Shuttle Replacement

[scottb50]

Give me a PT-6 any day. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nwade]

RW - <br /><br />Capsules *do* come in steeper, but the definition of "hotter" is arguable.<br /><br />The winged arrangement means that you cannot just dive for the ground and get through the heating phase of re-entry. If you did that you'd build up too much speed and by the time you hit the thicker atmosphere you'd have to pull too many G's on the wings to pull out of the dive (i.e. wings would be damaged or ripped off).<br /><br />A capsule's ballistic re-entry is hot, but its over with relatively quickly, because of the angle and the fast deceleration allowed by the shape & materials.<br /><br />With a winged orbiter, you have to come in at a shallow angle and slow down over a longer time. This leaves you in a flatter glide angle without over-speeding/overloading the wings. That process means exposing the leading edges and underside of the shuttle to extreme heat for a longer period. I don't know if the absolute temperature is much better than a capsule, but that time spent doing S-turns on a shallow descent to slow down is a Looooong period of re-entry heating for the shuttle as compared to a capsule.<br /><br />And yes, the shuttle costs are astronomical (no pun intended) - even compared to a Nuclear Sub or Aircraft Carrier (speaking as a former NROTC candidate, and the son of a Naval Academy graduate who went into Nuclear engineering & Subs). The cost in labor and materials to refurbish the shuttle between flights (AND build a new liquid tank, AND refurbish the SRBs after they land in salt-water) is quite high.<br /><br />Again, read the CAIB report and you'll get a feel for this stuff.<br /><br />Until then, I expect you to continue to argue this point with supposition and wishful thinking; despite all other evidence. ;-) <br /><br />Take care, and enjoy trolling for further outraged responses from folks (I'm done with this thread), <br /><br />--Noel<br /><br />P.S. Who mentioned the VentureStar?? That whole vehicle was predicated on the aerospike engines, whic

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Noel-<br /><br /><font color="yellow">Take care, and enjoy trolling for further outraged responses from folks (I'm done with this thread), ......</font><br /><br />I've been here over 6 years, you are the first to ever say I'm a troll. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketman5000]

That would be me, If you go back up and reread all of my post in this thread it was brough up to state that in different political climates the "Ideal" spacecraft will be much different. If VSE had been brought up a year or two earlier when the X-33 program was still active we might not be going to the moon or would be using a vastly different architecture.

 

[j05h]

<i>> If VSE had been brought up a year or two earlier when the X-33 program was still active we might not be going to the moon or would be using a vastly different architecture.</i><br /><br />I can guarantee that we "wouldn't" be going to the moon with X-33/Venturestar hardware. They couldn't get single-stage-to-Montana to work, never mind SSTO. X-33 was corporate welfare, the Venturestar was just viewgraphs to sell the joke. The technology simply didn't work. If you want SSTO, you need much, much larger (Sea Dragon class) vehicles. Even then, materials are tricky. <br /><br />If X-33 had coincided with VSE, nothing would have happened, because it wasn't meant to fly. I really don't get this, it has been happening since Al Gore announced the stupid bird. There is a certain part of the space crowd that simply can not let go. It's not going to revolutionize spaceflight, it's DEAD. This is like the people that want warp drive or don't understand why spaceships don't look like something from Star Trek. <br /><br />You want a truly different architecture, that is realistic? How about an x-15 derived 500kg to LEO spaceplane and building all your infrastructure using Soyuz (5-8t to LEO)? It's possible and would be very cheap in volume. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"There is no need for a USAF or USN polar stations. Current spacecraft do better than manned platforms.<br /><br />Do WHAT better? "<br /><br />The mission. The reason for being in space.<br /><br />Recon, surveillance, eavdropping, mapping, early warning, communication, etc. None of the military tasks in space require a manned presence. Even future tasks are looking to use unmanned aero vehicles. <br /><br />There is no need to move large groups of people because there is nothing for large groups to do

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">And yes, (speaking as a former NROTC candidate, and the son of a Naval Academy graduate who went into Nuclear engineering & Subs). The cost in labor and materials to refurbish the shuttle between flights (AND build a new liquid tank, AND refurbish the SRBs after they land in salt-water) is quite high.</font><br /><br />Like what? How many man hours and at what cost? Do you have an actual number or are you just guessing? I'm not even sure exactly what an NROTC candidate should know about the Naval operations, except how to march around in the parking lot. On my ship we had Academy midshipman come aboard for 1 week each year, and the crew did our best to keep them from getting killed while they played on our aircraft carrier. As an NROTC candidate, I might allow you to shine my shoes after you demonstrated at least three times that you could do it with hurting somebody. I served on USS INDEPENDENCE, forward deployed for almost 4 years, then I spent 3 years at a forward deployed AIMD ashore, supporting the Indy, and later the KITTY HAWK. If you want to talk about naval operations, please do it smartly.<br /><br />Have you ever done maintenance in the Navy? I have, and I had to account for every man-hour of service. You say that "the shuttle costs are astronomical (no pun intended) - even compared to a Nuclear Sub or Aircraft Carrier"........WHAT? in terms of man hours of maintanence? No way. Not even close. An aircraft carrier requires roughly 20,000 man hours of maintenance EVERY DAY!, and that's while it is just steaming along underway. Add the cost of a yard visit, or even post-op/pre-op pier side maintenance and you are almost doubling that. <br /><br />Do you honestly think that the Shuttle requires anything close to that? Not just the Orbiters at KSC, but for tank assembly, and SRB's and everything in Houston, too. <br /><br />Have you ever seen the traffic jam around one of the carrier's bases at shift change? Now comp <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">There is no need to move large groups of people because there is nothing for large groups to do</font><br /><br />Sure there is, build stuff. Maintain the building eqipment, and maintain the maintainers. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Build what? and do what with it? You haven't provided any tasks for the people to do with the "stuff" or why they are building "stuff" <br /><br />All you have proposed is sending large groups of people into space without any basis for it.<br /><br />I will use your 747 analogy. Large groups of people were already going to New York before the 747 existed. 707 and 727 were doing the job, Before that, DC-6 & 7's, Even earlier DC-3's. Before DC-3's, small aircraft (look at the history of airlines). <br />My point, for lunar missions, we aren't even at the DC-3 point yet. And despite, the early propoganda, the STS wasn't the DC-3 of LEO. For space launch, we are still in the 1920's/30's airline timeframe. <br /><br />A new passenger type STS is not going to change this.<br /><br />Market forces expanded airline travel, and they will affect space launch also.<br /><br />We are going round and round, due to the outlandish nature of your pogram which not based on any reality<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Build what? You say recon is best done with unmanned satellites, do you mean like the KH-13? How about radar sats? The best radar sat can detect ships on the ocean, but not planes flying over land. Why? Because of the megawatts of power required for a radar to track an airplane flying over land from space. We can't launch a satellite with enough power from Earth, but there's no doubt that we could build one up there if we had the construction facilities, both in orbit and on the moon. And it's not just megawatt radars, but a whole host of other things too, but we need to man the facilities that would make those things.<br /><br />Far fetched? Imagine sitting next to Fermi in 1940 at the bar when he's telling you about how the power of the atom can destroy an entire city. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Do you honestly think that the Shuttle requires anything close to that? Not just the Orbiters at KSC, but for tank assembly, and SRB's and everything in Houston, too."<br /><br />Yes, it does

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

How many man hours? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"The best radar sat can detect ships on the ocean, but not planes flying over land. Why? Because of the megawatts of power required for a radar to track an airplane flying over land from space. We can't launch a satellite with enough power from Earth,"<br /><br />Not so, <br />1. wrong about naval "radar sats"<br />2. There isn't a real requirement for it<br />3. If there is a requirement for a large spacecraft, then an LV will be made to launch it. This is much cheaper than building a spacecraft on orbit. Any involvement of a human with spacecraft drives up the costs by several multiples<br /><br />4. Also remote assembly (docking a few spacecraft together) is more viable and cheaper. <br />

 

[docm]

<font color="yellow">Also remote assembly (docking a few spacecraft together) is more viable and cheaper. </font><br /><br />Yup,and it would have been nice if thet had been thought of for the ISS modules. Yes, mounting trusses & solar panels probably requires a crew, but depending on STS allowed them to make complex and expensive choices on assembly.<br /><br />They sure didn't have KISS in mind when they designed that thing <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <br /><br />Two words: TINKER TOY; a hub with cylindrical modules. Want bigger? Add hubs & modules. <br /><br /><b>As for winged spacecraft:</b> <br /><br />We certainly should not be flying over complicated boxcars like the shuttle. Maybe, even probably, lifting bodies like HL-20 sized to the task, but <i><b>PLEASE</b></i> don't bring them up in the context of anything other than LEO to GSO. <br /><br />For anything from GSO out lets have modularized spaceships; power, habs & landers suited to the task and standardized <b>simple & light</b> ascent/descent capsules as required. Trusses as required.<br /><br />Just going up and down, even to the moon, shouldn't require a conical version of the shuttle; over complicated, heavy as hell and so expensive to build you have to cut corners elsewhere. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I can guarantee that we "wouldn't" be going to the moon with X-33/Venturestar hardware.</font>/i><br /><br />Even if the Venturestar did work as advertised, it would not have been a good architecture for going to the Moon -- its payload is too small and I don't believe it was designed for beyond-LEO re-entry speeds.<br /><br />IF a significant Lunar outpost existed that needed frequent travel between the Earth and Moon, and there was an established means to move small numbers of people or small amounts of cargo between the Lunar surface and LEO, then a Venturestar-like system (e.g., one optimized for frequent trips of small payloads to LEO and back) might make sense.<br /><br />The problem is that a Venturestar-class system, even if it worked as advertised, would not have been a good architecture for extending human presense beyond LEO.<br /><br />... Still, I do look forward to a largely reusable, easily maintainable vehicle to LEO and back. Land. Replace the consumables. Do a flight check. And then launch again. Hey, a guy has gotta dream...</i>

 

[j05h]

<i>> Sure there is, build stuff. Maintain the building eqipment, and maintain the maintainers.</i><br /><br />That isn't the military's mission in space. Space to the military is a place for remote sensing and communications, with maybe manned-insertion and "rods from god" in the future. They don't need dozens of people to erect bases on the Moon. <br /><br />The only sector of society that will need that kind of workforce in space is for settlement and mining. Those are not really the forte' of NASA, USAF or USN, but of private citizens and companies. And Shuttle/Venturestar/etc are the wrong vehicles for that task. <br /><br />josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

Extending human presence into outer space is not the US Military's mission. Jim is correct, general military space is robotic. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[solarspot]

Speaking strictly in the sence of the CEV and wether it is / is not replacing the shuttle.<br /><br />My personal opinion about what the shuttle was/is good for (yea I said it, opinion...) is for inspiring people in the rediculous dream that the Starship Enterprise is just around the next nebula... and for keeping a nation enfatuated in it's own prowess for 20 years haha <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />I'm sorry to say, but the CEV is good at exploring space... that is the dream of us 'spaciers' , and will never be truely supported by any self-caring government. A true shuttle Replacement or follow-on will be even more elaborate! Even more expensive (as far as the government will pay for a publicity stunt)! And even more [we're the best in the world and here's the behometh to prove it]!<br /><br />Now what could really fit all thies criteria? Tall order... seems the Shuttle may have been a good idea afterall <img src="/images/icons/tongue.gif" /><br /><br />[in refrence to the above post] Yes I am a cynic... yea I was exaduating... So there's everybody's recommended dose of cynicism (sp?) for the next 2 weeks... feel free to return to your regular brainwashing sessions... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">Not so, <br />1. wrong about naval "radar sats" <br />2. There isn't a real requirement for it <br />3. If there is a requirement for a large spacecraft, then an LV will be made to launch it. This is much cheaper than building a spacecraft on orbit. Any involvement of a human with spacecraft drives up the costs by several multiples <br /><br />4. Also remote assembly (docking a few spacecraft together) is more viable and cheaper.</font><br /><br />What exactly am I wrong about regardiing "radar sats"? Are you suggesting that ground and airborne radar would do a better job than a constellation of satellites that can paint every aircraft, and even ground vehicles? I know that there are huge gaps in the radar coverage in the areas I fly through, and I have to give position reports to a controller who's moving pieces of plastic around on some sort of oujii board. Spaceborne radar would eliminate that, so don't try to tell me that there is no requirement for it, yes there is, and that's just one civilian application. The military would have the ultimate JSTARS with a system like that in place, so again, don't tell me that there is no requirement for it. It's also great for search and rescue, not just combat.<br /><br />Also, how much bigger do you think we can build launch vehicles? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

There is no requirement for it. Because it is not feasible. because of the power-distance problem and the constellation would have to be bigger than GPS the megawatts you speak of would have to be supplied by reactors. Solar arrays would be too big, unweildy and easy to attack<br /><br />Also there is the "big brother" fallacy. There would be too many things to track and figure out what they are doing. <br /><br /> To solve the civilian "issue", Every craft could be equipped with a GPS reciever and a transmitter that would send the craft's position to a few spacecraft in orbit which would relay them back to the ground. This is already happening for trains and trucks.<br /><br /><br />"Also, how much bigger do you think we can build launch vehicles?"<br /><br />As big as we want. Even bigger with the money you have in your space program.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">There is no requirement for it. Because it is not feasible.</font> Not feasible using Earth launched satellites, but very feasible if it were made on the moon. Don't say "requirement", because using that non-reasoning, I can tell you that there is no requirement for airplanes, or even electricity, we got along thousands/millions of years without them, but just how much better is the world since we've deveolped those technologies? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

" Not feasible using Earth launched satellites, but very feasible if it were made on the moon. "<br /><br />they wouldn't be made on the moon, that is even less feasible. It would take more energy and expense to do it there. And it has nothing to do with where it is launched from. The power -distance issue is separate from launch<br /><br />I can see you have no concept of orbital mechanics, system engineering, logistics in space nor cost estimating (shipyard laborhours don't count)<br /><br />"how much better is the world since we've deveolped those technologies?"<br /><br />Some people might say it isn't better

 

[drwayne]

Please refrain from making personal observations about other users folks.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Post deleted by jimfromnsf

 

[drwayne]

I do not care how serious you are. <br /><br />Personal observations, ad hominems, are not allowed. Simple as that.<br /><br />It is entirely possible to strongly disagree with someone elses logic while focusing on the logic of the argument.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>