Re: What else could you do with the Stick?

On 4 Nov 2005 21:01:07 -0800, lifeform1@xxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

>> >Wow, Russia : our international space partners, no less!
>>
>> ...who still won't tell us what the hell happened on Soyuz TMA-6...
>> who announced that our astronaut on ISS doesn't have a ride home
>> unless America pays up... who haven't bent metal for any of their
>> promised Space Station modules since Piers... and of yes, proclaim
>> they fully support Iran's nuclear program. Don't ya just love 'em?
>
>I fail to see the relevence to launch costs and ISS life support.

Demonstrates that reliance on Atlas 5 (which in turn relies on the
Russians) may not be the smartest move.

>> >> Delta IV:

>> ...and Boeing manage to get funded only because they stole LockMart
>> pricing data to "win" the government contract, and can't sell a one of
>> 'em today except to said government, which is only buying it because
>> they don't dare be dependent on the Russians for space access.
>
>I also fail to see any relevence to launch vehicle performance.

Straight to the point: Its a lousy rocket. Overpriced and underpowered
with launch preparation history (delays, delays, delays...) more
reminiscent of the Titan IV than its namesake Delta.

>> Hoo boy! Now THAT's a testimonial!
>
>Whatever it is, it isn't rocket science.

It's rocket engineering, and bad engineering at that.

>> There's only one Stick variant, and yes it uses SSME. If you have that
>> basic premise wrong, why again should I accept your assertions about
>> it?
>
>It comes with I program I fully intend to actively get cancelled.

You may get your wish, but you'll need to demonstrate a stronger
command of the facts if you seek to be taken seriously.

>No, I have nothing against the SSME, I fully intend to fly them well
>into the future, it's the throwing away and shipping all the way to
>UTAH thing I have against the ESAS.

Why, exactly? Freight trains are relatively cheap and dependable. Why
spend a small fortune to build a rocket factory at the Cape? EELVs are
built in Colorado and Alabama, not Cape Canaveral. Labor is cheaper in
Utah than in Florida.

>I generally think SRBs are
>primitive ape man technology, and certainly their continued use won't
>improve reliability, launch costs or technology.

"Generally" is right. The Shuttle SRB is no ordinarly solid booster.
It is a highly sophisticated rocket, complete with thrust vectoring
and with thrust which varies throughout the flight profile. And by the
way, it has worked perfectly the last 176 times it was used in flight
(88 Shuttle flights, each with 2 SRBs since Challenger.)

You're the one demanding we not throw away what works. SRB works.

>I prefer the boat. It would be even better to manufacture the rockets
>at the launch site.

Then you'd need two manufacturing sites... one for Vandenberg and one
for the Cape.

>> >That will surely reduce launch costs in the future!
>>
>> Yeah, like EELV has done so much in that effort. Two! Two EELVs for
>> the price of... er, the two LVs they replaced.
>
>They're better than the shuttle, and I have a lot of missions I need to
>fly on the shuttle.

Actually, every time someone tries to come up with an EELV-based
replacement for the Shuttle, the numbers end up showing the Shuttle is
better, at least for the ISS support mission. That isn't surprising,
since Space Station support is what Shuttle was originally designed
for.

>No, VSE and ESAS is the end of spaceflight, in America, at least.

Why? Which part of it, exactly, is impossible with existing technology
and budgets? And what part of VSE makes SpaceShipTwo and its brethren
impossible?

Brian
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: What else could you do with the Stick?
    ... >>I fail to see the relevence to launch costs and ISS life support. ... based on a few launches of a brand new rocket. ... > (88 Shuttle flights, each with 2 SRBs since Challenger.) ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: March Storm 2006
    ... I went over and read your 2003 space agenda. ... It's an interesting concept, but based on the premise that if launch costs drop significantly, suddenly private and commercial space usage will rise exponentially. ... You argue for alternative access to the ISS without using the Shuttle; what we really need to do is simply abandon the ISS as if performs very little worthwhile research and mainly serves as a source of income for Russia via American purchases of Soyuz flights and Russian sales of Soyuz seats to space tourists. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • NASA sets its sights on a new way to go
    ... the payloads on top - as far as possible from the dangers of firing engines ... By making the rockets from shuttle parts, the new plan would draw on the ... A main advantage, supporters say, is that the big rocket could lift five or ...
    (soc.culture.malaysia)
  • Successful Rocket Motor Test Helps NASAs Shuttle and Ares I
    ... SUCCESSFUL ROCKET MOTOR TEST HELPS NASA'S SHUTTLE AND ARES I ...
    (sci.space.news)
  • Re: should space shuttle be cancelled?
    ... but rocket launches are considerably more dangerous than ... >>trying to destroy you. ... Weather has certainly destroyed aircraft, ... > the Shuttle. ...
    (sci.space.policy)