Shuttle-C back on the table

[vt_hokie]

according to nasawatch.com. That's too bad. The inline heavy lifter would be a far superior launch vehicle! Once again, being cheap now will cost more in the long run...

 

[mikejz]

Unless of course it looks like another option for HHLV has come foward....

 

[wvbraun]

The Space Shuttle program is once again wreaking havoc on NASA:<br /><br /><i>The delay in completing the exploration plan comes as auditors have warned Griffin and his senior staff that <b>the costs of the shuttle fleet's Return to Flight are rapidly rising and may exceed $1 billion in unbudgeted costs by the fiscal year 2007 and possibly $2 billion by 2008</b>. Budget analysts have also told senior NASA staffers that they are unable to predict the final price tag for the shuttle repairs and it could exceed even these new, stark projections.</i><br /><br />Scuttle the Shuttle! <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /><br /><br /><br />NASA Studying Unmanned Solution to Complete Space Station as Return to Flight Costs Grow

 

[wvbraun]

Griffin does all the right things, as usual:<br /><br /><i>The plan is to detail how NASA hopes to alter and, in some cases accelerate the implementation of the Bush administration Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) announced in January 2004. Initial briefings to industry and Congressional representatives several weeks ago fell flat on delivery and left many attendees confused as to what the actual NASA plans are. Griffin was not happy about the initial presentations and has ordered that the whole process be redone.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />According to agency sources Griffin has said that he is determined not to raid other NASA spending accounts to pay for the shuttle's ballooning costs. According to one source, Griffin has ordered the RTF costs to be fully absorbed within the space agency's human spaceflight account. That would leave the ISS science budget and the budget for shuttle operational costs to suffer the full effect of the RTF increases.<br /><br />Sources say the cost of using a shuttle-derived launch vehicle to complete station assembly post 2010, when the orbiters are retired, could be partially absorbed by the SDV's development costs being attributed to the Constellation project, since the launcher would be used primarily to lift and assemble parts of the return-to-the-moon fleet in low Earth orbit.</i>

 

[lunatio_gordin]

problem is that bill in congress prohibiting retirement of the shuttle before there's a new launch vehicle.

 

[crix]

My bet's are on the Shuttle-C happening. It sounds like there isn't money to do Inline and sidemount would allow us to spend more money on moon-bound hardware. Sounds good. Before operations become routine on the moon i expect a waterfall of commerical space activity that will get us to Mars faster than a NASA inline SDLV.

 

[gunsandrockets]

"My bet's are on the Shuttle-C happening. It sounds like there isn't money to do Inline and sidemount would allow us to spend more money on moon-bound hardware."<br /><br />Looking at the history of the Shuttle C as related on astronautix.com I'm struck by how history is repeating itself. Inline concepts for SDHLV were dropped back in the 1980's for cost reasons. Only the Shuttle C made economic sense back then just as it seems to now.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">according to nasawatch.com. That's too bad. The inline heavy lifter would be a far superior launch vehicle!</font>/i><br /><br />Nooooooo... . . . . . . . . .<br /><br />It took me a long time to switch from being a side-mounted supporter to being an inline supporter. I can't switch back now <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" /></i>

 

[vt_hokie]

The inline booster would be superior in almost every way. The shuttle-C is simply cheaper to develop. I say let's do something right for a change, instead of taking the half assed, penny pinching approach!

 

[john_316]

i dont care which one thy build but honestly the inline would make more lifting capacity in the long run.<br /><br />but they would need disposable engines and SSME's arent disposable now are they?<br /><br />i still would preferr inline if they start work on it now...<br /><br /><br />

 

[cuddlyrocket]

Any engine is disposable. Just dispose of it. Of course, it's a waste if it was designed to be reusable - unless you otherwise wouldn't use it at all.

 

[tomnackid]

There are currently 2 engines--one under development by Gumman, and one from Boeing currently in use on the Delta IV--that burn LOX and H2 , have the SME's performance but are cheap enough to dispose of.<br /><br />Personally I prefer the "Shuttle B" concept for maximum flexibility. The main engines are mounted on the fuel tank in the the same location and orientation that they would be in if the orbiter were there. This takes advantage of the currently in place launch pad and the current thrust structure of the main fuel tank (less efficient, but lower development costs). Payloads are side mounted on the tank.<br /><br />Payloads can be either cargo pods, a reusable spaceplane (smaller and safer than the current orbiter since it can abort throughout the entire flight profile), or a capsule.

 

[frodo1008]

Then we had better get reqdy to tell our partners on the ISS that the word of the United States doesn't mean S__T!! And next time we need help with something like terroism problems THEY tell us to go to H__L in a handbasket!! <br /><br />We are currently spending some 5 billion a month in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our illustious congress can't find the money to fly the shuttle and finish ISS? The money for future programs should also be relatively easy to come by. I WAS THERE during the last time congress used a war to try to kill the space program!! <br /><br />If you anti NASA and Shuttle, and ISS, clowns want to see them do it again, just continue down your current negative path!! I can guarantee that they will quite probably listen to you and do it! <br /><br />If you think that they will then take the money saved and just give it to your favorite projects, then you are living in LA LA land! <br /><br />If congress listens to you people you had indeed better hope that the likes of Burt Rutan, and Elon Musk can do the job, because if not then you can just sit back for the NEXT 40 years and enjoy the view from here, bcause we won't be going anywhere!<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, I would be the first to agree that the shuttle and the ISS and even NASA itself are far from perfect, but name me a government program (or large private one for that matter) that isn't. <br /><br />It would actually take less than 10% of the militaries developement budget alone to give NASA far more than would be necessary to develope a true inline Heavy Lift Launcher within five years. Then along with the CEV we could actually be on our way back to the moon to stay.<br /><br />

 

[wvbraun]

Be reasonable, frodo. NASA isn't getting any more money, that's just the way it is. The Shuttle is endangering NASA's future (manned flights to the Moon and Mars) with its repeated cost overruns and technical problems. The program needs to be shut down ASAP.

 

[john_316]

Yeah! but want I mean is that the SSME cost too much money each to waste so that leaves either the RS-69 or other rocket engines such as RS-83/RS-84 or TRW-107 type engines that can be manufactured and disposed of rather then spending massive dollar amounts on a reliable good motor that is just wasted for nothing.<br /><br />The SSME can be used in another Booster as a second stage or for another Vehicle such as scaled down shuttle 2/3... I can see a STS with one or 2 SSME in it and either lifting body or winged brick like STS...<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

I'm with wvbraun on this. When Discovery makes it back safely, let's put the orbiters in museums and develop a spaceflight infrastructure that makes sense. The Grumman CEV and t/space's CxV are great designs, a tug similiar to the russian FGB or European ATV and a policy geared towards space development will go a long way toward making spacefaring culture a reality. <br /><br />shuttle and station are albatross around NASA and the USA's neck. They are indeed dragging down our future. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

Well, I think a dozen or so more flights would be ok but NASA has to make sure that the Shuttle program ends no later than 2010. Phased retirement seems like a good approach (first orbiter retired in 2007, second one in 2009, last one in 2010).

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow"> And next time we need help with something like terroism problems THEY tell us to go to H__L in a handbasket!!</font>/i><br /><br />I think much of the world is much more upset at the American government and American corporations for issues other than ISS. I have seen a lot of anti-American marches over the years (or at least marches with major anti-American elements), but I cannot think of any of them protesting our space policy, especially with respect to ISS.</i>

 

[john_316]

<br />But would it be cheaper to use the SSME or another main engine all together for the heavy lifter?

 

[frodo1008]

That is simply because we have NOT yet pulled out of what we said to the other countries that we would do!<br />Try to think instead of just reacting! If we have not yet done a bad thing then nobody id going to protest what we have yet not done? Understand? <br /><br />We have NOT yet "scuttled the Shuttle" nor have we pulled out of our commintment to the ISS. It is indeed possible that we would not see demonstrations. When was the last time you EVER saw a demonstration about anything dealing with space programs? But the leaders of those governments WILL remember. Besides would YOU really want the US to do this kind of underhanded dealing with the rest of the world?

 

[john_316]

What about the RS-68 used by the Delta IV? <br /><br />Doesnt it make sense to go with that instead of the SSME or use all of the SSME's up and make sure we can't go back to them?<br /><br />The RS-68s are on the production line now so I figure as some posters think... Just use them for the SDHLV....<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <br />

 

[tomnackid]

More and more I come to the realization that space travel will never be cheap, easy, and routine as long as rockets are our only way to orbit. We are like 1930's aeronautical engineers trying to develop global air travel using piston engined prop planes. Back then they had to resort to all kinds of dodges like seaplanes, plans for mid ocean refueling stations, super jumbo planes that were so slow they would take several days to cross the atlantic, even small airliners that launched from the backs of larger planes. And no mater how hard the tried all but the shortest trips were so expensive that only the wealthy could travel by air.<br /><br />Then came jet engines. They were more reliable, more powerful, faster, and lasted longer than piston engines. Even better they burned cheap kerosene rather than expensive aviation grade gasoline. Global air travel was now practical. We need the equivalent of a jet engine for space travel. I don't know what it is--beamed power, orbital elevator, airship-to-orbit, scram jets, some form of nuclear engine that will leave the ground facilities habitable--but it probably won't be rockets.

 

[propforce]

<i><br />"What about the RS-68 used by the Delta IV? <br /><br />Doesnt it make sense to go with that instead of the SSME" <br /><br />Yes, the are much cheaper but less performance and twice as heavy as a SSME thus the ET would need to be extended. Extending the ET is not a big deal. </i><br /><br />Maybe NASA should consider buying Russian engines but that would be soooo un-American <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>