Comments on: Partners, schmartners

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 13:58:47 +0000

Why even bother to bring the upper stages back?

Currently they are discarded.
I propose not discarding them.

Here we have an expensive piece of high
quality hardware, a hydrogen tank,
and oxygen tank, and a space rated
restartable reusable cryogenic engine.

Why would I want to return any of that?
Why would I want to discard any of that?
How freakin hard is that to figure out?

On the other hand, we want the boost phase engines.

NASA – the discardable space agency.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Fri, 03 Feb 2006 22:16:41 +0000

No, I advocate returning engines from launch vehicle
test articles and upper stages. RL-10s. RL-60s.
IPDs. SSMEs. Methane and Alcohol engines.
Astronauts. Whatever. The vehicles stay.

I don’t understand. You say, “The vehicles stay,” but rocket motors from upper stages are returned.

You seem to overlook the porblem of how to bring upper stage rocket engines back to Earth without installing the rocket motors in a re-entry vehicle.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 01:06:00 +0000

I don’t know exactly which method I would use – Maybe give T/Space or Spacedev’s Dreamchaser a chance, or The Silver Dart

Hell, maybe we can go all out and go after an elevator. But the modicum of improvement that VSE is over the Shuttle (and, I do think it is slightly better) is not nearly worth it if we were to look at other options.

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:58:37 +0000

Are you advocating something that can be transported to LEO in a Shuttle’s cargo bay, such as an Apollo capsule or an X-38?

No, I advocate returning engines from launch vehicle
test articles and upper stages. RL-10s. RL-60s.
IPDs. SSMEs. Methane and Alcohol engines.
Astronauts. Whatever. The vehicles stay.

Why send them all the way to orbit,
only to return them. We only want
the engines back, until we can
learn how to do it better.

The STS will allow us to do that,
as an interim solution in the
development process.

It’s a tool.

http

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:36:08 +0000

“There is no sympathy for that argument with the Congress.” Feeney said that if there is another foam-shedding incident with the shuttle (or presumably another problem of similar seriousness) “it’s going to be really hard to save at that point, really hard to save” the shuttle program.

Schedule the Hubble servicing mission for
no later than summer 2007.

By: David Davenport

David Davenport — Thu, 02 Feb 2006 00:30:47 +0000

f your ‘program’ were the development of next
generation launch vehicles, as it should be,
then operating the shuttle to support such
a test program would certainly be beneficial.

What do you mean?

Are you advocating something that can be transported to LEO in a Shuttle’s cargo bay, such as an Apollo capsule or an X-38?

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:10:56 +0000

If your ‘program’ were the development of next
generation launch vehicles, as it should be,
then operating the shuttle to support such
a test program would certainly be beneficial.

Not VSE and ESAS though, you got that right.

By: Ferris Valyn

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 23:05:31 +0000

Im not saying I necassarily want it to go into VSE – I want a program thats better than VSE and ESAS. But the shuttle is most definatly not that program. But we do not, and frankly should not, amke it seem as though the only way to get the station is with the shuttle.

By: Donald F. Robertson

Donald F. Robertson — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 19:23:47 +0000

In the past, there has been no stronger supporter of the Shuttle than I. But, it is no longer premature to let this program go. Ideally, it’s time for a second generation Shuttle. Since that is neither financially nor politically in the cards, we need to move forward with something we can afford and know we can do, i.e., a souped up capsule. But, when any vehicle spends most of its time in the garage, it’s time to buy a new one.

Hopefully, some of the alt.space crowd can come up with a new generation shuttle. But, for that to work, they need a market, which means that the Space Station (and a lunar base, if possible) needs to be there and the Space Shuttle’s giant government-paid-for payload bay needs to be out of the picture.

— Donald

By: Thomas Lee Elifritz

Thomas Lee Elifritz — Wed, 01 Feb 2006 18:54:37 +0000

Sure, go ahead, retire the shuttle prematurely and
waste all the saved money away on VSE and ESAS.

America is already committing suicide.

Just hurry the process up.

Kill the ISS too.