Shuttle dumped within 5 years

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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.

I think I'll wait and see what the actual price tag is, rather than clutch
at the worst-case estimate I can find.

And what "system" do you think NASA is "keeping control of"?

-Kim-

Christopher wrote:

[snip]

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?

No, there are one or two aspirants in your own back yard.

As he said, look it up.

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 11:08:07 GMT, Joann Evans
wrote:

Christopher wrote:

[snip]

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?

No, there are one or two aspirants in your own back yard.

They are all planing a sub orbital hop, not a true space shot.

As he said, look it up.

Why should I, he's the one with supposedly all the answers.



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

"Kim Keller" writes:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
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.

I think I'll wait and see what the actual price tag is, rather than clutch
at the worst-case estimate I can find.

And what "system" do you think NASA is "keeping control of"?

Manned access to space. If OSP isn't going to be as challenging as
the shuttle (less payload, less overall capabilities, less
complexity), then why isn't it time to let the contractors design,
build, and test, and sell launches of OSP to NASA? This would open up
the possibility of privately funded US manned missions into space,
without NASA controlling the entire process.

This would also open up the possibility of "tourist" flights to ISS on
a US vehicle, by letting private industry sell otherwise empty seats.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

Joann Evans wrote:

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.)



Improved technology and falling birth rates have averted Malthusian
disaster. If everyone didn't age, it seems to me we'd have a dramatic
population surge even if third world families limited themselves to 2.5
kids.

Even if anti-aging treatments were inexpensive, I believe governments
would have some incentive to levy taxes.

Hop
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:51:25 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
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.

I think I'll wait and see what the actual price tag is, rather than clutch
at the worst-case estimate I can find.

And what "system" do you think NASA is "keeping control of"?

Manned spaceflight.

--
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:

(Alex Terrell) wrote:

"Kim Keller" wrote in message om...
"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
om...

Up mass: A Delta 4 Heavy has similar up mass, at a much lower (though
still too high) cost.

And there's nothing to put on top of it, nor budget to build something.

A shroud to house 20 ton modules? That won't be too expensive.


The problem isn't the shroud. It's the modules, which are designed to
ride in the Shuttle's cargo bay, not on the nose of a conventional
rocket. This means you have to develop and qualify a pretty dern big
adapter.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

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:

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.

ROTFL. There's a loooooooooong leap between the sub orbital toys that
satisfy the X-prize and craft capable of performing orbital operations
and support.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

Andrew Gray wrote:
In article , Christopher
M. Jones wrote:

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.

You forgot Soyuz, which managed to kill an equal proportion on its first
flight, or for that matter three of the most (in terms of duration, at
least) experienced crew around on its eleventh... and, last I checked,
it still flying. Subsidised by the US government, too, so presumably it
agrees...


Do they have an option to disagree? It is after all, the only other manned
vehicle available.

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 16:42:33 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Derek Lyons) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

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.

ROTFL. There's a loooooooooong leap between the sub orbital toys that
satisfy the X-prize and craft capable of performing orbital operations
and support.

The question was about "in space," not "in orbit." And I wasn't
referring to X-Prize contenders. If money is made in suborbit,
investment for orbit will follow. In fact, it's already happening
(e.g., SpaceX). Elon Musk has every intention of building manned
orbital systems.

--
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: