Latest Columbia News 624
Russia is suspending its space tourist program, for fairly obvious reasons. An NYT story notes that the obsolete but reliable computers driving the shuttle are to be examined as part of the inquiry. But most interestingly, a story in Aviation Week claims that a tracking camera trained on the shuttle detected damage to the wing prior to the breakup.
Obvious? (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm glad the airlines don't stop all planes when one crashes.
Seriously, though, I'm almost positive that anyone that signs up to be a space tourist signs some document stating that there is a chance of death, and the russians can't be held liable.
I don't think that its "obvious" they should stop it. Everyone is aware of the dangers of space travel. This isn't the first time an accident has happened in the space program (especially russia's).
I've been expecting this (Score:5, Interesting)
I mean, we cut back a ton of spending for some of the most dangerous quests known to man, and then we're shocked when their systems are failing on a thirty-year-old shuttle.
What I would like to see is a new branch of the military take over the space program. Call it Space Force if you want to be cheesy, but at any rate, whenever the military gets involved in programs they get an incredible amount of financing. And for those of you who are concerned that if it becomes military we'll never see it again, think DARPA Net. The military is a great way to get things started, and then let blatant commercialism take a choke hold...
Challenger cause NOT unknown, and admin's fault (Score:5, Interesting)
Interestingly (or suspiciously?), the ethics site's page is down, but the cache is here:Roger Boisjoly on the Challenger Disaster [216.239.57.100]
Shuttle software coders (Score:5, Interesting)
Someone found this really cool article [fastcompany.com] about the group that writes the shuttle software. I've always admired CMM level 5, having spent my entire career at level 1. ;) I wonder if they need more coders.
The foam (Score:1, Interesting)
Then in space obviously the foam cooled, and expanded there in between the tiles. It could have expanded enough to dislodge some of the tiles entirely. Then when the shuttle re-entered, the foam goo in those cracks again heated up, and burned away at the insides of the tiles, burning away everything holding the tiles on to the craft. A lot of tiles fell off, the heat reached the inside of the wing, and the rest we know.
We probably won't see the AF images (Score:4, Interesting)
sPh
Re:"fairly obvious reasons" ???? (Score:2, Interesting)
Software problems (Score:3, Interesting)
Most likely, software changes could have bought them at most a few more irrelevant seconds, but they certainly should be looking at it in case someday those few seconds aren't so irrelvant.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be the point of inspecting the spacecraft in orbit? There is no way they can fix it in orbit, they don't have the food or water to stay up, and NASA can't send a rescue craft. If it was a ISS mission, they might stay up longer, and maybe the russians can bail them out. Columbia certainly wasn't in a position to do that.
So, they inspect, and find out they are fuxored. What do they do? Say goodbye to their families Armegeddon style, and eat some cyanide?
The real way to fix this is to make more infrastrucure for space travel. Have more stations, more ships, more flights. Then, if you have a problem in low orbit, you might have a chance to survive.
[All of this logic STOLEN from Rand Simberg. [interglobal.org]. Please don't sue me!]
Obselete Computers (Score:4, Interesting)
There are also good technical reasons why NASA uses "obselete" computers on alot of their spacebound equipment. [kuro5hin.org]
Columbia news of my own (Score:5, Interesting)
It turns out that it fell through the roof of a condo complex and totally destroyed the unit owned by a friend of my wife. She believes that if she were in the place at the time, she would have been killed.
They have hired a lawyer and are exploring their options -- most insurance policies don't cover falling objects from space.
Yeah, I know "friend of my wife" is rather FOAFish, and I will try to get more details (and perhaps pictures) if possible.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Rescue? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it's only speculation that Atlantis could have made it in time; the physical preparations for launch are very time-consuming, even without all the normal safety checks. The Russians could have sent the Progress resupply ship to Columbia, but it's not clear whether the Columbia astronaughts could have opened it and retreived the supplies.
Soyuz safety record (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as a point of comparison: The 1675th Soyuz launch took place recently. There have been only two fatal Soyuz accidents, both over 30 years ago. I don't think the Russians have to apologize in any way for their safety record.
This guy is an idiot... (Score:4, Interesting)
But at least one expert -- Richard Doherty, a consulting engineer who did research for a member of the commission that investigated the Challenger explosion -- questioned whether the computers onboard the Columbia had all the information they needed. After tiles were damaged on takeoff, Mr. Doherty said, NASA could have sent up a few changes in the software guidance program to adjust for increased drag on the left side of the craft.
The computer did compensate for drag on the left side -- but at some point physics catches up with you -- and it simply burns up. The shuttle basically flys the stall all the way down, it's not like they can "pitch for power - throttle for altitude". This person is an idiot.Re:"fairly obvious reasons" ???? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:3, Interesting)
I found this [computerworld.com] while jobhunting; it's a rather interesting article on the data collection/transmission path for the shuttle system with some discussion on what steps may be taken to clean up/recover the 'unreliable' 32 seconds of data post-LOS (which sounds like an oxymoron, but LOS in this case [and as described bt Dittemore in various tech briefings] is Loss Of RELIABLE Signal).
parachutes (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems to me that the building of winged reentry vehicles is more driven by a desire for Buck Rogers-style space adventures, not good, cost-effective engineering.
Were they really doomed? (Score:1, Interesting)
Wasn't there?
I mean, are we so unprepared to handle emergencies in Space? Was it impossible to send one of the other shutles to a rendez-vous with Columbia? I thought there are 3 others...
What about Russian capsules? One was launched the they after the accident. Couldn't it be modified to bring in help to Columbia...
And if that is really true, why isn't there an escape pod in the shuttle? I know, lack of space, but still...
Finally, the idea that using spy satelittes was not good because we tried once and could not detect missing tiles. If this article is correct, there was a crack on the wing and it was detected on groud generated film...
May we learn from our mistakes so that it does not happen again, and if it does, at least let us be sure that we DID try everything at our reach to avoid it.
Cheers...
Re:Obselete Computers (Score:1, Interesting)
Good quote... (Score:-1, Interesting)
Yes, but consider this... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Expect fianl report in 6 months (Score:2, Interesting)
How do you get it down? Use all that technology we developed for MIRV nuclear warheads, each individual warhead has a heat shield for re-entry, guidance and payload. We pack dozens of these things on a single ICBM, so you can imagine how little each weighs
Add in an explosive bolt system to launch the black box away from the aircraft in the case of total sensor failure ( read: catastrophic structural or power failure ), and a simple parachute to make the landing survivable.
It makes you wonder how NASA ever survived before the put in the second telemetry tracking satellite in 1988, prior to that the shuttle must have had communication black-outs like capsule re-entry. Ejection seats? Phased out. Additional flight sensors? Phased out. I have a funny feeling the black box got a similar treatment along the way.
Re:They can't do it (Score:3, Interesting)
The feeling was they'd be just as dead if they brought them down immediately, so they might as well go to the Moon first.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Space station does have a Soyuz capsule for emergency escape; this could have been used to get three people back to Earth.
It's also possible that the Russians could send up another craft pretty quicky; disposable craft take less preparation to get into orbit.
Re:parachutes (Score:2, Interesting)
Wrong Question (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA never had any problems with conventional space capsules during re-entry, and never lost a crew. The Russians have continued to use a well tested, relatively simple spacecraft, which has served them very reliably. Comparing a Soyuz to a Shuttle is like comparing a calculator to a computer, you can do many of the same things on either one, but they are fundamentally different, and designed for different purposes.
The decision to use fragile thermal tiles for the Shuttle is one that has faced much criticism over the years. It is a decision that is at the core of what happened to the Shuttle on re-entry, whatever the reason that some of those tiles were damaged or lost. The vulnerability to tile damage was known, but NASA thought they had managed the potential issues in a way that assured the safety of the Shuttle. It appears they were wrong, and the problems were not controllable in the long term.
The amazing thing to me is the number of missions they flew before these thermal tiles became an issue. I think the thermal tiles are a fatally flawed system, both because of their susceptability to damage in flight, and because they require huge amounts of expensive upkeep between missions. The fact that NASA flew over 100 missions before this kind of problem occurred is a tribute to their dedication. The fact that this system was selected shows that NASA is not perfect.
Re:This has to be tough for familes to hear... (Score:5, Interesting)
The moment that I heard the shuttle was lost, I immediately thought of a German by the name of Otto Lilienthal. This man, in the middle 1800s, is known as one of the first aviators. He designed gliders that he used to drop off slopes and glide for many minutes at a time. While in flight, he manuevered himself to actually control the gliders' direction
During the time when people thought flight impossible, his conceptions and his inventions were used by the Wright Brothers and Chanute.
From an article I found: "Lilienthal is not only one of the Father of aviation, he invented piloting, the controlling of aircraft. In any case, he was the first man to have maneuvered in flight, an "heavier than air" machine."
The point of this post (and small history lesson) was his last words. During a glide that he had performed a hundred times, something went wrong, and he plummeted to the earth. The wounds were lethal, but on his deathbed, he uttered the words: "Opfer müssen gebracht werden!", which roughly translates to 'Sacrifices must be made.'
++Om
P.S. To read a little about this man, go to: http://aerostories.free.fr/precurseurs/lilien/pag
Re: No Rescue? (Score:2, Interesting)
> As it happens, Atlantis was on the pad already, but it still would've taken nearly a week to launch with minimal crew (pilot and engineer). Columbia had enough food and water to last half a week... although with rationing they may have been able to extend that sufficiently.
If in fact it was the falling insulation, and if they had figured that out within a couple of days of the launch, they would have had a full two weeks even without rationing.
> Even so, what do you do then? There's no way to "dock" two shuttles and Columbia didn't have jetpack suits onboard, and I don't believe everyone was rated for EVA. You can make a "jump" from one ship to another, but that's trickier than it sounds...
Send up the rescue ship with jetpacks, an EVA experienced crew, and lots of personnel tethers.
I suspect the Congress will demand an in-space rescue capability. Base requirement is enough food and air on-board to last until another ship could be prepped and lanuched, and another ship on (say) two-week standby anytime anyone is up.
Expensive, yes. But of course the first time there actually is a rescue, everyone will love the space program again for a decade or two.
It's the tree hugger's fault! ;-) (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:We probably won't see the AF images (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No Rescue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Back before the proposed space station became the crippled bastardized joke that is the ISS, it was proposed to build a class of "orbital transfer vehicles" which would have lived entirely in space and would be used to ferry things from low orbits to higher ones. Had we had a real space station program, where the station is the hub of an entire orbital infrastructure, then plucking off the astronauts from a doomed Columbia would have been possible.
Then again, if we had a real functioning orbital infrastructure, the Columbia might not have been doomed... it might have been reparable (albeit expensively) in orbit. Indeed, with a real orbital infrastructure, we wouldn't still be flying these 1970s-era jalopies.
Car nervous systems (Score:4, Interesting)
Perhaps I am thinking to simply, but if they did not have enough information about the state of the shuttle, isn't it time for more sensors , hense more information. Autombiles now have sensor systems as extensive as the shuttles. How about a rfid transmiter (or induction proven heat resistant equivelent) attached the back of every tile? If 30 thousand dollar cars have nervous systems equivelent to the shuttle (minus a couple of gyroscopes) isn't time for more sensors?
What is the most expensive part on a car the motor? The computer? The transmition? The body? Antilock brakes? Nope it's the wiring harness. Perhaps the shuttle is due for a sensor upgrade. No spacewalk needed.
Re:No Rescue? (Score:5, Interesting)
Um, any reason that Atlantis could bring along the jet-pack spacesuits and then have someone ferry them to Columbia? Sure, they weren't EVA-rated, but they'd have had a hell of an incentive to learn fast. And I've got to believe that a tethered spacewalk -- out, across, in -- is simple enough to be picked up by people already selected for high intelligence.
A rescue would have been thinkable
Re:I concur. (Score:1, Interesting)
Space debris implications (Score:1, Interesting)
And what will it mean for our resolve to keep flying manned missions? Will public support suddenly turn against it, because people will perceive that space is just too dangerous, even when NASA makes zero errors?
Re:Did you take Physics in high school (Score:3, Interesting)
Blockquoth the poster:
Um, travelling that speed relative to the Earth. I am pretty sure that Atlantis, being of essentially the same type as Columbia, could have executed a similar orbital plan. In other words, it would easily have the capability to match orbits. At that point, the relative speeds are zero, making your next point
less relevant that you might want. I think a tether system between the two orbiters would have been (comparatively) simple to set up and operate. It would be risky and daring, but better than leaving seven people to die in space.
Re:In Orbit Inspections? (Score:2, Interesting)
1) Not enough fuel to transition to the ISS's higher orbit.
2) Even if they did, no docking equipment.
3) No MMU's (jet packs).
4) Just to get under the shuttle would take 8-9 hours by most estimates. That's including the time it would take to string a tether all the way around the orbiter. And I think 9 hours is the limit of the space suits.
5) No way to repair the tiles anyway. About the only possible option would be if there was another shuttle ready, or almost ready, to go. Tho, this still limits your options.
The rescue orbiter would be taking up whatever is already onboard. You couldn't take the time to de-mate it, unload the mission gear, load up the docking gear, and then mate the orbiter again in time.
And really, if the whole thing is not at least on the crawler on it's way to the pad, you'd be hard pressed to launch and get there in time.
The astronauts knew there was damage to the wing (Score:2, Interesting)
Even NASA spins its stories. Is management of public perception the largest business in the US today?
Re:Expect final report in 6 months (Score:4, Interesting)
Pictures suppressed? (Score:3, Interesting)
pictures are not shown to us. In the hours after the accident, we saw all kinds of fuzzy images, such as the still of the insulation hitting the wing, and all sorts of video of the re-entry. So why all of a sudden don't we get to see the film? What's with the guy in California who apparently gave his camera, negatives, prints (I guess it was film?) to some spooks? Why are we supposed to accept a story claiming what "high resolution tracking cameras" captured, when we aren't allowed to see these images for ourselves?
Re:No Rescue? (Score:2, Interesting)
And it's not doubling the expense of every shuttle launch. It's the care and maintenance of a rescue vehicle that may or may not be used. Unfortunately the shuttle as it is currently designed doesn't allow for a "prep and forget" setup, like a Coast Guard rescue chopper.
And yes, catch them in the cargo bay. Without the Canadarm, and without being able to dock shuttle to shuttle without having the mating adapters preinstalled on both, it'd be the only sure way to move one astronaut from shuttle to shuttle. What would you have them do, crawl across a safety guyline like in 2010? Hell, we do this between two ships at sea on many occasions, and in that case, you have wave action moving the ships, the wires and the people around. In space, you don't have that (you have extra bulk of space suit, true) but not a dynamically changing environment that can jar you loose at any point.
If you don't think I know what the shuttle is and is not capable of, you haven't read any of my past 50 posts acknowledging that the shuttle is a failure. Complete and utter. Hell, we've never had two shuttles flying at the same time. Who's to say we could even do that, even if we could prep a shuttle in time??! And therein lies why the shuttle program must come to an end. We've never gone beyond prototype stage with these fabulous machines.
Re:They can't do it (Score:5, Interesting)
Why doesn't NASA consider a protective coating for the ceramic tiles. I hold a MS in Ceramics Engineering and I've held and performed demonstrations with Spaceshuttle tiles. They have a similar consistency to very dense roof insulation (coated in something hard).
Why doesn't Nasa put some sort of protective coating (perhaps aluminum?) over all of the tiles. During reentry, the aluminum would certainly burn away, but the freshly exposed tiles would be undamaged.
For the next flight, NASA would replate the bottom after the tiles are inspected and the shuttle would be ready to go. I feel that this would also prevent a lot of micrometeors and what not that collide with the shuttle during orbit from damaging the tiles.
Re:Wings are better (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Were they really doomed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Station - not an option. ISS is in a completely different orbit than was being used by columbia which was an orbit generally used by shuttle to date.. its a relatively low orbit even for shuttle ops designed for max payload ability.
Russian launch - not an option even if it had been a soyuz, the reason Stations orbit is so funky as compared to shuttles normal orbit is so that Soyuz AND shuttle can make it to ISS. ISS orbit isnot ideal for either and to add isult to injury to reduce reboost requirements they have it as high as is feasible while still retaining a modicum of payload abilities from Soyuz and Shuttle. Even if they could send them you need a crew of two to operate the Soyuz and it seats three. One saved is better than all lost but thats assuming you could get the one from columbia to the rescue vehicle without an ARM, docking ability, or EVA jetpack. My gut says it could be done but the odds in Vegas would be pretty long. However its moot since soyuz can't make the orbit anyway.
Shuttle Launch - Most possible rescue scenario. However Atlantis was not ready to launch and still had its remaining pre-launch saftey checks that would by and by have to be tossed out the window. Next, Atlantis is the shuttle with the most launches at 30. It was the most ready to launch by far as the others are well behind Atlantis in the pre-launch prep process. Was Columbias failure due to age/stress ? If so why would you then launch Atlantis which would be at even greater risk of failure ? Was the failure due to any shuttle design flaw that Atlantis would also be subject too ? How long to determine that ? Atlantis was equiped and loaded to go to ISS, you would likely want a differant payload ability and that takes time and removes what safety checks had already been completed on payload stowage. The airlock talk is bogus, the Mideck design includes an airlock which was in general a passthrough for the science lab however it could be used for EVA with loss of the Lab if memory serves. However were their EVA suits for all seven ? EVA suits are specially fitted and don't have much tolerance for error, they are also heavy and create a significant paylaod issue if not needed, just rushing 7 EVA suits to orbit might not work.
Could it have been laid on and done ?? again my gut says yes. An awful lot of the saftey process surrounding shuttle launch is double/triple quadrupal checking on top of being double damn sure already nothing is wrong. As a one time op with a minimal level of checks laid on with a crew understanding what was at stake, the crew probably comes out shinning. In that situation you simply havn't reduced the odds of a mistake being made and caught to usual levels and given its a one time risk you probably get away with it so you are left with a one time high level alert process risk of a mistake having been made.... not a good choice for consistent ops, however for an emergency op it could have been deemed a worthwhile risk IMHO. HOWEVER there is a catch. There are some checks on a launch that are not 5 extra layers of redundancy that can be shed in an emergency. Example: As we have become acustomed when a problem happens on an orbiter it grounds all the orbiters until the flaw is identified and fixed. Unless we could conclusively have stated that there was a problem and that is was not a congenital problem in the design with an as before unkown risk. This is not a redundant check. Skipping it is not optional and launching without clearing Atlantis from that standpoint would have been moraly equivalent to trying to save someone who fell through thin ice on a lake by tossing someone else in after them. Doing all of these things requires time. Columbia didn't have time, it had very limited ability to extend its stay. The foam evaluation was not complete till flight day 12 of 16. If that evaluation had sent NASA scurrying to launch a second shuttle for a rescue mission it would have had to have been done in 4-8 days mabye as many as 10 and who knows for whatever engineering ingenuity that came to the fore or difficult decisions ( loss of some crew to let others survive longer ? ) made. Thus the odds of being able to launch a rescue with any reasonable hope of success over simply adding to the tragedy rapidly approaches nil. Not all difficult situations surround actions taken... deciding not to take action can be just as difficult.
Thus when you boil it down once Columbia made orbit it had but one choice for survival, survive re-entry. Once you re-enter you get bail out options in addition to landing but odds are if you survive re-entry you will be able to land as the margin of error for re-entry survival is very thin. Meaning if you survive it you are most likely in reasonably good condition. There are no gentler flight profiles. No swapping of risk management, if there was a better way they would already be using it. Just like on launch the very ragged edge of the envelope is being tested. On launch its generating the needed power to reach escape velocity, on re-entry its the absorbtion of atmosphereic friction generated by orbital velocities.
To cap it all off the earliest it was known there was a problem was after they commited to re-entry. People can yap about the foam all they like but they miss the point about the foam having happend before. They had data points, they had a good idea of the damage levels foam was capable of however as they have repeatedly said, even if foam did insane amounts of damage and is the sole cause of the breakup there were no options other than to attempt re-entry and pray they made it through. If you still stick on a shuttle rescue launch think on it from the other side fo the tragedy. Before you KNOW columbia was going to meet its fate the best minds evaluated the risk and found it more or less not a risk. Worst case was limited localized structural damage and drawing from previous experience with foam problems they didn't even expect that. Now based on that information why would you lay on a risky launch just in case that estimate was wrong ? Perhaps an inspection of some kind would have altered the estimate. Perhaps but then you unwrap the question of one time problem versus congenital design/process problem.. all the while the clock is ticking. Even if its obviously a one time unique problem you now have to lay on a hasty launch risking a hell of alot of known possible risks with mistakes made. I'd say even had we known it was unique as quickly as possible it woudl have been a 50/50 call on trying to rush Atlantis up espcscially given even in that case the odds still saide they would survive. If an inspection prooved they were obviously a lame duck AND it was obviously a unique problem toss a coin on the rescue launch. I certainly know I wouldn't want to make the call.
Much as I hate to put it this way... Shit Happens and it happend last weekend despite the efforts of THOUSANDS of dedicated people whose job is to see that the SHIT that happend dosn't happen. Its a loosing battle because shit does indeed happen and there is nothing we can do about it but honor the ones lost and continue on and continue to do our best to see that shit dosn't happen again. Not to mention as it seems to become more and more likely the root problem was not the foam impact at launch the less and less likely there woudl have been any serious problem to be revealed on orbit thus making the whole notion of a rescue launch even thinkable short of having Mdame Cleo call to tell us what was going to happen.
Damn this got long.
Re:Pictures suppressed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Humane Lie? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, let us suppose that the conclusion of the post-launch analysis of the damage done by the foam chunk was that it was in fact fatal, with absolute certainty; what would you do when you were in a commanding position in Houston?
Would you tell the crew: "Sorry, your spacecraft is broken, we do not see any possibility for repair so you will certainly die during reentry?" I think that would have been absolutely horrible for the astronauts.
I don't know, but "given" the fact that nothing can be done about it anymore in such a situation, I think it would be a realistic option (after consulting silently any other appropriate authorities) to keep them and everybody else ignorant of the imminent disaster and let them have a good flight, let them enjoy it and let them die (almost) happily.
The most serious objection I would see against the latter decision would be of religious nature: for many religions it is very important to prepare for death, say prayers and so on (sorry for my clumsy phrasing, I am not religious myself). In order to respect this, the crew should have gotten a warning somewhat longer before the expected catastrophe.
Well, just a thought.
NEW INFO re: Electrical Effect on Shuttle!! (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:They can't do it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:They can't do it (Score:2, Interesting)
I like this idea, though it may have fatal flaws. I'll get to that in a moment.
I'd think some kind of foam latex would be even better than aluminum -- it'd provide good cushioning against things bumping into it, and be relatively easy to spray on just after the final tile inspection.
It actualy would *not* add any weight to the vehicle, for one simple reason: the main tank has a layer of insulation on it for exactly this same purpose! The initial shuttle design proposals included no such insulation, but concern was raised that ice chunks that fly off during launch could damage the tiles. So the insulation was added to prevent the ice from forming in the first place -- at the cost of a significant fraction of the cargo load possible.
So if you put a coating on the tiles, you'd be able to do without the insulation on the tank. Possibly even at a net reduction in launch weight!
That said, there are two major problems with a coating of any kind:
I'll be this idea has been studied, and rejected. But I dunno, it seems like something could be found that would be assured to burn off gradually without dislodging in big pieces. But then again, there could be a lot of other problems I can't even think of.Shuttle vs. Soyuz (Score:3, Interesting)
1.) The shuttle can't retrieve the vast majority of satellites either. Unless they're in LEO, not destabilized, are designed to be retrieved, and can be refolded to fit in the shuttle bay, NASA has to pass on the job.
A robot "space taxi" of the sort that was supposed to be a complement of the space station in the earlier designs (ion engines powered by micronuke or solar, multiple grasping arms, remote operation from ISS) would do the job better, cost far less, and provide dozens of other useful capabilities. Use the taxi to bring the troublesome unit to ISS, if possible, repair it there, if not, wrap it in a disposable shell and drop it to earth.
2.) Repairs? See above.
3.) Building things in orbit? Again, see above. In addition, small mobile robots would do the job better and faster, work all the time instead of just during the brief intervals that the shuttle is up, and bring the ISS closer to being self-supporting and self-repairing.
4.) Satellite launches? Rockets work just fine for less money. Cheaper per pound, can go direct to more orbits, and are far more flexible.
5.) A soyuz-type craft cannot carry as large a crew. But tell me, so what? Is there some reason that one can't just launch more small ships? Keep in mind, btw, that launch facilities are currently being built in Brazil and Tonga, while Guyana keeps being put in play. Add facilities at the European's sites and we could have launches every week or so, year round.
6.) No, the ISS is merely in orbit *all the time*! Personally, I am nervous at having all of our eggs in the ISS's one basket. But for far less then we're paying now, we could use a disposable launch system to put up two or three Skylab-scale stations in different orbits, connected by a "space tug". By boosting up a small SPS or a few outrigger microreactors, the fuel needs would be minimal and a few tugs could be available at all times, charged and ready to go. Also don't forget that with robot-based missions, time in space just doesn't matter that much. Combine that with the moon's much smaller gravity well, and getting a few tons of moon rock up to the ISS for use as shielding is nowhere near as big a deal as one would think. Just use super-efficient trajectories (who cares? a five month trip is perfectly acceptable to a robot) and the only seriously messy bit is getting down to the moon's surface and back up to space.
People with more time then me have worked out plenty of systems where the robot miner never goes back up again, but just shoots little bits of rock up with a mass driver, where they are intercepted and brought back to the station.
7.) It's true, a Soyuz is not reusable. So? Why does this matter? The shuttle uses an awful lot of disposable gear for a supposedly "reusable" launch system. Frankly, all that I care about is cost, safety, and how much usable mass is left in space when a mission is completed. The shuttle loses on all three.
8.) A Soyuz cannot boost something like spacelab and return it. Again, so? Skylab seems to have done just fine with 1970's technology. With the tens of billions we're spending on shuttle work we could come up with some mighty fine one-time-drop systems for large payloads. In fact, NASA started research years back and has had increasing success with what is basically a huge parafoil that can drop a payload to earth far more gently then the shuttle.
I've said it before and I'm saying it again. The shuttle is a white elephant. It's past time to move on.
Rustin