_______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Ever since the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded on takeoff I realized
NASA technology is neither safe nor cost effective, but a multi billion
dollar business. I believe that the Russian approach to orbital
launches is cheaper and far less dangerous. It appears the Chinese
will also be relying on rocket launches rather than expensive and
inefficient orbital vehicles.
Here is my idea that I have proposed to friends who have far more
knowledge and expertise than a layman such as myself.
Use tried and true disposable solid fuel boosters to launch satellites,
robotic missions, scientific experiments, etc. And when necessary,
human astronauts to work on the space station, make repairs on the
Hubble, etc. Rather than using an antiquated shuttle system it would
by more practical to develop nuclear powered smaller vehicles that
could be launched like the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo Capsules, but
with better propulsion and maneuvering technology. It could remain
docked to the space station, providing additional living space, and
available for interorbital missions, such as repairing the Hubble and
eventually returning to the moon. It is impractical to launch heavy
shuttles out of the gravity well and then return them to earth,
subjecting them to re-entry damage and endangering the lives of our
hero astronauts. Continue to use them in orbit and return the
astronauts the old fashioned way. The logistics should not be
difficult.
- space shuttle obsolete Jon Mann
- RE: space shuttle obsolete Nick Lidster
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Dan Minette
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Gautam Mukunda
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Doug Pensinger
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Gautam Mukunda
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Robert Seeberger
- Re: space shuttle obsolete kerri miller
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Dan Minette
- Re: space shuttle obsolete Dave Land
