Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars

[nibb31]

"First of all it’s not how much time that lapses to achieve LEO, MEO, and GEO but rather the amount trajectory."<br /><br />It's you who brought the ill-informed goal of 15 mins to GEO into the discussion. This is simply not possible with current technology.<br /><br />"Third since 99% of the universe is still unknown and even the most learned physicist has yet to really figure out what causes Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces and how they are related [Fe = K(Qq /r^2); Fg = G(Mm/r^2)] you should be careful before get on your 15 minute orbit lecture circuit. "<br /><br />Are you suggesting that NASA develops a space architecture based on some unknown gravitational or electro-magnetic field? This kind of technology is science fiction. It might exist in the future, but today it is a fantasy. Therefore totally irrelevant with "Using the ISS/Shuttle to go to both the Moon/Mars". <br /><br />"I keep hearing about the AeroSpike not being able or capable to deliver however all the test of the engine at the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville AL show 75% submittal."<br /><br />Any engineer will tell you that the first 80% of a given goal is the most easily achievable part. The remaining 20% is what requires to most effort and usually what cases the project to fail. If it was so easy to develop a hybrid air-breathing/rocket engine, then it would already be done. <br /><br />BTW, aerospike is not an engine. It's merely a type of nozzle that works throughout the flight profile instead of being optimized for vacuum or atmospheric use. You still have to figure out a kind of combustion is going to propell the vehicle that can be jet, statoreactor, ramjet or rocket.<br /><br />Oh and please, why do you sprinkle your posts with seemingly irrelevant links ?

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>First of all it’s not how much time that lapses to achieve LEO, MEO, and GEO but rather the amount trajectory.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying. I think there's a word or two missing in that sentence. Could you restate it please?<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The current Delta V CEV lunar mission is actually a step backwards in fact it will take two separate launches to do what we were able to do forty years in one.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Not exactly. The CEV lunar missions will be considerably longer duration, which means larger mass, which means not even a Saturn V would get CEV and LM to the moon together. Essentially, it's what was originally hoped for Apollo, but which proved unreachable with the constraints of the day (time, budget, technology).<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I keep hearing about the AeroSpike not being able or capable to deliver however all the test of the engine at the Marshall Space Center in Huntsville AL show 75% submittal. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Aerospike technology has actually been around in one form or another since the 60s, but there have been challenges getting it to work in practise. There is more involved than simply having an engine. The engine must have the desired performance, the desired reliability, be controllable, and be cost-effective. Aerospike promises to be very cost-effective. But scaling it up to the neccesary performance is going to take time. I don't think CEV can afford to wait. Ironically, that means there isn't much of a driver for it to be developed further, but such is the real world.<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>My point being I keep hearing all of this rocket science advice from the same people who were scared to death of take calculus, physics, or even astronomy course for th</p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[brellis]

Calli - if Lou Dobbs runs for Pres, would you consider being our UN Rep? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">The CEV lunar missions will be considerably longer duration, which means larger mass, which means not even a Saturn V would get CEV and LM to the moon together.</font><br /><br />I dont know. Clip the fins and paint and other redundant mass on the first stage, add on the F1-A and J2 engine upgrade, switch for lighter 70's era electronics on all stages, strategically use 70's era composites where retooling cost is minimal on the second and third stages. Stretch all the tanks a bit. I dont know, you'll get pretty close. <br /><br />Also, lose the command module and return capsule completely, and ask GE (or you know, russia) to redesign it. That'll shave like another 10 tonnes right there. I mean, come on, the original design's a pig. Plus you get an airlock and an extra three cubic metres. You can't lose. <br /><br />Lets call the new launcher 'reality-based saturn derived'.

 

[CalliArcale]

Call me skeptical, but I doubt you can squeeze enough increased mass out of that. Especially if you consider also the added cost of rebuilding Saturn facilities. Smaller launch vehicles are more useful for a variety of missions, which will reduce their overall cost because the development and production costs get amortized over a larger number of launches. Plus you generally get better reliability with components that also fly elsewhere, as there are more opportunities to discover faults. I'm in favor of hardware that is common with other systems wherever it makes sense to use it. It saves money and <i>usually</i> reduces risk. (Common systems increase risk when demand exceeds supply.) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[Boris_Badenov]

Has anyone ever seen the plans for the Nuclear powered Shuttle? The had a plan to build an SSTO with a NERVA engine, & one that had a NERVA second stage. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#993300"><span class="body"><font size="2" color="#3366ff"><div align="center">. </div><div align="center">Never roll in the mud with a pig. You'll both get dirty & the pig likes it.</div></font></span></font> </div>

 

[scottb50]

The NERVATHEM. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The current Delta V CEV lunar mission is actually a step backwards in fact it will take two separate launches to do what we were able to do forty years in one.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>Not exactly. The CEV lunar missions will be considerably longer duration, which means larger mass, which means not even a Saturn V would get CEV and LM to the moon together. Essentially, it's what was originally hoped for Apollo, but which proved unreachable with the constraints of the day (time, budget, technology). <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I should note the original Earth Orbital Rendezous (or EOR) system of the early 60's (by roughly late 1961, it was a dead duck), was preferred at the time due to safety. Besides, you would simply not launch the crew if the lander failed to reach orbit. Boosters of the time still had a high failure rate and the lander booster might not be man-rated.<br /><br />Also, one option given serious consideration before EOR was borrowed from the science fiction movies of the 1950's. The entire stack that went to the moon, would land. The capsule that returned the crew to earth would land on the moon on its tail like the McDonnell Douglas SSTO design that landed on its tail. It lost favor to EOR and LOR (lunar orbit rendezvous) because of the sheer weight that would have to land and the top heaviness of the lander. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />First of all it’s not how much time that lapses to achieve LEO, MEO, and GEO but rather the amount trajectory. It takes a lot of arch to hit a three point shot from the top of the key.<br /><br />Me:<br />You were the one that made time the issue when you said you could get to LEO or GEO in 15 minutes. What I'm assuming is a basketball analogy (Lot of arch etc.) is not any sort of terms that I would expect in remedial physics as anything other than an analogy. I havn't seen any actual known physics cited in your posts.<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />Third since 99% of the universe is still unknown and even the most learned physicist has yet to really figure out what causes Gravitational and Electromagnetic forces and how they are related [Fe = K(Qq /r^2); Fg = G(Mm/r^2)] you should be careful before get on your 15 minute orbit lecture circuit.<br /><br />Me:<br />Yes much is not known about the Universe, thats stating the obvious. But much is known about how we get to orbit utilizing chemically propelled rockets, otherwise we couldn't get to orbit to begn with. And this was a discussion about 15 minutes to LEO GEO, not Universal unknowns.<br /><br />marcel_leonard:<br />My point being I keep hearing all of this rocket science advice from the same people who were scared to death of take calculus, physics, or even astronomy...<br /><br />Me:<br />I'll take this as an indirect comment about my posts and maybe a few others and thats fine. But in the full paragraph which I excerpted above...I don't see any source info for your claims about whoever is regurgitating facts from an SDC member.<br /><br />Explain to me in detail how its possible to get to geosynchronous orbit in 15 minutes with chemical rocket tech? Seems to me instead of just throwing some formulas out there, you could use some remedial math. If you could take a rocket, launch it straight up to GEO altitude which is 22,300 miles, the only way it will reach GEO in 15 minutes is by travelling up at approxi <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>

 

[marcel_leonard]

The fact of the matter is there is definitely something wrong with the NASA R/D team. If we were using the same process during the Von Braun years that we are using today; Sputnik who be the only thing other than the moon orbiting the earth. It is true that ScramJet and AeroSpike technology is nothing new; we’ve been playing with both technologies since the late 1950s the difference is that today it seem to me that people are either more gullible, or they just lack the scientific back ground we once had in abundance after WWII to follow through, and develop these new technologies into practical applications. <br /><br />Not since before WWII has our numbers been so low when it comes to attendance at colleges of engineering all across this nation. Every year more students opt for business, and liberal arts majors and not civil, mechanical, chemical, electrical engineering majors. Even the pure sciences like mathematics, chemistry, and physics are suffering shortages. We are a becoming a nation of people who like big budget science fiction more than we like big budget science.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />We are a becoming a nation of people who like big budget science fiction more than we like big budget science.<br /><br />Me:<br />This I tend to agree with. But science fiction budgets are much smaller than the real thing. As soon as you realize that much of the problem lies in public unwillingness to fund different ways to get to LEO and the moon. You will begin to see why your plans would not be approved any more than the ones NASA once proposed. <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>

 

[webtaz99]

First off, NASA is not the only entity able to do research on scramjets, aerospikes, or anything else. Second, they work on something called a "budget". Third, the scramjet is under testing, in case you missed it. Fourth, the linear aerospike has been thoroughly tested, but certain complexities make it too expensive to make up for its slight benefits. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

In case you didn't realize the biggest exspense in your so-called "budget" is the salaries for the scienctist/engineers; which by the way this country is not producing enough of. Maybe that is why big science cost so much!!! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[webtaz99]

So you're saying that NASA isn't moving technology forward fast enough because they pay their people too much? How many of these guys have you actually met? The ones I know are making less than their non-engineer "administrator" bosses. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Anytime you're responsible for crashing a 4 billion dollar martian probe into the side of Mars because you didn't do the metric convertions from kilometers to miles you have a few issues... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

So tell me genius how much did it cost?<br /><br />I thought that my estimate was overly conservative. It could have easliy cost ten times that alone in wasted man-hours...<br /><br /><font color="yellow"><i>webtaz99-<br />"So you're saying that NASA isn't moving technology forward fast enough because they pay their people too much? How many of these guys have you actually met? The ones I know are making less than their non-engineer "administrator" bosses. <br />"</i></font><br /><br />I wish to correct a statement I made earlier about scientist/engineering salaries being the reason that big science cost so much. Scientists/Engineers are not the problem at NASA; just like in corporate America the problem lies with the over paid beaucrates and administrators some who make Hollywood celebrity rates. Just like the average car only cost about three thousand or so in parts/labor to build, when you factor in labor unions and astronomical administrator salaries you begin to see both the political and the economic reasons of why big science costs so much. <br /><br />Someone said that science fiction budgets are relatively small compared to actual manned missions. Well here are some actual numbers: Star Wars III cost George Lucas $350 million to make. In comparison the NASA 1969 annual budget for the Apollo 11 mission to moon was estimated at about $4 billion for the actual first mission to the moon. A year earlier Stanely Kubrick made 2001 a Space Odyssey at an estimated 10 million dollars; if you do the math for about 400 times what it cost to make this block buster movie you could actually finance a trip to the moon and back in the late 1960s. Using that same logic at today’s rates for what it cost the creator of the Star Wars III it would cost NASA an estimated $140 billion dollars to go back to the moon. A good 25% of that price tag going to the director and top administrators down at the Cape even if the mission never leaves the ground.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />Someone said that science fiction budgets are relatively small compared to actual manned missions. Well here are some actual numbers: Star Wars III cost George Lucas $350 million to make...<br /><br />Me:<br />I made that comment about sci fi budgets being less than space science. Apollo in its entirety was $26 billion (In 1970 dollars or $130 billion in 2005 dollars) and more than one mission was conducted.<br /><br />I'm curious as to where you got the $4 billion for the one moon flight figure. Each moon mission was about a tenth of that cost but even at $450 million per mission, this would be approx. $2.25 billion in 2005 dollars.<br /><br />Where the numbers come in closer are unmanned probes to mars in recent years which have been below the half billion mark (Not $4 billion) or not much more than Star Wars III. SW III at $350 million 2005 dollars, would have come in at $69 million had it been made in 1970.<br /><br />http://www.westegg.com/inflation/infl.cgi <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>

 

[j05h]

> So tell me genius how much did it cost?<br /> /> I thought that my estimate was overly conservative. It could have easliy cost ten times that alone in wasted man-hours... <br /><br />10 seconds with Google produces this page, scroll to bottom for costs:<br /><br />http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/database/MasterCatalog?sc=1999-001A<br /><br />Simply, it comes out to about $228 million, including development launch and ops, but not the crash investigation. That you think a fairly simple probe should cost several billion shows a need for more self-reflection and less badgering. Google is your friend, use it.<br /><br /> /> Using that same logic at today’s rates for what it cost the creator of the Star Wars III it would cost NASA an estimated $140 billion dollars to go back to the moon. A good 25% of that price tag going to the director and top administrators down at the Cape even if the mission never leaves the ground.<br /><br />You have no idea what you are talking about. To call this "logic" stretches the definition. There is no metric between cost-of-movie-production and spaceflight, except in your imagination. If you haven't noticed, movies keep getting more expensive while spaceflight keeps getting cheaper. <br /><br />You are very enthusiastic if a little under-knowledged on space. I'd suggest the following books (not websites) for you:<br /><br />"Mining the Sky" and "Rain of Iron and Ice" by Dr. John Lewis<br />"The High Frontier" by Gerard O'Neill<br />"Dragonfly" by Bryan Burgess<br />"The Heavens and the Earth" by MacDougal<br />"The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin<br />"Lost in Space" by Klerkx<br />"The Millenium Project" by Marshall Savage<br /><br />read those books, then get back to us and we will all be better for it. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

I was just wondering about your credentials there Josh since I see from your skill set you majored in computer animation. My background comes from prior service involvement with United States Marine Corps field artillery, missile launchers, and combat engineering. After which I completed my degree from the University of Maryland University College with a Bachelors of Science in Information Systems Management, and I’m currently working towards my Masters of Science in Telecommunications Management. Before UMUC I was pursuing a Civil Engineering degree at Wayne State University.<br /><br />Not to brag but you educational background is more suitable for expertise on finger painting, then anything having to do with science or even engineering for that matter. Don’t get me wrong I to have natural artistic ability when it comes to the visual arts. I just chose to spend my Uncle Sam’s grant money on more scientific pursuits. <br /><br />Getting back to the issue of using the ISS/Shuttle as a cost effective way to develop a strategy for going to both Moon/Mars I don’t see a lot of ideas on this thread on how to approach this problem. Mostly what you’ll find are a lot of bitter post by Liberal Art Majors who either flunked Calculus I, or were afraid to take the course in the first place<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[j05h]

Marcel, from your posts I wouldn't guess that you'd launched a rocket in your life. I honestly thought you were a high school student. My apologies and thank you for serving the country. <br /><br />I studied animation because "Space Art" was not a major at MassArt. It's not a Liberal Arts school, it is an Art school with decent electives, a skills-school. I spent the entirety of my formal education hanging out with MIT students that lived in our dorm. I've spent my entire life studying "space". Neither my formal education, nor yours, indicates an aerospace interest. Online, I don't give a rat's patooty about your education, as long as you can write reasonably well and have something to contribute.<br /><br />This is beside the big point: I suggested books, not formal classes. They are all fairly easy to find, written accessibly and provide answers to a lot of your assumptions. Many of the people on this board will back me up on the value of some of those titles.<br /><br /><i>Getting back to the issue of using the ISS/Shuttle as a cost effective way to develop a strategy for going to both Moon/Mars I don’t see a lot of ideas on this thread on how to approach this problem.</i><br /><br />That is because Shuttle/ISS are not particularly useful in those goals. ISS is a research platform, not an assembly one. Changing it is not an option in this context, any more than adding a giant solar forge or beamed-power test or whatever stalking horse you want. We are having a hard enough time completing it as-is. <br /><br />The Shuttle is only flying to support already manifested ISS payloads and maybe Hubble. No, it's not going to keep flying after 2010. Shuttle-derived is on the way out at NASA and no private enterprise except Boeing/Lockmart/USA/ATK has access to the technology. What are your goals? To employ the right people in the right Congressional districts, or go and settle the Solar System? Earth-to-LEO is already a done-deal, just fly Soyuz until Dragon or Kliper comes onlin <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

marcel_leonard:<br />Mostly what you’ll find are a lot of bitter post by Liberal Art Majors who either flunked Calculus I, or were afraid to take the course in the first place<br /><br />Me:<br />Unfortunately despite your credentials, IMO, your missing a bigger picture. Just because one is a liberal arts major (Not myself BTW) does not mean they are not capable of learning outside that scope. I personally am neither a liberal arts major or an aerospace major. I spent most of my life learning about human spaceflight which is why I have been able to see why shuttle and ISS used in the manner you propose are not cost effective as you claim. I would have thought with credentials such as you have, that you could have easiliy run rings around me. After all, I didn't even finish 4 years of college so by your standards...I'm a definite dumbass.<br /><br />Now that you have proposed shuttle ISS to the moon which myself and others have tried to point out the obvious economic/technical flaws. Maybe you could propose a cost effective, yet new vehicle proposal that is much more effectively tailored to your operational plan. <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>

 

[brellis]

"Just because one is a liberal arts major (Not myself BTW) does not mean they are not capable of learning outside that scope."<br /><br />I was a music major at UCLA 1980-84. I chose UCLA over Julliard specifically because I would have a diversified education. Ironically, while I was there, my favorite student musicians belonged to a trio named Electric Mustard. They were from the Engineering Dept. and they would barge into classrooms and do guerilla performances of, for example, Beethoven's 9th as arranged to Bari Sax, Bass Trombone and Tuba. Absolutely terrific!<br /><br />But I digress. This Forum welcomes non-professionals to participate in forum-threads with rocket scientists [and musicians <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />]. You never know, a great idea may come out of it. But you have to read all posts with a grain or two of salt. This is, to borrow a term from Dick Cheney, "unvarnished" exchange. You may be communicating with a psychotic savant or Stephen Hawking, Bill Clinton or that guy that looks like George Clooney who became "American Idol"... I'm sorry I think I'm going to be sick...<br /><br />I <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2" color="#ff0000"><em><strong>I'm a recovering optimist - things could be better.</strong></em></font> </p> </div>

 

[qso1]

brellis:<br />But you have to read all posts with a grain or two of salt. This is, to borrow a term from Dick Cheney, "unvarnished" exchange. You may be communicating with a psychotic savant or Stephen Hawking, Bill Clinton or that guy that looks like George Clooney who became "American Idol"... I'm sorry I think I'm going to be sick...<br /><br />Me:<br />Thats for sure, that is one never knows who they may be conversing with here. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

Marcel, I seem to remember that someone came out with a flight simulator for the STS. Try it and see how high you can get before you run out of fuel. (From the other statements, even if you ignore the problem of getting home and use 100% of your fuel, including the RCS, which has next to 0 Delta V, you will not reach the moon -- or even get close!) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Its amazing to me how some people can call themselves educated and be so closed minded. When I hear statements like the Shuttle/ISS can not be used practically for Moon/Mars mission with no scientific references, or even some basic physics to back up your argument I ask myself what makes you think that your data is so empirical?<br /><br />Granted we all can make good arguments about the orbits being all wrong for a mission to the moon, and the fact that currently neither the shuttle, or the international space station is equipped with enough fuel for the round trip, but that is the way design problem work. You approach a mathematical story problem in the same fashion. You collect the given data then you try to eliminate as many variables as possible in order to solve for the design solution.<br /><br />In the case of both the shuttle and the international space station unlike the proposed CEV have the added advantage of already being fully operational. I think to simply say it is impossible and therefore can’t be done because someone with no credentials said so is completely asinine.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>