Re: starship-design: NASA As an Equity Partner

[KellySt@aol.com]

In a message dated 5/27/03 10:17:55 AM, zkulpa@ippt.gov.pl writes:

>> >[...]
>> >> >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; 
>>
>All this I know more or less. What I do not get clearly
>is why do you think that there is no exit from this vicious circle,
>e.g., by the trick proposed by the author of the article that started
>this discussion - namely, by using a break in shuttle launches for
>introducing by a side door some new launches waiting in the wings...

Launches to do what?  NASA has nothing to do.  Its not like ISS has a purpose 
toward some long term goal.

And again, it shows shuttle as a failure, which makes station useless.  So 
launching flights to it with Soyouz serves no purpose.  You might as well just 
shut it down.

How does a new launcher help them?  To NASA that would doom them.  All new 
launcher designs proposed would need a tiny fraction of the number of ground 
support staff.  I.E. it would gut the staff sizes of the big centers.  And hence 
gut NASA political power and influence.



>> 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.
>> 
>There is only one exit I see here: inserting a new manned space 
>program into NASA future - going to Mars and/or returning
>to the Moon. Without that we will indefinitely put billions 
>into that black Shuttle/ISS hole just for nothing.
>
>-- Zenon Kulpa


Thats a good idea, but NASA will fight hard to stop it, and neiather goal 
generates much public interest.

Frankly I'm hoping for military or commercial interets to force the 
development of the new launchers which do gut NASA and invalidate Shuttle station and 
much of the rest.  Thjat would shake up NASA to its roots.  Perhaps it would be 
shut down and replaced, or refocused toward usefull goals for practical or 
exploration goals.  Hell just shut down and gotten out of the way would help us 
toward space.

Anyway, Soyuz doesn't really serve any purpose.


Kelly