Shuttle Replacement

qso1 · Apr 23, 2007

RadarRedux: Had NASA managers stuck by their guns and only promised what they sincerely believed they could deliver, would they have been funded? Me: I'd have to say no. They started off as these programs always do with ambitious phase "A" and "B" studies. In 1971, it was estimated NASA would need $10B dollars to fund the fully reusable flyback booster version of the shuttle. OMB and the Nixon Admin capped the shuttle development budget at $5.5 B dollars in late 1971 which lead to the compromised version that operates today. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

qso1 · Apr 23, 2007

RadarRedux: 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? Me: No way we can ever really know since we now see it from hindsight. However, another stipulation from the Nixon Admin was that the shuttle was to be the only manned program NASA would be authorized to proceed with. NASA tried to get shuttle, space station, moon base and mars missions approved but ultimately wound up with a shuttle and no destination for the shuttle. Due to the shuttles promise of reducing the cost of access to space, that move actually seemed logical at the time. But as we now know, the shuttle failed to live up to its economic promise. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

jimfromnsf · Apr 23, 2007

In reply to: "First of all you might one of few to not miss the Shuttle. " Yes, I am one of the few. The shuttle’s time has past long ago and now we must move on. In reply to: "jimfromnsf you are seriously out of touch. " Quite the opposite, I am more in touch than most even in the space business. I have worked shuttle and ELV payload manifesting for the USAF and ELV payload integration for NASA. I know what it takes to fly a payload on the shuttle or an ELV. I have worked on the payloads of over 30 shuttle missions. In reply to: "1. No other craft in the planning has a cargo hold like the Shuttle Orbiter, either in size 2. or versatility. 3. No other craft (landing and launching) in the planning has the size of the Shuttle Orbiter. 4. No other craft in the planning has a robotic arm " 1. Incorrect. The shuttle payload bay was 60’ by 15 ’ dia. This was sized to hold a 40’ spacecraft with a 20’ upperstage (such as the IUS or Centaur G). Since the Titan-IV was to back up the shuttle (it ended up replacing the shuttle), it had an 86’ by 16.7’ dia fairing. 16.7’ diameter was to accommodate a 15’ dia spacecraft with some dynamic clearance. The 86’ length was for the 40’ spacecraft with a 26’ Centaur G Prime. The remaining 20’ was in the nose cone of the fairing (which some of the length was available to the spacecraft). Large spacecraft without upperstages could be accommodated with shorter length fairing. So any of the large sized shuttle spacecraft could fit in the T-IV fairing (but it ended up replacing not talking trunnion support here, just size). The T-IV has translated to the Delta-IV and the Atlas- V has an even wider fairing. The Ares V is even larger. 2. Versatility is a subjective term. The payload bay is just a protective area for the payloads, which ELV’s have. Also, any experiment/payload in the shuttle payload bay (not talking non deployed

rocketman5000 · Apr 23, 2007

Gentlemen, and I use that term loosely. This thread is about the shuttle replacement. Not bickering over semantics. Launching a 200k lb. orbiter can be efficient for a 60k lb. spacecraft if it is designed to be the most efficient. By your logical fallacy arguement. A 747 is 410k lb empty. and hauls a maximum of 467 passengers and carries 126k lb of passengers and cargo fully loaded (200 lb person, 70 lb luggage) it indeed seems a bargin that to go to space you only have to take 200k lb with you. I know that a lot of weight is discarded along the way. I am just pointing out how you blow things out of proportion. secondly the shuttle only needs 2 to operate. otherwise Columbia would have never been able to complete its checkout flights. While I believe it is time for the shuttle to go I am sad to see it leave. It succeeded at almost everything it was designed to do. Given the wealth of knowledge it gave us we could design a much better machine today to accomplish the same missions. All the work that was preformed to be able to build a SSTO vehicle would have lead to great weight reductions in any reuseable vehicle that needed to go to orbit. (with more than one stage that is) NASA's priorities have changed, but I see a day when there will be a desire to haul massive amount of material up to orbital locations (and bring it back). I hope when that day comes that there will still be enough of technological knowledge remaining that we will not have to relearn the same lessons over again. Things we have learned (others feel free to expand upon) -Don't have things that can fall off and hit your vehicle. This means that if you need to mount the orbiter on the side of the stack then you shouldn't use cryogenic fuels. -seals fail listen to your engineers -a greater inital investment will enable a much greater return. Build a reuseable (liquid) flyback booster. -design for maintenanc

jimfromnsf · Apr 23, 2007

"Launching a 200k lb. orbiter can be efficient for a 60k lb. spacecraft if it is designed to be the most efficient" Incorrect. That 60Klb payload can be launched by a much smaller launch vehicle. The Delta-IV heavy vs the shuttle stack, the Delta-IV second stage vs the orbiter. The shuttle is overkill. "secondly the shuttle only needs 2 to operate. otherwise Columbia would have never been able to complete its checkout flights. " They 2 crew members only flew the orbiters and did minimal experiments. NASA requires a basic crew of 4-5 to operate the shuttle AND perform the mission. "Don't have things that can fall off and hit your vehicle." That is not the lesson. Things fall off most launch vehicles, especially ice. The lesson is to have a robust TPS/coating if you are going to have a side stack.

rocketman5000 · Apr 23, 2007

An Orion with only 2 crew members will still only fly the vehicle. Next, but up mass in the smallest package isn't neccessary. If the cost of fuel was a significant portion of the cost to launch I'd agree with you, but the reality it is not. It is "Payload integrator such as yourself that is the high cost of the orbiter" I spoke don't have things fall off AND hit your vehicle, I didn't say "don't have things fall off" You don't need to ice up the side of your launcher if you don't use H2 Thanks for helping to add things to my list and not degrading every last thing anybody posts. perhaps you aren't as arrogant as you sound.

jimfromnsf · Apr 23, 2007

"An Orion with only 2 crew members will still only fly the vehicle." Because that is the only mission Orion has to deliver crew members. No need for RMS, ODS, middeck hardware, spacehab, cargo operators "If the cost of fuel was a significant portion of the cost to launch I'd agree with you, but the reality it is not " Incorrect, it has nothing to with fuel, it is the cost of labor for refurb of the unnecessary additional systems that the orbiter has vs an ELV

halman · Apr 23, 2007

redrover, After skimming over the thread that you started regarding the replacement for the shuttle, I have a few observations to make. Given the budget restraints and low flight rates proposed for the near future, developing a reusable launch vehicle is unrealistic. The space shuttle was originally proposed as a way of getting people to and from orbit, where they could meet payloads launched by large step rockets. The configuration that we know today was forced upon NASA by Congress refusing to allocate money for development of a vehicle that specialized, which resulted in NASA collaborating with the Air Force to build a reusable launch vehicle capable of lifting large payloads. The flight rates and launch costs estimates were based upon building a fleet of not less than 7 orbiters, which would make economies of scale effective. The two shuttle losses that we have experienced were a result of management decisions, not an inherent defect in the vehicle. When the shuttle was originally proposed, it was thought that the United States would be investing in a number of off planet projects, such as a Moon base, a space station, and a variety of probes to various locations. Public sentiment was turning against expendable rockets, because the public only saw small capsules returning after huge rockets were launched. The public was not interested in economic facts, which indicated that mass production of expendable rockets was the cheapest way to get mass off of the planet. There is no argument that a capsule is a safer form of re-entry vehicle than a winged vehicle, and also that bringing payloads back from space is not likely to occur. But I want to believe that someday we will have a number of projects underway off planet, requiring crew changes. If we are going to be sending 20 or 30 people a month into space, and returning the same number to Earth, I have to wonder if a capsule system will be used. The space shuttle <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

radarredux · Apr 24, 2007

> The two shuttle losses that we have experienced were a result of management decisions, not an inherent defect in the vehicle./i> I have to disagree here. Putting delicate heat shield tiles downstream from shedding foam debris is a defect in the system design. Great efforts have been made to reduce the shedding, but it cannot be eliminated.

qso1 · Apr 24, 2007

I'd say a combination of both. The design was inherantly flawed and management allowed the flight to take place knowing this. Allowing this flight based on previous flights not having a serious problem resulting from shedding of ET foam. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being: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. </div>

marcel_leonard · Apr 24, 2007

Of course the shuttle program needs to be re-worked at this point the Bush administration who can’t even properly fund the disabled veterans coming back from Iraq; how in the name of the cosmos do you expect them to successfully fund a new manned mission to the moon? The administration is blow smoke up your chimney! In fact the only hope for a manned mission to mars or the moon will only take place if we improve the shuttle program; not by scrapping it. If and when NASA scraps the shuttle program that will be the day when Bush will finds his surge money… <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

holmec · Apr 24, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />In fact the only hope for a manned mission to mars or the moon will only take place if we improve the shuttle program; not by scrapping it.<hr /></blockquote> I disagree because the Shuttle Orbiter has been only rated to fly in low earth orbit. A capsule system is the way to go. Retiring the Shuttle program as is, is necessary to develop and operate a new one. Another way to look at it is that the Shuttle Program is morphing into a two rocket capsule based 'interplanetary' (I like using that word) system. I myself felt disappointment in looking over the new system. But after thinking about it and getting in the details, you get the feel that this will work and will indeed take us to the moon and mars and beyond.......(yet to be seen). <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

rocketman5000 · Apr 24, 2007

Reverting back to a little earlier in the thread. What amount of downmass could the HL-20 bring down if it was an uncrewed cargo version?

j05h · Apr 24, 2007

Here's something I don't understand with all the crying over loosing the Shuttle. What do you want, that is realistic? NASA can't afford to develop space, or fly you, or do a lot of other things. They have a charter and constituencies to satisfy. What do you want out of civil-government space? Not from Military space or Big Aero or even Alt.Space, but realistic goals for NASA. When you cry over the Shuttle, what is it you want them to provide? Think about it. We're looking at political cuts to NASA, too. I can't find the link but read it yesterday, a poll/research found that NASA is one of the top things (joe public) people would cut from the federal budget. So, what do you want NASA to be able to do in the new budget reality? Operating vehicles like Shuttle may not be possible. They might not even be able to keep all the Centers open and lights on. We've seen a staggering number of great missions cut in the past few years, with more to come. What do you want? I'm not picking on Holmec here, I generally agree with him. what a lot of you seem to want is pretty pictures of a "space plane" lifting off the pad. If you really want things that don't make politico-economic sense, you will only get them in small amounts before the system fails. Change is in the wind, lots of it. This is neither good nor bad, it just is. Remember, the Baby Boomers are retiring and us Slackers have to pay pay pay for it. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

rocketman5000 · Apr 24, 2007

I don't know what generation you come from, but I really see a huge swirl of optumism from my generation. Espically the young adults my age. Yes there is the "Slackers", but they aren't the ones that get to make the decisions are they. There is a disallusionment with the establishment and the feeling that if we want something better we will have to do it for ourselves. I have to say that I think in the coming years that we have many bright things to look forward to. Science hasn't wiped us out.

radarredux · Apr 24, 2007

> There is a disallusionment with the establishment and the feeling that if we want something better we will have to do it for ourselves./i> This has been a universal belief for a long time. In the senior parking lot of my high school in 1984 I painted: "We, the unwilling, have been led by the incompetent for so long, asked to do so much with so little for so long, we now attempt to do the impossible with nothing." (variations of this have been attributed to many different sources) And of course the 1960s probably set the standard for counterculter and the disillusionment with the previous generation. I am not sure what happened in the 1970s... something to do with disco.

MeteorWayne · Apr 24, 2007

nice realistic post, halman. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id. I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function </div>

j05h · Apr 24, 2007

> I don't know what generation you come from, but I really see a huge swirl of optumism from my generation. Espically the young adults my age. Yes there is the "Slackers", but they aren't the ones that get to make the decisions are they. If you are old enough to have seen the original "Star Wars" in the theater and aren't a Baby Boomer (or older), then you are a Slacker. Generation X, man. "Slacker" in this case is a broad brush, a term coined by Richard Linklater, IIRC. The optimistic, diligent ones are Generation Y and yes, it is inspiring. They didn't have to see the excesses of the Boomers. No offense meant to anyone, of course, just breaking it down. Gen Y is also changing the face of the space community, I've written about it here several times. Agewise, if you were born before 1975 you are Gen X, after Gen Y or whatever the youngest ones will be called. back to Shuttle Replacement: What do you want? What is realistic? My proposal: stop worrying about "replacing" a certain vehicle and instead guarantee access using commercial resources. If that means building lunar missions 10-30 tonnes at a time, so be it. It's vastly cheaper than a dedicated refurbishable spacestation-with-wings. An example: you can get several hundred to thousands of tons in orbit using existing rockets for the cost of just developing the ARES I. That's the mass range of the starter Moon Outpost. Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center">We need a first generation of pioneers. </div> </div>

holmec · Apr 25, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />back to Shuttle Replacement: What do you want? What is realistic? My proposal: stop worrying about "replacing" a certain vehicle and instead guarantee access using commercial resources. If that means building lunar missions 10-30 tonnes at a time, so be it. It's vastly cheaper than a dedicated refurbishable spacestation-with-wings. An example: you can get several hundred to thousands of tons in orbit using existing rockets for the cost of just developing the ARES I. That's the mass range of the starter Moon Outpost. <hr /></blockquote> Well, at this point in time I can see that we could proceed in several different ways. But what NASA is doing and what commercial space is attempting to do is good. I'm of the opinion that NASA should stay an exploration program. Push the envelope, if you will. And let commercial space ramp up and take possession (that is possession of operations and make money doing it) in due time. So I basically agree with NASA building the Ares I and V and Orion capsules and hardware for moon and mars exploration. I also understand that this is a long term project and will withstand the current political situation and will struggle through the budget, probably all the way through. I am hopeful that commercial space startups will find a way to succeed in taking over earth orbit operations (in the long term). BTW I didn't think I was whining about putting the Shuttle to bed, but rather stating a eulogy for it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

halman · Apr 26, 2007

RadarRedux, as I understand it, foam shedding was not a big problem until the composition of the foam was changed, somewhere around 2000. Then, several orbiters came back with serious dings in the Thermal Protection System. Supposedly, Endeavor landed with a hole in the leading edge of one wing which was severe enough that the vehicle could have been lost. At this point, management had the the option of grounding the fleet until corrective measures were taken. Management chose not to. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

halman · Apr 26, 2007

JO5H. What I want from NASA is someone with the balls to stand up in front of Congress and say "We are supposed to do a job, which requires that we build hardware that no one else builds, in a timely manner, and use that hardware to go to places that no one else has gone. We can do that job, IF we get the money to do it. What we are being allocated will not get the job done in a reasonable period of time, which means that we will waste the money that has already been invested in training people to do the job. It also means that we are going to have to rely on hardware which is not designed for the job we have to do, which means that we will be risking more lives to meet budget. "If we are going to do this job, at least give us the funds to do it right, or cancel the funding altogether. We are on a path that leads to delay, frequent redesign, and possible loss of lives. Make up your minds. Are we going to go to the Moon, or are we going to waste a lot of money building half-assed hardware that will never get us there?" That is what I want from NASA. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

jimfromnsf · Apr 26, 2007

"as I understand it, foam shedding was not a big problem until the composition of the foam was changed, somewhere around 2000. " It always was a problem. The composition "change" issue is an urban myth designed to lay blame on the environmentalists for CFC reductions.

jimfromnsf · Apr 26, 2007

"What I want from NASA is someone with the balls to stand up in front of Congress and say "We are supposed to do a job, which requires that we build hardware that no one else builds, in a timely manner, and use that hardware to go to places that no one else has gone. We can do that job, IF we get the money to do it." It is not just Congress, teh Administration has to give it the right budget first

marcel_leonard · Apr 26, 2007

NASA doesn’t have the balls anymore to do big science; when you see astronauts driving across the country wearing a diaper charged w/ attempted murder, and lunatic subcontractors shooting their coworkers at the JSC, you know your are baring witness to the last days of NASA. The only thing that makes me optimistic is that the graduate student community around the globe will produce the next generation of affordable space flight. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

holmec · Apr 26, 2007

<blockquote>In reply to:<hr />NASA doesn’t have the balls anymore to do big science; when you see astronauts driving across the country wearing a diaper charged w/ attempted murder, and lunatic subcontractors shooting their coworkers at the JSC, you know your are baring witness to the last days of NASA. <hr /></blockquote> I have to disagree. Congress is having budget wars with the Whitehouse, and NASA seems to be a victim of it. In time it will pass (hopefully by 2009). As for astronauts loosing it...I remember in the USAF that flight crews personal lives suffered, it just was the nature of the beast. I also remember a terrible incident where an aircrew member lost it and killed his family and himself. I am sure being an astronaut in NASA is even more stressful. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off </div>

Shuttle Replacement

qso1

Guest

qso1

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

halman

Guest

radarredux

Guest

qso1

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

holmec

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

j05h

Guest

rocketman5000

Guest

radarredux

Guest

MeteorWayne

Guest

j05h

Guest

holmec

Guest

halman

Guest

halman

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

jimfromnsf

Guest

marcel_leonard

Guest

holmec

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Share this page