What type(s) of space vehicles do we need?

[bdewoody]

There has been some discussion on the forums about whether the space shuttle should be kept active and whether or not the Orion spacecraft is the correct vehicle to replace it. I don't see Orion so much as a replacement but rather a craft for a different mission. Some of the arguments for retiring the shuttle and moving on to the Orion are based on the idea that we have gotten stuck on manned LEO missions and to go back to the moon and to go to Mars eventually we need the Orion or something like it.
I have also seen arguments that we will continue to need LEO capability even after we have gone to the moon and beyond. So it seems to me we are trying to compare apples and oranges where maybe we need to look at the big picture.

Maybe the Orion or whatever interplanetary vehicles we build should stay in space once they get there so they can be reused for future missions. Either the shuttle or a smaller new reuseable LEO only vehicle would then be used to transfer crews from the ground to orbit and then later back to earth. They would use the ISS as a way station. If a centifuge was added to the ISS the returning crews could gradually work their way back up to a 1G environment before deorbiting and coming home.

No one type of space vehicle will ever be able to satisfy all of our spaceflight needs just like no single ground vehicle or aircraft type can fill all the roles they are needed for.

It has also been said that the Hubble servicing mission was a waste of money as a replacement could have been built cheaper but I see the servicing as valuable experience and also lowering the parts count for potential space junk.

Thats my 2 cents worth.

 

[kelvinzero]

The problem I see with the shuttle is that it was a prototype forced to be a workhorse. Howabout having a workhorse which is a known quantity, and use the remaining money for more and smaller scale prototypes that are just prototypes.

I also quite like the idea of a conservative 3-stage design that instead of pushing everything to the limit, is built with the intention that each stage may go through several iterations, and even entirely different designs from different competing companies.

So you start with these basic three stages, but already you can get something to the moon and in future you could experiment with a flyback first stage, or a lifting body return instead of the third stage. The fact it might be 20% less efficient (by mass) than a state of the art optimized design is just something you accept.

 

[emudude]

If the Orion is cheaper to launch than the shuttle and can deliver similar payloads, then they should go for that. In terms of making other crafts to go to other places, I'm with the Russians; they want to build an orbital construction yard for ships too large to launch by the restrictive size of rockets.

 

[halman]

Fantasizing can be good for you, so I will fantasize a little bit. But first, I want to emphasize that NASA is retiring the shuttle not because of design flaws or the safety of the vehicle, but because Congress has not given it the money to continue operations while at the same time developing a new launch system and crew vehicle. Money is the only problem that we have not been able to overcome.

We need vehicles designed for specific tasks, not all purpose vehicles that do nothing very well. Therefore;
A two-stage to orbit shuttle for passenger traffic.
A heavy-lift step rocket for sending freight into low Earth orbit.
An orbital transfer vehicle, for collecting passengers and freight, and hauling them to their destinations.
A lunar shuttle vehicle, for passenger and freight service to the Moon.
A deep space vehicle, for extended voyages.

Supporting the orbital transfer vehicle and the lunar shuttle would be a space station with hanger space able to accommodate either the lunar shuttle or the OTV. This space station should have a simulated weight environment for crew members to sleep and eat in, as well as a shelter for radiation storms. It would be in a high enough orbit that decay is not a problem, and would have some kind of shielding for all crew areas.

The most difficult aspect of space flight is operations to and from a planet with an atmosphere. Orbital velocities and atmosphere are incompatible, no matter where you go. So a specialized vehicle is needed just to go the first few miles to any place. The space shuttle flown by NASA has proven conclusively that a lifting body can be flown reliably, allowing landing on a runway. Because of the constraints imposed by atmospheric travel, a ship designed for surface to orbit operations should only be required to reach the lowest possible orbit, to minimize the engine requirements. A surface to orbit shuttle should be designed to carry passengers or small amounts of high-priority cargo.

To my mind, this surface-to-orbit shuttle should be a two stage system, to capitalize upon the different environments found in an atmosphere. The densest part of the atmosphere on Earth contains enough oxygen to support combustion, so a launch vehicle does not have to carry an oxidizer for the first part of the journey. This portion of the atmosphere is so dense that aerodynamic lift of huge proportions is available. An aircraft traveling a few hundred miles per hour can climb at a rate of 1,000 feet per minute, burning atmospheric oxygen, and deriving lift from the atmosphere.

For vehicles making a one-way trip into space, recovery is not a concern, and big rockets are probably the cheapest way of lifting large payloads we are going to see for a long time. But payloads must be large for the economy of scale to come into play. If payloads for more than one destination are launched at the same time, some way must be available to separate those payloads and to deliver them individually.

This is the job of the orbital transfer vehicle. A lightweight, powerful tug, it would meet payloads or shuttles at the top of the atmosphere and collect the passengers or freight for hauling to higher orbits.

The lunar shuttle is designed to carry passengers and freight to the Moon from Earth orbit, flying a regular run.

The deep space vehicle would be for voyages to planets or asteroids, and be capable of missions several years in length. They would not have landing capability, carrying shuttle craft specific to their destination's environment.

But all of this is fantasy, because the challenge that we face right now is maintaining access to Low Earth Orbit. It is only a matter of money, not of technology.

 

[emudude]

@halman

You have pretty much laid out my exact vision of what needs to happen in our space programs for practicality's sake. Since rockets are the most efficient structure aerodynamically (and always will be, as it has the lowest surface area creating drag), the issue we need to address is obviously - as you said - the money involved for launching these rockets. We can do this by using newer materials which are lighter but just as strong (if not stronger, i.e. carbon nanotubes or other nano-optimized structures), or by using a much more energy dense fuel. I know this will take ahwile, but once we can produce a meaningful amount of antimatter, I think that this is where we will see launch costs plummet. Even if antimatter is not used for launching, its potential as a fuel for interplanetary travel is quite significant, as it is currently the most energy dense fuel known to mankind.

 

[halman]

emudude,

Like I said, a little fantasy is good for us. But I am not letting myself get carried away with visions of the future, because the future depends on the present. The greatest problem facing the space program in the United States right now is access to Low Earth Orbit. Even if the Constellation program goes entirely according to plan, it is still going to be a huge step backward. And it will still be a duplication of existing technology.

What we really need is a vehicle that can get 5 to 10 people into Low Earth Orbit, and can bring them back without having to call out a Navy task force. A vehicle that is completely reusable, that does not require extensive overhaul after each flight, and that does not demand absolute perfection in order to fly. We need a vehicle that we can launch without having hundreds of people on duty to monitor every single aspect of the launch. We need a vehicle that does not demand the absolute maximum possible performance in order to be successful.

When you launch straight up, everything has to work right, or the launch vehicle comes crashing back to the ground. This means that every aspect of the vehicle, the range, the weather, and many other variables have to be monitored by people who can say "No." When you launch straight up, payload is exchanged for redundancy, engines must produce the absolute maximum of thrust, and aborting after launch is almost unthinkable. When you launch straight up, much of the fuel that you use is wasted fighting the effect of gravity, instead of accelerating the vehicle towards orbital velocity.

We have the capability to build an aircraft which could carry a payload of 2 million pounds to an altitude of 50,000 feet. Just because no one has ever done it before does not mean that it cannot be done, it just means that no one has had a reason to do it until now. Launching such a vehicle by using its own engines would require many more engines than would be needed for climbing to altitude, and an undercarriage able to support the weight of the orbiter and the wing would be massive. These two problems can be avoided by using a catapult, one which accelerates a cradle that supports the carrier wing. This catapult would be built upon level ground, because the wing would provide the lift, and a runoff section would be needed in case of an abort. The catapult could accelerate the wing to a speed well above the stall speed, insuring that the wing would begin climbing immediately after it was released from the cradle.

By using composite materials, the weight of the orbiter can be kept to a minimum, and keeping the payload under 10,000 pounds would produce a vehicle about the same size as the current shuttle, but with all tankage internal. Using engines that burned kerosene and lox would simplify the design of the tanks and pumping systems, as well as avoiding the difficulty of keeping a hydrogen tank pressurized for an hour or longer during the climb to launch altitude. Launch would be accomplished by flying the orbiter off the back of the carrier wing, so that no altitude is lost by dropping the orbiter before its engines are running. The orbiter would not climb vertically, instead keeping its nose about 10 degrees above the horizon.

The orbiter should be designed to reach the lowest possible orbit, to minimize the engine and fuel demands. Instead of making the orbiter capable of achieving orbits of 200 miles or more, a vehicle should be built that would transfer passengers and freight to higher orbits. Every effort must be made to keep the mission requirements to the minimum, so that the vehicle can do one thing really well, and that is carrying people into space and back from there. We don't need a flying laboratory, we don't need a general purpose repair vehicle, because those can be built later. We need a cheap, reliable, sustainable way of getting into space and returning.

 

[emudude]

@halman

Your idea for an on-ground catapult is pretty much analogous to what aircraft carriers have already been doing for decades...Also, you pointed out that we have the ability to create an aircraft that can carry 2 million pounds of payload to 50 000 feet...this really caught my eye, because Spaceship Two is set to launch from that exact height. I crunched some numbers, and realized that an aircraft that can carry 2 million pounds of payload can carry about 125 Spaceship Twos (I base this on a statement that Spaceship Two will be approximately twice the size of Spaceship One, so I just doubled the loaded mass when making my calculations). 125 * 6 passengers = 750 passengers, so this is obviously a very significant find...think it could be done?

 

[Stewie_Griffin]

It doesn't matter how many spaceship 2s you can carry because they are suborbital. Orbital flight requires a lot more fuel, so unless you want to carry 750 people suborbitally then it doesn't work.

A better way would be too take the pegasus rocket which goes to leo and is air launched.

The pegasus weighs about 40,000 pounds and has a payload of about 1000 pounds. if you follow that and then if you air launched a 2 million pound rocket you could get about 50,000 pounds to LEO.

Of course thats not completely accurate either because the pegasus uses solid fuel which has a smaller specific impulse than liquid rockets.

 

[halman]

emudude,

50,000 feet is about the highest altitude that jet engines can be operated efficiently at, because the air is getting so thin. At that altitude, you are already above nearly 90 percent of the atmosphere. What lies above counts as a near vacuum. Thus, this altitude is the perfect place to switch between jets and rockets, and from aerodynamic lift to speed. A fighter jet may be able to go straight up, but it can't go very fast going straight up. But that same aircraft can go over 1,000 miles per hour in level flight. If all of the engine power and fuel of the orbiter is used to gain velocity, than far less fuel and engine power is needed than when launching straight up.

This means that the orbiter does not have to have huge engines, which are run at maximum possible performance. The overall vehicle weight can be much lighter than the existing shuttle, with its large payload bay, three huge engines, plus the Orbital Maneuvering System, and the crew cabin.

 

[coitis2002]

I just want to be able to travel in space.. LIke going on a road trip. Will this be possible in my lifetime? To be able to go to the moon and rent a land rover.. on the moon? and will it ever be made affordable to the average person? These are the things I think should be made available within the next 20 years.. It's not fair only the astronauts get to enjoy space!!

 

[halman]

Back in 1969, I was sure that I would have a chance to walk on the Moon, and maybe even go to Mars. I was 13 when we landed on the Moon the first time, and fascinated with space flight. I knew that we had achieved incredible progress during the short time that we had been flying in space, and I assumed that our progress would continue. But something went wrong, and we seemed to turn our backs on space.

My happiness would be unbounded if I really believed that you have a chance of walking on the Moon. But I have serious concerns whether the United States will continue with space exploration. You might get your chance to look up at the Earth in the blackness of space, but you might have to learn Chinese in order to get there.

Sometimes, I have difficulty believing that more has not been committed to getting off of this planet. Between the leading industrialized nations, an aggressive manned space program would amount to pocket change. I mean, the equity markets in the world represent trillions of dollars worth of wealth, which is looking for opportunities for growth and development. A sustained investment of 50 billion dollars a year for 30 to 50 years would result in Cheap Access To Space, several space stations, a lunar shuttle, a lunar base, and manned missions to Mars. Between Russia, Japan, China, India, Germany, France, England, Canada, and the United States, that level of investment is tiny. And the returns would dwarf anything that we could do here on Earth.

 

[emudude]

Pretty amazing what we can do when we apply ourselves...but without even universally available basic living standards (remember, most people on earth don't even have clean water), I can't see a large amount of money being spent on space...however, enter the private space industry, and you have capitalism's rugged ability to motivate an otherwise passive populace into accelerating space technology to frontiers never before seen by mankind except in science fiction. Our brain's intelligence is linked to the number of connections between neurons, and the collective intellectual power of our species is likewise a function of the connectivity of our intellectuals...the internet has seen this skyrocket, and so shall our scientific progress skyrocket. There are theories that our species' more recent explosion in intelligence was linked to social gatherings which helped carry information along to future generations (such as agricultural know-how, entertainment information, and anything else even remotely beneficial to life), and that the internet which is available almost everywhere wirelessly will have an incredible side effect. Welcome to the future, everyone. :ugeek:

 

[halman]

Cheap Access To Space will mean Keep It Simple, Stupid! No multi-configuration engines, no super high-performance engines, no liquid hydrogen.

Problem number one: How to support a vehicle weighing 2.5 million kilograms during take-off. { A vehicle capable of carrying itself and a payload of 6 metric tons to an orbit 250 kilometers high will weigh about 1 million kilograms, fully fueled. (I am grabbing numbers out of thin air for the sake of the dissertation.) A vehicle capable of carrying 1 million kilograms to 15,200 meters will probably weigh about 1.5 million kilograms. Total lift-off weight will be on the order of 2.5 million kilograms.} Solution: A cradle, which rides on a double track, which contains an electromagnetic catapult capable of accelerating 4 million kilograms (cradle plus launch vehicle,) to 560 kilometers per hour.

Problem number two: How to carry a vehicle weighing 1 million kilograms to 15,200 meters. Solution: Build a flying wing powered by up to 12 turbofan engines, which is about 90 meters from wingtip to wingtip, about 6 meters thick at the center, and weighs about 700,000 kilograms empty. This carrier wing would be capable of landing on its on undercarriage at the take-off point. Transports orbiter on its back, to avoid orbiter losing altitude during launch. Orbiter starts engines while still attached to carrier wing, runs engines up, wing pitches up slightly, orbiter is released, wing pitches down, orbiter climbs at angle of 10 to 15 degrees, while accelerating at 2 gravities.

Problem number three: Getting to orbit. Solution: A lifting body design similar to the current space shuttle, but with all propellant tanks internal. Uses minimum of 5 engines, capable of reaching orbit on 4. Engines are shut down as fuel is used up, to maintain constant acceleration. Engines can be restarted in flight. Engines burn kerosene and liquid oxygen. Payload is 12 people, 10 passengers and 2 crew members, and enough life-support for 72 hours.

Problem number four: Returning from orbit. Solution: Main engine{s} used for orbital braking. Thermal Protection System to dissipate the heat of re-entry. Control surfaces to allow return to launch point. Retractable undercarriage. Braking system.

Extensive use of composite materials will enable lighter vehicle weights than current vehicles. Elimination of performance demands resulting from vertical take-off enables lower engine performance requirements. Airborne launching allows for majority of fuel load to be used in achieving orbital velocity instead of overcoming effects of gravity. Catapult launch will reduce number of turbofan engines needed to that required for rate of climb desired. (300 meters per minute equals about 1 hour to reach launch altitude.)

This system would allow for rapid turnaround of the carrier wing, as well as the orbiter. Orbiter engines are not super high performance, so complete disassembly not required after each flight. Engines should be easily interchanged even so. All components, where possible, should be swappable at the module level. Carrier wing could ferry empty orbiter if required.

 

[scottb50]

Cheap Access To Space will mean Keep It Simple, Stupid! No multi-configuration engines, no super high-performance engines, no liquid hydrogen.

Problem number one: How to support a vehicle weighing 2.5 million kilograms during take-off. { A vehicle capable of carrying itself and a payload of 6 metric tons to an orbit 250 kilometers high will weigh about 1 million kilograms, fully fueled. (I am grabbing numbers out of thin air for the sake of the dissertation.) A vehicle capable of carrying 1 million kilograms to 15,200 meters will probably weigh about 1.5 million kilograms. Total lift-off weight will be on the order of 2.5 million kilograms.} Solution: A cradle, which rides on a double track, which contains an electromagnetic catapult capable of accelerating 4 million kilograms (cradle plus launch vehicle,) to 560 kilometers per hour.

Problem number two: How to carry a vehicle weighing 1 million kilograms to 15,200 meters. Solution: Build a flying wing powered by up to 12 turbofan engines, which is about 90 meters from wingtip to wingtip, about 6 meters thick at the center, and weighs about 700,000 kilograms empty. This carrier wing would be capable of landing on its on undercarriage at the take-off point. Transports orbiter on its back, to avoid orbiter losing altitude during launch. Orbiter starts engines while still attached to carrier wing, runs engines up, wing pitches up slightly, orbiter is released, wing pitches down, orbiter climbs at angle of 10 to 15 degrees, while accelerating at 2 gravities.

Problem number three: Getting to orbit. Solution: A lifting body design similar to the current space shuttle, but with all propellant tanks internal. Uses minimum of 5 engines, capable of reaching orbit on 4. Engines are shut down as fuel is used up, to maintain constant acceleration. Engines can be restarted in flight. Engines burn kerosene and liquid oxygen. Payload is 12 people, 10 passengers and 2 crew members, and enough life-support for 72 hours.

Problem number four: Returning from orbit. Solution: Main engine{s} used for orbital braking. Thermal Protection System to dissipate the heat of re-entry. Control surfaces to allow return to launch point. Retractable undercarriage. Braking system.

Extensive use of composite materials will enable lighter vehicle weights than current vehicles. Elimination of performance demands resulting from vertical take-off enables lower engine performance requirements. Airborne launching allows for majority of fuel load to be used in achieving orbital velocity instead of overcoming effects of gravity. Catapult launch will reduce number of turbofan engines needed to that required for rate of climb desired. (300 meters per minute equals about 1 hour to reach launch altitude.)

This system would allow for rapid turnaround of the carrier wing, as well as the orbiter. Orbiter engines are not super high performance, so complete disassembly not required after each flight. Engines should be easily interchanged even so. All components, where possible, should be swappable at the module level. Carrier wing could ferry empty orbiter if required.

While I agree with your basic ideas the main part is lacking. In my opinion we need a heavy lift, or better yet a heavy and moderate lift version of a First stage vehicle that takes a second stage to where it can be released to get to orbit. The First stage never gets to orbit and simple releases the upper stage at a speed and altitude it can get to orbit by itself. With a heavy and medium version it would allow better economics depending on the mission, and with similar hardware it would reduce costs.

 

[kelvinzero]

To me, keeping it simple means multiple stages, such as kerosene or solid and then hydrogen. This means not having to design something to perform well in very different circumstances, and being able to redesign each stage independently to some extent.

Re the shuttle and ares 5, I also dont like the idea of solid boosters parallel to a large liquid fuel tank. It seems to give you the worst of both worlds. If you just had your big liquid fuel stage you could in theory turn it off. If you just have a solid fuel stage then it probably will not go so completely horribly wrong if something burns a hole into it.

Not that I have the expertise to judge. Presumably people way more informed than I have run the numbers on these things.

 

[halman]

scottb50,

Boosters we have, with the Atlas, the Delta Heavy, and several of foreign construction. Scaling these boosters up, or simply using a high launch rate, would not be a problem, and would allow plenty of mass to be put in Low Earth Orbit. But putting people in LEO, and bringing them back, that is a problem right now, for the U.S.

The Constellation program appears to me to be a sop to the manned space exploration community, a (supposedly) low cost way of getting people to the Moon and beyond. It does not seem sustainable, cost effective to operate, nor capable of supporting any serious exploration any where. With it, we could maintain some presence in space, but nothing more.

The United States has been operating successfully the most advanced space vehicle ever built. To me, it is imperative that we build upon that, by developing a reusable vehicle which is designed solely to get people into space and back. By eliminating the huge payload and orbital altitude capabilities of the shuttle, and focusing on its passenger carrying function, we can develop a smaller, lighter vehicle.

For the foreseeable future, step rockets will be the cheapest way to get mass into orbit. Big trucks are the cheapest way to move mass around, (next to rail,) but we don't use them for hauling people. We use buses, specialized vehicles for hauling people, and only people. (With some luggage, of course.) We need a bus to haul people to space with, but we don't need a great big one just yet.

Comparing the launch of an Atlas rocket with the launch of the shuttle, or an Apollo rocket, what huge difference do we see? The number of people involved. If an Atlas malfunctions, oh well. If a shuttle malfunctions, it is a huge catastrophe. So every aspect of the launch is under the control of someone, someone who has the power to say "Hold!" Somehow, we have to get away from that complexity. One way that I see is by airborne launching from a vehicle that has the ability to abort its take-off at the last instant without any problem. All that happens is that the whole kit and kaboddle coasts down the launch track for a few miles.

I am sure that, eventually we will have huge step rockets, capable of carrying more than the Saturn 5 did. But I believe that will only happen after we have a vehicle that brings the support crew up from Earth separately, and cheaply.

 

[scottb50]

[
I am sure that, eventually we will have huge step rockets, capable of carrying more than the Saturn 5 did. But I believe that will only happen after we have a vehicle that brings the support crew up from Earth separately, and cheaply.[/quote]

That's why I mentioned both a heavy and light version of the same basic design.

The biggest problem with both Atlas and Delta is they were developed for the "cost is not factor military" and require extensive support simply because they can afford to have it not so much they are required to have it. Too overbuilt and complex and needing a highly skilled standing army for support is the biggest problem being faced.

 

[docm]

I'm with Aldrin's suggestions-

1. Something very much like Dragon for LEO crewed missions with 6+ crews

2. A winged lander that can come down on land anywhere from LEO. In a rescue/escape mission it could be a lifesaver.

3. A capsule capable of high speed re-entry from lunar/Mars/asteroid missions - maybe Orion or an enhanced Dragon.

4. A launcher between Ares I and Ares V; Ares III, Jupiter 232....whatever. One rocket to design instead of 2 and the >economics of scale should make it cheaper overall.

5. For the long term: an interplanetary/asteroid manned vehicle with a habitat and rotational artificial gravity for extended missions, capable of docking with mission-designed landers and #3. Build the framework(s) in space and leave it/them there, refitting/refueling for subsequent missions. Design the propulsion module so it can be upgraded as new propulsion systems come along. ASAP add a reactor and some form of plasma drive, VASIMR if it works, and get on with it.

See Clarke's Discovery for the basics, though not necessarily on that scale.

 

[blitz2020]

From my own opinion, I think we need a newer nasa,We used to be leaders in this space thing now were just doing thing the easy way.I understand that Orion is an attempt to build off of the idea of inproving on somthing that has provin to work,but that all wrong. First if the world is following in our foot steep and this orion is our way of how thing are done then space junk will be all that our legacy will have to offer, cause if every big and small company starts depending on these multi stage 1880 rockets then our real goal will be how to avoid leaving earth's halo of doom.Many small company have already laid down the frame work for a real soace plane.First diamonds from tequilla thin film diamond combine their technique with carbon fiber pannell making and you have a material for your ships body squeeze water foam (created by another inventor for fire resistance) between a layer of this diamond created pannel and you have the working of both radiation and heat sheil, better elecrical propultion,we already now electricty is the most abundant, powerfull and easiest for of energy to create.I think we can make a better space ship then those geeks at Nasa

 

[CharlesBronson]

I just want to be able to travel in space.. LIke going on a road trip. Will this be possible in my lifetime? To be able to go to the moon and rent a land rover.. on the moon? and will it ever be made affordable to the average person? These are the things I think should be made available within the next 20 years.. It's not fair only the astronauts get to enjoy space!!

I hope you can, but i feel that 20 years isnt too much....maybe 500 yrs

 

[Larry_1]

We need one that President Obama wants. No one knows yet what he wants.

It may be nothing fancy, just cheap, reliable, and soon, i.e., a small pressurized ball with a few parachutes, for instance. Or, it may be he just sits back and allows business to go on as usual which may mean a continuation of what has been evolving over the last few years with Orion and Constellation and now, SpaceX.

He is the decision maker when it comes to going to space. We can go on all day about this one and that one and in the end, it is him and his close advisors making the buy. Spending time studying him and his decision making abilities and trying to guess what he is going to decide is time better spent than expressing your opinion on what needs to happen. If you believe your opinion matters, then you should either be writing books to sell to suckers or be allowed to stand in front of the White House lawn with a mega phone blaring away so the president can't get any work done until you go away.

He is not very interested in exploring the oceans potentially teaming with life on Jupiter's moons using people. He is not interested in finding fossils on Mars using people. He is not interested in competing with foreign governments in races to put people on the Moon. He is not interested in adding more Shuttle flights. He is interested in retiring the Shuttle, but, I believe, not while he is in office.

The Shuttle and all of the trappings of the current problems with managing NASA were handed to him politely on a silver platter when he took office. I believe the note Bush handed him when he took over said “Good Luck my friend. You’re going to need it”. He accepted the administrator's resignation. He delayed appointing a new one. He appointed one that will clearly follow his orders. He is going very cautiously around space matters. He is trying to do the least amount that would upset the most people involved in space activities and just let it fix or ingest itself.

I believe he is interested in delaying any moon shots for as long as he is president. I believe he is interested in keeping shuttle jobs alive as long as he is president.

Who knows, maybe the jobs he saves carry enough votes so he wins key states on his next re-election. Florida, Texas, Alabama, and California are key states to win. They are pro-space states. For example, allowing NASA to lay off thousands of shuttle workers in Florida would put a small ding in his strategy to remain in power for another 4 years. That is a strategy I would not use if I was in his shoes.

In any case, he has his hands quite full with managing the trillions of dollars he will tax and spend; a depression-era job that does not provide much time to enjoy a candy bar such as making lavish decisions of throwing away old stuff and buying completely new stuff to go to space.

 

[byF]

I agree with halman; however it's a pity we can not use huge airships (they would have to be too huge as a launching pads.

 

[Jason_Jay_Dan]

I agree with halman. We need a cheap and robust human transport to space. We need a horizontal take off and landing system whether it be single stage or two in the form of a mothership carrying a crew vehicle.

Second, we need the heavy lifters like Ares V or something else with equal or greater lifting cpabilities.

After that comes the need for interplanetary ships like Orion type ships or something more capable and similar in design to the Russian ship in Stanley Kubrick's 2010. We also need Space tugs like halman suggested which would service the space stations/construction yards and sattelites.

Our greatest obstacle to this is not the lack of money but, the lack of leadership in the White House and Congress. The individual citizen can be forgiven for not understanding where our power and greatness is obtained but, for our leaders there is no such excuse. They know and have known since the founding of NASA and for them to pretend that that is not true and that we don't need a space program is criminal.

In military tactics the goal of any commander is to secure the 'high ground'. Space is the ultimate high ground and it must be taken and secured. From a national perspective we must spread out our assets so that they cannot be annihilated in a single instant. If there were a nuclear war America would be saturated with atomic fire and for the most part reduced or destroyed. There must be a way for us to spread out and allow our civilization to rebuild from and that is from secure points in the heavens. At the very least we could take our knowledge and preserve it and return and rebuild. That is true also from a global perspective. What if a giant rock from no where smacks us? We have to be as prepared for any eventuality as possible. We must find new places and ways to live and the only place left is on the planets, moons, and asteroids scattered throughout the solar system.

We must somehow dig our heads out of the sand and move!

 

[JillyBear]

I wonder if some of the shuttle's funding woes weren't do to some member's of congress thinking the "space elevator" was just around the corner. But the flat ribbon and roller design is never going to be able to overcome cavitation effects inherent in an atmosphere. Ask anyone who's ever flew a kite. They might have more luck with a round cable and a rig that could do a monkey crawl and gyroscopically stabilize the payload. Bends in the cable no longer become an issue.

I agree that the best solution is a separate ground to orbit vehicle, with a transfer station to a vehicle optimized for travel in space only. That was the original idea behind the space shuttle and our current space station anyway. And that was the solution for landing on the moon: a separate orbiter, a separate lander. Why not just leave those in space docked to a space station and maintained there? Less weight to bring up means less fuel to fly your Earth to orbit leg.

 

[vagabond1066]

We can have both, a shuttle and a capsule. All it takes is to have a launcher which can launch both. Direct 3.0 is the Energia type launch system we need. Design it to carry payloads either stacked on top or piggybacked. Once the heavy launcher is built, designing and fielding craft for it will be fairly straight forward.