A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Future Robotic Shuttles?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old September 20th 10, 02:43 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_1124_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

JF Mezei wrote:
snidely wrote:


And if they built a Shuttle V2.0 with modern materials, shouldn't they
be able to shave a tonne or two off the weight of the orbiter,
increasing its cargo capacity ?


The truth is, if you gained a ton or two of payload, you're better off using
to to focusing on making the shuttle more re-usable.


  #22  
Old September 28th 10, 09:24 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

All this ignores is that the shuttle paradigm is not needed. Payload
to orbit, crew to orbit and payload return do not and should not be
done by one vehicle.
  #24  
Old October 3rd 10, 12:43 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Sep 30, 2:52*am, JF Mezei wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do
you say they should not be done by the same vehicle?


safety why risk a crews life for any reason when automatic systems can
do the job?
  #26  
Old October 8th 10, 06:37 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Oct 4, 8:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ee37ec66-a091-43b0-b5fd-
, says...



On Sep 30, 2:52*am, JF Mezei wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do
you say they should not be done by the same vehicle?


safety why risk a crews life for any reason when automatic systems can
do the job?


This tired argument again. *The risk is worth it. *If we didn't believe
so, we wouldn't fund manned spaceflight in the first place. *Instead,
the US would do nothing but send unmanned satellites and probes out into
space.



It is not a tired argument. It is a damn good argument. Challenger's
crew died needlessly launching a comsat, which could have be done
better by an ELV. Much of station logistics is low cost items that
does not need a crew to deliver.

The aircraft analogy is not applicable. The present of a crew does
not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and
no one else, unlike an airplane.


  #27  
Old October 8th 10, 11:15 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Me
wrote:

The aircraft analogy is not applicable. The present of a crew does
not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and
no one else, unlike an airplane.


Uh, try telling that to UPS and FedEx.

Brian
  #28  
Old October 11th 10, 02:00 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

In article 068117cd-76f3-4aa8-82d5-
,
says...

On Oct 4, 8:48*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article ee37ec66-a091-43b0-b5fd-
, says...



On Sep 30, 2:52*am, JF Mezei wrote:
Jeff Findley wrote:
I agree that they don't have to be done by the same vehicle, but why do
you say they should not be done by the same vehicle?


safety why risk a crews life for any reason when automatic systems can
do the job?


This tired argument again. *The risk is worth it. *If we didn't believe
so, we wouldn't fund manned spaceflight in the first place. *Instead,
the US would do nothing but send unmanned satellites and probes out into
space.



It is not a tired argument. It is a damn good argument. Challenger's
crew died needlessly launching a comsat, which could have be done
better by an ELV. Much of station logistics is low cost items that
does not need a crew to deliver.


Challenger launching a comsat was one thing because its final
destination was GEO (a "location" where manned spaceflight does not
currently occur).

ISS crew and ISS cargo delivery missions are quite another. When the
crew and cargo are going to the very same place, putting them on the
same launch vehicle makes sense. In the case of a shuttle derived
launch vehicle with both cargo (underneath a payload shroud) and crew
(in an Orion capsule, or similar, on the very top), it makes very little
difference if you launch on one vehicle or two. The presence of cargo
*beneath* the Orion does not hamper the safety of the Orion and its crew
in any way.

This is why it's a tired argument. It only applies to the shuttle, and
even then, only in the case where the cargo and crew aren't going to the
same destination.

The aircraft analogy is not applicable.


Why is flying cargo via FedEx different than flying cargo to ISS?

The present of a crew does
not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and
no one else, unlike an airplane.


People are more flexible than machines and their presence absolutely
does make a complex mission safer. Having a "man on the spot" to solve
problems is still better than trying to do everything remotely.

Take a closer look at the shuttle. There are many failure modes on the
shuttle which can be fixed by astronauts, but can't be fixed remotely
from the ground. Take a look at the list of possible contingency EVA's
on the shuttle and you'll quickly find that the sorts of failures these
address would turn into loss of vehicle without a crew present. Loss of
vehicle can be a danger to people on the ground.

Crew and cargo on separate launch vehicles is not a (correct) lesson
that shuttle has taught us. You can't take a single data point and draw
this sort of sweeping conclusion.

Jeff
--
42
  #29  
Old October 11th 10, 02:04 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

In article , bthorn64
@suddenlink.net says...

On Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Me
wrote:

The aircraft analogy is not applicable. The present of a crew does
not make the mission safer since the crew is the only ones at risk and
no one else, unlike an airplane.


Uh, try telling that to UPS and FedEx.


No kidding. An unmanned cargo aircraft could do a lot of damage if it
crashed.

Charlie should note that the damage to the Twin Towers didn't depend on
whether or not the aircraft had people on them. The damage was caused
by burning jet fuel, which is just as present on cargo aircraft as it is
on passenger aircraft.

Jeff
--
42
  #30  
Old October 11th 10, 05:52 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Mon, 11 Oct 2010 09:00:17 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

It is not a tired argument. It is a damn good argument. Challenger's
crew died needlessly launching a comsat, which could have be done
better by an ELV. Much of station logistics is low cost items that
does not need a crew to deliver.


ISS crew and ISS cargo delivery missions are quite another. When the
crew and cargo are going to the very same place, putting them on the
same launch vehicle makes sense.


It should also be pointed out that today's airlines make a substantial
part of their revenue by carrying cargo in the hold of passenger
airliners. This is why, for example, the Airbus A330 is much more
popular than the similarly-sized Boeing 767... it has a lot more cargo
space. (And it's why airlines starting charging passengers $25 per
bag.)

I really don't understand the prevalant attitude that because the
Shuttle was a failure, then all systems which combine crew and cargo
will be, too. That's a bunch of hooey, and another item for the
"wrong lessons learned from the Shuttle" file (which already has the
old standby "reusable spacecraft aren't feasible" and "wings on
spacecraft are bad" entries.)

Brian
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle gaetanomarano Space Shuttle 17 April 3rd 08 06:32 PM
NASA and robotic research [email protected] Policy 28 June 18th 06 07:03 PM
M27 with the Bradford Robotic Telescope Robin Leadbeater UK Astronomy 4 June 16th 05 12:49 PM
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? Hallerb Space Shuttle 17 November 7th 03 02:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.