Shuttle flying till at least 2015

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439

Well, I'd always supposed this might be an option, but it remains to be
seen if the money is forthcoming. Space no matter how you look at it is very
cheap in its amount taken from the population of the US, so there did not
ought to be a problem.

On the political side, I think its dangerous to assume that Russia is
totally anti US, in many ways, their early foray into completely market
driven economy and democracy ended due to the greed and criminality of
some, and the kind of half way house they have now has, no matter what
outsiders think, gone down well with the masses in Russia. National pride
needed to be repaired and I suspect a lot of the posturing etc, has been due
to this aspect being 'spun'. Of all countries, the US should know spin when
they see it.

As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed counties with dubious
regimes did it, oh now never...:-)

Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"space geek" wrote in message
...
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439

as to soyuz being too small first what job and how many people do you
need to launch at one time?

I think the upgraded apollo size capsule holding 5 was enough, the CEV
7 was unnecessary, it was nasas attempt to need a new launch system,
and pay off existing contractors

the apool upgrade could hold 7 in a emergency return from orbit
situation.

more people thanks to the shrinkage of electronics in all these years

on dismantling the ET production hardware what plans were in place if
a ET were somehow damaged or lost in transit?

was there one extra one being held in reserve?

Brian Gaff wrote:

As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed counties with dubious
regimes did it, oh now never...:-)

Brian


I think I'd put the U.S. history of arms sales up against the
USSR/Russian history any day. Yes the U.S. has sold conventional
weapons to many countries (though France probably sells more arms
globally when one compensates for their smaller population). What the
U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and
Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales).

At this point in time, Russia/Putin is reflexively anti-US. Even to the
point of doing stupid things almost solely because it annoys the U.S.,
in spite of the fact they they will almost certainly live to rue the day
that they did said stupid things (i.e. helping nearby Iran go nuclear -
perhaps one day Mother Russia will have to deal with nuclear Chechen
rebels armed by Iran - I certainly hope not).

On Dec 25, 7:36�pm, Leopold Stotch wrote:
Brian Gaff wrote:

As for arms sales, well, of course the US never armed �counties with dubious
regimes did it, oh now never...:-)

Brian

I think I'd put the U.S. history of arms sales up against the
USSR/Russian history any day. �Yes the U.S. has sold conventional
weapons to many countries (though France probably sells more arms
globally when one compensates for their smaller population). �What the
U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and
Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales).

At this point in time, Russia/Putin is reflexively anti-US. �Even to the
point of doing stupid things almost solely because it annoys the U.S.,
in spite of the fact they they will almost certainly live to rue the day
that they did said stupid things (i.e. helping nearby Iran go nuclear -
perhaps one day Mother Russia will have to deal with nuclear Chechen
rebels armed by Iran - I certainly hope not).

well the us by mucking in so much of the worlds business all about oil
has but a big terrorist target on us. add miss treating / torture with
secret prisons and GITMO. after the coming election many prisoners who
were picked up for bogus reasons, like wearing the same model
wris****ch as a terrorist will be released and go home, hating america
and spreading the word on what @!#%$^% we are.

which will certinally generate more hatred and terrorists.

cant say I blame them...........

Leopold Stotch wrote:
U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and
Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales).

Iran has signed the NPT and for the last couple of years at least, has
abided by its rules and declared what it was doing. Even the CIA has now
publically admitted that there was no factual information to support the
Bush factual accusations that Iran was building "nukular" bombs.


Meanwhile, Israel refuses to sign the NPT and its onwership of nuclear
bombs in a rather sensitive part of the middle east continues to be
condoned by the USA who hasn't lifted a finger to try to get Israel to
sign the NPT.

Similarly, India refuses to sign the NPT , and Bush has recently decided
to sell them nuclear technology and nuclear fuel (I assume "nukular" is
a USA trademark for nuclear stuff :-)

India is right next to Pakistan which is is under military dictatorship
and whose military has control over the bombs. Not exactly a very stable
area, especially when you consider both countries still have unreseoved
land disputes.



At this point in time, Russia/Putin is reflexively anti-US.

The world is anti-USA. Putin is simply playing the public opinion game
to win support. Had the USA public not re-elected Bush in 2004, things
would be quite different now.

John Doe wrote:
Leopold Stotch wrote:
U.S. has *not* done is sell nuclear technology to complete wackjobs (and
Ahmadinejad/Iran is just the latest in a string of such sales).

Iran has signed the NPT and for the last couple of years at least, has
abided by its rules and declared what it was doing. Even the CIA has now
publically admitted that there was no factual information to support the
Bush factual accusations that Iran was building "nukular" bombs.


Meanwhile, Israel refuses to sign the NPT and its onwership of nuclear
bombs in a rather sensitive part of the middle east continues to be
condoned by the USA who hasn't lifted a finger to try to get Israel to
sign the NPT.

Similarly, India refuses to sign the NPT , and Bush has recently decided
to sell them nuclear technology and nuclear fuel (I assume "nukular" is
a USA trademark for nuclear stuff :-)

India is right next to Pakistan which is is under military dictatorship
and whose military has control over the bombs. Not exactly a very stable
area, especially when you consider both countries still have unreseoved
land disputes.



At this point in time, Russia/Putin is reflexively anti-US.

The world is anti-USA. Putin is simply playing the public opinion game
to win support. Had the USA public not re-elected Bush in 2004, things
would be quite different now.

No true. The former Soviet Union (and indeed many other parts of the
world) have consistently been anti-U.S. through both Republican and
Democratic (i.e. Clinton) administrations. As the world's sole
remaining superpower (at least for the time being) a great deal of
antipathy would be expected purely out of envy alone. The one sin that
will never be forgiven is success.

space geek wrote:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26439

Agree with concept, but that articel is for the wrong reasons.

They should agree to extent the 2010 deadline simply because the
original 2010 deadline (after which shuttles would have to go thorugh
recertification) was based on a much sooner return to flight than what
actually happened.

So, based on the current flight rate since the CAIB report and now, they
should be able to justify a push back of a couple of years of the
shuttle retirement deadline.

And it isn't because the russians are unreliable, it is simply because
the shuttle provide unique capabilities that neither the russians can
duplicate, nor the americans once shuttle is retired.

Adding a few flights would allow sending more hardware to the station
and perhaps even convert an MPLM for permanent duty as a storage module
on station.

Once the shuttle is gone, humanity loses a very unique tool that had
made mankind's use of space far more advanced.

On Dec 23, 10:39 am, John Doe wrote:

Once the shuttle is gone, humanity loses a very unique tool that had
made mankind's use of space far more advanced.

Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money
trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO.

wrote:
Not true. The shuttle actually delayed progress. NASA wasted money
trying to keep the shuttle busy in LEO.



The shuttle allowed NASA to develop technologies and procedures to build
big stuff in space, as well as properly resupply said big stuff
(including bringing back stuff).


The accounting problems at NASA is what forced the government to prevent
NASA from completing the inflatable module, from doing R&D on a mars
expedition etc. It wasn't the shuttle per say.


Is there budget TODAY for NASA to develop its equivalent to the Kurs
docking system so that NASA could continue to resupply the station
(albeig via the useless PMA narrow hatches) ? Or is that just "we'll do
that later on" ?

When you consider that orion isn't even assured of being built, the
"we'll do that later on" is even more of a pipe dream.

In the end, even if orion is built, NASA will use uit for a couple of
weekend camping trips to the moon and then simply emulate soyuz to the
station. That is all orion is good for. It offers no ability to build
lartge structures or dock/berth large cargo items to and from a worksite
in space.

And it most certaintly won't get people to mars. It is a dead end
technology in terms of space exploration, but it might be a tad cheaper
than shuttle to just ferry people between ground and ISS.

If the real goal is to go to a new destination (mars being the obvious
one), then the shuttle is far more useful than some glorified 1960s
capsule because to go to mars, you need to assemble something even
bigger than ISS in LEO before you can send it off.