-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jon Mann Sent: Saturday, July 30, 2005 4:10 AM To: brin-l@mccmedia.com Subject: space shuttle obsolete
Ever since the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on takeoff I realized NASA technology is neither safe nor cost effective, but a multi billion dollar business. I believe that the Russian approach to orbital launches is cheaper and far less dangerous. It appears the Chinese will also be relying on rocket launches rather than expensive and inefficient orbital vehicles. Here is my idea that I have proposed to friends who have far more knowledge and expertise than a layman such as myself. Use tried and true disposable solid fuel boosters to launch satellites, robotic missions, scientific experiments, etc. And when necessary, human astronauts to work on the space station, make repairs on the Hubble, etc. Rather than using an antiquated shuttle system it would by more practical to develop nuclear powered smaller vehicles that could be launched like the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules, but with better propulsion and maneuvering technology. It could remain docked to the space station, providing additional living space, and available for interorbital missions, such as repairing the Hubble and eventually returning to the moon. It is impractical to launch heavy shuttles out of the gravity well and then return them to earth, subjecting them to re-entry damage and endangering the lives of our hero astronauts. Continue to use them in orbit and return the astronauts the old fashioned way. The logistics should not be difficult. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l I'll say this First before I go farther, I really don't want to be a nay sayer to your idea as I have similar views about the current and future manned space exploration outlook. However, there are several things that I would like to highlight from your post as some food for thought about it. "I believe that the Russian approach to orbital launches is cheaper and far less dangerous. It appears the Chinese will also be relying on rocket launches rather than expensive and inefficient orbital vehicles." Though I do agree that "now" this approach is a safer bet for crew survivability, there were quite a few launch failures with loss of payload and crew, the US shuttle program can only see 2 massive failures to date Challenger and Columbia. Before I make my next point off of this I will make some admissions, I will not argue that the Shuttle is tres expensive. However at the time it was built is was the cutting edge in technology, and as was said in a previous post if you were to ask a shuttle engineer if they thought the shuttle would be flying in '05 they would laugh, the thing simply was not meant to be in operation for 30+ yrs. (yes I know they all didn't come out in '75 but the design has been around since the) The reason why the vehicles themselves are cheaper is because they are toss away, im sure someone with more knowledge will tell me that they salvage much of the electronics from one Soyuz for one under construction replacing as needed to reduce cost, but I don't know that for sure. The shuttle was designed to be a multi task vehicle, which it still is, what is needed is a modular system with a return to earth capability something again modular but in the sence that the payload module can be launch automated and return to earth automated after dropping off its payload, and have a reuse of say 15+/- flights. I would want the option that the crew module can launch and return on its own, so if you have to do a crew change on the ISS you don't have to launch an entire vehicle. In the same breathe I would want it to have the option of launching with the payload module. " Rather than using an antiquated shuttle system it would by more practical to develop nuclear powered smaller vehicles that could be launched like the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules, but with better propulsion and maneuvering technology." Ok here I go sounding like a crazy scared old nuclear watch dog...... I think that giving a larger power source to manned and unmanned missions is a great idea, and very necessary as it takes away power limits for scientific payloads on DS missions. However the more you launch them and return them the higher the chance of a catastrophic failure and we have a nuclear could falling over the world..... even as you have put it they would stay docked to the ISS there has to be away for the crew to return home, so they have to have reentry capability, and poking a nuke on a one hop capsule to me just isn't cost effective. Granted as I said above you can salvage from each cap. And drop cost but I'm still wary about having a crew return vehicle that has a nuke on board. Before you say well we can have it removable in orbit and it can be connected to the ISS for additional power, just how many of these do you plan on launching? also with the amount of Liquid launches done with the shuttle would it not be reasonable to say that Liquid launches are tried and true? "It is impractical to launch heavy Shuttles out of the gravity well and then return them to earth, subjecting them to re-entry damage and endangering the lives of our hero astronauts. Continue to use them in orbit and return the astronauts the old fashioned way. The logistics should not be difficult." Ok 2 things on this part; is not every reentry vehicle possible of taking damage and loosing the crew? After all these years of shuttle launches we have lost only one on reentry, and granted it was well into its life span. I will not argue at all that the shuttle is far too expensive to launch maintain etc. As for your suggestion to launch the existing shuttles to orbit and leave them there for orbital use, the infrastructure is simply not there, doing a rough in head calculation it would cost about 1.5 billion to add the docking ports to the ISS not to mention the requirement for massive LF tanks to be brought to orbit and also attached to be able to refuel the fleet. The fleet would be grounded, enough said. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
