Next Space Shuttles

[caper]

Tell me more about the next Space shuttles they will biuld. I am not sure were to begin to look. Will it be newer technologies? Please provide me links. Mars look good these days too. I would like to seea mission to Mars over finishing the ISS.

 

[MeteorWayne]

There are no plans at this time to build anything resembling the space shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

well orion/ares will shuttle people to space so it could be said that it is a space shuttle.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

I guess it's all in how you interpret the term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

NASA is not planning to develop any winged launch vehicles at this time

 

[crix]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion_%28spacecraft%29<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_I<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ares_V

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Sadly, it doesn't look like we are going to have much of a manned space program in the future passed 2010, less than 20 missions in 20 years. The hayday of manned spaceflight is over for the U.S. Hopefully Russia or China, or someone else will do something bold, forcing us to respond with something greater. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[grdja]

Space shuttle is a bad concept. You take a HLV, make its engines reusable, stick main engines on a huge space plane (making it all or nothing in capability), and you end up with launching 100 tons in order to launch 7 people and 30 tons of payload. After real flight costs were understood, there were no satellites returned to earth for repair, almost no orbital repair. You launch wings, flaps, hydraulics, landing gear, tons and tons of stuff irrelevant to the subject of launching people (and safely returingn them) and (preferably or) cargo into space.<br /><br />Saddest part is, NASA practically knew and understood Shuttle program had failed. There was "National Space Plane" idea in late '80es, and X-33 concepts and projects throughout the '90es. But NASA had to do with limited money, and had to continue to give barrels of federal money to LokMar and Thiokol.<br /><br />And now NASA tries to rettrun to 1970. and try again. I was first very sad and worried hearing that they'll use SSME for Ares rockets (too damned expensive). Thank god someone had enough brains to choose J-2 and RS-68.<br /><br />IMHO, best option would be for you (USA) to develop a modular launcher like Angara, that can be scaled for various payloads. If i understand correctly, with such a design costs have to drop, since you have to mass produce basic components because all launch vehicles you operate use same basic segments, just in different numbers.

 

[Huntster]

To be honest, I'm not sure that even Russian or Chinese advancement will be enough to get U.S. manned spaceflight back into gear. It is so painfully bogged down in bureaucratic nonsense and a constant fear of something going wrong, it will be difficult to recover.<br /><br />As unfortunate as it is, I believe the U.S. must rest its hope on the private sector. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

"...a modular launcher like Angara..."<br /><br />This is what SpaceX is doing. They reuse many parts from one Falcon model to the next.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"IMHO, best option would be for you (USA) to develop a modular launcher like Angara, that can be scaled for various payloads. If i understand correctly, with such a design costs have to drop, since you have to mass produce basic components because all launch vehicles you operate use same basic segments, just in different numbers."<br /><br /><br />They already exist, they are called Atlas 5 and Delta IV

 

[rocketscientist327]

Someone posted earlier that the US will have to rely on private companies like SpaceX to continue manned space flight. He is exactly right. But he or she sounds sad, why? It is my experience that the private sector does things a hell of a lot better than the government ever could in most instances, and space travel will be one soon.<br /><br />How much money have we spent on Constellation? 3.3 billion dollars in the 2007 NASA budget¹ alone, and what have we got to show for it? Some really cool drawings and a bunch of bickering from congress. Moreover, it is overweight and they are continuously shrinking the size of the Ares 1 Crew Module. I think read on this forum that the crew capsule may get shrank down to 4.5 meters. <br /><br />Add to that the process that is political correctness. Soliciting “bids†and making sure we have so many companies with this background and so many minority owned companies, it is just a gigantic headache to try to build a spacecraft when you have to make sure everyone gets their piece of the pie. Every NASA center needs involvement as well.<br /><br />Finally, they work for the government so they are all getting paid. If they don’t, they just “push to the right†the launch date of the Ares 1 and 5. <br /><br />Now compare and contrast that with a company like SpaceX or Biglow. They have a limited budget and need to make a profit. While agree with the argument that Biglow and SpaceX have not have fully successful manned missions yet, they have plans on the board. Moreover, the execution of their respective plans seem to be pretty good.<br /><br />Look how fast they designed Dragon and then look at Ares 1. NASA cannot decide where to put windows. Heck, they cannot decide how big to make it. I know that there is a lot more that goes into making a space vehicle suitable for humans, but for me, it seems while NASA debates, the private sector is taking action.<br /><br />I do not think NASA will be in the manned spaceflight b

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Tell me more about the next Space shuttles they will biuld. I am not sure were to begin to look.</font>/i><br /><br />Start with the NASA web pages on "Constellation":<br />http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/constellation/main/index.html<br /><br />NASA's new program looks a lot like the old Apollo program with a capsule for crew transportation and expendable launch vehicles. Reusable winged vehicles like the Shuttle orbiter are not part of the new vision.<br /><br />The primary differences with Constellation versus Apollo are (1) Constellation will use two launches per mission to the Moon (Ares I for cew and Ares V for the lander) which will dock in Low Earth Orbit before heading to the Moon, and (2) Constellation will put 4 astronauts on the surface of the Moon instead of 2. The Ares I and capsule (called Orion) can also be used to take crew and cargo to ISS.<br /><br />There are lots of discussions of what to do once NASA has developed this ability (e.g., building a long-term outpost at the Moon's south pole, building radio telescopes on the far side of the Moon, mining oxygen for rocket fuel to go to Mars, etc.), but this is only talk. Once the Constellation capability is built out, deciding what activities to do and how much to spend on them will be left to future presidents and Congresses.<br /><br />There are no current plans to give NASA enough money to do both the Moon and Mars, so if NASA wants to go to Mars, it will need to quickly abandon its Moon plans to build out Mars.<br /><br />This is a common problem for NASA. It couldn't continue Apollo and build the Shuttle, so it had to shutdown Apollo first. NASA cannot continue the Shuttle program and build Constellation, so it is shutting down the Shuttle before completing Constellation. NASA probably cannot continue to operate ISS and go to the Moon, so it will shutdown its funding of</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I think there will always be that desire to explore and discover, and JPL and APL excel at this."<br /><br />This also includes GSFC and KSC. BTW, APL is not NASA.<br /><br />"Moreover, Langley will always have a niche with airplane safety."<br /><br />This includes Ames and Glenn<br /><br />So, NASA still will be NASA.<br /><br />"Moreover, the execution of their respective plans seem to be pretty good. "<br /><br />Spacex is 0 of 2. Real good excution

 

[grdja]

"They already exist, they are called Atlas 5 and Delta IV"<br /><br />Aren't they being flown very few times a year, ending up with very high flight costs? And they have no real scaling. I think that sticking everything and a kitchen sink on Delta to get a Delta Heavy ends up hardly being able to launch 30 tons. That ain't heavy lift in my book.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"And they have no real scaling. I think that sticking everything and a kitchen sink on Delta to get a Delta Heavy ends up hardly being able to launch 30 tons."<br /><br />A-V 9k to 19k kg 25k kg if the heavy is developed<br />D-IV 8K to 23K kg<br /><br />That is scaleable (1x to 3x) and They can lift more than the Angara

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">I think that sticking everything and a kitchen sink on Delta to get a Delta Heavy ends up hardly being able to launch 30 tons. That ain't heavy lift in my book.</font><br /><br />There has been no market for heavy lift which is why Boeing and Lockheed (now ULA) have not developed it. Spending that sort of coin on IR&D for a product with no possible commercial market would lead to very angry mob of activist shareholders having the board of directors of both companies lynched.<br /><br />If NASA made a serious commitment today, ULA could have Atlas V Phase 2 operational before the Shuttle leaves service.

 

[rocketscientist327]

"Spacex is 0 of 2. Real good excution "<br /><br />Oh wait, I forgot NASA never failed in the 50s with Mercury program. The difference here is that these new private companies are doing it privately with their own money. They are more efficient. While NASA needs a control room with 50 computers just to launch a shuttle, never mind Houston after the shuttle clears the tower, new companies use one or two laptops.<br /><br />I agree SpaceX has problems. I think everyone here would not disagree with that. They are paving the way for private companies to make space flight cheaper and more accessible. Everyone here knows how tough it is to achieve orbit, the risks, and dangers involved. So you can say two failures or you can say two tests, one of which made orbit. To reach orbit in two shots is nothing short of remarkable when you started from scratch four years ago.<br /><br />Finally, you illustrating how NASA has offices all around the country only further illustrates my point of how huge a bureaucracy NASA really is.<br /><br />But I do agree, new companies like SpaceX and Biglow need to get it right the first time (or close to it) because they are not being bankrolled by the richest country ever to exist on earth.<br /><br />I do not hate NASA and I know it will be around for awhile. What I am saying is that unless NASA changes how they conduct business, the people there are going to be in for a very rude awakening.<br /><br />Respectfully,<br />Rocket Scientist 327 <br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The difference here is that these new private companies are doing it privately with their own money. They are more efficient. While NASA needs a control room with 50 computers just to launch a shuttle, never mind Houston after the shuttle clears the tower, new companies use one or two laptops."<br /><br />They are more efficent because they have 50 years of NASA and USAF experience to draw upon. It is more than 1 or 2 laptops and the falcon is not a manned spacecraft. <br /><br />Also the Falcon has not made it into orbit. <br /><br />"you illustrating how NASA has offices all around the country "<br /><br />It is diversity of the jobs that NASA has is the reason for the all the centers. I agree NASA has some bureaucracy been not to the extend you say. NASA just isn't the shuttle. <br /><br />bureaucracy will catch up with spacex too <br /><br />

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>And now NASA tries to rettrun to 1970. and try again. I was first very sad and worried hearing that they'll use SSME for Ares rockets (too damned expensive). Thank god someone had enough brains to choose J-2 and RS-68. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Its not a return to 1970. Its really the next step from Apollo. The Orion capsule will have the capability of being unmanned in lunar orbit while the crew goes down to the moon. The capsule will also be able to go beyond the moon. A capsule system is best suited for operations in space and return to earth. A winged orbiter is desired if your going to launch people and cargo often into space because of resuablilty of systems. IMO the Shuttle Orbiter failed to demonstrate that. But hopefully Virgin Galatic will demonstrate it in suborbital flight and maybe orbital flights in the future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>They are more efficent because they have 50 years of NASA and USAF experience to draw upon. It is more than 1 or 2 laptops and the falcon is not a manned spacecraft.<br /><br />Also the Falcon has not made it into orbit. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Launchers don't make it into orbit! They launch things into orbit! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>There has been no market for heavy lift which is why Boeing and Lockheed (now ULA) have not developed it. Spending that sort of coin on IR&D for a product with no possible commercial market would lead to very angry mob of activist shareholders having the board of directors of both companies lynched. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I think there is a market! But ULA wants to start with something that exists not build something that has not existed. I'm sure there is a market for Ares V class launchers...and maybe bigger.<br /><br />ISS is an example. Imagine companies like Bigelow set up space stations and hotels.....To bring down the cost of consumables, you want bigger launch vehicles. Try googleing for commercial logistics. You will find that cargo ships are getting bigger all the time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I think there is a market!."<br /><br />The ISS is not an example. It was a task specifically to give the shuttle something to do.<br /> There is no commercial HLLV market. Weight equates to cost. There aren't commerical users * willing to risk billions on a single launches<br /><br />Bigelow stations are not examples, he has the size he needs with current launchers<br /><br />* Name a commercial use of a payload (other than Bigelow) weighing more that 30 ton in LEO or 15 ton in GSO or escape. There isn't one right now. So there isn't a market

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Launchers don't make it into orbit!"<br /><br />The upperstage of a launcher makes it into orbit, otherwise the payload is not in orbit

 

[docm]

What are you going to post once a Falcon payload <i><b>does</b></i> make it to orbit? [shrug]<br /><br /><font color="yellow">It is more than 1 or 2 laptops and the falcon is not a manned spacecraft. </font><br /><br />15 exactly, and with those they pulled off a real neat trick; a hot start abort, diagnosis, drain, refill and launch in 1 hour. <br /><br />No orbit yet but then that wasn't a primary goal for Demo 2, so gauging the whole mission using that criteria is disingenuous at best. I put their "success rate" at no less than .95 for 2. Better than NASA's at a similar point in their history. Lots of RUD's there <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />No, they haven't done a manned mission, but then like orbit on Demo 2 that point in their program schedule has not been reached so using it as an argument against them is again disingenuous. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>