New Vision for Space Exploration

[Chairboy]

There's a _lot_ wrong with the shuttle, but it's better than nothing.

[nirvana]

I blame the school system for my lack of knowledge of the space shuttle.  Seriously though, I mainly just ogle, I don't know much about the space vehicles.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Sandman
I'm just trying to figure out the cool part without downloading a 9mb PDF.

Glad I didnt click the link now...
I LOATH PDF files on websites

[Chairboy]

Just as an FYI, here are some problems with the shuttle:

1. The SRBs mean that the first 2.5 minutes of flight are unsurvivable if anything bad happens if staying on until SRB burnout is not an option.  Even if the Challenger crew had been told "Guys, we picked up a burnthrough, you need to get out of there" there would have been _nothing_ they could have done.

2. The design is the result of multiple compromises.  The Air Force was pushed into agreeing to use it as their sole launcher, so the cargo requirement was more than doubled over Maxime studmuffinet's original design.  Their crossrange requirements required the change to the big delta wings too.  These add weight and complexity and made the situation that led to the Columbia's destruction over Texas.

3. The engines are super hopped up, kinda like a Honda Civic pushing out 500hp versus a 454 in the same situation.  Sure, you can do it, but you're running things real hard and you need to rebuild it after moderate use.  The SSME is the Civic, and the F-1 from the Saturn V is the 454.  These engines need to be rebuilt all the time, and they're super high strung.

This plus a system that's incredible complex mechanically....  it's a marvel that there have only been two accidents.  Well, a marvel that's been helped by the crew of 10,000 people that support it.

[FiLtH]

Originally posted by Chairboy
There's a _lot_ wrong with the shuttle, but it's better than nothing.

 
   If we keep losing them, thats what we'll have.

[Ball]

Originally posted by xNOVAx

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Well yeah there's that.. But just look at the configuration of that cargo vehicle.. 4 Shuttle SRBs, 2 Shuttle Main Tanks, a Saturn V base. The thing would be able to put more than 1000 metric tons into Low Earth Orbit and 200-500 metric tons to the moon.. Incredible.

I think that the Zeppelin nose is the coolest thing about it.

[Gunslinger]

I think the thing that makes it feasable is the fact that it uses off the shelf/known technologies.  There's not too much re-invention of the wheel so to speak.

[Maverick]

If technological advances were stalled to make the changes "safe" in every event we'd still be using horses and buggies for transport. That would be true "off the shelf tech." so we don't have to worry about using "unproven technology". On one hand it would definitely be "green" but on the other hand we'd still be looking at birds with envy instead of flying ourselves.

I look at the photo in the start of the thread as a major step backwards instead of forward. There was a reason we wanted to go to resuable equipment and it's still valid today. It's far more cost effective than a one shot dispose of everything vehicle.

[Chairboy]

That's not.... entirely accurate.  The space shuttle costs $500 million (in a good year, more like $1-2 billion lately) to launch, despite being 'reusable'.  The disposable Soyuz PLUS a Proton cargo launch, which gives you roughly the same to orbit as a Shuttle mission, costs about $60 million total.

Re-usable does not magically equal better.  There has to be more to the equation.

[Rooster]

Originally posted by DiabloTX
Manned Exploration Transition (2004-2016)
Lunar Return Missions (2012-2020)
Manned Lunar Surface Missions (2016-2020)
Lunar Resource Development Utilizing Mars Class Hardware (2020-2030)
Manned Mars Missions Utilizing Lunar Resources (2024-2030)

I think that's what he's talking about.

What is kind of sad is that as a kid in the 60s those same subjects were on the board, just back date them all by 30 years.

[xNOVAx]

Originally posted by Rooster
What is kind of sad is that as a kid in the 60s those same subjects were on the board, just back date them all by 30 years.

Well their plan was to go and come home. Which they achieved fantastically, but had no real solid reason to go back. NASA then got itself stuck with the Space Shuttle and all its 'greatness,' and its sole purpose now is to finnish the ISS. Then its gone.

NASA wants to go back to the moon, not just to check things out again, but to really figure out how to stay there. And then figure out how to get to Mars....  And stay there as well.

Lots more going on nowdays and huge technical obsticals to make this happen.

[RTR]

Well said Mav.

I am a child of the 60's and remember watching Neil Armstrong set foot on the Moon (My Dad bought a TV specifically for that reason, so we could watch history being made).

Given todays unwillingness to take risk and put it back 37 years, we would never have seen man walk on the Moon.

The Shuttle was a great idea, but it never became what it could have been (or was originally thought out to be).  $$ get cut.

cheers,
RTR