scrap the shuttle, now!

[esas_is_a_lie]

Prove he's lying, I would say.

 

[dobbins]

Troll, I already did that on another thread where I pointed out several instances of Cowing omitting information to create an intentionally misleading story, one that was very different than the reality of the situation. That is an old trick of lying propagandists.<br /><br />

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

My name is Mike, if you so wish to use it. Otherwise I'll start my posts in reply to you with "child". Ok?<br /><br />Please link me to the Cowing thread you speak of, as I have not seen it. Thank you.

 

[erioladastra]

"Because I've walked them. It's not an assumption. "<br /><br />That is fine. If you wish to state a fact like there are a number of people in NASA that don't like STS, fine, but please stay away from hyperbole like few people support. There are both sides but to categorize all one way is false.

 

[SpaceKiwi]

Actually, I would have expected NASA folks who don't support Shuttle to have displayed some kind of backbone and resigned from the organisation. Surely these bastions of logic, commonsense and righteousness would have <b>no</b> problems finding alternate employment in the private sector? You know, the private sector who have apparently got their heads screwed on straight and are actually contributing something useful to the aerospace industry.<br /><br />Hard to place much creedence in the opinions of these supposed 'anti-Shuttle NASA folks' when they are quite happy to 'sell out' their 'holier than thou' principles for the comfort of a nice government pay cheque each week. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Otherwise I'll start my posts in reply to you with "child". Ok?<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />No, that is not okay. You are deliberately pushing the limits, ESAS_IS_A_LIE, and that is not appreciated. If you don't want to treat other members with respect, ignore them. Treating them with disrespect is not an option. You have provided very little to this thread other than disdain and signs of spoiling for a fight. Knock it off.<br /><br />If this thread becomes any more hostile, I will lock it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[telfrow]

Bravo, Calli. Bravo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font color="#3366ff">Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild.</font> - <font color="#3366ff"><em>Tennyson</em></font></strong> </div>

 

[danwoodard]

Unfortunately we will soon have four heavy lift launchers (CEV booster, SDHLLV, Atlas V, and Delta IV) none of which will have enough payloasds to be economical. Flight rate is the main determinate of cost, and a big factor in reliability. It is hard to see how cost per flight will be lower for the new NASA vehicles than for the Shuttle, since we will be at about the same overall budget and about the same flight rate. Cost per kilogram may be slightly lower than the shuttle but likely higher than the EELVs, (when one figures in all the overhead), even though the SDHLV will have about three times the payload. <br /><br />The real problem is that the cost of human space flight is still to high to be practical, even though energy (i.e. fuel) is less than 5% of the cost. Ultimately the only way to reduce cost to a level at which human flight makes economic sense for research, tourism, and resource development will be with a fully reusable vehicle. The Shuttle failed to achieve its design cost and reliability not because it was reusable, but because many of the design decisions followed in its construction were, in retrospect, not optimal and many of its failure modes were not anticipated.<br /><br /><br />this was primarily because we had no experience with many of the critical systems before the design decisions were made. The technology demonstrators (X-33, X-34, DC-X, X-37) and possible successors would have provided the flight experience that was vital to the design of a practical reusable vehicle.<br /><br />Unfortunately remembering the rapid loss of public support that followed the first Moon landing, I have serious doubts that the VSE will recieve continued funding at the levels required to meet its objectives.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

A 747 would have very high operating costs if it only flew as rarely as any possible short term flight rates. RLVs are not economically viable without a far higher flight rate than is currently possible, and the high operating costs of a low flight rate RLV will actually make it harder to achieve the high flight rates that are needed to reduce costs.<br /><br />If you only have one car it doesn't make sense to hire a full time mechanic to service it, it makes more sense to take it to a shop where they service enough cars to make it economically viable to hire mechanics. There aren't any RLV garages you can go to, and that means you have to absorb the full costs of servicing it. This is the primary problem with the Shuttle.<br /><br />

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Unfortunately we will soon have four heavy lift launchers (CEV booster, SDHLLV, Atlas V, and Delta IV) none of which will have enough payloasds to be economical.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I suspect CEV and SDHLLV are destined to be exclusively NASA vehicles, used soley in support of the manned space program. I'm fine with that; their needs are way beyond what commercial spaceflight is liable to need in the immediate (i.e. plannable) future. Atlas V and Delta IV, however, are not without payloads. Far from it. Delta IV Heavy is stepping into the void left behind by Titan IVB; you don't hear about it much, but there are some very heavy payloads still to launch, which due to national security cannot possibly be launched on Proton. Theoretically, Atlas V Heavy will also fill that void, although there are no immediate concrete plans to actually launch one. But what's cool is that due to the common booster core concept shared by both vehicles in the EELV stable, the heavy-lift variants of Atlas and Delta do not have to have sufficient payloads to justify their program. Delta IV Light uses the same core as Delta IV Heavy. The various medium-lift variants of both boosters are likely to be the core business which will see both through. And there are lots of launches already booked.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The technology demonstrators (X-33, X-34, DC-X, X-37) and possible successors would have provided the flight experience that was vital to the design of a practical reusable vehicle. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Just as a minor point of interest, you may be pleased to hear that the X-37 program is not dead. Unlike CRV, it was not cancelled. Burt Rutan's lovely White Night carrier aircraft has been contracted to carry it to altitude for testing. I'm not sure what plans (if any) there are for the planned orbital drop test, which was originally to have used the S <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

Ok, I will address them in the manner they address me.

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

Troll, can you please provide a link to your comment that nasawatch are lying?

 

[dobbins]

It's in the ISS debate thread, is it beyond your abilities to go look there?<br />

 

[esas_is_a_lie]

Please provide a URL link to the actual part where this is mentioned.

 

[dobbins]

I sign my name to all of my posts, did it escape your notice that it isn't Google?<br />

 

[nacnud]

Of for Petes sake, have you not seen the search function LINK

 

[haywood]

Very constructive spacefire.<br />

 

[haywood]

Welcome to the forum juliemac.

 

[haywood]

Another wildly unsubstantiated claim.<br />

 

[haywood]

And you would put "what" in its place spaceiscool?<br />Anything you would sugguest would have to wait at least 10 years to get to the capability of at least the Apollo program.<br /><br />Spaceiscool....hmmmm. Maybe a name change would be in order?<br />

 

[mattblack]

NOTE: My New Years' Resolution will be to phase out my involvement in discussions that are pointless, by dint of their taking on the attributes of the titular Brick Wall!<br /><br />That's my main beef with "spaceiscool" (nothing actually personal) and those like him: BY ALL MEANS dislike the Shuttle and the fact that billions have been spent every year for the last three years to hardly ever fly. But attacking and denigrating the ESAS in every way, rather than in a just a few ways (everything has an achilles heel or two after all) is destructive.<br /><br />Lots of people say that throwing away Saturn V and Apollo Command Modules and going with a Shuttle was a mistake. I'm one of those folk, but my objection has FAR more to do with my belief that the wrong DESIGN was chosen. And before anyone tells me that the Shuttle design we got was a budget and political decision, I KNOW.<br /><br />Throwing away the Shuttle infrastructure now would be a bigger mistake than killing Saturn V. Why? It's absurdly simple to get the correct answer: Because America can't afford to start a major space infrastructure from scratch AGAIN. It just can't. The ESAS lunar architecture is the simplest, cheapest(!?) way to convert all the best parts of the Shuttle system into spacecraft to accomplish something worthwhile: Leaving Earth Orbit!! If I had a dollar for every person I've seen complaining on this forum for the last 5 years about how "We've gotta leave LEO!", I'd have enough dough to ring up David Gump at T-Space and say "I'm in! Where do I sign?"<br /><br />By converting "Shuttle-stuff", Nasa will be able to make lemonade out of lemons, in the most spectacular and succesful way. If you don't get that, you don't get anything. I'm ALL for privateer space organisations, more power to them. But America needs a taxpayer-funded space program, albeit one that gets results. Mike Griffin gets kudos for throwing out the "Spiral Systems" junk and cutting through the B.S. to get to a plan that has a fi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Well, I did warn that if the hostility continued, I'd lock the thread. So I'm locking it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>