Re: SPACE: Automating shuttle

From: Spudboy100@aol.com
Date: Sun Apr 27 2003 - 14:44:33 MDT

  • Next message: Max M: "Re: Experiences with Atkins diet"

    Robert Bradbury observed:
    <<No it isn't.  There are significant differences
    between the Shuttle and the Buran.  The largest
    of which in my mind is the fact that the Main Engines
    for the Buran are *not* on the orbiter.  That is one
    reason it has increased cargo return capacity>>

    If you had quoted the other examples from my post, you would concede that we
    could jerry-rigg the shuttle into a Buran. Why? because the service level
    agreement of the original shuttle (even pre-Challenger) did not match its
    promises. So we are stuck with some clever challenges, on how we might
    support the space station, and do a few interesting other tid-bits. We are
    going to have to do this, or let someone else do this, and/or greatly reduce
    the number of spaceflights performed by the shuttles (already happening). Why
    we might consider futzing about with shuttle components, is because in the
    past the innovations, done by Skylab were all off the shelf materials,
    abstracted from Apollo modules. We thus have a history of producing using
    science from discarded projects like Apollo. We should consider the doing
    this, while the brightest minds produce a new orbiter.



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 27 2003 - 14:55:23 MDT