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?

RE: Not So Fast, Lawmakers Say of Plans for a Space Plane