No more US manned launchers?

Hubble, probes to the planets etc

Moderators: joe, Brian, Guy Fennimore

Post Reply
brian livesey
Posts: 5361
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

No more US manned launchers?

Post by brian livesey »

Now that the shuttles are being decommissioned, NASA has, apparently, no launchers for manned flights and will use Russian rocketry as a stop- gap.
Why doesn't NASA use Atlas and Delta rockets for manned flights? These rockets are capable of lifting heavy loads into orbit. :?
brian

Davej
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
Contact:

Re: No more US manned launchers?

Post by Davej »

brian livesey wrote:Now that the shuttles are being decommissioned, NASA has, apparently, no launchers for manned flights and will use Russian rocketry as a stop- gap.
Why doesn't NASA use Atlas and Delta rockets for manned flights? These rockets are capable of lifting heavy loads into orbit. :?
Hi Brian,

NASA have been considering the two rockets you mentioned.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/227921/t ... _next.html

All the best
Dave
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam

brian livesey
Posts: 5361
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Post by brian livesey »

Thanks Dave. The article describes throwaway rockets as being "more efficient" than shuttles.
How can they say this when most of the shuttle components are recoverable, while the throwaways are left to litter the seabed? NASA might only be thinking of cost-per-launch here, but, to my mind the real inefficiency is in throwing most of the launch vehicle away, as with conventional rockets.
True, the Shuttle is an inherently dangerous stack, but did it need to be manned? Russia's crewless "Buran" was tested in orbit by remote control. Sophisticated robots could probably be designed to substitute for crew members on spaceplanes. Of course, it would require a different approach to operating and work procedures once in orbit.
brian

Cliff
Posts: 6560
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 8:18 pm
Location: Manchester
Contact:

Post by Cliff »

Dear Brian and Davej
I have some mixed feelings about humans venturing into space.
I cann't comment about the merits of re-usable space craft or disposables.
However, just to mention that according to " New Scientist" (16 July) thaere is now an influential group of US politicians moving to cut NAS's budget even more and if the US does go down that route the James Webb Space Telescope is likely to be killed off.
Apparently the JWST is already billions of dollars over budget and years behind schedule.
The good news perhaps is that for those deep cuts to be implimented requires the approval of the entire house and Senate as well as President Barack and is already getting a chilly reception from some members of Congress.
If as is suggested the JWST is way over budget and behind schedule then it does seem there may be some justification \ reason for some people wanting the project to be abandonned.
Best wishes from Cliff
Best wishes from Cliff

Mogget
Posts: 505
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2005 5:43 pm
Location: Ulverston, Cumbria
Contact:

Post by Mogget »

If they hadn't spent hundreds of billions of dollars on a space station that was built for the sole purpose of giving the Space Shuttle something to do, they would have had masses of money available for all sorts of interesting telescopes and missions.

Davej
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
Contact:

Post by Davej »

Hi Mogget,
Each to their own opinion but I don't believe for a minute that the ISS was built for the sole purpose of giving the Space Shuttle something to do.
All the best
Dave
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam

brian livesey
Posts: 5361
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 11:05 am
Location: Lancashire
Contact:

Post by brian livesey »

It's difficult to imagine America not having an independent manned presence in space, if only for military reasons.
brian

David Frydman
Posts: 5341
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by David Frydman »

They are probably flying around in in foo fighter space planes at this very moment.
Regards, David

Davej
Posts: 3288
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 6:12 pm
Location: Sheffield (53° 21' N 1° 12' W)
Contact:

Post by Davej »

Hi,
Let's not forget it's not all about America, after all it is an International Space Station.

http://www.esa.int/esaHS/ESAH7O0VMOC_iss_0.html

All the best
Dave
Meade LX 200 (7"). Odyssey 8" Dob.
11X80 10x50 15x70 bins
Celestron Neximage ccd cam

Tim Chamberlain
Posts: 231
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2011 1:35 pm
Location: London, UK.
Contact:

Post by Tim Chamberlain »

Dave - Interesting to read the legal stuff, esp. the bit about national jurisdiction - made me wonder what would happen if two of the partner nations (although unlikely) went to war?

But, back to the OP ... seems to me that the Soyuz is the ultimate winner of the space race, for now at least.
8x30 (Baigish BPC5, Soviet era) Binocular
8x25 Bak4 Prism (Sun Optical) Binocular
7-21x25 (Helios) Monocular

David Frydman
Posts: 5341
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:25 am
Contact:

Post by David Frydman »

Tim,
Interesting though a bit silly film just finished on channel 31 freeview.
'Astronaut Farmer' 2006 in which Billy Bob Thornton builds an orbital rocket and capsule.
Fun launches, don't try this at home.
Regards, David

Post Reply