Next Space Shuttles

[nec208]

------------------------------------------<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 /><br /><br /><br />So they where to work on 2 shuttle sizes the size they have now and a smaller one?<br /><br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------<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 /><br /><br /><br />But you and I know the private sector does not want to go to mars but make money of rich space tourists and may be in 15 to 20 years space mining.<br /><br /><br /><br />------------------------------------------<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 /><br /><br /><br /><br />The problem with the ISS is not building it the size it is but NASA failed the construction time witch should have bean build long ago and failed to keep it going and serviced when columbia disaster happen .<br /><br />If I pay a construction company to build me a house and they get in a car accident on there way to work or brake down that is there problem they have a obligation to build that house in X time.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nec208]

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. <br /><br />------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />Are you saying MASA budget cut is 50% than the 60's and 70's?<br /><br />So if in the 60's and 70's they got 100% now they get 50%?<br /><br />I thought the shuttle program was for a reusable system not to make it cheap?<br /><br />And NASA failed that after every disaster the shuttle is grounded for 2 or 3 years witch is other big problem they don't like.<br /><br />And if problem is found it takes a long time to fix it even if they have a solution to the problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

nec208:<br />So they where to work on 2 shuttle sizes the size they have now and a smaller one?<br /><br />Me:<br />No. The shuttle "C" was a payload only variant which would have utilized much of the same hardware...in essence, you remove the orbiter and replace it on all cargo flights with a cylindrical payload carrier. The link below explains it better than I can:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle-C<br /><br />The payload carrier could lift much more weight...which would have meant being able to develop ISS modules with a lot less external cabling and more checkout on the ground.<br /><br />nec208:<br />But you and I know the private sector does not want to go to mars but make money of rich space tourists and may be in 15 to 20 years space mining.<br /><br />Me:<br />If money can be made from going to mars, including mars tourism...the private sector will be there.<br /><br />nec208:<br />The problem with the ISS is not building it the size it is but NASA failed the construction time witch should have bean build long ago and failed to keep it going and serviced when columbia disaster happen .<br /><br />Me:<br />The ISS had a long and tortured history of development. In part due to Congress designing it so to speak. By 1993 when it was finally authorized. It passed by one vote and the Clinton Admin decided to bring in Russian assistance to make the program more palatable politically. That worked but construction time was lengthy because of reliance on the shuttle to haul up the peices. Without heavy lift capability, this meant more shuttle flights than what would have been required had heavy lift or shuttle "C" been used. For possible disasters, NASA did have contingencies in place and those were utilized during the Columbia downtime. Otherwise, ISS would have been abandoned.<br /> <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 />Are you saying MASA budget cut is 50% than the 60's and 70's?<br /><br />Me:<br />You got it.<br /><br />In 1965 or 66, NASA got the most money ($5.5B dollars) for a year that it has ever had. This was peak Apollo spending and represented about 4% GDP (Gross Domestic Product) at that time.<br /><br />During the 1960s, NASA spending averaged 2% GDP whereas since 1973-74, NASA spending averages around 1% GDP or about 50% of 1960s spending.<br /><br />Take the 1965-66 budget and convert it to 2005 dollars and its about $32 B dollars. NASA currently gets about $17B dollars annually, roughly half (50%) of the 1965-66 $32B dollar figure.<br /><br />nec208:<br />I thought the shuttle program was for a reusable system not to make it cheap?<br /><br />Me:<br />Your right where reusability is concerned. The shuttle was developed to be a reusable system. With reusability comes reduced operating expenses. If you had a cheap VW and threw it away after each use, it would not be cheap to keep replacing it.<br /><br />What wound up happening with shuttle is that it proved to be reusable...but on a much less robust basis than anticipated. The 1973 traffic model called for biweekly shuttle flights spread across 7 orbiters. NASA was eventually authorized only 4 orbiters and the best turnaround time for a single orbiter averages two months. NASA budgets clearly show the shuttle is cost effective compared to Saturn-V...just not as cost effective as originally planned.<br /><br />nec208:<br />And NASA failed that after every disaster the shuttle is grounded for 2 or 3 years witch is other big problem they don't like. <br /><br />Me:<br />This is true. Its also true of all the fatal space disasters so far. NASA downtime after the Apollo fire was almost two years. The Soviets experienced two fatal disasters which cost them roughly two years downtime for each one. When something is as complex and expensive as human spacecraft...downtimes are lengthy. If you want to return to flight, you have got to en <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>

 

[jimfromnsf]

The DOD contribution to the shuttle program was the IUS and VAFB launch site. There were no direct payment from the DOD to NASA for shuttle development. The DOD did pay for the flights it used

 

[pathfinder_01]

Actually to give an idea of just how long the ISS has been in development look at the history of the shuttle. The plan for the shuttle was for seven shuttles and a space station. The space station was dropped due to cost over runs on the shuttle(i.e. The unrealistic $5 billion budget cap of the Nixon Administration). <br /><br />Once the shuttle was complete NASA hoped that the Regan administration would propose a space station. However Regan had no interest in a space station until the Russian MIR proved to be successful.<br /><br /> Regan proposed space station freedom which basically evolved over the years into the ISS. Congress by the way rejected the space station until the Russians were brought on board. Space station freedom also featured international cooperation so it was not a US only thing. <br /><br />The ISS exists because the Russians were unable to replace MIR and bringing them onboard helped NASA get a space station out of congress. The costs are drive by the fact that the space station was resigned about three times since first proposed in the 80ies. The delays are both due to the Russians and NASA. <br /><br />Russia was delayed in launching key components and once they did construction was getting along well until the Columbia accident.<br /><br />A lot of the problems that NASA faced are due to being under funded and needing to get the permission of congress to do anything.<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"However Regan had no interest in a space station until the Russian MIR proved to be successful. "<br />your statement has many errors<br />Reagan started the station in 1984, two years before MIR<br /><br />Congress did not reject the station before the Russians were involved. <br /><br />"The ISS exists because the Russians were unable to replace MIR"<br /><br />Not so, The Service Module of the ISS was to be MIR 2<br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

>> <i>"The ISS exists because the Russians were unable to replace MIR"</i><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">Not so, The Service Module of the ISS was to be MIR 2</font>/i><br /><br />IIRC, Space Station Freedom was behind schedule and stuggling, barely dodging efforts by Congress to cut funding. Meanwhile, Russia was going through very difficult times financially (and politically). In this atmosphere, ISS was seen as means to address both problems -- gain political support in Congress and help the financially struggling Russian space program.</i>

 

[halman]

caper,<br /><br />Most likely, the next space shuttle will be privately built, probably by Scaled Composites, and will be operated to provide tourist access to orbit. I suspect that it will be air launched, as vertical launching is horrendously expensive, and subject to frequent weather delays. By building the vehicles out of carbon, weight can be substantially reduced. Payloads are likely to be small, just a dozen or so passengers, baggage, and life support consumables. A winged re-entry vehicle is the most likely design, I believe, as a private company would not have the resources for either water landing or remote desert landing. Returning the orbiter to the launch point minimizes operating expenses, as well as facilitating rapid turnaround. <br /><br />This launch system is probably going to be used in conjunction will an expendable launch system, which will handle the cargo. On-orbit endurance will be very limited, probably only 72 hours, and the service ceiling will likely be very low, perhaps only 180 miles. Everything will be done to minimize weight, complexity, and expense, while at the same time providing as much safety as possible. Accidents tend to scare away investors, as well as potential customers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>