Shuttle Replacement

[rocketwatcher2001]

It would be the Navy, they have long experience with manning ships. It doesn't matter if it's a submarine or a space ship, the type of crew structure would be about the same, and the Navy knows how to do that better than anyone else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[JonClarke]

I would argue that the navy experience is largely irrelevant for space missions. The environment (physical and human), mission goals, operational context, skills mix, crew sizes and context are different. I would see most military style structures as counter productive in the sort of long duration missions being planned to the Moon, Mars, and beyond. there are lots of other approaches that may be better suited to the space environment.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[halman]

newsartist,<br /><br />I said:<br /><br />"...Of course, if the shuttle were launched from the back of a flying wing, this whole problem would be academic, wouldn't it?..."<br /><br /><br />And you replied:<br /><br /><br />"No.<br /><br />A bolt, or other piece of orbiting, but undetected, debris could still strike the Orbiter at any time, with the force of an artilery shell."<br /><br />Your reply has been bugging me for a while, because it seems to doom spaceflight in general, not just spaceplanes. Any object in orbit is at risk to collide with another object, whether it is in orbit or not. A capsule could be holed by an impact, or have its heat shield compromised, so it is not just winged re-entry vehicles that are at risk.<br /><br />What I am arguing is that a two stage to orbit design of a shuttle type re-entry vehicle could avoid the foam shedding problem if the tankage was internal to the shuttle, as the early designs of the Space Shuttle were. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[halman]

jimfromnsf,<br /><br />I said:<br /><br /><br />"If it were announced that the United States was going to build a base on the Moon within the next 25 years, it would be generally accepted by the public, I believe, as a logical step in our efforts off planet."<br /><br />And you replied:<br /><br /><br />"To do what? They question it just as the ISS is now questioned, especially since it is intended to be abandoned."<br /><br />The public expects that we have to learn to live somewhere else other than on Earth if we are to expand into space. They, in general, don't think of space as a "place", but as a medium through which one has to travel to get somewhere else. So, building a base on the Moon is the next logical step in the minds of those who are not terribly interested in off planet exploration. What we do there is up to the specialists, just as open heart surgery is something that they leave up to the specialists.<br /><br />But the process of establishing such a base will promote the development of better ways of accessing space, and of surviving there, which in turn will make easier the next steps to take. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[holmec]

I agree with halman.<br /><br />but jim you said<br />"They question it just as the ISS is now questioned, especially since it is intended to be abandoned."<br /><br />It is my observation that anything or anyone successful is always questioned. If something is not questioned....then its not successful enough to be questioned.<br /><br />ie Donald Trump, MS Windows, Apollo, Japanese auto makers....etc. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[halman]

holmec,<br /><br />Is the International Space Station really going to be abandoned? Or was the meaning "Now that the United States is going to stop its participation in the ISS program...?" That is the understanding I have of the United States role in the future of the ISS. And it seems the reason that we are planning to withdraw from the ISS is lack of funding, not any inherent flaw in the concept of having a space station. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[holmec]

I really don't know...just wait and see. I've seen conflicting hints from NASA on when they are not participating. One said something like 2015 (...or was it 2025?) and another stated that ISS was going to be the staging for Mars missions.<br /><br />Wait and see I guess. Eventually every space station gets abandoned. <br /><br />Here is one of the articles:<br />http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/library/news/2007/space-070130-rianovosti01.htm<br /><br />Since its already been used for space tourism, I wouldn't be surprised if some entrepreneur would make a deal to visit ISS with tourists after its decommission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Since its already been used for space tourism, I wouldn't be surprised if some entrepreneur would make a deal to visit ISS with tourists after its decommission."<br /><br />The ISS will be deorbited when the US leaves it. It can not be maintained/operated without US involvement

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Since its already been used for space tourism, I wouldn't be surprised if some entrepreneur would make a deal to visit ISS with tourists after its decommission.</font>/i><br /><br />I don't think ISS was designed with low maintenance costs in mind.</i>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">The ISS will be deorbited when the US leaves it. It can not be maintained/operated without US involvement</font>/i><br /><br />Is it US dollars that are needed? Or technical expertise? Or the ability to build spare parts? Or ...<br /><br />It seems that NASA won't be contributing much to transportation to the ISS and back for about 5 years (Shuttle's 2010 retirement and CEV's 2015 operational status -- basically from its completion almost to its decommissioning.). It will be interesting to see how the rest of the community supports a full-time crew of 6 with no NASA transportation for several years.</i>

 

[jimfromnsf]

COTS is "suppose" to fill the void<br /><br />Back to US support of the ISS.<br />1. TDRSS is needed to talk with it and get data from it<br />2. JSC MCC is needed to monitor it Russians don't see mcuh of the US data<br />3. NASA and Boeing expertise is needed to support it. (Troubleshooting, spares, etc)<br />4. ITAR would prevent the expertise from being transferred to another country.

 

[holmec]

>The ISS will be deorbited when the US leaves it. It can not be maintained/operated without US involvement<<br /><br />The question is how will that happen. Remember SkyLab.<br /><br />Mir's deorbit seemed pretty organized, maybe ISS's will also.<br /><br />Anyhow you never know what tomorrow will bring. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

>I don't think ISS was designed with low maintenance costs in mind.<<br /><br />Not to maintain it...to visit some space history in orbit. Shoot, with imagine something like SpaceX's dragon taking 7 people to ISS for one last tourist visit. That would be some great marketing. <br /><br />That has the potential to rack up $120 million gross in one flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Not to maintain it...to visit some space history in orbit.</font>/i><br /><br />If it isn't maintained, then it won't be safe for humans. It would be like diving on a wreck under the ocean. Maybe James Cameron could lead a "dive" to ISS for a new documentary.</i>

 

[holmec]

It would be an opportunity for Space Archeology.....<br /><br />I'm just saying someone might try. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[thereiwas]

Only the Russians can reboost ISS, not NASA.

 

[thereiwas]

Ah well, if that fact has ever appeared in the coverage I would have known better.. (NASA is lousy at explaining what it is doing.)

 

[jimfromnsf]

ATV will perform some of the reboosts too.<br /><br />The shuttle reboosts are in the press kits and it does appear in the live and daily coverage

 

[vulture2]

The station can be maintained in orbit without the Shuttle, (either with the Soyuz/Progress or the engines mounted on the Service Module) but it will be difficult to do it without US participation and funds. The role of the US in the future of the ISS remains remarkably undefined. If we continue to support ISS, are funds also available to go to the moon? If we are going to withdraw support from ISS, do we expect the other countries involved to pick up the cost? If so, will we still expect to have crewmembers on board and direct the course of the program, i.e. exclude China from participation? Is there anyone here from NASA management that would care to say?<br /><br />My personal guess is that when the time comes for a decision, we will not want to give up our role in ISS, and the lunar landing will consequently be postponed. The shuttle looks slated for abandonment, which would leave us with only the CEV (and possibly COTS) for human flight, and only the ISS for a destination.

 

[gunsandrockets]

<The Shuttle Orbiter always does a re-boost when it is docked to the ISS. ><br /><br />How much delta-V does a Shuttle Orbiter contribute to ISS re-boost compared to a Progress spacecraft? How many Shuttle Orbiter flights have there been to the ISS compared to the Progress spacecraft?<br /><br />

 

[subzero788]

"How many Shuttle Orbiter flights have there been to the ISS compared to the Progress spacecraft?"<br /><br />Fairly even, 25 Progresses and STS-117 will be the 21st shuttle to visit the station.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The station can be maintained in orbit without the Shuttle, (either with the Soyuz/Progress or the engines mounted on the Service Module) but it will be difficult to do it without US participation and funds."<br /><br />"Maintained" in orbit is more than fuel and reboost (see my previous post)

 

[thereiwas]

I looked through the press kit for STS-117 and there was no mention of a re-boost. (at least, using the word "boost".) And nothing that looked like it in the 4 pages of "timeline" and "mission priorities". Is it called something else? Are they skipping it this time?

 

[MeteorWayne]

With the extra payload, there may not be extra propellant available.<br />It may not even show in the timeline, since it would make sense that it would be a "well we're leaving now, so lets use whatever fuel we have left over to give you a shove" thing.<br /><br />That's just speculation on my part.<br /><br />MW <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>