Re: Getting to Space (was shuttle breaks up on re-entry

From: Technotranscendence (neptune@mars.superlink.net)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 08:45:05 MST


On Sunday, February 02, 2003 10:07 AM Kai Becker kmb@kai-m-becker.de
wrote:
> IMO, the space shuttle was invented mostly
> because NASA needed working space in
> orbit. We now have the working space in the
> ISS, so there's no need anymore to launch
> an almost complete space station every time.

Well, actually, I believe the big sell for the Shuttle program was an
obsession with reusability. Now, reusability in itself is no vice, but
I believe it was take too far so that it overrides many other factors,
such as overall costs. (Those costs appear to be much higher,
especially now with the loss of a second orbiter long before its
designed lifetime of 100 missions.)

Notably, most space launches, even those done by NASA use old throw away
rockets, such as the Titan II. It would be nice to do a study to see
which has been more efficient over the years -- the Shuttle or throw
away boosters? (Since the late 1970s, NASA put all its "manned" eggs in
the Shuttle basket. This would make the comparison harder.)

> The main tank could be used as habitable
> space or for production.

The idea has been suggested for many years of doing just that. NASA
could get into the business of selling orbiting main fuel tanks too to
make up for budget shortfalls. Right now, they burn up on reentry -- a
waste, IMHO.

Cheers!

Dan
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/

    See "For a Free Frontier: The Case for Space Colonization" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceCol.html
    See "Space: The Forgotten Frontier" at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/SpaceForgot.html
    See "A Late Answer to Bob Black" [on space commercialization] at:
http://uweb.superlink.net/neptune/Black.html



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST