The VERY HUMILIATING close encounter that will NEVER happen:

[gaetanomarano]

<br />could walk over to the OPF with my tape measure />>>>><br /><br /><br />very well... so you can give us the exact measure<br /><br />about my image... please see the part of the shuttle that is closest to CEV... if both dimensions are similar, the image is correct... if there is a BIG difference, the image must be changed<br /><br />I don't see so much difference... but... also if I increase the CEV dimension of another 20%... it STILL remains a little toy in respect of Shuttle!<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

So your picture is meant to be illustrative, not painstakingly accurate, correct? That's okay. It does do what you intend it to do -- show that the Orbiter is much bigger.<br /><br />If I can get Ray Dream working back home (I need to reinstall it), I might be able to build something like that. It's got a bunch of models to play around with, and one of them is an entire Space Shuttle stack. It can be taken apart, and the SSMEs and payload bay doors can all be animated. I'd just have to make a CEV model. <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>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />no, I try ALSO to be accurate in dimensions, but, using ready available images is not easy to be 100% accurate<br /><br />the images I use in my posts (and in my webpages) are not "projects" (of course) but mainly "illustrative" of the idea or the argument I propose<br /><br />with my Shuttle-CEV image, I don't want to demonstrate that "shuttle is bigger" (despite I don't like capsules, I'm not so stupid...) but only to explain with an image the DECLINE of future space projects due to retirement of the big-shuttle-truck replaced by the little-toy-capsule... this is the MAIN argument... NOT the "details" of my image<br /><br />

 

[larper]

I think your picture is VERY illustrative of how embarrassing the shuttle is. It says "Look at all of the crap we bring back down to Earth after spending so much time, money and effort getting it into space." <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[centsworth_II]

Right, it's like traveling everywhere with a steamer trunk whether going on an overnighter or a long stay. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />probably you don't know the story of space flights (or you have not "lived" it)<br /><br />just imagine that Shuttle was never made... with only some satellites in the sky, a few Soyuzs, the old Mir (without the ISS now it may always be in orbit!)<br /><br />if you consider the very poor CEV payload... we will need 200 years of CEV flights to have the same work in space made with Shuttles!<br /><br />some say that the ($4 billions per launch) SDHLV (if it will happen and fly) will be the "Shuttle replacement" for heavy payload... well, read my next post...<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />many say that the Shuttle is unnecessary because the (2015?) 125 tons payload SDHLV will be a great replacement for heavy payload<br /><br />but many forget that Shuttle is not only an heavy-payload-rocket... Shuttle is able to MOVE its payload from orbit to orbit, assemble it and (if necessary) bring back a payload to earth<br /><br />for THAT reasons the Shuttle weight is 100 tons and its payload only 25 tons (engines, fuel, navigation system, return to earth, wings for landing, reusability, crew, robot-arm, assembly tools, etc.)<br /><br />an HLV may launch 125 tons payload only if it will be a "dumb" 125 tons satellite to be launched in a predefined orbit (how many 125 tons satellites may be launched???)<br /><br />but if we need the SAME work of Progress, cargoCEV and Shuttle, we must add engines, propellant, and navigation system to the HLV payload... this will reduce very much the REAL payload of an HLV as "Shuttle replacement"<br /><br />the Shuttle's total-weight/net-payload ratio is 125tons/25tons<br /><br />with Progress it is 8tons/2.4tons<br /><br />with the unpressurized cargo-CEV (see image below) it will be 19tons/6tons<br /><br />then, as "Shuttle replacement", the 125 tons HLV may send LESS than 40 "net" tons of "Shuttle-like" payload!!!!!!!! ...like two shuttle launches! (but WITHOUT an 8 astronauts crew that need TWO orbital-CEV launches, without robot-arm, etc.)<br /><br />and... just imagine the cost of each SDHLV launch...<br />

 

[carp]

Yes Gaetano you have an obsession,and this obsession have name CEV.that's ok,many people have obsessions today,are hard times. Remember, the first step for get rid of an obsession is admit it.You said "remember that Shuttles NEVER "killed" its crews",and after said " the Shuttle is NOT a TRUE (safe) spaceplane ".You are confused Gaetano..is maybe your obsession that makes you confused? Ah yes,you have the answers,you are the most intelligent and cunning space scientist (and space economist) in the world.Yes,sure,i know.You said "I build" my images with the base-images I found... their details are NOT the most important part of an image... please look at its MESSAGE" .Yes i look at the message and the message,ALL YOUR MESSAGES are the homages at your (excuse me,overstimate)ego.Happy dreams Gaetano.

 

[mattblack]

The Shuttle is really a space station with wings, especially when it flies with a Spacelab or double-Spacehab research module. I used to wonder if it might have been better to modify the Extended Duration Orbiter pallets to fly 30+plus day missions: Flying 3x missions like this per year, with Shuttle crews doing at least 25 days of 24-hour, 7-day-per-week science would eclipse ISS science accomplishments, at least in the short term, and be cheaper to boot. <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>

 

[jamie_young]

""Gaetano.you have an obsession,admit it.Shuttles NEVER "killed" its crews? Challenger (and its crew) was KILLED by an SRB defect? Columbia (and its crew) was KILLED by an External Tank FOAM defect""<br /><br />Orbiters have never killed a crew, and neither have Shuttles really. Bad managers killed Challenger and bad luck killed Columbia.<br /><br />And I don't have a space.com clan, so my clan wouldn't want to face your clan, then again I don't plan Xbox all the time.

 

[subzero788]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>an HLV may launch 125 tons payload only if it will be a "dumb" 125 tons satellite to be launched in a predefined orbit (how many 125 tons satellites may be launched???) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The fact is 3-4 HLV launches could have built the ISS in 1 year, which would have not only made construction a hell of a lot cheaper but vastly increased the usefulness of the ISS, with a completed station with a 6 man crew for the last 5 or more years instead of a barely half completed space station with a 2 man crew and little science research. Unfortunately we didn't have a HLV in 1998 so we made do with the shuttle which performed great but the HLV could have done the same job much faster and cheaper.<br /><br />Also, the HLV would never be used to launch satellites as far cheaper launch vechicles exist now and even cheaper ones are being developed (eg. the Falcon linage)--the HLV is built for "heavy lifting" not carting a couple of sats to orbit.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />about my "obsession"...<br /><br />the only problem of Shuttle is that it is not a true spaceplane, then, I suggest to use the shuttle's experience and to-day's technology to build a better and safer shuttle<br /><br />about CEV, CLV, HLV, etc...<br /><br />I think that they can be better made and I'm sure that the final vehicles and rockets will be different from to-day's sketches (now we are only in their early days!)<br /> <br />the realty is that the VSE-plan will use the most dangerous parts (SRB-Challenger and ET-Columbia) of the Shuttle's "system", instead of the most safe and usefull part (Orbiter)<br /><br />do you think it's true... or it's another "obsession"?<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />in future flights, Shuttles may have the new Boeing-made extra-energy-port that connects Shuttle to ISS' solar panel increasing orbital time of +21 days<br /><br />I think that the same port may be used for an autonomous solar panel inside the cargo-bay, so, the mission time may be one-two months of more! (sending also sufficient food and water, of course...)<br /><br />but Shuttle need to be modifyed to be safer at lift-off<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />3-4 HLV launches could have built the ISS in 1 year />>>>><br /><br />not true... HLV + Shuttle may build an ISS in 1 year... NOT the Shuttle OR the HLV... then, an HLV (without Shuttle features) will never build an ISS in 1 year<br /><br /><br />the HLV would never be used to launch satellites />>>>><br /><br />true... HLV will be used only 13 times in 2020-2025 (one test launch and 12 moon missions) because its ONLY real purpose will be the LSAM+booster launch... and nothing else... satellites are too little while ISS modules can't be moved in space AND assembled with HLV and CEV only (it's a work that NEED the Shuttles!)<br /><br />with its giant dimensions, very high R&D costs and 13 flights only... SDHLV will have a cost per launch that I CAN'T IMAGINE!!!<br />

 

[larper]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>probably you don't know the story of space flights (or you have not "lived" it) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />You would be extremely wrong in that assumption. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Vote </font><font color="#3366ff">Libertarian</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />you say:<br /><br /><font color="yellow">I think your picture is VERY illustrative of how embarrassing the shuttle is. It says "Look at all of the crap we bring back down to Earth after spending so much time, money and effort getting it into space."</font><br /><br /><br /><br />The Shuttle "work" in space in last 25 years was:<br /><br />a) 100+ flights<br /><br />b) 600+ astronauts in orbit<br /><br />c) over 2000 tons of "hardware" sent in orbit (*)<br /><br />d) ISS assembly and resupply<br /><br />e) some big satellites launched<br /><br />f) the giant Hubble and ALL its INCREDIBLE images and discoveries!!!!<br /><br />g) spaceplane experience (that can be used in future... after the toyCEV era...)<br /><br />h) technologies that will be the BASE of ALL future ESAS and VSE vehicles and rockets<br /><br /><font color="yellow">this is the TRUE story</font><br /><br /><br />(*) in 2020-2025 ALL the (12) SDHLV launches will send in orbit ONLY 1500 tons in TOTAL and 70% of that weight will be NOT "smart hardware" (like LSAM, Hubble, satellites, labs, experiments, ISS' modules, astronauts, life support, repair tools, robot-arm, ISS' resupply, etc.) but ONLY "dumb" propellant & rockets to launch the CEV-LSAM duo toward the moon!!!<br /><br />so, in next 20 years, ALL the "smart hardware" sent in orbit with 12 SDHLV will be around 25% (ONLY!) of ALL "smart hardware" sent in orbit with 5 Shuttles in the past 25 years!!!!!!<br />

 

[carp]

You said"HLV + Shuttle may build an ISS in 1 year... NOT the Shuttle OR the HLV".Hey,Gaetano,you remember Skylab? Skylab was a dry workshop launched by a saturn V booster.The SDHLV upper stage can contain a orbital workshop large like Skylab.Two orbital workshop launched from two SDHLV can make a docking ,obtaining a space station more large of ISS. http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/9867/clvesas97rm.jpg

 

[nacnud]

Well how about this by Colby over at nasaspaceflight.com

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><font color="yellow">"...unpressurized-cargo CEV (CDV) is for the "Stick" CLV, which can lift 25 tonnes. Not the SDHLV..."</font><br /><br /><br />I perfectly know that (as you can read my previous posts in many threads)<br /><br />I've used the cargoCEV total-weight/cargo-weight ratio to compare with a possible (CEV-like or Shuttle-like) cargo-SDHLV<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />Skylab was a very primitive prototype of space station... like a giant gymnasium for astronauts' space games<br /><br />now (and in future) space modules are (and must be) more complex than a simple "tank"<br /><br />but, also using your suggestion to launch many SDHLV tanks, the problem will remain orbital-moving and and space-assembly... a job that needs the Shuttle-truck not a little capsule<br /><br />consider that LSAM+booster and CEV/SM docking will be possible because CEV/SM will have an orbital navigation system (without it, the giant 125 tons payload will remain alone in the space...)<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />the image you've found and posted is an INCREDIBLE piece of scientific and engineering... PROPAGANDA<br /><br />starting from a 5-tons Shuttle's payload, the author of that image may demonstrate that one SDHLV may launch TWENTY Shuttle's payloads!!!!!!!<br /><br />1... the Shuttle-SDHLV comparison must be made with Shuttle-payload weight and not payload dimensions<br /><br />2... the "nominal" Shuttle's payload is 28 tons (less than 25 in real flights) while the "nominal" SDHLV payload will be 125 tons, only 4.5 times one shuttle's payload, NOT six times!!!<br /><br />3... the shuttle's payload is a 28 tons NET weight (since its "shell" is the shuttle) while the 125 tons SDHLV's payload (e.g. a giant satellites) will need a shell and some internal structures, so, the SDHLV's "NET" weight will be around 100-110 tons... only FOUR TIMES the shuttle's payload... NOT six times!!!<br /><br />4... the SDHLV's payload is only a "dumb" weight to launched in orbit WITHOUT the shuttle's orbital navigation system and engines, astronauts, robot-arm and assembly tools... to have a Progress-like or a cargoCEV-like payload (NOT a, more complex, Shuttle-like operation) you must add a Progress-like navigation system, engines and propellant... so, the real SDHLV's payload (as Shuttle's payload replacement) may be around 40 tons only...LESS than TWO shuttles' launches... NOT six times!!!<br /><br />it's propaganda... only propaganda!<br /><br />and don't forget the SDHLV price per launch...<br />

 

[carp]

"now (and in future) space modules are (and must be) more complex than a simple "tank" <br />The modular space stations concept was tailored on Space Shuttle,now with different veichles will have different station'concept.Skylab was a prototype but NOT WAS a primitive concept.Two dry workshop launched by SDHLV boosters can realize an automatic docking in orbit (is it is enough "advanced for you,Gaetano)? Another possibility is a CEV orbital module with remote manipulator arm for orbital-moving and and space-assembly.

 

[nacnud]

No it isn't propaganda, however it is speculation. Allowances were made for the strong back and other services needed by STS payloads. <br /><br />The STS payload to the ISS is around 16 tonnes not 28 but that doesn't matter too much because it is ISS elements that are being launched. It is the mass of those elements that needs to be used.<br /><br />Anyway it's only a drawing, no need to get your knickers in a twist.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...SDHLV boosters can realize an automatic docking in orbit..."<br /><br /><br />as I've already explained it can be made with SDHLV but great part of payload's weight must be used for orbital navigation and docking (like with Progress and Shuttle) so, the "NET" space station module weight will be only around 40 tons per SDHLV launch... and very very very expensive!<br /><br /><br /><br />"...CEV orbital module with remote manipulator arm..."<br /><br />it will never be good like a shuttle... so, I don't think it will be built<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />if the Shuttle was underused is not a good reason to say that SDHLV will be six times better than Shuttle...<br /><br />the total flights/astronauts/payolads/missions of Shuttles was VERY GOOD... the giant SDHLV will be poor used... (around 10-15 times only...)<br />