inignoct wrote:
] House Science Committee wants to put the space plane on hold.
]
] IF we're going to keep up manned spaceflight, the shuttle
] needs to be retired. I'm not sure what I think about
] arguments that we give up on manned spaceflight -- if we don't
] keep at it, how will it ever get faster/cheaper/safer?

Personally, I think that the House Committee is losing sight of the reason the OSP is being fast-tracked - crew and supply transfer to ISS without being dependent upon the Shuttle (aging and complex) or the Soyuz/Progress combo (Political-financial issues with Russia).

The OSP will still be required to perform these tasks, even if/when the program receives a new, overriding goal... It makes absolutely no sense to abandon Alpha (baby and bathwater, anyone?) when it is capable of playing a major infrastructure role in next-gen manned space exploration.

Let's remember Dr. Von Braun's ORIGINAL initiative - the moon was only the first stop, a goal set due to Cold War one-upmanship that was a satisfactory technological proving ground. After the moon, Von Braun wanted space stations to provide LEO staging areas to more permanent moon bases. These would be two further technological development programs leading to missions to Mars and beyond.

We finally have a station - only to find that we have a weak link in our infrastructure due to the dependance upon the Shuttle to actually maintain it. The Shuttle has years in it yet as a manned heavy-lift vehicle; the problem actually lies in the "eggs many, basket=1" situation we've found ourselves in.

This is one of the reasons I DON'T like the Shuttle-type proposals for OSP... If we're talking about having a vehicle that needs to ferry 3-7 people to LEO and then stay on station for 6-8 months, why get cute with a lifting-body, add wings design? Don't think of OSP as a Shuttle replacement - think of it as a Soyuz replacement.

However, we do need Shuttle2, in the not-too-distant future. Certainly, our heavy-lift requirements ARE bound to change, should the country be presented with a new oppotunity and new direction - but this is exactly the reason why you purpose-build in a mission-oriented environment.

logickal wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] House Science Committee wants to put the space plane on
] hold.
] ]
] ] IF we're going to keep up manned spaceflight, the shuttle
] ] needs to be retired. I'm not sure what I think about
] ] arguments that we give up on manned spaceflight -- if we
] don't
] ] keep at it, how will it ever get faster/cheaper/safer?
]
] Personally, I think that the House Committee is losing sight
] of the reason the OSP is being fast-tracked - crew and supply
] transfer to ISS without being dependent upon the Shuttle
] (aging and complex) or the Soyuz/Progress combo
] (Political-financial issues with Russia).
]
] The OSP will still be required to perform these tasks, even
] if/when the program receives a new, overriding goal... It
] makes absolutely no sense to abandon Alpha (baby and
] bathwater, anyone?) when it is capable of playing a major
] infrastructure role in next-gen manned space exploration.
]
] Let's remember Dr. Von Braun's ORIGINAL initiative - the moon
] was only the first stop, a goal set due to Cold War
] one-upmanship that was a satisfactory technological proving
] ground. After the moon, Von Braun wanted space stations to
] provide LEO staging areas to more permanent moon bases. These
] would be two further technological development programs
] leading to missions to Mars and beyond.
]
] We finally have a station - only to find that we have a weak
] link in our infrastructure due to the dependance upon the
] Shuttle to actually maintain it. The Shuttle has years in it
] yet as a manned heavy-lift vehicle; the problem actually lies
] in the "eggs many, basket=1" situation we've found ourselves
] in.
]
] This is one of the reasons I DON'T like the Shuttle-type
] proposals for OSP... If we're talking about having a vehicle
] that needs to ferry 3-7 people to LEO and then stay on station
] for 6-8 months, why get cute with a lifting-body, add wings
] design? Don't think of OSP as a Shuttle replacement - think
] of it as a Soyuz replacement.
]
] However, we do need Shuttle2, in the not-too-distant future.
] Certainly, our heavy-lift requirements ARE bound to change,
] should the country be presented with a new oppotunity and new
] direction - but this is exactly the reason why you
] purpose-build in a mission-oriented environment.

Why the need to replace the Soyuz/Progress combo? Have there ever interruptions in Soyuz capsule production/launches?

Jello wrote:
t.
]
] Why the need to replace the Soyuz/Progress combo? Have there
] ever interruptions in Soyuz capsule production/launches?

The need to replace Soyuz is not schedule related, but instead derives from the following factors:

Crew Size - Soyuz can only support a crew of 3, limiting the number of crewmembers ISS can support. The thing was designed for a crew of 7-9, once crew assured rescue capability was added in the form of the Crew Return Vehicle (a concept that is being rolled into OSP)

Cargo Capacity - The Progress has 6.6 cubic meters of cargo space, limited to 3200kg of payload at the absolute top limit. Compare to the MPLM "moving van" that the Shuttle brings up on ISS logistic support flights, carries about 9 metric tons of cargo to the station. This, btw, is the one of the main reasons the ISS is limited to a crew of 2 until Return to Flight - the Progress cannot carry enough water to ISS to support 3 people.

Politics - You betcha. It outrages a great many people (and probably rightly so) that the US has paid Energia quite well for the Russian components of ISS, the Progress vehicles used to supply it, and the Soyuz vehicles used to man and provide assured return functions, and the price keeps getting steeper. Without going into too much detail, calling the Russians our "partners" definately requires quotation marks.