Military Space Plane = Space life boat?

It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!

On Nov 20, 10:27*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!

I thought that was what soyuz was for.

On Nov 20, 10:10*pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:27*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!

I thought that was what soyuz was for.

Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
design? We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? The shuttle
is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
base and ultimately the jump to Mars. Time to upgrade.

v/r Gordon

Note this article from November 12, 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2453603.stm

Quote:

"The US space agency (Nasa) is to accelerate the
development of a replacement for the space shuttle
and produce a "lifeboat" for the International Space
Station (ISS)."


This is not a new idea.

No, I simply cannot understand why the military has been allowed to design
this. Surely if it is of any use as in this thread, someone, somewhere
should have twigged it earlier, and seen the potential.
Is it a case of left hand not knowing what right hand is up to on a grand
scale, or is the space plane either rubbish, or designed for something more
sinister?
How many crew does it have, and also how safe is it given the current
criteria of nasa future vehicles?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
wrote in message
...
Note this article from November 12, 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2453603.stm

Quote:

"The US space agency (Nasa) is to accelerate the
development of a replacement for the space shuttle
and produce a "lifeboat" for the International Space
Station (ISS)."


This is not a new idea.

On Nov 21, 4:40*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
No, I simply cannot understand why the military has been allowed to design
this. Surely if it is of any use as in this thread, someone, somewhere
should have *twigged it earlier, and *seen the potential.
Is it a case of left hand not knowing what right hand is up to on a grand
scale, or is the space plane either rubbish, or designed for something more
sinister?
How many crew does it have, and also how safe is it given the current
criteria of nasa *future vehicles?
Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures wrote in message

...

Note this article from *November 12, 2002:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2453603.stm

Quote:

"The US space agency (Nasa) is to accelerate the
development of a replacement for the space shuttle
and produce a "lifeboat" for the International Space
Station (ISS)."

This is not a new idea.



Is there not a Soyuz hanging on the ISS?

http://news.softpedia.com/news/ISS-C...9-106707.shtml

Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
design? �We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? �The shuttle
is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
base and ultimately the jump to Mars. �Time to upgrade.

v/r Gordon

Ahh dont you realize the push too moon mars isnt affordable given the
realties of our times.......

heck nasa wasted how many billion on a poor conception, bad idea
launcher that probaby had its first and last launch, which was just
for show anyway?

while all along we had delta and atlas heavy expendables and we could
of been flying our new crew vehicle by now..........

shuttle program is winding down with no affordable replacement, and
ISS is scheduled to end in 2015.

lets face facts US man in space days are cming to a close

On Nov 20, 8:48*pm, Gordon wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:10*pm, Frogwatch wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:27*pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!

I thought that was what soyuz was for.

Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
design? *We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? *The shuttle
is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
base and ultimately the jump to Mars. *Time to upgrade.

v/r Gordon

What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle, and its 100 tonne payload
capacity) packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being pulled or
pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would otherwise
remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kgtonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.

Btw; our moon should have loads of radium.

~ BG

On Nov 22, 10:41�am, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:48�pm, Gordon wrote:





On Nov 20, 10:10�pm, Frogwatch wrote:

On Nov 20, 10:27�pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:

It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!

I thought that was what soyuz was for.

Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
design? �We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? �The shuttle
is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
base and ultimately the jump to Mars. �Time to upgrade.

v/r Gordon

What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle, and its 100 tonne payload
capacity) packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being pulled or
pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would otherwise
remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kgtonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.

Btw; �our moon should have loads of radium.

�~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

oh yeah take WINGS on a mission with no where to use them but a
landing strip on the earth,

bob haller safety advocate wrote:
On Nov 22, 10:41�am, BradGuth wrote:
On Nov 20, 8:48�pm, Gordon wrote:





On Nov 20, 10:10�pm, Frogwatch wrote:
On Nov 20, 10:27�pm, "David E. Powell"
wrote:
It sounds like the general thrust of the stuff discussed on here a
couple months back, it could be a neat "on call" rescue launcher!
I thought that was what soyuz was for.
Yes, but wouldn;t a modern lifeboat be preferable to a 50 year old
design? �We need to upgrade at some point, why not now? �The shuttle
is fork-tender - its a new era in US space travel and relying on that
rickety old Soviet ball in an emergency doesn't mesh with fielding a
brand new generation of heavy lift vehicle for the push towards a moon
base and ultimately the jump to Mars. �Time to upgrade.
v/r Gordon
What's a really good interplanetary shuttle (half again or twice the
volumetric size of the existing shuttle, and its 100 tonne payload
capacity) packing a nuclear reactor (actually as being pulled or
pushed by as an external reactor/thruster module that would otherwise
remain in LEO) with those multiple MW ion thrusters, going to cost us?

With a sufficient cache of onboard or external energy (reactor or
possibly solar derived), most any fuel or substance can be utilized
for ion thrusting, especially nifty and extremely dense as well as
already charged up and ready to zip out the exhaust would be radon
(Rn222), as obtained from a few kgtonne of radium that could
otherwise be utilized as is within the reactor.

Btw; �our moon should have loads of radium.

�~ BG- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

oh yeah take WINGS on a mission with no where to use them but a
landing strip on the earth,


If you do some research on guth's posts you will find this is one of
his typical ideas. Guth world has nothing to do with reality.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired