Shuttle Replacement

[rocketman5000]

So you are saying we lack managerial knowledge and expireice to keep a lean work force? That is a terrible justification. When there is a problem you find the solution and fix it. It might be slightly higher pay for drastically fewer workers. (still could be a great savings) to eliminate the turnover.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"I am thinking similiar to airports, they share their ground personel, Also auto makers share personel, oftern in strategic partnerships. I am thinking Toyota and GM in particular"<br /><br />Carmakers don't share "workers". They might share production on a specific product but those lines are still separate. <br /><br /><br />Airports don't "share" workers. An airline with very few flights into a particular airport may contract another airline for support. That is limited and where the airlines don't share markets. They also use aircraft that are similar. <br /><br />LV processing is not the same. There are propellant and company processes that are very specific. <br /><br />And where is the economic reasons, it only makes sense if it is one company like ULA vs something like OSC launching spacex and Kistler vehicles

 

[jimfromnsf]

"So you are saying we lack managerial knowledge and expireice to keep a lean work force? That is a terrible justification. When there is a problem you find the solution and fix it. It might be slightly higher pay for drastically fewer workers. (still could be a great savings) to eliminate the turnover."<br /><br />Pay isn't everything and it is not the issue. A small development org can not be a sustaining org. Turnover is inevitable, designers leave when their job is done.<br /><br />Samething happens in big companies product development teams are different from production groups. <br />In bigger companies, designers move on to other projects within the company.<br /><br /><br />Spacex example: On the first launch, when they discovered the leak in the second stage, it was flown from Kwaj. to CA and another one flown back out. The same engineer accompanied both stages and worked over a +20 hour day. This is typical of a small development org. But this can't be sustained over the course of a whole program or it will burn itself out. Operations have to become routine (9-5 like) to sustain the program.

 

[thereiwas]

But the garage around the corner (where they still have mechanics on duty) can service, repair, and refuel cars from just about any manufacturer, and owned by different people who might be competitors in business.<br /><br />The little garage I go to has the complete service manuals for most models in their computer. And they can order parts for most of them too.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"But the garage around the corner (where they still have mechanics on duty) can service, repair, and refuel cars from just about any manufacturer, and owned by different people who might be competitors in business. "<br /><br />That is only IC cars. Electric cars or gas turbine no. <br /><br />There are millions of cars and plane<br />There aren't enough LV's produced to keep the manufactures busy. service manuals don't even exist for LV's<br /><br />Paradigm for cars is not applicable <br /><br />Even for the 100's of ICBM's, other than black box swap outs, major maintenance is performed by contractors and not the USAF.

 

[j05h]

<i>> Samething happens in big companies product development teams are different from production groups.... Operations have to become routine (9-5 like) to sustain the program.</i><br /><br />Those are excellent points, and apply to all sorts of product cycles. It's not a prototype, it's a line of vehicles you are building after a point.<br /><br />Back to the Falcon first stage - do you think it didn't have parachutes? I'm trying to gauge what you consider an attempt at reusability.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

Repeating what I said before:<br /><br />Reusability was not a thought out design requirement, just an afterthought. Basically, let's put a parachute on it and see what we get mentally. <br /><br />A stage designed for recovery in salt water and reusability wouldn't have parts that corrode in salt air.<br /><br />If the engine section was closed off, the fire may not have had the same effect or even started if the compartment was purged with conditioned air prelaunch (like most compartments of other LV's)<br /><br />Watertight/proof compartments and material suitability obviously were not considered

 

[rocketman5000]

Jim,<br /><br />Harking back to other threads, where is your proof? You make baseless claims. <br /><br />It is true they don't share workers. Reread my initial proposal. If you look closely you'll see the word contract. It is true that the corner shop can't repair electric cars, but the last time I checked there aren't turbine cars in existance. Once electric cars are in production you'll see plenty of small garages with the expirece to repair them. <br /><br />It seems your purpose on this forum is to try to show that your points are always better than everyone elses. This is not true. Your argumentative attitude is counterproductive to your credibility and discussion of the topic

 

[gunsandrockets]

"A stage designed for recovery in salt water and reusability wouldn't have parts that corrode in salt air."<br /><br />The suspected anodized-aluminum nut wasn't supposed to corrode. That part has since been replaced with a stainless steel nut.<br />

 

[ckikilwai]

wow, I read the whole thread, now I can post something without blames like "as I said before".<br /><br />I was thinking about some reasons why a shuttle would be useful to have in the near/less near future.<br /><br />Maybe we can combine a shuttle and lunar program.<br />One criticized fact about the shuttle is that it's too big when it returns.<br />But what I don't hear a lot is why take a heatshield and re-entry systems all the way to the moon and back, while you only need them when you are in LEO.<br />So I was thinking, strip the Orion of all its re-entry stuff, and put it in the cargobay of a shuttle 2.<br />Fly this shuttle to LEO, let it dock the Orion to the lunar module.<br />The shuttle does some LEO experiments and flies home, while the Orion does its lunar mission.<br />After a while, the Orion returns, flies to a shuttle that is already in orbit, docks again and the crew can fly home with the shuttle (and possibly the Orion in its cargo bay).<br />If the shuttle can't get in orbit soon enough, the Orion can still dock to the ISS, and wait there.<br />Ofcourse developing a shuttle would slow down the lunar program some years, but we kept our capabilities we had before in LEO.<br />We could also use the shuttle to do construction missions in LEO, like building some kind of solar plant, or doing repair missions on the ISS or a space telescope.<br /><br />The idea of the solar plant may sound ridiculous, but energyneeds on earth will keep growing.<br />The choice of building an orbital solar plant instead of nuclear plants on earth will be easier if you have something capable of building it.<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"So I was thinking, strip the Orion of all its re-entry stuff, and put it in the cargobay of a shuttle 2. "<br /><br />The cargo bay would be too small. <br /><br />"After a while, the Orion returns, flies to a shuttle that is already in orbit, docks again "<br /><br />It would take too much energy (propellant) to go into LEO from the moon. Think of the Saturn V 3rd stage coming back<br /><br /><br />The shuttle capabilities are not needed. Construction can be done without it.

 

[ckikilwai]

"The shuttle capabilities are not needed. Construction can be done without it."<br /><br />Will it be possible to do a couple of spacewalks from the Orion capsule?

 

[ckikilwai]

"Why take the Shuttle !! Orbiter with it's large heavy heatshiled to the moon TWICE to save a much smaller and kiter Orion heatshield weight?"<br /><br />Twice to <i>LEO</i> actually.<br /><br />But alright, I didn't know that it costs so much to get in LEO when you are returning from the moon, so my idea doesn't work.

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">"Will it be possible to do a couple of spacewalks from the Orion capsule? " <br /><br /><i>yes </i></font><br /><br />Will it be able to support major construction jobs like the Space Shuttle orbiter does? From what I've seen, no. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ctrlaltdel]

Mir was constructed without the need of a space shuttle.

 

[rocketman5000]

Good point, for some reason that never occured to me

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Will it be able to support major construction jobs like the Space Shuttle orbiter does? From what I've seen, no."<br /><br />There were EVA's before shuttle on other vehicles. People have this mindset that shuttle is the standard way of doing things. Actually, it is the opposite. <br /><br />ISS needed major construction EVS because the shuttle couldn't lift very large pieces (Skylab like). Also the shuttle inhibited the US from developing of autonomous rendezvous and docking. <br /><br />Major EVAs should not required for most LEO assemblies.<br /><br />HST repair EVA's are also not "normal" because HST shouldn't be in LEO. LEO is a bad orbit for telescopes. Most others are in higher orbits or not even in earth orbit. HST compromised its design to allow it to be launched and serviced by the shuttle. If HST development costs, shuttle launch costs, all servicing missions costs, were tallied, it may have been better/cheaper to fly a fleet of telescope spacecraft on ELV's

 

[ckikilwai]

I partly got the idea from a book about possible missions to Mars.<br />I read that after the capsule returned from Mars, it did some aerobreaking or so, docked to the "space station Freedom" and the crew flies home on a space shuttle. (the book was written in the eighties).<br />But ofcourse, for my imaginary lunar mission, you need a shield again, and that will never fit in a space shuttle.

 

[josh_simonson]

The only thing the shuttle has that aids orbital assembly and CEV will not have is a robotic arm. Even that could probably be developed and placed in a modified service module, or folded up and stowed inside - or left on the ISS.<br /><br />As it is, the shuttle flies every mission with a 1000lb arm, then brings it back down again. ISS would look like a centipede and have tremendous capability if we just left the arms up there each flight - or STS would have an additional 1000lb of payload. That's quite a lot. <br /><br />We also need to keep cost in perspective, if shuttles were free everyone would love them (except some widows...), but they average about $1bln per flight. That's the same price as 8 Atlas V, or 4 Delta IVH - and doesn't include whatever payload STS carries. It's this huge price difference, not the technical capabilities, that is driving the abandonment of STS type vehicles for the time being.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No auto docking on the Shuttle Orbiter was driven by the astronaut office.</font>/i><br /><br />That is a terribly sad statement.</i>

 

[ctrlaltdel]

They do seem to have a fair amount of clout compared to their russian counterparts don't they?

 

[thereiwas]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><br />No auto docking on the Shuttle Orbiter was driven by the astronaut office.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Thus ensuring a role for "man in space" by crippling the Shuttle so there would be no other way to fly it except manned. Like putting Hubble in a low orbit so Shuttle can reach it.<br /><br />Imagine how much money could have been saved if each and every NASA construction flight did *not* have to be "man rated".

 

[jimfromnsf]

The arm is not that important neither. Other programs have done without it

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

ctr-<br /><font color="yellow">Mir was constructed without the need of a space shuttle.</font><br /><br />I agree if what we are building is a simple space station, like MIR, no complex construction will be needed. However, the Shuttle has the capability to support very complex construction assembly needed for much more difficult tasks. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">There were EVA's before shuttle on other vehicles. People have this mindset that shuttle is the standard way of doing things. Actually, it is the opposite. <br /><br />ISS needed major construction EVS because the shuttle couldn't lift very large pieces (Skylab like). Also the shuttle inhibited the US from developing of autonomous rendezvous and docking. <br /><br />Major EVAs should not required for most LEO assemblies.</font><br /><br />I'm not talking about all EVA's, I'm talking about nuts and bolts construction. I consider it a given that we could build a construction platform better than the Orbiter, based in LEO or higher that could support major construction. However, so far I have not seen one being proposed, and that's the spirit of this thread, what's needed to "replace" the Space Shuttle. Some may argue that there is no need for major contruction in space because we could just design everything to be auto-docked and snapped into place. Can that replace the need for threaded and torqued fittings on high pressure fuel lines? It all comes down to what we are going to do and build in space. If all we are going to do is make MIR 2.0, than no, we don't need to perform major construction. If we are going to build complex spacecraft in space that can outperform anything launced from Earth's surface, than major construction is going to be needed. So far we have not constructed anything more ambitious than the ISS, but in constructing ISS it has proved that we can accomplish major construction in space, and that we do have the capability to construct almost anything we put our m <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[delta26]

With the Ares V we won't even need to assemble or construct space stations, just launch the whole thing up in one shot like they did with Skylab.