Andy USA - 12/5/2008 7:01 PMQuoteNathan - 21/4/2008 4:05 AMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 21/4/2008 9:33 AMQuoteNathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.Hopefully but do remember that the reusable Space Shuttle is being replaced by an expendable Ares-I. NASA suspects that launching the Ares-I will be cheaper.Space shuttle can't really be considered refuelable. Reusable is even a push. It's just easier to refurbish than build fresh.Shuttles are mainly reusable, apart from the ET.
Nathan - 21/4/2008 4:05 AMQuoteA_M_Swallow - 21/4/2008 9:33 AMQuoteNathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.Hopefully but do remember that the reusable Space Shuttle is being replaced by an expendable Ares-I. NASA suspects that launching the Ares-I will be cheaper.Space shuttle can't really be considered refuelable. Reusable is even a push. It's just easier to refurbish than build fresh.
A_M_Swallow - 21/4/2008 9:33 AMQuoteNathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.Hopefully but do remember that the reusable Space Shuttle is being replaced by an expendable Ares-I. NASA suspects that launching the Ares-I will be cheaper.
Nathan - 20/4/2008 10:01 PMRefuelability implies reuse which will push costs lower.
I'd like to suggest that we make a distinction between REFUELALE and REUSABLE craft in this thread. There are many missions that rely on one-shot equipment that can benefit from a LEO refueling depot. There have been many discussions on the merit (or lack there-of) of reusable craft, as pointed out already. I think we should focus this thread on the question of how refueling craft once in (or beyond) LEO can impact the various missions under consideration.
Also, IMHO the word "should" has very little meaning in the context of space operations. The only "should" that applies is that the best engineering solution "should" be the one that is selected for any particular mission.
Dean