Redesigned Shuttle

[vt_hokie]

<i>I see it now as the inability of American ingenuity to overcome the challenge of designing vehicle like Delta Clipper or Venture Star.</i><br /><br />Indeed. It's a sad day if this country is no longer willing to accept difficult challenges. CEV represents an agency that has given up on worthwhile achievements and would rather try to recapture past glory by resurrecting old designs. NASA's new mantra should be, "We choose to do these things not because they are hard, but because they are easy."

 

[jschaef5]

"It's a sad day if this country is no longer willing to accept difficult challenges. CEV represents an agency that has given up on worthwhile achievements and would rather try to recapture past glory by resurrecting old designs. NASA's new mantra should be, "We choose to do these things not because they are hard, but because they are easy.""<br /><br /><br />I don't even know where to begining. Just read what you just wrote, wow. Contradict yourself more please? So its a sad day when we no longer accept hard tasks and the CEV represents an easy task... Are you saying that going back to the Moon and on to Mars is easy and not a difficult challenge? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

Nobody is going to Mars in the "CEV". And yes, Apollo 2.0 using old technology is relatively easy and low risk. We have a half assed, underfunded space program today, and I think that's a travesty.

 

[drwayne]

Note that that JFK's line refers to "we choose to go to the moon", not, we choose to build a really advanced ship to do it in.<br /><br />Its not the ship, its the mission.<br /><br />It doesn't matter if the ship has wings, jet engines, or warp drive. If we go someplace significant in it, then we are doing the right things. <br /><br />If we don't do something significant - if we don't do meaningful missions, then it doesn't matter what the ship is.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Thats why it should go commercial. If there's a market in Space for things such as large scale communications Platforms or even small scale satelites,configured as needed and released into the proper orbit. Recover and refurbish them and use as needed.<br /><br />I can see a lot of things to do in LEO let alone the moon, Mars and asteroids and Comets. But until we can reliably and cheaply get to LEO none of it works. Once there the rest is easy.<br /><br />Wasting the money on Apollo 2.0 puts us back. I would rather stand down manned flight. What we need is Shuttle 3.0. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

The biggest problem with the shuttle is that it's a single, monolithic sytem that is incredibly difficult to modify or upgrade because all the parts work in tandem rather than independantly in series.<br /><br />The biggest lesson that we should come away from that experience with is that we should never, ever, rely on a monolithic system like that again. Looking at the ESAS launch system we've got 2 first stages, 2 second stages, a capsule/SM and a LSAM. That's six systems that function more or less independantly. Perhaps in 2020 NASA will come to the realization that it's ******** to use LH2 on a first stage and upgrade the CaLV to a RP1 first stage sans SRBs. That's doesn't require significant modification of the second stage and doesn't affect the CEV/SM/LSAM at all. Perhaps they'll switch to RP-1 flyback boosters to replace the SRBs for one or both first stages. Perhaps replace the second stage/CEV with a DC-Y like reuseable second stage for LEO operations. Combined with a flyback first stage that yields a full RLV, but it is divided into 2 politically swallowable sized chunks. <br /><br />Build something like venturestar, and we'll be stuck with whatever mistakes were made for 30 years, just like with the shuttle. Build the modular system and a component that is overly expensive, unreliable, environmentally unfriendly or generally poor in performance can be upgraded at much less expense.

 

[scottb50]

The Shuttle evolved quite a bit Columbia was too heavy to get to Hubble, the later Shuttles were lighter. Then there have been a lot of other modifications, glass cockpits and such. I would say at least 2.5 or so, if you want to use Windows as a baseline the Shuttle is 98SE. <br /><br />A fly-back first stage is the simplest solution. Add a re-startable upper stage to get to a Station and re-usable in LEO as a Tug or building material, if you take the engine off. <br /><br />The payload carried to LEO would be housed in Modules identical to the propellant tanks, on the Launcher and would be used to expand living and working area once in LEO and emptied of cargo.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Perhaps. Maybe something like Saturn Shuttle? </i><br /><br />Not side mounted, though. I'm thinking more like this:<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/z/zkliplvs.jpg<br /><br />

 

[qso1]

I tend to agree with you there, but I also want to see it actually happen. Kinda skeptical and cynical these days. <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]

Gotta keep in mind that NASA is not getting the sort of budget it had the last time they sent people to the moon. <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>

 

[j05h]

> I tend to agree with you there, but I also want to see it actually happen. Kinda skeptical and cynical these days.<br /><br />I'm not cynical. I'm extremely optimistic about our space future. I'm not nearly as positive about NASA's future. What I think is needed is to stop the "business as usual" approach of cost-plus contractors. I don't think we need a new heavy lifter, nor a CLV. If NASA really feels the need to build a new capsule, the rockets are already available to fly it on. All spacelift should be commercially sourced. This allows NASA to state potentially wild requirements (10m diameter, 90ton payload, for inst.) and see if anyone bites. For crew launch, the going rate is just under $50 million for 6 months in LEO. NASA is talking about spending 100x that sum to produce a vehicle that will fly at most several dozen times, and keeps pushing the dates out.<br /><br />Copying Apollo isn't going to get you and I to the moon, and very likely won't get NASA there. I really think that a LEO-Lunar-LEO vehicle with Soyuz or similiar (commercially purchased) is the way to make this sustainable. The truth, however, is that scheme doesn't keep certain Congressional districts employed. Politics and greed are going to kill the VSE. We'll still get to Luna, but it likely won't be tax-payer funded when we do. <br /><br />Back ontopic, redesigning the Shuttle is like making a Model T Ford compete in Formula 1. Or turning the Spruce Goose into a launch platform. <br /><br /><br /><br />Josh<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

My cynicism comes from seeing to many presentations of vehicles that could be, should be or whatever. I don't recommend redesign of shuttle. I think private enterprise should take over LEO operations and as you say, let NASA buy hardware and services from them. NASA will probably still be the only game in town for doing the moon and mars until private enterprise is convinced there are profits to be made from doing that. <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>

 

[josh_simonson]

>For crew launch, the going rate is just under $50 million for 6 months in LEO. NASA is talking about spending 100x that sum to produce a vehicle that will fly at most several dozen times, and keeps pushing the dates out.<br /><br />The going rate for me to fly from SFO to LAX is only about $100, but if I want to fly to australia it's $1000, CEV travels way beyond LEO. No matter how people get into space, as they travel beyond LEO they will need to bring a 'lifeboat' with them that is capable of anytime abort and direct re-entry in order to maximize safety. The CEV is that craft and there is nothing else that currently exists or that is planned that can meet those requirements. Perhaps someday a more efficient LV will eliminate the need for most CEV launches, but we will still need CEVs as lifeboats for some time after that.<br /><br />The last thing NASA needs is a 3 week vigil while astronauts run out of air, food and water in space with no way home. Without a lifeboat that is a far likelier scenario.

 

[j05h]

other Josh - you need to visualize a LEO base where a bunch of Soyuz and other craft all dock. Picture this fuel depot/base as the place for Moon missions to depart. Combine in your mind the CEV, LSAM and EDS into one or two vehicles, with aerobraking heatshields. There is a multi-use lander (with or without reusable tug) that departs the fuel depot, travels to Lunar orbit or does direct-decent. Once the astronauts are done, the craft departs, does direct TEI and aerobrakes into LEO, docking with the fuel depot. Any tug craft would fly alongside the lander, then does a free-return trajectory, aerobraking into LEO. <br /><br />Maybe you build the command module of lunar craft as being able to survive ballistic Earth decent, but normally it aerobrakes back to the LEO base. If you really insist on a lifeboat option, that is.<br /><br />I'm proposing an entirely different mission profile. Once the first mission is flown, all others become added profit. Yes, I think this could be done privately, but it is a viable, more affordable, modular option for NASA to pursue. See my words about buying capabilities instead of building vehicles.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[josh_simonson]

That's exactly what I'm talking about, with a CEV as the lifeboat. Keep it aboard the ferry so if the ferry conks out at any point the crew is safe, even during aerobraking. CEVs rarely land in that case, and can be carried up (unmanned) by a (H,R,X)LV instead of the stick if a better method of getting people up there is available.<br /><br />Afterall, how do you get home if the engine on your ferry fails or your aerobraking heat shield is compromised?

 

[jschaef5]

Why use the CEV as a lifeboat? It would seem easier to just develope a small winged CRV that is light weight to shot up as a lifeboat rather than a full CEV capsule. Something like the X-38. A lot of research has already been done on it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[starfhury]

See, the CEV is not really being viewed as a life boat only vehicle. It's viewed as the system to replace Shuttle and get us to the Moon and Mars. CEV should be installed on the shuttle so you can escape it should a problem happen. If Columbia had one, and if they had recognized the problem in time, they could have bailed out in one. But you'd have to redesign the system to handle that in the first place. What if we start to launch 10 - 15 people into space at a time, are we going to have the ability to save them all? Cruise ships have life boats, but I'm sure if one enunters a massive problem at sea, a lot of people will still die. Because of this, I think as long as we think in terms of CEV and saving everyone on board, we can only launch a small number of people at a time. That alone will limit our space program to a small insignificant program with little global changing ramifications.<br /> <br />I'm definately a shuttle booster, I even have shuttle plates on my car, but that's not the only reason why I think CEV as presented is a huge delay in any of our space endeavors. We know capsules work, but we also know that the shuttle works and in fact has problably flown more times than capsules, maybe US,Russian and Chinese combined. I'd say the U.S. has more experience flying shuttles types than capsules. NASA progressed from Mercury to Gemini to Apollo and probably now onto CEV. That's three generations invested into capsules while we are still on the first generation of shuttle types. Three generations of shuttle types might yield similar results to three generations of capsules. Now if we want to start launching a significant amount of people into space, we are going to migrate away from capsule designs and more towards cyclindrical designs. The shuttle type is more of this latter design. If we were to designed and build a capsule with the same payload capacity of the shuttle, how big would it be? Would we even consider it a capsule at that <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

A carriage return now and again is a BIG help to readability.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[qso1]

starfhury:<br />CEV should be installed on the shuttle so you can escape it should a problem happen. If Columbia had one, and if they had recognized the problem in time, they could have bailed out in one.<br /><br />Me:<br />The problem would have had to been recognized before re-entry. Such a plan would not work during re-entry because the crew would have to have a tunnel that would get them to the CEV, then they would have to be able to blow the payload bay doors and the CEV would have to be able to reboost to a stable orbit.<br /><br />starfhury:<br />but we also know that the shuttle works and in fact has problably flown more times than capsules...<br /><br />Me:<br />This is definetely true except in the case of Soyuz capsules. The U.S. capsule missions totaled 31, shuttle missions 114.<br /><br />starfhury:<br />I think we have a power density problem and this is why people think capsules are better even though that reason isn't always recognized as such.<br /><br />Me:<br />That power density problem is called money...I call it the cost barrier. That is the reason capsules are being returned to. We can't develop a shuttle follow on because the general public is not willing to properly fund it. <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]

The point everyone agrees with is once you are in Space you don't need wings. Duh! The simplest solution I can think of is use the same Module for all applications. Maybe over-built it for some uses, but that's a good thing, actually. <br /><br />Attach Modules to wings and you have a launcher or return vehicle, attach a Module to another Module, or any number of Modules, to build Platforms and Vehicles. Lunar, Martian, Comet and asteroid Habitates would be the same thing; Multiple, identical, Modules, attached to each other.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

yes but wings give give you the ability to glide down. Look at the soyuz even, they parachute down, and then rockets fire off as it gets really close. Less things to go wrong if you just stick a couple wings on it and let the pilot fly it back in. Although after watching the PIO of the shuttle some might say this isn't always safe. I just like the fact that you have a pilot flying it and have the ability to land where you want and not be at the mersy of earths gravity and the current wind conditions. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Less things to go wrong if you just stick a couple wings on it and let the pilot fly it back in.<br /><br /><font color="white">But you still need a pilot of some sort, even if it's an auto pilot. A capusle can be monostable in reentry and land safely almost anywhere rather that just on runways. <br /><br />A plane needs three axis control, ie elevators rudders ailerons etc much more complex than a capsule which needs only to launch the parachute and to sense when the ground it need to fire the braking rockest, a rock on a string is capable of that.</font></font>

 

[rfoshaug]

And what if you stick a couple of wings on it and those wings fall off due to burn-through on reentry? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Bottom line that is being missed.<br /><br />Both designs work. The shuttle has worked having never lost wings on reentry due to wings falling off. RCC burn through yes, wings falling off no. The shuttle has not been economical but it proved we can operate five winged spaceplanes for over one hundred missions.<br /><br />Capsules work and are easier to do, simple as that. Especially considering the specifics of capsule missions as outlined in the CEV program. The cost barrier is what has driven NASA back to capsules. <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>

 

[mattblack]

Well said, qso1. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>