Re: Orion team shake-up

On Thu, 27 Dec 2007 22:13:26 -0500, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Jones" <alanvj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:03k8n35877sb0o8dl27es9bgd5nji0h4fc@xxxxxxxxxx
There's no evidence that Buran would have been a more versatile anything.
One semi-successful flight doesn't show much.

I was referring to the Energia and other uses of its liquid strap on
boosters. One use of the more versatile Energia "STS" was boosting
the Buran, but there were other uses, even a down sized Energia M. US
"STS" components don't really do anything besides launching the
Shuttle.

Other than say all the variants discussed but never built.


The problem with a lot of the claims with Energia and Buran is that they
were just that, claims, never actually flown.

We could have buttle a Shuttle C and a couple of other versions but never
did.

True, Shuttle C was discussed but never built. Shuttle C was an after
thought, while the Energia/Buran was designed from the start to be a
more versatile STS. I like to think of the Energia/Buran system with
liquid SOBs as a peek at what the US Shuttle might have been, if given
enough development money up front.

Still, for a time it held the promise of helping
the US Shuttle realize some of its potential.


I don't see how. (and yes, I know I snipped your comments on that.)

I agree that is more wishful thinking, than supportable opinion. The
reality is that the US gov would have made it impossible to launch US
built satellites on competing Soviet launchers, with no reduction of
satellite cost possible.


Alan

.

Quantcast