Why not Modify Shuttle and Re-use it?

[scottb50]

Remove the rear cockpit bulkhead and extend the cargo area all the way up to the front bulkhead. You could probably pick up a few pounds by removing the windows also. Use five segment SRB's and you might come close to 100,000 pound payload.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

complex and costly changes can be made in future<br /><br />probably, only the five segment SRB can be added now to increase the payload of some tons<br /><br />to-day I suggest to use the Shuttle "as is" but without crew<br /><br />the max payloads of the powerful rockets available (except the russian Energya) are around 12-15 tons (and can't launch the big ISS modules) while Shuttle's payload is over two times more<br /><br />to-day Shuttle's payload is sufficient to complete the space station and send in LEO all the components of the new lunar missions (to be assembled in space)<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

VERY IMPORTANT<br /><br />so far we are talking about money, payloads, cockpit, boosters, launch pads, center of gravity, etc. but we forget the MAIN PROBLEM of Shuttles: the last 18-19 mission planned will need up to 130 astronauts (read: "human life") that risk to die if something goes wrong!<br /><br />ONE crewless Shuttle can be used for 15 cargo missions so only a few Shuttle launch must be made with crew to assemble the ISS modules sent in orbit with the crewless Shuttle!<br /><br />30 human life to risk are many, but less than 130!<br /><br />

 

[drwayne]

"ONE crewless Shuttle can be used for 15 cargo missions"<br /><br />Do you mean one mission or one vehicle there?<br /><br />I must be mis-interpreting your remark, as it almost seems to imply that you are suggesting that a crewless shuttle can carry 15 times as much as one with a crew.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

no!<br /><br />one crewless Shuttle used for 15 missions of 25-30 tons payload each<br /><br />one Shuttle used for a few missions with crew<br /><br />one Shuttle for emergency missions<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

>right, but for the future (ten years and beyond) not for the present, to-day there are only the Shuttles and some rockets available. <br /><br />For the present, there are some rockets. The Shuttle is grounded, I've been arguing that it is permanent (intended or not). A working, refuelable Tug is something that has been blindingly obvious in it's necessity since the late 60s. Planning for a working, practical and cheap(er) launch infrastructure should have seriously begun after Challenger, 20 years later and we are left holding the bag. <br /><br />This gets repetitive, but I'm holding hopes for Elon Musk and Bigelow.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

>ONE crewless Shuttle can be used for 15 cargo missions so only a few Shuttle launch must be made with crew to assemble the ISS modules sent in orbit with the crewless Shuttle! <br /><br />Sorry bro, the assembly missions are very labor-intense. The two people onboard ISS are not enough to dock a robotic Shuttle (they can barely handle a Progress remotely) and not in any way capable of docking and outfitting station modules alone. There are reasons that assembly missions have been large (6-7) crews: even docking an MPLM requires a lot of hard work. Getting some of the modules running takes days or weeks of outfitting. Assembly requires spacewalking specialists, robotics and other specific training. It's not something two men trained to maintain the station can do alone. The original/expected compliment of 6-10 astro/cosmonauts was partly for enabling assembly, the current 2 is barely enough to keep running. A Shuttle without crew would be next to useless on-station. <br /><br />Space is always going to be dangerous, just like Earth. The solution for NASA and it's Station woes is to figure out how to fly the components and crew without the Shuttle. If some of the RTF money had been dedicated to figuring out how to launch Kibo, Columbus and the solar panels sans Shuttle, we'd be in much better shape. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"The Shuttle is grounded..."<br /><br />Probably the Shuttles will never fly again (or only a few), but, what do you do if you have only ONE OLD CAR to work with and the new car will arrive in 2015 or later?<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"the assembly missions are very labor-intense..."<br /><br />the problems you mention are complex but can be resolved (the missions specialists may go to ISS with Soyuz, etc.)<br /><br />the alternatives are only two:<br /><br />1. to risk the life of 100 astronauts<br /><br />2. stop all manned flights for over ten years<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

this is not a to-day problem (previous post "in my article I don't suggest to remove the crew cabin from Shuttle to-day...") and, also in future, may become unnecessary to spend time and money to increase the Shuttle's payload<br /><br />to-day, the crewless Shuttle must remain "as is" (previous post: "complex and costly changes can be made in future...") and the payload don't need to be increased because it is already sufficient<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />every "5 meters object" can be made of "two 2.5 meters objects" joined

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...the small diameter Lunar lander for Apollo was..."<br /><br />new vehicles are only artist's sketches, so they can be made in many ways and to-day alloys and carbon fibers are lighter than in Apollo era<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />ok, I will think about and reply

 

[j05h]

>>"keeping a single Orbiter "around" and ready for flight is going to cost between 3 and 5 Billion $$$ per year just to sit on the tarmac. "<br /><br /> />A false statement.<br /><br />OK, how much would it cost to keep an Orbiter, a couple of tanks, SRBs and all the facilities (VAB, OPF, TPS manu, etc) open? How much would that cost for a "just in case" like gaetano proposes? It's not $100million, that's for sure. C'mon, SG, give me a realistic number.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[drwayne]

That is an interesting question. I wonder the degree to which you can "mothball" equipment such as a shuttle. I have seen some of the technqiues used in aircraft, but I don't know how a shuttle would respond to such.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[drwayne]

"not at all like keeping a B-52 under Spraylat at D-M."<br /><br />Thats what I suspected.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...keeping a single Orbiter "around" and ready for flight is going to cost between 3 and 5 Billion $$$ per year just to sit on the tarmac... "<br /><br />the problem is not "how much costs"<br /><br />NASA has ALREADY planned to spend that money for 5 years and 19 Shuttle flights<br /><br />I think the main question about next Shuttle flights is "with or without crew" (read as: "big risks or NO risks")<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />but great part of costs are "around" the Orbiter<br /><br />it is risky to remain in last 2-3 years with only one Shuttle working and two dismantled<br /><br />

 

[scottb50]

I wasn't talking about doing any of that. You don't have to remove the Crew Module just open up the aft bulkhead of the Crew Module and rip out all the stuff needed by a crew. If there is no reason to pressurize the forward area you could distribute weight as needed.<br /><br />If you can carry 60,000 pounds now and remove all the extranious stuff you could recover a lot of weight capability. Maybe not as much as I alluded to, but, it's still more than anybody else can launch, and you can re-use it. <br /><br />I would think it is also high time to redesign the avionics anyway and a longer useful life would make that acceptable. If you could keep the Shuttles in operation for years longer carrying cargo, while using the SRB's to launch crews it would be a definite asset. Especially if the SRB is used to put a passenger vehicle into orbit also. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...the assembly missions are very labor-intense..."<br /><br />I've updated the Shuttle's page www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html<br /><br />also, I've added the <font color="yellow">"ISS Space Parking"</font>proposal that may resolve great part of the problems of a crewless Shuttle, because it can avoid to dock the space station and assemble the module in crewless missions.<br /><br />

 

[j05h]

Newsartist- exactly my point. The maintainance for a just-in-case Orbiter is going to be a huge, costly nightmare. <br /><br />I think the real solution is capsule, HLV and space tug. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">answers...</font><br /><br />You keep repeating the same errors even after you are corrected here on Space.com. <br /><br />You are spreading bad information on your web site. Here are SOME examples: <br /><br />"With the launch of Discovery in summer 2005 it seemed all resolved but the separation of part of tank's covering has rendered the two years and half of surveyings, studies and improvements completely useless." <font color="yellow"> do you are sure? the next flight will be in spring 2006? sure?</font><br /><br />This is not true. The work was not useless, it just was not complete. <font color="yellow"> "not complete" then "not sufficient to fly safely with a crew"</font><br /><br />"On the other hand, Shuttles cost 10 billions dollars each, so, it's not good to put them in the trash can!"<font color="yellow"> add parts, upgrades, etc. see the post about the 12$ billion NASA spent for the "return to flight" of Discovery (with crew)</font><br /><br />You know this is not accurate from responses to your earlier post. <br /><br />"At the end of mission, the specialists will close the cargo-bay, enter in the space station, undock the Shuttle and put it away the ISS..." <font color="yellow"> remote-controlled, SG, not with telepathy </font><br /><br />The docking module is in the payload bay therefore the doors can not be closed before undocking. That does not matter since the payload bay door closing can be performed from the ground. <font color="yellow"> right, open bay - dock - work - undock - close bay</font><br /><br />"The return could be controlled from earth and, in the last kilometers until touchdown, from a pilot on an airplane." <font color="yellow"> ok, from earth, from Houston, form Cape Canaveral, from an Awaks, why do You think that NASA is not able to do this? NASA has resolved problems 100 times greater! </font><br /><br />Not required, the landing is fully automatic no

 

[j05h]

The real problem with a robotic Shuttle flight is still labor. The Shuttle and the assembly flights were both created with human hands in mind. Soyuz can not currently support enough extra seats to put assembly crews up - INA must change for that. Still doesn't change that Shuttle was designed around people. It flies largely on it's own, so does a 747, but requires a crew. This should be a non-issue or in a FAQ - it is common knowledge but keeps coming up. <br /><br />I still want immediate retirement, even if phased. 2007-2010 manned flight budget could be used on the HLV now (relatively) and be used to complete ISS on time. Nearer-term CEV and HLV are a safer, smarter and more economical route to Core and Assembly Complete. Use the HLV payload shroud as an imitation Shuttle cargo bay, trunnion pins and stay-alive power are simpler additions to HLV than making the Orbiter safe. <br /><br />We can fulfill international obligations and continue to have a national launch system, but it really does require letting go of the Orbiter. Tugs and capsules are the best route. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[j05h]

>Yes, the life extension is for 4 days. <br /><br />Gaetano- please pay attention to SG on this. That NASA is spending a pile of money to extend an Orbiter at Station for only 4 days shows how labor-intensive Assembly is. 2 crew can barely maintain the station - there are no extra hands available for science right now, never mind assembly of delivered modules. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[gaetanomarano]

writing the Shuttle page on my website I've estimated a cost of $2 billion (including the test launch) and less than 2 years (with a medium-complexity work) to convert the Shuttle to a crewless one<br /><br />but, post after post (if all informations are true), I discover that it is simplest, costs less money and needs less time to do!<br /><br />this because only PART of the flight system must be modified<br /><br />so, if NASA starts NOW and WORKS HARD, we may see the first crewless Shuttle flight for the end of 2006<br /><br />that is 6, 7, 9, 11, 15 years before the first (reliable) SDLV<br /><br />you can choice the number you prefer, in any case it will be LIGHT YEARS after the first launch of a crewless Shuttle!<br /><br />don't forget that Shuttles have 30 years of honest work and over 100 perfect flights (90% of reasons of two Shuttle's disasters was due to human errors) while (for many many years) the SDLVs will fly only in artist's sketches...<br /><br />