Back to the Future

[tomnackid]

Back in the 40's Von Braun designed a completely reusable shuttle that featured an orbiter that held cargo and about a dozen men each in a fully encapsulated ejection seat. Now Von Braun was a pretty sober minded engineer--I don't think he was relying on unobtanium or antigravity--his designs were based on the technology of the day plus some reasonable extrapolations. And as far as I know orbital mechanics and the Earth's gravity have not changed since the 40's. <br /><br />Given all of this how the heck could he have been so wrong?????<br /><br />Did he do his math wrong? Did he fudge things just to keep the dream of spaceflight alive? Or, could we get into space with his designs? Rockets with no cryogenic propellents. No finicky tiles. Nice long graceful wings for comfy and safe runway landings. Ok, I'm not saying that sinister forces are keeping us out of space, but dam just looking at all those old Collier articles I just keep wondering why did it all get so darn complicated and kludgy. Now our next big step in space is riding apollo capsules on top of solid fuel boosters--didn't the BIS propose that idea back around 1930?

 

[spacefire]

Von Braun or Sanger? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Von Braun. Here is a link to his 1952 design made famous in a series of articles in Colliers magazine. <br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vonn1952.htm

 

[spacefire]

when you said 40s I thought you were talking about this:<br />http://davidszondy.com/future/space/bridesmaid.htm <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[john_316]

I always love being reminded of what could have been and what is...<br /><br />I guess some people still don't get the point do they???<br /><br />Maybe the next Von Braun and Sanger will actually get what they invision....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[specfiction]

I don't know how many of you saw the video of how we were going to get back to the moon, but was your impression the same as mine? I felt like I was back in 1969. Apparently, the future has fallen far short of what Clarke envisioned for 2001.<br /><br />The video (NASA video on space.com--I wish it had been in print with a lot more detail, I'm getting sick of marketing rather than information) basically showed an Apollo style vehicle, complete with lander and command capsule--uhg. The only difference was--no Saturn V. Instead we have two vehicles, one for fuel, i.e. the fourth stage of the Saturn V, and the command capsule--yes, capsule.<br /><br />Then, the grand finale--a splash down in the ocean. It was all very unimpressive. Like 69, we throw everything away. Wasn't this the big complaint about why it was so expensive? We've learned absolutely nothing--as usual.<br /><br />The big expense in the shuttle was the heat shield, its many custom pieces that had to be hand-fitted in-between each launch. It's been more than 30 years since Apollo. Couldn't we have been working on a better, cheaper, composite heat shield? We saw all these really neat ideas: the vertical takeoff/landing idea; the X33 (which my friends worked on); the piggy-back lifting-body/space plane combo; the British Hermes, etc. After all that, it's back to Apollo. <br /><br />NASA is not up to the job, save us Burt Rattan...<br />

 

[jschaef5]

The CEV is reusable and its not going to be splashing in any water, from what I have heard its going to be landing in the desert out at Edwards. <br /><br />And the Shuttle uses ceramic tiles for heat shielding. I don't think the material engineers have been able to make composites hold up to the pressure and temperature of reentry like ceramics can, but I could be wrong. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Burt Rutan took us back to the 50's with a redo of the x-15, I don't really see how that is better than Apollo, do you? (And before the Rutan fanboys start flaming me I have the highest respect for his engineering ability and agree with his desire to hoLd NASA accountable for its blunders.)<br /><br />

 

[specfiction]

I know (ceramics vs composites (made from ceramic layers?)), and I don't claim to be a materials scientist, but don't we have some at NASA? If they can spend money on anti-gravity(?), can't they spend some on advanced heat shields? It's been thirty years for C***** sake. In the X33, made of composites, by the way, there were no ceramic tiles. And that wasn't the deal breaker. <br /><br />There have been ideas for air breaks and other novel approaches. Couldn't, after all these years, NASA do better than this?

 

[specfiction]

Nobody said Space Ship 1 is better than Apollo, where there was virtually no spending limit, had thousands working on it, and required ten years. And the two should, and are not, being compared. What is being compared is a hand full of energetic, creative scientists and engineers, very cleverly winning the X-prize within the constraints of the rules set forth.<br /><br />I think the deal breaker for the X-33 was the composite fuel tank, the SWs thought they could pull it off, but it was proving to be harder than they thought. The heat shield problem was solved (metalic panels). You can read about the heat shield at: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/ames/news/releases/1999/99_09AR.html<br /><br />Give Ruttan and his crew almost infinite resources, and my money's on Ruttan. Then we can compare what they come up with, with Apollo--which was really great--thirty years ago.<br />

 

[cdr6]

Nope, it's not a level playing field, unless we bash, nit-pick, blame and finger point at Burt for everyflaw in his plan, then we have to cut his funds and force him to more with less than than he needs to safley operate, give him only poor direction (if any at all). <br /><br />The "wayward press" hast to bring up the same sorry stories over and over and then call for the dissolutionment of his assets. <br /><br />He is further not allowed to maintain his own technical staff and must do everything through contractors. Plus he must be subjected to contiunal call for reduction in the size of his payroll. <br /><br />Further he must comply with ISO, Baldridge, and all the other "Quality" programs. <br /><br />We subject him to this for 10 years, THEN we have a playing field that's level. Untill that time he's just a "home builder" with a "sugar daddy".

 

[ve7rkt]

What I see is a world in which the Soyuz capsule -- yes, capsule -- flies, and the Shuttle doesn't.<br /><br />We've seen all these really neat ideas: the vertical takeoff/landing idea; the X33; the piggy-back lifting-body/space plane combo; the *FRENCH* Hermes (the British decided that participation in Hermes was too expensive so they came up with the Multi-Role Recovery Capsule -- yes, capsule), etc. After all that, it's back to something that works.<br /><br />So it looks retro. I don't care if we get back into space with something that *looks* like Apollo or *looks* like the Shuttle or *looks* like a 1987 Ford Taurus, as long as the thing works.

 

[webtaz99]

In my oh-so-humble opinion, NASA labors under certain constraints:<br /><br />1) it is mired in political BS (causing budget and freedom of decision problems)<br /><br />2) it is mired in issues concerning the procurement and "man-rating" processes (forcing them to use existing technology and business connections)<br /><br />3) it dares not lose another astronaut (despite how many people died developing commercial air travel)<br /><br />4) the public doesn't care about improving space technology (because they are too self-centered and short-sighted to see the benefits for mankind)<br /><br />Also, Apollo isn't such a bad act to follow, if it hasn't been brushed aside after 30 years. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[specfiction]

If there's a problem with NASA's charter--fix it. If there's too much BS coming from management and their political overlords--fix it.<br /><br />Look, I sat around with scientists, by whom I was criticized for thinking manned space was not bu*****t. Why? Because manned space was taking "their" money. I also clearly remember sitting in a room of top scientists watching Story Musgrave fixing the Hubble--out on the arm--above the "shuttle," which doesn't work. You could have heard a pin drop. I proclaimed, "Nothing interesting here!" They turned, glassy-eyed.<br /><br />It's a mistake to accept second-rate conditions, and the BS of administrators afraid to say what they think for fear of losing the precious gov jobs. Just quit, join Ruttan, or somebody like him, get a sugar daddy or two, if you can, and do it right.<br /><br />When you're successful, the same bureaucrats will come to you and pay big bucks to have you do it for them.<br />

 

[specfiction]

And I agree with every one of your points, that's why I like Ruttan. The shuttle was a great idea. It needs some work, of course. But going back to something we know has commercial problems won't work. <br /><br />The constraints you so correctly enumerate guarantee we will fail. Not that we may not blow a wad of money getting back to the moon in our capsule, but when the dust settles, people will get pissed because it costs too much and, by the way, they're bored watching a couple of guys jumping around on the moon. The graphics are better on their video games.<br /><br />I think guys like Ruttan will recapture the imagination of the public and hopefully turn a profit. That, more than anything else, including capsules, will get us back into space.<br />

 

[specfiction]

The Russians are flying their capsule partly because we fell down on the job, and, by the way, in their spare time they're flying tourists.<br /><br />Do you really want to emulate the Russians in space? Is that how you spell success?<br />

 

[mlorrey]

I felt the same way. I actually had some double deja vu: of the 60's moon program, but also reminders of an SF trilogy by S Andrew Swann about a future Earth that becomes technologically stagnated and politically/culturally divided, especially wrt space travel, due to the political bribery and subterfuge of politicians by a hidden group of aliens whose race wants all the colonizable star systems and their resources to themselves...

 

[specfiction]

I think we all are interested in the same thing, but going along with the program, even though we know it's doomed to (political) failure, doesn't make sense.<br /><br />It's odd to me, first, that people here feel the shuttle was a failure--it was not. We could fly one next month. This is a political failure, and a failure of the people in charge to "sell" manned space to the public.<br /><br />To be perfectly frank, the public could care less about Russians flying capsules, or for that matter, our capsules flying. Blowing more money on stuff that will not yield profits or push the state-of-the-art so that there may be some hope of making money is a non-starter.<br />

 

[specfiction]

And don't you love that name: Crew Exploration Vehicle--CEV. <br /><br />This is like a bad dream...

 

[tomnackid]

The shuttle is a "failure" in that it is so expensive to fly we either don't do it too often or we eat up most of our space budget just on launch and refurbish costs (leaving little for science, exploration and R&D for newer vehicles). Paying for the Shuttle (a remarkable piece of technology) has kept us in LEO for 25 years.<br /><br />Tractor trailers are wonderfully useful vehicles, but if it were your only source of transpiration you probably won't be driving it down to the Jiffy Mart for a gallon of milk.

 

[josh_simonson]

The capsule is by far the safest and most versatile option for carrying people beyond LEO. Spaceplanes like the shuttle and hermes are fine for LEO stationkeeping activities, but their weight is prohibitive to carry deeper into space and back. Since you can't bring the spaceplane with you, a rapid emergency return isn't possible. NASA is too safety concious to send people flying around in space without the ability to return home immediately.<br /><br />Sure the lander looks like the apollo lander, but a F250 looks alot like a covered wagon, the first bicycle and a state of the art bicycle also look very similar. Just because 50 years have passed doesn't mean the laws of physics governing the best way to do something has changed. <br /><br />Sure, re-useability would be nice, but NASA has proven they can't deliver it cost-effectively. They're part of the government and aren't driven by economics to reduce the cost of anything. However, the highly modular structure of the lunar effort allows for incremental upgrades in re-useability should private industry provide a solution or shame NASA into doing it right by example. <br /><br />The shuttle was only a success in that it worked. On every performance metric except payload to orbit it was a dismal failure. If a company built a PC using a million tons of vacuum tubes would you call them a success?

 

[jschaef5]

I think the shuttle is becoming a failure now but thats because we are running it past its useful life. Looking at all the things it has done i think it has been a success. I just wish NASA had been planning for a replacement for the last half a decade or so instead of just being like "Oh &%$#@! the shuttle is going to be retiring soon, lets throw a capsule design together quick" although thats not competely accurate but thats what some of the public thinks in light of the recent shuttle no fly issues. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[specfiction]

Of course I completely disagree with you. The failure in the shutttle program was not to update it, then move beyond it efficiently. It was always meant to be a transitional research vehicle, the men who designed it knew that. It had (has) the greatest power/weight ever developed (Feynmann was amazed by the shuttle engines and said that everything in the shuttle was nothing short of miraculous). Everyone knew that the expense would only go down when the heat shield problems were solved. Primary indications in the X-33 looked as if they had been. Estimates were that the price of lifting a pound of payload to LEO would go down by a factor of 10 in the X-33, which was the next generation shuttle.<br /><br />As for the safty issue. Have you ever lived near an AF base? Do you know how many F-14s fall out of the sky each month? Tell the AF they should be flying biplanes because they're safer. Basically, shuttle safty should be compared to that of an experimental aircraft. When politicians insist on flying school teachers on expeimental aircraft, I think you get the same (correct) perception about them (experimental aircraft)--thery're dangerous--duh?<br /><br />And as for LEO, you could just as well fly another tank up to shuttle in just the same way as you do for your capsule moon mission. Without that tank (which requries a second rocket), your capsule isn't going anywhere.

 

[specfiction]

OffSpray5:<br /><br />My frustration is more with spin than anything else. Like I said before, Apollo et al were great 30 years ago. I had friends who worked on X-33. I myself did reliability analysis of the shuttle fuel valves. The X-33 was a great innovation, which, as you said, should have been the next step. <br /><br />The failure here is one of leadership and education by our so-called leaders. Can you beleive that at the time we should have been actively working on a safer, more reliable, and more profitable shuttle design, much of NASA's direction was from Dan Quayle! <br /><br />This whole thing would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

[josh_simonson]

The X-33 couldn't lift anything to orbit. Meanwhile the design goals of the venturestar were almost identical to the design goals that the shuttle utterly failed to meet. 1/10-1/100 the cost to orbit? Nope, 3x. Launch weekly? Try yearly. <br /><br />When venturestar was planned to replace the shuttle, they still had to develop a little CLV escape pod for the astronauts on orbit - for safety reasons. Something like the CLV, optimized for more rigorous direct entry from beyond LEO would still be needed for lunar or martian exploration, and that something would look like the CEV (since they started with CLV in designing CEV).<br /><br />From a reliability point of view, the venturestar/CLV arrangement was very poor. Failure of either craft stopped station work until it was resolved. A CLV launched piggyback on a venturestar would have it's TPS exposed to shedding crud from the venturestar just like the shuttle is from the ET - and venturestar lacked a launch escape system in the event of failure. Far better to use one simple, robust vehicle to do everything. If a re-useable launch vehicle is developed and man rated, like the Falcon 9H or Kistler K1, it could launch the CEV and provide an almost totally re-useable human launch system - only the CEV service module (which protects the TPS) would be expended.<br /><br />If you're going to add wings and tires, you might as well add spinning chrome hubcaps too because they serve the same function in space - eyecandy.