Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Replacement For Space Shuttle?  
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3149 times:


If the present shuttle system were to be grounded, what kind of replacement do you think should be built, if any?

IMO manned spaceflight is extremely expensive and provides very little in the way of returns, but a permanent human presence on the Moon and Mars would (again IMO) be beneficial in the long run.

The shuttle can only reach low Earth orbit and carry a payload there. The payload can be launched to that orbit, or indeed any orbit at a fraction of the cost using an expendable launcher. Therefore the "new shuttle" could take the form of a smaller craft designed to carry humans and only a much smaller cargo. This could be launched on a conventional, expendable launcher - Delta, Ariane or Proton. This would be a bit like the X-38 or Hermes.



31 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 1, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3117 times:

Manned spaceflight is ultimately essential to the survival of the species (as that survival will depend on the colonisation of space).
Therefore a shuttle replacement (which is already at least a decade overdue in technology) is essential.

There is a project that was shelved because the previous US government and NASA administration wanted the money for missions that gave more nice photos and video for the newspapers (the unmanned Mars project).
This is Venturestar, a mature vehicle that can not only replace the shuttle quickly (construction of the prototype was about 80-90% complete at time of cancellation) but do so at a relatively low cost which will be quickly earned back due to the far lower operating cost and far higher turnaround time (meaning NASA can with Venturestar launch more commercial cargo cheaper thus generate more income).

Conventional launchers are not the way forward, they are extremely expensive to operate as well as being a far larger drain on natural resources and leaving a lot of debris up in orbit that is already becoming a danger to satelites and other spacecraft.

A cheap to operate and reliable SSTO vehicle is essential for supplying space stations which can serve as jump-off points for manned (and unmanned) expeditions to other planets, asteroids and ultimately the stars.

A small shuttle like Hermes could have a place in this scenario for those missions for which the large capacity of Venturestar is wasted. These could be repair missions or crew replacement and evacuation. But they're not suited for carrying the large quantities of cargo that an operational space economy would need (going both ways, I envision factories in space for processing ores mined in space and ultimately fabricating manufactured goods for use on earth, alleviating the scarcity of land and natural resources that the earth is facing as well as earthbound polution).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3099 times:


I was under the impression that the Venturestar/X-33 was cancelled because it was overweight and over budget?

With regard to cargo capacity, I agree that it is needed especially if we're going to launch large machinery to the Moon/Mars. However, the cargo doesn't have to be on the same launcher as humans. Some cargo could for example be launched on a Maglev cannon, which entails higher accelerations than humans can survive.

SSTOs have been studied for a long time, but the materials and propulsion requirements are very tough.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 3019 times:

Venturestar construction never commenced. X-33 was to be a subscale, suborbital proof-of-concept prototype that could fly from Montana to Edwards with a load of instruments. Lockheed had a lot of trouble with its composite, bi-lobar hydrogen tank cracking. They were about to give up on it and design one of aluminum when the project was cancelled. I don't know that any parts were built besides the tanks and engines.

NASA has been talking recently about a lifeboat space plane that could be carried to the ISS in a shuttle payload bay, or launched unmanned on an EELV, with manned launches a later possibility. I think the loss of Columbia will crystallize thought towards making it an independent crew shuttle for ISS.


User currently offlineBackfire From Germany, joined Oct 2006, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 2986 times:

I think the twin-reusable vehicle concept needed to be pursued from the beginning. The present Shuttle design is too wasteful - hardly any of it comes back - and I'm certain the technology is available to create a much more efficient high-altitude launch vehicle which wouldn't be subjected to the same stresses of the current vehicle.

This concept from Myasishchev is small but along the right lines. There have certainly been other versions from the USA based on larger, more powerful vehicles:



User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 5, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 2962 times:

X-33 was to be the prototype for Venturestar.
It was cancelled when construction was 80% complete, officially because of cost overruns (but which government program never had those, and with X-33 those were covered in the contract to be paid by the contractors (it was a more or less fixed-price deal)).

Effectively, the deal was that NASA would pay for the X-33 and the contractors would pay for the production vehicles which they would then operate for NASA.

The real reason was as always politics. Votes were needed in a different state where X-33/Venturestar wasn't buying any so the project was cancelled and the money shifted elsewhere.



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2890 times:


The guys at ESA said that the X-33 was seriously overwheight at the time it was cancelled.

With regard to the "if nothing comes back, it's expensive" argument, the Shuttle comes back and is hugely expensive to operate, and when the Ariane 5 was designed it was decided that it's cheaper to build new solid boosters than re-use them. The Ariane boosters are recovered by parachute after splashdown, but only for analytical purposes.



User currently offlineAlaskaMVP From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 150 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2861 times:

Hmm, I really can't agree with some of these opinons..

1) Space is essential for the survival of the species.
Even if I believed this, deep underground or undersea structures would probably be dramatically cheaper and would allow a much larger portion of humanity to survive whatever armageddon you are referring to...

2) NASA can build something more cost-effective.
NASA is not a commercial enterprise, cost-effectiveness is one area it never has been successful at and never will, it's "customer" is congress, and it's deeply layered with federal rules and overpaid, low productivity public "servants". NASA has been successful at some tremendous engineering projects, but only by spending like a drunken sailor. As JWenting points out, if the X33 was canceled for "political reasons" this is just another aspect of the same problem, if NASA doesn't over-spend so they can spread the cash across as many voting districts as possible, the project will get canceled.

3) Space probes to Mars are done to appease the public, not for scientific value.
Space probes are done because they cost a tiny fraction of a single shuttle launch, yet produce far more valuable scientific data. The public doesn't care either way.

4) Conventional launchers are expensive.
Conventional launchers have proven a substantially lower cost per pound than re-usable systems, i.e. the shuttle.

If re-usable vehicles made sense, Arianspace or Boeing would build them without government assistance. NASA should concentrate on un-manned deep exploration and as one of, if not the, largest customer of launch systems, can help provide impetus to increased investment by private technology companies simply by buying more private launch space.


User currently offlineAreopagus From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 1369 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 2828 times:

AlaskaMVP, I think the armageddon people are referring to is the boiling off of our oceans about a billion years from now. To survive that, we'll have to move to other star systems. The energetics of this are daunting, not to mention all the other technology.

The "political reason" X33 was canceled was that it wasn't working out.

If re-usable vehicles made sense, Arianspace or Boeing would build them without government assistance.

Neither Arianespace, nor Boeing, nor LockMart, nor OSC has built an expendable launcher without government assistance.


User currently offlineJhooper From United States of America, joined Dec 2001, 6204 posts, RR: 12
Reply 9, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2793 times:

IMO manned spaceflight is extremely expensive and provides very little in the way of returns,

What are you talking about? The amount of research done in space has an extraordinary return. Many valuable medicines have been developed in space. Certain materials, computer chips, etc., in common use today were developed specifically for the space program. Just visit your nearest space center and learn about the returns. Trust me, they are there. Otherwise, NASA wouldn't enjoy even the funding is does get.

There was once a "National Aerospace Plane" in the works. I would like to see this idea implemented.


[Edited 2003-02-04 04:41:52]


Last year 1,944 New Yorkers saw something and said something.
User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2763 times:

Regarding what Alaska MVP said about "the public not caring either way" i think the public better start to care. Spaceflight is essential to mankind in the future. Yes our sun WILL DIE in approx 3-4 billion years from now and that will mean the end of the human species unless we master spaceflight. Not only this but the Earth could perceivably be wiped out at any time- asteroid,comet or whatever but it can and probably will happen one day so it would be nice to have some kind of ticket off Earth if it does. Space probes provide excellent scientific information- Voyager 1/2, Viking 1/2, Pioneer 10/11 probably taught us more than we will ever learn with humans onboard. Personally i don't care much for people who "don't care either way" and who don't support the space program. I think such people are very narrow minded, uneducated and so caught up in their daily existence that they fail to see the bigger picture. Man must explore- and i'm sorry but deep underground structures or deep undersea structures don't even compare to spaceflight in terms of gains to be had!

User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 16
Reply 11, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2764 times:

I think they are going to keep the shuttle program going for a bit more, but I hjear they might use heavy Hydrogen for the fuel, I think the symbol is 1/2H or H sub 2 I'm not too sure, but they thought of doing it.


I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineCloudy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 2748 times:

----
IMO manned spaceflight is extremely expensive and provides very little in the way of returns,

What are you talking about? The amount of research done in space has an extraordinary return.
-----

But does it return more than the same money would have given if it were spent on other science projects? Or simply not spent by government at all, but left to the private economy?

We will never know. Yet I find it difficult to believe that the money the US government has spent on the Shuttle, ISS and the moon landings was well spent from a scientific point of view. Those who think that the MANNED space program is worth the money scientifically do not realize just how expensive it is compared to other major government-funded science. The superconducting supercolider would have been much less expensive than the ISS or the Shuttle and would have taught us just as many lessons, albeit in different areas. The human genome project has been largely completed for MUCH less than what was spent on any of NASA's major manned programs.

And about the ISS - whats worth more, 3 scientists in space or tens of thousand on the ground? And I am being generous. The ISS needs about 2 fulltime and one halftime crew just to keep the station itself going. As things now stand, only about 20 man/hours a week of research is being done on the station.

In fact, I have yet to see a scientist not connected to the manned space program say that what we have put into it is worth it. I would bet a considerable amount of money that we would have gotten more if we put the 50-100 billion we have spent on manned space into other science projects.

As to having a home away from earth, we won't make any significant progress towards this goal until we have a space elevator or lazer pumped launch system - something much more efficient than rockets. And unmanned missions can use this tech to - we can test it without ever having to go into space ourselves until it is economical to do so. Even then, people won't leave the planet in the numbers needed to establish an independent branch of civilization until there is an economic incentive to do so. And when such an incentive is found, no government subsidy will be necessary to get them up there. All government can do in this area is fund the launch tech and hope.

It is the intangibles of manned space flight that may make it worthwhile. How many people have been saved from the destructive evils of communism because of the PR value of the space program in the Cold War? How many children have been encouraged to put just a little more into their math and science homework? How many minorities and women have been encouraged to see so many of their number flying into space? More importantly, space travel gives people an opportunity to show their courage in a unique way. Most of the time people risk their lives for something it is to stop some great evil like the reign of Saddam Hussein or Hitler, or to save children from a fire, etc. The common thread is all of the heros of World War II, 911 and the fires out west risked their lives to stop something bad from happening. I don't want to diminish these sacrifices. Our fallen soldiers and firemen deserve the honors we give them.

However, the Columbia astronauts are different kinds of heros. They are indeed not to be any more or less exalted than all people who have given their lives in the service of others. Those others gave their lives so our worse nightmares WOULDN'T happen.....

....Yet in these astronauts, we see seven who gave themselves so that our fondest dreams COULD come happen. As the memorial on the Apollo 1 pad says, "They gave their lives so that others may reach for the stars.". They gave themselves not so that others may live, but so that others could reach out and take hold of what they strived so hard for.

Our society needs that inspiration. We have grown paranoid about taking risks. Also, To many of us, myself included, do not work nearly hard enough to achieve what we are truly capable of. The times when I have failed in life - when I have been dumped by a girl, or fired on the job, in times like those - I have remembered those brave souls who died in the Challenger. And the even braver souls who willingly stepped on board the next flight two years later. I remember just how many times the first rockets blew up in the 50's and how many tries it took to get the first probe to the moon. And how many missions still fail even given all that we have learned up to this. Despite all of this, our footsteps have touched the moon. And our probes have reached the farthest reaches of our solar system. We took the greatest gamble of all when we sent the Columbia up manned on its first flight - and we won. Within my lifetime, we may walk on Mars. Our grandchildren may see the first interstellar probe launched.

The space program teaches us as a nation and as individuals that it is worth giving our time, toil and treasure to reach our greatest potential. Even if it means taking calculated risks, even to our lives. It teaches us and our children how to handle failure - to mourn but not let it stop us from
continuing to step up to the plate. Again, and Again, and Again. To let our HOPES and DREAMS, rather than our fears and nightmares, dominate our lives and determine our actions. This lesson is priceless and it is well worth the sacrifice to have heros who can bring this lesson to the generation after ours.




User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 2727 times:

Well put cloudy! Excellent post!  Smile

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2708 times:


Which medicines have been developed in space? Also, the computer chips you're referring to are probably the radiation-hardened ones originally designed for nuclear war.

Certain technologies are spinoffs of space programs, or space programs have contributed to them. However, at the present time manned spaceflight is enormously expensive and for the same money we can do much more science either on Earth or robotically in space.

I'm all for eventual habitation of space (also other than the surface of the Earth), but we don't need to do it with the Space Shuttle or any present-generation system. We can do it when it's more affordable.

I know this is the "mother Theresa card", but think of all the good you could do in the Third World with the cost of a single Shuttle launch (USD 400-500 M). If you want to launch something, you can use an expendable launcher for 100M and spend the rest in the Third World. Or, use an expendable and launch people with Soyuz, and spend the remaining 350M in the Third World.



User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2682 times:

Proportionally speaking, the US spends far, far less in space research (manned and unmanned) than it did in the 1960s (NASA's peak year for spending, in real terms, was 1966). Is the world a better place as result? Have the "starving millions" dissappeared? Have wars ceased? The US could give up spaceflight tomorrow and it would have "zippo" effect on the well being of man.

User currently offlinePositive rate From Australia, joined Sep 2001, 2143 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2678 times:

Joni the 3rd world is not NASA's problem. Yes it is expensive to launch a shuttle but hey i'd rather spend US 400-500M per launch on this over nuclear/chemical weapons etc, at least it's for a good cause. I personally think NASA's budget should be increased near to where it was in the 1960's, maybe then manned missions to Mars will become a reality. Manned spaceflight has a long-term benefit to mankind, the results are not seen overnight but it is essential for our future wellbeing. As far as the unmanned probes go they are doing a good job and i believe every probe is $$$$ well spent. Next year Cassini will arrive at Saturn and the Huygens module will descend and land on the surface of Titan- the amount of information we will get from this one single mission will be enormous if all goes well.

User currently offlineKonstantinos From Greece, joined Jun 2001, 389 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2667 times:

Could the BURAN be used? It has been to space and back and since sat collecting dust due to no money. What do you think about the BURAN?

User currently offlineTrident From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2000, 484 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2666 times:

Buran is a wreck. Apparently the hangar roof fell in on it recently.

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 2658 times:


I don't think the Buran is spaceworthy anymore. The upside would be that AFAIK Buran could fly there and back on also without a crew.





User currently offlineAKelley728 From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2193 posts, RR: 5
Reply 20, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2634 times:

Konstantinos:

That's a big negative on the Buran. It's in no better shape than Columbia.  Sad
A couple of couple of years ago the roof of the Baikonur Cosmodrome collapsed, killing eight. Also destroyed in the collapse, due to heavy rain and tons of construction equipment stored on the roof, was the Buran 1.01 space shuttle, which was being stored at Baikonur. Buran 1.01 was the only Buran that flew into space.

Another Buran, the flying prototype (similar to the American Enterprise) is currently in Australia, rotting away, awaiting a buyer (it was sent to Australia and was put on display during the 2000 Summer Olympics).

More details of these and the rest of the Buran ships at http://www.ljonn.com/buran.html

Anyway, even if Buran 1.01 hadn't been destroyed, there were many differences between the Russian and American shuttles, the most significant of which was the absence of the main rocket engine on it. The Buran was boosted into space by the heavy rocket ENERGIA. By itself ENERGIA was able to place into orbit 120 tons of payload (more than enough for a shuttle like Buran). There were only a few Energia's built, and I don't think any exist today. There's no way the Buran could've been hooked up to the American Shuttle booster.


[Edited 2003-02-04 16:07:28]

[Edited 2003-02-04 16:08:28]

User currently offlineJwenting From Netherlands, joined Apr 2001, 10213 posts, RR: 18
Reply 21, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 2617 times:

1) Space is essential for the survival of the species.
Even if I believed this, deep underground or undersea structures would probably be dramatically cheaper and would allow a much larger portion of humanity to survive whatever armageddon you are referring to...


Short term gain only in underwater development.
Won't solve the longterm problems of depletion of natural resources and space, let alone the inevitable end of the sun our star.
And that's IF we don't blow the place to kingdom come in some war.
You're talking a few centuries, I'm talking millennia. If we abandon space now, I doubt we'll ever have the guts again to go back, remembering only the failures that prompted us to abandon space in the first place.


2) NASA can build something more cost-effective.
NASA is not a commercial enterprise, cost-effectiveness is one area it never has been successful at and never will, it's "customer" is congress, and it's deeply layered with federal rules and overpaid, low productivity public "servants". NASA has been successful at some tremendous engineering projects, but only by spending like a drunken sailor. As JWenting points out, if the X33 was canceled for "political reasons" this is just another aspect of the same problem, if NASA doesn't over-spend so they can spread the cash across as many voting districts as possible, the project will get canceled.


NASA is getting into commercial ventures.
They WANTED Venturestar BECAUSE it was commercially viable. The craft would have been operated as a joint-venture between NASA and industry, providing NASA with cheap access to space and the companies with a profit making solution from launching commercial payloads.


3) Space probes to Mars are done to appease the public, not for scientific value.
Space probes are done because they cost a tiny fraction of a single shuttle launch, yet produce far more valuable scientific data. The public doesn't care either way.


Unmanned missions have a place, and that place is to prepare the way for manned exploration and exploitation of space.
Sending an unmanned probe to Mars is useless unless you plan to do something with that data. The only thing that data can in the longer term be usefull for (apart from the shortterm gain of making the person ordering the probe look good on TV and sating the curiosity of a few scientists) is a manned expedition with the goal of future colonisation of the planet (or at the very least exploitation of the natural resources of the planet).
What's the point in having closeup photos of a planet if you don't plan to go there? What good is knowing the surface temperature of the moons of Jupiter if you don't plan to build a house there and need to calculate the central heating bill and how much isolation material you need to bring?

4) Conventional launchers are expensive.
Conventional launchers have proven a substantially lower cost per pound than re-usable systems, i.e. the shuttle.

They're extremely expensive. The shuttle is not the product you need to compare them with, as it is an economic failure.
The shuttle was envisioned to be operated on a quick turnaround basis, something that got lost during the design process leading to the 10000 man workforce and 3 months between launches we have today.
Its replacement should have a turnaround time of 2-3 weeks at most by a crew of under a hundred people, with a payload cost to orbit that's less than that of conventional rockets.
Conventional rockets are also depleting stores of metals and other materials, which is something we can't afford to keep on doing.

If re-usable vehicles made sense, Arianspace or Boeing would build them without government assistance. NASA should concentrate on un-manned deep exploration and as one of, if not the, largest customer of launch systems, can help provide impetus to increased investment by private technology companies simply by buying more private launch space.

Arianespace abandoned their Hermes vehicle when the shuttle was completed and the space station that was planned for the 1980s abandoned.
That was done because it was without a mission, being designed to ferry passengers to that station and nothing else.
It was also designed to be launched on top of an Ariane 5, making it extremely expensive to operate (not being an SSTO).
VentureStar is/was a joint-venture between aerospace industry and NASA.
In the current market corporations alone cannot create a large new spacecraft. Development is simply too expensive (and operation not allowed anyway, airspace above FL600 is restricted to military and government operations under international law).
The ONLY commercial ventures launching satelites today are SeaLaunch and Arianespace. All others are government agencies doing contract work as well.
Both SeaLaunch and Arianespace are deep into non-reusable rockets and deep in depth.
SeaLaunch can operate because it launches from international airspace which is not governed by international law (they found a loophole), Arianespace is owned in large part by the French government which makes them a government operation (and therefore they can launch from Kourou which is French soil).



I wish I were flying
User currently offlineAvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2472 posts, RR: 9
Reply 22, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2550 times:

It's possible that the new generation of U.S. EELVs-Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicles-Lockheed-Martin Atlas 5 & Boeing Delta 4 could be 'human-rated' so that a manned Apollo-type space capsule could be fitted to them. It's probably not likely, especially since a new type of U.S. space capsule would have to be developed (unless we bought Russian Soyuz capsules and adapted them to the boosters). I just think that such a measure could bridge a shortfall in U.S. manned launch capabilities caued by Columbia's loss before a new generation of RLV-Reusable Launch Vehicle is built.

User currently offlineFrequentFlyKid From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 1206 posts, RR: 1
Reply 23, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2497 times:

Every government project that has ever been remotely successful has been over-budget. Seriously, the words "government" and "budget" in the same sentence is a joke; it really is.

User currently offlineJoni From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 24, posted (11 years 7 months 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2477 times:


AvObserver,

There has been interest in ESA to co-develop the X-38 so it could be put on the Ariane-5 or other expendable to launch humans.



25 Bragi : I agree, a new re-usable spacecraft is long overdue. We have all the resources to build it, but this is a project that needs co-operation between many
26 Post contains images SAS-A321 : Why build a new, when we already have the CRJ-200
27 Jeffs47 : You want to talk about stupid descisions, why was the Shuttle-C cancelled. It was perfect. All it was was metal canister that was attached to the ET a
28 Alessandro : The unmanned Buran was seriously burnt when it re-entered. I think the Space Shuttle score will be 113-1 launches 111-1 missions completed for a long
29 AvObserver : Username: Joni "AvObserver, There has been interest in ESA to co-develop the X-38 so it could be put on the Ariane-5 or other expendable to launch hum
30 TransSwede : "You want to talk about stupid descisions, why was the Shuttle-C cancelled. It was perfect. All it was was metal canister that was attached to the ET
31 AlaskaMVP : JWenting, "If we abandon space now, I doubt we'll ever have the guts again to go back" That's silly, if that were true, it's already game over since w
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Notams For Space Shuttle..Or Any Other Ballistic posted Fri Sep 19 2003 11:03:51 by Bhill
Space Shuttle Just Leaving Edwards For Kennedy SC posted Fri Aug 19 2005 17:33:44 by GEnx
Alternate Civilian Airports For The Space Shuttle posted Sat Nov 24 2001 22:21:39 by Cedarjet
787 As A DC-10 Replacement For Worlds Airways posted Fri Jun 23 2006 20:59:40 by 747400sp
Replacement For LAX! posted Thu Jan 19 2006 11:44:33 by AeroTycoon
Humbert: Airbus Sees No A320 Replacement For Years posted Thu Jan 12 2006 19:56:33 by Leelaw
787 Seen As Ideal Replacement For MAS A330s posted Sun Nov 13 2005 01:00:29 by Squirrel83
AA Replacement For The MD80's And A300-600. posted Sat Oct 8 2005 10:08:14 by CV990
Finnair Replacement For MD-11 posted Tue Aug 9 2005 17:44:14 by Dogfighter2111
Space Shuttle Landings Affecting Comm. Flights? posted Mon Aug 8 2005 23:41:52 by RJ777