Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Boroda on July 29, 2005, 09:48:20 PM
-
I have heard rumours that here we have a hysterically-swift preparation for at least 3 Soyuz spaceship launches. I have heard this from 3 different sources that have absolutely no connection, and all three are not from Internet.
Rescue operation?
Space Shuttle autonomy is 14 days IIRC?
If they'll burn Discovery - it will mean a huge step back in space exploration :( I hope it's only a rumour :(
-
Originally posted by Boroda
If they'll burn Discovery - it will mean a huge step back in space exploration :( I hope it's only a rumour :(
Yes its a setback for future exploration but late generation "Soyuz" (manned capsule) and "Progress" (cargo) should keep the ISS alive and well.
According to my "guestimates", 3 simultaneus lanuch of Soyuz rockets cost as much as launching a space shuttle.
EDIT: The shuttle cost 30x more than launching a "Soyuz"!
-
btw where the heck is our shuttle replacement??????
NASA and Lockheed really fudged up the so-called X-33 programme.
The X-33 was supposed to replace the aging space shuttle. The Space Shuttle costs somewhere around $600 million dollars per launch, which is 30 times more than costs which are associated with the comparatively safer Russian Soyuz rocket that took Dennis Tito and a crew of two other cosmonauts to the lone remaining international space station back in April of 2001. Peculiarities emerged from how NASA handled the X-33 program, such as its controversially having awarded the entire contract to one lone provider (Lockheed Martin) back in 1996, here in a country where competition usually is the chosen path. The X-33 also involved a lot of unproven, "high risk" technologies that predictably did not yield worthwhile dividends. It was almost as if decision-makers did not want the X-33 to succeed and thereby bring down the cost of launching from the $10,000 per pound that taxpayers pay to launch people on the Space Shuttle. Coincidentally, perhaps, Lockheed also operates the Space Shuttle (through its United Space Alliance joint venture with Boeing).
It is worth noting that aerospace companies' government contracting profits are presently still based on a "cost plus" system. In other words, government contractors are compensated for the costs of what they produce for the government, and they also receive an additional percentage of the gross sales price. This percentage gives them something resembling what's known as a profit in far more capitalistic systems. The higher the costs, the bigger the "profits".
more on http://www.spaceprojects.com/x33/
-
Originally posted by 1K3
Yes its a setback for future exploration but late generation "Soyuz" (manned capsule) and "Progress" (cargo) should keep the ISS alive and well.
The problem is that we don't have enough Soyuz vessels on conwayor. Technological cycle is about 2 years IIRC. :(
And I worry about the people on Discovery. If they'll be evacuated by Soyuz "life-boats" - they have 14 days, maybe more. One Soyuz can take three cosmonauts down, but it needs a trained pilot, so - only two passengers.
Rumours I mentioned said that experienced pilots including Vladimir Dzhanibekov who docked with an uncontrolled Salyut-7 station are called from "reserve".
I may only hope that a situation is not that dramatic.
Originally posted by 1K3
According to my "guestimates", 3 simultaneus lanuch of Soyuz rockets cost as much as launching a space shuttle.
It's not true, it's much cheaper. 1kg delivered to orbit by Soyuz is 10 times cheaper then by Space Shuttle.
Hmm. I don't know how many R-7 launch tables we have at Baikonur, and noone to ask - my Father is on a vacation in Kislovodsk now :( There are launch facilities at Kapustin Yar (near Volgograd [former Stalingrad]) and Plesetsk, but Plesetsk is used for launches to polar orbits, and there were no manned launches from KapYar...
-
Originally posted by Boroda
The problem is that we don't have enough Soyuz vessels on conwayor. Technological cycle is about 2 years IIRC. :(
And I worry about the people on Discovery. If they'll be evacuated by Soyuz "life-boats" - they have 14 days, maybe more. One Soyuz can take three cosmonauts down, but it needs a trained pilot, so - only two passengers.
Rumours I mentioned said that experienced pilots including Vladimir Dzhanibekov who docked with an uncontrolled Salyut-7 station are called from "reserve".
I may only hope that a situation is not that dramatic.
It's not true, it's much cheaper. 1kg delivered to orbit by Soyuz is 10 times cheaper then by Space Shuttle.
Hmm. I don't know how many R-7 launch tables we have at Baikonur, and noone to ask - my Father is on a vacation in Kislovodsk now :( There are launch facilities at Kapustin Yar (near Volgograd [former Stalingrad]) and Plesetsk, but Plesetsk is used for launches to polar orbits, and there were no manned launches from KapYar...
I read today on MSNBC that there was a varitable "scavenger hunt" going on in discovery today. They were getting anything of life sustaining value that discovery could share off the orbiter and onto the ISS. The article summed it up as basically they arent going to get resupplied for a while. I read into it as Discovery is "stuck" there.
-
...Not to mention that there have been no manned Soyuz launches from Plesetsk yet. Future manned launches from there are supposed to be carried up by Zenit rockets anyhow, so no infrastructure in place.
Second, there's no need to have a pilot aboard the Soyuz, the spacecraft can fly and dock automatically, after all, they have the KURS system, which only fails when a cash bonus is available to the Cosmonaut for 'fixing' a messed up docking approach. :D
So each Soyuz can bring down 3 passengers, no pilot needed for the way up.
Finally, there's no immediate countdown, the Shuttle crew could hang out at the ISS for a while, as long as there's Progress resupply.
It'll sure be nice when the European ATV comes online. The Progress is great, but getting some more supplies per shot would be nice.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I read today on MSNBC that there was a varitable "scavenger hunt" going on in discovery today. They were getting anything of life sustaining value that discovery could share off the orbiter and onto the ISS. The article summed it up as basically they arent going to get resupplied for a while. I read into it as Discovery is "stuck" there.
I've been listening to the feeds from NASA, and that's not what it sounds like yet. They've added another day to the mission to do more work on ISS, yeah, but I'm not convinced they're about to chuck the shuttle.
I sure hope they don't, that would be a terrible waste.
-
L A Times link (http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-na-shuttle30jul30,0,2030565.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
HOUSTON -- In their first interview from space, astronauts aboard the shuttle Discovery said Friday they were disappointed to learn that large pieces of insulating foam fell off the orbiter's external tank during Tuesday's launch, but remained confident the orbiter is safe enough to fly them home in another week.
"All of us on the crew were very surprised" about the foam loss "after so many good people have worked so hard" to solve the problem, said mission specialist Andrew Thomas.
"It wasn't what we expected," said Discovery commander Eileen Collins.
That didn't shake her faith in the shuttle. "We know Discovery is going to get us back to Earth safe," she said.
Engineers also grappled Friday with another problem that has surfaced with the shuttle: two protruding gap fillers between heat-resistant tiles on the underside of the orbiter.
Each of the gap fillers, which perform the same type of function as caulking between bathroom tiles, is sticking out about 1.2 inches.
NASA managers said they were considering, but had not yet decided, to send a space walking astronaut out to cut or shave the gap fillers.
One problem that seriously concerned space agency earlier in the week, a chipped insulating tile near the landing gear door, seemed to recede in importance Friday when engineers figured out that the damage was only a third of an inch deep. The tiles in that area are almost two inches thick.
While feeling confident that Discovery was not seriously damaged during launch, NASA officials said they will know for certain by Saturday or Sunday at the latest if Discovery is safe to fly home.
That decision will come after reviewing all the pictures, sensor data from the wings and laser images taken with the boom sensor Friday.
The temporary halt in future shuttle flights prompted a request that the crew's 13-day mission be extended one day to allow further transfers of equipment and supplies to the space station to prepare the facility for a protracted delay in the resumption of shuttle flights.
Sounds like it's not nearly as bad as it could have been. After the spacewalk we should know if it's serious. I think she'll RTB safely.
-
Its a cool concept..but its gotta die sometime. How many astronauts are onboard? If more than 2-3 why?..for a first run after the last tragedy?
I would think that a cargo box, with a small re-entry vehicle, strapped to engines would make alot more sense than holding on with pride, something that has already proved itself unreliable and unsafe.
-
It isn't that the space shuttle itself is unsafe, it's that NASA has been screwing the pooch on safety for about 25 years now. Neither of the shuttle accidents were due to the design of the shuttle itself, but rather seperate component failures that would easily have been prevented had certain people been doing their job. The o-rings were a known problem, engineers at Morton Thiokol told their superiors and NASA both not to launch at those low temperatures. Arrogance and stupidity prevailed. Same thing with the foam. The foam wasn't a problem until some genius:rolleyes: at NASA decided to use a more expensive, more "environmentally friendly":rolleyes: foam, when NASA could have gotten a waiver. Again, arrogance and stupidity prevailed. They're STILL using the "new":rolleyes: foam, and STILL having problems they didn't have before.
Yes, the space shuttle is old technology, and yes we should be flying something better. But, had the morons not gotten stupid and arrogant, the shuttle would likely have a clean record, instead of two tragedies that could have been easily prevented.
-
Damn, if only you and your rolleyes emoticons had been at the helm of NASA over the years, Virgil, nothing would have EVAR gone wrong!
-
I wish. The space program is something I believe in, and it pisses me off to see them do stupid things that get people killed when it just shouldn't happen. Those shuttle disasters were not unforseen, they knew a problem existed, and they knew the risks were excessive and unnecessary.
But the fact remains, what happened was stupid, they knew they had problems and they ignored them. There are risks, and there are stupid risks. It's the stupid ones that got people killed in this case.
All they had to do was wait until the temperature came up, no Challenger disaster. Same thing with the foam. They knew better. It's one thing to take a risk that you can't control. To take a risk over something you can control is inexcusable.
-
They also have to look how old the space shuttles we are using now are and it maybe time to build either a new design or build more shuttles of the design we are using now.
-
The sad thing is the prototype replacement was 85% complete when cancelled in 2001. NASA cancelled every replacement project in 2001. Now we have a aging dangerous vehicle and have to start from scratch..so we are looking at like probrably 10 years before a replacement is ready.
-
Virgil, can you cite a source for the foam thing?
-
Actually, what I heard is that they changed the foam from the one they had to a cheaper one, not more expensive.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Virgil, can you cite a source for the foam thing?
I'm not Virgil, but search google for "shuttle columbia foam freon" or something like that. Here's one news article on it:
link (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77832,00.html)
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
..so we are looking at like probrably 10 years before a replacement is ready.
Yes, first flight of CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) is scheduled for 2014.
Two major teams, one headed by Lockheed Martin and one by Northrop Grumman and Boeing, are competing. The winner will be chosen in 2008.
Lockheed has already unveiled its project...
Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) Procurement (http://exploration.nasa.gov/acquisition/cev_procurement.html)
-
I just thaught of something.
It'd be interesting if the Govt threw $1billion at Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites and see what they come up with.
I'd bet they come up with something pretty interesting in a fairly short amount of time. Alot of their research has allready been done and they don't have the tremendous overhead that Lockheed/Boeing have that sucks alot of the dollars out of Govt Contracts.
-
Thought about that as well... but I fear Rutan & co. lack the knowledge of space flight in order to come up with something that can present a real alternative.
Sub-orbital is one step, but going orbital is a whole different league. I believe Rutan himself acknowledged that in an interview.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by CyranoAH
Thought about that as well... but I fear Rutan & co. lack the knowledge of space flight in order to come up with something that can present a real alternative.
Sub-orbital is one step, but going orbital is a whole different league. I believe Rutan himself acknowledged that in an interview.
Daniel
Good point but,
One would think that with funding he could "hire" that knowledge.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
Good point but,
One would think that with funding he could "hire" that knowledge.
Hmm perhaps, but I think he regards himself as a maverick of aerospace engineering... I bet he has received offers from the main companies in the sector, but he wants to remain an independent with restricted budgets...
I think it's like asking the designer of the best piston-engine aerobatic airplane of the world to design a jetliner. He surely could, but he would lack a lot of hands-on knowledge.
Hiring him as an external consultant? I bet they've already done that :)
Daniel
-
Getting into orbit isn't that big a deal in comparison to what Rutan's already accomplished. I have no doubt that if he put his mind to it he'd be able to design something to get up there. It's the getting back down part where it gets a little tricky.
asw
-
Originally posted by detch01
Getting into orbit isn't that big a deal in comparison to what Rutan's already accomplished.
All he needs to do is design a system that will achieve a payload with 60 times the energy of SS1 to acheive an orbital velocity.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
All he needs to do is design a system that will achieve a payload with 60 times the energy of SS1 to acheive an orbital velocity.
I don't see that being an insurmountable problem for Rutan who is one of the most inventive aerospace engineers in the US today and his company is one of the most successful and capable independent aerospace prototype shops in the world.
I doubt SS1 would survive a launch into orbit, let alone space flight or re-entry. But then it wasn't designed for it, was it?
asw
-
Not insurmountable, but certainly a big deal.
Rutan is working on it.
According to Space.com,
One gets the feeling that in restricted niches of the Mojave Spaceport here, work is already underway on bigger and better spaceships. Asked directly about that prospect, Rutan is quick with a “no comment” that comes wrapped in a guarded smile.
“You think this is cool?” Rutan asked, pointing to the freshly flown SpaceShipOne. “Wait 'til you see SpaceShipTwo ... it is erotic,” he added, alluding to the smooth lines of a craft that would seem tangible and touchable - not a minds-eye image of vaporware.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I have heard rumours that here we have a hysterically-swift preparation for at least 3 Soyuz spaceship launches. I have heard this from 3 different sources that have absolutely no connection, and all three are not from Internet.
Rescue operation?
Space Shuttle autonomy is 14 days IIRC?
If they'll burn Discovery - it will mean a huge step back in space exploration :( I hope it's only a rumour :(
I think this is response to grounding of the remaining shuttles. A week after Discovery's launch, another shuttle was supposed to go up as a possible rescue vehicle. It was said then that the Russians would then prepare some Soyuz capsules in the event there was trouble. The fall back plan in case the Discovery got into trouble was to dock with the space station and the Soyuz capsulse when then arrive with supplies until a rescue vehicle(s) can be sufficiently prepared.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Not insurmountable, but certainly a big deal.
Rutan is working on it.
According to Space.com,
I think SpaceShip Two is just a bigger version of SS One, designed to carry more passengers per flight. I don't think he'll consider orbital flight until affordable suborbital flight is achieved, which was the goal of the Ansari X-Prize in the first place.
Daniel
-
Originally posted by Ack-Ack
I think this is response to grounding of the remaining shuttles. A week after Discovery's launch, another shuttle was supposed to go up as a possible rescue vehicle. It was said then that the Russians would then prepare some Soyuz capsules in the event there was trouble. The fall back plan in case the Discovery got into trouble was to dock with the space station and the Soyuz capsulse when then arrive with supplies until a rescue vehicle(s) can be sufficiently prepared.
I imagine two Shuttles docked to ISS... Or they'll abandon Discovery? Is ISS life-support system capable of withstanding 9 people aboard? As a resupply ship - Progress is cheaper and brings more payload.
As I said above - it's all very sad. :(
Launching 3-4 Soyuz to rescue missions will probably mean that ISS will have to be conservated like Skylab :(
Why did they launch Discovery with a crew of 7 astronauts? Isn't the minimal crew only 2 people?
-
When it's time to retire them, boost the shuttles to high orbit and leave 'em with the space station. Handy-dandy mars or moon trans orbital exploration vehicles.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I imagine two Shuttles docked to ISS... Or they'll abandon Discovery? Is ISS life-support system capable of withstanding 9 people aboard? As a resupply ship - Progress is cheaper and brings more payload.
As I said above - it's all very sad. :(
Launching 3-4 Soyuz to rescue missions will probably mean that ISS will have to be conservated like Skylab :(
Why did they launch Discovery with a crew of 7 astronauts? Isn't the minimal crew only 2 people?
I think it was mentioned that if another shuttle had to go up to rescue the Discovery, they would attempt to see if repairs could be made that would allow the Discovery to return. I don't recall seeing it mentioned what would happen to the Discovery if they failed and couldn't repair it.
ack-ack
-
Originally posted by Boroda
As a resupply ship - Progress is cheaper and brings more payload.
It may be cheaper, but it definitely does NOT bring more payload.
-
I think perhaps Boroda was confused and meant to say 'Proton' instead of 'Progress'.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
When it's time to retire them, boost the shuttles to high orbit and leave 'em with the space station. Handy-dandy mars or moon trans orbital exploration vehicles.
Hope they do somthing like that.... would be a waste to throw them in a Houston museum. The only problem in function I see is tile damage- which is a reentry problem.......If they end up doing this in a few years they will defently need alot of modification for a moon mission etc.....
I think a null point space station would be a good idea as well. A space station in the null of gravity between the earth and moon.
After that we should go grab a big rock from the belt and coax it into a high earth orbit.....hollow it secure the outside airtight and balance.....set to uniform spin for 'gravity'
Make a bio-dome inside..... nuclear powered, and lighted.
Instant system cruiser! Hell... a thing like that might be able to make a run for Alpha Centari
and then.... like this guys says
"I don't think I'm alone when I say I'd like to see more and more planets fall under the ruthless domination of our solar system."
-
I read somewhere , a year ago or so, that with the money pumped into Iraq war man could have flown to Mars 4 times... Think about how good shuttle you could have with that money..
No offense intended, but thinking that we use more money on destroying things and lives that building stuff ect.. we are srewed.
-
It has been thus throught history. Ask Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great.
-
Originally posted by rpm
It may be cheaper, but it definitely does NOT bring more payload.
It does bring more payload because it doesn't have a re-entry capsule and other equipment that's nessesary on Soyuz.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I think perhaps Boroda was confused and meant to say 'Proton' instead of 'Progress'.
We had unmanned transport ships launched by Proton launch vehicle, Almaz, some of them even had a re-entry capsule that looked like Apollo conic command module but had a hatch in a bottom. Imagine a 20-ton cargo ship with a re-entry capsule capable to return several tons back to Earth...
I think Skylab was a great disappointment. 350 cubic meters compared to 80 at Salyut/Mir... 77 tons compared to 20+ IIRC (too lazy to check sources). A trouble at launch, a strange position for a second "emergency" docking unit, and a catastrophe in 1979... Couldn't Apollo ships lift it's orbit? Apollo command module has several times more power then Soyuz, and yet Soviet stations remained in orbit for decades, using Soyuz engines to change orbit. I wish there were some Saturn-V launchers availible still, a 100 ton main space station module could be a great improvement, Americans preparing a launch and Russians making all life support systems.
I'd prefer to see news from space rather then more reports from Iraq or Caucasus.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I imagine two Shuttles docked to ISS... Or they'll abandon Discovery? Is ISS life-support system capable of withstanding 9 people aboard? As a resupply ship - Progress is cheaper and brings more payload.
Payload of Progress M: 2,350 kg, Progress M1: 2,230-3,200 kg
Payload of Shuttle: 29,500 kg
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Payload of Progress M: 2,350 kg, Progress M1: 2,230-3,200 kg
Payload of Shuttle: 29,500 kg
I meant that Progress brings more payload then Soyuz. Sometimes I post here severely drunk, sorry :(
"Capacity" of a life-support system is limited by many things, like oxygen prodiction unit power, CO2 adsorbers and the ventilation system productivity. And other stuff like humidity control, other gases (not only CO2 is dangerous), etc.
Bringing 30 tons of supplies and equipment may be not enough to solve a problem of sustaining life for 9 cosmonauts. And I think they didn't bring the full load - 30 tons is a limit to the lowest orbit and maybe with 2 pilots aboard. I may be mistaken.
Unfortunately we return to "romantic age" of Cosmonautics from comfortable "passenger flights" :(
-
Originally posted by LLv34 Jarsci
I read somewhere , a year ago or so, that with the money pumped into Iraq war man could have flown to Mars 4 times... Think about how good shuttle you could have with that money..
No offense intended, but thinking that we use more money on destroying things and lives that building stuff ect.. we are srewed.
Think about how much good could we do with the money pissed away every year on welfare and on goverment mandated crap.
-
See Rule #5
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
See Rule #5
And that needs to change. :p
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
See Rule #5
Surely you are jesting. It helps as much as forcing Indians into reservations and keeping them there uneducated and poor, but dependent on the government that "feeds" them.
Plantation approach.
-
See Rule #6
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
When it's time to retire them, boost the shuttles to high orbit and leave 'em with the space station. Handy-dandy mars or moon trans orbital exploration vehicles.
Shuttles can't go to the moon from Earth. Not designed for it.
Moon shuttles would be ungainly looking things without wings, ugly compared to the space shuttle design. They would require no areodynamic design at all. Probably could look like a couple very large beer cans joined together on top of a (sturdy) card table (with rocket nozzles sticking out the bottom.)
A rocket with enough power to boost a Mars mission as launched in the traditional way from terra firma, would have to be as big as the Empire State Bldg. It would need to be built in space and it would have to be about that big either way if launched from orbit. Maybe using traditional rockets is the way to do it. Would take a lot of rockets and personel.
Sounds impossible and probably is. When Werner von Braun told President Kennedy NASA could go to the moon and back, the engineers' jaws dropped. They were put on the spot big time. They didn't think it was possible at the time, but von Braun proved them wrong. I'm afraid without men of vision like von Braun leading the way, it may not be done again.
Les
-
man i hope all the astronauts come back safe home, i really dont
understand all this problems with the shuttle this days. They where
flying this machine for years without any doubt and today
everything changed into a surviving question :confused:
-
They'll make it back OK. It's just that the shuttle design never was meant to last forever. It was a temporary and highly advanced solution to the needs at the time.
The idea is good - reusable main engines, but there are so many other things involved, it is too complex to be a long term shuttle access to space.
Take the idea of tiles. Numerous tiles have fallen off the shuttle before and it made it back. They've fallen off from the very beginning. Leading wing edge tiles are the most important. If they're in place, you're good to go. I wouldn't worry about it unless that was the case. I think those tiles on the bottom are positioned so they deflect heat even if a few are missing. Some of those tiles are redundant tiles (they have tiles underneath them.)
Les
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
See Rule #5
Hey! I wasn't flaming anyone or "posting to annoy". :(
-
Originally posted by Leslie
Shuttles can't go to the moon from Earth. Not designed for it.
Moon shuttles would be ungainly looking things without wings, ugly compared to the space shuttle design. They would require no areodynamic design at all. Probably could look like a couple very large beer cans joined together on top of a (sturdy) card table (with rocket nozzles sticking out the bottom.)
A rocket with enough power to boost a Mars mission as launched in the traditional way from terra firma, would have to be as big as the Empire State Bldg. It would need to be built in space and it would have to be about that big either way if launched from orbit. Maybe using traditional rockets is the way to do it. Would take a lot of rockets and personel.
Sounds impossible and probably is. When Werner von Braun told President Kennedy NASA could go to the moon and back, the engineers' jaws dropped. They were put on the spot big time. They didn't think it was possible at the time, but von Braun proved them wrong. I'm afraid without men of vision like von Braun leading the way, it may not be done again.
Les
Enh? Now yer thinking like a flatlander. The shuttle is mans first true spaceship. It's a BIG mutha, It's got an OMS system, and it's cargo bay can be pressurised. If it's already in orbit docked at the station materials, supplies and fuel can be boosted to it, and it can be modified right in orbit for trans lunar and trans mars trucking jobs. A martian lander or lunar lander module could easily be either attached or toted in the cargo bay. They can also be launched 'light' and keep the big btank, tote them up to the station. The tanks can be refuled there or used for any number of things including *gasp* tanks for the fuel needed for the mars missions.
It was desigined as a space truck.... why not use it?
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
It was desigined as a space truck.... why not use it?
They keep falling apart with people in them. We need something better. The shuttle was really designed before the technology was mature enough, even simple rocket capsules are safer and cheaper as the russians and french have shown us.
And I have to disagree with you on the shuttle being a space ship. It's only a shuttle orbiter as its name suggests. The first and so far only manned spaceship is the Apollo rocket. It's the only manned craft ever to travel beyond low earth orbit.
-
Yeah, some serious problems with the idea of using the shuttle to go to the moon/mars.
1. The SSME is not designed to be restarted. Getting a big turbopump like that going in space is a big challenge.
2. Assuming you take care of #1, you need to add ullage motors to the Shuttle/ET stack to get the fuel pushed down against the feeds until SSME thrust is high enough. You might be able to use the OMS for this, but you're going to have a real problem keeping the off-center thrust from putting the stack into a forward pitch roll.
3. There are no fuel carriers in the inventory for bringing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in sufficient quantity up to refuel the ET enough to provide the impulse needed to go to the moon. You would need to create a new rocket designed to carry a heavy and bulky payload of fuel up (LH^2 takes up a LOT of space for given mass).
4. Assuming 1-3 is fixed, now you need a way to transfer fuel/oxidizer to the ET. There's no gravity, so you can't just pump it, and you'd need a system that wouldn't weigh too much or else you can't carry it up. Let's say that you dock with the ET stack and set up a slow spin so you use gravity to force the fuel/O2 down to the intake holes, and that somehow you've managed to create a method for pumping it from one tank to another. Better yet, assume that instead of taking the ET up to orbit, your fuel carrier is its own tank with the same locking points that can attach to the SSME right where the ET was, that way you don't have to do a complicated refueling.
5. Which brings us to another problem, getting the two to dock in orbit. There's no automation, not docking systems that are designed to do this. You would need to jack the two together and hope that someone can get between the OV and the tank to hook up the attachment points. I've seen that space, it's not very big, but it has to be hooked up strong because the SSMEs can't be throttled down very far, so it has to hold against many G's of thrust.
6. Assuming 1-5 is magically taken care of, now you have a small cabin attached to about 100 tons of structure that's designed to handle re-entry to the earth's atmosphere. You're dragging along tons of excess mass in the form of wings, heat shields, vertical stabilizers, landing gear, etc. For every kilo of mass you carry, you need like 10 kilos of fuel. So we're talking multiple launches of fuel tanks, each atop multi-hundred million dollar EELVs. The cost, at this point, it passing $5 billion.
7. Don't forget your martian lander. You can't just pull a lunar lander out of the Smithsonian, hook up a laptop to the control system and top off the tanks. You need a completely new vehicle. Since we're not doing Zubrin's Mars Direct, there's no fuel factory waiting for us on Mars, so the lander has to be able to carry enough fuel to launch back to orbit. One third earth gravity and lower air pressure, sure, but still, a lot of fuel.
8. Assume that 1-7 have magically been solved. You now have an environmental system on the shuttle that was designed for missions of up to a week, maybe as much as three weeks with the extended stay module. The shuttle uses fuel cells that convert liquid oxygen to power and water, so you need enough O2 go juice to last the whole trip. If you don't, then you're betting that your APUs and fuel cells will fire up again after months of cold soak. Hope you bought a lotto ticket, because if you live to check it, it's gotta be a winner.
9. Assuming 1-8 have resolved themselves. You need a method to aerobrake at Mars while holding onto your fuel tank. After all, you need to come back to Earth, right? So your fuel tank cluster now needs to have heat shielding.
I could keep going, but I have to get back to work.
PS, the cargo bay cannot be pressurized.
-
FalconSix, yer missing the point.
instead of leaving them in museums, leave them in space. Use them there.
they are 'trucks'. use 'em as such for point to point (in space) delivery of men and materials.
And apollo was not a true 'spaceship'. just a complicated stack of modules chucked into orbit, only one of which returned via parachute.
Using the shuttles permanantly based in orbit to haul modules around between lunar and mars orbits should be a bit more efficient than an apollo style stack it all on one rocket system.. the mission can be staged from the space station.. which was why we wanted a space station to begin with.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Yeah, some serious problems with the idea of using the shuttle to go to the moon/mars.
1. The SSME is not designed to be restarted. Getting a big turbopump like that going in space is a big challenge.
2. Assuming you take care of #1, you need to add ullage motors to the Shuttle/ET stack to get the fuel pushed down against the feeds until SSME thrust is high enough. You might be able to use the OMS for this, but you're going to have a real problem keeping the off-center thrust from putting the stack into a forward pitch roll.
3. There are no fuel carriers in the inventory for bringing liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen in sufficient quantity up to refuel the ET enough to provide the impulse needed to go to the moon. You would need to create a new rocket designed to carry a heavy and bulky payload of fuel up (LH^2 takes up a LOT of space for given mass).
4. Assuming 1-3 is fixed, now you need a way to transfer fuel/oxidizer to the ET. There's no gravity, so you can't just pump it, and you'd need a system that wouldn't weigh too much or else you can't carry it up. Let's say that you dock with the ET stack and set up a slow spin so you use gravity to force the fuel/O2 down to the intake holes, and that somehow you've managed to create a method for pumping it from one tank to another. Better yet, assume that instead of taking the ET up to orbit, your fuel carrier is its own tank with the same locking points that can attach to the SSME right where the ET was, that way you don't have to do a complicated refueling.
5. Which brings us to another problem, getting the two to dock in orbit. There's no automation, not docking systems that are designed to do this. You would need to jack the two together and hope that someone can get between the OV and the tank to hook up the attachment points. I've seen that space, it's not very big, but it has to be hooked up strong because the SSMEs can't be throttled down very far, so it has to hold against many G's of thrust.
6. Assuming 1-5 is magically taken care of, now you have a small cabin attached to about 100 tons of structure that's designed to handle re-entry to the earth's atmosphere. You're dragging along tons of excess mass in the form of wings, heat shields, vertical stabilizers, landing gear, etc. For every kilo of mass you carry, you need like 10 kilos of fuel. So we're talking multiple launches of fuel tanks, each atop multi-hundred million dollar EELVs. The cost, at this point, it passing $5 billion.
7. Don't forget your martian lander. You can't just pull a lunar lander out of the Smithsonian, hook up a laptop to the control system and top off the tanks. You need a completely new vehicle. Since we're not doing Zubrin's Mars Direct, there's no fuel factory waiting for us on Mars, so the lander has to be able to carry enough fuel to launch back to orbit. One third earth gravity and lower air pressure, sure, but still, a lot of fuel.
8. Assume that 1-7 have magically been solved. You now have an environmental system on the shuttle that was designed for missions of up to a week, maybe as much as three weeks with the extended stay module. The shuttle uses fuel cells that convert liquid oxygen to power and water, so you need enough O2 go juice to last the whole trip. If you don't, then you're betting that your APUs and fuel cells will fire up again after months of cold soak. Hope you bought a lotto ticket, because if you live to check it, it's gotta be a winner.
9. Assuming 1-8 have resolved themselves. You need a method to aerobrake at Mars while holding onto your fuel tank. After all, you need to come back to Earth, right? So your fuel tank cluster now needs to have heat shielding.
I could keep going, but I have to get back to work.
PS, the cargo bay cannot be pressurized.
Thanks Chair.. see; real science.. not opinion.
All of the things you note would have to be solved for a Mars Mission staged from orbit to begin with. Most retrofit work on the shuttles could be done here before their final boost to orbit. (gear, wing rework for tankage, tiles, tankage and pump upgrades, cargo bay refit, etc.)
I'd think that if nothing else; left alone, they'd still be better parked with the station as 'lifeboats' than they would be as museum pieces// Enterprise is a musem piece already.
-
It would be much much much much cheaper to take a russian station service module and retrofit it for Mars. One of these is the central module of the ISS (and was for Mir as well) and contains life support, more living space then the shuttle, and is equipped for long duration stays. Unlike the shuttle, it is solar powered. People have lived in them for years at a time. They are relatively cheap.
The ISS one is named 'Zvezda', if it helps with lookups on the internet. Here's a link: http://www.russianspaceweb.com/iss_sm.html
Not only is it cheaper, but it's safer too. The design is more modern, is built for long duration spaceflight, and more.
Turning the shuttle into a mars ship is like turning a car into a bicycle. Yes, you have two wheels... and you have some metal and a steering wheel... but in the end, you either end up with a very bad bicycle or, if you're smart, you just go buy a huffy. It's cheaper, safer, and less likely to dump your dessicated remains into the sun.
As for using a shuttle as a lifeboat, the control surfaces are hydraulic. They need the APUs to run to keep the hydraulic pumps active. Studies have shown that reactivating the APUs after more then a a month would be very tricky, and that at that point, the cold soak to the spaceframe would mean that things like landing gear doors would be unlikely to function, not to mention the rubber tires would not survive contact. Because of the light weight structure of shuttle (relative to an airliner), a belly landing has been determined to be non-survivable.
Edit: Forgot to rebut lifeboat idea.
-
Holdup, the Cargo Bay on the STS can be pressurized? Where did you read this and what is the source?
Wolf
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
FalconSix, yer missing the point.
instead of leaving them in museums, leave them in space. Use them there.
they are 'trucks'. use 'em as such for point to point (in space) delivery of men and materials.
And apollo was not a true 'spaceship'. just a complicated stack of modules chucked into orbit, only one of which returned via parachute.
Using the shuttles permanantly based in orbit to haul modules around between lunar and mars orbits should be a bit more efficient than an apollo style stack it all on one rocket system.. the mission can be staged from the space station.. which was why we wanted a space station to begin with.
You would have to put better engines into it first. The ones on it now are running at 110% and needs an overhaul every time they're used. Once the shuttle is in orbit it IS a pile of junk just waiting to fall back to earth in a controlled dive and needs a LOT of TLC to get back on the launchpad.
Just servicing them in orbit for whatever you suggest them doing would be prohibitingly expensive and cost far more than a custom built spacecraft. Building spacecraft that only need to operate in space is done all the time. They're called satellites and probes. Easy to build (compared to a shuttle), easy to get up in space (without risking lives) and cheap (compared to the shuttle).
Chairboy got it.
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Holdup, the Cargo Bay on the STS can be pressurized? Where did you read this and what is the source?
Wolf
He is mistaken, it cannot be pressurized. In fact, there are a series of vent holes along the length to allow for an even depressurization as it ascends because the loads of pressurization would damage the mechanism.
-
I recall reading somewhere that they had a module for it... but, I coulda just pulled it outta my ass. :)
-
You may be thinking of the Spacelab module. It's a small room with a pressurized tunnel that sits in the cargo bay for some extra racks of experiments. It's has about as much room as a mini-van.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
This guy had it all figured out WAYYYYY before NASA did.
(http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/9782/salbb3.jpg)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
(http://www.terma.com/multimedia/Space_-_ATV_-_ESA.jpg)
CRV
(http://images.spaceref.com/news/2001/05.19.esa.crv.jpg)
(http://www.estec.esa.nl/spaceflight/images/liftbohi.gif)
Daniel
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/2/26/Energia_1986_01.jpg)
-
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.
-
I thought I read somewhere that the shuttle was the only cargo bay long enough carry the trusses or something. oh well thats a good looking rocket right there.
-
Sure, but the technology remains. I think the french got it right this time around, creating a disposable high capacity launch vehicle that is as simple and cheap as possible. The shuttle was a great idea, but the technology just isn't there yet. Getting close though.
-
Despite two delay-filled days, the shuttle Atlantis is safely inside NASA’s massive Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) after a brief hop forward in its long road toward space.
Shuttle engineers rolled the Atlantis orbiter into the VAB, where it will be mated to its external tank-solid rocket booster launch stack for NASA’s STS-121 mission, at about 10:20 a.m. EDT (1420 GMT) Friday.
NASA has tapped Atlantis as its second shuttle to launch since the 2003 Columbia disaster. Its STS-121 mission, set to launch in September with astronaut Steven Lindsey in command, is the final test flight to shakedown new orbiter inspection tools and methods, as well as external tank modifications, before the space agency resumes major construction missions to complete the International Space Station (ISS).
The mission will follow the STS-114 spaceflight of Discovery, which is slated to launch at 10:39 a.m. EDT (1439 GMT) on July 26. Atlantis is expected to serve as a rescue ship for the STS-114 astronauts in the unlikely event that Discovery is severely damaged during flight and its crew forced to take refuge aboard the ISS.
http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/050722_atlantis_sts121rollover.html
Didnt know if anyone saw this but it appears Atlantis is not far from being ready. Jeez, what if this shuttle takes damage as well and has to be "abandoned". Two shuttles and a extra person or two onboard the station. I think the problem is related to age/design of the shuttle and the resumption of flight including another "shuttle rescue mission" dangerous and a waste of money.
-
The Ariane 5 is nice, but the prize for cheap, high capactity launchers has to go to the Russians for the Proton. Better reliability then the Ariane 5, cheaper (A-5 is around $200 million, Proton for about $50 million), it's a good deal.
I'm not selling 'em, I just have a fine appreciation for a quality product that sells for a good price.
-
Really? $50 mill for a proton? How much can in haul into orbit? Can it reach GTO?
-
It'll deliver 20,000 kg to LEO, 6,000 kg to Geosynchronous, and 5,800 kg to the moon (or anywhere else). Roughly the same as the Ariane 5.
-
For a quarter of the price. Remarkable. I wonder how long the russians will manage to keep the price that low.
-
Someone help me, I see stupid things everywhere:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/284_1122939820_salbb5.jpg)
eskimo
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
It'll deliver 20,000 kg to LEO, 6,000 kg to Geosynchronous, and 5,800 kg to the moon (or anywhere else). Roughly the same as the Ariane 5.
Currently the Ariane 5 launcher (evolution) can deliver 10 Tons to GEO, and they are delaying the 12T Ariane 5 until the industry is ready for it.
The funny thing about it is that if there's no competition to deliver 12T, no satellite manufacturers will go to that mass, so Arianespace is, in fact, collaborating with the competition so that they can offer 12T vectors as soon as possible.
Daniel
-
Just heard on the news that Discovery has tile damage on the underwing surface. They're trying to glue her back together in orbit.
-
Yeah I picture ships like the "Eagles" on Space 1999.
-
Originally posted by FalconSix
Just heard on the news that Discovery has tile damage on the underwing surface. They're trying to glue her back together in orbit.
Got any links? I watched some hours ago the MMT briefing at NASA TV and the only thing they mentioned was the EVA operation to remove the gap fillers. Other than that, they were good to go.
Daniel
-
I think that's what he's talking about. First time in shuttle history there's ever been someone spacewalking under the orbiter.
-
A picture from Discovery's past.... my buddy helped engineer the camera used in the photo.
(http://www.hitechcreations.com/natedog/sts092.jpg)
-
NASA, Sputniks and ESA should really try to design a new shuttle thats simpler and cheaper to maintain. There should be enough brains and $ too do it. Now i belive ESA is working with the russians to build some sort of shuttle. NASA is prolly working on somthing and the Chinese are prolly doing the same.
-
Nilsen, try and keep up. NASA is deveping the CEV, mentioned earlier in the thread, as the shuttle replacement.
The russian Kliper is in tentative development. It's progress is dependent on funds (which are always short). A recent budget session is supposed to have secured money for it, but such monies are as often as not ephemeral if something else comes up.
The ESA's involvement in Kliper is pretty small, not a significant portion yet of the funds needed, and Europe has shown little interest in putting the type of funding needed into manned spaceflight.
-
Hey, ive been away for a week. :D
Looks like the BBS has gone green with envy too while i was away.
-
Olive drab my friend
-
Originally posted by Wolfala
Olive drab my friend
looks like partly digested seaweed has gotten into the server. :D
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The foam wasn't a problem until some genius:rolleyes: at NASA decided to use a more expensive, more "environmentally friendly":rolleyes: foam, when NASA could have gotten a waiver. Again, arrogance and stupidity prevailed. They're STILL using the "new":rolleyes: foam, and STILL having problems they didn't have before.
Hey Virgil, looks like you weren't the only one tricked into believing this one.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200508090007
Rush, as it appears, was not right.