shuttle C dreming

shuttle C dreaming
http://www.slepsummit.com/IIStrategy.pdf


Read down to page 17 through 20 and you can see shuttle c dreaming
again.
The best option for JIMO and CEV beyond lunar orbit. But can we direct
$ 11 billion of existing NASA money and keep shuttle infrastructure
alive as well?

and as I posted years ago a retired shuttle should be used as a space
station component i.e cargo bay with a module and remove landing gear
and one way trip up
steven

(steve rappolee) wrote in message . com...
shuttle C dreaming
http://www.slepsummit.com/IIStrategy.pdf

Read down to page 17 through 20 and you can see shuttle c dreaming
again.

The eye popper is the plan for launching CEV on top
of a single SRB! It is also apparent that all of
the plans require a heavy lift cargo carrier, either
derived from shuttle or from EELV. That means that
even EELV-Heavy, as currently designed, isn't enough.

- Ed Kyle

The eye popper is the plan for launching CEV on top
of a single SRB! It is also apparent that all of
the plans require a heavy lift cargo carrier, either
derived from shuttle or from EELV. That means that
even EELV-Heavy, as currently designed, isn't enough.

- Ed Kyle

That would be one of the oddest looking launch vehicles ever! Not to
mention creating controversy using a solid fuel first stage - the
crew escape system's gonna have to be on the ball. Maybe they would
only use it to launch uncrewed vehicles?? More importantly, what kind
of second stage is lurking under that big fairing? RL-60 maybe? How
much could a stack like that loft to orbit? Odd.

The big inline cargo carrier looks good though, and what's this about
bringing back the J-2? Is that possible?

Phil

CEV?

A crewed exploratary vehicle? I thought the original idea was for a crew
ESCAPE vehicle, but maybe it's changed now. Or that that idea never
happened.

Some asshole who knows nothing about space exploration has come up with that
CEV idea. I bet it was a politician.

Different missions need different hardware. Any single CEV is a stupid idea,
if it's to be used to explore the Moon or Mars, as this one is. For a very
simple start, it takes a few days to get to the Moon, and a few months to
get to Mars.




Get rid of NASA - or split it into research, and anything that isn't
research, like the Shuttle. But then I'm not even a yank. And I have taste
too.

You yanks seem overly frightened of your presidents. Just mentioning it. And
have you any idea how stupid you look to everyone else right now?

Stupid compared to everyone except us Brits of course, whose recent horribly
worse appearance should of course lead us to immediate collective suicide.
What on earth was Blair thinking of?


--
Peter

Peter Fairbrother wrote:

Different missions need different hardware. Any single CEV is a stupid idea,
if it's to be used to explore the Moon or Mars, as this one is. For a very
simple start, it takes a few days to get to the Moon, and a few months to
get to Mars.

Yeah, and? At the end of a manned mission to Mars there will be a manned
entry into the Earth's atmosphere.This does not have fundamentally
different requirements than a mission to the moon or ISS, except for
entry speed. Any CEV that can do an interplanetary-trajectory entry to
Earth can also do lunor, GEO or LEO missions.

And
have you any idea how stupid you look to everyone else right now?

Ask us not if we know... but if we care.

Stupid compared to everyone except us Brits of course, whose recent horribly
worse appearance should of course lead us to immediate collective suicide.

Take the French with you when you go.

What on earth was Blair thinking of?

Morality? The future? Respect for basic human rights? yeah, them's
stupid ideas. Better to jsut leave international actions in the hands of
a collection of third-world dictatorships.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On 20 Feb 2004 12:38:20 -0800, (steve
rappolee) wrote:

Read down to page 17 through 20 and you can see shuttle c dreaming
again.
The best option for JIMO and CEV beyond lunar orbit. But can we direct
$ 11 billion of existing NASA money and keep shuttle infrastructure
alive as well?


Well, the shuttle-C is the quickets way to build an HLLV, but a good
chunk of the Shuttle's costs would come with it.

I've been thinking lately -- would another option be to revive the ALS
concept? That could work, too. Or just expaned the existing EELV
with a new booster stage or stages.

Bush only announced the initiative last month, so it's no surprise
nothing is carved in stone yet.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

(steve rappolee) wrote


com...
shuttle C dreaming
http://www.slepsummit.com/IIStrategy.pdf


Read down to page 17 through 20 and you can see shuttle c dreaming
again.


Also see http://www.slepsummit.com/IIShuttle.pdf for more details
on unmanned Shuttle, SDV.

In article , Scott Lowther wrote:
Peter Fairbrother wrote:

Different missions need different hardware. Any single CEV is a stupid idea,
if it's to be used to explore the Moon or Mars, as this one is. For a very
simple start, it takes a few days to get to the Moon, and a few months to
get to Mars.

Yeah, and? At the end of a manned mission to Mars there will be a manned
entry into the Earth's atmosphere.This does not have fundamentally
different requirements than a mission to the moon or ISS, except for
entry speed. Any CEV that can do an interplanetary-trajectory entry to
Earth can also do lunor, GEO or LEO missions.

Mmm; if CEV or similar is being used for earth-orbital missions, it may
be viable to brake your return vehicle into orbit and then send up a
ferry flight to take them off; this handily removes the requirement to
take a capsule to Mars and back, but also throws in the requirements to
enter orbit. Would there be much use for a 'used' long-duration vehicle
in orbit?

(I was going to check how the reference mission did it; I think they
were talking about using Shuttle or equivalent, but it's 404ing again.)

What on earth was Blair thinking of?

Morality? The future? Respect for basic human rights? yeah, them's
stupid ideas. Better to jsut leave international actions in the hands of
a collection of third-world dictatorships.

Oh, right, that. Yes. Um, a big boy did it. Honest. Ran away. Really.

(an astonishingly versatile geopolitical excuse)

But, y'know, Blair can prompt these reactions fairly easily most of the
time. I still haven't managed to make sense of the HE bill yet...


--
-Andrew Gray

Andrew Gray wrote:

Mmm; if CEV or similar is being used for earth-orbital missions, it may
be viable to brake your return vehicle into orbit and then send up a
ferry flight to take them off; this handily removes the requirement to
take a capsule to Mars and back, but also throws in the requirements to
enter orbit.

And that's a big, fat requirement. And not at all easy, especially when
direct entry is so realtively straightforward.

Would there be much use for a 'used' long-duration vehicle
in orbit?

Depends. Looks like the near term stuff would use NERVA-type engines.
These might not have much life left in 'em after return, and woudl
require some relatively scary maintenance/disposal. When/if some really
advanced propulsion systems become available, such that parkign into
Earth orbit is farily easy and not overly radioactive... then it'll
probably make sense.



--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

In article ,
Andrew Gray wrote:
Yeah, and? At the end of a manned mission to Mars there will be a manned
entry into the Earth's atmosphere...

Mmm; if CEV or similar is being used for earth-orbital missions, it may
be viable to brake your return vehicle into orbit and then send up a
ferry flight to take them off; this handily removes the requirement to
take a capsule to Mars and back...

Only if you have some seriously magic propulsion system, I'm afraid. That
braking requires a lot of fuel -- much more mass than a reentry capsule.

Depending on the mission profile, it *may* be mass-competitive to brake a
small transfer module (not the whole return vehicle) into a *high* orbit,
and have a high-performance tug go up and get it. But for most purposes,
it's not clear that this has enough advantages to be worth the trouble.

...Would there be much use for a 'used' long-duration vehicle in orbit?

Eventually, we're going to want to move away from expendable vehicles, and
toward a model of long-lived vessels that refuel and resupply but don't
get thrown away. But that's probably going to take better propulsion than
what we've got now.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |