Zach: Just read all the spec's on the falcon v rocket. It looks like if we could design a small capsule weighing no more than 3 tons (7400lbs)or roughly 3400kg. We could use it for the ISS crew transportation needs.

More shuttle return to flight replies:

From: Harold LaValley
To: rtfsuggestions@nasa.gov
Sent: Monday, April 26, 2004 11:15 AM
Subject: return to flight

Right now Nasa is looking at repair techniques, or replacement, wrap over panels and other such as necessary
repair options for the fleet if the unthinkable should happen again. Main reason for why no Hubble repair mission
and for no other journeys accept to the ISS.

Here is the idea for the shuttle leading edge RCC panels probably not thought of for the shuttle.

How about a leading edge shock absorbing bumper or metal foil cripple zone.
Instead of repair it is prevention of damage from possible foam impact.
Also you would not care if it burns up in the atmosphere since it's job of protection is complete after reaching orbit.

sincerely yours

Harold LaValley

From: Return To Flight
To: Harold LaValley
Sent: Friday, May 07, 2004 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: return to flight

Thank you for your return to flight suggestion!

The addition of a protective layer (both ablative and removable shield) is a good idea and was considered, but there is the difficulty of providing a secure means of attachment (as this would be a potential debris source itself for other vulnerable areas on the vehicle, i.e., body flap, main engines, etc....). In addition to the aforementioned difficulties, there are strict aerodynamic requirements levied on the wing leading edge that would be difficult to control with an ablator as well as managing the aero and thermal loads on ascent that the vehicle would experience if we added this shield. So you're right, if we could overcome the aforementioned concerns (amongst others for a removable shield, such as added crew activity on orbit - which is already at a premium, potential of damaging the vehicle upon removal and stowage, the need to install re-entry protection in the attach point holes, etc.), a protective layer that burned away during re-entry or was discarded on-orbit would be acceptable.

NASA's approach for return to flight is to eliminate debris that has the potential to damage the vehicle, as opposed to adding protection to at-risk areas. One of the benefits of this approach is that the addition of debris generating sources is minimized (as mentioned, the wing leading edge is just one area of concern). Barring success, or damage from on-orbit micrometeoroid debris, we are working to establish repair capability for the wing leading edge and the tile. We're evaluating methods for the wing leading edge including plugging the damage and over-wrapping the damage. In addition, if on-orbit inspections reveal damage that we cannot repair, the international space station will be utilized to accommodate the astronauts until such time that their safe return can be implemented.

NASA appreciates your continued support of the human space flight program as we work diligently to return to flight safely.

Harold, these are exciting time we live in no doubt. I also don't think it coincidence that the Falcon V meets ISS requirements. Its good to see they are answering your return-to-flight suggestions.

Sorry I haven't been posting much as of late, I have been very busy. But I pop in almost daily to see the latest. It's also great to see so many new faces here, wow! I promise I'll be posting my two cents worth this coming week. take care Harold, and keep shooting for the stars!