Shuttle/ISS extended?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/sc...29shuttle.html

"Another possibility would be to fly one or two shuttle missions through
2014, Dr. Ride said, but reviving the manufacturing lines used for the
shuttle would make sense only if NASA canceled its plans for its
next-generation rockets and switched to a shuttle-derived design"

Anyone see some handwriting on the wall here?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/sc...29shuttle.html

"Another possibility would be to fly one or two shuttle missions through
2014, Dr. Ride said, but reviving the manufacturing lines used for the
shuttle would make sense only if NASA canceled its plans for its
next-generation rockets and switched to a shuttle-derived design"

Anyone see some handwriting on the wall here?

Pat

Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a fragile
hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for the sake of
a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.

Not that I think the proposed disposable rocket system is a step
forward, other than probably being safer for the astronauts.

"The shuttles can carry a far greater load into orbit than any other
rockets now in use,"

Only just - the Ariane 5 is not far behind. The 1970s era Saturn V had
several times the payload to LEO.

"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."

Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
anyway.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:

Not that I think the proposed disposable rocket system is a step
forward, other than probably being safer for the astronauts.

Well, I thought so. But that was before I read about the problems with
aborts caused by solid fuel explosions between 30 and 60 seconds after
lift off - being unsurvivable.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:

Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a
fragile hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for
the sake of a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.

I think the idea is to ditch the wings and make it a disposable cargo
pod with a reentry capsule atop it.
This will greatly increase payload and also make it a reusable
spacecraft that isn't reusable other than the SRBs.
Now, on every launch you lose the ET, cargo pod, and whatever engines
are under the cargo pod.

Not that I think the proposed disposable rocket system is a step
forward, other than probably being safer for the astronauts.

"The shuttles can carry a far greater load into orbit than any other
rockets now in use,"

Only just - the Ariane 5 is not far behind. The 1970s era Saturn V had
several times the payload to LEO.

"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."

Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
anyway.

They've brought several large things back over the years, most notably
the Palapa B2 and Westar 6 communications satellites back in November of
1984 and the Long Duration Exposure Facility in January of 1990.

Pat

wrote:
Forgetting about LDEF?


I'm trying to remember some other ones...when first designed, the Hubble
was supposed to be returnable, but that got dropped in favor of space
repair.
The shuttle deployed and retrieved Eureca 1:
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_fram...t/eureca-1.htm
There was something like a super garbage can that they brought back from
the ISS a couple of years back.

Pat

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
anyway.

Sure it has, many times.

Someone mentioned LDEF which I think was actually fairly light.

However it's brought back every Spacelab mission it's flown.

It's brought back the EURACA as well as several MPLMs.



Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:

Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a fragile
hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for the sake of
a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.

"Shuttle derived" is not limited to "uses the Orbiter". In fact, the
Orbiter is generally the first part to go.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote:

On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:22:32 +1000, in sci.space.policy Sylvia Else
wrote:

"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."

Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
anyway.

Forgetting about LDEF?

LDEF, SpaceHab, SpaceLab, the Hubble repair fixtures, the MPLM's, etc.
etc...

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:13:46 -0400, in sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore
\(Strider\)" wrote:

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
. ..

Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
anyway.

Sure it has, many times.

Someone mentioned LDEF which I think was actually fairly light.

http://history.nasa.gov/SP-473/intro.htm

The combined weight of the LDEF and the experiments for the first
mission is approximately 21 400 lb.

Thanks.

So it's heavier than I recalled.



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
However it's brought back every Spacelab mission it's flown.


I don't know if those count though, as they were never released on-orbit
and then retrieved later, like other things were.
Does anyone know if they ever picked up a military payload and returned
that to Earth?

Pat