Shuttle redux, a simple plan [KISS principle]

Self

[section9]

Gawd, I hate the bean counters. But you're right, one has to live within one's means.

The Saturn V was a monster, but you're right, it would be the only way to go. And you're also right about the fact that the SV is a big, disposable monster as well. You couldn't just dump it in the ocean, either, as it would have to push the Shuttle high enough so that it would burn up on reentry from a low orbit.

The Enterprise had a booster cover, if you'll recall. One could probably remove the valves, then cover the ass end with the aerodynamic cover.

Speaking of which, do you think they'll have to pull Enterprise out of mothballs? At least to cover the shuttle missions that need to go up in future.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[chimera]

Speaking of which, do you think they'll have to pull Enterprise out of mothballs? At least to cover the shuttle missions that need to go up in future.

Hard to say. I don't think the Enterprise is capable of powered flight. Are the main engines functional or just mockups? It was used for glide tests. Are the heat shield tiles capable of reentry from orbit? I'm not sure, since those releases from the 747 it was tested with didn't generate a lot of heat.

My guess is that NASA will have to get by with a reduced fleet. After Challenger there was a strong sense in Congress to appropriate funds to get a replacement. But that was '86, pre-9/11 and Iraq was only a distant cloud on the horizon. I don't get the same sense today. Congress seems to be saying we'll give to a few pennies (comparatively speaking) to tinker with some safety improvments on what you have left, but as far as anything new goes, forget it.

But as I said earlier NASA is going to have to do something to cover their collective a$$ as far as assurring survivability of their existing vehicles goes. If they drop another of these things, they're going to be looking at having essentialy zero capability of any kind of sustainable manned program. Then, its robots away (I'm sorry to say)...

[section9]

Part of this problem goes back to the beknighted Seventies. Instead of a follow-on Mars Mission after the Apollo project, the budgeteers took over and gave us the Shuttle. Shuttle was supposed to be a means to an end, not an end in itself. As an aside, an engineer I once knew who graduated from Georgia Tech back in 1980 refused to even consider NASA, as he had heard the stories in the engineering community about the cutbacks and personnel layoffs that had occured after Apollo shut down.

Now we find only one alternative: the Orbital Space Plane concept, which will require some dandy engineering to get off the ground. For the time being, the remaining three shuttles will have to be watched and babied like hawks, and perhaps a polymer hardcoat put over the tiles as protection. Literally, it's all we've got. That 65 billion dollar ISS has to be serviced, after all.

Now, if someone would come up with the idea of using the ISS as a living quarter for construction crews who could assemble an interplanetary, nuclear powered Mars transit vehicle, then they'd be talking sense. A Mars transit vehicle is something you want built in orbit, not on the ground.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[chimera]

The fire has gone out of the program and a spark is lacking. The public thinks spaceflight is neat and all that but shuttle flights to the ISS or low earth orbit to go around and around without really going anywhere don't seem to ignite any excitement among the sheeple.

Everyone knows that the spur for Apollo was beating the Soviets to the moon. We did that and then what? Its like a runner winning a race and then standing around with his hands at his sides, wondering what happened.

During and for a short time after Apollo's heyday people in high places talked about flying to Mars. They were serious. Today you hear chit-chat about it but nothing really being talked about at the levels where something really could happen. Its all just robots and satellite cell phones and GPS.

The whole structure of spaceflight and space research is creaking and crumbling. We don't have a realistic plan to get back to the moon, or what to do if we got there, which would be a good thing to do first. Nobody talks seriously about mounting a Mars mission anymore. I'll never live to see it, I'm pretty sure. We don't have even a clue as to how to do extra-solar missions.

Its going to take someone with a real vision and the drive and commitment to see it through, push it until it gives, to turn this around. Given the present breed of political leaders (e.g., a bean counter heading up NASA), businessmen, and scientists, I'm not optimistic (I'll include myself in that third group since I opened my big mouth).