Why not Modify Shuttle and Re-use it?

[gaetanomarano]

"... is that you either understand it or you don't..."<br /><br />I understand that Space is exciting and I dream to go Space (like you).<br /><br />But... how you can be "excited" if Shuttle explodes after lift-off... and... how you can remember for years the "excitement" to fly in Space if Shuttle burns (with you inside) at reentry...<br /><br />put an hand on a grill and (after) you will say to me how much you was "excited"...<br /><br />

 

[discovery_fan]

("do you wish to fly with the next Shuttle launch..." Yes/No) <br /><br />Yes Yes Yes!<br /><br />But unfortunately it will never happen...<br /><br />Did you ever realize what the capacities of the shuttle really are? <br /><br />The STS has a takeoff weight of more than 2000000kg, that is 4 times the weight of an Airbus A-380 (the new "super jumbo"). The STS can lift loads up to 25000kg into space, with a payload bay that is 4.5 x 18m. Compare that to a C-130 Hercules - it can transport 19000kg, with 12.3 x 2.7m. <br />Therefore the STS is the only way to transport large bulky and fragile cargo into space (like the chandra X ray telescope or ISS parts). <br />So the STS is a spacecraft that can transport 7-8 astronauts and a payload that large that you need the largest available transport aircraft to ferry that load to the KSC. <br />And it can bring large payloads down to earth. In a reentry vehicle - the orbiter - that is of the size of an airliner (e.g. a DC-9) <br /><br />That is a unique capability. <br /><br />Let me compare it to another great spacecraft - the Soyuz Tm. <br />The soyuz tm is a fantastic and reliable spacecraft, but it is not anywhere near the STS in its capabilities. <br />The soyuz tm is about 7.5m long, with a reentry vehicle that is 2.5 m long. It can carry 3 Cosmonauts, and a cargo of 30 kg. That is great, but not near the shuttle (both vehicles are off course not compareable, they are a very different thing). <br />(In the attachment a picture to illustrate that) <br /><br />Now how about safety? <br />The shuttle did 114 flights, with two disasters. That sounds not good. But spaceflight is not safe. It never was, it never will be. <br />It's not routine either. As far as I know, there have been 242 human spaceflights. Human spaceflight is still just barely possible. <br />It is often said that Soyuz is much more safe and reliable compared to the STS. <br />There where 93 soyuz missions in total (that are completed to date). <br />They had 2 fatal disasters, 3

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...Did you ever realize what the capacities of the shuttle really are?..."<br /><br /><br />I know all the figures you write in your post and, in fact, I start from them to propose the crewless Shuttle.<br /><br />I agree with you about Shuttle-Soyuz comparison, in fact, I don't suggest to use Soyuz (while waiting for CEV) as cargo, but only as a safe and reliable way to send astronauts to ISS.<br /><br />I agree with You that Shuttle is unique, in fact, I wish that it will fly as much as possible (50 times or more), not only 19 times.<br /><br />SDLVs will launch big payloads but DON'T EXIST NOW and I think SDLV will need (minimum) 10 years for the first (safe) launch with (expensive) payloads.<br /><br />So, for the next 10 years, Shuttle remains the ONLY machine available to launch 25 tons payload.<br /><br />The cost to launch a Shuttle is not a valid argument if the alternative (to compare with) don't exist now!<br /><br />---------------<br /><br />"...An unmanned shuttle makes no sense really..."<br /><br />I try to demonstrate you (with a little comparison) that a CREWLESS Shuttle MAKE SENSE a great!<br /><br />Imagine that we have (to-day) both Shuttles (one WITH crew and another WITHOUT):<br /><br /> Shuttle with crew: <br />-----------------------------<br />Payload: 25 tons<br />Launch cost: The amount NASA spend to-day<br />Total launches: 19<br />LIFES TO RISK: up to 130 in total!<br />Shuttle work life: 5 years***<br /><br /> Crewless Shuttle:<br />-----------------------------<br />Payload: 25 tons + a few tons<br />Launch cost: Less: no crew, very short flights, etc.<br />Total launches: 50-100 or more!*<br />LIFES TO RISK: NO RISKS FOR LIFE or only a few**<br />Shuttle work life: 10-20 years!****<br /><br /><br />* because each launch has NO risks for crews.<br /><br />** if part of Shuttle flights will be made with crew.<br /><br />*** or ZERO if will be another lethal accident!<br /><br />**** The Shuttle can be used for 10 years while the SDL

 

[discovery_fan]

I understand what you mean, but I still do not agree. I'm sorry. <br />I think it could be done (in theory) to make the STS flight as such automatic (without pilots). That could be done, but it is difficult.<br />Why you get 50-100 flights out of the system is not understandable to me. Even if there is no risk for crew, there is risk to the orbiter itself (and there could be risk to ISS crew), and its cargo. You don't want to loose your unmanned orbiter with an ISS module due to poor maintenance and safety standards. <br />So the maintenance has to be on the same standard and scale as it is now. The TPS system needs inspection, the engines need overhaul etc. , with or without crew. It is not possible to skip the work, just because there are no astronauts. <br />That means that the cost fpr each mission would be almost as high as it is now, at least just slightly lower.<br /><br />But what do you gain for the money?<br /><br />In case of a normal STS mission you get your cargo to orbit, and with it a lot of specialists that can do all the EVA work. You get people to move the robotic arms, you get spacewalkers.<br />In the case of the unmanned shuttle you get just the cargo to orbit and thats it. <br />Thats a very expensive "cargo only" misson.<br /><br />True, the modules of the ISS need the STS, as no other rocket can lift them. So if you want to get the ISS completed, and you don't want manned STS missions, you need the unmanned shuttle you came up with.<br /><br />But why do you want it unmanned in the first place? <br />I just don't get it. The cost of an unmanned STS flight would be almost as high as a manned one. <br />That means it comes down to the risk of human life.<br /><br />We can argue if an ISS - STS mission is worth the risk of 7 people. <br />If you think it is not, then think about other instances where life is at risk for a certain purpose.<br />Lives of soldiers are risked every day just to transport e.g. a truckload of food or gasoline through Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[flameira]

Totally agree with D_fan.<br /><br />I think the fact that there are no astronauts doesn't make the shuttle safer! There is less risk of loss of life but... one of the goals is to return the craft safely.<br /><br />Or are we thinking in making it expendable??? In that case, it's not 50-100 missions. It's only 3 more!<br />

 

[launchme]

"That means that the cost fpr each mission would be almost as high as it is now, at least just slightly lower. "<br /><br />And with the shuttle still in flight and the current budget, we won't be able to afford the SDHLV.<br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...I understand what you mean, but I still do not agree. I'm sorry..."<br /><br /><br />- a crewless Shuttle can be made in reasonable time and cost because great part of Shuttle flight is already automatic (NASA can do things hundreds times more complex than this)<br /><br />- as I explain in the page www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html the crewless Shuttles MUST be maintained like now (and, if possible, BETTER than now!), they can't be lost only because have no crew!<br /><br />- if Shuttles fly again may crash again, so, when the purpose of the mission NEED a crew (like repair Hubble) we can (and must) accept the risk, but, when the crew is UNNECESSARY (like send ISS modules to be assembled later with a manned mission) there is NO REASON to risk!<br /><br />- with an ISS Space Parking, 80% of missions may be crewless, so, why risk?<br /><br />- Shuttles was designed to fly over 100 times each, the three Shuttles have done about 1/4 of them, so they can still fly 200 times (in total)<br /><br />- if Shuttles fly 50-100 times the probabilty of an accident may increase, so, 50-100 missions with crew can't be made, but, without crew, they can do, because no one will die!<br /><br />- all launchers may fail in working life (also SDLV and "Stick"), but, if a launcher works well for 95-99% of flights, its mission is accomplished! (with NO lifes lost)<br /><br />- try ask Shuttles if they want to die flying or become a tourist's attractions after 19 flights...<br /><br />- since Shuttle's destiny will be (in any case) to END fly, I think that, if Discovery burns in atmosphere after 28 perfect (crewless) cargo missions, it is BETTER than be dismantled after the next 5 missions WITH crew! (or burn in atmosphere!)<br /><br />- when a crewless Shuttle will crash (after 9, 16, 24 perfect cargo missions) we must only say: "WORK COMPLETED and... SEVEN LIFES SAVED!"<br /><br />- "why get 50 flight

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...the fact that there are no astronauts doesn't make the shuttle safer..."<br /><br /><br />true, but a Shuttle WITH crew is NOT safer than a crewless one...<br /><br />if something goes wrong, the crew aboard can't do NOTHING to save the Shuttle!<br /><br /><br />"In that case, it's not 50-100 missions. It's only 3 more!"<br /><br /><br />true, the three Shuttles may crash in the first three crewless missions...<br /><br />but the Shuttles WITH crew may crash in the next three missions (of the 19 planned), and 20 die...<br /><br />this is the "probability law" (no one can change it)<br /><br />

 

[flameira]

"if something goes wrong, the crew aboard can't do NOTHING to save the Shuttle! "<br /><br />Wrong. If anything can do something for a doomed shuttle, it's a crew! "Adopt, adapt and improve."<br /><br />"probability law"<br /><br />Wrong again. What that law says, until now, it's that it is at most 2/114. Only with an "expendable" mindset would be 3/3.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">answers...</font><br /><br />"if something goes wrong, the crew aboard can't do NOTHING to save the Shuttle! " <br /><br />Wrong. If anything can do something for a doomed shuttle, it's a crew! "Adopt, adapt and improve." <font color="yellow">...like in Challenger and Columbia flights...</font><br /><br />"probability law" <br /><br />Wrong again. What that law says, until now, it's that it is at most 2/114. Only with an "expendable" mindset would be 3/3. <font color="yellow">ask a Roulette player, he can explain you HOW the "probability law" really works...</font>/safety_wrapper>

 

[flameira]

OK. I'll let your discussion as your shuttle: crewless.

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br />a discussion like this may has a reason to exist only if it is about the advantages, problems, costs, etc. of a CREWLESS Shuttle<br /><br />talking about a Shuttle WITH crew, can be done, but is useless, because the Shuttle WITH crew already exits!<br /><br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

1. NASA has limited funding, the money for a crewless shuttle would have to come from another program.<br /><br />2. A crewless shuutle would still cost more to launch than an ELV. A Major problem with the STS is it's the most expensive way to put a payload into space.<br /><br />3. The basic design of the STS has fundemental flaws that can't be corrected. <br /><br />There is simply no justification for keeping the Shuttle flying in any form. The sooner this program is ended the better.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">answers...</font><br /><br />"1. NASA has limited funding," <font color="yellow">not so "limited": $16 billion/year + $104 billions arriving... </font> the money for a crewless shuttle would have to come from another program. <font color="yellow">no, NASA can use (part of) the budget of the next Shuttle launch and restart from "next flight+1" </font><br /><br />2. A crewless shuttle would still cost more to launch than an ELV. A Major problem with the STS is it's the most expensive way to put a payload into space. <font color="yellow">to-day Shuttle is the ONLY way to send in orbit 25tons payloads (ISS modules, ISS supply-trash module, big intreplanetary probes, Hubble repair, etc.), no alternatives yet! The only choice is: WITH or WITHOUT crew, after conversion (read as: WITH or WITHOUT risks). After the next accident WITH crew, the Shuttle program (with only two machine and so much risk) will be CLOSED THE SAME DAY!!! (I'am sure!) then, within a few months, also the ISS (and all NASA/ESA space programs that need big payloads) will close... for TEN years!</font><font color="red"> ...I've changed my opinion about this problem... it is NOT true that (if another Shuttle WITH crew will crash) the Shuttle program will be CLOSED... of course, two Shuttles are too risky for manned missions (with only one Shuttle available for emergency missions!!!)... and NASA can't spend money to re-build a third Shuttle... but the solution is simple... NASA will convert the two Shuttle survived to operate CREWLESS........</font><br /><br />3. The basic design of the STS has fundemental flaws that can't be corrected. <font color="yellow"> ask NASA engineers, we can only have some opinions about, and, of course, I think it is possible (if it is not clear so far.........)</font><br /><br />There is simply no justification for keeping the Shuttle flying in any form. The sooner this program is ended the bette

 

[dobbins]

The money would be better spent by getting the CLV ready sooner instead of WASTING it on a system that is by far the most expensive way to deliver a payload into orbit.<br /><br />The best use for the shuttles would be selling them for scrap metal at the earliest possible date.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...the CLV ready sooner instead of WASTING it on a system..."<br /><br /><font color="yellow">all decisions are in NASA hands, I give only my opinions</font><br /><br /><br /><br />"...selling them for scrap metal..."<br /><br /><font color="yellow">but, if NASA will sell all Shuttle's parts on eBay may gain sufficient money to build some CEV-SDLV scale models to use in press conferences... (since, for the next 8 to 15 years, they will have no working "full scale" SDLV to show...)</font><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<font color="yellow">I don't understand why MANY want to dismantle the Shuttles "as soon as possible" or (best) TO-DAY!<br /><br />I don't understand why so much people are so much "excited" about the new-old-looking CEV-SDLV-Lunar program!<br /><br />The image www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/CEVpollo13.jpg synthetize WHAT (I think) may happen in 2025 if the "CEVpollo" will be REALLY made...</font><br /><br />[ this image can be freely distributed and published, but without changes ]<br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />NASA studies TWO alternative plans for the future... www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1072 <br /><br />Plan A: not 19, but only 8 new shuttle's missions (7 to ISS, for logistic purpose only, and 1 to Hubble) before Shuttle end in 2010 (but, some say may be only ONE mission, to repair Hubble, now used to locate lunar landing's sites) and stop building the ISS <br /><br />Plan B: the Shuttles continue to fly and Shuttle program will be merged with CEV-SDLV development, so, while waiting (from 7 to 10 years, or more) for rockets and capsule "economic efficiency" (and reliability), NASA don't remain without an heavy launcher for 10+ years <br /><br />avoid the 10+ years launchers shortage, is one of the reasons I've suggested to convert the old Shuttles to fly (also) CREWLESS and use for 10+ years WITHOUT risks for crews... <br /><br />simplified and revised CREWLESS Shuttle page at www.gaetanomarano.it/spaceShuttle/spaceshuttle.html <br /><br />and, in future... (may be...) the "crewless" (not "-C") Shuttle's skeptics may change their opinion... <br /><br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

"and, in future... (may be...) the "crewless" (not "-C") Shuttle's skeptics may change their opinion"<br /><br />Nope, neither time nor repeative posts can make a bad idea any better.<br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

"...repeative posts..."<br /><br />I've had discussions in many posts, I don't know WHO (users and non-users) reads the posts<br /><br /><br />"...a bad idea..."<br /><br />probably NASA will never make it... but, it is a REALISTIC project to talk and work about... with REAL adantages to restart TRUE space programs!<br /><br />the "new" lunar missions... 2018, 2020, 2025... appears so away in the future like Star Trek adventures... it is like talking about Star Wars, Millennium Falcon, Obiwan Kenobi...<br /><br />and... what lunar mission? NASA or China? if China will arrive before CEV (using a similar old-looking, but "refreshed", technology) we are talking about "nothing"...<br /><br />

 

[john_316]

Yeah lets just keep flying the Shuttle. Do absolutely nothing while in orbit and say "hello!" with $500 million a flight to nowhere obligation. So more Astronauts can push the boundries of the earth and circle the planet in large orbits and see who can rack up the most miles travelled because of something small and insignificant.<br /><br />Ok I love the shuttle too but even Navy ships and Air Force fighters are retired after a period of time. The more you load the vehicle the more stresses over time will weaken its members. Entropy has a cause and affect here too.<br /><br />The shuttles cannot goto the Moon and what else is there to do in LEO other than fly around in circles for 30 years?????????<br /><br />Dont some of you think its time to get the hell off this planet and do the things originally envisioned by our space program founders?<br /><br />I see the lack of "will" and "direction" and lack of "spirit" amongst many people at all levels of the space industry and NASA. To some of those people who lack the will its just a paycheck where those with the spirit and dedication make sacrifices everyday to achieve unobtainable goals that in the minds of many scientists and bearuacrats seem unrealistic....<br /><br />We live in a decantant "why bother" mentality today. Lets just do what we need to go and get paid and go home attitude. Where is the "Dude I wanna do that mentality" at???? Hell where is the "What if we did this and did that" mentality at as well?<br /><br />Seems like we have so much focus on job security that we will never get off the ground and if that mentality closes the doors of NASA then those people deserve pickslips. The perhaps those private folks will do more with there little ideas and plans than we ever hoped of doing with an Ad Agency....<br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />

 

[gaetanomarano]

<br /><br />"...Yeah lets just keep flying the Shuttle..."<br /><br />if you read my previous posts and the shuttle page on my website, you discover that I DON'T want to send astronauts in orbit with shuttles but to convert them to be used as a crewless cargo<br /><br /><br />without shuttles will be no heavy launcher for 10+ years<br /><br />a crewless cargo shuttle (with 28 tons payload) can ACCELERATE all space programs (also the programs you like) instead of stop them for 10+ years!<br /><br />I agree that space research and exploration MUST be made... but, with so much money to spend and so much risks to take, a "minimum" answer to the "why" question MUST be done!<br /><br />