Community
On Orbit => Real NASA Space Shuttle Missions => Topic started by: Twabi2 on January 08, 2009, 08:56:38 PM
-
At issue is the Ares series of rockets, currently being built to carry crew and supplies to the International Space Station, the moon and possibly Mars. These rockets have been plagued by questions over their design and cost, and are unlikely to be ready until 2015, leaving a gap in astronaut-launch capability if the space shuttle retires in 2010 as expected. The Ares programme looks likely to be reviewed by the new US administration.
A possible alternative to Ares that was mooted last year and now appears to be facing fresh scrutiny would be to use Atlas V or Delta IV rockets to carry astronauts. These are mainly used by the US military to loft heavy satellites but could both be modified to become "human rated".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126902.400-obama-team-to-raise-questions-over-ares-rocket.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
They make a good point. Why invent the wheel twice?
Or even better: just take some superglue, a space shuttle and an Atlas V, put together in a bowl, stir... Tadaa! You're now ready to go to the moon ;)
-
I think they should build a SECOND GENERATION space shuttle, that launches to the moon and orbits it, and deploys a moon lander from the cargo bay with astronauts in it.
And then when the moon lander is done with the mission, it rockets back into lunar orbit, and docks with an IUS system and then return to earth.
It is better than being in a tiny capsule and landing in the ocean.
-
I think one problem with that is space debris to the tiles. I like the idea thoe.
-
I think one problem with that is space debris to the tiles. I like the idea thoe.
Then they should install two layers of TPS tiles, or make stronger tiles.
-
And another reason for a second generation shuttle is to launch communication and other purposed satelittes to orbit the moon.
We need this I fwere planning on building a space station on the lunar surface! :)
-
I think they should build a SECOND GENERATION space shuttle, that launches to the moon and orbits it, and deploys a moon lander from the cargo bay with astronauts in it.
And then when the moon lander is done with the mission, it rockets back into lunar orbit, and docks with an IUS system and then return to earth.
It is better than being in a tiny capsule and landing in the ocean.
Not only would that take a substantial amount of fuel to get it to orbit, it would use a lot while ON orbit. It wouldn't be as "low-budget*" as Ares and Orion are.
* - Low-budget does not mean cheap as in material-wise. Low-budget implies that NASA is trying to cut launch costs from roughly $500 MILLION per launch to as low as they can go, while safely launching and returning.
-
Steven raises a good point. A second gen shuttle would have to be cost effective to survive beyond initial planning.
I dont think we're going to see the last of the shuttles in 2010, but I dont think they'll survive much past it either. Depends how the new administration decides to proceed.
-
* - Low-budget does not mean cheap as in material-wise. Low-budget implies that NASA is trying to cut launch costs from roughly $500 MILLION per launch to as low as they can go, while safely launching and returning.
Wasn't that exactly what NASA was trying to do with the Shuttle? :P
-
Not trying to throw cold water on anyone here but with the economy in this country in the state that it's in, Its hard to say what the future holds for NASA. With Trillion Dollar stimulus packages and possible double digit unemployment, Its very hard to see how NASA can count on anything past 2010. I'm hoping we can save our car industry, Much less funding new projects for space exploration. The money gonna have to come from somewhere and NASA's budget is sure to get raped if it means money for jobs or to stim the economy. NASA better get use to a reduced budget overall.. Gonna be hard to justify going to space if our economy collapses.
Sorry ADMIN, I now this isn't a political dealie, So I leave it at that.
-
Sorry ADMIN, I now this isn't a political dealie, So I leave it at that.
Indeed, let's just keep this a technical discussion, so please, no further discussions about the economical situation.
-
I'm sorry, but I aggree with USA. This is not just political, but is an issue they'll have to address. Our economy is not a political matter, it's financial. But that's my opinion. Is there a section we could discuss the political side, cuz I didn't see one? Alot of what they do, I don't support, and much of it I just don't understand it. Think it's important to discuss. but anyways
To be on point, I think the shuttle has been used much longer than they anticipated. I never did understand how NASA can be the smartest bunch in the world, yet they they can't get a thermal protection system to work (ie tiles fall off during re-entry every time). We lost Columbia due to that, but it was an ongoing issue just considered to be acceptable because we never had a loss. But we managed to get the heat shield right in the other programs like Apolo.
My questions are..
1. Do we really need to replace it, for thier reasons.. ie the moon ops. Does that justify spending the billions of dollars?
2. Are there other reasons for replacement? It is outdated, and I'd say it could use a bit of redesign, but we built a pretty good ship.
3. I understand we use the shuttle because of the large payload bay. But why not redesign something like the Apollo program?
4. Is there an option to use the shuttle for thier objectives? Maybe modify the main engines. launch an ET with fuel into orbit and rendevous. something of that nature?
-
sorry could not edit last post again. but I looked up the CEV. So disregard that comment. I was thinking of another shuttle type ship. We've tested a few designs, so I made an assumption.
-
Steven raises a good point. A second gen shuttle would have to be cost effective to survive beyond initial planning.
I dont think we're going to see the last of the shuttles in 2010, but I dont think they'll survive much past it either. Depends how the new administration decides to proceed.
How did NASA launch the SATURN rockets with the Apollo capsules to the moon without a lot of fuel? ???
A second generation shuttle could perform Earth orbit operations, or orbit another celestial body..........like the moon! ;D
-
it's not that easy,
first the SSMEs would need be re-designed to allow a restart. (which they cannot do right now).
second, the TPS shouldn't be exposed - NASA would never allow that again.
third, you need to carry the fuel for the TLI and for the trip back up with you. and even if you can some how manage to bring up all that "dead weight" the shuttle would be only capable of achieving lunar orbit. don't forget that the Altiers program is a planned first step, "proof of concept" if you wish, for a journey to Mars. putting all this money into upgrading the shuttle fleet (or building a new one) would be somewhat un-wise.
on the other hand, further development of the "Shuttle-C" concept, and modifying it for an un-manned flight (including landing) will allow a reusable cargo platform for the ISS. capable of carrying larger and heavier cargo then the shuttle is capable (because you don't need to cary all the double-redundant and Life-support systems required for human flight).
-
Ehm, just to be clear... my remark of using the current shuttle was nothing more than a joke (hence the superglue being involved ;) ). I'm well aware of all the technical (and financial) difficulties that would be involved. I would even say it would cost more and take more time to redesign the shuttle than to make up a complete new system.
Which doesn't mean that they shouldn't reuse whatever they can, without having to modify it a lot.
-
There is yet another option. The Jupiter Direct system: It uses existing Shuttle parts like the main external fuel tank. This idea was pitched to the Obama team by some NASA guys going over thier bosses heads. I have no idea what sort of backlash this will have at NASA.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4298615.html
(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/jupiter-direct-lg-0209.jpg)
-
Rather funny picture. I don't know a thing about rockets when compared to the accumulated knowledge of NASA, but still I can spot some "strange" arguments in there...
For example:
Nasa says the extra engine doubles the chance that something will fail.
Then why the hell does the shuttle have 3 engines, 5 GPC's, 7 astronauts, 3 APU's, 2 launch pads, ... It only raises the chance of failure! :o OH NOES!!
;)
-Toine
-
well it's different, because the SSMEs are started on the ground and tested before lift-off.. the Engines on the second stage MUST work, without starting them up prior to lift-off.
so it's easier to make one system run then two..
but they did have 5 engines on Saturn V's second stage - which didn't really help them if one would fail (Apollo 6)
-
That doesn't change a thing. Let's suppose that 1 out of every 25 second-stage engines fails (completely made up number btw, just a random number).
That means there's a 4% chance that the second stage engine won't start, which means big problems (no abort possible).
If you have 2 engines, that means an 8% chance that one engine fails, but you still have the possibility of abort. The chance that both fail is 0,16% tough. I know which one I'd prefer if I were an astronaut!
-
JLM I meant if the shuttle were to work the same way it does here. Launch, orbit, land. To land on the moon is simple enough, getting off the moon again is where the problem arises, you've gotta break about 3km/s to break free of the moons gravity. Where's the fuel/stack coming from then?
-
Are you menaing, where is all that fuel going to be stored? ???
-
Well yes its the fuel I'm looking at, the SSMEs chew through alot of fuel per second. I dont see how there'd be a way to store it in the current generation of shuttle, or a possible future shuttle.
-
this shuttle doesn't really need to land on the moon. the lander can be stored in the PLB. and fuel isn't the problem - you can modify the ET so that it will work almost like the B-58 Hustler centerline tank - two halfs and you can jettison the bottom half once it is empty.
-
There was some discussion about this on the wikipedia boards. The problem is not just the extra fuel that would be needed, but getting it off the ground. Unless the shuttle only carried a extremely light-weight LEO/LTO payload, the extra fuel and the larger SLWT would exceed the shuttle's weight limit. Either the SSMEs would have to be upgraded or the weight of the launch systems would have to be reduced.
Another problem with using the current Shuttle is, obviously, its age. The GPCs use one Megabyte (Mb) of RAM each. The onboard N2 and He tanks are years past their designed lifetime, and could fail at any time.
While I love the Shuttle, I support her retirement, but only when a concrete plan is formed for the future. I also believe that there is a middle ground with the Ares/Orion program. I like the simplicity of the Jupiter approach, but on the oter hand, NASA is no new-guy in this field. But one thing is for sure, NASA needs to get their act together or we may be relying on 3rd party contractors or even Russia to fufill our ISS resupply needs.
-
Thats why we need a new generation of Shuttle. It seems to me that NASA is moving backward in time with the creation of the Ares vehicles.
-
I've stayed away from this for many reasons ;) Yes the shuttle should be retired, Yes they need a resusable and controlable craft, X-38?
The Orion/Ares/Jupiter/Constellation Program does seem a step backwards to me. The only items that would be a step forward would be heat shield, launch vehicle and computers, everything else is tried and tested, and expensive.
IMHO, I thought that a X-38 type of vehicle was going to be the best way forward. The Crew section could be completely re-usable, the orbital engines are discarded, the computers/guidence was going to be designed around 'off-the-shelf' technology. All the Serviceable parts are the Thermal system, Thruster, Control Surfaces, Computers and Life Support. The shuttle had Engines and the sheer size of it made service a financial nightmare. X-38 would of been a lot cheaper
I spoke to a NASA engineer post Columbia and he said and other couldn't understand why the x-38 could of been modified for the Delta launch vehicle with a lower engine rating or something like the Constellation launch vehicle (this has been around for years as a replacement for Delta/Titan). An X-38 could land almost anywhere on land, and is 'steerable' in case of problems. A capsule is not this, it has a very limited landing area as the craft needs an area that is big enough to cope with any problem re-entering. Speak to RKA about how many Soyuz have missed the 'ideal' landing zone. I still don't know if Orion is designed for landing on soil or sea, or both. I've seen one test on soil, which the craft was a write off. The parachute system failed.
(http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/gallery/images/exploration/constellationtests/med/jsc2008e064698.jpg)
Apparently, and in theory, the X-38 could land without the parafoil (this was simulated), but the speed was deemed to high and the craft could of rolled and crashed.
P.S. I've heard that even 2017 is too optimistic for the first manned Ares Mission to LEO.
-
Yeah, judging from that picture, I don't want to ride in that hunk of junk! :D
Anyway, I think they should make a reusable fuel tank, just try somehow to make it land in the atlantic ocean, and make it able to reenter the atmosphere without damage. :)
If not always reusable, at least make it reusable a couple of times. 8) As it costs currently for the Super Light Weight Tank (SLWT) $5 million for just one :o
-
Here's an idea, and I know NASA has probably thought of it before, but why not have the SSME's redisigned for restarts as has been proposed before and have a shuttle permanently stationed (ie not to return to earth) at the ISS if we were going to use this as a go-between to the moon? It seems awfully silly to waste such a great machine.
Also with regards to the discarded ETs - why not use those as a permanent fuel supply storage facilities for the shuttle at a distance from the the ISS? Then we could just send up fuel supplies via Progress type supply rockets when needed. Or even better still rather than have a fuel depot on orbit we could just send fuel supplies up to the ISS, have the shuttle use the RMS to grapple the fuel pod (it wouldn't need to be that big so you'd still have loads of room for lunar excursion modules etc), put it in the cargo bay and then shuttle off to the moon. Makes perfect sense to me. Easy peasy. When back at the ISS, jettison the fuel pod to burn up in the atmosphere ready for the next one. Then when returning astronauts need to come back to earth - CRV it!
Just a thought
-
Thats a great idea, but it would involve many costly repairs to the shuttle. Also, I'm sure NASA is not crazy about the idea of using four vehicles (ISS, Ares, STS, Lunar lander) and moving large loads of fuel around those vehicles.
-
inclination differance is too large to make an efficient TLI from ISS.
ISS inc is 57.1 and the moon inc is around 6.
in addition the payload loads losses due to the need to launch to 51deg inclination orbit make it totally ineffective compared to an 28 deg inc orbit (due east launch from KSC)
-
this shuttle doesn't really need to land on the moon. the lander can be stored in the PLB. and fuel isn't the problem - you can modify the ET so that it will work almost like the B-58 Hustler centerline tank - two halfs and you can jettison the bottom half once it is empty.
Or you could just have two big external tanks. side-by-side? ;)
-
this shuttle doesn't really need to land on the moon. the lander can be stored in the PLB. and fuel isn't the problem - you can modify the ET so that it will work almost like the B-58 Hustler centerline tank - two halfs and you can jettison the bottom half once it is empty.
Or you could just have two big external tanks. side-by-side? ;)
Way too much weight.
-
Okay, then somehow make the Shuttle vehicle lighter in weight?
Maybe mostly carbon fiber, and maybe some titanium alloy.
And a few areas made of steel and aluminum.
-
Okay, then somehow make the Shuttle vehicle lighter in weight?
Maybe mostly carbon fiber, and maybe some titanium alloy.
And a few areas made of steel and aluminum.
She would also have to come into reentry as she does now. Carbon Fiber would never stand up to that kind of heating.
-
Carbon fibre, under that heat and vibration, it would de-laminate very quickly
-
Guys don't forget that we should (In Theory) think logical and what a lot of peaple forget is that it must be within a cost range. ;)
-
Indeed, if you're going to rebuild the entire space shuttle out of a different material, you might as well design a completely new system...
-
I have a few ideas with heat insulation upon reentry for the second generation space shuttle. Why not have the ablative insulation material like on the Apollo spacecraft put over on top of the thermal protection tiles which would make it safer, and prevent a lot of damage from the external tank foam falling off and striking the Shuttle?
And second, somehow create a weak magnetic field around the shuttle that is strong enough to deflect the plasma. Here is what I mean:
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics)))In physics and chemistry, plasma is a partially ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free rather than being bound to an atom or molecule. The ability of the positive and negative charges to move somewhat independently makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields.
-
The Shuttle is aerodynamically pretty sensitive. An ablative material might work for re-entry but it has to fly once back in the atmosphere. Not sure if that wold work with the rough surface that would result. Also it probably would add to much weight.
I am not a physicist, but the magnetic feild would probably require alot of power even a weak one. Sounds like alot of weight with todays or even near future technology.
-
I see what yiu are saying about the magnetic field, but the tech. does not yeat exisit. They are going to use small magnetic fields in nuclear fusion reactors to keep the plasma away form the interior of the reactor. However, AFAIK this type of tech is still 10+ years away.
Also, if you wanted to protect the TPS more, the way to go would be to shape the ET to fit against the underside of the shuttle. It would still be covered in foam, but it would not ba able to fall off and strike the TPS since it would fit against the underside of the shuttle.
Here's a good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-ELmXUq70&feature=related at 2:00
-
Nice Video. I wonder why NASA didn't think of that before(fitting the external tank around the underside of the shuttle.)
-
At issue is the Ares series of rockets, currently being built to carry crew and supplies to the International Space Station, the moon and possibly Mars. These rockets have been plagued by questions over their design and cost, and are unlikely to be ready until 2015, leaving a gap in astronaut-launch capability if the space shuttle retires in 2010 as expected. The Ares programme looks likely to be reviewed by the new US administration.
A possible alternative to Ares that was mooted last year and now appears to be facing fresh scrutiny would be to use Atlas V or Delta IV rockets to carry astronauts. These are mainly used by the US military to loft heavy satellites but could both be modified to become "human rated".
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126902.400-obama-team-to-raise-questions-over-ares-rocket.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news
They make a good point. Why invent the wheel twice?
Or even better: just take some superglue, a space shuttle and an Atlas V, put together in a bowl, stir... Tadaa! You're now ready to go to the moon ;)
NASA Will never do this because they are to busy thinking inside the box instead of being innovative. Hell they should of redesigned the shuttle along time ago. Like replacing aluminum with carbon fiber composites where applicable and find an replacement for the tiles.
-
Another thing you have to remember is that the world is a very different place than 28 years ago when the shuttle was first launched. Humans had only been flying in space for 20 years at this point, and there were barely any commercial space companies, let alone ones who could design and build rockets. NASA no longer needs a heavy-lifting vehicle to go to LEO, because they have the Atlas and Delta rockets to do that now. They are safer, cheaper, and since they are expendable do not require lengthy downtime as the Shuttles do.
-
Based on this article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program)
This is a list of things that shuttle is supposed to do:
1.launch crew members
2.launch payload and carry home payload
3.Cheaper costs on maintenance (failed to do this)
4.Perform experiments in biology, and life sciences and human response to zero gravity
5.Study how things could be manufactured in space
6.launch and repair satellites.
7.Land on runways like a conventional airplane
8.reusable
9.dock with space station
Things to get rid of and change in order to just have a crew craft:
Get Rid of:
1.launch payload and carry home payload
2.perform experiments in biology and life sciences and human response to zero gravity (that is what the ISS is for)
3.study how things can be manufactured in space (once again, that is what the ISS is for.)
4. launch and repair satellites
Keep it:
1. launch crew members
2.cheaper costs on maintenance
3.Land on runways like a conventional airplane.
4.reusable
5.dock with space station
-
I didn't log on for several weeks. First I browsed through this entire section.
Here are some remarks.
The original idea behind the Space Shuttle: that the entire operation will be much cheaper, being reusable. That has miserably failed for many different reasons.
Opposed to some other posters who indicated that political issues shouldn't be included are wrong, because they are included. They are, because financial reasons play a major role in the space program. Obama even made some remarks about the possible downscaling of the space program. The country is currently not in a financial shape to research the origin of the universe and other, mostly theoretical and/or philosophical issues, costing billions.
Return to the Moon? Why? For a few more bags of rocks? Anyone could claim any other reasonable possibilities? A Moon base? Give me a break. The ISS, since its inception, is basically spending most of its time to keep the thing going, repair what is broken, being put together. For more than a decade (and it is not done). And it is "right next door", not on the Moon. Go to the Mars by 2050? Give me even more break. Yes, we have the technology that people could go there, but we don't to bring them back. Surely, there is no reason for a mission which hauls 3 people there, out of which 2 would land on Mars, collect some sand/rocks and come back. What else promising is there what some robot couldn't currently do?
Surely, they won't be able to take some vehicle, which would allow them to roam the planet for weeks, months and do some proper research. Which would aim exactly for what at this point? We safely know that there is no developed life there. So what if they find some microbe, besides some highly theoretical answer we would get? Life elsewhere exists? Whoopi doo. Then what?
In my not so humble opinion, mankind is kind of stuck on planet Earth, and while its curiosity may one day take it to Mars, even some moons of the Jupiter or Saturn, all are likely to be practical dead end streets. To think outside of our solar system at this point is science fiction. For any such serious thoughts mankind would have to INVENT a totally new means of propulsion. Unfortunately, even a near speed of light vehicle wouldn't allow much outside of our solar system exploration. Thus we can only hope for some currently unknown law of physics which one day allows mankind to travel true galactic distances.
In the meanwhile we are stuck in Earth orbit.
-
Return to the Moon? Why? For a few more bags of rocks? Anyone could claim any other reasonable possibilities? A Moon base? Give me a break. The ISS, since its inception, is basically spending most of its time to keep the thing going, repair what is broken, being put together. For more than a decade (and it is not done). And it is "right next door", not on the Moon. Go to the Mars by 2050? Give me even more break. Yes, we have the technology that people could go there, but we don't to bring them back. Surely, there is no reason for a mission which hauls 3 people there, out of which 2 would land on Mars, collect some sand/rocks and come back. What else promising is there what some robot couldn't currently do?
Surely, they won't be able to take some vehicle, which would allow them to roam the planet for weeks, months and do some proper research. Which would aim exactly for what at this point? We safely know that there is no developed life there. So what if they find some microbe, besides some highly theoretical answer we would get? Life elsewhere exists? Whoopi doo. Then what?
In my not so humble opinion, mankind is kind of stuck on planet Earth, and while its curiosity may one day take it to Mars, even some moons of the Jupiter or Saturn, all are likely to be practical dead end streets. To think outside of our solar system at this point is science fiction. For any such serious thoughts mankind would have to INVENT a totally new means of propulsion. Unfortunately, even a near speed of light vehicle wouldn't allow much outside of our solar system exploration. Thus we can only hope for some currently unknown law of physics which one day allows mankind to travel true galactic distances.
In the meanwhile we are stuck in Earth orbit.
I feel the same way, I personally think that NASA should just focus on, right now, how to make our lives better here on Earth in space.
But anyway, more on the shuttle successor:
look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-34)
I personally like the X-34 program. It seems more reliable to me.
Plus one con from using a capsule is the risk of the parachute system, before landing back in the ocean, failing and possibly killing all crew members upon impact.
But also, there is also the risk of the pilot crashing the spacecraft.
-
But anyway, more on the shuttle successor:
look at this link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-34 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-34)
I personally like the X-34 program. It seems more reliable to me.
Plus one con from using a capsule is the risk of the parachute system, before landing back in the ocean, failing and possibly killing all crew members upon impact.
But also, there is also the risk of the pilot crashing the spacecraft.
Much as I understand, the X-34 program is already canceled.
-
true it is canceled, but move it on back to the drawing board ya'll! :D
p.s. in ordcer to quote somebody just click the yellow colored text box button and insert the text.
-
The question why we should return to the Moon is almost the same question like why should we go to space at all, or why should mankind progress at all. Why don't we go back into hollows and even stop making fire.
It is a matter of decision and curiosity. If NASA decides to go to the Moon, okay. If they don't decide to go to the Moon, okay. Even if they decide to not go into space manned anymore, also okay. Just like Wernher von Braun and many others, I also like the idea of going to the Moon and to Mars manned, and that as soon as ever possible. Eugene Kranz, Apollo 13 flight director, says: "To stop in space is to surrender." There are two kinds of technologies: those who exist, work and are available, and those who are yet fictional and do not exist, less than ever work. Not to got back to the Moon and later to Mars, because we do not have science fiction propulsion technology available, is the most unwise argumentation. By going to such places with current technology, we learn and gain new technologies. The Moon experience is not over. It was just interrupted by Nixon and the congress. The initial path of NASA was the Moon, followed by Mars until 2000. Instead, the Shuttle was quite a sad delay in manned space exploration.
Constellation is the best way NASA has chosen after the Skylab program in the 1970's.