![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() Interesting article by a familiar name: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=893 Unfortunately, I disagree with his conclusions. Specifically: I am going to go against all of my advocate friends and advocate a second generation Shuttle to replace the current three remaining shuttles that can meet the criterion laid down by NASA for the Assured Access to Station program. A clean sheet design taking advantage of over twenty years of operational experience would be a much better and cost effective solution that would fulfill all of the Orbital Space Plane requirements as well as the Assured access program. Implement all of the upgrades and operational changes recommended by various committees over the years and you could build a very nice STS II that would be able to be semi-mass produced and later mated to a flyback booster, resulting in a fully reusable system. Boeing, in the form of the old Rockwell Downey, the Shuttle's original builder, has done some good work in this area. This is failed space policy at its finest. This is the classic NASA approach where Congress is to sign a blank check and allow NASA to built a new space shuttle with all the bells and whistles that it wants. It's hard to tell how many countless tens of billions of dollars could be spent on this approach. Since the middle of Apollo this approach has been flatly rejected by both Congress and all administrations. The budget slashing began even before the Apollo program was over. Face it, there will be no more blank checks for space. We will never have a viable space policy unless everyone accepts this as fact. Furthermore, this approach has little to no chance of lowering the cost of access to space. It contains within it the hidden assumption of "performance uber alles" since you're letting NASA pick the design and incorporate "all of the upgrades and operational changes recommended by various committees over the years". It also contains the implicit assumption that the shuttle should continue to carry both crew and large amounts of cargo into space on every flight, maintaining its "all things to all people" approach to functionality, complexity, and high cost. Jeff -- Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply. If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | Space Shuttle | 150 | July 28th 04 07:30 AM |
European high technology for the International Space Station | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | May 10th 04 02:40 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | February 2nd 04 03:33 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |