"Successor" is not a synonym with "superior."(And certainly, "successor" is not synonymous with "all the same capabilities.")
Who knows which directions future generations of spacecraft will take.I mean, 60 years ago, who would have believed that the role of softening up a land target for strikes from the sea would move from Battleships like the USS Missouri to submarines like the USS Florida.You often hear people talk about something being ahead of its time. Shuttle truely was. Not because of its capabilities for hauling crew and cargo uphill, but for its massive ability to haul cargo downhill. That is a capability we still have not come up with a means to take full advantage of.So yes, Orion(mpcv), Dragon, CST100, Dreamchaser, HTV, ATV, et.al. are successors to the shuttle, but they are not replacements for its unique capabilities. Because we don't currently need those capabilities on the scale that shuttle provided them.
Wow, Jay Barbree in this article/editorial (not sure which it is) seems to be pretty unhappy with CCDev and is particularly unhappy that ATK wasn't chosen:"NASA's future depends on spaceflight neophytes"
It's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability.
Also, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.
Quote from: vt_hokie on 04/19/2011 07:22 pmIt's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability. Except that the station already does have an (even more capable) arm, and, depending on the size, there are several option for getting any of those components to station. HTV, Cygnus, and standard Dragon can bring any of the smaller components, while Dragon on a Falcon Heavy could launch an entire node if needed.And all of them are at least four times cheaper than a shuttle flight. That's superior.QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF and Solar Max (both kinda stunts), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?
QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF (kind of a stunt), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?
It's kind of like replacing a Rolls Royce with a Yugo...I guess you can call it a successor. Worthy successor is another matter entirely!
I'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".
Quote from: mr. mark on 04/19/2011 11:23 pmI'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".I do not care for him or his reporting... this goes back to the early 80s. I just hope he gets to cover Falcon and Dragon HSF. I hope I can personally ask him how that neophyte SpaceX is doing. Or Boeing. Or SNC. Or Blue Origin.I simply do not care.He wants Liberty. No frakking thank you.
Quote from: simonbp on 04/19/2011 09:47 pmQuote from: vt_hokie on 04/19/2011 07:22 pmIt's technically possible, but not currently on the horizon, to make up for lost shuttle capabilities with a combination of new systems. But what would it take to enable replacement of, say, ISS solar arrays, SARJ units, etc? The combination of cargo and crew, and the shuttle's remote manipulator system, add a unique capability. Except that the station already does have an (even more capable) arm, and, depending on the size, there are several option for getting any of those components to station. HTV, Cygnus, and standard Dragon can bring any of the smaller components, while Dragon on a Falcon Heavy could launch an entire node if needed.And all of them are at least four times cheaper than a shuttle flight. That's superior.QuoteAlso, as mentioned, there is the downmass capability that's being lost.Which is used for what, exactly? Besides LDEF and Solar Max (both kinda stunts), what downmass won't fit in a Dragon?You know what, I'll leave that one to vt_hokie...I've done this rant for far too long now (years)
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 04/19/2011 11:33 pmQuote from: mr. mark on 04/19/2011 11:23 pmI'm going to try to say this with class for a man who has given much of his life to reporting on NASA. He is part of the old guard and he may be out of touch with current thinking. I could get mad and say more but, it would only make me look bad. Personally, I'm slightly mifted at the man. When he was reporting at the pre flight conference for COTS 1, he kept saying that Dragon/Falcon would overfly Europe putting the continent at risk. Then he called Gwynne Shotwell "sir".I do not care for him or his reporting... this goes back to the early 80s. I just hope he gets to cover Falcon and Dragon HSF. I hope I can personally ask him how that neophyte SpaceX is doing. Or Boeing. Or SNC. Or Blue Origin.I simply do not care.He wants Liberty. No frakking thank you.The builder of the Apollo capsule a Neophyte? A company in business since 1963, a neophyte?
