Shuttle Replacement

[jimfromnsf]

The shuttle concept was wrong in the first place, aside from all of its problems. <br /><br />If, if, if, if, It we had the money, it doesn't matter if the shuttle is used.<br /><br />If we had the money, Apollo would have done the moon base and the shuttle wouldn't have been developed

 

[docm]

I beg to differ on the funding.<br /><br />We had Apollo in hand. We had Saturn in hand, along with designs for improvements. We had concepts for Apollo habs in hand. Launching huge space station modules with Saturn V would be the natural follow-on.<br /><br />What we lacked was good decision making. Absent that we directed billions into a boondoggle (STS) when a fraction of that would have done much more with said existing infrastructure. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">All at once and on the ground during tests; not as a result of normal flight ops. Apollo 13 doesn't count; no fatalities and the failure wasn't of the capsule. If anything it and the LEM saved their bacon.</font><br /><br />I didn't count Apollo 13, but I sure could have. If that tank stir had happened while the LEM was more than a few minutes away, there would be 3 more names on the memorial, not to mention the pogo problems that almost blew up the second stage.<br /><br />The failure modes of STS type II could be made a lot smaller with what we have learned from STS type 1. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">A "space truck" is not what we need. That comes down to reliable capsules for up/down and a refuelable "space tug" for moving things around and providing a solid base for mounting robotic arms. <br /><br />Get the heavy loads in space by conventional means, get the crew up/down using capsules and do the rest with the tug. My dad used to call it using the right tool for the job. </font><br /><br />And as long as the job isn't too big, what you are talking about makes sense, but when you start getting more ambitious, you outgrow a capsule and the shuttle system would work beautifully. Too bad we never had the ambition to use the STS system to it's full potential. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

IMO the Shuttle is nothing more than a large capsule that can't do its own re-entry, which hinders the crews safety by having to haul the tug and its re-entry systems up/down on every flight. <br /><br />Def "tug": akin to the Shuttle bay. Leave the tail & wings home, add another arm, remote controls, stereoscopic video cams, refillable OMS & thrusters & that's it. KISS.<br /><br />Launch the tug once & leave it there, then you can concentrate on getting the crew up/down as safely as possible and the cargo up as cheaply as possible. Loss of one doesn't lose all 3.<br /><br />IMO no logical person can say blending these 3 missions in one Rube Goldberg Machine has worked. Building RGM-II doesn't change much because Job 1, getting the crew up/down safely, will still end up being subject to compromise and the dangers of complexity; the more complicated the plumbing the easier it is to plug the drain.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

If your goal is to only launch and return 4-6 people, a capsule works better, just like a Lear Jet is better than a 747. If your goal is to move 100,000 lbs into orbit, a heavy lift like the the Saturn V, or the new Aries works great. If you only want a full-time orbital construction platform, something launched like Skylab would be great. But if you want to return anything with any real size to it, the only system that works is the STS. <br /><br />With the STS, along with much of what you mentioned, we really could have supported a major moon base crewed but dozzens, or even hundreds. Without the STS, you really can't, and your lunar base will never manned by more than a few people at a time, just like ISS. Was STS too ambitious? Yes, because it was ultimately controlled by a bunch of wusses, but that's because our space program was ultimately controlled by a bunch of wusses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

I can see capsules larger than 4-6, or 7 in the case of Dragon and 8 for LM's recent concept. I don't even mind the idea of an up-scaled HL-20/Dream Chaser style spaceplane with larger compliments if its optimized for crew safety. Mixing missions compromises that.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">if you want to return anything with any real size to it, the only system that works is the STS</font><br /><br />Other than the space lab module what have we brought down of real use? I know some want to retire Hubble to the Smithsonian, but get real. IF there were such a <i>proven</i> need then I'd find an <i>unmanned</i> way to do it; a large aeroshell with 'chutes and airbags perhaps. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Other than the space lab module what have we brought down of real use? I know some want to retire Hubble to the Smithsonian, but get real.</font><br /><br />That's more or less my point, we didn't do anything, not because we didn't have the capacity, but because we never wanted to do them in the first place. Crew launch/return modules allowing 30-50 astronauts would have been possible with little modification to existing orbiters, and other orbiters could have been specifically built for that, with almost no overall system modifications. The STS could/should have been an important part of a very dynamic space program, involving 15 or 20 orbiters, several LEO stations and a big staion on the moon by now, if we had just decided to do it, we could have. Once the Shuttle is retired, we lose that capability. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">IF there were such a proven need then I'd find an unmanned way to do it.</font><br /><br />Not if moving men is your goal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

Missed my point about an over-sized lifting body dedicated to crews only in the first paragraph, 'eh? <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />HL-20 was designed for 10, but that airframe looks to be very scalable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

you are way in left field. There has never been any funding levels that would support that many astronauts or that unbelieveable number of orbiters. <br /><br />It does matter that we lose the shuttle capability because your space program is pure fanatsy and not based on anything close to reality. The funding available would never have approached a 10% of the level needed for what you propose.<br /><br />Also there would be no escape for crew members in the payload bay, making it non viable

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

No, because with a program as dynamic as what I've been talking about, sometimes you're going to need to haul freight back too. Somethings probably to make sense to return to Earth, and STS can do it, nothing else ever built can. I'm not saying that STS should be a stand alone system, but it certainly has it's place, and what is going to "replace" it, certainly isn't going to replace it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">It does matter that we lose the shuttle capability because your space program is pure fanatsy and not based on anything close to reality.</font><br /><br />I disagree, pure fantasy is, "pushing a butten into hyperspace", reality is having examples of the actual equipment that would do the job that have flown more than 100 times.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The funding available would never have approached a 10% of the level needed for what you propose. <br /><br />Also there would be no escape for crew members in the payload bay, making it non viable</font><br /><br />Have you ever been briefed on how you would bail out of your airliner inflight? Niether have I. IOW, nobody is too upset that the only way out of a 747 is when it's at a dead-stop. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">what is going to "replace" it, certainly isn't going to replace it.</font><br /><br />Because there is no longer a need for it.<br /><br />The perceived need for STS has been a moving target since day one. First it was re-usable and therefore "greener" back in the 70's perceptions. Then it was the "space truck", fixing Hubble and later the only way to get large space station modules up. Bigelow's implementation of TransHab tech seems prepared to blow that theory away. <br /><br />What we really need are safer manned transport and heavy lifters, plus that space tug. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Because there is no longer a need for it.</font><br /><br />Substitue the word "need" for "desire" and you are correct, unfortunately. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

pure fantasy is total disregard for reality, it is different than impossible<br /><br />1. There arent' enough pads for all the orbiters<br />2. Pure fanatsy is expecting congress to get NASA 10 times the funding levels. <br /><br /><br />The airliner analogy is wrong.<br /><br />1. I can get out on the ground unassisted. The crew in the back of the shuttle can't<br />2. The airliner has more redundacy and can still fly with degraded systems

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Substitue the word "need" for "desire" and you are correct, unfortunately."<br /><br />Wrong, there is no need. period. The current goals (post 2010) and any future goals of the US space program can be done without the shuttle. Actually, the shuttle has been a hinderance

 

[j05h]

You're crying over split milk. The STS no more did those things than the ISS is going to develop space manufacturing. Overpriced, marvelous and done as of Sept. 2010. Everything you want to do in space can be atop a normal rocket and with capsules for people. Capsules don't even have to be tiny, cramped things. A pimped-out 15 person craft is also possible, but it's not NASA that will need one.<br /><br />The only thing the Shuttle has over other options is the arm and maneuverability as a package. This can be replaced with a Parom or other tug and arm, if needed. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">pure fantasy is total disregard for reality, it is different than impossible <br /><br />1. There arent' enough pads for all the orbiters <br />2. Pure fanatsy is expecting congress to get NASA 10 times the funding levels.</font><br /><br />Not enough pads? There is plenty of room for a complex 39C and more, in fact, until a few years ago there were roadsigns for the future 39C. Wallops Island could have been developed, and Vandenberg was, but was converted to Delta IV.<br /><br />Congress is another story, and your right, believing them to fund it would be fantasy......and that's a pretty sorry excuss for having a half-assed space program, but again, you're right about that.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The airliner analogy is wrong. <br /><br />1. I can get out on the ground unassisted. The crew in the back of the shuttle can't <br />2. The airliner has more redundacy and can still fly with degraded systems </font><br /><br />All it would take to allow for a crew module evacuation is a few, relatively easy pad modifications, certainly not a show stopper. Still, how many thousands of people have been killed in airliners? I fly the 727, and would gladly trade it in for the Space Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">"Substitue the word "need" for "desire" and you are correct, unfortunately." <br /><br />Wrong, there is no need. period. The current goals (post 2010) and any future goals of the US space program can be done without the shuttle. Actually, the shuttle has been a hinderance </font><br /><br />As I said before, that is because our future goals are relatively unambitious. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">You're crying over split milk. The STS no more did those things than the ISS is going to develop space manufacturing. Overpriced, marvelous and done as of Sept. 2010. Everything you want to do in space can be atop a normal rocket and with capsules for people. Capsules don't even have to be tiny, cramped things. A pimped-out 15 person craft is also possible, but it's not NASA that will need one. <br /><br />The only thing the Shuttle has over other options is the arm and maneuverability as a package. This can be replaced with a Parom or other tug and arm, if needed.</font><br /><br />I'm not crying over spilt milk, I'm just pointing out what we lose. The big thing that the Orbiter can do is heavy returns, and we really don't have a program that requires that. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Wallops was never considered for the current STS, nor could it handle it. One more KSC pad and VAFB would not be enough to handle all the orbiters.<br /><br />" that's a pretty sorry excuss for having a half-assed space program"<br /><br />It is a damn good excuse. No bucks, No Buck Rogers<br /><br />Anyways, "half assed"? By whose standards? By the same reasoning, what about underwater cities, or mile high buildings, etc. It all depends on what are the national priorities, not yours

 

[jimfromnsf]

"All it would take to allow for a crew module evacuation is a few, relatively easy pad modifications, certainly not a show stopper. Still, how many thousands of people have been killed in airliners? I fly the 727, and would gladly trade it in for the Space Shuttle."<br /><br />Not so easy. The shuttle does have a way to get them out, it is not the pad.<br /><br />Why don't you include cars too. It isn't the total number of people, it is number per flight.

 

[docm]

Just what would you "return"?<br /><br />Hubble, space rocks, dead satellites?<br /><br />Hubble ain't gonna happen even with shuttles. <br /><br />Space rocks? Mining should be used up there. Sample return missions are best done with robots.<br /><br />Dead satellites? Nope, building new ones is cheaper for any orbit and robots could be used for deorbits. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Not so easy. The shuttle does have a way to get them out, it is not the pad.</font><br /><br />When it's on the pad, they use escape baskets from the pad. If they have to evacuate from the vehicle after the Whiteroom is rotated, they have to wait until it's rotated back. I can't think of any show stoppers preventing a modified payload bay door and a similar system for a 30 man crew module. But those things were never built, because we never had the guts to build a station, either in LEO or the moon, requiring a crew transfer of 30 people at a time. That's the kind of halfassness (a new word I just made up) I'm talking about when describing our relatively unambitious space program.<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Why don't you include cars too. It isn't the total number of people, it is number per flight.</font><br /><br />The point I was trying to make was about the Shuttle "frying" 2% of it's crews. Every other spacecraft ever built has about the same level of accidents and near accidents. A greater percentage of Apollo astronauts were killed by Apollo than by Shuttle. Soyuz killed 2 crews, and at least 2 other crews nearly died in catostophic failures which they were LUCKY to survive. A Gemini almost fell off the pad after an engine abort, so chalk that crew's survival to a bit of good luck too. It's very iffy if they could have ejected safely from a Titan tipping over. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Dang, Rocket! You're talking like your real name is Rip Van Winkle.</font><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Maybe you're right. Maybe I'm just dumb enough to believe that we can do anything we set our minds, and our wills, to. If the Wright brothers had build the 747 in 1910, just 7 years after the Flyer first flew, it would have been under-used too. But in 1910 I would have said that we need to spend the billions to use it right. <br /><br />*EDIT*<br />This could quickly evolve out of missions & launches, and I've been away from SDC so long that I'm pretty much weened off of Freespace. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nwade]

rocket - You've just proven why a lot of your arguments just don't hold water....<br /><br />"If the Wright brothers had build the 747 in 1910..."<br /><br />WTF? They COULDN'T. They lacked the engineering know-how, and even if they had that, they didn't have the refined materials to build it. <br /><br />Same thing with a lot of your proposals for a "Shuttle Mark II". With our current technology and launching methods, no Shuttle-like system is a viable alternative to capsules and rockets.<br /><br />I'll be the first to agree that capsules seem antiquated and are completely non-sexy. But they get the job done in a compact and efficient manner. Efficiency is key, especially in today's economic and political climate. But even if it WEREN'T a political decision, it would be a good idea to pursue this route because money is always in limited supply (even for billionaires), and the more efficient you make your systems, the more you can do with what little $$ you have.<br /><br />As far as heavy return - I agree with the others in this thread: What are you returning, and where from?? This is not the movie "Armageddon". Shuttles are not well suited to anything beyond LEO (the Wings and other support-structure is completely wasted mass and volume in space). <br /><br />Sample return missions can be done (and have been done) robotically. Interplanetary material can be sent on a trajectory to intercept LEO, and then robotic systems can dock and de-orbit or return such material.<br /><br />Hell, the Shuttle was never designed to DO heavy returns from space - AFAIK, the shuttle's not designed to land with a full payload bay... It was always about maximizing delivery of modules and satellites to orbit.<br /><br />I'm a pilot and I've designed (and am in the process of building) man-carrying airplanes. Dealing with the materials and structures of a normal flying craft is hard enough. Trying to satisfy all of that for a winged aircraft AND support launching (especially ground-launch