Shuttle Replacement

[rocketwatcher2001]

Nwade-<br />Do you think we could support a space program with a moon base manned in the hundreds, with a thousand in LEO without an STS type system? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

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 />That is simply not true. The Shuttle proved the concept and a MarkII version could show a lot of improvement. Compare the 737-100 to the 737-900 or the 727-100 to the 200 or the 747-100 to the 800.<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 />Absolutely, but what we need is way to get things from the Earth to LEO and back. If that's all you do it is a lot simpler. Beyond LEO or even within LEO vehicles optimised to that environment make a lot more sense. We don't need wings at the moon, but we also don't need a re-entry heatshield.<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 />And why do you have to do anything different with manned missions?<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 think that reflects the reality that more needs to go up than come back. <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-launching of a heavy craft) AND support heavy landing is just asking too much of a good efficient design. Too many compromi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"... AFAIK, the shuttle's not designed to land with a full payload bay..."<br /><br />A Return To Launch Site abort, or any form of first orbit contingency landing would have a full load."<br /><br />That is not providing any special benefit, except saving the crew. The payload and maybe the orbiter would not fly again.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Do you think we could support a space program with a moon base manned in the hundreds, with a thousand in LEO without an STS type system?"<br /><br />Yes, because the STS system still the wrong answer and it grossly inefficient. There would be a new add different system used. It won't look like the current STS<br /><br />Why do you need all those people? There are no requirements that require that many people. There needs to be a reason. <br /><br />And the answer is also no. No, we (the USA) or any other government couldn't support a space program like you propose. It has nothing to do with a launcher. I am being serious, but you are talking 100's billion to trillions of dollars.<br /><br /><br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Nwade-<br />I should have answered this in my above post, sorry.<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">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.</font><br /><br />My point is, as far as the Space Shuttle goes, we did. We went from Mercury-Gemini-Apollo all the way to Shuttle in a blink of an eye. I'll admit that comparing the Shuttle to 747 is a bit of a stretch, and 1903 to 1910 isn't the 20 years between Mercury and Shuttle, and maybe comparing the Shuttle to the DC-3 is a little better. Can you imagine if the people who thought that the unwashed masses had no use for air travel had prevailed?<br /><br />I've always said that NASA should have had control of a few Orbiters, and the Air Force should have had about 3, same with the Navy. I understand many DOD folks were eager to rid themselves of the Shuttle, and STS-51L gave them an excuse. Do you know how many Navy Admirals were against the concept of the aircraft carrier in the 1930's? Those same type of DOD officials should have been replaced with folks that were able to handle that big of a DOD Space Program. The Air Force should have had their own space station in polar orbit, and the Navy should have had theirs. The Army Corps of Engineers should have been building the moonbase, supported by the Navy's space station. A few Shuttles should have been leased to private firms, even at a loss at first.<br /><br />Now that's a space program, and taking away a fair bit of the military's other budgets, it could have been do-able. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">I am being serious, but you are talking 100's billion to trillions of dollars.</font><br /><br />Not really, how much do you think it costs to maintain a nuclear aircraft carrier battle group? Much more than a few dozzen Space Shuttles. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Scott-<br /><br />You flew Jetstreams? I was a maintenance inspector for an airline flying J-41's. Great planes! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Fast, and they sip fuel. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nwade]

Do I think we could support a system with a Moon Base without an STS System? Hell, yes! <br /><br />The Shuttle provides no special advantage to LEO that a simple, reusable rocket system couldn't provide. The Shuttle requires EXTENSIVE refurbishment between missions, it is not just a matter of refueling it and mating it with new boosters. The Wings are only good for an unpowered descent (hrm, I seem to recall that capsules tend to have unpowered descents too - except the capsule heat shields are less vulnerable during launch, and aren't as unstable as trying to aerobrake a lifting surface in a controlled manner from Mach 20+ down to about 200mph). Go buy the X-Plane simulator and try to hand-fly the Shuttle through a landing. Enjoy the high-speed S-turns to bleed speed, the fine attitude control and descent angle required, the long glide to a limited number of airfields scattered around the world, and all the other "fun" of a landing. Compare that to a simple splashdown or retro-rocket touchdown (a la Soyuz) that only requires a small landing zone and can be done in a huge number of places around the globe.<br /><br />Once you're above the atmosphere, its mass and internal volume that matter more than anything for working in LEO or flying between LEO and the Moon or mars. Tell me how the Shuttle's unpressurized Payload Bay or wing & tail internal volumes help with that? No, you'd be better off using something ELSE for LEO to Lunar/Mars transport. If you're doing to do that anyways, why not develop a simple craft with a larger useable internal volume, and lower mass & complexity that also works for your initial launch to LEO? Or at least use similar designs based around a common theme... Like, oh, say... a capsule? Its boring and has no sex-appeal; but its simple and efficient. Alternatively, use super-simple capsules to get to LEO and then have interplanetary vehicles stationed up in orbit or at the ISS that you boost up with heavy-lift rockets. Th

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

NWade-<br /><br />I've never said that the winged Orbiters should be going beyond LEO, but the wings/lifting body do provide the ability to have a better, less steep, re-entry to allow bigger payloads to return than capsules without building up too much heat, isn't that right? In other words, capsules have to come in too steep and fast to shed the heat that a heavy payload would build up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

It doesn't matter. There is no real good reason to return large payloads from orbit

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Not really, how much do you think it costs to maintain a nuclear aircraft carrier battle group? Much more than a few dozzen Space Shuttles.<br /><br />The cost of a few dozen (36) orbiters is over a 100 billion dollars. that is more than a carrier group cost or the maintenance. <br /><br />The costs to fly all those orbiters would be more than the USAF budget.

 

[sopwithuk]

NASA should be replacing the shuttle with a mk2 version. A Venturestar type design would capture the publics and young engineers attention far more than an Apollo style capsule, which really doesn't interest me at all. NASA will miss the capabilities of the shuttle especially once the station is finished. Some comments on here are saying what is there to return to Earth in the payload bay? Well I'm sure it will be of use in the future servicing of the station, returning experiments and equipment to Earth that you do not want destroyed in a Progress or ATV.<br /><br />And NASA should firstly solve the problem of cheap and routine access to orbit before spending money and time returning to the moon. I can't see the Moon thing happening anyway, if NASA is so worried about sending a shuttle to a non ISS orbit how can this agency send astronauts to the moon's surface?

 

[jimfromnsf]

The Air Force should have had their own space station in polar orbit, and the Navy should have had theirs. The Army Corps of Engineers should have been building the moonbase, supported by the Navy's space station. A few Shuttles should have been leased to private firms, even at a loss at first.<br /><br />Now that's a space program,"<br /><br />that is not a space program. That is an uninformed opinion.<br /><br />There is no need for a USAF or USN polar stations. Current spacecraft do better than manned platforms.<br /><br />What is the current trend in air vehicles? RPV's. No need for piloted aircraft. The space program has been doing that for years.<br /><br />The USAF has never needed to fly as many payloads as 3 shuttles could do.<br /><br />And this applies to all the org., NASA/DOD etc. When the shuttle was suppose to fly 24 missions a year, there wasn't enough payloads to fly all those missions<br /><br />It doesn't work like "build it and they will come" <br /><br />Building 50 airplanes for an airline that only needs 25, doesn't mean it can fill the remaining 25.<br /><br />Commerical companies wouldn't able to make any money using the shuttle. <br /><br />The space program that you are proposing only exists in Robert McCall's art work. Pure fanatsy and not based on anything reality

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">The cost of a few dozen (36) orbiters is over a 100 billion dollars. that is more than a carrier group cost or the maintenance. <br /><br />The costs to fly all those orbiters would be more than the USAF budget.</font><br /><br />I don't believe that for a second. Ultimately it comes down to paying people. How many people are getting paid to keep the Air Force running? How many people would be being pad to keep 36 Orbiters flying? You can't think of it being that it takes 500 million per Space Shuttle mission, because much of that cost would be about the same whether they launch 20 launches or 2 launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"1. Well I'm sure it will be of use in the future servicing of the station, returning experiments and equipment to Earth that you do not want destroyed in a Progress or ATV.<br /><br />2. And NASA should firstly solve the problem of cheap and routine access to orbit before spending money and time returning to the moon."<br /><br />1. there is soyuz, COTS and CEV for experiments. Returning equipment is not worth the effort or cost<br /><br />2. Not NASA's job, private industry's job

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">that is not a space program. That is an uninformed opinion. <br /><br />There is no need for a USAF or USN polar stations. Current spacecraft do better than manned platforms. </font><br /><br />Do WHAT better?<br /><br /><font color="yellow">What is the current trend in air vehicles? RPV's. No need for piloted aircraft. <br /><br />The space program has been doing that for years.</font> Not when it comes to moving people. Large number of people are going to be a reality, if it's going to be in 50 years, why not jump-start it to 5? Becuase it costs too much? All I'm doing is keeping it in perspective. We've spent a lot more money on USS Nimitz (CVN-68) and it's battle group than on the Space shuttle program.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"because much of that cost would be about the same whether they launch 20 launches or 2 launches." <br /><br />Not so, that only applies for 0-5 missions a year. After that more people is needs and after 8 a year, new and more infrastructure is needed.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Not when it comes to moving people. Large number of people are going to be a reality, if it's going to be in 50 years, why not jump-start it to 5? Becuase it costs too much? All I'm doing is keeping it in perspective. "<br /><br />You are way out of perspective. there isn't a need to move all those people. Just like there is no need for 747 service to Antarctica

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Not so, that only applies for 0-5 missions a year. After that more people is needs and after 8 a year, new and more infrastructure is needed.</font><br /><br />And how much more does that cost? A drop in the bucket compared to the Air Force's total cost. Even at 100 launches, out of 3 bases, it's still a lot less than what the Air Force spends. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">You are way out of perspective. there isn't a need to move all those people. Just like there is no need for 747 service to Antarctica</font><br /><br />There wasn't a "Need" for 747 service to New York 45 years ago either. Boeing almost went bankrupt developing it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"And how much more does that cost? A drop in the bucket compared to the Air Force's total cost. Even at 100 launches, out of 3 bases, it's still a lot less than what the Air Force spends."<br /><br />You still don't get it. <br /><br />1. need more than 3 bases. BTW Wallops was never viable<br />2. Maybe 3-4 JSC's to integrate, plan and control the missions<br />3.. You need 100 payloads<br />4. You need X number of organizations to buy, manage and control the payloads<br />5. you needs x number of payload control centers.<br />6. Need x more Michoud and SRM plants to make ET and SRB's<br /><br />7. Need to make more Ammonia Pechlorate and Hydrogen plants for SRM and ET propellants.<br /><br />Just like you can't buy a carrier without a carrier battle group, you can't just buy another shuttle

 

[jimfromnsf]

"There wasn't a "Need" for 747 service to New York 45 years ago either. Boeing almost went bankrupt developing it."<br /><br />Yes, there was. Marketforces should determine if things are needed

 

[scottb50]

Piece of junk! I had an MGA and it was a nightmare. The English have a knack for finding the most complicated way to do everything. I don't know about the 41's but the squat switch on the nose gear of a Jetstream was multi-hinged Rube Goldberg creation.<br /><br />I flew one of the first Jetstreams, actually a Handley Page. DC starter/generators, thanks to the French, and AC generators which ran the neat little fuel pumps and the windshield heat. Everybody else, even Beech had inverters by then.<br /><br />The pitch was quick and it took two hands to bank, servo-tabs helped the 31 though. Then because of the Trident, it had to have a pusher system, though it stalled like a 182.<br /><br />The 31 was a definite improvement, but the 32 wasn't much different, bigger engines mainly, and was obsolete when it came out.<br /><br />Our airline went to the Brasilia before the 41 was arrounded, about the time APA split off from Westair.<br /><br />I had to quit flying for medical reasons in early 1998. I got a nice plaque in the mail in the middle of June for ten years of service. Unfortunately the airline ceased to exist June 1. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Scott- <br />You are right about the nose gear, the rack used to get off track if you looked at it wrong, but i'm proud to say that on an afternoon in Newark, when I was on the ramp by myself, I came up with a "quick-fix" that within a week became our airlines answer to the problem, I used two grease plates and a tow-bar and with the right engine turning to supply hydraulics, could re-rack it in a few seconds! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />The -41 had all computer controlled TPE-331's, full FADEC, the 414's if my memory serves me right. It didn't require much in the way of tweaking like other 331's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

Boeing almost went bankrupt developing it."<br /><br />I think they have made enough off the 747 to forgive the drain and almost can be a big stretch. Playing along with the NEOCONS probably hurt the most. The SST was the Iraq of the 60's. Luckily it just ate up the money and not the people.<br /><br />The 747 always has had a pretty good on time depature rate when you take out mechanical delays. I think the 747 has been quite a bit better in mechanical delays then either the Death-Crate 10 or the L-1011. Maybe why you can still buy one. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>