|
I have worked on both shuttle and ISS experiments
for 22 years and it seemed that every time we had a regime change the politcians
got involved and screwed everything up. Tracy is correct and I believe
SRMs are driven by politics. Look at Space X's success. Soyez is
also all liquid powered as was Saturn. I finally got fed up working on
programs that got canceled so I started building an airplane.
Joe Berki
Limo EZ
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 3:45
PM
Subject: [FlyRotary] Re: Off
Subject
William,
Nice read, but one
question:
Why can’t a
government sponsored program work?
As you yourself said,
it seemed to with Apollo.
Bryan
From: Rotary
motors in aircraft [mailto:flyrotary@lancaironline.net] On Behalf Of William Wilson
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 2:04
PM
To: Rotary motors in
aircraft
Subject: [FlyRotary]
Re: Off Subject
For the last two decades or so, the
shuttle has existed mostly as a way to deliver things to the ISS, and the ISS
has existed mostly as a place for the shuttle to fly to. While the
Hubble repairs were a great accomplishment, it probably would have been
cheaper to just build an entirely new telescope and send it up on some sort of
unmanned rocket whenever the original one wore out.
This is not to say
that I think manned spaceflight is a bad idea - but the reality is that there
is really nothing to do in Earth orbit, and that is the only place the manned
space program has been able to go for decades. Manned spaceflight needs
to be focused on setting up a permanent settlement on Mars, the only
worthwhile goal for manned spaceflight in the foreseeable future. And
for the cost and casualties of the shuttle program over its lifetime, with the
knowledge and technology base that existed right after Apollo, that probably
could have been accomplished. (Much of the Apollo know-how has been lost
due to simple retirement and/or death of so many people that worked on it, and
in the much more risk-averse environment of today compared to the 60's, this
knowledge probably cannot be recovered, at least not by a government-sponsored
program).
I think a lot of the disappointment over the retirement of
the shuttle has to do with a sense of the US losing its
place of leadership, or even going backwards in capability. To some
degree that is a concern, but to an even greater degree, the shuttle has
become a case of throwing good money after bad. We can't go forward and
bring the shuttle with us.
On Sat, Jul 23, 2011 at 10:47 AM, Tracy <rwstracy@gmail.com>
wrote:
I grew up dreaming of space travel but I'm even more
driven by reality.
If you understand the goal of the space shuttle, you
are forced to acknowledge that it was a monumental failure. It was
touted to be a low cost space transportation system but on a cost per pound
delivered to orbit, it was by far the most expensive system ever built.
The throwaway Saturn 5 rocket was far cheaper and more reliable to boot.
The Lowest cost for a shuttle mission was about 500 million not
including mission payload costs. The Russians charge us 125 million per
space station resupply missions including all payload costs.
And don't get me started on the "international
space station " itself. It has no commercial sponsors as originally
intended because it has no commercial use and darn little scientific use.
And the US pays very near 100% of the
costs.
The only worthwhile accomplishment of the shuttle was
the launch and repair of the Hubble telescope. It replacement (the much
larger and powerful James Webb telescope) will be launched by the French
Ariane 5 rocket. THAT sorry state of affairs is the fault of the
shuttle program which ate up all development funds that could have gone to
something worthwhile.
Makes me feel a little sick.
Sent from
my iPad
Russia Says
End Of Shuttle Program Ushers In The 'Era Of Soyuz' Points To
'Reliability' Of Its Spacecraft In A Post-Shuttle
World
Russia
says the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program marks the
beginning of
the "Era Of Soyuz" for transportation to the
International Space
Station.
"From today, the era of the Soyuz has started in manned
space
flight, the era of reliability," the Russian space agency
Roscosmos
said in a statement.
The French news service AFP
reports that the Soyuz design has
changed little since Yuri Gagarin
first climbed aboard one to
become the first man in orbit. But the
Russian space agency says
they have continuously improved the
spacecraft, and the fact that
it is still flying as the shuttle
program ends is a testament to
the "reliability and not to mention
cost efficiency" of the older
design.
In a nod to the U.S.
Space program, the statement said "Mankind
acknowledges the role of
American space ships in exploring the
cosmos."
But
Russia is clearly basking in
the fact that it now has the
only vehicle capable of transporting
humans to the ISS and back
likely until 2016 at the earliest.
FMI:
www.roscosmos.ru/main.php
Kelly
Troyer
"DYKE
DELTA JD2"
(Eventually)
"13B ROTARY"_
Engine
"RWS"_RD1C/EC2/EM2
"MISTRAL"_Backplate/Oil
Manifold
"TURBONETICS"_TO4E50
Turbo
|