> 2.  The reason the orbiter was on the side of the shuttle/tank combo was
> that they wanted the SSME's to be recoverable, so they had to be on the
> orbiter, so the orbiter had to be on the 'side' of the stack to make the
> 3 engines useable.  With the 'next generation' it looks like they are
> tossing 5 SSME's with each cargo launch.  Other ELV's are using
> cheap(er) engines.  Of course IIRC, the last thing I read on this
> subject was that it wasn't turning out to be cost effective to reuse the
> SSME's anyway.  Is the 'next generation' cargo ship really going to do
> anything that can't be done with current and under development ELV's,
> cheaper?

I have no answer for that.  It seems to me that you might be right-
why not use a current ELV (say, Delta IV Heavy) to put the big load
into orbit, and just use the new system with the CEV?

I guess I don't know what the "new system" capacity is- 5 SSMEs
and 2 SRBs would almost certainly outlift anything on the market.

> 3.  Losing the shuttle concept takes away one capability that was nice
> to have - the ability to return a cargo to earth.  Made re-usable
> experiment pallets possible, etc.  Other than the crew, the 'next
> generation' return from space is limited.

Less necessary now, with the ISS.  Any experimental labs can be
static on the ISS.  Remember, the primary reasons for the CEV are
travel to and from the ISS and the moon (and maybe Mars).  With the
shuttle, many missions were turning out to be 7 people with a big
empty cargo bay.  Or at least, a cargo bay that could have been
much more full.

Mike H.

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist