Using The Shuttles External Fuel Tank In Our Return to The Moon and Our

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
> > From: Alex Michael Bonnici [mailto:albonnici@v...]
>
> > I agree with you Ed. I asked this question at the National Space
> > Society's International Space Development Conference (ISDC)
> > back in 1996 in New York City and the impression I got was NASA
> > was more interested in empire building rather than making space
> > exploration and settlementsa real possibility for common people.
>
> The problem is there are two parts to NASA. A good, useful part,
and it's reverse twin: The Evil NASA. Good NASA does things like land
probes on mars, tries to save the tax-payer money and comes up with
much better ways of doing things. Evil NASA runs the manned space
programme, and fears that without projects like the shuttle and ISS
as excuses for it's existence it will wither and die leaving Good
NASA in charge of everything.
>
> Now Good NASA suggested to Clinton way back when that the ISS could
be launched IN ONE GO by a single shuttle C; that is to say a shuttle
where the wings, tail, cockpit and cargo-bay have been replaced by a
single cargo-pod. Evil NASA though told the president that while this
could be done, that the international partners would be upset, since
this 'super ISS' would be so big that the space provided by
internationally built modules would be surplus to requirements. As a
president who actually cared (moderately) about international
politics the president was concerned and swallowed this nonsense. A
fact which might make a lot of feminists feel somehow better.

Yes, but how much would Shuttle C have been, pray tell?

> The specific problems with ET options is getting the equipment into
the tank once it's up there, and getting external hard-points to
survive the Mach 3+ flight up into space. There are also concerns as
to how much strength the tank would retain after the thermal GBH it
suffers on it's way up, and the fact that if it failed there'd be no
secondary module for the crew to escape to. It's also made out of
wielded sections. The ISS modules are milled out of solid chunks of
metal and for *good* *reason*.

Someone, somewhere, (I foget where now, maybe was on the forum) said
that because the External Tank/Solid Fuel Bosters, the Colombia (foam
hit underside) and Challenger (O-rings) space shuttles would not have
been lost. The orbiter has in fact, a perfect record, so it said. It
just the Space Transportation System as a whole that at falt.

> In recent times it's suggested that an inflatable space-station
would be able to do everything an ET option could do at a far lower
price, and would 'bounce' when hit by debris, rather than getting
holed or snapping like the aluminium tank would.

You mean a ballon station? That alot of hot air.:)