From: Kai Becker (kmb@kai-m-becker.de)
Date: Sun Feb 02 2003 - 08:07:46 MST
Am Sonntag, 2. Februar 2003 07:05 schrieb Adrian Tymes:
> Re-used? Pah! Re-used by whom? NASA builds its stuff new for each
> mission, and would sooner see its detritus
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.
One alternative could be a modular version of "ordinary" rockets. The
whole construction would go into orbit, perhaps with reusable boosters
like on the shuttle.
The expensive parts (control unit, engines) would be separate modules and
could be regained (fished from orbit by remote control). Each module
could be overhauled, replaced and tested on its own. If its broken, we
would only throw away a module. This would make mass production possible
and probably reduce maintenance costs.
The main tank could be used as habitable space or for production. I'm
sure that a secure environment could be build with inflatable bubbles to
cover the walls, insulating foam and such. BTW, does someone remember
Skylab? The modified second stage of a Saturn 5?
The payload could be packaged like in ordinary rockets today. If there's
no crew, then no life support and no reentry system is needed, which
would reduce costs per payload.
A reentry system for the engines, experiments or products would be much
cheaper than for the crew. Like a reverse progress transporter. The crew
reentry vehicle could probably also be cheaper, more like the early
capsules, but more comfortable.
Kai
-- == Kai M. Becker == kmb@kai-m-becker.de == Bremen, Germany == "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Feb 02 2003 - 21:26:09 MST