The Big Buzz Plan

Will the "Aldrin Cycler" become the Buzz Bus we ride to our future in
space?:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-a..._b_473452.html


Pat

The ISS is in the wrong orbit for this.


Otherwise sounds like an invitation for a really great kit bash, maybe in
1/48th - Revellogram Apollo, Gemini, Mercury, some PVC Pipe sections,
assorted tanks made from old nasal inhalers, round and square brass tubing,
some brass aftermarket antennas, bare metal foil ..........

No argument from me about fly-back reusable craft (assuming launched from
EELVs) being preferable to water-landing capsules. Dry landing capsules, well
maybe.

However, isn't the orbit of the ISS non-optimal for departure/return lunar
trajectories?

I'm in favor of attachment of an XM to the ISS for research studies into long
duration/ self-sustaining spaceflight. But cyclers (traveling habitats :-)
probably have to depart and return in different orbits that the ISS is not
optimal for.

?

Dave

However, isn't the orbit of the ISS non-optimal for departure/return lunar
trajectories?

Pat

ISS was designed by COMMITEE, to be all things to all people but do
NOTHING well but perhaps spend giga trillions as political
pork.......

ISS isnt in a good orbit for shuttle resupply, isnt a good
microgravity research station the peolpe moving around mess up the
experiments, isnt in a good orbit to be used for departing moon or
mars probes, is too far from hubble for service, has many seperate but
duplicate systems, making things more complex and needing more adapter
cords etc. like at least 2 totally seperate power systems......

ISS is a EXCELLENT EXAMPLE OF HOW NOT to build a station!!!

On 3/10/2010 9:56 PM, David Spain wrote:
No argument from me about fly-back reusable craft (assuming launched from
EELVs) being preferable to water-landing capsules. Dry landing capsules, well
maybe.

However, isn't the orbit of the ISS non-optimal for departure/return lunar
trajectories?

I'm in favor of attachment of an XM to the ISS for research studies into long
duration/ self-sustaining spaceflight. But cyclers (traveling habitats :-)
probably have to depart and return in different orbits that the ISS is not
optimal for.

Now Buzz has happy feet:
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethe...my-supper.html
And so can you in your Nike Rocket Hero shoes:
http://buzzaldrin.com/moonwalk-like-...ket-hero-shoe/
There's just no stopping Our Little Buzz:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...-rap-song.html
Apparently, space commercialization is already in full swing, or
possibly hip-hop. :-)

Pat

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
No argument from me about fly-back reusable craft (assuming launched from
EELVs) being preferable to water-landing capsules. Dry landing capsules,
well
maybe.

However, isn't the orbit of the ISS non-optimal for departure/return lunar
trajectories?

It's not so much that as the payload penalty you pay to launch from KSC into
ISS's much higher inclination orbit.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon

Jeff Findley wrote:
"David Spain" wrote in message
...
No argument from me about fly-back reusable craft (assuming launched from
EELVs) being preferable to water-landing capsules. Dry landing capsules,
well
maybe.

However, isn't the orbit of the ISS non-optimal for departure/return lunar
trajectories?

It's not so much that as the payload penalty you pay to launch from KSC into
ISS's much higher inclination orbit.

The payload penalty is higher for the space shuttle than it is for ELVs,
because the orbiter's mass counts against payload.