NASA looking at as few as 8 remaining shuttle flights

[tap_sa]

Wings also denote the existence of landing gear, which means additional hazards. The heatshield will have several hatches which increase the possibility of failure during reentry.<br /><br />The landing gear mechanism might jam, hatch won't open or gear fails to deploy itself. At least in Shuttle Orbiter's case there is no time for plan B, to bail out, so these failure modes are catastrophic.<br /><br />Winged craft needs active guidance all the time during reentry and landing. In reentry phase it's mostly RCS firings, after that it's flaps, ailerons, rudder. Those things <i>must</i> work or at the minimum the vehicle misses runway and is lost. I don't know how stable the Orbiter is during reentry or atmospheric flight, but have suspicion that there is a serious danger of starting an uncontrolled tumbling (Those who know better please confirm or refute).<br /><br />A capsule will miss designated LZ if RCS malfunctions, but because capsule can land pretty much anywhere the risks are much lower.

 

[dobbins]

We have to go with square wheels on that landing gear!<br /><br />Round wheels are old fashioned covered wagon technology. We can't have something that looks like it was used in the past, so we have to have a different look even if the older shape makes more sense from an engineering standpoint.<br /><br />

 

[tap_sa]

Hmm. Square wheels sounds good but I'm sceptical about their volumetric efficiency in the wheel well, it is too <i>high</i>. Efficiency is so five years ago.<br /><br />I propose completely spherical wheels. They would excuse many piloting errors. A sphere rolls into any direction so you could land even sideways. JetBlue type failure mode would be history!

 

[nacnud]

Cool that would allow planes to continue crabbing into the wind even on the ground <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[dobbins]

Spherical wheels will be too efficient. Triangular wheels will have a lousy volumetric efficiency and will be even less efficient than square wheels for rolling.<br /><br />We also need a huge outboard motor attached to the spacecraft to make it even more inefficient.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>NASA was created to explore space, not to be the governmental cargo service for scientists<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I don't think so. NASA was created by the National Aeronautics and Space Act and tasked with the following:<br /><i><br />Sec. 203. (a) The Administration, in order to carry out the purpose of this Act, shall-- <br />(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities; <br /><b><font color="yellow">(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations; </font>/b><br />(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof; <br />(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and <br />(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government. <br />(b)(1) The Administration shall, to the extent of appropriated funds, initiate, support, and carry out such research, development, demonstration, and other related activities in ground propulsion technologies as are provided for in sections 4 through 10 of the Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1976. <br />(2) The Administration shall initiate, support, and carry out such research, development, demonstrations, and other related activities in solar heating and cooling technologies (to the extent that funds are appropriated therefor) as are provided for in sections 5, 6, and 9 of the Solar Heating and Cooling Demonstration Act of 1974. </b></i><br /><br />I definitely don't see exploration in there. Do you? <br /><br />-NK

 

[dobbins]

If you want to get down to the root of the matter the space program was created to provide a legal basis for spying on the Soviet Union. Establishing a precedent for spy satellites to overfly the USSR was the primary concern of the Eisenhower administration when it sent the space bill to Congress.<br /><br />Exploration which is covered under item 1 is what was sold the American people. Science was considered the best cover for establishing the spy capability.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Ike was hoping that the overflight precedent could be bent to apply to the then secret U2 spy flights which were violating Soviet air space. If that didn't work having the Soviets accept space overflights as being legal instead of regarding them as the same as a violation of their airspace would lead to spay satellites that would be as capable as spy planes.<br /><br />This is what drove the decision to develop the civilian Vanguard launcher when Von Braun could have gotten us into orbit in 1956 with a Redstone. That was a missile and the administration felt a science satellite launched by a civilian rocket would stand better chance of establishing the precedents he wanted than a satellite launched by a military rocket.<br /><br />When the Soviets launched Sputnik it actually helped the Eisenhower administration accomplish what it wanted. The use of the R-7 ICBM to launch Sputnik opened the way for launches on US military rockets. What Ike wasn't counting on was the launch of Sputnik created a huge political backlash that was demanding that the US have a better space program than the Soviets had.<br /><br />Ike was worried that rivalries between the armed services combined with political pressure would result in the US having three space programs, an Air Force program, a Army program, and a Navy program. Creation of NASA prevented having three programs and satisfied the public.<br /> <br />

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If you want to get down to the root of the matter the space program was created to provide a legal basis for spying on the Soviet Union... the primary concern of the Eisenhower administration <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Frankly, I have no idea what the primary concern of the Eisenhower administration was. It's always tempting to try and interpret the actions of leaders after the fact. We do however have the National Aeronautics and Space Act, which has since been ammended and, until such act is amended again, we are beholden to it. Of course, if we don't like it, we can lobby to have it changed.<br /><br />That act makes the following clear:<br />- NASA is responsible for all aeronautical and space activities (note the inclusion of aeronautical, NASA is not just a space agency)<br />- The DoD in turn is responsible for all aeronautical and space activities (including spy satellites, which which NASA is supposed to have nothing to do) that are "peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States" This was done explicitly, no cover required<br />- There is no mention made of exploration - at all<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Exploration which is covered under item 1 is what was sold the American people<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Unless the average american citizen cannot read an otherwise pretty clear act, I don't know how they can be "sold [that] exploration" is the reason for the existance of NASA.<br /><br />So, the question is, does the vague point 1 cover exploration? The answer is found in Section 102(d) which declares the policy and purpose of the act:<br /><br /><i>(d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives: <br />(1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in th</i>

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Creation of NASA prevented having three programs and satisfied the public. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Maybe it prevented three programs, but it made it clear that there will be two programs: A non-military research program and a military DoD program.

 

[dobbins]

Do you think it's just chance that the first thing NASA did, within days of opening for business, was announce project Mercury?<br /><br />There is a reason for that, Exploration is what the public wanted and expected.<br />

 

[n_kitson]

The facts say the public wanted an agency that promotes aeronautical and space research. If the public had wanted a space exploration agency, we would have had the space exploration, or moon bill.<br /><br />I encourage you to read the entire National Aeronautics and Space Act<br /><br />If you still feel that the public wanted an exploration agency, then I encourage you to familiarize yourself with the Constitution of the United States which will inform you why the National Aeronautics and Space Act is representative of the public.

 

[dobbins]

I'm quite familiar withe the Space Act, both as it was originally proposed and as it was amended by the Congress (Mainly Lyndon Johnson) when it passed. I'm also familiar with declassified documents such as the Rand Corporation report on satellites that was prepared for the Military, and wittings by members of the administration that made the decisions.<br /><br />I'm no more in the habit of wearing rose colored glasses concerning NASA and it's history than I am regarding other subjects.<br /><br />

 

[n_kitson]

Then perhaps you need to reread it to refresh your memory. It is a pretty clear act on what the purpose and scope of NASA is, and your flags and footprints exploration argument is clearly in conflict with the act, as is your assertion that NASA was not created to be a carrier for scientists.<br /><br />If you have evidence to the contrary, then perhaps you should publish the references.

 

[dobbins]

For starters you can go to NASA's on site and read "This New Ocean: A History of Project Mercury"<br /><br />http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4201/toc.htm<br /><br />You will find that the NACA was already looking at space exploration 6 years before it even became NASA.<br /><br />If you know anything about the NACA you will realize that that their interest in science was always applied science, that is developing technology, not the Ivory tower pure research stuff that some people want pushed. The NACA's strength in applied science is a major reason why they became the core of the new space agency.<br /><br />

 

[spayss]

What matters is that it's 2005 and we live in a democracy. What does the public want to do with that 15 billion a year?<br /><br /> The money allocated by Congress (the people) for science is still the will of the people.

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>You will find that the NACA was already looking at space exploration 6 years before it even became NASA<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I completely agree with you on the above point, the NACA wanted space exploration BEFORE NASA, as per your source:<br /><br /><i>the Bureau of the Budget was firmly in favor of placing the space exploration program, including manned space flight, in the proposed civilian space organization... .<br /><br />Only a little more than three months after the Eisenhower administration's draft legislation went to the Capitol, both houses of Congress on July 16 passed the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, creating the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.</i><br /><br />However, if I recall correctly, NACA was not established by elected representatives (I'm open to correction on this point <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> ). The bill, passed by representatives of the citizens, gave NASA no direct exploration mandate. If the public wanted exploration, why didn't the Administration or Congress write it into the bill?<br /><br />The fact is: NASA is NOT an exploration agency, no matter how much you want it to be. It is primarily (i) a scientifc research agency for aeronautical and space science and (ii) it is intended to conduct applied research to develop aircraft and spacecraft to enable this research.<br /><br />The approach of hijacking an agency to serve a national or political purpose may have been considered acceptable in the 50's and 60's and during the cold war. However, in the 21st century, where we have enough corruption and large-government concerns, it is my opinion that simply ignoring legislation to achieve gung-ho goals is a cancer that needs to be stopped.<br /><br />I'm all for a new, clear legislative mandate. If elected representatives vote to redefine NASA as an exploration agency, good for those that want flags and footprints. Until that time, NASA - eve

 

[dobbins]

The NACA was founded by an executive order signed by President Wilson in 1915, and received it's initial funding via an amendment to a Naval bill.<br /><br />Don't make the assumption that the reason the government gives for doing something is the actual reason behind the action. As I have already mentioned Science was Ike's cover to set a precedent for overflights of the USSR.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

There is far more public support for maned space flight than there is for space science. That is something that hasn't changed since 1958.<br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">There is far more public support for maned space flight than there is for space science.</font>/i><br /><br />Not that I disagree with you, but could you point to evidence? Poll numbers, the original questions that were asked to generate the answers, any lead in information provided before the questions were asked, etc.<br /><br />I often see divergent views in the media, and these views are often the result of the type of question that was asked or the lead-in information. For example,<br /><ul type="square"><li>Do you support the goal of Americans exploring space?<li>Given the possibility that China wants to establish a colony on the Moon, do you support the US efforts to explore the Moon?<li>Do you support spending $100 billion to go to the Moon?<li>Do you support spending $100 billion to repeat a feat accomplished 50 years earlier?<li>Given that millions of children die every year of entirely preventable diseases, do you support the government spending $100 billion to plant a flag on the Moon?<br /></li></li></li></li></li></ul><br />And so on.</i>

 

[dobbins]

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/sts107_gallup_030218.html<br /><br />Shortly after a crash you still had more support for maned space flight.<br /><br />However there is another side to the story. If you ask "should NASA do X" you typically get a majority of yes. If you present a list of government programs and ask people to rank them from most to least important the NASA is pretty far down most people's list.<br /><br />The support is there but it's a mile wide and an inch deep, and even shallower than that for an all science NASA.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"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."</i><br /><br />This is a good point, and I will concede that while in orbit, wings are a liability. However, a true lifting body doesn't have wings as separate appendages. <br /><br />There must be a reason that the very intelligent engineers at Lockheed Martin chose a lifting body design for "CEV" before NASA killed any chance of innovation by mandating a simple capsule design. <br /><br />Russia claims that its lifting body Kliper (presumably the original version without the wings) will be used for lunar flights.

 

[dobbins]

Developing a new concept like a lifting body is dead certain to run into cost over runs and increase the profits of the company that is making it.<br />

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>"Wrong, The lockheed Marting design was for the a LEO vehicle not a Lunar or Mars vehicle."</i><br /><br />You know, I don't think this is correct. I seem to remember Lockheed's CEV website touting the lower g-loads during reentry as an advantage for lunar return missions.

 

[spayss]

"I often see divergent views in the media, and these views are often the result of the type of question that was asked or the lead-in information. For example..."<br /><br /> excellent post.<br /><br /> It's akin to:<br /><br />Do you want more money for space....yes<br />Do you want more money for the environment...yes<br />Do you want more money for our alternate energy...yes<br /><br />Okay, here's a dollar. It's all we have So now you can decide how you want to spend that one dollar. Surprise, it's none of the above but on education (or whatever). When someone has a quarter to buy an ice cream cone and picks chocolate...it doesn't mean they don't like vanilla ice cream.<br /><br /> It's not hard to get positive results on a poll. However, in the real world of limited resources and competing interests, it's hard to get the actual dollar. <br /><br /><br /> <br />