Space ships and vehicles

[holmec]

">My idea on that is that Columbia could have rendevoued with ISS for a visual external inspection, but what do I know?<br /><br />Unfortunately the "Laws of Physics" wouldn't have allowed it. There was no possible way for Columbia to have changed it's orbit to rendezvous with the ISS.<br />"<br />Too bad. I guess a telescope, orbiting or on the ground couldn't have inspected columbia, could it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

By then it was too late to do anything, there were calls to uses spy satellites but NASA never asked formally, anyway which situation would have been worse marooned in space or re-entering unaware <img src="/images/icons/frown.gif" />

 

[holmec]

"By then it was too late to do anything, there were calls to uses spy satellites but NASA never asked formally, anyway which situation would have been worse marooned in space or re-entering unaware "<br /><br />So sad.<br /><br />At least now they will use a small robot shere with a camera, so I've read. Which seems to me a great idea. Ifi it works it should be in every flight. May become a standard space safety tool for all space craft. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[spacester]

Nice architecture, najaB.<br /><br />You could graft it onto the following strategy: with orbital refueling capability - not *assured* refueling capability, mind you - you could come in either "hot" or "warm" or "cool" or even "cold"<br /><br />Returning from the moon, the craft would attempt a nominal burn to rendezvous with a habitat and/or filling station in LEO. If the engines utterly fail, an Apollo entry ensues and you lose the tug. If the burn is partially successful, you have "continuous abort" type re-entry and probably lose the tug. A nominal burn lets you fill up your tanks or even provide access to "Gas Food Lodging", and you keep the tug in LEO for the next moon mission.<br /><br />The Apollo type entry would be "hot" and render the vehicle unfit for reflight, but deliver the human cargo intact, if a little excited.<br /><br />The "abort" burn would be "warm" and depending on the circumstances may or may not leave you with a refurbishable craft.<br /><br />After topping off the tanks, the craft would attempt a de-orbit burn. An utter failure would require use of the emergency solid rockets to just nudge you out of orbit ala shuttle and bring you in "warm". A partial success would make it "cool" and a nominal burn would be "cold". (Alternate: you only come in cold for emergency evac operations & a nominal entry is cool)<br /><br />A cool re-entry would not affect the ablative material (e.g.) provided for a hot entry, but would degrade some of the thermal blankets (e.g.) in non-critical areas, requiring replacement. (Alternate: almost no refurbishment after a cool entry)<br /><br />A cold entry would allow you to turn the craft around in almost an airliner type cycle for re-launch. (Alternate: No refurbishment at all, and the ambulance did its job very will.)<br /><br />A range of re-entry profiles could be available and an economic sweet spot found (changing as propellant costs change). The flexibility would allow robust operations.<br /><br />With your tug nominally <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">but I wouldn't think we are that good at working in space yet</font><br /><br />Well then, we need to get better at it, don't we? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />It's just a propulsion module. You're depending on it to get you to the moon and back. Make it work; use H2O2 if you have to. On orbit Hydrogen Peroxide production may be more advantageous than electrolysis, but both ought to work if we just establish them as achievable stretch goals.<br /><br />We have to wait for breakthough future tech <i>some more?</i> How about if we go with what works? Rocket engines work. The avionics would come back home in the crew cab. Inspections are not that big of a deal, buy the rights to the autonomous spheroid camera thingie and make it work.<br /><br />By "we", of course, I mean the guys with deep pockets, the entrepreneurs, the future tycoons. No need to talk NASA or B or LM into it, they just want to keep developing future tech. What we need is present tech. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

<<Inspection and servicing of the vehicle between missions would cost more, and be far riskier, than using a new vehicle each time.<br /><br />There are inspections that we just can't do in orbit yet. Someday, with nuclear-drives, and ultra-ultra reliable avionics, it could be gas-and-go, but not yet. />><br /><br />It is exactly the right time. <br /><br />We have engines with close to 50 years of refinement flying today, that work great and last a long time, that could be used as upper stages and tugs. We also have SSME's and a number of other engines that can be used for launch vehicles. All we need is a simple way to use those proven assets. <br /><br />It's like all exploration, Alaska was a waste of time and money and the Americas initially an impediment to those aiming for the Orient. The other side of the coin is Antarctica, not much clamor for real estate, but they do get a pretty brisk tourist trade and research and exploration seems to be ongoing.<br /><br />Eventually it will be like the airlines, sad. <br /><br />We don't need no stinking nuclear-drives, we could do everything we need to do from Mercury to the Asteroid Belt using current technology. <br /><br />In regards to the marooned fears. With numerous Tugs, based at a number of commercial or private stations, a rescue mission could be sent out rapidly if ever needed. More importantly, if the vehicle only goes from LEO to Lunar, or Mars orbit and back, over and over, more system redundancies can be added because the vehicle doesn't have to re-enter and land. Remember humans and computers always have problems with multi-tasking.<br /><br />Its not all that complicated, its simply a matter of building the hardware and developing a need for it. Get over it, we seemed to have gained enough knowledge that we won't find monsters or fall off the edge, of something. <br /><br />Or have we! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

For a true interplanetary manned spaceship, we need Nuclear power and/or propulsion <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">For a true interplanetary manned spaceship, we need Nuclear power and/or propulsion </font><br /><br />I completely disagree. One of my primary motivations behind learning orbital transfers was to determine if that is so, and I am firmly of the opinion that we do not need to wait for Nuclear to establish an affordable, robust manned capability to Mars and back. What we have will work, but we need to be more clever in how we use it.<br /><br />Don't get me wrong, nuclear would be great, but it is *not* necessary.<br /><br />Concluding that we need it and then waiting for it to happen before getting serious about Man on Mars is a self-fulfilling prophesy. I hate self-fulfilling prophesies of the negative kind.<br /><br />Now if you want to go to Jupiter or Mercury, that's another story. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

That's my point; design the hardware and software with existing technology. It's not magic, it's science.<br /><br /> Sure S*** happens, but lately every thing has been pretty good. The one in Utah is a good example. If you figure out the parachute not opening it was pretty close to where it was aimed before it was launched. That sounds pretty good to me.<br /><br /> The most expensive and time consuming components would be engines, launch infrastructure and software. With software taking the longest, though it could be continuously updated, so we could go anytime.<br /><br />I think there are five distinct structures needed for LEO enterprises and economical operation to and from the Moon and Mars, as well as diverse orbits and destinations. <br /><br />1. A flexible Launcher that can orbit diverse payloads, as<br /> well as passengers, as cheaply and safely as possible.<br /><br />2. Stations in LEO, or anywhere, that operate as tourist hotels and transfer and refueling facilities for payloads and passengers going to the Moon, Mars or other locations.<br /><br />4. Vehicles that go from the surface to orbit beyond Earth.<br /><br />5. Tugs to do the LEO work; take payloads from Launchers to desired or intermediate destination.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scottb50]

The question was raised about servicing a space-based booster that never returned to the surface. We are far short of THAT ability.......<br /><br />No we arent, no matter what propellant we use it's going to have to be transported from Earth in the near term. Not to say Lunar or Martian sources may not be found and exploited, but to find them and exploit them we will need to use propellant put into LEO. The bulk of the vehicle is propellant tanks and engines can be exchanged and maintained as needed in orbit.<br /><br />Putting propellant into orbit is no more, or less, difficult than any other payload. It would actually be beneficial in that the flight rate would increase and overall costs would go down. Smaller payloads could be launched more economically when propellant is carried as ballast, which would allow increased flexibility, and lower cost of the launch system.<br /><br />Today, looking for cracks in hot-section parts is hard in a lab.... impossible in orbit. The risks in leaving Earth's orbit are far greater than getting to LEO, or even the Moon. There is no simple abort from a trajectory to Mars if a pump fails....<br /><br />Why couldn't you do inspection in orbit? As long as you have the eqipment needed at hand why would it make a difference? I would think though it would be more economical to return engines as cargo than trying to do major inspections and overhauls in LEO.<br /><br />The key to Mars and the Moon is redundancy. Your right, if you have one or two or even three engines and a pump fails you have a problem, thats why you have six eight or more engines. <br /><br />No matter what you do it can't be completely risk free, but it should at least rival or better your odds compared to airlines.<br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">when propellant is carried as ballast</font><br /><br />Apart from the shuttle, (special case) when was the last time you heard of a launch vehicle that carried ballast?<br />

 

[scottb50]

If you have a Shuttle class launch vehicle you could have any combination of payloads. A seven to ten seat manned vehicle would be relatively light for example leaving a lot of extra capability. There's also no reason to takeoff without the maximum payload available and using propellant to make up the difference allows a lot of flexibility.<br /><br />By the way I remember a thread on here about ballast added to the Saturn V, I believe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[holmec]

"For a true interplanetary manned spaceship, we need Nuclear power and/or propulsion "<br /><br />Maybe not. If the techknowlogy on 'Solar' sails comes to being, we may have a fast, and fun way of traveling within the inner Solar System. If you have a sail, all you need is a keel of sorts, and maybe a large ion drive could provide that keel. Then that could spur our traveling to Mars and Moon. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

It would be nice if we took the known steps to make each mission cost less. Like making the first stage of launch reusable by having planes launch the rockets. You save money in fuel and facilities at least. Because of the need for ICBMs we now launch most space vehicles from the ground directly perpendicular to the earth's gravity. Why not change. What about finding better ways to reenter. Rutan found one different than any other space program. Heat shield work great for capules, but there are lessons learned from the Shuttle program and tiles. We ought to indeed to this better. So traveling in space. NASA learned after a few craft sent out to planets that they didn't always need only a main engine burn to slow the craft, they could use the atmosphere of the planet to help. Its little tricks like these that are going to take us a long way. Take us to the next step sooner. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[elguapoguano]

<font color="yellow">If the techknowlogy on 'Solar' sails comes to being, we may have a fast, and fun way of traveling within the inner Solar System. If you have a sail, all you need is a keel of sorts, and maybe a large ion drive could provide that keel. Then that could spur our traveling to Mars and Moon.</font><br /><br />Solar sail technology is in it's infancy and has yet to be proven in space as a viable technology. There is no way that a manned mars mission would be based on such technology, especially in the near term. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#ff0000"><u><em>Don't let your sig line incite a gay thread ;>)</em></u></font> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>By the way I remember a thread on here about ballast added to the Saturn V, I believe.</i><p>That wasn't ballast in the conventional sense of the word (for maintaining balance and trim). That was a special case: on the Skylab launch, since the vehicle would perform significantly different due to the light payload there was the risk that the instrument ring would re-contact the vehicle at staging. The weight was added to ensure that it would 'fall' fast enough to clear the engine bells before it had picked up any rotation.</p>

 

[scottb50]

Either way my point was it would be more efficient to run a launcher that can carry a wide range of payloads and still use all of the payload capability of the launcher. I would suspect a 5-7 seat vehicle and the upper stage needed would leave a small amount of payload available. Specialized structures and individual satellites would leave even more capability.<br /><br />I was saying ballast to mean useful use of excess capacity not dead weight, for example Skylab could have been made bigger or more crew members planned for. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[drwayne]

Or skylab could have done some neat things with the spent second stage to experiment with the "wet lab" techniques.<br /><br />Ahh, the missed opportunities...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[holmec]

"Solar sail technology is in it's infancy and has yet to be proven in space as a viable technology. There is no way that a manned mars mission would be based on such technology, especially in the near term. "<br /><br />True.<br />So is ion engines in its infancy, though its proven with unmanned missions. In the near term, who knows if we will pull off a manned mission to mars? This is uncharted territory though a lot of thought and research has gone into it. In the long term inner solar system flights could possibly be achieved with sails. Even if it doesn't pan out, its kinda cool thinking how to navigate a 3d sea with sails. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

what telescope are you talking about? we could make visual, infrared, x-ray, etc telescopes. If a satelite can get a visual on car's licsense plate, surley we could build a scope that could see the damage, even compensate for the shadows. Maybe we ought to make telescopes that could do just that, and get some high res footage on vehicles we send up. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[holmec]

"No, the CEV is the entry crew module. The other modules are added in LEO. That statement is not correct.<br />"<br />Are you saying that the CEV is going to be a part of a permanent and supported infrastructure by NASA? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[najab]

><i>If a satelite can get a visual on car's licsense plate...</i><p>Methinks that is the stuff of spy novels and bad movies. The highest resolution spy satellites are likely to be able to get is around 6 inches/pixel. The "laws of physics" say that getting higher than that is very unlikely.</p>

 

[scottb50]

If you would read a little about solar sails and ion engines you would find that they would both be useless going to the Moon or Mars, unless you are willing to take years.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>