Next Space Shuttles

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Also I am talking about the next decade, not some Scifi story. And no, there isn't going to be a "breakthrough" to make it happen sooner.</font><br /><br />A lot can happen in 10 years. Look at the leap from 1959 to 1969. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"A lot can happen in 10 years. Look at the leap from 1959 to 1969."<br /><br />there was a cold war.<br /><br />1990-2000 or 1996-2006 is more relevant and had no "leaps"

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">"A lot can happen in 10 years. Look at the leap from 1959 to 1969." <br /><br />there was a cold war. <br /><br />1990-2000 or 1996-2006 is more relevant and had no "leaps" </font><br /><br />Just because there were no leaps during that time period doesn't mean that there won't be a period of great leaps in the near future. A lot *CAN* happen in 10 years. 2010 to 2020 may see a space growth just like the 1960's. It may be war driven, or driven by a sort of "Gold Rush" for space tourism, or hopefully space manufacturing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> 1990-2000 or 1996-2006 is more relevant and had no "leaps"</i><br /><br />Nope, none. Nothing like an Internet Bubble or genome mapping. And both of those are totally relevant in space development. A lot can change in a decade.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

People always try to compare Alt.space and the personal computer/Internet boom when in reality they have very little in common. Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak built the original Apple I in Wozniak's parents' garage with minimal startup capital. Most Internet startups could make a profit within a year with less than a million dollars and a buggy web site. You just can't do that with spaceflight. There are too many variables and the costs are just way too high for any sort of equal comparison. Read Elon Musk's blog. He's been on both sides of the fence and can tell you that there is no comparison. While I have no doubt that within the next decade there will be some pretty significantly advancements in commercial spaceflight, I don't think that there will be any advancements that we can't foresee now. While there may be space hotels for the super rich and suborbital hops for the moderately rich, there won't be any huge quantum leaps that will see people like you and me taking vacations to the Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

You know, it is perhaps somewhat better to be on the pessimistic side here, and then be very pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong than it is to be as optimistic as some of the alt.space crowd are here and then be as disappointed as some always seem to be about NASA!<br /><br />Let the people like Elon Musk, Burt Rutan and Bigelow and their employees be the enthusiastic ones! Unless you plan on making actual monetary contributions to those efforts (either through buying stock, or actual gifts) these forums actually do nothing to either hinder nor help such efforts!<br /><br />NASA HAS to be optimistic or they would NOT get any funding from an already skeptical and non technical congress! This was what happened during the shuttle era, and while I understand their viewpoint, it is the only thing that I find fault with.<br /><br />However, the pure private efforts have both the advantage (not having to deal with congress) and the disadvantage (general lack of funds, and the necessity of making a profit) of not dealing directly (in general at least) with the government here. So it IS better to be on the pessimistic side with such operations.<br /><br />All the more wonderful it will be to this old aerospace supporter when and if they succeed!

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Ares V is not going to be commercially viable<br /><br />1. It is a gov't vehicle<br />2. It is not cost effective<br />3. What is the commercial payload?<br /><br />The gov't has always had large launch vehicles, it doesn't mean there is a commercial market. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />What part of "class of launchers" didn't you understand? <br />I never said Ares V would have a commercial application. <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>2. You might get clauserphobic<br />3. No internet <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Who said no internet???? Of course they will have internet. <br /><br />Claustrophobia??? In weightlessness this is much less of a problem than on Earth in the same given volume. <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>Internet in space is an interesting technical challenge.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Dude, its already been done. Remember CHIPSat ? <blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>CHIPSat, a high-performance inexpensive microsatellite, was the first U.S. mission ever to use end-to-end satellite operations over the Internet with TCP/IP and FTP<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

It is not the sames. See<br />http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=missions&Number=774398&page=&view=&sb=&o=&vc=1

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It is not the sames.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />??? What are you talking about? If you knew anything about TCPIP you would understand that a simular system with CHIPSat would work to access the WorldWideWeb.<br /><br />I think your not understanding my post. Sometimes, Jim, I could swear your really a teenager in highschool the way you answer with not much thought to posts. But I have to believe you are who you say you are for argument sake.<br /><br />Sure I was answering the first part of ThereIwas' post. Because it was foundational. I was trying to say a similar system has been tried successfully.<br /><br />The bandwith issue really has to do with transmitters and modems (that's com modems). We already have satellite ISPs. All there is to do is to make the components powerful enough. The research has been done, we got the know how its just a matter of implementing a new application of it. And it would probably require a set of communication satellites to do it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

We don't have satellite ISPs using non-synchronous orbits.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>We don't have satellite ISPs using non-synchronous orbits.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Right. But maybe updated relay satellites (geosynchronous?). I think the ISPs should remain on Earth. <br /><br />Somehow I think that we could use and updated network of relay satellites to transfer TCPIP packets, voice, and video info.<br /><br />What you think?<br /><br />BTW maybe some company like DirectTV would provide satellite service (not necessarily present satellites). I would probably fit into their business model. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

Assuming that any manned station will be in a much lower orbit than synchronous, they will be constantly moving with respect to any ground stations and with respect to any geosynchronous relay satellites. This is a tricky aiming problem for the antenna(s) on the manned station.<br /><br />The current network of TDRSS satellites belongs to NASA and was quite expensive. Are you proposing a low-cost alternative not restricted to US government projects that does not also require aimable antennas on the relays? DirecTV satellites are also very expensive.

 

[vt_hokie]

<i><font color="yellow">The capsule will also be able to go beyond the moon.</font>/i><br /><br />If you believe that, I've got a Mars base I'd like to sell you! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /></i>

 

[nec208]

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.<br /><br />====================================<br /><br />Well because it takes 2 external tanks and big solid rocket boosters to lunch the size of the shuttle in space !! That what we know of now and to some one comes up with engine the size of a car or truck that me know you get Nobel Prize!!<br /><br /><br />Too than we have to use those very big external tanks and big boosters to lunch that payload size that what we know of now .<br /><br />The bigger the payload size the bigger the external tanks and bigger the boosters .<br /><br />I don't know where you get the shuttle engines on space plane the shuttle is not some space plane it is nothing like what you will find on earth.<br /> <br /><br />You cannot start lunching big payload size like the 747 NASA apollo program or space X you are going to have space accents like Virgin Galactic or not.<br /><br />What NASA needs do and the space buffs also the private sector is think small not big.<br /><br />1 You cannot go Mars <br />2 You cannot build space station the size like ISS <br />3 You cannot build moon outpost the size of the ISS<br />4 You cannot build big space shuttle its size <br /><br />There will be space disasters and when you take on big projects and a space disasters happens it stops construction and makes people bad that will than cut the program .<br /><br />If NASA builds big craft and goes to Mars in 10 years from now they could do it but space disasters on the 2 or 3 trip is very likely and if it does happen witch is very likely you can say good by to man space flight this all congress needs and would love to just do away of man space flight and cut NASA program.<br /><br />What NASA needs to do make small baby steps like 1 go into space and back safe, 2 build smaller ISS <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

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 />===========================<br /><br />The shuttle was test to prove the shuttle can go in space and back not the last stange it may take 5 or 10 shuttles to we get to where we want it. People today just think they can do any think and that is so wrong it takes loads of money and time to get to where we what it to be.<br /><br />People just think space flight should cost like air flight and that is silly !! And going into space is very big challenge there is only 3 countries that can do it!! <br /><br />If it was easy there be lots countries and China could done it 20 years ago.Keep mind China space program is no where like the USSR or US that learn alot from years of going into the space program .And all the years they learn it well look at all the problems it still a very big challenge going up in space.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

nec208:<br />Space shuttle is a bad concept.<br /><br />Me:<br />I don't see the shuttle as a bad concept, its just one that was way ahead of its time and proved too expensive for practical use. The shuttle has done all that it has been tasked to do and almost all it has been asked to do.<br /><br />The shuttle elements could have been utilized in the shuttle "C" concept to haul up the heavy stuff. IMO, NASAs mistake in recent years was not developing shuttle "C" and designing ISS around that capability.<br /><br />nec208:<br />What NASA needs do and the space buffs also the private sector is think small not big. <br /><br />1 You cannot go Mars <br />2 You cannot build space station the size like ISS <br />3 You cannot build moon outpost the size of the ISS <br />4 You cannot build big space shuttle its size<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree that NASA and buffs should think small to some extent. As long as the 3 Ps (Public, politicians, press) are unwilling to commit/support bigger space ventures, we have no choice but to think small. On your other points...<br /><br />1...We can go to mars if the private sector can get the cost of going to low earth orbit down. NASA would then focus on the getting to mars part as opposed to getting to earth orbit, then mars. Even so, the 3 Ps will ultimately determine whether we go to mars or not as long as mars remains within reach of only government programs.<br /><br />2...Well, we did build ISS and ISS is the size of ISS. It just isn't very economical is all. But considering where else money gets wasted, I'd rather have ISS than no ISS.<br /><br />3...I don't know how big the lunar base will be. It could be the size of ISS if the nation were to commit to funding such a base. But most likely it will be much smaller in scale if it occurs at all.<br /><br />4...And again, we did build the shuttle and it is as big as it is. The mistake here was letting DOD hitch a free ride. The shuttle we know was based on the DOD requirement for getting 65,000 pounds payload <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

nec208:<br />People just think space flight should cost like air flight and that is silly !! And going into space is very big challenge there is only 3 countries that can do it!!<br /><br />Me:<br />One has to look at why this came to be. In the 1960s and early 70s, human spaceflight was very expensive. Especially Apollo because the huge Saturn V rockets were thrown away after each use. The premise behind shuttle was having a reusable ailiner like system replace the throwaway rockets. Unfortunately, the 3Ps decided NASA post Apollo should be funded at around 50% what it was during Apollo which lead to the shuttle budgeting problems. This in turn lead to compromises in the shuttle design. The original proposal for shuttle was a two stage (Orbiter and FBB) fully reusable system that could be turned around bi-weekly.<br /><br />The 1960s proved to be overly optomistic where the future of spaceflight was concerned. This lead to such ideas as the ones portrayed in "2001: A Space Odyssey". The idea of spaceflight being common, lunar bases in 2001, man to Jupiter in 2001. You are absolutely right in that going to space is very challenging, and this is what was experienced with operation of the shuttle system. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

there were no satellites returned to earth for repair, almost no orbital repair.....<br /><br />YAt least two that I know of were returned and relaunched. Hubble has been service a couple of times and ther has been a lot of things taken to MIR and ISS that could be considered repair or replacement items.<br /><br />ou launch wings, flaps, hydraulics, landing gear, tons and tons of stuff irrelevant to the subject of launching people (and safely returingn them) />>><br /><br />A few parachutes don't help with a launch any more then the heat shield used by a capsule contributes to a launch. That whole line of reasoning is flawed. <br /><br />keep mind China space program is no where like the USSR or US that learn alot from years of going into the space program .And all the years they learn it well look at all the problems it still a very big challenge going up in space...<br /><br />That would be a good statement, if it were true. The problem is NASA keeps having to reinvent what has already been invented. We have been to the moon on numerous occasions, the current thrust is to reinvent the whole thing as if it has never happened and we are still looking up at the moon wondering if we could get there.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Space shuttle is a bad concept.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Too bad your 30 years too late to put in your two cents...LOL!<br /><br /><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 />Going back to 70's? Look if you drive a four wheeled internal combustion vehicle, does that mean your driving late 1800's technology?<br /><br />The only relevance ESAS has with Apollo is the use of a capsule and service module, and lunar lander. Look under the hood and everything is different.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>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.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Can't make the launcher too modular, you'll loose efficiency. <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>If you believe that, I've got a Mars base I'd like to sell you! <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Believe is a big word. But I won't lie to you by telling you I don't have my fingers crossed behind my back. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

The next space shuttles are going to be scramjet powered.<br /><br />I think the next real STS will be a two stage system, with the upper stage propelled solely by rockets and the first stage using an RBCC scramjet with rocket boosters for take-off.<br />Eventually a SSTO will be built.<br />It will be fully reusable and have very high capacity. <br /><br />Either we go this way or some new crazy technology allows us to build Firefly class transports <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[PistolPete]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>4...And again, we did build the shuttle and it is as big as it is. The mistake here was letting DOD hitch a free ride. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />DOD didn't "hitch a free ride", they paid for a good chunk of it. In fact if they didn't there would most likely be no Space Shuttle. <br /><br /><br /><br />Edit: they did not pay for it, but DOD support for it in Congress was essential to releasing the Congressional purse strings. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I haven't been able to find any documents that show DOD paid for a good chunk of the shuttle. What I have seen is NASA was authorized on January 5, 1972 to proceed with shuttle development and that development authorized a spending cap of $5.5B dollars (1972 dollars of course). That NASA was continually bogged down by shuttle cost overruns in the 1970s. By 1981, NASA had spent an estimated $10B dollars on the shuttle, exceeding the original development cap. That cap wasn't mentioned much after the mid 1970s. NASA continues to have shuttle operations costs as line items in its budget. The shuttle and ISS account for nearly half of all NASA spending. Never once saw any reports on DOD shuttle spending of any kind. At one point, I even saw a report where Rockwell International got into trouble for charging B-1 bomber development costs to the shuttle in order to conceal the B-1s cost problems. This does not mean the DOD did not pay for some part of shuttle development. I think they did pay for Vandenberg AFB shuttle launch capability and I'm sure they pay for shuttle flights that have their payloads aboard. I just haven't seen any documentation that shows the DOD helped pay for shuttle development overall.<br /><br />I would agree that DOD support for shuttle was essential to getting the shuttle approved in Congress.<br /><br />As for a follow on shuttle. I don't see that happening unless private industry can pull it off. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>