J
john_316
Guest
<br />I think for heavy lift and the purpose of remaining and retaining lift capability we should build on the Shuttle-C concept idea or what have you. <br /><br /><br />Why?????<br /><br />The idea however is that it will never carry Astronauts and just carry purely cargo. CEV can be on Delta or Atlas unless its a modified Service Module....<br /><br />The ET and SRB system is affective and upgrades can then be added with minimum cost. Until a single stage to orbit vehicle is designed and used, which will take 20-30 years at the present rate of technology and design.<br /><br /><br />Examples:<br /><br />ET based Space Islands Group ET Space Station. Five (5) can be orbited as Presidentual Executive Order by President Reagan. Use the 5 segmented boosters for altitude gain.<br /><br />ET based Keel for New Mars Vessel. Pretty much using the PXO as above. The ET can serve as both fuel and storage for the Mars bound Nuclear vessel. It also could contain expanded equipment for the trip.<br /><br />1 or 2 ET's can form a Keel with 2-4 Inflatible Habitats connected to a Nuclear Rocket and Command Section providing room for fuel, food, and resources. The ET attachment points could also be used to dock the Mars or even Lunar Landers.<br /><br />A modified ET type of vessel can be used to move between the earths GTO/GEO to Lunar Orbit for lunar landings. But not to land the ET. <br /><br />Thus the ET can even be used to carry ores for large or even small ore processing in an orbital processing facility. <br /><br /><br />Why wastes billions to completley go to hundreds of clean paper designs when we can operate with 5-6 American launchers in a span of 30 years. <br /><br />Why not make use of the equipment and technology we have now and upgrade it as we can. And yes retire the Shuttles in 2010 as planned.<br /><br />I know it makes too much sense but it will keep people employeed and it will also add to space based presence we all want.<br /><br />The ET stack is still good for something other than cor