Subject: Other shuttles (was Re: Getting people into Space Program!)
Newsgroups: sci.space
In article <1l9o9iINNpum@phantom.gatech.edu>, matthew@phantom.gatech.edu
(Matthew DeLuca) writes:
>Hermes is still on, although there's political infighting going on over it.
Just believe me: Hermes is as dead as it can be - at least the shuttle version.
Some officials and engineers in Europe are now considering a reusable capsule.
However: the unrealistic attept to build a shuttle has probably (I'm afraid...)
killed the whole European manned space programme...
>HOPE is indeed a shuttle program, although unmanned. There's also at least
>some consideration being given to a manned shuttle, although it's not a
>priority at all.
All right: a winged shuttle could be a good way to launch and land payload
as unmanned vehicle. It is, however, too dangerous for launching astronauts,
compared to a capsule. A capsule can be its own rescue system if equipped
with a rescue tower. If you try to equip a shuttle with an escape cabin,
you're loosing a huge amount (sometimes all) of your payload capacity (see
Hermes).
>The point I am getting at, I would say, is that with the sole exception of
>the Russians, nobody is considering using disposable capsules for their manned>access to space, and the Russians themselves are or were trying to get away
>from it. Seems like everyone's trying to forward, except for certain elements
>here in the U.S.
Why must a capsule be disposable? It's much easier to build a reusable capsule
than a shuttle. And on the other hand: The capsule is more efficient and much
more safer. Is the shuttle really a step forward?
| Herbert Utz at Lehrstuhl fuer Raumfahrttechnik (Chair of Astronautics) |
