A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

NASA studies new booster (UPI)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old February 28th 04, 03:07 AM
ed kyle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

See:

"http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040227-105754-2873r"

Analysis: NASA studies new booster
By Frank Sietzen
United Press International
Published 2/27/2004 1:53 PM

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- NASA has begun studies to determine
if it will need a new class of powerful super rockets to boost the
new moon and Mars spaceships President Bush has proposed as part
of a new U.S. space policy."

The story says that a decision is expected by the end of 2004
on the sizing of vehicles. It says that some version of EOR
is likely for Project Constellation, with manned capsules
carried by EELV rockets, but cargo lofted by something an
order of magnitude more powerful. Shuttle derived vehicles
are being studied closely. One concept would convert orbiters
into unmanned cargo ships (able to carry 80,000 lbs to LEO).
Some designs would add a segment to the SRBs to increase
payload mass. Other designs would use cargo pods in place
of orbiters - some would use EELV engines in place of SSMEs
to boost payload to 200,000 pounds or more.

"... it would appear that some combination of Delta, Atlas and
Shuttle-evolved heavy cargo rockets will be the rocketships
that power Bush's moon and Mars dreams."

- Ed Kyle
  #2  
Old February 29th 04, 03:46 PM
Dholmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)


"ed kyle" wrote in message
om...
See:

"http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20040227-105754-2873r"

Analysis: NASA studies new booster
By Frank Sietzen
United Press International
Published 2/27/2004 1:53 PM

"WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 (UPI) -- NASA has begun studies to determine
if it will need a new class of powerful super rockets to boost the
new moon and Mars spaceships President Bush has proposed as part
of a new U.S. space policy."

The story says that a decision is expected by the end of 2004
on the sizing of vehicles. It says that some version of EOR
is likely for Project Constellation, with manned capsules
carried by EELV rockets, but cargo lofted by something an
order of magnitude more powerful. Shuttle derived vehicles
are being studied closely. One concept would convert orbiters
into unmanned cargo ships (able to carry 80,000 lbs to LEO).
Some designs would add a segment to the SRBs to increase
payload mass. Other designs would use cargo pods in place
of orbiters - some would use EELV engines in place of SSMEs
to boost payload to 200,000 pounds or more.

"... it would appear that some combination of Delta, Atlas and
Shuttle-evolved heavy cargo rockets will be the rocketships
that power Bush's moon and Mars dreams."

Most of these I actually find kind of worrisome.
A robotic shuttle could eat massive amounts of money and free up very little
for a moon program.

Mixing Shuttle tank, solids, RS-68 and either MB-60 or RL-60 could lead to
some very powerful rockets.





  #3  
Old February 29th 04, 04:22 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

Most of these I actually find kind of worrisome.
A robotic shuttle could eat massive amounts of money and free up very little
for a moon program.


Why is that? Its only electronics. The Shuttle is already highly automated, it
launches by itself and it could land by itself.

Tom
  #4  
Old February 29th 04, 07:44 PM
Dholmes
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)


"TKalbfus" wrote in message
...
Most of these I actually find kind of worrisome.
A robotic shuttle could eat massive amounts of money and free up very

little
for a moon program.


Why is that? Its only electronics. The Shuttle is already highly

automated, it
launches by itself and it could land by itself.

The only thing you get is a little more mass and now need to risk men.

You need to check the tiles, the engines, and everything else the shuttle
requires.
There is no savings in manpower or other equipment.
You still need to do basically everything you do for a manned shuttle.

So it still costs $3 billion dollars plus.
Which means there is no money freed up to go to the Moon.


  #6  
Old February 29th 04, 09:22 PM
TKalbfus
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

The only thing you get is a little more mass and now need to risk men.

You need to check the tiles, the engines, and everything else the shuttle
requires.
There is no savings in manpower or other equipment.
You still need to do basically everything you do for a manned shuttle.


Except there is no human life to consider. the Shuttle would and could easily
be flying now. For an unmanned space shuttle, the external tank insulation foam
would not be worth fixing, we would simple accept the risk of the Shuttle
burning up in the atmosphere from time to time. That's the beauty of an
unmanned craft.

Tom
  #9  
Old March 1st 04, 08:36 PM
Edward Wright
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default NASA studies new booster (UPI)

(TKalbfus) wrote in message ...

The only thing you get is a little more mass and now need to risk men.

You need to check the tiles, the engines, and everything else the shuttle
requires.
There is no savings in manpower or other equipment.
You still need to do basically everything you do for a manned shuttle.


Except there is no human life to consider. the Shuttle would and could easily
be flying now. For an unmanned space shuttle, the external tank insulation foam
would not be worth fixing, we would simple accept the risk of the Shuttle
burning up in the atmosphere from time to time. That's the beauty of an
unmanned craft.


Nonsense. Do you think astronauts are the only people whose lives are
worth anything?

The only thing an unmanned orbiter would do is increase the risk to
people on the ground.

The fact that NASA is seriously proposing such things shows that some
people at NASA have learned the wrong lesson from Columbia. What the
accident should have taught them was how lucky NASA was that SSMEs or
hydrazine tanks didn't come down in the middle of Dallas. Instead,
some have decided since they got away without fatalities once, they
can get away with it all the time.

Every airplane in the world carries pilots from its very first flight.
Even some unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) carry safety pilots on their
initial test flights. That's because the lives of men, women, and
children on the ground are not less important than the lives of
pilots, and because piloted vehicles are orders of magnitude more
reliable.

That's the beauty of manned (or womanned) vehicles -- they are much
less likely to leave flaming wrecks in schoolyards.

Even piloted experimental aircraft are not allowed to overfly
populated areas until they have proved themselves, however. If you
told the FAA that your new experimental aircraft was so unreliable you
were afraid to put a test pilot onboard, but you still wanted to
overfly homes, hospitals, and schoolyards on the initial test flights,
they would never let you get off the ground. When people say the
Shuttle or CEV is too risky to put astronauts onboard, but they still
want to overfly homes, hospitals, and schoolyards, it boggles the
mind.
 




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
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 April 2nd 04 12:01 AM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 2nd 04 04:33 AM
Selected Restricted NASA Videotapes Michael Ravnitzky Space Station 5 January 16th 04 05:28 PM
NASA Selects Explorer Mission Proposals For Feasibility Studies Ron Baalke Science 0 November 4th 03 11:14 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 September 12th 03 01:37 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:27 AM.


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.