On the wings of Apollo?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

najab

Guest
Washington DC (SPX) Aug 25, 2004<br /><br />NASA planners working on the next generation of spacecraft that will ferry cargo, robots and astronauts to the moon beginning in the next decade are seeking as inspiration the work of their predecessors, both in the space shuttle program and even going back to Project Apollo of the 1960s.<br />At the moment, two teams at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration are studying booster rocket design concepts.<br /><br />One team, assembled by the space agency's Exploration Directorate, has been examining rocket designs from the top down, according to Michael Lembeck, who heads the directorate's Requirements Division.<br /><br />At the same time, Lembeck explained, a second team at NASA's Launch Services group is conducting a bottoms-up review, meaning the services group, which purchases launch vehicles for NASA missions and payloads, is accumulating background on and analyses of all available U.S. boosters and their capabilities.<br /><br /><br />Link
 
C

commander_keen

Guest
In one form or anther, I have a strong suspiscion that the Shuttle C concept will make its way into the finalists. We have the parts already, and minimal research is needed. I think later the story mentioned of using a shuttle-launch set-up except with consellation replacing the shuttle on the booster.
 
S

space_dreamer

Guest
shuttle_guy, how much would it cost to run such a system? <br /><br />By going for a Shuttle C type design would there be anuff money left over to build constellation and go to the moon?<br />
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"Sorry I do not do budgets. "</font><br /><br />Based on the information returned by the audit a coupla months back -- <b>no one</b> at NASA does budgets. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />
 
S

space_dreamer

Guest
OK Sorry,<br /><br />Do you have any pictures of the most recent Shuttle C concept or know of any links to them?<br /><br />Thank you<br />
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I am not with NASA..."</font><br /><br />With NASA, at NASA, near NASA, related to NASA, whatever. NASA emits a anti-budgetary-effect over a widespread area. Resaearchers haven't yet been able to determine if it's a field, an atmospheric anomoly, or a psychic influence.
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...or know of any links to them?"</font><br /><br />The operant word is 'Google':<br /><br />here<br />here<br />here<br />
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">all though the current concept does retain the Orbiters aft fuselage and engines on the bottom of the cargo pod.</font>/i><br /><br />Two questions:<br /><br />(1) I have read somewhere (Planetary Society?) that the side-launch approach of the shuttle and the common shuttle-C design introduces a number of problems (e.g., aerodynamic forces, escape opportunity, and the relatively unique side-mounted payload approach), and that a more vertical design (e.g., putting the engines below the main tank and the payload above the main tank) might make better sense. Is anyone working on such a plan?<br /><br />(2) For a Shuttle-C design would there be a plan to use cheaper main engines if they are not going to be reused? If not, has anyone looked at approaches to have just the main engines recovered somehow? (weird idea: after the SSME are done, pull the engines into a capsule-like device and return them to earth that way).</i>
 
N

najab

Guest
><i>Is anyone working on such a plan?</i><p>That's one of the Shuttle Derived Vehicle concepts. I <i>think</i> that's the one called Shuttle-Z.<p>><i>For a Shuttle-C design would there be a plan to use cheaper main engines if they are not going to be reused?</i><p>But, my dear Radar, Rocketdyne has already devised a cheaper expendable SSME - only $80 million/copy. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /></p></p></p>
 
M

mrmorris

Guest
<font color="yellow">"I think that's the one called Shuttle-Z."</font><br /><br />Nope -- according to the paper here -- The Shuttle-Z is still payload on the side. Ares is the payload-at-the-top version. It has a picture for the Shuttle-Z, but no explanation of why it's different from 'C'. BTW -- the paper itself is pretty interesting.<br /><br />A different link indicates that the Shuttle-C is a two-stage booster and the Shuttle-Z is a three-stage, so probably the 'payload' section had additional fuel to reach higher orbits once the ET was released. The Shuttle-Z picture in the PDF seems to support this.
 
S

Swampcat

Guest
From astronautix.com:<br /><br /><blockquote><p align="left"><font color="orange">The Ares launch vehicle was designed for support of Zubrin's Mars Direct expedition. It is a shuttle-derived design taking maximum advantage of existing hardware. It would use shuttle Advanced Solid Rocket Boosters, a modified shuttle external tank for handling vertically-mounted payloads, and a new Lox/LH2 third stage for trans-Mars or trans-lunar injection of the payload. Ares would put 121 tonnes into a 300 km circular orbit , boost 59 tonnes toward the moon or 47 tonnes toward Mars. Without the upper stage 75 tonnes could be placed in low earth orbit. LEO Payload: 121,200 kg. to: 300 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 47,200 kg. to a: trans-Mars trajectory. Total Mass: 2,194,600 kg. Core Diameter: 10.00 m. Total Length: 82.30 m.</font>/p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A drawing of the Ares is at the above link. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>
 
R

radarredux

Guest
> <i><font color="yellow">would require that most launch pad be torndown and rebuilt. Also major modifications to the VAB.</font>/i><br /><br />I have read that the crawler transporter has developed cracks in recent years, that nets are needed in the VAB to prevent debris from the roof falling and harming the vehicles (and people), and that much of the launch pad infrastructure is in disrepair.<br /><br />Maybe it is time to for a major infrastructure upgrade anyways?</i>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

Latest posts