Should We Fly The Shuttle 2 More Years?

[steve82]

Frankly, if all we want to do is stay in LEO and service the ISS, we should forget about COTS, Orion, and just stick with the Shuttle. It won't be as safe as Orion, but it will take a lot more than just crew transport up and down to keep the ISS in operation until 2020. The Shuttle is the only vehicle that has the upmass, downmass, and EVA servicing capability that the ISS will require as it's own systems start wearing out and shutting down and needing replacement. It will be terribly expensive but that's the way to do it.

 

[rockett]

Frankly, if all we want to do is stay in LEO and service the ISS, we should forget about COTS, Orion, and just stick with the Shuttle. It won't be as safe as Orion, but it will take a lot more than just crew transport up and down to keep the ISS in operation until 2020. The Shuttle is the only vehicle that has the upmass, downmass, and EVA servicing capability that the ISS will require as it's own systems start wearing out and shutting down and needing replacement. It will be terribly expensive but that's the way to do it.

Actually, if you think about it, while I haven't run the numbers, it may be the cheapest way to service the ISS until we have something better. You are absolutely right about the upmass and downmass, plus EVA servicing - most people don't think about that part.

While yes, it may be expensive, it's still very good at what it does, and more capable than a lot of things on the drawing board. We should go ahead and enourage development of commercial for the lightweight stuff and use our "truck" for the heavy lifting for the time being. You may also find this interesting from the following link: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/
"Recertification of the orbiters is not deemed to be a problematic issue, as previously confirmed by SSP management, and recently repeated by Mission Management Team (MMT) chair Mike Moses – who noted the fleet could ‘technically’ keep flying to 2020. A large level of recertification was already carried out on the fleet during the Return To Flight period."

 

[rockett]

Re: shuttle extension?

Well I dont know where this should go, so please move it if needed.

I just watched a video on my local news website. Stating congress is considering keeping the Shuttle flying for 5 more years. Has anyone seen anything about this?

While i realise the problems in doing this, i just cant stand the thought of the US relying on anyone else to get our people into space.

bushwhacker

We already have quite a discussion going on about it on this thread in response to the Space.com article:
Should We Fly The Shuttle 2 More Years?
http://www.space.com/common/forums/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=23134

And yes you are correct it is 5 years - the Space.com article was in error. This is noted on the above thread also...

 

[pathfinder_01]

I think this is a good idea. If we are going to go to the moon or mars, we should be able to do a nice orderly transition from one kind of rocket to another without years long gaps.

 

[Swampcat]

Frankly, if all we want to do is stay in LEO...

It will be terribly expensive...

Do you really want to be stuck in LEO another 10+ years? Are you willing to give up any chance of going beyond LEO any time soon just so STS can continue flying?

STS eats its descendants by costing so much that development of any next generation STS, capsule or launch vehicle won't happen without doubling NASA's budget. Constellation alone won't happen without that doubling and continuing operation of STS would only make the budget situation even worse. We can ***** and moan about spending too much money on wars, welfare or whatever, but the chances of there being enough funds to run two major programs side-by-side are remote at best.

I don't have a problem with adding a few flights as long as there are volunteers to fly them, but STS is running out of reasons for existence. Using it to transport a few crew members to and from ISS a couple of times a year is an incredible waste of national resources.

It's time to move on.

 

[SpaceTas]

Someone pointed out the downmass capability of the Shuttle.
This is the Shuttle's most unique capability. It has really only been used once in a major way.
That was the retrieval of the Long Duration Exposure Satellite. The idea of returning either the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory or Hubble have been nixed by NASA as being too dangerous; too much stress on under-carriage ....


Again there are no very large components from the ISS that need to be returned. So no job for Shuttle there.
The Soyuz provides this for the current experiments on the ISS, and somewhat larger downmass could be achieved by a modification of current transfer craft.


PS
In previous post I deliberately excluded a inflatable module because it does not require a shuttle to take it to the station. The whole point of inflatable modules is that they are compact and low mass, and so do not need a large rocket to launch.

 

[steve82]

Frankly, if all we want to do is stay in LEO...

It will be terribly expensive...

Do you really want to be stuck in LEO another 10+ years? Are you willing to give up any chance of going beyond LEO any time soon just so STS can continue flying?

I agree with you, Swampcat. That's why I said if
The oldest ISS components and a lot of the electronics boxes are getting very old now, and there are no replacements in the supply line. A Shuttle or Shuttle-equivalent capability is the only thing that is going to keep the ISS up until 2020, and there are no vehicles out there equivalent to the shuttle on the drawing board. Constellation has a better chance of getting to the moon in 2020 than the ISS has of being still up and producing useful results.

 

[rockett]

I think this is a good idea. If we are going to go to the moon or mars, we should be able to do a nice orderly transition from one kind of rocket to another without years long gaps.

I agree too. That's the whole point to what Congress is proposing.

 

[rockett]

Has anybody thought about how we could take advantage of a Shuttle extension though?

There have been, over the years a number of worthwhile experiments that were taken out of the Shuttle launch manifests, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) for example. I'm sure at least a few of you know still others.

Another experiment that comes to mind is the ISS VASIMR test:
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMRISS

This is VERY important to future exploration. The Shuttle is perfectly capable of putting the Lunar Tug in orbit also:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/01/nasa-to-investgiate-vasimir-pr.html

I know being stuck in LEO is an issue for a lot of us. But that's because we are not thinking of using it the right way. If we were to use it as a stepping stone instead of how we currently are, the ISS would be invaluable. Robert Heinlein said: "Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." Think of it as a stopover instead of the end of the road.

Remember all the old sci-fi flicks that used a space station as a staging point for the moon and mars?

 

[Swampcat]

I agree with you, Swampcat. That's why I said if.

Sorry 'bout that, steve82. I didn't mean to be disagreeable. I suppose I could have worded my response better.

There are issues with ISS support, particularly should any large systems need replacing, but it seems unwise to maintain expensive shuttle operations for something that may or may not happen, while smaller components certainly don't require the lift capability of STS.

 

[Valcan]

WTF is with the shuttle obsession? Really people there is NO reason to keep the shuttle on other than the fact that it provides jobs. And those people can go find jobs in the commerical, military field here in the US. Heck a bunch can be used by Nasa to develope new space tech.

:roll:

 

[rockett]

I agree with you, Swampcat. That's why I said if.

Sorry 'bout that, steve82. I didn't mean to be disagreeable. I suppose I could have worded my response better.

There are issues with ISS support, particularly should any large systems need replacing, but it seems unwise to maintain expensive shuttle operations for something that may or may not happen, while smaller components certainly don't require the lift capability of STS.

Actually Swampcat, the Bill as it's written shows a remarkable amout of common sense (I was shocked, coming from Congress). It actually says "“Systems developed and operated by the United States Government shall be the primary means for delivering crew and cargo to destinations in low-Earth orbit until such time as commercial entities demonstrate, through a successful flight regime, as determined by established milestones within current Space Act Agreements, that they have the capability to deliver cargo to destinations in low-Earth orbit, including the International Space Station."
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/03/lawmakers-bill-extend-shuttle-2015-hlv/

Meaning, not forever, maybe not even until the end of the proposed extension...

 

[rockett]

WTF is with the shuttle obsession? Really people there is NO reason to keep the shuttle on other than the fact that it provides jobs. And those people can go find jobs in the commerical, military field here in the US. Heck a bunch can be used by Nasa to develope new space tech.

:roll:

Valcan:
Have you looked at the unemployment levels lately?

More to the point, it is not just about jobs. It's about a more orderly transition to a new approach to space. Not just slash and burn...

 

[Swampcat]

Has anybody thought about how we could take advantage of a Shuttle extension though?

There have been, over the years a number of worthwhile experiments that were taken out of the Shuttle launch manifests, the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) for example. I'm sure at least a few of you know still others.

Another experiment that comes to mind is the ISS VASIMR test:
http://www.adastrarocket.com/aarc/VASIMRISS

This is VERY important to future exploration. The Shuttle is perfectly capable of putting the Lunar Tug in orbit also:
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/hyperbola/2010/01/nasa-to-investgiate-vasimir-pr.html

I know being stuck in LEO is an issue for a lot of us. But that's because we are not thinking of using it the right way. If we were to use it as a stepping stone instead of how we currently are, the ISS would be invaluable. Robert Heinlein said: "Get to low-Earth orbit and you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system." Think of it as a stopover instead of the end of the road.

Remember all the old sci-fi flicks that used a space station as a staging point for the moon and mars?

ISS is not the problem. Maintaining the large STS infrastructure and work force is. Keep STS and there will not be enough funds to develop what will be needed to go to the Moon or Mars.

 

[rockett]

ISS is not the problem. Maintaining the large STS infrastructure and work force is. Keep STS and there will not be enough funds to develop what will be needed to go to the Moon or Mars.

Agreed, that workforce is huge, and it is indeed a drain on the budget. A big part of the problem is all the compromises we made during Shuttle design that didn't work out so well.

But realistically did you really think Congress was going to rubber stamp the new plan? I never thought so from the beginning. Too many lobbyists, constituants and special interests.

What I am saying is that IF we are looking at more Shuttle missions, we really need to take advantage of them to boost future tech as much as possible. The VASIMR test is a prime example of that.

 

[Swampcat]

But realistically did you really think Congress was going to rubber stamp the new plan? I never thought so from the beginning. Too many lobbyists, constituants and special interests.

Realistically I really think the Obama budget proposal really doesn't have a chance of being approved as is. Senators Shelby, Nelson, et al, have potential voters to bribe with high paying jobs. And that, realistically, is what this is all about whether some of us space cadets want to acknowledgment it or not.

Frankly, I find the Obama plan to be politically naïve, but I would prefer it over spending billions of dollars on sortie missions to the Moon. My biggest complaint of the Obama plan was a lack of direction. As I've said before, I'm not a fan of destination-based programs as I feel they miss the point of expanding human presence in space, but long term goals are useful. Other than vague references to expansion beyond LEO, Obama's plan was void of inspiration.

I also believe that NASA no longer needs to be in the business of designing and building launch vehicles, passenger carrying or otherwise. Private industry can handle it with sufficient public support. They already do the actual building of most parts of NASA vehicles anyway. Between ULA, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, SpaceX, OSC and many other players, there is plenty of expertise available outside of NASA to get the job done. Without heavy and active involvement of private industry, there will be no form of sustainable space exploitation.

As I understand it, unless I misread, the proposed bill would maintain the STS infrastructure and workforce for no more than two launches a year. From my point of view, that's an incredible waste of resources unless that infrastructure and workforce is put to use doing other useful things between launches.

Sorry, got a little off topic, but I felt it necessary to expound on my position

 

[vulture4]

Keep STS and there will not be enough funds to develop what will be needed to go to the Moon or Mars.

Putting a person in orbit or on the moon or on Mars has a value, but that value is not infinite. There are a handful of people who will pay $20 million to go to earth orbit. If the cost could be reduced to $1 million there are a reasonable number of scientific and commercial missions that would be justifiable. Putting a person on the moon might be worth $100 million, but it is not worth $1 billion. Human beings must prove they can be productive in low earth orbit before we can afford to send people to the moon. To be productive we must lower the cost by at least an order of magnitude. This can only be done with fully reusable spacecraft and launch vehicles. The Shuttle was our very first attempt at this. It was built without prototypes, and mistakes were made in design. But the cost of its fuel, all the energy that puts it in orbit, is less than 1% of the mission cost. Practical, reusable transport to LEO is difficult but possible. Even if Shuttle and ISS are cancelled, putting the money into repeating project Apollo with expendable rockets would be more expensive than shuttle and a waste of money. It would be a nonsustainable publicity stunt. Mars advocates need to remember what happened after Apollo 11; public support and funding collapsed, because the cost of human spaceflight with ELVs exceeds the value of hte work they can do by at least a factor of at least ten. It wasn't the public that didn't get it in 1970, it was us.

Here's my proposal:

1. Keep Shuttle flying until we have the human launch capability to replace it. It's working, and if we fire all the people with real RLV experience we will lose another decade.

2. Restart the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, which was foolishly cancelled by George Bush. Gradually transfer highly experienced Shuttle engineers to the new RLV projects as Shuttle becomes more efficient. RLVs can be launched from unused pads at CCAFS or launch horizontally from the SLF.

3. Let SpaceX use Cx40 for moth manned and unmanned launches. Keep LC-39 for Shuttle, as it is not feasible to modify it for a new vehicle.

 

[StarRider1701]

Maybe one possible shuttle mission?

If we could launch a full main fuel tank into orbit then rendesvouz and hook up a shuttle, would that be enough fuel to allow the shuttle to reach lunar orbit and return?

If so, would that be a reason for keeping the shuttles flying since we do suddenly have a reason for going to the moon. Cargo could be a lunar lander containing an automated, small scale regolith collector and refiner. See just how easy (or not) it is to get water from the lunar soil. Lander could also contain an inflatable habatat module for later human arrival if successful...

 

[Swampcat]

1. Keep Shuttle flying until we have the human launch capability to replace it. It's working, and if we fire all the people with real RLV experience we will lose another decade.

2. Restart the Reusable Launch Vehicle program, which was foolishly cancelled by George Bush. Gradually transfer the highly experienced Shuttle workforce to new RLV projects as Shuttle becomes more efficient. RLVs can be launched from unused pads at CCAFS or launch horizontally from the SLF.

If it were possible to fund what you are proposing this would appear to make a great deal of sense.

The obvious problem is the lack of funding. That's something most space cadets don't seem to grasp. They want the government to create the Star Trek Universe for them without an understanding of what it will cost.

 

[Swampcat]

If we could launch a full main fuel tank into orbit then rendesvouz and hook up a shuttle, would that be enough fuel to allow the shuttle to reach lunar orbit and return?

It might be enough fuel, but without oxidizer you won't get anywhere.

Sorry to be pedantic. I bet you knew that

Anyway, assuming you meant "propellant," you might be able to reach lunar orbit, but the Orbiter's TPS would not survive re-entry.

 

[EarthlingX]

'This week in Space' has Buzz Aldrin explaining about his plan of 'Unified Vision', very related to the topic, i think :

from http://www.youtube.com/show/thisweekinspace
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5icnMDAGsI[/youtube]

and more details from his home page :
http://buzzaldrin.com/buzzs-unified-spa ... n-to-mars/

 

[rockett]

If we could launch a full main fuel tank into orbit then rendesvouz and hook up a shuttle, would that be enough fuel to allow the shuttle to reach lunar orbit and return?

Anyway, assuming you meant "propellant," you might be able to reach lunar orbit, but the Orbiter's TPS would not survive re-entry.

I'm afraid Swampcat is right, returning lunar craft have a lot higher velocity to scrub off once they hit the atmosphere. Add that to the disadvantages of hauling the mass of wings, tail, and all to lunar orbit and the Shuttle makes a very poor lunar spacecraft.

However, using a Shuttle to launch a fuel depot into orbit is not a bad idea! Maybe we could use it to fuel a lunar tug or EVA servicing missions...

 

[Swampcat]

I'm afraid Swampcat is right, returning lunar craft have a lot higher velocity to scrub off once they hit the atmosphere. Add that to the disadvantages of hauling the mass of wings, tail, and all to lunar orbit and the Shuttle makes a very poor lunar spacecraft.

However, using a Shuttle to launch a fuel depot into orbit is not a bad idea! Maybe we could use it to fuel a lunar tug or EVA servicing missions...

While we're at it we could supply those propellant depots with some oxidizer as well so the tugs can burn the fuel

 

[rockett]

However, using a Shuttle to launch a fuel depot into orbit is not a bad idea! Maybe we could use it to fuel a lunar tug or EVA servicing missions...

While we're at it we could supply those propellant depots with some oxidizer as well so the tugs can burn the fuel

OK, OK, Swampcat :roll:

I mean "fuel" in the generic sense. Could be conventional LOX and Hydrogen, Hydrogen for VASIMR, or a variety of gasses for ion engines. Then again, maybe some for each...

 

[rockett]

'This week in Space' has Buzz Aldrin explaining about his plan of 'Unified Vision', very related to the topic, i think :

Very relevant EarthlingX! I like what he says about the XM (Exploration Module) idea. That's the kind of thing the Shuttle upmass capabilities can be used to help create.