Future man in space/shuttle replacement vehicles

nooneimportant wrote:





Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

--
Cliff



I kind of agree... seems like a capsule program is a step backward... but
then again, isn't it cheaper to build a brand new Saturn V rocket and capsul
for every launch, then it is to refit a "re-usable" shuttle (just pulling
that out outa my rear, but i seem to recall somewhere seeing that building a
SatV in todays dollars is still cheaper than refitting a shuttle)? I still
don't see why a capsule system can't be "re-usable" boosters seperate,
deploy chutes and land, lower stages sep and land, upper stages will likely
be lost, but crew capsul can be reused..... The real downside i see to that
particular system is the need for two vehicles at each launch... cargo and
crew, why not beef up the cargo launch system, and throw the crew cap on top
of it, ship them individually as needed to support the ISS with
crew/supplies.

Frankly I think the ideal way to go would be a single stage to space
aircraft, that can land, get fuel/supplies, and be back in space within a
few days, but i don't see that anytime soon.





If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

"Frank F. Matthews" writ gravenly....


If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

No, if the Congressional pork barrels weren't so deep (and so many) and the
"required " expenditures of the USG so high more funds would be available.
There's no making things "cheaper", but the priorities involved in
allocating the funds necessary. No Congressman would allow NASA's needs to
get in the way of a highway or a subway in his/her district.

We've dithered along now for 20 years spending money on a dead-end "bridge"
program, using all available funds to kerep the current program alive,
subsidize Mir's operations (another "PR in the sky" effort for the Russians
and for us.

In article ,
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

If costs prevent developing a cheap cargo lifter, then people
will just have to figure out the benefit of space travel.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule