NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[vt_hokie]

<i>"We would love to hear how you think a lifting body is better than a capsule when returning from the Moon or Mars. We need the humorous break since we have yet another hurricane coming."</i><br /><br />Lockheed Martin apparently felt it was a better approach, until NASA demanded a simple capsule design.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"It was never built thus it can not be brought back."</i><br /><br />It was an active program, and the concept could certainly be revived.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Wrong, The lockheed Marting design was for the a LEO vehicle not a Lunar or Mars vehicle."</i><br /><br />Well, being that we'll probably only use the thing in LEO while the lunar missions get pushed back until the program is cancelled, then I'd definitely favor a lifting body vehicle. The only flaw with the Lockheed lifting body proposal was that the L/D was too low for runway landings. And I don't think we should be worrying about going back to the moon before we have a reliable LEO transportation system anyway. <br /><br />And I certainly feel that it is a tremendous step backwards to go from a controlled runway landing to floating down in a semi-controlled fashion at best, praying that the parachutes deploy properly. If they don't, oops, looks like you've got a repeat of the "Genesis" capsule's return to Earth, only with people aboard!

 

[dobbins]

The CEV can be used for LEO missions, a LEO design can't be used for deep space missions.<br /><br />You may find this hard to believe, but NASA hasn't found the Leprechaun's pot of gold yet, they have a budget they have to live with. Right now they can't afford to develop two vehicles, one for LEO operations and a second exploration vehicle.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"You may find this hard to believe, but NASA hasn't found the Leprechaun's pot of gold yet, they have a budget they have to live with. Right now they can't afford to develop two vehicles, one for LEO operations and a second exploration vehicle."</i><br /><br />Then we should be focusing on a safe, reliable crew transport system for Low Earth Orbit before worrying about returning to the moon. The goals of NASP and X-33/VentureStar were the right ones, even if the implementation was flawed. The Bush administration's "Apollo II" is absolutely the wrong direction for our space program, imho.

 

[dobbins]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1005/18ednasa.html<br />

 

[wvbraun]

"The goals of NASP and X-33/VentureStar were the right ones, even if the implementation was flawed. The Bush administration's "Apollo II" is absolutely the wrong direction for our space program, imho."<br /><br />I disagree 100 percent.

 

[vt_hokie]

Well, if your vision for space exploration in this new century consists of sending 4 people back to the moon by 2018 for a slightly beefed up Apollo excursion, then great! I guess I was hoping for a little bit more...

 

[frodo1008]

The only problem with what you are proposing is that it IS politically impossible! The "discretionary" part of the social services budget is considerably less that either the military budget or the tax cuts! <br /><br />The rest of the social services budget (and about 75% of the federal budget) is in entitlement programs. The greatest of these is social security. Where have you been for the last six months or so? If the struggles to make changes to social security haven't given the people of this country a taste of what trying to make actual cuts to such programs would be like politically, then the people who think that such cuts can actually be made are have their collective heads in the proverbial sand!! <br /><br />Actually social security has been the greatest success of just about ANY government program! It has elevated some 50% of our senior citizens out of the poverty level! You know, those people (like myself by the way) that won WWII, built the middle class and the American Dream, built the federal highway system (the greatest such transport system in the world), and while at it put men on the moon (something that I was a part of), and held at bay until it collapsed the ogre of international communism!! Now isn't it just possible that the younger people might just owe these people the ability to live their older years on something besides dog food? Beside, in case you haven't noticed "Old people Vote!!" So forget social security and Medicare (well, as the prescription drug thing hasn't yet taken affect, it could be either partially be cut, (or as it isn't going to really be as good as many such as myself thought it would be) or even totally postponed, or even reworked to give the people more actual control over prices and less control to pharmaceutical corporations. Now, this would certainly help, and Medicaid could possibly help also, as could many other discretionary federal expenses. But this still wouldn't help even the half that president Bush

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"You obviously do not know what you are talking about."</i><br /><br />And why exactly is that?

 

[frodo1008]

Perhaps we old people could instead tell our politicians (not only do old people vote, but you might just note that most of our powerful politicians and rulers of industry are not young anymore!) to start a program to eliminate young gang members that run around killing not only each other, but also other perfectly innocent non gang members!!! We could then truly eliminate at least some of the social programs to such people. If you want to talk about useless people!! <br /><br />However, I will say that I am just joking, if you will!!<br /><br />I once had the thought (un Christian of me, I know!) that we could have the police round up such scum (and the cops Do know who they are), place them in such places as the Los Angeles colessium, give them swords, picks, knifes, and the same kind of weaponry as the Romans did. And simply let them kill each other! The last group left standing really would be the nastiest left around, so we could hire them to go do our dirty work in the rest of the world! Heck, such a group might even be able to actually get Osama!!

 

[frodo1008]

Here you and I are indeed on the same path. I really do believe that in the long run the pure private space tourism types (in concert with NASA's hypersonic program, which I am certain will continue to make progress) will indeed come up with viable space planes.<br /><br />However, in the meantime NASA itself does not have the time nor funding to do this. So they are taking the very practical step of the space capsule. This is the provern method of getting to the moon rapidly and comming back. However, I also believe that far more infrastructure is going to have to be built before we can go on to Mars. It is a LOT further out, you know!!!<br /><br />But NASA is doing what I believe is correct for NASA at this time. NASA really does not have much of a choice right now,and so as this is going to be what is going to happen, then why all the keystrokes being wasted in useless argument???

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Let me guess, you grew up watching Star Wars movies and expect NASA to build you that type of spaceship."</i><br /><br />No, I'll settle for this, or this, or this, or even this, perhaps mated with a reusable launch vehicle down the road. Those are the kinds of promises I grew up with, so forgive me if I'm not excited by this!

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"NASA really does not have much of a choice right now,and so as this is going to be what is going to happen, then why all the keystrokes being wasted in useless argument???"</i><br /><br />Well, this is a discussion board after all, right? I'm just expressing my opinion...

 

[j05h]

>Well, if your vision for space exploration in this new century consists of sending 4 people back to the moon by 2018 for a slightly beefed up Apollo excursion, then great! I guess I was hoping for a little bit more...<br /><br />My vision is that entrepreneurs blow the gates open and there are several thousand people in cisLunar space 2020. NASA succeeds in landing their moon first mission right next to a National Geographic sponsored expedition. The first humans on Mars are uranium or nitrate prospectors in the mid-late 2020s, they follow the "one-way to stay" philosophy and become unbelievably wealthy in their Red Prison. <br /><br />Instead of stagnating with Cold War "programs", humanity blossoms outwards for commercial, artistic and religous reasons. It doesn't require handouts, we as individuals have to act, to start companies and movements. Cudos to Spacester for ACCESS! <br /><br />I want to see tens of thousands of people living and working off-Earth in my lifetime. We need to be multi-planet or we are in trouble. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"You have that right !!"</i><br /><br />I suspect that if my opinion happened to coincide with yours, you wouldn't mind me expressing it!

 

[frodo1008]

The only one of the first four that you show that even has the slightest chance of being built at this time is number four, and one of tha only reasons that it stands a chance is that the very inexpensive Russian space program is hoping to get funding from the ESA to develope such a craft, no funding, no craft!<br /><br />NASA dose not have such a possible sugar daddy, and so such development is out of reach for now. If you can convince a congress, that is very likely in light of recent events to cut NASA's even current budget, that NASA should have instead a large increase in funding to do this kind of development (particularily, as many would then say, "Oh, boy! Another shuttle!) then go right ahead and so so! Good luck, you are going to need it! <br /><br />For the rest of us, IF NASA can even build the capsule design and then go on to the moon, it just might generate enough exitement in the average taxpayer to allow for NASA to do some of these other things! <br /><br />Otherwise, we should allow for the pure private space tourist interests to work on such a project. Ordinary rich people going into space are going to want much more comfort and view than NASA astronauts, who are the most dedicated people on this planet! This will mean the lower g forces and greater window space that a plane (or lifting body) type of craft would provide!<br /><br />Yes, like yourself, I do believe that eventually the Earth to LEO area will be dominated by space planes taking off and landing like aircraft. But, right now it is just too difficult and expensive to accomplish!!

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I guess I was hoping for a little bit more...</font>/i><br /><br />I think a lot of people were, and I think that is why there was a bit of a "yawn..." from the larger community when Griffin unveiled the results from the ESAS. I would like to see some more promotional work done, probably done by someone other than NASA.<br /><br />But here is my take: almost any vision you can imagine requires the ability to (1) move humans into LEO and back home, (2) move a substantial amount of mass into space, and (3) take advantage of available local resources whenever possible (ISRU).<br /><br />Its logistics. Its not sexy. But it needs to be in place before you can do the sexy stuff. Griffin has talked about building large radio telescopes on the far/quiet side of the moon. He has talked about habitats on the Moon. The entire ESAS was driven to meet a mission to Mars -- that was their starting point and they worked backwards to arrive at the ESAS architecture. But right now he is concentrating on the less exciting stuff that needs to be done first.<br /><br />Here is my proposed timeline:<br /><ul type="square"><li>2008 - LRO begins most detailed survey of the Moon ever. Lots of excitement is generated, especially for data about the far side of the Moon.<li>2009 - Using LRO data, incredibly detailed virtual "flight" simulators of the Moon are created for home PCs.<li>2010 - ISS construction completed and begins full time operations.<li>2011 - First in a series of robotic rover/landers begin to land on the Moon to provide ground truth from LRO operations, do initial science, verify future landing sites.<li>2012 - CEV/CLV starts delivering large crews to ISS.<li>2014 - First robotic lander performs initial ISRU by processing Lunar regolith.<li>2016 - First HLV launch.<li>2017 - First Apollo-8 style human launch around the Moon, possibly including Lunar orbital insertion.<li>2018 - First Lunar landing on a site already scouted by ro</li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></li></ul></i>

 

[dobbins]

In addition to being a ferry to the ISS some missions need to be ran to test out the CEV before it goes to the Moon and some of these could also be "sexy" to increase interest in the program.<br /><br />LEO duration. Missions to test the CEV for longer missions. Up to now all the long missions have been aboard a station. Go for some records for an independent spaceship in orbit.<br /><br />High Orbit. The area between LEO and the moon has never had an orbital mission. This was planed for the Apollo program but dropped due to the push to land before the decade ended. A between the belts mission into orbit between the lower and upper Van Allen belts would certainly get the attention of the public.<br /><br />Beyond the Moon. A Mission in an orbit higher than the Moon's orbit. A two orbit mission that would last two months and went deeper into space than any maned mission has ever gone before.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

Those would be cool PR stunts, but hardly worth the billions of dollars they would cost. I say let's develop a worthy reusable "space plane" so that we can make maximum use of ISS and any future LEO facilities and open up access to space to more than just a couple of dozen NASA astronauts a year.

 

[dobbins]

There is no such thing as a worthy reusable "space plane" and it's impossible to build one. This is an economic problem, not a technical problem. NASA does NOT and will NOT have the launch rate needed to make servicing a space plane economically viable in the foreseeable future.<br /><br />An airline that only flew 3 or 4 flights a year could not afford to keep a maintenance facility open to service it's plane for a flight schedule that light. It would have to farm servicing it's plane out to some other company. In the case of a space plane there is no other company to farm the work out to, you have to shell out the bucks to keep a maintenance facility open. That is a huge money pit for the kind of flight rates that exist now.<br /><br />Reusable space planes do not and will not make economic sense until the flight rate increases to the point where the economics of scale kicks in. If you have weekly flights, then it starts to make economic sense. When you are only flying 3 or 4 times a year service costs exceed the cost of a cheaper expendable launch system. It costs more money to service a Shuttle than it costs to buy an expendable rocket and launch it, and that isn't just because of design errors in the Shuttle. It's because of the economics of scale, they work against you when you have a low flight rate.<br /><br />The other problem is what NASA ought to be doing. The agency ought to be more than just a launch service for science geeks that want something or another sent into LEO. NASA was created to explore space, not to be the governmental cargo service for scientists. The CEV is an exploration vehicle, a space plane is NOT.<br /><br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"The CEV is an exploration vehicle, a space plane is NOT."</i><br /><br />That's stretching things a bit - the CEV is an orbital crew transport just as the space shuttle and Soyuz are, albeit one that might someday be able to enter a lunar transfer orbit with the benefit of a separately launched "Earth departure stage". <br /><br />If the economics of reusable "space planes" are so poor, then why does Russia wish to replace the Soyuz with a reusable, runway landing vehicle? I don't see how the economics are any worse than they will be for NASA's "CEV".<br /><br />I'm willing to bet that you're dead wrong, and that the next 20 or 30 years will prove that reusable "space planes" are the future, while NASA's "CEV" capsule will quickly become a relic of the past. It's just a shame that other nations will likely lead the way, while NASA spends billions adapating antiquated shuttle hardware for its "Apollo on steroids" program.

 

[dobbins]

Why the assumption the Russians can't make a mistake? It hasn't been that long since they bankrupted their space program trying to build a shuttle clone.<br /><br />The Chinese on the other hand went with a "Soyuz on steroids".<br /><br />Of the three maned space programs two have looked at the facts and opted for capsules.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

I'd give the Russians a little more credit than that, and I'm sure they know what they're doing with Kliper.<br /><br />The Russian shuttle was in some ways superior to the American version that it was so blatantly based upon. And it certainly wasn't technical problems that killed the Russian space shuttle program, but rather the collapse of the Soviet Union and its economy that sealed the program's fate. <br /><br />It's a shame that Buran isn't operational today. Imagine how much less precarious the space station's future would be with both the U.S. and Russian shuttles available to support assembly and logistics! <br /><br />Again, look at why the Russians and Chinese have opted for capsules. They're cheap and easy. That doesn't make them the best solution overall, but merely the best solution for "beginners" like the Chinese or for programs on a shoestring budget like the Russians' space program has been.<br /><br />And while the Soyuz has a good safety record, I'm not real fond of the parachute/braking rocket/airbag landing method. Think of what happened to NASA's "Genesis" sample return capsule and then imagine that occuring on a manned vehicle! <br /><br />Parachutes are what you use as backup to escape from a crippled vehicle, not what you use to land a healthy vehicle! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

 

[dobbins]

Your observation is a result of a fixation on just a small part of a mission.<br /><br />The most dangerous part of any mission is NOT landing, it's reentry. A capsule is the best solution to this problem. Not just the best with our current technology, it is also the best in theory. It is impossible to design a vehicle with a better mass to area that needs thermal protection than a capsule. Use of any other design makes the vehicle more dangerous.<br /><br />The second most dangerous phase is launch. A winged vehicle adds aerodynamic stresses to the vehicle during launch and makes the vehicle more dangerous.<br /><br />Wings also are worse than useless in space, they add mass and increase the area that is subject to damage from space debris and increase the likelihood of the vehicle having a docking accident such as striking a wing against the ISS.<br /><br />Wings are utterly worthless or an increased hazard during over 99% of any mission. That means overall they make the vehicle less safe.<br /><br />