Re: starship-design: Scrap The Shuttle Program

[KellySt@aol.com]

The guy had some good points up until he got to nonsence like below.

The shuttles expensive because it was never made to be affordable and 
easy/cheap to maintain, and it flys too seldom to cover its support costs.  
Curing eiather doesn't require new technology -- much exotics this laglev 
lauchers and such.  Hell they are likely to raise costs further.

Problem is no one want to invest the money for better cheaper launchers, 
without some serious market on the other end.  And one thing NASA adamently 
proved with the X-33 program, was that they did NOT want a new cheap launcher 
that wouldn't require a fraction of the support staff they now have.  It 
would gut NASA staf size and budget, and hence political support.  It would 
also likely allow comercial companies to do launches with their own launchers 
- without needing a big expensive Kennedy space center, and NASA, to do it.

Kelly



In a message dated 11/9/02 3:55:52 PM, lparker@cacaphony.net writes:

>
>
>Imagine what could happen if the $4 billion a year and 30,000 shuttle
>
>experts were diverted to R&D? Imagine the panic at NASA after cancellation
>
>of the shuttle program shatters their comfortable academic climate and
>
>everyone realizes that a superior method must be developed fast, lest
>
>Congress deems them inept and cuts funding.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Innovative ideas like maglev launch, nuclear engines, and the space elevator
>
>require major funding. Some top level physicists now agree that anti-gravity
>
>devices like the 512kV rotator can reduce the effects of gravity by spinning
>
>electrons, but they can't secure funding for research.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Plans for pneumatic assisted launch have been around for years, but never
>
>funded. A large rail launch demonstrator requires a billion dollars, or
>
>funds for just two shuttle missions. NASA may soon cancel the promising
>
>VARISM plasma engine research project citing a lack of funds.
>
>
>


======
>You can't just make a bigger spacecraft because that requires bigger wings,
>
>landing gear and engines. So the only way a reusable rocket powered
>
>spacecraft can work is with a ground assist launch to Mach 1-2 up a
>
>mountainside. This is possible today, as the Sky Ramp Technology website
>
>explains. However, funding for Sky Ramps and new technologies will remain
>
>tight so long as the shuttle program consumes the attention and funding
>at
>
>NASA.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Lee