|
Posted by Brian Gaff on January 11, 2010, 10:09 am
Please log in for more thread options
So, they want a heavy lift to leo? While making some new tanks, modify the
shuttle to fly manned or unmanned. From past experience of costs, it will
probably
still cost more than it should,but why throw away working hardware?
They can still launch people, and who knows, a sawn off Orion might be
possible in the cargo bay!
Brian
--
Brian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email.
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
Posted by Jeff Findley on January 11, 2010, 12:59 pm
Please log in for more thread options
show/hide quoted text
> So, they want a heavy lift to leo? While making some new tanks, modify the
> shuttle to fly manned or unmanned. From past experience of costs, it will
> probably
> still cost more than it should,but why throw away working hardware?
> They can still launch people, and who knows, a sawn off Orion might be
> possible in the cargo bay!
Why not? For the same reasons as always. It's never been designed to fly
completely unmanned. Because of this, the risk of losing an orbiter would
be higher if it were unmanned. Plus, there are so few left that continuing
to use them operationally doesn't make much sense. Lose one more orbiter
and the impact to the overall shuttle system would be very significant.
Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon
|
|
Posted by bob haller safety advocate on January 11, 2010, 6:04 pm
Please log in for more thread options
wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> > So, they want a heavy lift to leo? While making some new tanks, modify =
the
show/hide quoted text
> > shuttle to fly manned or unmanned. From past experience of costs, it wi=
ll
show/hide quoted text
> > probably
> > still cost more than it should,but why throw away working hardware?
> > They can still launch people, and who knows, a sawn off Orion might be
> > possible in the cargo bay!
> Why not? =EF=BF=BDFor the same reasons as always. =EF=BF=BDIt's never bee=
n designed to fly
show/hide quoted text
> completely unmanned. =EF=BF=BDBecause of this, the risk of losing an orbi=
ter would
show/hide quoted text
> be higher if it were unmanned. =EF=BF=BDPlus, there are so few left that =
continuing
show/hide quoted text
> to use them operationally doesn't make much sense. =EF=BF=BDLose one more=
orbiter
show/hide quoted text
> and the impact to the overall shuttle system would be very significant.
> Jeff
> --
> "Take heart amid the deepening gloom
> that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
> Lampoon
so how any flights were saved by the humans onboard? certinally didnt
help challenger and columbia:(
|
|
Posted by Bob Myers on January 11, 2010, 6:09 pm
Please log in for more thread options
bob haller safety advocate wrote:
show/hide quoted text
> so how any flights were saved by the humans onboard? certinally didnt
> help challenger and columbia:(
Well, given the fact that the thing isn't designed to fly
unmanned in the first place, you'd really have to say
ALL of them, EXCEPT for those two.
Bob M.
|
|
Posted by bob haller safety advocate on January 11, 2010, 7:11 pm
Please log in for more thread options
e:
show/hide quoted text
> bob haller safety advocate wrote:
> > so how any flights were saved by the humans onboard? certinally didnt
> > help challenger and columbia:(
> Well, given the fact that the thing isn't designed to fly
> unmanned in the first place, you'd really have to say
> ALL of them, EXCEPT for those two.
> Bob M.
How so?
How many times have pilots inputs saved the day?
after all nearly everything is under computer contol except final
landing.
landing could be done with a ground based pilot and a local data link.
although they should just build shuttle C
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | New ideas for KSC visitors..... | November 6, 2005, 9:11 am |
| The ideas of Timers? | April 19, 2010, 5:18 pm |
| The ideas of time? | July 2, 2010, 4:13 pm |
| Complete Collection of Ideas | April 27, 2006, 2:44 pm |
| Good Vibrations, Good Morning.... | December 18, 2006, 9:34 am |
| STS-130: so far so good | February 7, 2010, 1:56 am |
| What good is the Shuttle? | July 5, 2006, 7:29 pm |
| Shannon is good | August 13, 2007, 2:53 pm |
| Good clean education | December 13, 2005, 1:33 pm |
| This is a good foam test | July 3, 2006, 7:00 am |
|
XML Sitemap
> shuttle to fly manned or unmanned. From past experience of costs, it will
> probably
> still cost more than it should,but why throw away working hardware?
> They can still launch people, and who knows, a sawn off Orion might be
> possible in the cargo bay!