Shuttle dumped within 5 years

(Christopher) wrote in message ...
On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 19:26:03 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:13:07 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

And when the fleet is reduced to two shuttles, what then?

Keep flying until it's reduced to zero, or decide that maybe the
nation has been taking a flawed approach to manned spaceflight (which
the OSP simply perpetuates).

So we should abandon space, and never go back when the final shuttle
has landed a final time?


How about buy Soyuz flights, or build new American capsules. Use
DeltaIV for launching Node 2, etc, and fly people on spacecraft that
make both economic and safety sense. This can be either another
nationalized launch system, or (if Congress & NASA wake up) a set
price pay-for-passengers system. Shuttle is an antique, and a death
trap. IMHO, it should be grounded now, forever, not in 5 or 15 years.
The CAIB report is shocking in how irresponsible NASA has been,
especially after the Challenger accident. OSP is going to be another
X33/SLI debacle, once the contractors get their fingers into the pie.
America put men on the moon in less time than the proposed development
cycle for OSP.

Capsules made sense in the 60s, and still make sense for spaceflight.
SOrt of like the... Convair... jetliner, with the square windows- it
only looks right from this side of the historical window. (Henry wrote
about this recently) Capsules can be big, small, return people, or
cargo, etc, they are the simple, practical solution for surface-LEO
transport. Just ask the Russians.

Also, the development time for a modern capsule could be considerably
shortened. if O'Keefe or Congress said "go" on capsule development,
and said they wanted a flight demonstration in '04, I'm sure that some
company could do it. If Boeing/etc had the foresight, they would demo
one in 6 months and fly an orbital vehicle with crew inside 2-3 years.
If it was done commercially, the builders of this "American Soyuz" (or
Super Apollo) would be poised to make a lot of money serving both
government and tourist clients.

On the set price per passenger idea- if a small startup or big company
had a guarantee of $20-40 million/astronaut to Station, there should
be plenty of competition to serve that market. NASA's killing
Alternative Access to Station was just about the worst action they
took in the 99-01 timeframe, especially in light of the Columbia
accident and the Iran Nonproliferation Act. Doh!

Josh Gigantino



Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 17:09:31 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 15:43:19 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

So we should abandon space, and never go back when the final shuttle
has landed a final time?

No, we should develop a true space transportation industry (which
doesn't mean letting NASA develop yet another single launch system).

The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money
into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return,
so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't
going to be putting people in space who will?

Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for
public space transportation. They're already making the investment to
do so.

And the launch vehicle, and launch pad location?


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:19:24 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, we should develop a true space transportation industry (which
doesn't mean letting NASA develop yet another single launch system).

The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money
into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return,
so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't
going to be putting people in space who will?

Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for
public space transportation. They're already making the investment to
do so.

And the launch vehicle, and launch pad location?

There are several, in several locations. Go do a little research.

--
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:

Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for
public space transportation. They're already making the investment to
do so.

Tourism instead of exploration you say. Just imagine how rich someone would
have to be for them to decide to go to Mars on a whim. The US would have to
adopt Plutocratic policies designed to encourage the accumulation of vast
amounts of wealth in a few hands. These people would have to be so rich that
funding a Mars Expedition would be trivial charity work. Some egotistical
multibillionare has some money to throw around to get their names in the
papers. You could have a Mars crew composed of 4 Multibillionares with nothing
better to do with their time and their billions. I guess the rich people of
today aren't rich enough to be so inclined so they'd have to be alot richer.
Perhaps a regressive tax structure and the repeal of the inheritance tax would
help, that way some brat who inherits mega billions from his daddy would fund
the mission on a lark, since he really doesn't know the value of money and
doesn't know any better. Some launch company would have to develop a business
model catering to that crowd.

Tom

On 2 Sep 2003 08:46:02 -0700, (ed kyle) wrote:

Brian Thorn wrote in message . ..

b. 20 flights a year is way out there. That's 13 flights a year for
cargo. At the very least, the US ATV will have cargo comparable to
Europe's ATV... about 15,000 lbs. That's versus 20,000 lbs for
Shuttle/MPLM, which is manifested for four flights per year.

The 8,605 kg Shuttle/MPLM "payload" mass includes the MPLM
racks. The 7,250 kg ATM payload mass does not include that
vehicle's 3,900 kg cargo carrier mass, so the delivered
masses aren't as far apart as they might initially seem.

Thanks for the correction. But on the other hand, Shuttle logistics
flights are seldom limited to only the MPLM. They also usually have
something else in the cargo bay on the cross-bay carrier. And then
there is the hundreds of pounds of water each Shuttle provides to ISS
that doesn't count toward payload.

At any rate, a US cargo carrier would have advantages over
ATV that would allow more payload - it would be launched
from a higher latitude by a more powerful launch vehicle.
The reason ATV weighs 20.5 metric tons at launch but only
carries 7.3 tons of cargo is that Ariane 5V can't get 20.5
tons into a 51.6 degree orbit. Instead, ATV must use its
own propellant (it has to carry 4.5 tons of it) to finish
the job after Ariane boosts it into an unsustainable
30 x 300 km x 51.6 degree orbit.

Interesting! I didn't know that, thanks!

Proton, launched from an even higher
latitude, could nearly do the same thing.

I'm missing something... how does higher launch latitude equal greater
payload? I understand the reverse being true... I didn't know KSC had
an edge over Kourou for 51.6.

Brian

TKalbfus wrote:

Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for
public space transportation. They're already making the investment to
do so.

Tourism instead of exploration you say. Just imagine how rich someone would
have to be for them to decide to go to Mars on a whim.

It may never be the level of a 'whim' (nor does it have to be, it
just has to draw enough to be profitable), but how expensive do yoy
expect it to be, not in the beginning, but when the technology is at its
most mature?

The US would have to
adopt Plutocratic policies designed to encourage the accumulation of vast
amounts of wealth in a few hands.

Or maybe adopt polocies that encourage space development such that
something less than 'vast amounts' of wealth are necessary....

We're at the 'vast amount' stage for LEO right now. (Hey, US20
million is 'vast' to *me.*) The goal is to bring that down.

These people would have to be so rich that
funding a Mars Expedition would be trivial charity work. Some egotistical
multibillionare has some money to throw around to get their names in the
papers. You could have a Mars crew composed of 4 Multibillionares with nothing
better to do with their time and their billions.

Aside from the fact that this is hype, what *should* Multibillionares
spend their private money on? For *any* of us, isn't one of the goals to
entertain ourselves however we see fit?

I guess the rich people of
today aren't rich enough to be so inclined so they'd have to be alot richer.

Or Mars flight should be a lot cheaper, eh?

Perhaps a regressive tax structure and the repeal of the inheritance tax would
help, that way some brat who inherits mega billions from his daddy would fund
the mission on a lark, since he really doesn't know the value of money and
doesn't know any better.

And again, your idea of 'better' is...?

Some launch company would have to develop a business
model catering to that crowd.

Tom

Most forms of entertainment start expensive, and well-to-do (however
you define that...but it doesn't mean having the income of a small
country) adopt it early. Anything from transatlantic travel to VCRs. (I
bought a top of the line model in 1987 for $800. It's almost impossible
to spend that *much* for a consumer VCR now.)

Then things get cheaper.

On the sci.life-extension group, I see occasional assertions sounding
very much like this, as to any breakthroughs in coontrolling the aging
process, that it would be kept expesive, and in the hands of a few. Why?
Nothing requires either one be expensive, and you don't *have* to be a
billionare to *want* to visit Mars. (And with aging, *everyone* gets
old. It's just the opposite of an 'orphan drug.' *Everyone* is a
potential customer.)

"Kim Keller" wrote in message
m...

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
Remember one of the things that keeps shuttle costs up is low use the
new
OSP is pretty much guaranteed 12-20 flights a year, with 6-7 just for
crew
and the rest unmanned for cargo.

The traffic models I've seen are nearly so vigorous.

Ummm...shoulda been "aren't".

-Kim-

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 03:00:28 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
NASA is doing just fine building and operating satellites which are gotten
into orbit by writing a check to a commercial launch provider. NASA did
not launch the Mars Exploration Rovers; Boeing did. Why shouldn't NASA be
required to do manned flights the same way?

Ummm, Henry, that's what OSP is supposed to be - a NASA payload on a
commercial rocket.

It would be much more effective (cost and otherwise) if the "NASA
payload" were the astronauts, rather than a twelve-billion-dollar
make-work and keep-control-of-the-system project.

--
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:

"Ultimate Buu" wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years. The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

Whereas before, when it flew some 75 or so flights after
having killed 7 people in a dramatic launch accident
broadcast on TV and viewed by family members in the
stands, it hadn't been tainted at all by the smell of
death. Nor, of course, had the Apollo capsule been
tainted by death after it burned to death a sizeable
percentage of the world's small population of experienced
astronauts in a rather gruesome manner during a mundane
training excercise.


Now I'm asking myself why I ever read or respond to
anything you post. I'm having a hard time coming up with
a good answer.

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:30:37 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 18:19:24 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

No, we should develop a true space transportation industry (which
doesn't mean letting NASA develop yet another single launch system).

The recurring theme in this ng is companies are not going to put money
into human space flight till they can be certain of getting a return,
so if NASA--as in America NASA is the current only game in town--isn't
going to be putting people in space who will?

Companies that decide to start satisfying the much larger market for
public space transportation. They're already making the investment to
do so.

And the launch vehicle, and launch pad location?

There are several, in several locations. Go do a little research.

All in America or in other countries?


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill