Can we load up the shuttle with cargo and fly it unmanned?

[askold]

Send up the remaining ISS pieces on unmanned flights then put this thing out of its misery. The shuttle flew test flights unmanned - it should still be able to do so.<br /><br />Chances are the flights will go OK even with a little foam loss. If the thing crashes - so what, it's not doing any good sitting on the ground.<br /><br />Send crew up on Souyz.

 

[gulcrapek]

I think there's a thread right here dealing with the exact same proposal, forgot the title.

 

[askold]

Oh yeah - I found it through a search.<br /><br />So, let's fly the remaining 17 missions and get it over with.

 

[askold]

You're right - I thought the Shuttle flew early landing tests unmanned.<br /><br />However, now it seems computers run most of the flight plan - shouldn't be that hard to make it completely automated. Probably easier than making it 100% safe.<br /><br />Progress goes up unmanned.

 

[jschaef5]

i would be willing to bet that most of the missions to the ISS need people up their inorder to get everything put together right since we don't have any robots yet that can do the jobs of human hands. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

I made this possible suggestion myself on another thread. If we were indeed to intend to finish the ISS and not fly the shuttle manned for safety sake.<br /><br />I think it would be possible, but don't look for it to save a great deal of money, as much of the cost of the shuttle would go on whether or not it would be manned by human beings or not. I would absolutely think that on these ISS flights that if it was to stay manned at the very least they would only send up enough crew to do whatever assembly would be required, and no more. However, NASA is going to do what it believes is best anyway as I don't really think that have a whole lot of influence even here on space.com!<br /><br />But the idea does have merit, especially if the shuttle continues to have problems!!

 

[CalliArcale]

Moneywise, I think the ultimate question would be whether the expense of converting the Shuttle to an unmanned cargo carrier is greater or less than the cost of sending crew up on Soyuz. Basically, the conversion has to cost less than sending crew up on Soyuz or it'll actually make the program more expensive, not less. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

I read an article recently saying the shuttles were being modified to allow un-manned landings. The reasoning for this was that if the orbiter suffered damage and a rescue shuttle launch was required for the crew, NASA could still attempt to land the damaged orbiter on the hope it'd survive dispite the damage. <br /><br />Here it is: http://nasaspaceflight.com/content/?id=4277<br /><br />So basically, the shuttles will be able to land unmanned. Are 9 guys needed to install a module? Probably not. When a soyuz visits, the 5 astronauts should be sufficient if 2 or 3 are unable to (shuttle cargo should enable another resident). Each year we wait with no shuttle launches due to hand wriinging over it's safety costs several billion dollars, thats enough to launch 20 soyuz.

 

[CalliArcale]

To install a module, you'll need a minimum of four astronauts: two EVA, one spacewalk coordinator, and one person to operate the SSRMS. Ideally, you'd have five so somebody could work the RMS on the Shuttle as well. With two crew at the station, you'd have to send up two or three more on Soyuz. That means it is indeed doable with one Soyuz flight, although it's the absolute barest minimum to support that. Conceivably, this could be worked in with a Soyuz taxi flight, saving even more money, although the Russians might get miffed as they generally have plans for those flights.<br /><br />Shuttle assembly flights with heavy payloads (like Destiny) have gone up with five crew. NASA generally considers this the minimum for a station assembly flight, because they will not have the commander or pilot of the Shuttle performing the EVA, and they want one backup person available for EVA as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

Oh yes, that's something I'd totally forgotten: is it even physically possible to remotely dock the Shuttle? I would expect new software at least would be required to support that.<br /><br />Progress docking with ISS is sufficiently unnerving. Orbiters have a mass in excess of 100 tons. An accident would be extremely bad. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

It certainly sounds like the shuttle will have to remain manned for these remaining missions to the ISS. And as the shuttle is the only vehicle available to bring up the remaining modules, then I guess that is askold's answer then!<br /><br />The only other thing that I can see being done is to turn the entire operation over to the Russians and ESA! Literally giving and shipping the remaining ISS modules to Russia, and having them hope that they can figure out some way of getting such modules up to the ISS and installing them. However, this leaving the bag to these partners after getting them involved so heavily in the ISS itself is going to absolutely leave a very bad taste in the mouths of our partners!! <br /><br />If nothing else I certainly wouldn't blame these partners for insisting that the next time (and there is always a next time) we need their help in any space endeavour that we be made to pay our share up front!! <br /><br />I really think that this is a situation that even our congress wishes to avoid!! <br /><br />I think that askold's purpose in proposing this kind of thing was to avoid the very problem that the current asdmiistration's NASA budget is placing on NASA. Where despite Mike Griffin's wishes the lack of budget is now going to bash the science progams of NASA in the teeth! So if congress wishes us to finish our proper obligations to our partners in this effort (the ISS) without savaging either the CEV (which is essential as a replacement for the aging shuttle), or savaging the very successful (and highly visable) science programs of NASA. Then congress is going to have to "Walk the talk!" and come up with additional funding!!<br /><br />To my knowledge NASA is one of the very few governmental efforts that is not just an outright expense of the federal government, NASA IS an INVESTMENT in not only the future of the US, but of the future of ALL mankind!!<br /><br />As the administration has proposed a 7% increase in the military budget (which I

 

[ragnorak]

<br />I'd like to see an unmanned shuttle dock with ISS! NASA's DART mission for rendezvous technology was a bust, and there ain't no money for substantial shuttle system changes. But I understand CEV will be highly automated.

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>"Shuttle assembly flights with heavy payloads (like Destiny) have gone up with five crew."<br /><br />True because that was required due to the weight of the payload. However the tasks to be performed at the ISS inaddition to the assembly functions were not performed. NASA flies the crewmen that are required for the mission. If the performance margin allows more crewman then the mission tasks are developed to utilize the entire crew.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Exactly. Five is the barest minimum to do the job. If three crew were sent up on Soyuz to perform the assembly functions along with the two ISS crew, that would certainly be highly disruptive to the ISS schedule, because they'd be getting even less done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

Aren't they planning to boost the crew to 3 once shuttle is providing supplies though? That may also include using shuttle for crew rotations so russia can continue milking the tourism cow I guess.<br /><br />From what I've seen, the shuttle is docked manually using video cameras around the hatch, ect. I don't see any reason this couldn't be done by remote control either from the earth or ISS. Making it fully automated is unneeded.

 

[mikejz]

I really don't know much about the shuttle's docking method--but i'm going to guess that the crew aguments that systems with handheld laser rangefinders, etc.

 

[mcs_seattle]

It never gets old considering how amazing it is that we can get a 220,000 pound vehicle going 17000+ mph, get it several hundred miles up.... and then we can land the thing on a runway.<br />

 

[kdavis007]

No....

 

[scottb50]

I don't see a big problem with that.<br /><br />Size and mass are irrelevent, even if they're the same size they do a lot of damage when they crash together.<br /><br />Most if not all of the functions are automated anyway, it's more a programming problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Most if not all of the functions are automated anyway, it's more a programming problem.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Much as I'd like to agree with you, being a software engineer, that this can be solved with software, it isn't something that can be acheived simply with new software. There are a lot of tasks on the Orbiter that are performed by hand because there is no physical connection to let a computer do it automatically or to do it by remote control. And there are devices that are hand-held too. A big example is the laser rangefinder. This device is not connected to the computer. It is not even connected to the Orbiter. It's hand-held. A crewman calls out range data to the commander verbally. So that needs to be built in. There are definitely hardware mods required in order to make the Orbiter operate entirely by remote control.<br /><br />That's not to say it's impossible. It can certainly done. But there is programmatic risk involved. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

I brought this up before the last big batch of billions spent to "fix" the deeply flawed shuttle. All they need to do is the following:<br />1) Rig the gear to drop by ground command. A modified garage door opener would do the trick - only cost a few million with NASA buying it.<br />2) Send a second Soyuz to the ISS with three crew. The Soyuz will be used to ferry crew to the shuttle once it is in close proximity to the ISS.<br />3) Bring the shuttle in over the gulf so if it goes badly, no big deal.<br /><br />Turn-em and burn-em. They probably won't loose any anyway.<br />

 

[frodo1008]

You mean the landing gear? This gear isn't deployed while the shuttle is in space! Oh, it could possibly be done, but then there would indeed be only three more shuttle flights (perhaps making some on these boards happy) as each one would burn up faster in the atmosphere than Columbia did!! Or perhaps you are referring to the actual deployment just before landing?<br /><br />As to your method of getting the shuttle to link up with the station, it might just be possible.....<br /><br />However, it would be at the very least dangerous and expensive! Do the Russians have the manufacturing capability to manufacture far more Soyuz capsules than we are already going to need over the next five years? I at least, do not know the answer to this. Then there would be the problem of directly transferring astronauts from the Soyuz capsules to the shuttle. I really don't think that you have thought through what this would take! Even then there would barely (if at all) be enough people to transfer and hook up the ISS modules, as pointed out by calli and shuttle_guy!<br /><br />No. at this time the current methods of getting the shuttle to link up with the station are quite adequate. Of course, if any more problems (or the old one of foam breakage can't be solved) come up (hopefully NOT catastrophically) then just perhaps something like you are proposing just might have to be seriously thought about, but certainly NOT now!!!<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

What's your problem ole boy? You were actually the one who suggested bringing the unmanned shuttles in over the Gulf to avoid the debris problem the first time I brought this up. Did you learn something between then and now that makes this an "immature" suggestion? <br /><br />

 

[rogers_buck]

It is my understanding that the only obstacle to fully automated flight is the dropping of the landing gear prior to touchdown.<br /><br />If you don't fly Shuttle missions you need to send up Progress supply ships. I think an extra tour of Soyuz every few months would be less of a burden than the additional Progress flights required when the shuttle is grounded.<br /><br />The Soyuz is full capable of docking with the shuttle to ferry the crew over so there would be no need to develop auto-dock for the shuttle. I can't see any draw-backs to this approach.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Ok, so they train a monkey instead of use a garage door opener. (-;<br /><br />Seems like any wing damage could be visually identified when the shuttle arrives at the ISS. If there was a Columbia style big hit then the shuttle would take a dive in the Pacific. Seems that the "shotgun" shuttle debris effect could be arranged to take place over water instead of Texas. It might still fly over Mexico and Florida, but at relatively safe parts of the mission profile.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Not to drag this out but you were my expert for source for the Gulf return so I want to get this straight...<br /><br />rogers_buck said<br /><br />shuttle_guy<br /><br />The first time this came up you indicated that the upper limit of such unmanned shuttle launches was around 1 per month tops. Given the status of Atlantis, I would be curious what the maximum rate would be in the here and now.<br /><br />