Shuttle automated flights

[akindhacker]

The main advantage of the Shuttle is ability to carry big loads up and down. The disadvantage is the extra reliability needed to the complicated and large system to carry humans.<br /><br />I am wondering why an obvious solution has not been considered yet - use the shuttle as an unmanned vehicle, thus saving lots by abandoning the extra reliability and gaining extra carrying weight, to ferry loads to and from orbit (ISS) while using a simpler but more reliable vehicle to carry the crew (or rent Soyuz).<br /><br />If the automated landing system has not been fully developed it should not be a major investment as currently the landing is mostly automated anyway.<br /><br />And why the automated shuttle flights are not considered after it is retired as a manned craft?<br />

 

[CalliArcale]

There are a number of obstacles. The most significant are:<br /><br /> * The Orbiter can't just belch out payloads unattended. In particular, if you need to use the RMS, somebody has to steer the thing. It might be possible (if tricky) to do that via ground control. <br /><br /> * The biggest loss with the Shuttle is not the humans. It's the enormous mass of the Orbiter itself, most of which is there because it carries humans. Even if you delete the crew, you're still lugging along tons and tons of dead weight that are doing absolutely nothing for you on an unmanned mission.<br /><br /> * The vehicle still has to travel over land when returning to Earth, which means there's still a human safety issue to consider.<br /><br />Making the vehicle semi-autonomous and remote-controlled is possible. But one must ask whether it would not be better to invest in a new launch vehicle instead. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[akindhacker]

>* The Orbiter can't just belch out payloads unattended. In particular, if you need to use the RMS, somebody has to steer the thing. It might be possible (if tricky) to do that via ground control. <br /><br />Well all the flights the shuttle will be doing are to the ISS. So the crew to steer the thing will be already there. For flights not to ISS a crew can be launched separately to meet on orbit. <br /><br /> /> * The biggest loss with the Shuttle is not the humans. It's the enormous mass of the Orbiter itself, most of which is there because it carries humans. Even if you delete the crew, you're still lugging along tons and tons of dead weight that are doing absolutely nothing for you on an unmanned mission. <br /><br />That's partly my point too - there is lots of extra weight needed to ensure crew safety, which can be removed, at least some of it. Removing equipment is not that difficult. Savings will be made on thoroughness of maintenance and checks.<br /><br /> />* The vehicle still has to travel over land when returning to Earth, which means there's still a human safety issue to consider. <br /><br />If the automated landing is done well there is no much extra risk for the people on the ground. Russian Buran landed automatically and was supposed to always land automatically even with the crew onboard.<br /><br /> />Making the vehicle semi-autonomous and remote-controlled is possible. But one must ask whether it would not be better to invest in a new launch vehicle instead. <br /><br />Tell me how many orders of magnitude is the difference in investments required to complete the automated landing system compared to creating completely new vehicle?<br />

 

[superluminal]

Knowing what we know about the pro's and con's of the shuttles future status, <br />Wouldn't it make good common sense to launch the shuttle with cargo loaded without any astronauts aboard first? <br />Then launch astronauts separately in CE V's to dock and board the shuttle after it is in orbit.<br /><br />If there was a way to refurbish the shuttles fuel supply and consumables while in orbit, the shuttles efficiency would increase by a factor of at least ten if only the ability of astronauts boarding the shuttle after it is in orbit is achieved. <br /><br /><br />Ninety nine percent of the danger occurs during a fiery launch and landing.<br /><br />If the remaining ISS components could be launched separately, the shuttles could remain in space for many years parked near ISS to finish construction and would also be available for future projects that are envisioned. <br /><br />It's such a remarkable piece of technology once in orbit.<br /><br />I am saying this, <br /> Why not take the best of what we already have, then figure out how we can best use this valuable resource to our future advantage? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>That's partly my point too - there is lots of extra weight needed to ensure crew safety, which can be removed, at least some of it. Removing equipment is not that difficult. Savings will be made on thoroughness of maintenance and checks.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm not talking about life support. I'm talking about most of the orbiter's physical structure. There's a lot of dead mass that's there to physically support the stuff like life support, and which cannot be deleted.<br /><br />As far as thoroughness of maintenance, etc, man-rating really doesn't add very much cost to a spacecraft, so removing it doesn't save much either.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the automated landing is done well there is no much extra risk for the people on the ground. Russian Buran landed automatically and was supposed to always land automatically even with the crew onboard. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I was thinking in the event of a failure, such as happened with Columbia. There was debris raining all over Texas and other states. (Mostly Texas.) It's very fortunate that none if it hit anybody.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Tell me how many orders of magnitude is the difference in investments required to complete the automated landing system compared to creating completely new vehicle? <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I have no idea. But it would have to be looked at. I don't think it would all be in terms of straight cost. Basically, you need to compare manned shuttle flights, to unmanned shuttle flights, to a new launch vehicle. The latter has the most benefit for future missions. The former is the most versatile. The one in the middle may be beneficial if it can be acheived in the short lifespan remaining to the system and without compromising the incidental crew rotation capability. I don't think there's a simple answer (although the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

It is my understanding that if you preclude rendevouz and docking, the only aspect of a shuttle mission that is not automated is the final approach dropping of the landing gear. The way you preclude rendevouz and dock is to do it manned. Send up an extra Soyuz with 3 astronauts aboard. They can remain on the station and go out and meet cargo shuttles in the Soyuz. The docking mechanisms are compatible and so the shuttle can get a crew onboard for docking. That would also place three extra people aboard the ISS for a total of 5 or 6 to unload the shuttles. It is also my understanding that there are approaches to either VBAFB or KSC that would allow for the riskier parts of reentry to occur over water. I'll point out that the same problem exists with a manned shuttle deemed too broken to be repaired upon arrival at the ISS - if an automated shuttle fails inspection, it has to be ditched.<br /><br /><br />

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>If the automated landing is done well there is no much extra risk for the people on the ground. Russian Buran landed automatically and was supposed to always land automatically even with the crew onboard.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>I was thinking in the event of a failure, such as happened with Columbia. There was debris raining all over Texas and other states. (Mostly Texas.) It's very fortunate that none if it hit anybody. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />My solution there would be to have the orbiter land at White Sands or Edwards. That puts most of the risk out over the Pacific. By the time you reach the coast, the danger is over. I suggested that when we were talking about how Discovery would make an emergency landing on the next mission if required to do so unmanned. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

You would drive the cost of launchs up by at least 3x. Mostly because you need to have 2 rockets ready: Orbiter and CEV. Also, some redesign might be needed. While an orbiter can dock with a station, docking with CEV would require a different docking system. You would be able to carry only one. As for the difference between the docking systems you would need? Let me use the Apollo system to illustrate. It used a probe on the Command Module and a drogue on LM. Think of the probe as male and the drogue as female. If you have attempted to connect male computer cables to male connecters or female to female, you know the problem. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

Soyuz can dock with the Shuttle and the ISS. It would be the perfect crew ferry for docking and rendevouz. The cost of a few Soyuz launches would be trivial compared to the cost of the last 2 STS hiatums. Having 6 people on the ISS might actually get some science done between Shuttle dockings as well.<br />

 

[akindhacker]

> You would drive the cost of launchs up by at least 3x. <br /><br />That’s sounds too much an increase to me. Unmanned shuttle can be almost powered off in orbit (only orientation control and other basic systems left powered) to wait there for potentially long time. Soyuz can launch in almost any weather and scrubs are rare. <br /><br />Your argument about male/female ports incompatibility is not a serious one. <br /><br />Why I like the scheme is the following. If payload of the unmanned shuttle is increased by say a couple of tons, the 2 tons multiplied by the cost of delivering payload to orbit by shuttle (~20k$/kg) saves you just enough to buy a Soyuz flight, while all the hassle with the safety has gone. Soyuz can dock to the Shuttle automatically as it does to ISS. <br /><br />I am sure that on last Saturday if the Shuttle was unmanned it would have been launched regardless of the small risk posed by the weather.<br />

 

[nibb31]

The orbiter cannot be powered down or set to stand by mode. It uses fuel cells as it's source of electricity, which means that it's life in space is limited to approximately a week, plus a few days with the new system when docked to the ISS. That's all. After that, it's dead and there is no way of powering it up again in space.<br /><br />Maintaining an unmanned shuttle would still cost billions to study, develop and perform the conversion, and then to maintain the facilities for building the ET and SRBs, and all the servicing equipment.<br /><br />Those billions are better used to design a new space infrastructure.

 

[akindhacker]

Possibly so, but possibly not so. The reduction on electricity consumption without a crew will lead to the reduction of hydrogen/oxygen burn rate in the fuel cells so they will last longer. I don’t' know the details here. However the 2 crafts had to be launched only for the trips not to ISS. As currently planned the shuttle will only be doing trips to the ISS and the only obstacle to unmanned trips to the ISS is automated docking system (that has to be developed anyway) and the automated landing (that's almost there already). So I don't know what billions you are talking about. <br /><br />The last trips of the unmanned shuttle can be done till it breaks, flying with the original design flight rate, which will reduce the flight costs dramatically. Remember, currently the shuttle program is very expensive only due to the low frequency of flights. Potentially it can be a cheap system for its capabilities as it was designed initially. <br /><br />

 

[j05h]

> Potentially it can be a cheap system for its capabilities as it was designed initially. <br /><br />That is impossible. There is nothing "cheap" about STS, nor will there be. It costs 4+ Billion/year no matter how you fudge the numbers. It will cost that until retired. <br /><br />"Cheap" and "Shuttle" don't belong in the same sentence. It's like the discussion of how "affordable" the CEV will be. The answer is not what is predicted on this board: CEV, like STS, will cost whatever the contractors can squeeze out of it. Cost-plus is alive and well. This is why I consider the "COTS" and Alternative Access so important. NASA won't be able to afford to explore doing business the old way. Go Dr. Griffin! <br /><br />I'm of two opinions on an automated STS. If it could be done right now, they could fly the heaviest ISS components one after the other and build-out quickly while putting a full crew on ISS immediately. Another option is fly the payloads with minimal (3) crew, while maintaining an assembly team on ISS. Try and do one-month turnarounds and finish the campaign in a year. What you are mostly talking about is a long-term assembly crew on ISS and some way of feeding them payloads quickly. If they could fly all elements in 07-08, go for it. If it would take 5 years and another $18Billion to automate it, forget it: that buys a lot of EELV and Arianne flights. <br /><br />The real question at this point, to me, is what does the ISS offer? It is supposed to be a world-class research facility. What I offer is that it primarily offers rack space. If there is an actual need for human-tended rack space, is the ISS the proper facility going forward?<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Soyuz can dock with the Shuttle<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />It can? Could you quote or link to some evidence of that? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Actually, it would not be good if the orbiter did not reach orbit becuase of poor analysis of the weather. Each orbiter is non-replaceable and worth billions. If you loose it, even unmanned, you have lost more than a museum piece. You also loose the option of finishing ISS and servicing Hubble in the required time frame.<br /><br />Also, I have seen no evidence that an orbiter can dock directly to a Soyuz. Please quote or link to any evidence you have when you make such claims. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"Soyuz can dock with the Shuttle"<br /><br />Absolutely incorrect.<br /><br />"Having 6 people on the ISS might actually get some science done between Shuttle dockings as well. "<br /><br />Not as much science is being done as anyone would like but science IS being done now (about 5-10 hours per week).

 

[akindhacker]

>> "Soyuz can dock with the Shuttle" <br /><br /> />Absolutely incorrect. <br /><br />Soyuz and Shuttle have the same docking port. Normal Soyuz and Shuttle probably have male ports, while ISS has female port (if I am not mistaken). But the female port can be installed on Soyuz to dock with Shuttle - that has been done already when two Soyuz craft docked together in 1969.<br /><br />Soyuz will however only be needed for Shuttle flight not to ISS. At the moment Shuttle is expected to be doing only ISS dockings.<br />

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Soyuz and Shuttle have the same docking port<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Since when? You have to document stuff like that if you want us to believe you. They do not use the same ports. Soyuz and Progress dock to the Russian modules and use a docking system borrowed from Mir. (In fact, most of the modules there are Mir backups, where planned for Mir, or where copies of Mir modules.) <br /><br />On the other hand, American orbiters (and later CEV) dock to American modules. The docking system there has a larger diameter to allow for bigger objects. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[nacnud]

Actually the Shuttle docks to the ISS with the APAS-89 docking port developed initially by the Russians for docking Buran to Mir. The APAS is a further refinement of the collaborative Apollo-Soyuz docking system. The Russians once flew a Soyuz with this port but it was a specially modified one specifically used to test the APAS before Buran could use it.<br /><br />So both Russia and the US have access to the specification of this docking system if there was time a modified Soyuz could dock with a Shuttle. However a normal TMA Soyuz has a different cone and drogue docking system which can't be used with the APAS-89.<br />

 

[superluminal]

That's excellent video of the ascent.<br /><br />It makes you feel like we were actually aboard Discovery during ascent.<br /><br />Thanks. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><br /><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Columbia and Challenger </font></strong></p><p><strong><font size="3" color="#3366ff">Starships of Heroes</font></strong></p> </div>

 

[akindhacker]

Ok, ok. I thought that there is only one docking port type on the ISS, even though I saw the port with my own yes in a museum. The proper port can be welded on new Soyuz or Shuttle if needed to make them dock together, it will not take billions.<br />Thank you, nacnud, for the post, by the way.<br /><br />The point however is that this talk about possibility of docking Shuttle with Soyuz is almost irrelevant to the automated flight idea as their docking will unlikely be needed.<br /><br />Shuttle unique feature is the capability to take payloads down. If you want to create a vehicle capable of this it will likely be like Shuttle (or Buran. The Russians did not copy the vehicle it simply ended up very similar because similar requirements were put forward initially) even though the feature is not in demand at the moment. So I was thinking of how to preserve this unique feature with reduced operation costs and could see no other alternatives besides the automated flights.<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

It's a question of development. A big heavy shuttle looming upon the ISS is a sobering thing. Development of automation for that part of the mission would be considerable (my opinion).<br /><br />Taking a crew to the shuttle in close proximity to the station with a Soyuz requires little development. The shuttle can get there on its own in the here and now. Only the gear drop during terminal landing requires automation that doesn't exist.<br /><br />As Cali pointed out, the shuttle won't unload itself. Those 2-3 guys up there would need help. If you send more people to the station, you'll need another Soyuz to get them there and bring them back. So it is logical to use a Soyuz to ferry crew to the shuttle since one would be needed anyway. Total cost/mission would be much lower than amortizing a major development over 16 missions and absorbing another hiatus while new automated systems are developed and flight tested.<br /><br />

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The Russians did not copy the vehicle it simply ended up very similar because similar requirements were put forward initially<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I do not know who or where I heard that, but when Buran first came out, I remember hearing one of the designers confessing they had "more or less copied the US design". Frankly, the fact that Buran's requirements were so similar to those that resulted in STS, I have to believe that the Russians in the early 1980s were convinced the STS concept was the right way to go. That results in a "me too" attitude. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree. If you look at other Russian rockets and spacecraft. Its safe to say they did not copy ours. Until shuttle came along. The orbiter is too similar. The rocket system core is similar to the ET. The big difference is that the main propulsion system is on their core vehicle rather than their orbiter. This appears to be a response to our shuttles early years in which main engine problems were the key concern. The Russians had time to compensate because their shuttle didn't fly until 7 years after ours.<br /><br />At least one story I heard years ago from "Aviation leak" claimed that Russian aerospace experts came over to the U.S. got the open source plans to the shuttle and had them translated in flight so that by the time they got to Moscow, they were able to begin an immediate analysis of those plans. <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>