S
starfhury
Guest
I know. This probably has be discussed to death. But I did a search and could not find anything specific.<br /><br />What I wanted to discuss was the theory behind STS and that behind VSE. STS=Space Tranport System, VSE=Vision Space Exploration. First I'd think that these programs are not mutually exclusive and that STS should in fact fall under VSE. I'd also think that VSE builds on STS which is in fact what Griffin is proposing by reusing shuttle hardware. I'd also think that VSE was what Apollo was about wrapped up in the race with the Soviets to the moon. I think what people realized after Apollo was that VSE could not function properly with out STS at it's core. And I think what the current VSE has forgotten that bitter lesson.<br /><br />I understand why people are against the current shuttle, but what I think has been lumped into the dump the shuttle orbiter movement is dump STS as well whether by design or inadvertently. What STS was intended to do was make orbital access routine. VSE in it's present form as far as I know it has no intention of doing that. If we divorce the current flawed shuttle orbiters from STS and look back at the concept itself and gauge that against the current VSE, I think we will find VSE lacking in it's actually future scope. If pure exploration was our only goal, then I suppose it makes some sense. But if we want to do more than mere exploration, we need a better foundation to base off. Exploration for the sake of pure exploration has no economic value and thus can not sustain itself in the long run. VSE in its current form as well as Apollo leaned too far to the exploration for explorations sake with no economic value and thus subject to quick cancellation as soon as the minimum objectives have been met if that. Although STS can be housed within the VSE architecture, STS can exist with out VSE and can provide economic value done correctly. However poor the execution of the shuttle orbiters have been, the actual STS program <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>