|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
JF Mezei wrote:
snidely wrote: And if they built a Shuttle V2.0 with modern materials, shouldn't they be able to shave a tonne or two off the weight of the orbiter, increasing its cargo capacity ? The truth is, if you gained a ton or two of payload, you're better off using to to focusing on making the shuttle more re-usable. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
All this ignores is that the shuttle paradigm is not needed. Payload
to orbit, crew to orbit and payload return do not and should not be done by one vehicle. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
In article 2e6c9694-a611-4afe-84b4-a87c6f53fff3
@k10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com, says... All this ignores is that the shuttle paradigm is not needed. Payload to orbit, crew to orbit and payload return do not and should not be done by one vehicle. I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do you say they should not be done by the same vehicle? Jeff -- 42 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Sep 30, 2:52*am, JF Mezei wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote: I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do you say they should not be done by the same vehicle? safety why risk a crews life for any reason when automatic systems can do the job? |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Oct 4, 8:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ee37ec66-a091-43b0-b5fd- , says... On Sep 30, 2:52*am, JF Mezei wrote: Jeff Findley wrote: I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do you say they should not be done by the same vehicle? safety why risk a crews life for any reason when automatic systems can do the job? This tired argument again. *The risk is worth it. *If we didn't believe so, we wouldn't fund manned spaceflight in the first place. *Instead, the US would do nothing but send unmanned satellites and probes out into space. It is not a tired argument. It is a damn good argument. Challenger's crew died needlessly launching a comsat, which could have be done better by an ELV. Much of station logistics is low cost items that does not need a crew to deliver. The aircraft analogy is not applicable. The present of a crew does not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and no one else, unlike an airplane. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Me
wrote: The aircraft analogy is not applicable. The present of a crew does not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and no one else, unlike an airplane. Uh, try telling that to UPS and FedEx. Brian |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
In article 068117cd-76f3-4aa8-82d5-
, says... On Oct 4, 8:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote: In article ee37ec66-a091-43b0-b5fd- , says... On Sep 30, 2:52*am, JF Mezei wrote: Jeff Findley wrote: I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do you say they should not be done by the same vehicle? safety why risk a crews life for any reason when automatic systems can do the job? This tired argument again. *The risk is worth it. *If we didn't believe so, we wouldn't fund manned spaceflight in the first place. *Instead, the US would do nothing but send unmanned satellites and probes out into space. It is not a tired argument. It is a damn good argument. Challenger's crew died needlessly launching a comsat, which could have be done better by an ELV. Much of station logistics is low cost items that does not need a crew to deliver. Challenger launching a comsat was one thing because its final destination was GEO (a "location" where manned spaceflight does not currently occur). ISS crew and ISS cargo delivery missions are quite another. When the crew and cargo are going to the very same place, putting them on the same launch vehicle makes sense. In the case of a shuttle derived launch vehicle with both cargo (underneath a payload shroud) and crew (in an Orion capsule, or similar, on the very top), it makes very little difference if you launch on one vehicle or two. The presence of cargo *beneath* the Orion does not hamper the safety of the Orion and its crew in any way. This is why it's a tired argument. It only applies to the shuttle, and even then, only in the case where the cargo and crew aren't going to the same destination. The aircraft analogy is not applicable. Why is flying cargo via FedEx different than flying cargo to ISS? The present of a crew does not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and no one else, unlike an airplane. People are more flexible than machines and their presence absolutely does make a complex mission safer. Having a "man on the spot" to solve problems is still better than trying to do everything remotely. Take a closer look at the shuttle. There are many failure modes on the shuttle which can be fixed by astronauts, but can't be fixed remotely from the ground. Take a look at the list of possible contingency EVA's on the shuttle and you'll quickly find that the sorts of failures these address would turn into loss of vehicle without a crew present. Loss of vehicle can be a danger to people on the ground. Crew and cargo on separate launch vehicles is not a (correct) lesson that shuttle has taught us. You can't take a single data point and draw this sort of sweeping conclusion. Jeff -- 42 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says... On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Me wrote: The aircraft analogy is not applicable. The present of a crew does not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and no one else, unlike an airplane. Uh, try telling that to UPS and FedEx. No kidding. An unmanned cargo aircraft could do a lot of damage if it crashed. Charlie should note that the damage to the Twin Towers didn't depend on whether or not the aircraft had people on them. The damage was caused by burning jet fuel, which is just as present on cargo aircraft as it is on passenger aircraft. Jeff -- 42 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Future Robotic Shuttles?
On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:00:17 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote: It is not a tired argument. It is a damn good argument. Challenger's crew died needlessly launching a comsat, which could have be done better by an ELV. Much of station logistics is low cost items that does not need a crew to deliver. ISS crew and ISS cargo delivery missions are quite another. When the crew and cargo are going to the very same place, putting them on the same launch vehicle makes sense. It should also be pointed out that today's airlines make a substantial part of their revenue by carrying cargo in the hold of passenger airliners. This is why, for example, the Airbus A330 is much more popular than the similarly-sized Boeing 767... it has a lot more cargo space. (And it's why airlines starting charging passengers $25 per bag.) I really don't understand the prevalant attitude that because the Shuttle was a failure, then all systems which combine crew and cargo will be, too. That's a bunch of hooey, and another item for the "wrong lessons learned from the Shuttle" file (which already has the old standby "reusable spacecraft aren't feasible" and "wings on spacecraft are bad" entries.) Brian |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle | gaetanomarano | Space Shuttle | 17 | April 3rd 08 06:32 PM |
NASA and robotic research | [email protected] | Policy | 28 | June 18th 06 07:03 PM |
M27 with the Bradford Robotic Telescope | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 4 | June 16th 05 12:49 PM |
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? | Hallerb | Space Shuttle | 17 | November 7th 03 01:42 PM |