Re: Shuttle flying till at least 2015

On Dec 24, 12:07�pm, behlin...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Dec 24, 10:19 am, John Doe <j...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

1. � Russia didn't have a functioning shuttle or manipulator arm, so

modules are far more primitive and their capabilites to build space
structures far more limited.

2. They do not have the ability to have CBM> size hatches (those hatches as well as the MPLM were one of the big
things that were learned from the experience on MIR, and those are the
very things that NASA will lose when it abandons the shuttle because it
will revert to the small russian sized hatches on the PMA modules.

3. Compare the size of the russian modules with that of the USA
modules.> And look at the intricate parts that the shuttle was able to fly up
there, including the truss, the station robotic arm as well as the solar
panels and the truss "railway" system.

4 �It would be possible to emulate this by having some rocket with the
PMA> docking hardware at the front, and a cavernous cyclinder that would
emulate the shuttle's cargo bay. The rocket would hard dock on a PMA,
and then the station arm would pick up the cargo from the rocket. This
would allow one to send odd shaped ojects to the station.

5. � But such a system would make it harder to start a new station
from> scratch. (since until that new structure has an arm, that rocket would
be useless).

6, � So, you would end up having some modules like the russian ones,

outfitted with their own guidance and rockets (each being different),
and some outfitted with cavernous hull that would carry the cargo. SO
you end up with different orbital ships instead of just the shuttle.

1. �Incorrect, �the MIR had an EVA arm and the additional modules had
small arms to move them around the docking node.
� The Mir modules weren't "primitive", they were more advanced and
were self sufficient

2. �CBM hatches was not a lesson from the MIR program. �It is just a
nice to have. �But that is not loss when the Shuttle goes away,
Spacex, HTV and any COTS vehicle are going to use the CBM's and not
the PMA's.

3. �The differences between russian �and US modules sizes are
insignificant, but the Zvezda is bigger than Destiny. �All the other
ISS parts (truss, solar arrays, etc )could have been designed to fly
on an ELV. An �ELV is going to deliver a European arm to the Russian
segment of the ISS. �There is nothing special about the cargo bay of
the shuttle.

4. �Delta IV, Atlas V and Proton have payload fairings wider than the
shuttle cargo bay. �and they can handle the same length payloads.

5. �The first piece put into space could have an arm. �It is just how
you design the system. �There is no reason a station could be
assembled without a shuttle.

6. �No, a common tug would just have to be designed that would deliver
the hardware to the assembly area. �No real problem. �the large
fairings already exist

cleary the unreal hgh cost of shuttle...... that money could of been
spent other ways, and nasa wasted millions studying but never building
a new manned system to keep the jobs program going.

nasa main mandate is too keep the pork squealing at any cost. even the
lives of astronauts. the shuttle should of never been designed with
launch boost escape