Looks like I was right about the future workhorse of the US Space program!

Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dwightlooi

Guest
A few months ago I conjured up a fictional graphical and textual representation of what I think the future workhorse of the post shuttle US space program will be like. It was really just the scion of day dreaming and not being productive at work while pretending to be so.<br /><br />Basically, I proposed that some type of heavy lift vehicle using <b> 7 common core boosters from the Delta IV or Atlas V family</b> in a hexagonal arrangement will be the way to go, figured in the new RL-60 upperstage motor and conjured up some educated guesses as to what the payload capacities will be. <br /><br />Today.... I am surprised by an official Boeing pdf showing that they plan to do just that!<br /><br />Boeing Official Info<br /><br />The following is a re-iteration of my doodlings...<br />
 
M

mikejz

Guest
Its sad that the future of the US space program will be build around that same old heavy-lift of before. I was hoping to see an aquarius (heavy lift, high risk, commodity booster) style heavy life vehicle build around 6 shuttle SRBs along with the development of a Big-G style capsule that does not require the large boosters to get it into orbit.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
Why is it that it seems like the Atlas can get more mass to LEO but less to GTO?
 
N

najab

Guest
Look at the difference in thrust of the upper stages - Atlas uses a less energetic upper stage.
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Personally, it will be a very sad day if NASA reverted to these expensive and uninspiring fireworks instead of the Shuttle.<br /><br />I know everything has a purpose, but even the OSP is one ugly sob. <br /><br />Sure, I'm coming from a standpoint that has nothing to do with economic, but you can bet your bottom dollar that half of the people who follow NASA do so because of those awe-inspiring and beautiful shuttles.<br /><br />Seeing one of those launch is an end product that is visable and tangable to the work that people at NASA put in.<br /><br />Personally, rocks on Mars - whatever. Rings of Saturn - Whoopee :/. Heavy lift Atlas - Yawn. Shuttles - amazing.
 
W

wvbraun

Guest
Are you serious? The Shuttle should be phased out as soon as possible. It's a dangerous, over-engineered, *very* expensive flying machine. And it's not beautiful either.
 
L

lunatic133

Guest
The shuttle was a beautiful machine once, make no mistake. But that was twenty years ago. It is time to move on. And miracle of engineering or not, the space shuttle is NOT what space exploration is supposed to be about. Space exploration is about going to new places, the moon, mars, and beyond. Space exploration is about discovering new things, and spreading to new worlds. The endless circling of LEO done by the space shuttle accomplishes none of that, except to continually drain the NASA budget so that something meaningful cannot be done.
 
N

najab

Guest
I hear where you're coming from, and agree to an extent. However, even though a Delta/Atlas Super-Heavy might not be a thing of beauty, I think that if you or I were standing watching a launch of one of these behemoths the sound and vibration and sheer <b>power</b> of 4 1/2 million pounds of liftoff thrust would still cause tears to be shed: the beauty of a rocket is not an esoteric notion of form, but lies in it's shear practical ability to move, lift and soar!
 
D

dwightlooi

Guest
Two things...<br /><br />1) On the issue of the payload capacity -- that the Delta carries less to LEO but more to GTO than the Atlas V -- its a result a combination of factors.<br /><br />a) The Delta IV core booster is much larger but much lighter than the Atlas V (226 tons at lift off for the Delta-IV vs 307 tons for Atlas-V). This is due to the light, energetic but low density characteristics of liquid hydrogen fuel vs the heavy, not so energetic but compact kerosene fuel. In vaccuum, only mass has any bearing on performance; bulk and/or aerodynamics has no effect. Hence, a rocket like the Delta wants to fly a VERY steep trajectory to get it out of the atmosphere as soon as possible. This happens to be more suited to GTO missions than LEO missions.<br /><br />b) The other thing is that the Delta IV (in its current configurations) does not have a dual engine upper stage. It relies on the same RL10B2 engine for both LEO and GTO missions. For GTO this is no handicap because you want to fly a steep trajectory and use gravitational acceleration with a long upper stage burn to attain the highly eliptical GTO orbit. But for LEO its better to fly a shallower trajectory and use a shorter, more forceful burn for orbital injection. Again, the Delta IV design favor GTO performance at the expense LEO lugging capacity.<br /><br />2) As so far as the shuttle is concerned, it is no doubt the MOST expensive and LEAST economic way of getting stuff into low earth orbit or any kind of orbit. Despite being reusable, the shuttle is basically torn down and rebuilt after every mission so its no commercial jetliner. In fact the cost of a shuttle launch (upwards of 600 million not counting the reenginerring costs after the Challenger and Columbia incidents) compares horribly with disposables (Anywhere from $40 million to $120 million). The only thing the shuttle has going for it is its astronaut capacity and its heavy lift capability. As far as the former is concerned, you can get more chaps in
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
Forget the costs at this moment - the US goverment wastes far more cash than the figures involved on here on other projects of limited value. (as does the UK).<br /><br />I'm speaking from a personal angle....and I'm shocked about just how dispassionate people are when it comes to the Shuttle.
 
J

jcdenton

Guest
<font color="yellow">I'm speaking from a personal angle....and I'm shocked about just how dispassionate people are when it comes to the Shuttle.</font><br /><br />I'd say we're more eager to see something new since the shuttle is quite old and there's been what, 117 missions already. All good things must come to an end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
S

steve82

Guest
Wow. All those clustered RD's on the SHLV Atlas make it look like a Russian vehicle.
 
K

kdavis007

Guest
That is correct. It is time for the Shuttle to retire. Space is about exploration. Not about science.
 
A

arobie

Guest
Space is about exploration <b>and</b> science. The science should be useful information though, information that we will need when we go to explore.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
<font color="yellow">Space is about exploration. Not about science.</font><br /><br />Grrrrrrr, why what’s wrong with science huh. So those two Mars rovers are no good because of all the science they are doing? Sorry I shouldn't be angry but exploration and science are inseparable why reject one over the other.<br />
 
S

shuttle_rtf

Guest
>That is correct. It is time for the Shuttle to retire. Space is about exploration. Not about science. <<br /><br />But surely manned space flight is what inspires people to explore.<br /><br />I'm digressing away from these rockets. I'll start a new thread another day.
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">Grrrrrrr, why what’s wrong with science huh.</font>/i><br /><br />Perhaps that should have been " 'manned space' is about exploration and not about science." If our primary goal is gathering knowledge, then I think unmanned exploration provides the best return on the dollar.<br /><br />However, I still think the manned space program being just about exploration is too narrow. I like the idea of developing industries, economies, colonies, etc. Note, President Bush's announcement and NASA's plan do not include any of these things.</i>
 
D

dwightlooi

Guest
Actually... the way I see it... space programs are about:-<br /><br />1. National Prestige<br />2. National Prestige<br />3. National Prestige<br /><br />Science happen to be nice incidentals that come with it, but it is not what drives space endeavors for the most parts. Exploration is only of value because of the prestige and bragging rights being first or being a select few to be at a certain place or do a certain thing brings.<br /><br />Besides... if science is the goal. The price of one shuttle flight can pay for 10 Mars launches using pathfinder type probes and small disposables.<br /><br />I am not opposed to reusables, but the Shuttle does not make economic sense, it doesn't have much residual prestige value after 25 years two accidents and it certainly isn't a good vehicle for forwarding science.
 
E

earth_bound_misfit

Guest
"It is time for the Shuttle to retire"<br />That will be a sad day.<br /><br />I think manned spaceflight has made space science more interesting. We still need the shuttle, so lets hope it doesn't get retired soon. At least untill there's a better replacement. I would like to see something similar to the shuttle invented, that is reuseable and can fill missions beyond LEO. Maybe the replacement could have different type/size boosters to allow it to fly even to the moon. Now that would be awesome! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>
 
M

mcbethcg

Guest
I don't understand why people are so fixated on the shuttle.<br /><br />I don't understand why people are so fixated on reusability.<br /><br />Transporting people or things to space requires the expenditure of materials and resources. The goal ought to be efficiency and reliability- transporting things and people to space with as little waste as possible.<br /><br />As it has turned ought, the shuttle program has been inefficient. Costs have not been acceptable.<br /><br />As it has turned out, the shuttle program has been unrelaiable. Two major accidents that have led, twice, to long term, total cessations in flight. 2/5ths of the fleet destroyed.<br /><br />If we had continued using expendable staged rockets, neither of these problems would have occured. Unmanned rockets could have continued flying, and modifications could have been tested in flight. Thats the beauty of the Soyuz. They have an accident, and they can quickly figure it out and incorporate changes in future versions, instead of grounding a fleet for rebuilding. <br /><br />The shuttle has single-handedly destroyed the US manned space effort. <br /><br />I have a feeling that some suporters of the shuttle are partial to it because they like the idea of humans piloting spacecraft. They think spacecraft really ought to function like airplanes, that this is somehow the goal.
 
N

nacnud

Guest
I don't think NASA had much of an option when it came to reusability. After Apollo where only such a small part of the rocket came back and even then was scrap I think that reuse of as much hardware as possible was necessary to help public opinion and show money wasn't being thrown away with each launch. Even if it was all false economies.
 
M

mikejz

Guest
I think having a fixation on the space shuttle is just not very logical. I could care less how someone or something gets up there--only that it was the most effective, cheapest, and in the case of manned spaceflight safest way possible. The shuttle in trying to be all things to all people achieves none of these. I feel in the end the shuttle achieved nothing more then show Nasa that building infrastructure is a way to avoid congressional cutbacks. <br /><br />I look forward to the day that Nasa gets out of LEO all together--and if they actually put there money where there mouth is it would not be that far off. I disagree with those who purpose that we retire the shuttles however, I feel that after they have completed the goal of building ISS that they should remove the man rating and fly them remotely. They should be flown with no rebuilding or significant maintenance in between flights until failure---that way we squeeze every dollar we invested in them out. <br />
 
S

spaceiscool

Guest
The Shuttles are the worst part of NASA. They are dangerous old-fashioned piles of garbage, run and maintained by un-professional cowboys who are totally responsable for the deaths of 14 astronaunts.<br /><br />They should scrap the Shuttles immediately, sack anyone that had anything to do with them and progress to a more professional NASA with rockets and forget the mistake of the Shuttle ever happened.<br /><br />Anyone that likes the Shuttle, anyone that worked with the Shuttle should hang their heads in shame.
 
J

jcdenton

Guest
<font color="yellow">"They are dangerous old-fashioned piles of garbage, run and maintained by un-professional cowboys who are totally responsable for the deaths of 14 astronaunts."<br /><br />"Anyone that likes the Shuttle, anyone that worked with the Shuttle should hang their heads in shame."</font><br /><br />Your post reeks of immaturity. It's one thing to argue against the shuttle's practicability but to deride the people who work on the shuttle program like that is just plain stupid, especially when they don't decide NASA's policy. <br /><br />If you're so smart, why don't you invent a replacement to the shuttle?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts