At 20:54 2-11-00 , you wrote:
>I'm not saying that using Progress supply ships don't make sense, or that
>I am against using them. I just think that using them just once, and
>then destroying them isn't the wisest thing. Personally, I would
>investigate putting a better computer system, more durability (such as
>heat/thermal shields and a stronger structure), and perhaps a few
>modifications on the propulsion system in an attempt at making it
>reusable. Just like the Space Shuttle Orbiter isn't just used once, why
>not investigate at making the cargo ships be able to be used more than
>once? Certainly with some modifications you could enable a Progress
>supply ship to be able to land with remote control, and that the costs
>needed to get it ready for another flight would be less than the cost of
>building a whole new one? Or maybe Russia doesn't want to look long
>term?
First, designing and building a new, reusable vehicle would cost a small
fortune, and
second, a reusable vehicle would probably carry less supplies because it
also has to
feature heatshields and such. Finally Russia would like to see it getting
launched with
Soyuz launch vehicles. This is probably why they have chosen for Progress:
a modification
of the Soyuz manned vehicles getting launched with the same launcher with less
redesigning to do.
Regards,
Cees Bassa
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from SeeSat-L by sending a message with 'unsubscribe'
in the SUBJECT to SeeSat-L-request@lists.satellite.eu.org
http://www2.satellite.eu.org/seesat/seesatindex.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 02 2000 - 13:24:16 PST