What would we need to largely replace the Shuttle?

jeff findley wrote:

Joann Evans writes:

Gene DiGennaro wrote:

[snip}

A three stage heavy booster of immense size, capable of lifting
anything we have on the drawing board for the next 25 years.

Do we have the slightest notion of what those payloads might be?

And if you size for the biggest, it'll be economic overkill for the
smaller ones.

You missed the point. He was clearly talking about the US abandoning
funding for Saturn launch vehicles (the Saturn V being the 3 stage HLV
and the Saturn IB being the smaller vehicle for launching capsules
into LEO). The capsules were clearly the Apollo CM (and Skylab Rescue
CM).

He still seems to expect to know what kinds of payloads will be
launched over the next 25 years. Unless one also assumes one or more
major space projects (including funding) happening along the way, are
there going to be Saturn-worthy payloads? What will these projects be?

We already have two Saturn Fives, for whom the intended missions
disappeared (because funding for same also did).

"Gene DiGennaro" wrote in message
om...


Precisely. The Saturn series was a very reliable system.

Reliable because it only flew a small number of flights (13 Saturn Vs, a
similar number of I/IBs

At 25 flights the Shuttle was reliable.

Now toss in Apollo 12's lightning strike, pogo problems on several flights
(Apollo 13 almost ended before it began) and I'd say it's not as reliable as
many would think.

At 25 flights the Shuttle was reliable.

Now toss in Apollo 12's lightning strike,

Any rocket can get hit by lightning, if fired while storm clouds are present.
That doesn't reflect on the reliability of Saturn-Apollo. (Except in a
positive way: the craft survived its lightning bolt; many systems don't.)

"Joann Evans" wrote in message
...
jeff findley wrote:

Joann Evans writes:

Gene DiGennaro wrote:

[snip}

A three stage heavy booster of immense size, capable of lifting
anything we have on the drawing board for the next 25 years.

Do we have the slightest notion of what those payloads might be?

And if you size for the biggest, it'll be economic overkill for the
smaller ones.

You missed the point. He was clearly talking about the US abandoning
funding for Saturn launch vehicles (the Saturn V being the 3 stage HLV
and the Saturn IB being the smaller vehicle for launching capsules
into LEO). The capsules were clearly the Apollo CM (and Skylab Rescue
CM).

He still seems to expect to know what kinds of payloads will be
launched over the next 25 years. Unless one also assumes one or more
major space projects (including funding) happening along the way, are
there going to be Saturn-worthy payloads? What will these projects be?

One Saturn V could and did launch a space station.
What kind of station would we have today with just one launch a year?
A lot more then we have now.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 09:56:16 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

To answer the question in the subject line: we do not need to
replace the shuttle, since it does not serve any purpose that
would justify either continuing to operate it or developing
a replacement vehicle.


Then how do you get men and supplies to the space station?

What purpose does the space station serve?


It's stated purpose is basic scientific research.

Mostly it just is just international politics.

I would not mind abandoning it but we are not going to so I deal with it and
try to find ways to make it work.

It's stated purpose is basic scientific research.

Mostly it just is just international politics.

I would not mind abandoning it

The station's ostensible purpose is as valid, for its time, as Apollo's for
that time. After all, Apollo was a politically inspired project, too.

If we abandon the station, it will be years, maybe more, for nations to again
send human beings into space. And then getting into orbit will be the historic
nostalgia that going to the moon is now.

getting into orbit will be the historic
nostalgia that going to the moon is now.

And this would be undesirable ... why?

Because most of those who read this NG want to *expand* human presence in
space, not give it up. Human beings *can't* go to the moon any more; the
infrastructure is gone, and would take years to rebuild. The ISS may not be
much good, but the alternative is to lose manned spaceflight, the way we as
humans lost the moon.

G EddieA95 wrote:
getting into orbit will be the historic

nostalgia that going to the moon is now.

And this would be undesirable ... why?

Because most of those who read this NG want to *expand* human presence in
space, not give it up. Human beings *can't* go to the moon any more; the
infrastructure is gone, and would take years to rebuild. The ISS may not be
much good, but the alternative is to lose manned spaceflight, the way we as
humans lost the moon.

Foreseeable manned space programs will not expand human presence in space
in any meaningful sense. You are wallowing in vain wishful thinking.

I would have thought that by now manned space advocates would have realized
the damage their willful denial has abetted. The space shuttle, and now the
space station, had their share of self-deluded saps that with great apparent
honesty proclaimed the emperor was splendidly clothed. But they pointlessly
wasted a twelve figure pot of current dollars. Please be honest with yourself:
do you *really* expect this to be different in the future?

Perhaps somewhere out beyond the bounds of the foreseeable future, manned
spaceflight will become practical. If so, the inhabitants of that future
can deal with it. There is no justification to continue to prop up the pretense
that it is practical now or will be soon.

Paul

On 30 Aug 2003 19:55:49 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(G EddieA95) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

getting into orbit will be the historic
nostalgia that going to the moon is now.

And this would be undesirable ... why?

Because most of those who read this NG want to *expand* human presence in
space, not give it up. Human beings *can't* go to the moon any more; the
infrastructure is gone, and would take years to rebuild. The ISS may not be
much good, but the alternative is to lose manned spaceflight, the way we as
humans lost the moon.

Nonsense. If it's really worth doing, we'll find a way to do it
without a massive government bureaucracy.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

Dholmes wrote:

To answer the question in the subject line: we do not need to
replace the shuttle, since it does not serve any purpose that
would justify either continuing to operate it or developing
a replacement vehicle.

Then how do you get men and supplies to the space station?

We don't. Get a clue, man: the space station is utter crap
and should be terminated immediately.

Paul