A future for the shuttle?

[nuaetius]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>In response the response to my calling it annoying to point out the "Orbiter" is the proper ref. not the "Shuttle": <br /><br />Smartass perhaps but motivated by frustration. My frustration was with the "Can't do" attitude that pervades the entire space "culture" these days and is certainly not limited to shuttle guy. <br />Steve<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Steve, you are currently arguing with several people who have jobs bending metal in the aerospace fields. Their opinions are based off much time in classes and on the job. I don’t know how much you have studied thermodynamics or if you understand the rocket equation, but I will tell you that the 1st rule of space is nothing is cheap or easy. <br /><br />As for the “Can’t do†attitude, hardware is not software. The can’t do attitude is the cold refreshing water of reality. A great blog for you to read would be Spacecynic, or The Space Show (webcast) called rocketry 101. <br /><br />My point is this; Lurk for a while, or go back and read some of the old posts. Science fiction has cluttered most of our minds with ideas that we are further along in the material sciences than we are. <br />

 

[MeteorWayne]

Nasty <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[SteveMick]

I am willing to have any particular assertion I make questioned based on the numbers. Your assertion here is that I should accept assertions based on authority.<br /> You have not provided ANY refutation of the plan I outlined even which has quite a few issues to question.<br /> The assumption is that I am a "newbie". Check my history here ans then please correct your statement.<br /><br /> The issue I've focused on here is whether the Orbiter's wings can be used for aerobraking. Of course they can to some extent so the question becomes to what extent. In taking a look at this I realized that aerobraking on return from Mars to a highly elliptical orbit might mean that large amounts of payload might be returned - from Phobos for instance.<br /> No one should suggest that the opinions of those cutting metal are to be left unexamined and meekly accepted. This is exactly the kind of thinking I fear would doom an Apollo 13 of today.<br /> I am an engineer and I have presented a paper at the 22nd Space Congress among other activities and I feel I have not asserted anything that violates "Rocketry 101". If I have however, I would expect these same metal benders to propose a creative solution or outline a technical "showstopper".<br /> Sadly your response only deepens my concern for our future in space.<br />Steve<br />

 

[SteveMick]

I suppose that means that your acceptance of my apology was insincere?<br /> Numbers people!<br />I've outlined a plan to use the Orbiters to mine Phobos. Please refute it with numbers and propse your own creative solutions. I am not trying to be nasty. It is nasty not to take me at my word that I feel frustration and that that is my motivation. The space program is in far worse shape today than I could ever have imagined.<br /> Put an Orion capsule alongside an Orbiter in space in your mind. Now imagine that an alien comes along and you ask him to pick which one is the newer one. I think he would imagine that big one that can put the other one in its payload bay would be what he picks.<br />Sad!<br />Steve

 

[SteveMick]

The implication of your abusive comment seems to be that I have made some mistake relative to the quantity of propellant the Orbiter holds. This has nothing to do with what I proposed. I have proposed an entirely seperate RL-10 based propulsion sys. with on-orbit re-fueling to get enough for the initial trip to Phobos. Additional fuel supply would have to be lofted - perhaps by one of the COTS hopefuls. The hydrazine for the Orbiter would have to be increased or the RL-10 system could deploy its own thrusters or any one of you could come up with an even better idea than mine. My hope was that I would rile you guys up enough to get you to re-examine your assumptions about what can be done. When smart people question accepted wisdom innovations happen.<br />Steve

 

[SteveMick]

Josh, the Orbiter with the lab module - SpaceHab? is hardly different from any other module and of course has as much purpose and function as any of them do potentially. The objection about mass and cg is very appropriate and the first objection based on fact so far in this forum. I would point out though that nothing you mention is a "showstopper" in and of itself. <br /> The other modules have life support systems that could bring a cold dark Orbiter back to habitability - right? I imagine you could think of a better way or a way to make the Orbiter's systems less power hungry if that's a problem. My point was not whether this would be a good thing to do merely that saying its impossible is just plain wrong.<br />Steve

 

[qso1]

kevinm1984:<br />Those are the simple problems. Fuel could be supplied as needed. Also, the suggestion would be a gap solution until the next generation of a reusable craft would be ready.<br /><br />Me:<br />There are no plans for a next generation reusable craft from NASA. The Constellation program evolved from the initial VSE concepts featuring winged orbital spaceplanes. NASA simply cannot overcome the cost barrier to developing winged reusable craft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[SteveMick]

Assertions prove nothing. Now you have asserted without ANY numbers that the Orbiter cannot be used to mine Phobos. Presumably you have looked at the extent to which aerobraking can be utilized. You have these numbers? I'd like to see them. Surely you are not saying this without substantiation!<br /> Actually we both know you haven't really done the numbers. I suspect that's because this is so far outside orthodoxy that it is difficult for you to take seriously. That's too bad. As I'm sure you know; slowing down at Mars and then at Earth on return from a hypothetical Phobos mission, requires propellant unless aerobraking is employed. The wings have a certain mass that has to be accelerated from LEO to a Mars bound trajectory, and from Mars back to Earth. In this phase of the journey they are dead weight. However - upon arrival at Mars these same wings save propellant by aerobraking thereby saving prop. that would otherwise have to be accelerated out of LEO. It may be that this alone would not make up for the wing's mass, but it occurred to me that upon return to Earth, the use of aerobraking could greatly increase the mass that could be braked to orbit relative to using rocket thrust. This suggested that with ISRU of Phobos' regolith, enough propellant could be returned to LEO to fuel another trip and then some. Whether or not this is true is not a matter of opinion but rather on how much braking back to orbit the Orbiter can accomplish. <br /> Actually the Orbiter looks very much like the aerobraking OTV that came out of Bush 1's Synthesis Group Report. It was thought to be the future - using aerobraking that is. One problem with wanting a new vehicle or feeling that the Orbiter cannot be easily modified is that the other vehicles exist only on paper. Many funding and political hurdles and much time is required before they can ever fly if they ever do. The Orbiters are here now and able to fly - not just paper. The Orbiter makes a fantastic spaceship if sent between

 

[SteveMick]

I didn't do a profile but they list the number of posts when I sign in and how long I've been signed up for the boards. It has been a long time - way back into the previous century that I've been posting here and prior to that on the sci-space-tech usenet site. I'm no newbie but its true I haven't posted on the Shuttle very much if at all.<br />Steve

 

[SteveMick]

Thanks for the correction. However my point still stands.<br />Steve

 

[j05h]

<i>> Now you have asserted without ANY numbers that the Orbiter cannot be used to mine Phobos.</i><br /><br />There is no need for in-depth analysis- the Orbiter's heatshield and wings are not up to the task of aerobraking at interplanetary speeds. The wings would tear off. The best configurations for aerobraking are axisymmetric (capsule) and biconic (AMaRV) shapes. Axisymmetric systems can be extremely stable even under challenging entry/aerobrake conditions while biconic shapes provide a nice balance between stability and crossrange. Off-axis delta wings that require active control are not the answer for aerobraking and planetary capture.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reentry_vehicle<br /><br />On top of the trouble with it's planform, the Orbiter also has an extremely limited duration in space - it would be a frozen brick less than a month into the 6 month out-bound journey to Mars orbit. Similar to the idea of permanently attaching it to ISS, Orbiters simply are not designed for long-duration missions. It has no radiation shelter, uses ancient electronics, leaks like a sieve and has all this extra mass. It is fantastic at what it does, but simply not capable of what you are describing. <br /><br />We've explored Phobos/Deimos mining extensively in "Phobos First", "Mars 9 tons at a time" and "Private Mars Missions", all here on Space Biz & Tech. If you are interested in mining cis-Mars space, check those threads out. I guarantee that dedicated vehicles designed for the purpose are the way to go. Shuttle Orbiters are designed for Low Earth Orbit and nothing else - even getting an Orbiter to GEO would be a struggle. Refitting is not an option, especially when it still involves lugging 50+ tons of Earth-specific hardware along. STS was not designed for deep-space. <br /><br />The equivalent to what you are demanding is possible would be this: "We have this sailboat and want to explore t <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[SteveMick]

Josh<br /> thanks for the thoughtful reply. You raised several points which were off the mark, however. First while delta wings may not be ideal, your analogy of sailboat vs. submarine is way off the mark and quite disingenuous. I am well aware that the OTV to which I referred had a different shape. My question - has the Orbiter EVER used aerobraking? Like say EVERY mission.<br /> Now I do understand that your concern is over the FAR LOWER(than from orbit to ground) aerobraking requirements of slowing to a highly elliptical orbit is that the initial encounter with the Earth's atmosphere occurs at a greater relative velocity. However as I pointed out previously, this can be controlled by the altitude at which this manuver begins and the trajectory followed through the atmosphere. As I also pointed out the Mars orbiters have done this to an extent and they are certainly not optimized for aerobraking. If I understand your position correctly and please correct me if I'm wrong, the fact that delta wings are not optimal means that they CANNOT perform this manuver and so we should wait the decades it will take for the Chinese to build their aerobraking spacecraft and look at all the pretty pictures they send back. <br /> This attitude of "this isn't optimal so I can't figure out how to use it so let's just throw it away" or as I like to call it "can't do" is a serious impediment to our future in space. Josh the challenge I posed was to figure out how to use what we have because that other vehicle ain't even on the drawing board. The answer I would have expected was : "the orbiter's delta wings pose a challenge because they are not optimal. There are several ways to use them to good effect for aerobraking within certain limits. and so forth" This is obvious stuff Josh - common sense - for instance: even if the initial braking to a highly elliptical orbit had to be done with rocket thrust(and I seriously doubt that!), subsequent passes could use the wings to slow to LEO. <br />

 

[j05h]

<i>> thanks for the thoughtful reply. You raised several points which were off the mark, however. First while delta wings may not be ideal, your analogy of sailboat vs. submarine is way off the mark and quite disingenuous. I am well aware that the OTV to which I referred had a different shape. My question - has the Orbiter EVER used aerobraking? Like say EVERY mission. </i><br /><br />A couple of posts ago, you wrote "Actually the Orbiter looks very much like the aerobraking OTV that came out of Bush 1's Synthesis Group Report."<br /><br />My sailboat-submarine analogy is exactly correct. Sailboats are limited to the surface, while subs can go into "deep sea". Axisymmetric OTVs have similarities as space systems but are nothing like an Orbiter. Hatch, RCS, avionics, sure. The similarities end there. <br /><br />The Orbiters experience reentry heating. Aerobraking is the process of using atmospheric heating to alter/enter an orbit. Subtly different. The Orbiter's shape and heatshield can not do it, especially not after several years around Mars. These tasks need dedicated vehicles. <br /><br /><i>> , the fact that delta wings are not optimal means that they CANNOT perform this manuver and so we should wait the decades it will take for the Chinese to build their aerobraking spacecraft and look at all the pretty pictures they send back.</i><br /><br />Cheap shot. I'm proposing that JPL's aerobraking team commercialize their software and that American companies build the tug infrastructure that includes regular aerobraking. Pretty pictures only go so far. <br /><br />Delta wings are worse than non-optimal for planetary transfer. They are the worst possible choice that will still build a flying spacecraft. Notice the progression in OTV design for past 30 years: except for one "iron sled" lifting body proposal, all OTV proposals have been flavors of axisymmetric heatshield.<br /><br />The Orbiters were designed to function on the absolute cutting edge of materials to cram all the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Thanks for the post JOSH. I gave up trying to explain the facts to him.</i><br /><br />Yer welcome. I only keep posting because of his enthusiasm. People need to realize that there are strict technical limits to what "X" vehicle can do, be it STS Orbiter, Delta rocket or sailboat. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[SteveMick]

Josh wrote: "Delta wings are worse than non-optimal for planetary transfer. They are the worst possible choice that will still build a flying spacecraft. Notice the progression in OTV design for past 30 years: except for one "iron sled" lifting body proposal, all OTV proposals have been flavors of axisymmetric heatshield."<br /> I'm glad you seem to be calling for the construction of a dedicated OTV using aerobraking. I appreciate this tacit concession on your part to my point of view. Now that we apparantly agree that this should be the future of the space program or at least a part of it, Let's talk technical showstoppers. First your insistence that the Shuttle will die after a few days without an army of technicians. Let me ask you what YOUR solution to that problem is because its not a particularly challenging one in theory. I know: 1. Systems that can sustain life support, stationkeeping, etc. DO exist and the ISS is an example of that. 2. The orbiter could be modified to use them. Take the Orbiter connected to the ISS situation we discussed previously. This inert cold dead machine still has wings that are potentially useful, etc. Now as an extreme example let's take a Soyuz and stick it in the payload bay. Then lets deploy the propulsion unit required for trans Mars. The orbiter, stripped of the SSME's can be dead weight and this idea STILL works. <br /> The vehicle you seem to want now JOSH might have its own issues despite being a new design. Starting from scratch is not necessarily cheaper, easier, or even better. At any rate, it is extremely unlikely that such an aerobraking OTV will be built by us anytime soon so its kind of a moot point.<br /> As for the sailboat analogy - Your reply was ungracious to say the least. IF your analogy was between two SUBMARINES of different range and diving capability; then perhaps you have accuracy. You know the Orbiter actually goes into space not just into the air. Whether you decide to modify this sub will depend upon the

 

[SteveMick]

Please define those limits. As yet you have failed to identify ANYTHING that is a showstopper!<br /> This isn't about being correct for me; its about establishing a self sustaining interplanetary transportation system. That's why I've tried repeatedly(in vain) to get ANY attempt to define what CAN be done. In other words, an approach from a positive direction. What has been offered are fairly unimpressive reasons why things can't be done that have to be modified as I reply. <br /> Please pretend that this is YOUR idea or whatever you have to do to make yourself WANT to come up with solutions. You may be unable to figure any way to overcome the difficulties you identify in a way that is reasonable to you, but you would be able to then identify the issues in such a way that someone else could. None of us are omniscient after all.<br />Steve

 

[thereiwas]

Here's a showstopper. In about 3 years all the shuttles will likely be piles of scrap metal in a salvage yard. The faster we move away from this massive overly-compromised mistake the sooner we can get on to something better.

 

[j05h]

<i>> I'm glad you seem to be calling for the construction of a dedicated OTV using aerobraking. </i><br /><br />Go read Phobos First. Automated Tugs (OTVs) are the way to go anywhere. If the Centaur upper stage could be topped off in LEO or L1, it could permanently serve as the RCS/prop system for a commsat. These are things people have discussed since the beginning of the Space Age because they make sense.<br /><br /><i>> First your insistence that the Shuttle will die after a few days without an army of technicians. Let me ask you what YOUR solution to that problem is because its not a particularly challenging one in theory.</i><br /><br />The Orbiter has a limited lifespan on-orbit of under 3 weeks, needs almost all systems running to function (esp. the fuel cells), requires hundreds of techs and equipment that is only in the Orbiter Processing Facility and is not optimal for anything beyond LEO. It needs to be clean - Phobos mining will be dirty. Orbiters have no radiation shelter because they are designed for low orbit only. ISS systems cannot simply be grafted into an Orbiter - at that point you are better off flying the DOS9 FGB that Energia or Krunichev still has in a hangar. ISS life support (russian or US) is not up to the task of going to Mars, anyway. Much different support requirements.<br /><br />The best shape for interplanetary travel is base-first capsule or AMaRV biconic - including sphere-cones and off-axis capsules. The circle is the simplest shape. Heavily forward center-of-gravity allows for zero-authority aerobraking or reentry (ie. the flight computers can go down and you still live through it). An axisymmetric capsule-type OTV can easily be constructed to use a permanent metal heatshield. These are all features the Orbiter lacks.<br /><br />My solution is to build dedicated in-sp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

The main limitation to any human spaceflight project done as currently practiced is the cost barrier. It don't matter what kind of tech solution anyone comes up with. If these solutions were so easy, we'd be seeing private industry do them by now.<br /><br />We have to overcome a majority of the public that barely has the will to return to the moon, much less go anywhere else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> The main limitation to any human spaceflight project done as currently practiced is the cost barrier. It don't matter what kind of tech solution anyone comes up with. If these solutions were so easy, we'd be seeing private industry do them by now.</i><br /><br />Absolutely. There is varying demand for launch at different prices. Luckily there are billionaires that grew up watching Star Trek and are now putting their money into it. There have been many attempts at a cheaper commercial rocket, notably efforts such as Conestoga, OTRAG, Roton, Beal and most recently SpaceX and t/space-AirLaunch. Someone will succeed. <br /><br />More flights in the form of both regular access (another stream of cargo to a separate station) and new payloads (innovative sats and probes) are needed to achieve order-of-magnitude reductions in launch costs. $1M/ton seems to be where big Space Projects start to pay off using normal investing methods.<br /><br /><i>> We have to overcome a majority of the public that barely has the will to return to the moon, much less go anywhere else.</i><br /><br />The Moon is a stumbling block, IMHO. Many people are negative on it, much more can be done by extending presence to L1. Servicing James Webb Telescope for instance, or prepping craft for NEOs, the Moon and Mars. Staying at the top of a gravity well has lots of advantages, L1 could become a new industrial zone. There is not yet a compelling reason to build a base at Shackleton Crater. <br /><br />What we need really need to know (and I'm skeptical of LRO answering it) is how much water and whether it is accessible inside Shackleton. This is knowledge that requires ground-truth and greatly affects the likelyhood of building a base there. I'm really surprised no-one has proposed a precursor rover.<br /><br />There are better ways to do things. Some of it is govt: both NASA and others. Some of it is public-private, like an L1 station or Moon base. A lot of it is private and much cheaper. A Bigelow BA-3 <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[SteveMick]

Josh<br /> You say I'm not getting it, but your post reveals a surprising "failure of imagination" to quote Wayne Hale and a real failure to "get it".<br /> I've had to continually repeat myself. The idea - the basic idea I have been promoting is that the Orbiter's shape and aerobraking capability while not ideal WILL DO THE JOB!of slowing payloads from Phobos to LEO. They aren't what you would design if you had a clean sheet of paper I'll grant you, but they're all we've got. As I said before the OTV you are talking about isn't even on the drawing board and isn't gonna be for a long time if ever. When it does perhaps fly, it will have to be launched by something. If the Shuttle retires to orbit and beyond, it has essentially launched itself and a large payload. Pretty good start I'd say.<br /> Josh I'm not being flip when I say that I feel sadness at your response. I had hoped that if only as a mental exercise, you would find this worthy of your POSITIVE attention. As for the analogy. Josh it is absurd to say that one spacecraft is as different from another as a sub and a sailboat. Subs travel underwater(in space) and on the surface sailboats can't even go underwater(space) - well OK they can go once -ha ha. I'm glad that you agree that Orion is like a diving bell(i.e.a step backwards in capability IMO) as I rather liked that analogy. If the Orbiter of today was moved suddenly by aliens to Mars orbit, it would function just as well while its supplies held out; whereas a sailboat wouldn't do well if suddenly pulled underwater. <br /> Compare for a minute in your mind the scenario I'm proposing for a self sustaining Earth Mars transportation system using existing albeit highly modified vehicles, to in the near term and for modest investment, with what you and orthodoxy proposes.<br />L1 has NO potential for ISRU so the propellant will have to come from somewhere else. Therefore it as spec'd is not a complete system. Other parts able to travel to NEO's or Phobos/Deimos and

 

[j05h]

<i>> the Orbiter's shape and aerobraking capability while not ideal WILL DO THE JOB!of slowing payloads from Phobos to LEO. They aren't what you would design if you had a clean sheet.</i><br /><br />You are saying use 70t of deadweight to do 10t worth of work. <br /><br />The node-based architecture I've been discussing uses dozens, then hundreds of autonomous tugs. They can be built directly on the Centaur hardware or other - even to the extent of simply attaching a heatshield/ballute module to a near-term Wide Body Centaur. My preferred system is 10t SolarDynamic/heliostat stages transporting and aerobraking 2000t water each into cis-lunar space from Phobos, Deimos or Apophis.<br /><br />Your architecture is one vehicle that can maybe, just maybe, if you pour Billion$ into it, can be just barely bring 50t back. It does not have the endurance, fact. It's a bad planform for interplanetary reentry, but any old sat can do gradual aerobraking. Foam tiles will not be useful after 3+ years in deepspace and will probably cause a mess cis-Mars, so new heatshield. Even the pros that work on the Orbiter (shuttle_guy) say an Orbiter can't do it. You really are trying to make a Catalina 26 into a Los Angeles Class.<br /><br />The mission-mass is to low at 70t plus - most crewed Mars missions are in the 500-1000t range. At 10% of total mission mass, it makes much, much more sense to <br /><br /><i>As for the analogy. Josh it is absurd to say that one spacecraft is as different from another as a sub and a sailboat. </i><br /><br />Then you haven't studied enough spacecraft designs - especially long-duration crewed craft. <br /><br /><i>> L1 has NO potential for ISRU so the propellant will have to come from somewhere else. Therefore it as spec'd is not a complete system.</i><br /><br />The intention is for L1 to be a primary node in a network, of course it's not a complete system in itself. <br /><br />L1's potential is not about having resources, it is that old real estate rubric: location, <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[mitzis_dad]

Would a nuclear reactor inside the cargo bay be a<br />possible option for using the shuttle as power source<br />that you could refuel.

 

[hk8900]

my opinion is that the future of shuttle will be in museum<br />In fact, inspiring the next generation is very important<br />the retirement of shuttle itself does not mean that they become useless<br />a grounded shuttle will still have its value<br />some parts such as SSME can be used for public display like the starchaser rocket

 

[scribnar]

msnbc article on space shuttle retirement? Why&nbsp;are the financial giants like gates or buffet not stepping up to the collection plate? They claim it is the american dream. Come on folks! Something so important to the spirit and wellfare of the u.s. should not be underscored.Allowing ourselves to be under the thumb of other countries that&nbsp; have proved to be unreliable is&nbsp;a mistake. Haven"t we given enough to them all ready. We have no problem dumping billions on foreign policy. Wake up america!