Shuttle Replacement

[qso1]

jimfromnsf:<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 />Me:<br />ISS could have been designed more modular as Mir was and with much of the cabling inside rather than outside the modules. This would have reduced the need for so many EVAs. An early shuttle mission tested a deployable solar panel that extended 102' from the payload bay. Had ISS been layed out a bit better, EVAs to reposition solar panels would not have been required.<br /><br />Despite the fact the shuttle itself cannot lift extremely large pieces into orbit, the Shuttle modification known as shuttle "C" could have gotten larger modules up. Not Skylab sized, but closer to that size than ISS modules.<br /><br />Instead, shuttle "C" never became operational so more money was spent to get ISS components to LEO.<br /><br />jimfromnsf:<br />HST shouldn't be in LEO.<br /><br />Me:<br />I agree from the standpoint that deep space provides an even clearer viewing environment. The drawback is...imagine Hubble had been put deep in space, it would have been virtually useless since 1990 when the spherical abberation problem was discovered. No way to repair it in deep space.<br /><br />Despite the LEO position of Hubble, it has done a fine job since the initial repair mission restored the mirror. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"Despite the fact the shuttle itself cannot lift extremely large pieces into orbit, the Shuttle modification known as shuttle "C" could have gotten larger modules up. Not Skylab sized, but closer to that size than ISS modules. "<br /><br />The shuttle-C had the same diameter as the payload bay as the shuttle.<br /><br />ISS missions on shuttle -C wouldn't have been larger modules (physically not possible) but fully outfitted modules and multiple modules (lab and a node for example)

 

[jimfromnsf]

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?<br /><br />Exactly. Plug and play. No need for tools or nuts and bolts. Too inefficient <br /><br />Also more robotic like Orbital Express.

 

[jimfromnsf]

"An early shuttle mission tested a deployable solar panel that extended 102' from the payload bay. Had ISS been layed out a bit better, EVAs to reposition solar panels would not have been required. "<br /><br />The current solar arrays are based on the one that flew on the shuttle.<br /><br />It has nothing to do with ISS size, the one repositioning is due providing power early

 

[qso1]

jimfromnsf:<br />It has nothing to do with ISS size, the one repositioning is due providing power early.<br /><br />Me:<br />Had more attention been paid to the solar panel locations, they should not have had to ever have an EVA to move a solar panel. It was designed as you mentioned, to be deployed and part of the reasoning for that was to minimize or eliminate the need for astronauts to have to mess with it.<br /><br />I realize moving it has nothing to do with deployment other than the fact it seems counterproductive if deployable panels were intended to cut down EVA. In 1986, during the power tower design phase of station, EVA was a major concern. In 2006. EVAs are at least as numerous as the projections of excessive EVAs were in 1986. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

jimfromnsf:<br />The shuttle-C had the same diameter as the payload bay as the shuttle.<br /><br />Me:<br />But it was 82 feet long and could lift considerably more in terms of mass. The ISS modules could have been a little longer but you addressed the more important issue. Fully outfitted modules.<br /><br />Then there was shuttle "Z", an outsized payload carrier for larger diameter payloads. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

[The shuttle-C had the same diameter as the payload bay as the shuttle.]<br /><br />Not quite.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm<br /><br />excerpt...<br /><br />"Generation 1 would be an expendable CE with a 4.6 m x 24.7 m cargo bay, using two SSME's, and capable of deliverying 45,000 kg to orbit... Generation 2 would have a new-design recoverable CE, powered by 3 SSME's, and capable of delivering 77,000 kg in a 7.3 m x 29.3 m volume."<br /><br />7.3 meters is a lot wider than a Space Shuttle cargo bay. <br /><br />

 

[nwade]

Hey All, (yeah I couldn't stay away)<br /><br />Not to stray too far from the topic, but just a nugget to think about, regarding Hubble:<br /><br />IIRC, the Hubble was adapted from the Keyhole series of spy-sats. Those satellites were probably designed for LEO so that they could get the best photo resolution of earthbound objects. So it may be that the systems and design that Hubble inheritted were the driving factor behind why it was put into LEO - NOT serviceability by the Shuttle (afterall, the other spy-sats were no longer being launched on the Shuttle after Challenger blew up, right? They were orbitted via standard rockets...)<br /><br />--Noel<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"[The shuttle-C had the same diameter as the payload bay as the shuttle.]<br /><br />Not quite.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm<br /><br />excerpt...<br /><br />"Generation 1 would be an expendable CE with a 4.6 m x 24.7 m cargo bay, using two SSME's, and capable of deliverying 45,000 kg to orbit... Generation 2 would have a new-design recoverable CE, powered by 3 SSME's, and capable of delivering 77,000 kg in a 7.3 m x 29.3 m volume." "<br /><br />1. Never quote astronautix.com as a reliable source<br />2. "The" Shuttle-C was 4.6 meters.<br />Gen-1 was the only one seriously considered

 

[gunsandrockets]

[1. Never quote astronautix.com as a reliable source]<br />[Gen-1 was the only one seriously considered]<br /><br />If what you claim is true then the astronautix.com information on the Shuttle C isn't just in error, it's wildly wrong. So have you got a better source of information to back up your story? Or is this another case of secret documentation?

 

[jimfromnsf]

"If what you claim is true then the astronautix.com information on the Shuttle C isn't just in error, it's wildly wrong. So have you got a better source of information to back up your story? Or is this another case of secret documentation?"<br /><br />1. The extended study was for work on the "Gen-1" with Centaur. Hence, the "only one seriously considered". This study also included the USAF.<br /><br />2. The mockup at MSFC was 4.6 meter.<br />

 

[jimfromnsf]

"IIRC, the Hubble was adapted from the Keyhole series of spy-sats. Those satellites were probably designed for LEO so that they could get the best photo resolution of earthbound objects. So it may be that the systems and design that Hubble inheritted were the driving factor behind why it was put into LEO - NOT serviceability by the Shuttle"<br /><br />Servicing was the reason for HST in LEO. The HST and shuttle were tied at the hip. Also the shuttle was going to be the only LV, therefore LEO was the only choice (without adding a propulsion systew, which would required HST to be smaller)<br /><br />But earth viewing vs space viewing impose very difference requirements on a spacecraft.<br /><br />1. slew rates. HST is about the same as a minute hand on a clock. An earth pointer must be much faster <br /><br />2. or have a secondary mirror that moves, which then the earth pointer would being flying LVLH and allows a much different thermal design. <br /><br />3. IF "existing" subsystems were used on HST, they repackaged for EVA and servicing, which means they were redesigned and requalified, therefore their legacy is no longer the same.<br /><br />4. HST had no thruster or propulsion systems, most earth pointers do to maintain orbit phasing and to point or aid in pointing

 

[gunsandrockets]

"1. The extended study was for work on the "Gen-1" with Centaur. Hence, the "only one seriously considered". This study also included the USAF. "<br /><br />Fastest retreat ever! So there isn't any error in the astronautix.com information about the Shuttle C after all.<br /><br />Not much separates the 1988 study from the 1989 study. If you want to proclaim that the Gen I is the 'only' Shuttle C, that's your business. In my opinion the Gen I and Gen II both amount to vaporware.<br /><br />

 

[barf9]

So does that make the Ares V the Shuttle C Gen-3? The plan was originally to use 4 SSMEs. A rose by any other name... <br />

 

[gunsandrockets]

no

 

[jimfromnsf]

It was a generic comment about astronautix.com<br /><br />A mockup is not vaporware

 

[marcel_leonard]

It seems to me that the shuttle’s design has withstood the test of time and merely needs to be upgraded. Perhaps using lighter steel, aluminum, and titanium alloys can be made lighter thus reducing launch cost image a shuttle light enough to be placed on top of a Delta or Ariane rockets. In addition with your generation of processor you could improve the fuel efficiency for better energy consumption. Install voice recognition and LCD displays for better diagnostics. For about 150 million per launch you could theoretically put the shuttle in orbit for the same price as a GPS satellite. You could even have money leftover to get on w/ the proposed moon mission. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[docm]

And even with lighter weight there are still the problems associated with sidesaddle launch and tile/carbon-carbon damage. Time to learn our lessons & move on, which IMO we should have started doing in the 1990's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barf9]

The shuttle is about 80 tons empty, there is no way to get it to a Delta's weight class. That's way NASA wanted to build the HL-20. The Shuttle was supposed to build large complex space stations and the HL-20 would handle crew rotations and some resupply missions at a much lower cost.

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It seems to me that the shuttle’s design has withstood the test of time and merely needs to be upgraded.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />The system needs to be rethought with safety and economics in mind. Remeber that the Shuttle system was conceived at a time of Cold War and DOD spending was high and Mechanical Engineering was at a peak in terms of demand and labor force. Mostly because of the engineers is why it withstood the test of time. But now we need to look beyond just engineering, and make systems that will withstand the test of safety and economic constraints. <br /><br />The Shuttle orbiter is and has been a workhorse to launch system, build systems, repair systems. Not to mention housing a lab to conduct space experiments. Arguable it was a system ahead of its time and the need for its capabilities are not going away but may even be increasing. It was the first space asset to utilize a robotic arm that has proved to be a reliable utilitarian system and even added and expanded in ISS.<br /><br />There is no doubt in my mind the the Shuttle system will be sorely missed. There is also no doubt in my mind that one day someone will devise a rethink on the system that will revolutionize functionality and lifestyle in space.<br /><br />If you look at the footage of the 'Orbiter' Enterprise flight tests lauching from NASA's 747 you can easily imagine a system beautiful, clean and safe as the orbiter is airlaunched. So much so that a futuristic shuttle orbiter system was shown in the movie Superman Returns launching from a modified 767.<br /><br />I would not be surprised if in the future a smaller lighter but just as functional air launched Shuttle system is devised.<br /><br />We learned a lot from the Shuttle system of what not to do. But we also gained so much data, understanding, and challenged theories. At the peak of the Shuttle's success, I think, is the repair efforts of the Hubble Space telescope w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[jimfromnsf]

"There is no doubt in my mind the the Shuttle system will be sorely missed. There is also no doubt in my mind that one day someone will devise a rethink on the system that will revolutionize functionality and lifestyle in space. "<br /><br />Actually, it won't be missed. Spacecraft requirements were compromised to allow flight on the shuttle. Other than downmass (which is not really required), there is nothing special that the shuttle provides that other vehicles can not provide. The Shuttle actually inhibited growth in the space program

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Actually, it won't be missed. Spacecraft requirements were compromised to allow flight on the shuttle. Other than downmass (which is not really required), there is nothing special that the shuttle provides that other vehicles can not provide. The Shuttle actually inhibited growth in the space program<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Where do I start? First of all you might one of few to not miss the Shuttle. Whether it will be missed or not is a matter of personal opinion of each person. And unless your God or have some sort of power to swade all mens opinion, I believe you are mistaken.<br /><br />Second. No other craft in the planning has a cargo hold like the Shuttle Orbiter, either in size or versatility. No other craft (landing and launching) in the planning has the size of the Shuttle Orbiter. No other craft in the planning has a robotic arm. No other craft in the planning can launch 7 astronauts (maybe SpaceX's Dragon but we will see if that changes or even becomes real). And definitely no other craft can launch 7 astronauts and large cargo like a lab, or the biggest space based optical telescope.<br /><br />To say that other vehicles in the planning can do what the Shuttle Orbiter can do is simply untrue. No other craft is capable of taking into orbit the lab module and returning it to Earth.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Spacecraft requirements were compromised to allow flight on the shuttle.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />A strong statement but vague. What requirements are you talking about and who's requirement's were they? The Air Force's or NASA's? I believe you have no idea.<br /><br />The controversy of the wings of the shuttle had nothing to do with whether the craft was going to fly, because it would fly no matte what. It was whether full wing, stunted wings, or lifting body were to be used. They chose stunted wings. And the requirement at risk was the <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">The Shuttle actually inhibited growth in the space program</font>/i><br /><br />I agree, but I don't think it is necessarily a unique feature of the shuttle program. The early shuttle program managers promised so much and managed to deliver a vehicle that suffered so badly in comparison to the promises, that IMHO it damaged NASA's reputation. That is often endemic to many projects -- over promise (in order to win funding) and under-deliver.<br /><br />When long-term projects overrun their budgets, usually other projects are cancelled, slowed down, or never started. Since the shuttle and ISS are such large programs, their mistakes (i.e., underestimating the costs of RTF or completing ISS) have a large negative effect over the rest of NASA.<br /><br />Interesting questions:<ul><li>Had NASA managers stuck by their guns and only promised what they sincerely believed they could deliver, would they have been funded?</li></ul><ul><li>Had an honest evaluation of the shuttle economics (as OMB was trying to do) demonstrated that, after factoring in development costs and operations cost, STS would not be a cheaper way to move payload and people into space over the existing ELV resulting in Congress/President not funding the Shuttle program, what would the space program look like today?</li></ul></i>

 

[qso1]

gunsandrockets:<br />7.3 meters is a lot wider than a Space Shuttle cargo bay.<br /><br />Me:<br />True, however note the generation 1 diameter of 4.6 meters (15.09 ft). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

gunsandrockets:<br />If what you claim is true then the astronautix.com information on the Shuttle C isn't just in error, it's wildly wrong. So have you got a better source of information to back up your story? Or is this another case of secret documentation?<br /><br />Me:<br />Should be neither. Your own post said generation 1 was 4.6 meters in diameter. You then described gen 2 which was 7.3 meters. I was referring the gen 1 because the mockup they built in Huntsville was 15 feet diameter and had to be to get maximum possible use from existing shuttle components. Not only that, I have actually built computer models of gen 1 shuttle "C" and to get the correct proportions, the payload bay diameter had to be 15 feet.<br /><br />I didn't look to far into gen II because of other studies for similar diameter vehicles most noteably shuttle "Z" which was at least 8.2 meters (27 ft) in diameter at its widest point and probably larger. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>