VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-31 09:12:18

.

the high costs and big risks to fail are only the two main problem of the VSE architecture

the third big problem of VSE is that it will be a big regress in space exploration as "number of flights and astronauts in space"

I think the Shuttles are too old and too dangerous to fly and must be grounded NOW

but the NASA decision to abandon ALL researches about a new, cheap and reliable "new Shuttle" is WRONG

without an (old or new) Shuttle (and only a little capsule) the entire space exploration will have a BIG REGRESS

I explain my opinion in my new "VISUAL" article www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/008visual.html

what do you think about?

.

RedStreak · 2006-05-31 10:19:11

Problem is an aerodynamic shuttle would have little use beyond LEO. Wings are exclusively a frill and prove more complex than a capsule design - even a lifting body is troublesome - just ask Lockheed and its X-33 program.

Here's my suggestion, and I think this should be the only route taken for space exploration in LEO from now on: leave winged, LEO vehicles to commerical space programs. SpaceShipOne (and Two) are already showing the way to this route.

If the government starts up a new shuttle-esque program believe me it will fly like a rock just like X-33...or should I say a rock with flimbsy wings? A commercial program with its focus on product and less on bureacracy will get the job done at easily 1/5 of the cost and without compromising safety either.

Once in a while perhaps a government-spondered contest but beyond that I don't think it's nessicary...much like the hundreds of repeatative JPEG pictures of shuttles and capsules on your page.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-31 11:03:19

Problem is an aerodynamic shuttle would have little use beyond LEO. Wings are exclusively a frill and prove more complex than a capsule design - even a lifting body is troublesome - just ask Lockheed and its X-33 program.
Here's my suggestion, and I think this should be the only route taken for space exploration in LEO from now on: leave winged, LEO vehicles to commerical space programs. SpaceShipOne (and Two) are already showing the way to this route.
If the government starts up a new shuttle-esque program believe me it will fly like a rock just like X-33...or should I say a rock with flimbsy wings? A commercial program with its focus on product and less on bureacracy will get the job done at easily 1/5 of the cost and without compromising safety either.
Once in a while perhaps a government-spondered contest but beyond that I don't think it's nessicary...much like the hundreds of repeatative JPEG pictures of shuttles and capsules on your page.

true

the new Shuttle will be only for LEO while the CEV will be only for moon missions

the Kliper (if Russia will have the money to build it) is winged and (maybe) also a (possible) future China-Shuttle ...

little privantes don't have the money, the experience, the technology and the knowlendge to build and fly a Shuttle

only the big space agencies and countries can... if they want, of course

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-31 13:18:55

Wrong?? The Space Shuttle was a complete disaster in every sense of term, especially the sense that it never really accomplished anything worthwhile!

The ISS is a joke, it will NEVER live up to its $150,000,000,000+ price tag

The HST should have been abandoned not repaired, and a new version built and launched on a conventional rocket (eg Titan-IV).

If every Shuttle launch were instead a CaLV flight, it would have lofted 14,000MT, a full ten times as much as Shuttle ever did.

And all those crewmen? Just what did they accomplish?

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-31 13:46:43

The Space Shuttle was a complete disaster...
in every sense of term, especially the sense that it never really accomplished anything worthwhile!
The ISS is a joke, it will NEVER live up to its $150,000,000,000+ price tag
The HST should have been abandoned not repaired, and a new version built and launched on a conventional rocket (eg Titan-IV).
If every Shuttle launch were instead a CaLV flight, it would have lofted 14,000MT, a full ten times as much as Shuttle ever did.
And all those crewmen? Just what did they accomplish?

the Shuttle have accomplished its missions in its era and at the costs of its era (like was with the very expensive Apollo)

the same for the costs of the ISS

technology change and also costs change, we can't compare to-day's costs with past costs

wrong is not the Shuttle retirement (that I hope may happen now) but the abandon of research about future new Shuttles

the CEV flights/scientific results (when it will starts... 2020, 2022?) will be ridiculous if compared with the past Shuttle and robotic results

...but some thinks (in their dreams) the CEV will go to Mars...
.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-31 14:32:38

Oh every Shuttle mission (excepting Challenger) was sucessful allright, but every single mission failed to accomplish anything worth its cost. That makes it a failure.

And why can't we compare past technology with todays? The basic technology of spaceflight hasn't changed a whole lot since the Apollo days. Rockets are still made mostly of aluminum, still burn the same fuel, and still have roughly the same payload capacity. CLV and CaLV will use the much the same technology as Shuttle, excepting no more SSMEs or glass tiles, yet will quintuple the safety and payload respectively.

What robots have accomplished versus what a man COULD do is what is rediculous, just one well equipped astronaut given a few days could accomplish everything that one of the MER rovers have and more over the nearly two years of operation. And thats nothing compare to what men can do that robots can't do easily, like drill for Lunar minerals or Martian ground water.

CEV itself cannot make the trip to or from Mars, but it will be an important component of the most probably Mars mission plan, something like a beefed up MarsDirect (two sorties/mission) or DRM-III (three sorties/mission). It will be exactly what we need, a roomy capsule suited for long-term storage and reentry from high speeds.

gaetanomarano · 2006-05-31 19:46:04

What robots have accomplished versus what a man COULD do is what is rediculous, just one well equipped astronaut .

we must compare "costs" with "results"

it's clear that a man can make an hole on Mars' surface in less time than a robot, but the "manned hole" costs 1,000,000,000 times more!

I accept the fact that the VSE will send some new LEMs on the moon (and I discuss of the various detail of the missions/vehicles) but I can't accept to hear that it will (also!!!) be USEFUL !!!!!

the "new" moon missions will be "nothing of new" (we have already seen them 35 years ago...)

the new moon missions will be NOT an "adventure" because, if the Apollo was like the Columbus discovery of the America, the new missions will be like a to-day's tourist's travel to New York with a Jumbo

the new moon missions will NOT improve our technology (like the Apollo does!) because it will use (part) of ready available technologies (like you say)

it will NOT give us better moon images, because, when the first LSAM will lands, we will alredy have TeraGigaMegabytes of images sent from moonrovers

it will be a good TV-show, but only in the first 2-3 missions (35 years ago the "TV people" was already bored to see the astronauts on the moon with the Apollo 12...)

the new moon missions will NOT give use "moon colonies", "moon mining", "the launch base for Mars", etc. simply because that projects needs 20 times the (already very high) VSE funds and NO ONE single country (NOT EVEN the USA) can spend so much for them (or for Mars missions that may costs like 100 VSEs!!!), also, if VSE costs grows 30% than planned after a few months (look at the 5-segments SRB...) probably we will NEVER see 12 moon missions within 2025 if NASA don't receive big extra-funds!

the VSE moon plan means:

10 years to see the first capsule that fly

15 years to see the first (new) moon landing

12 missions (only) within 2025 (that is 20 years from now!!!!!) ...if the funds will be sufficient, of course

$104 Billion spent within 2025 (+ extra funds, that, if we look at the past, may be twice that figure!!!)

and the results of this GIANT time/money/human effort will be...

quote from ESAS plan: Block 2 Lunar Crew (5.5mt. CEV) Cargo Capability "Minimal"... probably less than 100 kg. of moon rocks per mission...

100 kg. of moon rocks per mission X only 12 missions = 1200 kg. in total

$104 Billion (+ extra funds) / 1200 kg. = $86,000,000 per kg. of rocks!!!!!

20 years of time/work, 100-150 billions spent, 48 astronauts that will risk their life... for... 1200 kg. of moon rocks at the (very cheap!!!!!) price of $86,000,000 per kg. !!!!!

the Shuttle and the ISS (probably) was not the best investment for money... but the VSE plan will INCINERATE GIANT QUANTITY OF MONEY with the only result of a few rocks!

and 99% of these rocks will be THE SAME of (or similar to) the Apollo moon-rocks, then, the "new rocks" will be COMPLETELY USELESS for science and the entire VSE budget will results spent FOR NOTHING

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-05-31 20:59:53

Oh how you whine and wave your arms and type in big red letters with legions of exclamation marks...

-Humans are not simply faster, which we are so much faster that we cost about the same per amount of science I imagine, but we can do things that robots can't do easily at all.

-If you "can't accept" even the possiblity of being wrong, then what are you doing here on a discussion board?

-VSE on the Moon will test our technology, like new heavy lifter, Lunar lander/hab, and nuclear plant. Stuff that can be easily adapted for Mars mission later.

-How is building a Lunar base going to cost 20X what VSE will? Thats $300 billion dollars per year. Just arm-waving.

-M. Griffin has reportedly forced major VSE offices to add a 30% "price creep cusion" to their budget figures, so that "cost grows 30% than planned" is already accounted for.

-Prices right now are hard to calculate, like for the new SRB, because the details have not yet been fleshed out. They're just estimates at the moment.

-The basic CLV will begin testing as soon as four years from now, and CEV will enter service in six to eight years. Not ten.

-NASA plans to begin Moon missions in 2018, which is twelve years from now, not fifteen.

-3-4 CaLV and 2-3 CLV launches per year would be sufficent to build and tend a signifigant Lunar base, which is doable. It won't likely cost more then Shuttle does now.

-"quote from ESAS plan: Block 2 Lunar Crew (5.5mt. CEV) Cargo Capability "Minimal"... probably less than 100 kg. of moon rocks per mission"

Well, its a good thing the astronauts won't be hauling Earth rocks into orbit, isn't it? The CEV's cargo payload doesn't determine the mass of Lunar samples the LSAM can return from the Moon. And you just picked the 100kg value out of thin air, you don't know, you just made that up.

Again, the Moon does have things to offer us...

First and foremost, without a compelling "must have" product that can only be manufactured in zero gravity, Lunar mining of trace minerals will be the first non-tourist income source from a real space industry. Lunar mining can be accelerated by NASA establishing a base with a fuel factory/depot to radically reduce the fuel required to travel between the Earth and the Moon. The Earth has a limited supply of these minerals, and we will eventually run out.

Second, space astronomy will bennefit from having a perfect place for their telescopes, an airless world that always faces away from Earth and the Sun for two solid weeks at a time. The power of space astronomy with Lunar-mounted dark side observatories will make Hubble, JWST, and Aricebo look like plastic-lens Tasco kids toys. THAT will be inspiring to the public.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-01 06:46:25

.........

Humans are not simply faster... true, they are (also) 1,000,000,000 times more expensive than robots

what are you doing here on a discussion board... despite Italy's national sport is the soccer I don't like it so much, my prefered sport is the Formula 1 and NOT only for its races (that, many times are a little boring) but (MOST) for its technology, the engines, the races' strategies, etc.

well, for me, the space exploration (and the moon missions too) are very interesting for its technologies, rockets, vehicles, architectures, etc. but NOT for its "moon-rocks" (that will be similar to the Apollo-rocks)

building a Lunar base going to cost 20X what VSE will... build a lunar base, then a colony, the launch system for mars, moon mining, etc. will need 30+ years, 20+ launches per year, 200+ manned missions, etc. then, its total cost may EXCEED the "20xVSE" figure

"cost grows 30% than planned is already accounted for... mmmmh... then $2 billion extra costs for the 5s.SRB don't seems "already accounted"... and (like with all big space plans) this is only the first of hundreds cost grow that will happen in next 20 years!

CEV will enter service in six to eight years... the "2012" was the date of the first manned CEV missions one year ago, before the 1-year delay of CEV choice and the 1-2 years to develop (10 years before the CaLV) the 5-seg.SRB... without further delays the CEV will fly in 2013-2014... but a realistic date may be: after 2015

NASA plans to begin Moon missions in 2018, which is twelve years from now, not fifteen... again, add CEV/CLV delays... if also the CaLV/EDS/LSAM will have a few delays... the first moon mission will happen after 2020

3-4 CaLV and 2-3 CLV launches per year would be sufficent to build and tend a signifigant Lunar base, which is doable... 10 mT of cargo, 4 weeks on the moon and 400 kg. of rocks per year... this is your "moon base"

And you just picked the 100kg value out of thin air... right, but probably my evaluation is too optimistic... however, if the rocks will be 120-150 kg. per missions, the only difference will be a "discount" of its price per kg.... only $ 50,000,000 per kg. instad of $ 86,000,000 !

Again, the Moon does have things to offer us... in 2050-up (and most for tourism!)

[b]manufactured in zero gravity... [/b]and new medicines, the cure for cancer... people are bored to hear of these stupid excuse for the money spent in space since people are NOT stupid and they already know that space is (1st!!!) a BUSINESS

Lunar mining of trace minerals will be the first non-tourist income source from a real space industry... at 100 kg. and $6 billion per mission?????

moon-mining will needs 50+ years, VERY-ULTRA-BIG-GIANT vehicles and VERY-ULTRA-BIG-GIANT funds!

space astronomy will bennefit from having a perfect place for their telescopes, an airless world that always faces away from Earth and the Sun for two solid weeks at a time. The power of space astronomy with Lunar-mounted dark side observatories will make Hubble, JWST, and Aricebo look like plastic-lens Tasco kids toys. [b]THAT will be inspiring to the public[/b]

I completely agree with you from months (like I've posted in some forums) but it don't need to send humans on the moon to build it, we will have soon the full technology to send a ready made self-assembling telescope on the far side of the moon in the next 20 years

.

GCNRevenger · 2006-06-01 08:48:43

The curent duo of Mars Rovers cost around $1Bn all told, including development, inflation, and operational costs or about $500M each... so a manned mission to Mars is supposed to cost $450,000,000,000,000,000? Since it obviously will not, at what point does it become cheaper to send men instead of robots to accomplish a comperable task? I think if we are ever going to mine the Moon or find life on Mars, we will have to send men, robots just aren't going to cut it.

well, for me, the space exploration (and the moon missions too) are very interesting for its technologies, rockets, vehicles, architectures, etc. but NOT for its "moon-rocks"

Maybe you should go back to gawking at race car drivers, since you don't seem to be very good at talking rockets.

build a lunar base, then a colony, the launch system for mars, moon mining, etc. will need 30+ years, 20+ launches per year, 200+ manned missions, etc. then, its total cost may EXCEED the "20xVSE" figure

What in the world are you thinking? By "base" I am not talking this huge complex for hundreds of people, I am talking a base for six people, maybe eight, that can be manned continuously and produce liquid oxygen.

-Two launches for habitats
-One launch for a heavy digger & nuclear reactor
-One launch for the solar power arrays & ISRU plant
-One launch for regolith handler, light diggers, rovers
-One launch for misc equipment, spare parts, etc

Make that seven launches with an extra, maybe throw in an eigth for anything I've missed (or a reuseable commercial lander?), but thats all you would need for the kind of base I am talking about.

"cost grows 30% than planned is already accounted for... mmmmh... then $2 billion extra costs for the 5s.SRB don't seems "already accounted"... and (like with all big space plans) this is only the first of hundreds cost grow that will happen in next 20 years!

Just whining and flapping your lips, NASA won't have huge price creeps for the simple reason that they can't afford them. NASA centers and contractors will be faced with having a reasonable payoff or no payoff at all. The SRB isn't made by NASA who are under the budget constraint either, but most of the rest of the VSE hardware will be built by NASA and so will thusly have large margins. You point to the SRB as an example, but you can't seem to get through your thick, impenitrible skull that the original price was only a very rough estimate which simply turned out to be wrong, NASA calls for the SRB to basically be a brand new rocket, which its development cost is not outlandish versus the EELVs. Also since the VSE plan is not technologically ambitious like most other programs, there is no good reason for prices to spiral out of control either.

CEV will enter service in six to eight years... the "2012" was the date of the first manned CEV missions one year ago, before the 1-year delay of CEV choice and the 1-2 years to develop (10 years before the CaLV) the 5-seg.SRB... without further delays the CEV will fly in 2013-2014... but a realistic date may be: after 2015

More arm-waving. You seem to think that NASA is going to wait to start work on the CEV capsule until the CLV is ready maybe? And where did this "1-2 year to develop" come from? NASA hasn't signifigantly pushed back when it will start CEV design in earnest. You have no cause for stating CEV will be late.

Again, the Moon does have things to offer us... in 2050-up

I don't think it will be that long, a Moon base could be built in as little as four years if we really serious about it, in which case pilot mining could start in a few years after that.

new medicines, the cure for cancer... people are bored to hear of these stupid excuse for the money spent in space since people are NOT stupid and they already know that space is (1st!!!) a BUSINESS

I said that this was unlikely, maybe you should learn english before you get on an english discussion board.

moon-mining will needs 50+ years, VERY-ULTRA-BIG-GIANT vehicles and VERY-ULTRA-BIG-GIANT funds!

Why? We only need kilogram quantities of these minerals, which would be easy enough to transport back to Earth with rockets of today's technology level.

I completely agree with you from months (like I've posted in some forums) but it don't need to send humans on the moon to build it, we will have soon the full technology to send a ready made self-assembling telescope on the far side of the moon in the next 20 years

Nonsense, this business of "self assembly" is a joke and a lie. Neither Hubble nor JWST nor SIRTF were "self assembling," nor is the International Space Station "self assembling." When you add the difficulty of site preparation, deploying much larger apatures with extreme precision in gravity, and maintenance to keep the telescope working and up to date, its clear that human tending and assembling will absolutely be required to supercede the performance of traditional space telescopes.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-01 10:51:52

Finally getting to reply...

I think that (now) the Space Shuttles are too old and too dangerous to fly, then, it's a VERY BAD idea to launch up to 19 Shuttles (with up to 130 astronauts!) in the next 5+ years to finish the ISS.
I think the Shuttle must be modifyed to fly crewless or must STOP to fly NOW, but, an idea 1000 TIMES WRONG is to abandon ALL researches of a new, little, safer and cheaper crew-Shuttle in the next 30+ years to build ONLY a few capsules and use them for a few missions with a few astronauts!

Yes, we could automate the shuttle for the continued flights to complete the ISS but there is the little problem of the cargo can not move itself to the ISS locations from the cargo bay. We need these hands to move the tons of cargo each time.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-01 11:31:25

at what point does it become cheaper to send men instead of robots to accomplish a comperable task

at race car drivers...

no, sorry

I am not talking this huge complex for hundreds of people...

a nine launches micro-moon-base is possible also with the 99% expendable (bad) VSE plan

if it will start after 10-15 "single-LSAM" missions and... if half launches/year will be to build the micro-VSE-moon-base and... if NASA will receice $50B of extra funds... maybe it will be complete near 2030...

NASA won't have huge price creeps...

...You have no cause for stating CEV will be late... wait, and you will see

...We only need kilogram quantities of these minerals...

only kilograms?

of which precious "moon-mineral" that we don't have millions tons on earth?

and, if we need "kilograms" why don't extract it with robots at a fraction of VSE costs?

...Neither Hubble nor JWST nor SIRTF were "self assembling," nor is the International Space Station "self assembling."...

when NASA want that something works alone (also near Jupiter or Saturn...) designs it to fly/work/land alone

ISS and Hubble was designed to be launched and repaired ONLY with the Shuttle

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-01 11:39:34

Yes, we could automate the shuttle for the continued flights to complete the ISS but there is the little problem of the cargo can not move itself to the ISS locations from the cargo bay. We need these hands to move the tons of cargo each time.

the hands of the astronauts inside the ISS...

.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 13:12:18

wrong is not the Shuttle retirement (that I hope may happen now) but the abandon of research about future new Shuttles
the CEV flights/scientific results (when it will starts... 2020, 2022?) will be ridiculous if compared with the past Shuttle and robotic results

*watching a replay of the space shuttle Columbia coming down in flames*

I dunno, what I found ridiculous myself was the fact that some of the lab worms Columbia had onboard survived while 14 men and women died...

If you want another shuttlecraft, do it commercially and do it for transport, not research. A test tube full of worms can be sent up and autonomous monitored - critics and myself agree that 99% of what was done on the shuttle could have been done autonomously - literally about the only function left reserved for the crew to do a computer couldn't was to lower the landing gear...and that was only because the shuttle was wired that way.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 13:16:09

Yes, we could automate the shuttle for the continued flights to complete the ISS but there is the little problem of the cargo can not move itself to the ISS locations from the cargo bay. We need these hands to move the tons of cargo each time.

No offense, but there's always going to be a pair of hands on the ISS and a more capable robotic arm to boot.

Also, I don't recall any of the Russian components needing an arm of any sort to dock for the ISS or any of their numerous space stations. Count how many stations they had versus the meager US Skylab and the ISS and gauge the 'demanding' requirement of human assistance.

cIclops · 2006-06-01 13:55:44

I dunno, what I found ridiculous myself was the fact that some of the lab worms Columbia had onboard survived while 14 men and women died...

Seven people died in the disaster: Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Rick Husband (commander), Willie McCool (pilot), and Ilan Ramon.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-01 18:04:48

*watching a replay of the space shuttle Columbia coming down in flames*.

I've seen on CNN the images of Columbia while the disaster happens

but the critics I read against the Shuttle are simply ABSURD

airplanes are the most advanced, hi-tech and safe vehicles built by humans

but MANY airplanes crashed in the past and will crash in future with hundreds passengers aboard

however, we NEVER have thought to stop build and use the airplanes!

I suggest to modify the Shuttle to fly crewless ONLY because they are old like a DC-3 or a Concorde (now retired) and the three "machines" are too aged to fly

but I don't think that we must stop to go in space NOR stop to design, build and fly with a new Shuttle ONLY because two Shuttles crashed!

Challenger and Columbia was two accident like many other car, fighters, airplanes, train, motorcycle accidents that happen every day

we can't stop the progress because an airplane crashes with 200 passenger

then, we can't stop to design and build a new Shuttle

a REAL progress in space NEEDS a new, safer, cheaper and reliable "Space-Airbus"

.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 18:39:32

I dunno, what I found ridiculous myself was the fact that some of the lab worms Columbia had onboard survived while 14 men and women died...
Seven people died in the disaster: Michael P. Anderson, David M. Brown, Kalpana Chawla, Laurel Clark, Rick Husband (commander), Willie McCool (pilot), and Ilan Ramon.

Correct - I was thinking the total deaths on both lost shuttles.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 18:47:37

*watching a replay of the space shuttle Columbia coming down in flames*.
I've seen on CNN the images of Columbia while the disaster happens
but the critics I read against the Shuttle are simply ABSURD

No offense but unless it was for the military historically I don't recall many government-built aircraft. The shuttle has no comparison to aircraft of old.

The shuttle was built on compromise. Keep in mind Nixion was in charge when the shuttle was designed and this was only after he killed Kennedy's Apollo program.

As I said before, if you're going to attempt to build a winged spacraft leave it to the commercial space companies, not NASA. Encourage NASA if anything to fund contests to promote them but not a direct program to construct one.

The only destinations in space conceivable for winged applications beyond Earth are: Venus (somehow I doubt humans here within 100 years), Mars, and Titan (and given the billion-mile distance we'll be lucky to see a balloon or lander landed first - we'll be long dead before people get there).

....oh and to kill this debate bluntly space-bus my ass (pardon my French, even though I don't work for ESA or CNES )

SpaceNut · 2006-06-01 19:43:35

Yes, we could automate the shuttle for the continued flights to complete the ISS but there is the little problem of the cargo can not move itself to the ISS locations from the cargo bay. We need these hands to move the tons of cargo each time.
the hands of the astronauts inside the ISS....
No offense, but there's always going to be a pair of hands on the ISS and a more capable robotic arm to boot.
.

Sorry but there are only 2 at present aboard the ISS to off load what takes a crew of 7 on the shuttle to carry out during a 2 week period of time from a presurized cargo container which is close to max orbit time that the shuttle can stay before the fuel cells run out of fuel.

RedStreak · 2006-06-01 20:12:30

Sorry but there are only 2 at present aboard the ISS to off load what takes a crew of 7 on the shuttle to carry out during a 2 week period of time from a presurized cargo container which is close to max orbit time that the shuttle can stay before the fuel cells run out of fuel.

No offense but not all 7 operate the remote manipulator at once SpaceNut, nor does it take all 7 to hand-off cargo one by one.

SpaceNut · 2006-06-01 21:02:18

Have not found a good reference for this but I am sure that more than one would be needed to unload tons of cargo even if the arm were used to link up the docking ports. It definitely is a good question thou...

Found image and reference to the Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules

The three Multi-Purpose Logistics Modules, or MPLMs, which were built by the Italian Space Agency, are pressurized modules that serve as the International Space Station's "moving vans," carrying equipment, experiments and supplies to and from the Station aboard the Space Shuttle.

Spacehab I think has the contracts at this point but these are large still the same.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 08:22:52

...As I said before, if you're going to attempt to build a winged spacraft leave it to the commercial space companies, not NASA. Encourage NASA if anything to fund contests to promote them but not a direct program to construct one...

the private companies don't have the experience, technology and money to build a new Shuttle

say that "a new shuttle must be built by private companies" is EXACTLY like say "I don't want any new Shuttle for the next 20+ years!!!"

.

gaetanomarano · 2006-06-02 08:31:56

Sorry but there are only 2 at present aboard the ISS to off load what takes a crew of 7 on the shuttle to carry out during a 2 week period of time from a presurized cargo container which is close to max orbit time that the shuttle can stay before the fuel cells run out of fuel.

in my proposal of a crewless Space Shuttle [ www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html ] to finish the ISS the ISS' astronauts don't need to do nothing

I suggest to build a parking arm to hook the new module sent in space with the crewless Shuttle (that never needs to dock to the ISS)

when all the modules/hardware will be near the ISS, one or more specialized crews will go to the ISS (with the Soyuz) to assemble the new modules with the canadarm2 and EVAs, that in many weeks or months, without rush or risks!

.

Rxke · 2006-06-02 08:42:54

No docking at all?

Your ideas become less coherent by the hour.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2006-05-31 09:12:18

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#2 2006-05-31 10:19:11

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#3 2006-05-31 11:03:19

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#4 2006-05-31 13:18:55

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#5 2006-05-31 13:46:43

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#6 2006-05-31 14:32:38

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#7 2006-05-31 19:46:04

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#8 2006-05-31 20:59:53

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#9 2006-06-01 06:46:25

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#10 2006-06-01 08:48:43

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#11 2006-06-01 10:51:52

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#12 2006-06-01 11:31:25

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#13 2006-06-01 11:39:34

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#14 2006-06-01 13:12:18

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#15 2006-06-01 13:16:09

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#16 2006-06-01 13:55:44

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#17 2006-06-01 18:04:48

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#18 2006-06-01 18:39:32

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#19 2006-06-01 18:47:37

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#20 2006-06-01 19:43:35

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#21 2006-06-01 20:12:30

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#22 2006-06-01 21:02:18

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#23 2006-06-02 08:22:52

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#24 2006-06-02 08:31:56

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

#25 2006-06-02 08:42:54

Re: VISUAL "Shuttle to Capsule" comparison

Board footer