What would we need to largely replace the Shuttle?

My first ideas a

1) An Automated Transfer Vehicle similar to ESA design but probably bigger
do to our larger needs. This would allow supplies and experiments up and
trash down. This seems by far the easiest and could be done in a few years.
We could even buy Russian or European vehicles to accomplish this at first.

2) Orbital Space Plane in whatever form it takes. It should be able to carry
both people and cargo most likely at separate times. This would allow people
and experiments both up and down.

3) A heavy lift vehicle 25,000-50,000 kgs for larger parts and modules.

We still could not bring down Hubble or do a few other things like Spacelab
but we would have 90+ percent of the Shuttle's abilities plus a few extra
ones.

Dholmes wrote in message
...
My first ideas a

1) An Automated Transfer Vehicle similar to ESA design but probably
bigger
do to our larger needs. This would allow supplies and experiments up and
trash down. This seems by far the easiest and could be done in a few
years.
We could even buy Russian or European vehicles to accomplish this at
first.

2) Orbital Space Plane in whatever form it takes. It should be able to
carry
both people and cargo most likely at separate times. This would allow
people
and experiments both up and down.

3) A heavy lift vehicle 25,000-50,000 kgs for larger parts and modules.

We still could not bring down Hubble or do a few other things like
Spacelab
but we would have 90+ percent of the Shuttle's abilities plus a few extra
ones.

How about this:

Refit the shuttle fleet as per CAIB reccommendations, and add the capability
to fly autonomous missions. The ability to carry a crew would be retained.

Resume development of a shuttle-C type heavy launch vehicle, utilizing old
SSME's or new-build RS-68 (or equivalent engine).

Push development of OSP to fly within 4 years.

Push development of a fully-reuseable manned launch system (SSTO, TSTO,
airbreather, etc.) with a goal of first flight in 10-12 years.

And most importantly, give these programs as much funding as required.

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:10:56 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Bob
Martin" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

How about this:

Refit the shuttle fleet as per CAIB reccommendations, and add the capability
to fly autonomous missions. The ability to carry a crew would be retained.

Resume development of a shuttle-C type heavy launch vehicle, utilizing old
SSME's or new-build RS-68 (or equivalent engine).

Push development of OSP to fly within 4 years.

Push development of a fully-reuseable manned launch system (SSTO, TSTO,
airbreather, etc.) with a goal of first flight in 10-12 years.

And most importantly, give these programs as much funding as required.

Sounds like a recipe for continuing stagnation and potential disaster.

But it will create lots of jobs...

--
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:

From article , by "Bob Martin" :

And most importantly, give these programs as much funding as required.

Sure. They royally screw the pooch...so you solve the problem by giving
them a blank check. Tell me how rewarding failure solves anything.

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:10:56 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Bob
Martin" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

How about this:

Refit the shuttle fleet as per CAIB reccommendations, and add the
capability
to fly autonomous missions. The ability to carry a crew would be
retained.

Resume development of a shuttle-C type heavy launch vehicle, utilizing
old
SSME's or new-build RS-68 (or equivalent engine).

Push development of OSP to fly within 4 years.

Push development of a fully-reuseable manned launch system (SSTO, TSTO,
airbreather, etc.) with a goal of first flight in 10-12 years.

And most importantly, give these programs as much funding as required.

Sounds like a recipe for continuing stagnation and potential disaster.

But it will create lots of jobs...


And your suggestion is?

"Steve VanSickle" wrote in message
...
From article , by "Bob Martin"
:

And most importantly, give these programs as much funding as required.

Sure. They royally screw the pooch...so you solve the problem by giving
them a blank check. Tell me how rewarding failure solves anything.

So what would you do?

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 19:32:14 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

And your suggestion is?

Create incentives, rather than disincentives, for the development of a
private space transport industry.

--
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:

Refit the shuttle fleet as per CAIB reccommendations, and add the
capability to fly autonomous missions. The ability to carry a crew
would be
retained.

Interesting but if the idea is to replace the shuttle then why spend all
that money on it?

Autonomous operations shouldn't be too hard... the vehicle can already fly
almost an entire mission, including the landing (though supposedly it can't
deploy the gear on its own right now). Shuttles wouldn't fly all that
often, using a crew only when necessary, and only until their missions could
be flown by other vehicles (mainly OSP and the HLV). Then they would be
retired (ie, hold on to them until your other stuff works).

Resume development of a shuttle-C type heavy launch vehicle, utilizing
old
SSME's or new-build RS-68 (or equivalent engine).

I like the inline versions better but any shuttle derived vehicle would
work
well as a heavy lift option.

I figured basing them off the shuttle would be cheaper than trying to
develop a new HLV from scratch. Then again, I've heard ideas about EELV
"superheavy" versions using 4 of the large boosters instead of 2, and
igniting the core stage at altitude.

"Dholmes" wrote in message
...
My first ideas a

1) An Automated Transfer Vehicle similar to ESA design but probably
bigger
do to our larger needs. This would allow supplies and experiments up and
trash down. This seems by far the easiest and could be done in a few
years.
We could even buy Russian or European vehicles to accomplish this at
first.

2) Orbital Space Plane in whatever form it takes. It should be able to
carry
both people and cargo most likely at separate times. This would allow
people
and experiments both up and down.

3) A heavy lift vehicle 25,000-50,000 kgs for larger parts and modules.

We still could not bring down Hubble or do a few other things like
Spacelab
but we would have 90+ percent of the Shuttle's abilities plus a few extra
ones.


A 'new' Shuttle?

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...


Resume development of a shuttle-C type heavy launch vehicle, utilizing
old
SSME's or new-build RS-68 (or equivalent engine).

I like the inline versions better but any shuttle derived vehicle would
work
well as a heavy lift option.

I figured basing them off the shuttle would be cheaper than trying to
develop a new HLV from scratch. Then again, I've heard ideas about EELV
"superheavy" versions using 4 of the large boosters instead of 2, and
igniting the core stage at altitude.


I have seen more then a few versions including:
1 shuttle engine and 2 or 4 solid rocket boosters.
4 RS-68 in one rocket.
4 RS-68 and 2 shuttle solid rocket boosters.
3 improved shuttle main engines and 2 improved solid rocket boosters.
Shuttle C with 2-3 main engines.
And of course at the very small end Delta and Atlas heavies with three
boosters.