Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/26/03 10:00:36 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes:

>> From KellySt@aol.com Sun May 25 08:26:25 2003
>> From: KellySt@aol.com
>> Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 02:26:56 EDT
>> Subject: Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner
>> To: zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl
>> 
>Why not to the list, only privately?

Opps, thought I replied to both.

:(


>[...]
>> >True, but since ISS must at least for some time remain up there
>> >for political reasons, the author is about right saying - let it be
>
>> >serviced for a while by cheap Souyuz crafts, while we will engage 
>> >in boosting our new launchers without the burden of reviving 
>> >shuttle launches to ISS by all costs...
>> >It seems a good idea, or am I mistaken?
>> >
>> >-- Zenon Kulpa
>> 
>> I'ld say your mistaken.  The Soyuyor lack the capacity, the political 
needs 
>> would not be served.  Politically Shuttle needs to be flown more then
>> ISS needs to be manned.
>> 
>Can you elaborate? Namely, concerning the politics 
>behind Shuttle/ISS? It is rather dark to me.
>
>-- Zenon

Shuttle obviously failed to acheave what it was built for (cheap safe routine 
access to space).  Shuttle is defended as being nessisary to build and 
service a station.  That turned out not to be true.  In fact designing the station 
to be lifted and assembled out of shuttle bay sized peaces uped the cost and 
complexity tremendously.  A analysis in the mid '80s showed if it was built in 
one to two peaces, and a new class of booster developed to launch it.  Even 
including the cost of the booster in the program - the station would be $1-4 
billion cheaper and several years faster to build.  But that option was rejected 
because it did not use Shuttle, nor much work by astrounauts, to assemble it.  
And station could as easily be serviced by a very differnt vehicle (though 
none currently are in operation).  After astrounauts were killed in the shuttle, 
it became even more politically unacceptable to suggest shuttle was a failure 
in any sence.  I.E. to suggest they died in vain.  That the older Apollo Era 
boosters could have done as well or better.

Station then was built to demonstrate the utility of shuttle.  how it could 
be built by shuttle.  But if station is shown to be a failure (and it is in 
most any sence since it has no real practical or scientific utility) that implies 
shuttle is a failure; and since shuttle and statino are the only maned space 
programs in NASA currently or in the planed future, canceling eather negates 
the other, which could trigger the shutdown of all US, or possibly Russian, 
manned space operations.

So station and shuttle are wed.  If one dies, both die - and possiobly maned 
space flight with them.