaigning for this
since Bush announced the back to the moon plan. The Russians
have given shuttle fans a gift in this way. Remember the Shuttles
were not to blame for the loss of Columbia or challenger. It was the
SRB joint and the tank foam. The real blame of course sits with
engineers who are human.

Another method of launching the shuttle could always be revived. But
I do think Orion will be slowed down and perfected. Its not good to
rush a new program, you end up with disaster like Apollo One or
Challenger.