Shuttle dumped within 5 years

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years. The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years.
The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

The shuttle isnt the main cause of the problem here - it's management. The
CAIB have demonstrated that.

Use it properly, and carefully, and STS is saf.e

A Jumbo Jet is fairly damn dangerous if you dont look after it properly.

Doug

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years.
The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

Shuttle won't die that quickly and OSP won't fly - manned - that quickly.
What the article fails to mention is that the 2008 date is for the unmanned
CRV version. CTV would fly much later.

I think Shuttle will be around till at least 2012. There just isn't anything
else on the path to production that can handle the up- and down-mass of
Shuttle.

-Kim-
*my opinions, not my employers'*

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:57:01 +0200, "Ultimate Buu"
wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years. The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

We've been here before. NASP was supposed to replace Shuttle by the
end of the 20th Century. X-33/VentureStar was supposed to replace
Shuttle by 2006.

And then there was OSP.

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

Brian

What the article fails to mention is that the 2008 date is for the unmanned
CRV version. CTV would fly much later.

I think Shuttle will be around till at least 2012. There just isn't anything
else on the path to production that can handle the up- and down-mass of
Shuttle.

And it spends the next 4 years doing what? Isn't it cheaper to develop a life
support system for the CRV than it is to launch an empty shuttle with 4 crew
members aboard? So I guess the CRV is exposed to the vacuum of space and it
will take 4 years to develop a technology to seal it so that it will hold an
atmosphere within. And the technology for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and
storing compressed oxegen long enough for the up and down flight have yet to be
developed for this spacecraft and its going to take a further ambitious 4 year
project so that people can actually ride in this spacecraft, so in the meantime
they'll have to use expensive empty shuttles for crew transfers. Is ther
something wrong with this picture?

Tom

"Ultimate Buu" wrote in message
...

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa...sedan.ap/index.
html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years.
The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.


Not all that much new in the interview just restating the level 1
requirements but there are a few things.

1) They seem to have settled on a four seater without any of the
qualifications in previous statments.

2) "The key to the project, Smith said, is to keep the spacecraft simple and
use technology that already has been developed. That also makes it cheap. "
Lets hope they do that. If they do it will help a lot.

"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...

And then there was OSP.

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

If they can not save money using OSP/ATV/EELV compination then they are
doing it wrong.

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 16:41:05 GMT, Brian Thorn
wrote:

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 10:57:01 +0200, "Ultimate Buu"
wrote:

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/TECH/spa....ap/index.html

The OSP program is on a crash schedule to get it flying within 5 years. The
Shuttle will be dumped, just like I predicted since it's tainted by the
smell of death.

We've been here before. NASP was supposed to replace Shuttle by the
end of the 20th Century. X-33/VentureStar was supposed to replace
Shuttle by 2006.

And then there was OSP.

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

And when the fleet is reduced to two shuttles, what then?


Christopher
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Kites rise highest against
the wind - not with it."
Winston Churchill

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:11:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dholmes"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

If they can not save money using OSP/ATV/EELV compination then they are
doing it wrong.

There's no way to "do it right." As long as their goals in space
remain so trivial, it will be very expensive from a unit cost basis.
One of the reasons that Shuttle has never been replaced is that
there's no replacement that can be cheaper than continuing to operate
it, once you take into account the development costs and low usage.

--
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:

On Mon, 01 Sep 2003 18:13:07 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Christopher) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Personally, I think there is going to be sticker shock on Capitol Hill
when someone there finally adds up OSP/ATV/EELV costs and figures out
that it won't save a penny versus the Shuttle. Then there will be a
lot of back-pedalling, talk of waiting for a cheaper launcher to come
along, and another Shuttle service life extension program.

And when the fleet is reduced to two shuttles, what then?

Keep flying until it's reduced to zero, or decide that maybe the
nation has been taking a flawed approach to manned spaceflight (which
the OSP simply perpetuates).

--
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: