Keith Cowing writes about the inflexibility and fragility of the Shuttle (a subject near and dear to my own heart).

NASA's current launch dilemma began to develop much along the lines of the 70's movie - based on the 60s novel "Marooned" where a hurricane threatened the launching of a rescue mission to an orbiting space station. When things got tough - the Russians helped out - at the last minute. Things are not as dire this time around, but the confluence of various facts would make for a good book someday.

Weather has always been an issue for launched from Florida - and it always will be. Russians will be as obstinate as they can get away with so long as they are in the equation for American human spaceflight aboard the ISS.

Given that NASA seeks to used "shuttle derived" architecture and hardware - and launch it from KSC - it has more or less guaranteed that such uncertainties will remain part of human spaceflight for decades to come.

I disagree with him though, that the lessons to be learned are from the Russians, who have developed only a slightly less expensive, and slightly more robust system.

Until we develop a truly robust and low-cost space transportation infrastructure (with full redundancy in vehicles and vehicle types), spaceflight will remain expensive, and rare.

KC: "Given that NASA seeks to continue to use "shuttle derived" architecture and hardware - for several more decades - and continue to launch it from KSC - it has more or less guaranteed that such uncertainties will remain part of America's human spaceflight for decades to come."

What characteristics of the shuttle make it more susceptible to delays by lighting strikes, hurricanes etc. more so than some other launch vehicle? Of those characteristics, which ones will exist in Ares I and Ares V, wholly different configurations of STS hardware? And is Keith suggesting that KSC be dismantled and a spaceport built somewhere else in the US just to avoid hurricane season? If so where? And would Keith post a RIF Watch when KSC was closed?

KC: "Contrast this with how Russia launches its human crews: they pick a date, stack their rocket, ship it - and then shoot."

Doesn’t the above statement contradict Keith’s earlier statements in the article concerning the orbital mechanics reasons for the Russian need to launch the next Soyuz mission within a certain time period? Soyuz is a very reliable system but it has had its delayed launches and other issues. And I’m afraid there is little we can do to alter the fact that Baikonur doesn’t suffer from hurricanes, but then KSC rarely sees a snowstorm.

The shuttle is constrained by certain weather conditions, as is Soyuz although maybe not to the same degree. Orbital mechanics also dictate launch windows for Shuttle and Soyuz alike; whereas Keith has argued the opposite it could be argued just as easily that Soyuz launch constraints are dictating Shuttle launch times. That knife cuts both ways.

Ares vehicles may be shuttle derived, but they will not be the same vehicle as the shuttle and will not suffer from all the same problems. They will in fact, as most all launch vehicles, very likely have some unique problems of their own. But I don't know of any launch vehicle that doesn't have one "issue" or other.

I thought the main weather-related problems for shuttle launches were 1) TPS damage in rain and 2) RTLS in unfavorable conditions. Since the new launchers will not have exposed TPS at launch, and the Orion capsule will return by parachute in the event of an abort, I don't see how either constraint applies.

I suppose unfavorable winds could complicate launch abort issues. Hey, I saw From the Earth to the Moon.

I never suggested that KSC be "dismantled", Cecil. Calm down.

Don't worry yourself about me Keith, I am perfectly calm.

So if you aren't advocating the moving of launch operations away from the Cape (and I never said you did, I simply ASKED the question) just what was the point of all that worrying over something we can't control, IE the weather at the Cape? Like I stated, Baikonur has bad weather at times too.

And what about the other points I made, and Patrick as well, any comments?

You are just going to argue in circles Cecil, regardless of what I post. I just found some of your earlier emails to me. Gee, you were really my pal until I disagreed with you on something, then you went sour - as is evidenced in your constant dumps on me ever since. Oh well. Banter on without me - and have fun at work at MarkIV auto parts store tomorrow.

If you don't want to answer the question that’s fine Keith, others and I will draw our own conclusions as to why you refuse to do so. Personally I believe you just can’t handle anyone questioning anything you say, as evidenced by your snarky reply to me here and other examples of the same to others in various forums across the net. I can’t recall your every engaging in a civil discourse with anyone who disagrees with you on anything.

As for my being a pal etc. yes I was once an admirer of your work. I very much enjoyed Sietzen and your book "New Moon Rising". I thought you were pretty even handed in your reporting on NASA so long as O’Keefe was admin. Many people did then and will now disagree with me on that. But when Griffin came to office and some of your pet "science" programs had to be slowed down some so that decades of neglect in other areas could be fixed, well you went fangs out IMHO. It was you who went sour on Griffin just as soon as he disagreed with you.

And was there any good reason you had for bringing up where you "think" I work? What does that have to do with the issue? But just to clarify I don’t work at the Mark IV "parts store". I work for Mark IV Automotive (www.markivauto.com); a worldwide fluid handling systems supplier to Ford, GM, DaimlerChrysler and other automakers. But I did work in a parts store in my youth, and I have friends who still do so. I do hope your not denigrating honest work.

Until we develop a truly robust and low-cost space transportation infrastructure (with full redundancy in vehicles and vehicle types), spaceflight will remain expensive, and rare.

Alas, if it works it'll be scuppered. We *had* a truly robust, relatively (per kg) launch system in Orion. Then Kennedy decided to go with Saturn:-(.

"relatively *inexpensive*". Gotta pay more attention to what I'm writing.

rexplj pnryczaih hxcp cqdn ercmtvzf tijdmvry xwckbefu

rexplj pnryczaih hxcp cqdn ercmtvzf tijdmvry xwckbefu

lkzqpdx ozfv creqsljvm hemk tvmbow auxvom mbesnr

lkzqpdx ozfv creqsljvm hemk tvmbow auxvom mbesnr