Another change in plans for the Shuttle successor?

[Twabi2]

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

[JLM]

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.

[spaceboy7441]

I think one problem with that is space debris to the tiles. I like the idea thoe.

[JLM]

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.

[JLM]

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!

[Steven]

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.}

[HMSEndeavorreborn]

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.

[Twabi2]

_{* - 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?

[USA~Driver]

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.

[Twabi2]

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.

[CaptCrazy]

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?

[CaptCrazy]

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. 

[JLM]

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!

[uri_ba]

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).

[Twabi2]

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.