kraisee - 15/4/2007 4:17 PMThere's no way to maintain the Shuttle for flights without keeping the entire $2.5bn/year standing army of employees and facilities unchanged - whether you fly or not. Removing this amount (more than a quarter of the entire budget) of cash from the Constellation funding every year would seriously screw up the schedule.You couldn't even do it if you were using something much 'closer', like DIRECT.Its Shuttle or it's a Lunar>Mars program. We can't afford both. Choose.Ross.
bad_astra - 16/4/2007 9:11 AMAt some point we're going to miss a lot of the functions the shuttle could do. Having a shuttle might also be handy for the construction of a Mars Transfer vehicle.
Christine - 16/4/2007 11:09 AMI don't really understand why it was overlooked in the shuttle. They added 50 tonnes of useless winglets, a large middeck that on most flights seemingly only serves as ballast, and several kitchen sinks. Why didn't they think that with all this other crap, having a few extra kilowatts of solar panels wouldn't be important?
Jim - 16/4/2007 10:15 AMDo you have a problem with every post? Add something constructive for once
Christine - 16/4/2007 11:37 AMI'm not sure where to go with that one Jim. I was merely observing that if you're going to drag 110tons to orbit, you might add a couple hundred kilograms of solar panels to supplement your onboard fuel cells.
Christine - 16/4/2007 10:09 AMI don't really understand why it was overlooked in the shuttle. They added 50 tonnes of useless winglets, a large middeck that on most flights seemingly only serves as ballast, and several kitchen sinks. Why didn't they think that with all this other crap, having a few extra kilowatts of solar panels wouldn't be important?
sandrot - 13/4/2007 4:36 PMI can't even think to Energia LOC and LOM numbers with the 4 liquid strap on...
Christine - 16/4/2007 8:37 AMQuoteJim - 16/4/2007 10:15 AMDo you have a problem with every post? Add something constructive for onceI'm not sure where to go with that one Jim. I was merely observing that if you're going to drag 110tons to orbit, you might add a couple hundred kilograms of solar panels to supplement your onboard fuel cells. Anywho, I sincerely apologise for trespassing in the forum Jim. I should have taken more time to read the forum FAQ, which details that it is exclusively reserved as your personal sounding board. I'll take my irreverent musings somewhere else.
SteveNovak - 6/5/2007 2:18 PMThis "rocket scientist" (as he calls himself) represents what is wrong with many of those involved (if he really is) is this Country's manned space program. They tend to be closed minded and cannot see the big picture or even think out of the box. I ignore him because he lacks vision and likes to hear himself "talk" .. LOL
Gary - 6/5/2007 9:03 PMQuoteprivateer - 16/4/2007 8:57 PMQuotesandrot - 13/4/2007 4:36 PMI can't even think to Energia LOC and LOM numbers with the 4 liquid strap on...Why? Soyuz has four liquid strapons since forever, and what? Perfect 0% historical launcher-related LOC! LOM is around 1%, I believe? Compare that with Shuttle's numbers.What about Soyuz-1 - Vladimir Komarov was killed when the parachutes tangled and Soyuz-11 when three crew were asphixiated due to a cabin vent opening?None are down to the strap ons but you can't claim Soyuz has 0% LOC.
privateer - 16/4/2007 8:57 PMQuotesandrot - 13/4/2007 4:36 PMI can't even think to Energia LOC and LOM numbers with the 4 liquid strap on...Why? Soyuz has four liquid strapons since forever, and what? Perfect 0% historical launcher-related LOC! LOM is around 1%, I believe? Compare that with Shuttle's numbers.
Kaputnik - 6/5/2007 9:06 PMErm, the clue is in the term 'launcher related'. Soyuz is the name of both the booster and the manned capsule.Energia enthusiasts are probably still reeling from the recent SeaLaunch incident, hence the worry over liquid strap-on boosters.
Gary - 6/5/2007 4:42 PMYes I know that but I did miss the 'launcher related' bit and if you are going to worry about a launch failure you might as well not launch - Things happen and risk is a part of it.
privateer - 16/4/2007 2:57 PMQuotesandrot - 13/4/2007 4:36 PMI can't even think to Energia LOC and LOM numbers with the 4 liquid strap on...Why? Soyuz has four liquid strapons since forever, and what? Perfect 0% historical launcher-related LOC! LOM is around 1%, I believe? Compare that with Shuttle's numbers.
Patchouli - 31/3/2008 6:31 PMApollo too didn't fly many times but had two very close calls with Apollo 13 and the ASTP.
Patchouli - 31/3/2008 6:40 PM1. The wings are not entirely dead weight they have worked as a very reliable recovery system.Over all it's safety record is much better then what the US space program used before splash downs though not as good as the Soyuz recovery system.2. Though on splash downs one LOC event can be greatly reduced if the ascent/descent suits also can act as self righting immersion suits much like what is used by offshore oil platform workers.Such suits can even save someone from drowning even if they are unconscious .
Christine - 17/4/2007 1:09 AMI don't really understand why it was overlooked in the shuttle. They added 50 tonnes of useless winglets, a large middeck that on most flights seemingly only serves as ballast, and several kitchen sinks. Why didn't they think that with all this other crap, having a few extra kilowatts of solar panels wouldn't be important?
Ronsmytheiii - 19/3/2008 2:18 PMSpeculation is pointless. Energia is gone, and to bring it back would cost as much to develop a new rocket. Also it is not US made, so it is a non-starter for the US VSE. Finally the side-mounted cargo severely reduces safety. Pretty much kills any serious consideration, the Ares I/V are much more realistic in comparison.
Jim - 31/3/2008 2:01 PMQuotePatchouli - 31/3/2008 6:31 PMApollo too didn't fly many times but had two very close calls with Apollo 13 and the ASTP.ASTP was not an failure or "close call"