Author Topic: Discovery orbiter (Read 2002 times)

Hangtime · « **Reply #60 on:** August 01, 2005, 12:58:25 PM »

ahh.

Damn, ain't there something we can use the shuttles for.. besides 5 bucks a head walk past carnie exibits?

*sigh*

Was awful proud of them things.. dinosaurs now, but once upon a time.. man's hope for space. Shame to chuck 'em in a dumpster.

Leslie · « **Reply #61 on:** August 01, 2005, 01:16:08 PM »

I think the original protocol was having a space ready vehicle on hand for rescue efforts. I don't know if this is the SOP these days, but it was during the moon missions and early shuttle missions. Every space mission had an equal capability vehicle on hand at all times expressly for that purpose.

Les

FalconSix · « **Reply #62 on:** August 01, 2005, 01:28:33 PM »

I don't think so Leslie. At least the Apollo missions were "you're on your own" missions. I think Apollo 13 demonstrated that clearly.

Leslie · « **Reply #63 on:** August 01, 2005, 01:44:23 PM »

A Saturn 1 rocket was fitted for that but never used. It had a 6 man seating configuration in the capsule, and was designed to go to the moon.

The Apollo 13 astronauts didn't ask for it, and turned out they didn't need it. But it was there if needed.

Les

rshubert · « **Reply #64 on:** August 01, 2005, 02:07:08 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Hangtime
ahh.

Damn, ain't there something we can use the shuttles for.. besides 5 bucks a head walk past carnie exibits?

*sigh*

Was awful proud of them things.. dinosaurs now, but once upon a time.. man's hope for space. Shame to chuck 'em in a dumpster.

Back in the day when they were designing and deploying the shuttles, there were those in and out of NASA that said that the shuttle would SET BACK the exploration of space due to its cost, its limited orbital height, and NASA's concentration on "one system fits all".

It seems they were right. We are stuck with an impressive acheivement that gets us nowhere. The russians are right to not depend on a reuseable system, and we should get with the program.

Why not a non-aerodynamic reuseable system based on the shuttle's engines and boosters? Getting rid of the wings, most of the tiles, and a lot of other aerodynamic bs could give us a true heavy boost system, that would allow us to take heavier loads to higher orbits cheaper.

Chairboy · « **Reply #65 on:** August 01, 2005, 02:33:11 PM »

Rshubert, you've just described the SDLV (Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle). Here's a link to an article I wrote about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLV

As you can see, this is a subject about which I have a passing familiarity.

DiabloTX · « **Reply #66 on:** August 01, 2005, 02:52:02 PM »

This guy had it all figured out WAYYYYY before NASA did.

Raider179 · « **Reply #67 on:** August 01, 2005, 03:18:56 PM »

Would it be possible to automate the shuttle (making it cargo only) and use the Soyuz for people? Take out all the life support and living quarters and whatnot and make it strictly cargo.

FalconSix · « **Reply #68 on:** August 01, 2005, 03:31:19 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Would it be possible to automate the shuttle (making it cargo only) and use the Soyuz for people? Take out all the life support and living quarters and whatnot and make it strictly cargo.

Sure, but why would you want to? Carrying people+cargo is the only thing the shuttle's got going for it. Cargo alone can be launched a LOT cheaper using conventional rockets like the Delta or Ariane.

CyranoAH · « **Reply #69 on:** August 01, 2005, 03:39:45 PM »

The ESA is designing the ATV as an automated supply ship, and it should be ready before 2010 I believe. The CRV is under way as well.

ATV

CRV

Daniel

Chairboy · « **Reply #70 on:** August 01, 2005, 03:48:29 PM »

If you include the Ariane, then you gotta mention the Proton. High reliability, low cost, mature design, the Proton has it all. It can carry more cargo to orbit then the Shuttle, costs a fraction of a shuttle launch, and has a good record going back almost 40 years. Gotta like it.

If you want to stick with US built stuff, stick around to see what happens with the EELV. It has the potential to offer lower costs per lb of heavy lift cargo to orbit, but as the Shuttle has shown, 'potential' doesn't mean 'guarentee'.

Take, for instance, the Titan IV. The Titan IV was built to carry shuttle designed payloads to polar orbits following the Air Forces withdrawal from the shuttle program following Challenger (and the sensible decision to take all the eggs out of the single national launching basket).

They took the mature Titan family design, which is a liquid fueled sustainer (as of the Titan IIIC, it had strapon solid boosters) and upgrade it to carry Hubble size spy satellites into orbit. Great plan, sounds like it should be cheap, right? Well...

I'm not sure how it happened, but development and contracts got a bit messed up. By the time it started launching (without blowing up, a significant milestone for the Titan IV and Ariane 5 for some reason), it was carrying cargo to orbit for MORE then the shuttle cost. That's right, the Titan IV will forever be known to many as the rocket that made the shuttle look economical.

Fast forward, the last Titan IV has been built. The US military has put their money behind a new generation launcher that should be able to lob all sizes of payloads for cheap. Two contractors are building them to foster competition so that prices will stay in control. So far, brilliant.

....then someone decides that if TWO companies are good, ONE company will be EVEN BETTER! So the market price controls have just gone out the window. Potentially, the EELV could be the cats pajamas for unmanned US defense launches and whatnot.

....but don't hold your breath.

Anyhow... the Proton has a colorful history. Yeah, a few have blown up over the last four decades, but for the cost, it's hard to beat. When launching unmanned cargo, Proton wins Chairboy's #1 Best Value Launcher(t) with a score of 4 Laika's.

BTW, the X-38 derived CRV program has been cancelled. More likely that the CEV will be used as a lifeboat, unless Kliper gets off the ground in Russia.

Raider179 · « **Reply #71 on:** August 01, 2005, 04:00:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FalconSix
Sure, but why would you want to? Carrying people+cargo is the only thing the shuttle's got going for it. Cargo alone can be launched a LOT cheaper using conventional rockets like the Delta or Ariane.

Yeah but you cant haul up new sections of ISS with those.

Chairboy · « **Reply #72 on:** August 01, 2005, 04:13:57 PM »

Technically, the entire station could be built without the shuttle. The Russian Proton booster was used to carry up most of the heavy units, like Zarya (the core module), and the entire Mir station was built using Protons. The reason? Because the Soviet designers invested in automatic docking technologies earlier.

ISS has the same docking system that Mir did (KURS) which uses radio telemetry, photogrammetry, and has an available manual override to dock station components or cargo vehicles without the need for any canadarms.

If the Shuttle disapeared overnight, and Congress authorized spending a bunch of money on foreign aerospace (not terribly likely), Protons could carry up the rest. The modules would need lots of modification, but it's possible, even feasible, except for the money thing.

The Shuttle was designed for missions that never really panned out. The state of the art back in the 1970s was 'beamjacks' working out in orbit, using recoilless rivet guns and socket wrenches to hook hundred meter long structural frameworks together. It was for missions where you'd have shuttle external tanks lashed together and turned into zero-G research stations with square miles of solar panels providing all the power needed to refine crystals and do research.

The most significant design decision was the big delta wings. Maxime studmuffinet, the lead designer of Mercury, Gemini, and so on, was advocating a smaller, stubby winged shuttle, but the DoD had to sign onto the Shuttle band wagon following congressional pressure to have a one-size-fits-all launch vehicle that would 'obsolete our need for non-reusable launchers'. As a result, the Shuttle had a 1,600 mile cross range requirement added, which mandated big wings, and a 60 foot payload bay requirement (which mandated big space ship).

It was built for missions that never appeared, and not flown as often as designed, and not replaced on schedule, as intended. It's a great research vehicle (like the X-15) that someone decided to put into production as a workhorse.

FalconSix · « **Reply #73 on:** August 01, 2005, 05:30:40 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Raider179
Yeah but you cant haul up new sections of ISS with those.

The Energiya rocket could carry the shuttle and it's cargo, to say nothing of 100 tons into low earth orbit, 32 tons to the moon or even 28 tons to mars or venus.

Chairboy · « **Reply #74 on:** August 01, 2005, 05:33:01 PM »

Yeah, except that the Energiya and Saturn V both have about the same chances of flying again.

The only part of Energiya that'll keep flying is the Zenit rocket, which were designed to be the auxillary boosters. The Saturn V, similarily, spawned the J-2 rocket engine (used for upper stages) that is still alive and well in other applications.