Shuttle/ISS extended?
Pat Flannery
"Another possibility would be to fly one or two shuttle missions through
2014, Dr. Ride said, but reviving the manufacturing lines used for the
shuttle would make sense only if NASA canceled its plans for its
next-generation rockets and switched to a shuttle-derived design"
Anyone see some handwriting on the wall here?
Pat
Sylvia Else
Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a fragile
hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for the sake of
a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.
Not that I think the proposed disposable rocket system is a step
forward, other than probably being safer for the astronauts.
"The shuttles can carry a far greater load into orbit than any other
rockets now in use,"
Only just - the Ariane 5 is not far behind. The 1970s era Saturn V had
several times the payload to LEO.
"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."
Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
anyway.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
> Not that I think the proposed disposable rocket system is a step
> forward, other than probably being safer for the astronauts.
Well, I thought so. But that was before I read about the problems with
aborts caused by solid fuel explosions between 30 and 60 seconds after
lift off - being unsurvivable.
Sylvia.
Pat Flannery
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
> design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a
> fragile hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for
> the sake of a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.
I think the idea is to ditch the wings and make it a disposable cargo
pod with a reentry capsule atop it.
This will greatly increase payload and also make it a reusable
spacecraft that isn't reusable other than the SRBs.
Now, on every launch you lose the ET, cargo pod, and whatever engines
are under the cargo pod.
>
> Not that I think the proposed disposable rocket system is a step
> forward, other than probably being safer for the astronauts.
>
> "The shuttles can carry a far greater load into orbit than any other
> rockets now in use,"
>
> Only just - the Ariane 5 is not far behind. The 1970s era Saturn V had
> several times the payload to LEO.
>
> "and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."
>
> Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
> anyway.
They've brought several large things back over the years, most notably
the Palapa B2 and Westar 6 communications satellites back in November of
1984 and the Long Duration Exposure Facility in January of 1990.
Pat
Pat Flannery
m...@mine.net wrote:
> Forgetting about LDEF?
>
I'm trying to remember some other ones...when first designed, the Hubble
was supposed to be returnable, but that got dropped in favor of space
repair.
The shuttle deployed and retrieved Eureca 1:
http://space.skyrocket.de/index_frame.htm?http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/eureca-1.htm
There was something like a super garbage can that they brought back from
the ISS a couple of years back.
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:005128b4$0$23889$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>
> Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
> anyway.
Sure it has, many times.
Someone mentioned LDEF which I think was actually fairly light.
However it's brought back every Spacelab mission it's flown.
It's brought back the EURACA as well as several MPLMs.
>
> Sylvia.
Derek Lyons
>Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
>design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a fragile
>hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for the sake of
>a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.
"Shuttle derived" is not limited to "uses the Orbiter". In fact, the
Orbiter is generally the first part to go.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
>On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 16:22:32 +1000, in sci.space.policy Sylvia Else
><syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>>"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."
>>
>>Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
>>anyway.
>
>Forgetting about LDEF?
LDEF, SpaceHab, SpaceLab, the Hubble repair fixtures, the MPLM's, etc.
etc...
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:09o075tbuhgi5ovpe...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 10:13:46 -0400, in sci.space.policy "Greg D. Moore
> \(Strider\)" <mooregr_d...@greenms.com> wrote:
>
>>"Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>news:005128b4$0$23889$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>
>>> Never has though, has it? It's much too dangerous to be used that way
>>> anyway.
>>
>>Sure it has, many times.
>>
>>Someone mentioned LDEF which I think was actually fairly light.
>
>
> The combined weight of the LDEF and the experiments for the first
> mission is approximately 21 400 lb.
Thanks.
So it's heavier than I recalled.
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> However it's brought back every Spacelab mission it's flown.
>
I don't know if those count though, as they were never released on-orbit
and then retrieved later, like other things were.
Does anyone know if they ever picked up a military payload and returned
that to Earth?
Pat
bob haller
still operational.
astronauts dont want to risk their lives to return a museum display.
frankly hubble should be sent to a much higher long stable orbit, for
history reasons in the future
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> "Shuttle derived" is not limited to "uses the Orbiter". In fact, the
> Orbiter is generally the first part to go.
>
A couple of weeks back is when you first started to hear about the side
cargo pod configuration instead of the vertically stacked (DIRECT) concept.
In short, this would be a Shuttle C redux, except on Shuttle C you were
supposed to have the SSMEs be retrievable from orbit after coming down
in a reentry pod.
If that gets dumped from the concept, then they had better go with the
RS-68, as even a simplified single-use SSME is going to be damned
expensive if used as a expendable part of the architecture.
In fact this could end up costing more per flight than the Shuttle - as
any savings in inspection and refurbishment after every flight will be
eaten up by the loss of the cargo pod and the engines.
The other problem is that once the ISS is decommissioned, the only other
use for this booster will be Moon missions or building another space
station, as it's too big for much else, just like the Saturn V (Congress
isn't going to spring for a Mars mission no matter how blue in the face
Buzz Aldrin gets).
It's even too big for the ISS mission, as the size of modules it could
carry would be a lot larger than the Shuttle can launch.
The booster just doesn't have a long-term rational use no matter how
quickly and cheaply it can be made.
Pat
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:DdednTqSiNzjOu3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
The question though was concerning what it had returned, not what it had
returned it didn't start with.
Point is, it returned heavy items quite a few times.
>
> Pat
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> The question though was concerning what it had returned, not what it had
> returned it didn't start with.
>
> Point is, it returned heavy items quite a few times.
>
True.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
>
> LDEF, SpaceHab, SpaceLab, the Hubble repair fixtures, the MPLM's, etc.
> etc...
>
A while back we had a discussion in which the heaviest payload returned
was, but I can't remember which one it was or how much it weighed.
I do remember that how it could be positioned in the cargo bay was very
important due to CG concerns on return.
Pat
Rick Jones
> It's even too big for the ISS mission, as the size of modules it could
> carry would be a lot larger than the Shuttle can launch.
> The booster just doesn't have a long-term rational use no matter how
> quickly and cheaply it can be made.
Is it time to trot-out SPS again then?-) (Solar Power Satellites)
rick jones
--
I don't interest myself in "why." I think more often in terms of
"when," sometimes "where;" always "how much." - Joubert
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Pat Flannery
Rick Jones wrote:
> Is it time to trot-out SPS again then?-) (Solar Power Satellites)
>
That thought did occur to me, but paradoxically, it's _too small_ for
that mission.
When they were discussing those things back in the 1970's-1980's the
boosters made the Nova rocket concepts look small.
One drawing I saw was of a gigantic Boeing SSTO used 20 F1 engines.
This was supposed to carry 500,000 into LEO.
The earlier NEXUS was sort of large also:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/nexus.htm
"Fully recoverable, it would touch down in the ocean following a return
from orbit. Parachutes would slow its descent."
They don't say how many parachutes or how large they would be... but
I'll bet it's more than on the Apollo CM, and that they would be
slightly larger also.
"Retro-rockets, firing during the last seconds, would assure a gentle
landing."
Gentle...not quiet...but gentle.
Nearby (say 5-10 miles) surfers will get on their boards on hearing the
sound and ready for the incoming wave of displaced water. :-)
Pat
bob haller
looks like NASA STILL:( wanting to pay off existing shuttle
contractors by sticking with the higher operational cost shuttle
derived system. in a few years we will probably find out again why its
a bad idea.........
meanwhile expendables are available, added production would help
everyone, and man rating shouldnt be a killer cost. just add a
excellent launch boot escape system.
eventually private industry will have their own manned launcher at a
fraction of nasa cost.
the agency needs to realize that will likely kill the agency
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>A couple of weeks back is when you first started to hear about the side
>cargo pod configuration instead of the vertically stacked (DIRECT) concept.
>In short, this would be a Shuttle C redux, except on Shuttle C you were
>supposed to have the SSMEs be retrievable from orbit after coming down
>in a reentry pod.
Not in the final Shuttle-C proposals. The final Shuttle-C design,
which came very close to go-ahead in 1991 before dying of Space
Station overrun budget hijacking, used a very Shuttle-like,
non-recoverable boattail.
>If that gets dumped from the concept, then they had better go with the
>RS-68, as even a simplified single-use SSME is going to be damned
>expensive if used as a expendable part of the architecture.
That's not true. SSME is very expensive primarily because not many had
to be built, being a reusable engine. Higher production rates should
cut the unit cost considerably. SSME will always be more expensive
than RS-68, but that higher price buys you a lighter, smaller,
regeneratively-cooled engine with better thrust/weight and much better
ISp, all of which buys you a smaller, lighter SDLV than a comparable
RS-68 SDLV (look at the Goliath that Ares V became once it dropped
SSME. Now they're reconsidering that switch.)
>In fact this could end up costing more per flight than the Shuttle - as
>any savings in inspection and refurbishment after every flight will be
>eaten up by the loss of the cargo pod and the engines.
But the payload is so much greater than Shuttle's that it's highly
unlikely to be more expensive per flight than Shuttle.
>The other problem is that once the ISS is decommissioned, the only other
>use for this booster will be Moon missions or building another space
>station, as it's too big for much else,
That's true of Orion, as well. Which is exactly why NASA pitched
Return to the Moon and not Mars First.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
>design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a fragile
>hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for the sake of
>a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.
SDLV gets rid of the fragile, hypersonic glider and replaces it with a
throwaway cargo/engine pod.
>"The shuttles can carry a far greater load into orbit than any other
>rockets now in use,"
>
>Only just - the Ariane 5 is not far behind.
Delta IV-Heavy is actually the runner-up, not Ariane V. If built,
Atlas V-Heavy and potential Delta IV-Heavy upgrades would exceed
Shuttle's payload capacity.
LEO payload capacity:
Shuttle: 55,000 lbs.
Delta IV-Heavy: 50,000 lbs.
Ariane V: 46,000 lbs.
Atlas V 551: 44,500 lbs.
Proton: 44,100 lbs.
>The 1970s era Saturn V had
>several times the payload to LEO.
The Shuttle propulsion system routinely places ~225,000 lbs. into low
earth orbit, its just that 180,000 lbs. of that is the Orbiter.
Replace the Orbiter with something lighter and more mass-efficient,
and you approach Saturn V-payload class.
>"and can also bring heavy items back to the ground."
>
>Never has though, has it?
Many times. Twenty-five Spacelab missions (20,000 lbs. or so each),
fifteen SpaceHab flights as standalone research and supplementary
cargo to Mir and ISS, eight MPLM cargo flights to ISS, LDEF, Palapa
and Westar, European Retrievable Carrier, Japan's Space Flying Unit,
and numerous small satellites launched and recovered on the same
mission (SPAS, SPARTAN, Wake Shield Facility) although none of them
were particularly large.
Brian
Pat Flannery
Brian Thorn wrote:
>
>
> That's not true. SSME is very expensive primarily because not many had
> to be built,
The SSME is very expensive because it used a very complex design to be
both reusable and give max isp.
> being a reusable engine. Higher production rates should
> cut the unit cost considerably. SSME will always be more expensive
> than RS-68, but that higher price buys you a lighter, smaller,
> regeneratively-cooled engine with better thrust/weight and much better
> ISp, all of which buys you a smaller, lighter SDLV than a comparable
> RS-68 SDLV (look at the Goliath that Ares V became once it dropped
> SSME. Now they're reconsidering that switch.)
While it may be possible to "de-rate" the SSME into a expendable form
that still preserves the same isp, I get a feeling that this will be
around as cheap and fast as how we were going to use a "stock" SRB for
the Ares 1 first stage... by the time you get done (and this goes for
J-2X also) you will have spent almost as much money as if you had
developed a whole new engine.
RS-68 is already in production and it works just fine and was designed
for low cost manufacture, as it was intended to be expendable right from
the word go. It also generates more thrust than the SSME (650,000 lb at
SL, vs the SSME's 409,000 lb.) so you need fewer engines to get the same
amount of thrust, which ups overall launch vehicle reliability.
>
>
>
>> In fact this could end up costing more per flight than the Shuttle - as
>> any savings in inspection and refurbishment after every flight will be
>> eaten up by the loss of the cargo pod and the engines.
>>
>
> But the payload is so much greater than Shuttle's that it's highly
> unlikely to be more expensive per flight than Shuttle.
>
Yeah, but again, what do you need all that payload for? Everyone is
always yapping about how we killed the Saturn V, without realizing that
it was _so_ capable that there were only a few missions that it made any
sense to use it on.
You don't fly 747's on short city-to-city hops with 25 people on board,
or go out to get groceries in a 18 wheeler.
>
>> The other problem is that once the ISS is decommissioned, the only other
>> use for this booster will be Moon missions or building another space
>> station, as it's too big for much else,
>>
>
> That's true of Orion, as well. Which is exactly why NASA pitched
> Return to the Moon and not Mars First.
>
I think when all is said and done, they will get neither.
Considering what a cocked-up mess (both financially and politically) the
ISS turned out to be, it's going to be a mighty long time before we see
a large space station again after it is decommissioned.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Brian Thorn wrote:
> Delta IV-Heavy is actually the runner-up, not Ariane V. If built,
> Atlas V-Heavy and potential Delta IV-Heavy upgrades would exceed
> Shuttle's payload capacity.
>
> LEO payload capacity:
>
> Shuttle: 55,000 lbs.
> Delta IV-Heavy: 50,000 lbs.
> Ariane V: 46,000 lbs.
> Atlas V 551: 44,500 lbs.
> Proton: 44,100 lbs.
>
They've got much-modified Super Delta IV concepts that are in the Saturn
V catagory as far as payload goes.
Pat
Rick Jones
Well, perhaps on a bad day for an airline in Japan :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_747
" In Japan, 747s on domestic routes are configured to carry close to
the maximum passenger capacity.[69]"
...
69 ^ Wallace, James. "A380 buyer keeps mum about possible luxuries
aboard cruise ship of the skies." Seattle Post-Intelligencer, January
24, 2005. Retrieved: December 13, 2007.
http://www.seattlepi.com/business/209051_interior24.html
"At the opposite end of the luxury spectrum is what All Nippon and
Japan Airlines have done to a few of their 747-400s for high-density
domestic routes in Japan.
They carry nearly 600 passengers in one class."
rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>The SSME is very expensive because it used a very complex design to be
>both reusable and give max isp.
You think building only one or two a year doesn't drive up the cost?
>While it may be possible to "de-rate" the SSME into a expendable form
Why? No de-rating is needed. In fact, you can probably run it at 109%
since you'll never fly the thing again (the SSME can do so for aborts
as-is.)
>I get a feeling that this will be
>around as cheap and fast as how we were going to use a "stock" SRB for
>the Ares 1 first stage...
Which was paired with an upper stage using SSME. SSME was dropped and
the first stage had to stretch. That SSME deletion was because it was
difficult to make the SSME air-startable (and nearly impossible for
re-start, which ruined Constellation's commonality concept between
Ares I and Ares V) not because the SSME was too expensive. For first
stage applications on Ares V, Not-Shuttle-C, and Jupiter, SSME is
actually the best option as it lets the rest of the rocket be smaller,
offsetting the higher cost for the most part, and totally eliminating
development cost (RS-68 will need a regenerative nozzle if you want to
put four or five of them on a rocket.)
>by the time you get done (and this goes for
>J-2X also) you will have spent almost as much money as if you had
>developed a whole new engine.
No, you spend zero dollars. Use the off-the-shelf SSME, which has
worked superbly since the new turbopumps were introduced a decade ago.
We have a stockpile of them (20 or so upon Shuttle retirement) which
is enough engines for the first five or six Jupiter or Not-Shuttle-C
flights. That's 20 RS-68s we don't have to buy in the "money is
incredibly tight" early years.
>RS-68 is already in production and it works just fine and was designed
>for low cost manufacture, as it was intended to be expendable right from
>the word go.
Base heating issues mean it will need a new nozzle, among other
changes, for a multi-engine core booster. The ablative cooling can't
handle the heat from all those engines right next to two SRBs. That's
among the many reasons the Ares V teams is reconsidering SSME. And
Ares V now is baselined with 6 RS-68s compared to 5 SSMEs. So now we
have six engines in the core instead of five, and those six engines
have their own new development program (regenerative cooling) to pay
for. How much time and treasure are we really saving here?
>It also generates more thrust than the SSME (650,000 lb at
>SL, vs the SSME's 409,000 lb.) so you need fewer engines to get the same
>amount of thrust, which ups overall launch vehicle reliability.
You don't need the same amount of thrust. Look how much bigger (not
smaller) Ares V got when they switched from SSME to RS-68. It grew
wider and taller (now scraping the ceiling of the VAB), and they had
to upgrade to 5, and even 5 1/2 segment SRBs (now needing a new
Crawler and Crawlerway to handle the weight.) All this to save a few
million on the engine! Off-the-shelf SSME enables a smaller core and
off-the-shelf SRBs. Step right up, no waiting.
>> But the payload is so much greater than Shuttle's that it's highly
>> unlikely to be more expensive per flight than Shuttle.
>Yeah, but again, what do you need all that payload for?
Better to have and not need than to need and not have. For the here
and now, we have to plan for the stated mission: return to the moon by
2020 and then move on to "Mars and beyond" at some unspecified date in
the future. Bush and Obama and two Congresses have all endorsed that
goal. So we have to ask what's the best launch method. Right now, I'd
say Delta IV-Heavy is. But we also know full well that any plan that
goes to the Hill saying "we're killing Shuttle infrastructure and
laying off the bulk of the workforce" will be dead on arrival. Simply
looking at COTS and EELV options has already resulted in an
influential Senator cutting off the extra funding NASA got from the
stimulus bill. Why fight a battle we can't win? That leaves
Shuttle-derived, and I think Jupiter with SSME is the best option,
with Not-Shuttle-C with SSME a close second. The RS-68-powered options
drive up size and infrastructure costs.
>You don't fly 747's on short city-to-city hops with 25 people on board,
>or go out to get groceries in a 18 wheeler.
No, but you don't deliver gas to a gas station one 5-gallon jug at a
time, either.
>> That's true of Orion, as well. Which is exactly why NASA pitched
>> Return to the Moon and not Mars First.
>I think when all is said and done, they will get neither.
On an EELV or Falcon-based infrastructure, absolutely, there's no
chance whatsoever. But if we have a Shuttle-derived infrastructure, at
least we have all the pieces we need in service. You don't have to beg
Congress for billions for a new launcher. There would be, as a
previous President said, "a sporting chance." Let's not cut off that
possibility today.
>Considering what a cocked-up mess (both financially and politically) the
>ISS turned out to be, it's going to be a mighty long time before we see
>a large space station again after it is decommissioned.
I think we'll see one within 20 years, but it will be commercial. But
even given the Shuttle and ISS misfires, two Presidents and two
Congresses have been supportive (albeit lukewarmly) of the return to
the moon goal. Clearly, politicians have not yet abandoned hope that
NASA can pull of a large space program. We just need someone (the
Augustine Commission) to force NASA to make a course correction or
two. Now.
Brian
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>> LEO payload capacity:
>>
>> Shuttle: 55,000 lbs.
>> Delta IV-Heavy: 50,000 lbs.
>> Ariane V: 46,000 lbs.
>> Atlas V 551: 44,500 lbs.
>> Proton: 44,100 lbs.
>>
>
>They've got much-modified Super Delta IV concepts that are in the Saturn
>V catagory as far as payload goes.
Yeah, but those beasts need an all-new infrastructure (actually LC-39)
so I think they're much less realistic than upgraded Delta IV or the
available-upon-request Atlas V-Heavy.
Brian
Sylvia Else
I was thinking in terms of objects that hadn't been taken up in the same
mission. Maybe there have been a few.
But I stand by my position that it would now be considered too
dangerous. At least unless it could be achieved concurrent with some
other mission. Sending men up just to retrieve hardware that could
otherwise just be rebuilt amounts to exposing them to a 1 in 60 or so
risk of death just to save money.
Sylvia.
Jonathan
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/science/space/29shuttle.html
>
> "Another possibility would be to fly one or two shuttle missions through 2014,
> Dr. Ride said, but reviving the manufacturing lines used for the shuttle would
> make sense only if NASA canceled its plans for its next-generation rockets and
> switched to a shuttle-derived design"
>
> Anyone see some handwriting on the wall here?
Only in the space business can the former head of the
biggest contractor be put in charge of the 'review'.
And not give anyone the least amount of concern.
The writing on the wall is simply this, do you have any idea
how big our budget deficits are going to be for the next
five years or so? I mean unless NASA claims they can
...oh...say...Save the World...will they be getting any
more money to speak of.
Just think ....'stretch it out, and make it do less.'
Just like the lasts couple of generations.
The goal is the thing. Not where you want to go, but
what problems you intend to fix. The mathematically
ideal goal would simply find where /two things/ converge.
One, NASA's potential capabilities.
Two, the world's greatest problems.
Where do they converge?????????????????????????????
Can't anyone here comprehend the simplicity and validity
of this logic?
The two converge on a solar power station located somewhere
between the freaking Sun and Earth orbit.
You wanna save NASA, then save the damn world.
Else nothing has a future, so what's the point of any
smaller goal?
We're only decades away from a global warming induced
ice age, which means humanity will have to wait some
one hundred thousand years to see if it can do better
than this current short inter-glacial go-round.
Scroll down to fig 5, unless life stabilizes the atmosphere and soon
we're headed back into a deep freeze.
http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
But if we can manage our biosphere, and slow the rate of
change, then Earth might instead see an end to ice ages
altogether. As life will have become the larger controlling
force than orbital mechanics for our biosphere. And humanity can
enjoy a continued and lengthy existence where any 'wonder'
at all becomes possible, if not the most probable.
We're at the critical or transition point between two starkly
different global futures. And we're making the wrong choice.
Another cold war, this time with the Chinese, instead of a new
clean and abundant energy source.
Jonathan
s
>
> Pat
Sylvia Else
> "Pat Flannery" <fla...@daktel.com> wrote in message
> news:DdednTqSiNzjOu3X...@posted.northdakotatelephone...
>>
>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>> However it's brought back every Spacelab mission it's flown.
>>>
>> I don't know if those count though, as they were never released on-orbit
>> and then retrieved later, like other things were.
>> Does anyone know if they ever picked up a military payload and returned
>> that to Earth?
>
> The question though was concerning what it had returned, not what it had
> returned it didn't start with.
Well, actually, I was thinking of the latter. The issue relates to
missions that require something like the shuttle orbiter, because they
couldn't be achieved using throwaway hardware.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
>
>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> Surely, no one in their right mind would think that a shuttle derived
>> design made sense. If the shuttle proved anything, it was that a
>> fragile hypersonic glider with a long hot period during descent for
>> the sake of a high cross range and once round abort is not the way to go.
>
> pod with a reentry capsule atop it.
Well maybe, but the point about using it to return large payloads to
Earth would suggest that the derivation included some sort of reusable
orbiter.
Sylvia.
Brian Thorn
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>I was thinking in terms of objects that hadn't been taken up in the same
>mission. Maybe there have been a few.
LDEF, Palapa, Westar, and SFU.
>But I stand by my position that it would now be considered too
>dangerous.
You mean like how the next Shuttle mission (launching Aug 25 or so)
will be doing it? Its taking up an MPLM loaded to the brim with cargo,
which will be berthed to the Station, unloaded, filled up with things
to bring back, and then loaded back in the Shuttle for the return
trip. This is an important capability of Shuttle that will be sorely
missed once the Shuttle is retired.
>At least unless it could be achieved concurrent with some
>other mission. Sending men up just to retrieve hardware that could
>otherwise just be rebuilt amounts to exposing them to a 1 in 60 or so
>risk of death just to save money.
True, they won't send up a Shuttle to pick up something already in
orbit, the risk and cost are too great. But that doesn't mean that the
Shuttle's return payload capability is unnecessary. In fact, we are
losing it just when we'll need it the most. The Shuttles and MPLMs
return with broken hardware from the Space Station (notably the
Control Moment Gyros, too big to be returned by anything else),
allowing engineers to thoroughly examine them and hopefully make
improvements to the next one on the production line or design better
versions next time, so in that respect the risk may well be
worthwhile. There was also a lot of science planned for the Space
Station that would have sent results home using the Shuttle's large
return payload capability. That's gone after 2010.
Brian
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
But most of the missions cited in another post couldn't have been done w/o
the orbiter. (you going to toss Spacelab away each time?)
But even if you ignore ones that went up on the same flight, there was a
fair number that went up on one flight and down on another.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
news:f33275ld5i12bbamf...@4ax.com...
>
> True, they won't send up a Shuttle to pick up something already in
> orbit, the risk and cost are too great. But that doesn't mean that the
> Shuttle's return payload capability is unnecessary. In fact, we are
> losing it just when we'll need it the most. The Shuttles and MPLMs
> return with broken hardware from the Space Station (notably the
> Control Moment Gyros, too big to be returned by anything else),
> allowing engineers to thoroughly examine them and hopefully make
> improvements to the next one on the production line or design better
> versions next time, so in that respect the risk may well be
> worthwhile. There was also a lot of science planned for the Space
> Station that would have sent results home using the Shuttle's large
> return payload capability. That's gone after 2010.
Yeah, this is what particularly galls me about the shuttle retirement. Just
about when it's going to actually act as a "shuttle" and could be very
useful for crew exchange and equipment exchange, we're taking a step
backwards before the replacements are proven.
Yes, I know that Soyuz flights every 3 months will allow crew rotation, but
that also somewhat limits your crew choice and also means you don't have
"surge capacity" which I believe can be useful at times (when you want to
swap out a bunch of equipment, experiments, etc.)
(Hell if it were me, I'd already be considing phase II of IIS: what modules
you start to swap out/replace/add on after 2015.)
>
> Brian
Sylvia Else
> news:f33275ld5i12bbamf...@4ax.com...
>> True, they won't send up a Shuttle to pick up something already in
>> orbit, the risk and cost are too great. But that doesn't mean that the
>> Shuttle's return payload capability is unnecessary. In fact, we are
>> losing it just when we'll need it the most. The Shuttles and MPLMs
>> return with broken hardware from the Space Station (notably the
>> Control Moment Gyros, too big to be returned by anything else),
>> allowing engineers to thoroughly examine them and hopefully make
>> improvements to the next one on the production line or design better
>> versions next time, so in that respect the risk may well be
>> worthwhile. There was also a lot of science planned for the Space
>> Station that would have sent results home using the Shuttle's large
>> return payload capability. That's gone after 2010.
>
> Yeah, this is what particularly galls me about the shuttle retirement. Just
> about when it's going to actually act as a "shuttle" and could be very
> useful for crew exchange and equipment exchange, we're taking a step
> backwards before the replacements are proven.
Trips to and from the ISS are really just a kind of bus service. The
space shuttle has proved itself much too dangerous for use in that role.
If NASA is determined to use disposable rockets, rather than develop a
safer reusable system, then it will have to develop a specific ability
to return broken hardware that needs to be examined rather than just
junked.
Sylvia.
Derek Lyons
>Trips to and from the ISS are really just a kind of bus service. The
>space shuttle has proved itself much too dangerous for use in that role.
Yeah, losing all the cargo and the virtually irreplaceable orbiter is
a bitch.
Ask the Germans of WWI what happens when you consider equipment
specifically built to go in harm's way too expensive to go in harm's
way.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
>> Trips to and from the ISS are really just a kind of bus service. The
>> space shuttle has proved itself much too dangerous for use in that role.
>
> Yeah, losing all the cargo and the virtually irreplaceable orbiter is
> a bitch.
>
> Ask the Germans of WWI what happens when you consider equipment
> specifically built to go in harm's way too expensive to go in harm's
> way.
>
> D.
I'm thinking of the crew.
Sylvia.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
And yet, crews still continue to fly and want to fly.
>
> Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Some people want to take illicit drugs.
Sylvia.
Pat Flannery
OM wrote:
> ...Well, since NSF is no longer blocking me - I still don't have forum
> access, but I can at least read their L2-spammed news articles -
> there's *this* interesting read:
>
> http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2009/07/major-shuttle-and-iss-extension-drive-augustine-commission/
>
>
They keep flying them that long and they are almost sure to lose another
one.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rick Jones wrote:
> They carry nearly 600 passengers in one class."
>
Suddenly I have this image of 600 giant eyed 12th grader anime girls
with green or blue hair all in identical school uniforms showing up at
an airport.
I don't want to even imagine what happens next, but I'll bet in involves
both aliens and tentacles. :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Brian Thorn wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:26:14 -0500, Pat Flannery <fla...@daktel.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>> The SSME is very expensive because it used a very complex design to be
>> both reusable and give max isp.
>>
>
> You think building only one or two a year doesn't drive up the cost?
>
It does, but the engine is inherently expensive to begin with.
If it had been designed to be expendable, they never would have made it
anywhere near that complex.
On the other hand, RS-68 was designed to be fairly simple and low cost
right from the outset of the program so as to make it economical to use
on a expendable launch vehicle.
The real argument for using it though is that it's already in existence
and operation so there will be no need for R&D work and expenses.
So NASA will of course choose something else instead of it, and when
that engine program goes way over budget and behind schedule will cancel
the whole program, as usual.
>
>> While it may be possible to "de-rate" the SSME into a expendable form
>>
>
> Why? No de-rating is needed. In fact, you can probably run it at 109%
> since you'll never fly the thing again (the SSME can do so for aborts
> as-is.)
>
I was referring to de-rating it it as far as complexity goes; the thing
now needs to be nowhere near as robust or expensive as if it were
intended to be reusable.
Unfortunately that will turn it into a pretty much new engine, with all
the associated costs of developing it.
So, the argument will be to use the stock SSME to save R&D costs.
And the stock engine is too expensive for mass production for use on a
expendable vehicle, particularly when compared to the RS-68.
>
>> I get a feeling that this will be
>> around as cheap and fast as how we were going to use a "stock" SRB for
>> the Ares 1 first stage...
>>
>
> Which was paired with an upper stage using SSME. SSME was dropped and
> the first stage had to stretch. That SSME deletion was because it was
> difficult to make the SSME air-startable (and nearly impossible for
> re-start, which ruined Constellation's commonality concept between
> Ares I and Ares V) not because the SSME was too expensive. For first
> stage applications on Ares V, Not-Shuttle-C, and Jupiter, SSME is
> actually the best option as it lets the rest of the rocket be smaller,
> offsetting the higher cost for the most part, and totally eliminating
> development cost (RS-68 will need a regenerative nozzle if you want to
> put four or five of them on a rocket.)
You aren't going to need that many; for a Shuttle C type vehicle you
will only need two. Any heating concerns with the nozzle can be dealt
with via a heatshield like was used on the core engines of Titan III/IV.
>
>
>
>> by the time you get done (and this goes for
>> J-2X also) you will have spent almost as much money as if you had
>> developed a whole new engine.
>>
>
> No, you spend zero dollars. Use the off-the-shelf SSME, which has
> worked superbly since the new turbopumps were introduced a decade ago.
> We have a stockpile of them (20 or so upon Shuttle retirement) which
> is enough engines for the first five or six Jupiter or Not-Shuttle-C
> flights. That's 20 RS-68s we don't have to buy in the "money is
> incredibly tight" early years.
>
...and once those 20 or so are used up (around 7 flights) you are right
back to the cost problem again.
So to save money early in the program you increase costs later in the
program.
That's exactly the sort of strategy that led to the Shuttle being made
in its most simple form and its high per-mission costs ever since.
If this booster is going to have any extended lifetime at all (and
remember when the Shuttle was developed it was to have been replaced by
around 2000) that intial savings isn't going to be be matched by the
higher engine cost as the program moves along.
>> RS-68 is already in production and it works just fine and was designed
>> for low cost manufacture, as it was intended to be expendable right from
>> the word go.
>>
>
> Base heating issues mean it will need a new nozzle, among other
> changes, for a multi-engine core booster. The ablative cooling can't
> handle the heat from all those engines right next to two SRBs. That's
> among the many reasons the Ares V teams is reconsidering SSME. And
> Ares V now is baselined with 6 RS-68s compared to 5 SSMEs. So now we
> have six engines in the core instead of five, and those six engines
> have their own new development program (regenerative cooling) to pay
> for. How much time and treasure are we really saving here?
>
Again, we are only talking two engines here to match the thrust of the
three SSMEs.
>
>> It also generates more thrust than the SSME (650,000 lb at
>> SL, vs the SSME's 409,000 lb.) so you need fewer engines to get the same
>> amount of thrust, which ups overall launch vehicle reliability.
>>
>
> You don't need the same amount of thrust. Look how much bigger (not
> smaller) Ares V got when they switched from SSME to RS-68. It grew
> wider and taller (now scraping the ceiling of the VAB), and they had
> to upgrade to 5, and even 5 1/2 segment SRBs (now needing a new
> Crawler and Crawlerway to handle the weight.) All this to save a few
> million on the engine! Off-the-shelf SSME enables a smaller core and
> off-the-shelf SRBs. Step right up, no waiting.
>
And what you end up with once you go that route is Jupiter, not Ares V.
Just like on Ares 1, their weight estimates were too optimistic for the
original Ares V, and like Topsy it grew as they got a more realistic
handle on what it was going to weigh.
>
>>> But the payload is so much greater than Shuttle's that it's highly
>>> unlikely to be more expensive per flight than Shuttle.
>>>
>
>
>> Yeah, but again, what do you need all that payload for?
>>
>
> Better to have and not need than to need and not have. For the here
> and now, we have to plan for the stated mission: return to the moon by
> 2020 and then move on to "Mars and beyond" at some unspecified date in
> the future. Bush and Obama and two Congresses have all endorsed that
> goal.
And I still bet it's going to all get canceled sometime in the next five
years, as it doesn't really accomplish anything that needs to be done,
and costs a hell of a lot of money to accomplish on top of that fact.
The most recent talk has been of ditching the permanent Moon base and
going with extended Lunar landing missions, and at that point all you
have done is a upgraded Apollo mission.
Huge amounts of money gets poured into the program and all that comes
out are more bags of Moonrock.
Our Moon has the disadvantage of being one of the least interesting
moons in the solar system.
Mars would be a very interesting place to go, but if the funding wasn't
there to do it in the gung-ho early days of the space race, its doubtful
it will be there now.
Space, not to put too fine of a point on it, has gotten mundane and
boring for most people alive today, and it's very doubtful that it's
going to get the big funding in the future it did in the past.
> So we have to ask what's the best launch method. Right now, I'd
> say Delta IV-Heavy is.
Now that I completely agree with you on. Atlas V could be a contender,
but to get up to the needed payload you are going to need solid
strap-ons of some sort, and it's best to avoid those if at all possible.
> But we also know full well that any plan that
> goes to the Hill saying "we're killing Shuttle infrastructure and
> laying off the bulk of the workforce" will be dead on arrival. Simply
> looking at COTS and EELV options has already resulted in an
> influential Senator cutting off the extra funding NASA got from the
> stimulus bill. Why fight a battle we can't win? That leaves
> Shuttle-derived, and I think Jupiter with SSME is the best option,
> with Not-Shuttle-C with SSME a close second. The RS-68-powered options
> drive up size and infrastructure costs.
>
Although I favor using RS-68, something along the lines of Jupiter makes
a lot more sense to me than the complete mess we have now.
What really amazes me is that the vibration issue with the Ares I wasn't
spotted on the first day the concept was considered.
It wasn't like the SRB was a unknown quantity by any means.
>
>> You don't fly 747's on short city-to-city hops with 25 people on board,
>> or go out to get groceries in a 18 wheeler.
>>
>
> No, but you don't deliver gas to a gas station one 5-gallon jug at a
> time, either.
>
>
>>> That's true of Orion, as well. Which is exactly why NASA pitched
>>> Return to the Moon and not Mars First.
>>>
>
>
>> I think when all is said and done, they will get neither.
>>
>
> On an EELV or Falcon-based infrastructure, absolutely, there's no
> chance whatsoever. But if we have a Shuttle-derived infrastructure, at
> least we have all the pieces we need in service. You don't have to beg
> Congress for billions for a new launcher. There would be, as a
> previous President said, "a sporting chance." Let's not cut off that
> possibility today.
>
If you are going to do it, you had better be _damn sure_ you are going
to carry through with it or all you are doing is wasting a huge amount
of time and money.
NASA's manned efforts since the Shuttle have been a complete mess of
over-optimistic concepts that get dumped as soon as problems are
encountered (and the X-33 sure comes to mind in that regard).
>
>> Considering what a cocked-up mess (both financially and politically) the
>> ISS turned out to be, it's going to be a mighty long time before we see
>> a large space station again after it is decommissioned.
>>
>
> I think we'll see one within 20 years, but it will be commercial. But
> even given the Shuttle and ISS misfires, two Presidents and two
> Congresses have been supportive (albeit lukewarmly) of the return to
> the moon goal. Clearly, politicians have not yet abandoned hope that
> NASA can pull of a large space program. We just need someone (the
> Augustine Commission) to force NASA to make a course correction or
> two. Now.
>
I think what the final outcome will be is that ISS gets its lifetime
extended (the Russians will love this as that means more $ for Progress
and Soyuz flights, as well as more space tourists) till it starts to
fall apart like Mir, and the Shuttle flies till another one gets
destroyed somehow.
Pat
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> (Hell if it were me, I'd already be considing phase II of IIS: what modules
> you start to swap out/replace/add on after 2015.)
>
Well, for starters they could finish up the station to its original
design...that centrifuge module was one of the only experiments intended
for it that I thought made any sense, so they ditched it. ;-)
And there was a whole pile of stuff that was supposed to go down at the
Russian end.
Pat
Rick Jones
> I'm thinking of the crew.
Are the crew incapable of thinking for themselves?
rick jones
--
denial, anger, bargaining, depression, acceptance, rebirth...
where do you want to be today?
Pat Flannery
Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> And yet, crews still continue to fly and want to fly.
>
> Some people want to take illicit drugs.
We'll bet they could do that even better in Zero G!
Another NASA space spin-off!
Your tax dollars at work!
The NASA PAO ;-)
Pat Flannery
Derek Lyons wrote:
> Ask the Germans of WWI what happens when you consider equipment
> specifically built to go in harm's way too expensive to go in harm's
> way.
>
I don't think it was the economic cost of the battleships and
battlecruisers that kept them in harbor after Jutland, but rather the
psychological effect of losing a major future battle with the RN, as
well as guarding against the possibility of a invasion of Germany via
the Baltic, something that Jackie Fisher was seriously considering.
Pat
Rick Jones
> Ask the Germans of WWI what happens when you consider equipment
> specifically built to go in harm's way too expensive to go in harm's
> way.
Or the Americans of WWI for that matter wrt the Browning Automatic
Rifle. Although in that case it wasn't so much expense FUD as it was
"the opposition might copy it" FUD.
rick jones
--
Process shall set you free from the need for rational thought.
Pat Flannery
Rick Jones wrote:
> Or the Americans of WWI for that matter wrt the Browning Automatic
> Rifle. Although in that case it wasn't so much expense FUD as it was
> "the opposition might copy it" FUD.
>
They should have seen if they could lure the Germans into copying the
Chauchat light machine gun. :-)
Pat
Andre Lieven
While what I am about to write would be more on-topic for
sci.military.
naval, it is a point of fact that, throughout the dreadnought
battleship
age, it was common for the capital ships to be considered too costly
to risk.
Thus, in spite of the fact that, in the Pacific War of 1941-45, the
USN
started with 15, which became 13 battleships (At PH), and added ten
new fast ones, and the IJN had 11 capital ships at the start of the
war,
and added one more in 1942, with all that, and with all the carrier
and
cruiser/destroyer battles of those four years, only twice did a few
battleships manage to fight: SoDak & Washington V. Kirishima at
2nd Guadalcanal, and Yamashiro & Fuso (Though, by the time that
Nishimura's force got in range of the 7th Fleet's battle line, Fuso
was
already badly hit by US DD torpedoes.) V. 6 (but only 3 fired more
than
about ten shells.) older USN BBs, at Surigao Strait.
Contrary to pre WW1 thinking, what happened when real wars came
about, and each side had to consider how and if, to use their
expensive
battleships, the principle that came up was to not lose them, which
meant not to send them into situations where the balance of force
would
be against them.
Given that there were no dreadnought era wars where each side matched
the other in battleships, it was clear enough that committing them
called
for situations that were vanishingly rare.
As for Jackie Fisher's Baltic scheme, barking mad seems to cover it.
Examples: HMS Courageous, Glorious, and Furious...
Andre
Andre Lieven
Or copying the Ross rifle...
Andre
bob haller
will end at that time.
delta and atlas expendables is the way to go, with a excellent escape
system little man rating will be necessary, and by pairing with two
different boosters a booster problem doesnt mean were grounded for
years.
really though nasa should pass the specs to private industry X flights
over X times carrying X payload.,
To remove the politics from the decisions.
we need low cost acess to orbit
Rick Jones
> They should have seen if they could lure the Germans into copying
> the Chauchat light machine gun. :-)
Having already fought the French several times before, presumably the
Germans were too experienced to fall into that trap :)
rick jones
--
The glass is neither half-empty nor half-full. The glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
And your point? People also take legal drugs. Flying the space shuttle
isn't illegal.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Yeah, the CAM is one those I'd like to see fly, along with a real US Hab
module.
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>I was referring to de-rating it it as far as complexity goes; the thing
>now needs to be nowhere near as robust or expensive as if it were
>intended to be reusable.
>Unfortunately that will turn it into a pretty much new engine, with all
>the associated costs of developing it.
I disagree. And even if that is true, it isn't in the critical path.
We can use the SSMEs we already have to jump-start the program (no
waiting for J-2X or RS-68 Regen) and work on the Budget SSME over
time, probably paid for by cancelling J-2X (use an RL-10 cluster in
the EDS instead.)
>So, the argument will be to use the stock SSME to save R&D costs.
>And the stock engine is too expensive for mass production for use on a
>expendable vehicle, particularly when compared to the RS-68.
That's not necessarily true. You're assuming that SSME cannot be made
any more cheaply if we build more of them, a suggestion that runs
counter to pretty much all other aerospace engine experience.
>> (RS-68 will need a regenerative nozzle if you want to
>> put four or five of them on a rocket.)
>
>You aren't going to need that many; for a Shuttle C type vehicle you
>will only need two.
That 's only true at the low end, and even there, the cost argument is
such that DIRECT went with SSME anyway. At the high-end, should we
need such a beast, Ares V had to grow from 5 SSMEs to 6 RS-68s and
FSB. Ouch.
And there were many Shuttle-C proposals with only a single SSME. The
baseline was for two SSMEs. Three SSMEs would have been the high-end
version. Of course, that was Shuttle-C, not "Not Shuttle-C".
>>Any heating concerns with the nozzle can be dealt
>>with via a heatshield like was used on the core engines of Titan III/IV.
That's not what we're hearing from the Ares V guys. They are pretty
much banking on either regen RS-68 or switching to SSME.
> >That's 20 RS-68s we don't have to buy in the "money is
>> incredibly tight" early years.
>...and once those 20 or so are used up (around 7 flights) you are right
>back to the cost problem again.
>So to save money early in the program you increase costs later in the
>program.
We save *a lot* of money early in the program by going with SSME
though. Cancellation of Five Segment SRB. Cancellation of the new
Super Crawler. Cancellation of the Crawlerway reinforcement.
Cancellation of ET production retooling for 10 meter diameter.
Cancellation of RS-68 Regen. That will pay for a lot of SSMEs. And
when all that other development is paid off and we have the more
expensive SSME, we still have a smaller, more efficient vehicle than
its RS-68 competitor.
>That's exactly the sort of strategy that led to the Shuttle being made
>in its most simple form and its high per-mission costs ever since.
It isn't clear you'll actually have higher operational cost with SSME,
given the overall smaller vehicle, standard SRB vs. FSB in particular.
Note that the DIRECT 3.0 proposal is now officially using SSME, after
all that number crunching from the RS-68-powered DIRECT 2.0.
>Again, we are only talking two engines here to match the thrust of the
>three SSMEs.
DIRECT went from 2 RS-68s to 3 SSMEs and considers that an
improvement. Ares V went from five SSMEs to six RS-68s and is now at
death's door. Make of that what you will.
>> You don't need the same amount of thrust. Look how much bigger (not
>> smaller) Ares V got when they switched from SSME to RS-68.
>And what you end up with once you go that route is Jupiter, not Ares V.
You say that as if it is a negative. Bring it (or "Ares IV") on!
>Just like on Ares 1, their weight estimates were too optimistic for the
>original Ares V, and like Topsy it grew as they got a more realistic
>handle on what it was going to weigh.
The weight growth is almost entirely due to RS-68 instead of SSME. The
demise of Ares I and V will almost certainly be blamed in obituaries
on the decision to abandon SSME, which in my opinion was penny wise
and pound foolish.
>The most recent talk has been of ditching the permanent Moon base and
>going with extended Lunar landing missions, and at that point all you
>have done is a upgraded Apollo mission.
I'll take it! The moon base is an interesting idea, but I'm not sure
we need it to be so grandiose as to be permanently manned. That could
cut its cost quite a bit. We only need a base camp with emergency
supplies and a "storm shelter". As quickly as possible, add things
like long-range Rovers and a derivative Altair that can do exploration
to progressively more distant (and interesting) destinations (farside,
Copernicus, what-have-you.) This can be done without the expense of
permanent manning. Altair crews arrive and switch vehicles to go
exploring, then they return to the base camp and launch back to their
Orion.
>Our Moon has the disadvantage of being one of the least interesting
>moons in the solar system.
Not necessarily. It didn't help that the first two landings went to
'safe' places that were very dull, and that 14 gave up before they got
to Cone Crater which could well have generated some excitement. By the
time they went to interesting places like Taurus-Littrow, no one was
paying attention. We'll need to avoid that problem by choosing
exciting targets as early in the program as possible.
>Mars would be a very interesting place to go, but if the funding wasn't
>there to do it in the gung-ho early days of the space race, its doubtful
>it will be there now.
I think Mars is simply too much to attempt at first. The moon can be
exciting, if done right. Put a TDRS at L-3 (or L-whatever) and do a
farside landing as soon as possible. An Altair that can land
substantial payload at the south pole should also be able to land in
Copernicus. THAT will generate public excitement. These will be high
risk, but that's the name of the game.
>> So we have to ask what's the best launch method. Right now, I'd
>> say Delta IV-Heavy is.
>
>Now that I completely agree with you on. Atlas V could be a contender,
>but to get up to the needed payload you are going to need solid
>strap-ons of some sort, and it's best to avoid those if at all possible.
Atlas V-Heavy should avoid that problem, and ULA says they can give it
to us something like three years after go-ahead. But that Russian
engine is going to raise eyebrows on the Hill. Its one thing for Mars
probes to launch on one, another for the flagship of American space
power to be lofted courtesy Russia. Just avoid the inevitable argument
and go with Delta IV-Heavy.
> the Shuttle flies till another one gets
>destroyed somehow.
I think Shuttle flies until 2012-13 and some other architecture for
Orion is chosen (probably a Delta IV-Heavy/Not-Shuttle-C tandem or
Jupiter) to get first flight in 2014-15, shortening the 'gap' to only
two years, a lot better that six or seven.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>> Trips to and from the ISS are really just a kind of bus service. The
>>> space shuttle has proved itself much too dangerous for use in that role.
>>
>> Yeah, losing all the cargo and the virtually irreplaceable orbiter is
>> a bitch.
>I'm thinking of the crew.
They're all volunteers. They know the risk. They climb aboard anyway.
If they find the risk acceptable (by the way, the risk is almost
exactly the same as it is for Russia's Soyuz) why shouldn't you?
Brian
bob haller
most soyuz crew loses were early in the program, not long ago a soyuz
launch boost problem occured, crew saved by escape rockets whicxh
shuttles dont have.
shuttles are highly unsafe, but will fly till they kill again
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
date, so one could argue the same about the shuttle.
And Soyuz has had several close calls in the past few years.
Don't continue to be blind to the risks elsewhere.
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:7abfd74e-a3b1-43cf...@e11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>> Some people want to take illicit drugs.
>>
>
> And your point? People also take legal drugs. Flying the space shuttle
> isn't illegal.
>
"Zero hour nine a.m.
And I'm gonna be high as a kite by then"
Pat
Pat Flannery
Rick Jones wrote:
> Having already fought the French several times before, presumably the
> Germans were too experienced to fall into that trap :)
>
They probably couldn't have been lured into making these then either:
http://home.att.net/~dannysoar2/Whirlygig.htm
Pat
> rick jones
>
Sylvia Else
> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
> news:002ac0f2$0$29934$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>>> "Sylvia Else" <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote in message
>>> news:003052f7$0$25444$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> Derek Lyons wrote:
>>>>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Trips to and from the ISS are really just a kind of bus service. The
>>>>>> space shuttle has proved itself much too dangerous for use in that
>>>>>> role.
>>>>> Yeah, losing all the cargo and the virtually irreplaceable orbiter is
>>>>> a bitch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ask the Germans of WWI what happens when you consider equipment
>>>>> specifically built to go in harm's way too expensive to go in harm's
>>>>> way.
>>>>>
>>>>> D.
>>>> I'm thinking of the crew.
>>> And yet, crews still continue to fly and want to fly.
>> Some people want to take illicit drugs.
>
> And your point? People also take legal drugs. Flying the space shuttle
> isn't illegal.
The point being that we don't allow people to take certain drugs,
ostensibly because doing so is unacceptably dangerous.
So as a society we've taken the view that some activites are too
dangerous for people to be allowed to engage in them, no matter how much
they might want to.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
At which point they say "Heck, might as well go on until the last one
blows as well."
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
Er, that would be "the other two"
Sylvia.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Guess we might as well prevent people from climbing Denali, parachuting,
cancel the crab industry, medi-flight helicopters, hell regular fire
departments, etc.
There's quite a few activities we permit people to do despite their risks.
As long as the nation is committed to a space program, there's going to be
some risk involved.
At this point you can have
Shuttle, with a proven 2% loss of crew or vehicle
Soyuz, with depending on how you want to count a 2-4% LCOV (two aborts, crew
survived, but mission vehicle failed to make orbit, 2 losses of crew)
Ares I - unknown, unflown, not available for 6-7 years
Commercial flights - unknown, unflown, not available for ? years.
Derek Lyons
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>>
>>> Trips to and from the ISS are really just a kind of bus service. The
>>> space shuttle has proved itself much too dangerous for use in that role.
>>
>> Yeah, losing all the cargo and the virtually irreplaceable orbiter is
>> a bitch.
>>
>> Ask the Germans of WWI what happens when you consider equipment
>> specifically built to go in harm's way too expensive to go in harm's
>> way.
>>
>> D.
>
>I'm thinking of the crew.
Crews are a penny a dozen.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
Derek Lyons
And the problem with that is... what exactly?
Sylvia Else
Or don't fly manned missions at all until an acceptably safe launch
system has been developed.
Yes, manned missions are involved in some good science, but does that
science need to be done now? What would be the harm of waiting until at
least the launch risks had been reduced to a level that would be
tolerated in other areas of activity.
The return to the moon and manned mission to mars projects are just
pretexts for building and operating heavy-lift launchers, as was the ISS.
If I wanted to run a science project on the ground that was going to
kill 2% of a certain class of participant, I'd be told to think again,
even if the prospective participants claimed to be willing to take the risk.
Why should space based research be any different?
Sylvia.
Pat Flannery
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> The point being that we don't allow people to take certain drugs,
> ostensibly because doing so is unacceptably dangerous.
>
> So as a society we've taken the view that some activites are too
> dangerous for people to be allowed to engage in them, no matter how
> much they might want to.
Well, there goes the military. :-D
Pat
Pat Flannery
Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> At which point they say "Heck, might as well go on until the last one
> blows as well."
I could actually see them doing that.
The Shuttle is as hard to kill as Dracula, and like him sucks the
lifeblood out of all that is around it.
Other NASA programs have garlic around their office doors to keep it away.
Pat
Sylvia Else
Well, I think my comment has to be taken in context. Preventing a rogue
state from possessing WMDs (OK, they didn't, but the US apparently
thought they did) is one thing. Doing scientific experiments is another.
Sylvia.
Sylvia Else
>
>
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>
>> At which point they say "Heck, might as well go on until the last one
>> blows as well."
>
> I could actually see them doing that.
> The Shuttle is as hard to kill as Dracula, and like him sucks the
> lifeblood out of all that is around it.
That's one of my objections to it - it's a money pit that's doing
nothing to advance space exploration.
Sylvia.
bob haller
> If I wanted to run a science project on the ground that was going to
> kill 2% of a certain class of participant, I'd be told to think again,
> even if the prospective participants claimed to be willing to take the risk.
>
> Why should space based research be any different?
>
> Sylvia.
beyond which the aging fleet death rate is projected by nasa
management to rise, griffin said 18% or some such........
hey I have this great way to spend boatloads of money on space........
the death rate will rise to 18% and might endanger some on gound......
how far will this get?
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
>> As long as the nation is committed to a space program, there's going to
>> be some risk involved.
>>
>> At this point you can have
>> Shuttle, with a proven 2% loss of crew or vehicle
>> Soyuz, with depending on how you want to count a 2-4% LCOV (two aborts,
>> crew survived, but mission vehicle failed to make orbit, 2 losses of
>> crew)
>> Ares I - unknown, unflown, not available for 6-7 years
>> Commercial flights - unknown, unflown, not available for ? years.
>
> Or don't fly manned missions at all until an acceptably safe launch system
> has been developed.
>
> Yes, manned missions are involved in some good science, but does that
> science need to be done now? What would be the harm of waiting until at
> least the launch risks had been reduced to a level that would be tolerated
> in other areas of activity.
Now that's a very different question, and honestly, a fair one. That's why
I prefaced it with "Asd long as the nation is committed to..."
Yes, if we want a space program, those are the choices. If we chose not to,
then you're right, we can make the death rate 0%.
Keep in mind the space program has always been as much about national
prestige as it has been about science.
As long as it's a volunteer program and it has such a small impact on the
budget, I can live with that.
>
> The return to the moon and manned mission to mars projects are just
> pretexts for building and operating heavy-lift launchers, as was the ISS.
>
> If I wanted to run a science project on the ground that was going to kill
> 2% of a certain class of participant, I'd be told to think again, even if
> the prospective participants claimed to be willing to take the risk.
>
> Why should space based research be any different?
Rightly or wrongly "because it is" and because National Prestige is
involved.
Greg D. Moore (Strider)
Well that's a whole 'nother story. One I can't necessarily disagree with,
but honestly, I don't see many other viable alternatives.
Whether we want ot admit it or not, the space program continues to fascinate
people. If the President said tomorrow, "I'm turning NASA into a pure
research organization and letting private companies take up the slack" (one
possible and I think quite possibly good choice), the outcry would be
deafening.
Sylvia Else
Depends how it's worded.
"I've decided that there is no justification in spending YOUR tax
dollars supporting an aging and dangerous orbital bus service, so I've
directed NASA to return to its core business of advanced space research,
and leave the bread and butter work to private industry, which has
demonstrated time and again that it's better at such things."
Sylvia.
David Spain
> Or don't fly manned missions at all until an acceptably safe launch
> system has been developed.
>
> Yes, manned missions are involved in some good science, but does that
> science need to be done now? What would be the harm of waiting until at
> least the launch risks had been reduced to a level that would be
> tolerated in other areas of activity.
>
So scientists must take a back seat to insurance actuaries? What about
areas of science so new that the risks are unknown?
> If I wanted to run a science project on the ground that was going to
> kill 2% of a certain class of participant, I'd be told to think again,
> even if the prospective participants claimed to be willing to take the
> risk.
Depends on the situation. Criticality experiments in the Manhattan Project
in WWII were full speed ahead and they killed 2 participants outright and some
would claim about six others over a few decades. After the war, after the 2nd
participant was killed and several injured, his experiment was banned, but by
that time the war was over. I think one can make a justifiable claim that the
decision to ban the experiment was purely situational.
>
> Why should space based research be any different?
>
This is a totally subjective approach. As in the example above it is completely
situational.
If the research is to explore a near Earth asteroid to determine if element X
is in great abundance, you'd back seat it until the insurance
actuaries determined that to do the experiment is no more dangerous than
what? Cleaning the kitchen sink? Driving your car to work? Taking a ride in a
commercial jetliner? Exploring the ocean underwater? ???
If the research is to prevent a direct hit by a newly discovered rogue asteroid
that would wipe out life on Earth as we know it, then what would be the
determination? The risk factors haven't changed.
For you the risk decisions are socialist/political, not mathematical...
Dave
Sylvia Else
> Sylvia Else wrote:
>> Or don't fly manned missions at all until an acceptably safe launch
>> system has been developed.
>>
> Define acceptable please.
I can't. It clearly depends on the nature of the knowledge to be
obtained from research done in space. I thought that was obvious.
>
>> Yes, manned missions are involved in some good science, but does that
>> science need to be done now? What would be the harm of waiting until
>> at least the launch risks had been reduced to a level that would be
>> tolerated in other areas of activity.
>>
> So scientists must take a back seat to insurance actuaries? What about
> areas of science so new that the risks are unknown?
That's a different issue. We have some idea of the risks of shuttle
launches. That's the point under discussion.
I have not argued that there's a specific level of risk that is
acceptable. I'm arguing that the risk represented by space shuttle
launches is too high compared with limited near term benefit of research
being conducted IN space.
Instead of doing that research now, we could defer it until a safe
launching system had been developed. The money currently being spent on
operating the space shuttle could be spent on that development.
Sylvia.
David Spain
> The point being that we don't allow people to take certain drugs,
> ostensibly because doing so is unacceptably dangerous.
>
because it is unacceptably dangerous to the user, but to the society
that must bear the burdens of the repercussions. When the societal
cost (mainly economic) of enforcing the ban vastly exceeds the cost
of the use, the law banning the use is typically ignored (unenforced).
> So as a society we've taken the view that some activites are too
> dangerous for people to be allowed to engage in them, no matter how much
> they might want to.
>
No. We've taken the socialist view that some activities are too costly
to society as a whole to allow individuals to engage in it. There is
strong logical reasoning behind this I don't dispute. It's simply another
case-in-point, however, that liberty is not strengthened by numbers.
Dave
David Spain
> David Spain wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Or don't fly manned missions at all until an acceptably safe launch
>>> system has been developed.
>>>
>> Define acceptable please.
>
> I can't. It clearly depends on the nature of the knowledge to be
> obtained from research done in space. I thought that was obvious.
It is clearly not. What is the nature of knowledge? Do you concede
that its 'natural' value definition might be different to the researcher
that has devoted his entire life and career to the discovery of X
vs the 1st year grad student looking for a thesis topic?
> I have not argued that there's a specific level of risk that is
> acceptable. I'm arguing that the risk represented by space shuttle
> launches is too high compared with limited near term benefit of research
> being conducted IN space.
As you see it?
>
> Instead of doing that research now, we could defer it until a safe
> launching system had been developed. The money currently being spent on
> operating the space shuttle could be spent on that development.
>
But you refuse to define what 'safe' is. Depending on the definition,
the money being spent on operating the space shuttle clearly may not
be enough to fund its 'safe' replacement!
Fuzzy thinking about safety is not the proper way to determine the
value of science, to set engineering goals, and especially in crafting law.
It is in fact, a major problem with our society today.
On our civilizations' tombstone will be the carved words:
'We saved our children!'
Dave
Derek Lyons
>David Spain wrote:
>> Sylvia Else wrote:
>>> Or don't fly manned missions at all until an acceptably safe launch
>>> system has been developed.
>>>
>> Define acceptable please.
>
>I can't. It clearly depends on the nature of the knowledge to be
>obtained from research done in space. I thought that was obvious.
No, it's not obvious - especially in light of your claim below that
you cannot specify an acceptable level of risk, only an unnaceptable
one.
>I have not argued that there's a specific level of risk that is
>acceptable. I'm arguing that the risk represented by space shuttle
>launches is too high compared with limited near term benefit of research
>being conducted IN space.
In other words, according to you, we'll never fly again - because you
cannot define acceptable.
>Instead of doing that research now, we could defer it until a safe
>launching system had been developed. The money currently being spent on
>operating the space shuttle could be spent on that development.
In a world where we could determine with accuracy the safety of a
vehicle without actually flying it, this might be a good approach.
We don't live in such a world.
Derek Lyons
>That's one of my objections to it - it's a money pit that's doing
>nothing to advance space exploration.
Only if you use a definition of "space exploration" that amounts to
"anything done in space so long as the Shuttle isn't the vehicle doing
it".
Which, sadly, is the same definition used by many otherwise
intelligent posters here.
Derek Lyons
>"I've decided that there is no justification in spending YOUR tax
>dollars supporting an aging and dangerous orbital bus service, so I've
>directed NASA to return to its core business of advanced space research,
>and leave the bread and butter work to private industry, which has
>demonstrated time and again that it's better at such things."
Where and when *exactly* has private enterprise demonstrated that it's
better at providing manned access to orbit? Hell, I'd settle for
*exactly* when and where private enterprise has demonstrated any
access to orbit statistically notably better than goverment operated
ventures.
Pat Flannery
Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> Whether we want ot admit it or not, the space program continues to fascinate
> people. If the President said tomorrow, "I'm turning NASA into a pure
> research organization and letting private companies take up the slack" (one
> possible and I think quite possibly good choice), the outcry would be
> deafening.
>
Time for "flags, but no footprints"?:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17540-nasa-panel-may-propose-deep-space-crewed-missions.html
I can think of few things more pointless than a manned flyby of Venus...
a place where we can be fairly sure we are never going to do a manned
landing.
There is something pretty strange going on here...these were the sorts
of follow-on missions proposed for Apollo after the Moon landings, but
in this case they are getting proposed _before_ the Moon landings.
And packing enough food and water aboard a Orion for a Mars flyby is
going to be challenging to say the least.
...unless... the crew consisted of _very small monkeys_! _Tiny_
monkeys with a personalities all out of proportion to their size!
Now, I've been keeping these particular CPFMs up my sleeve like a pair
of aces, for when they were needed.
Yes, the incredibly cute Tarsier is exactly the monkey for this job:
http://www.tripbase.com/articles/images/Bizarreanimals/Tarsier.jpg
They are so tiny that with one hand you can swat them like mosquitoes:
http://media.photobucket.com/image/tarsier/Dubh86/Tarsiers%20and%20other%20joys/Tarsier.jpg
But who would swat a Tarsier when you could hurl it into space instead? :-)
Pat
Janitor_of_Lunacy
> And I still bet it's going to all get canceled sometime in the next five
> years, as it doesn't really accomplish anything that needs to be done,
> and costs a hell of a lot of money to accomplish on top of that fact.
> The most recent talk has been of ditching the permanent Moon base and
> going with extended Lunar landing missions, and at that point all you
> have done is a upgraded Apollo mission.
> Huge amounts of money gets poured into the program and all that comes
> out are more bags of Moonrock.
What is the real point of a permanent moon base as opposed to extended
(two to six week) missions? Will a moonbase in one place make it
easier to explore other areas of the moon, or, more likely, soak up
funds which could have been used to mount five or ten extended stay
missions. I think that there has to be some utility for a moonbase per
se for it to be justifiable in opposition to exploratory missions. (An
analogy was a suggestion, from the early 60s, for a manned station as
being a good place to launch satellites from.)
Pat Flannery
Janitor_of_Lunacy wrote:
> What is the real point of a permanent moon base as opposed to extended
> (two to six week) missions? Will a moonbase in one place make it
> easier to explore other areas of the moon, or, more likely, soak up
> funds which could have been used to mount five or ten extended stay
> missions. I think that there has to be some utility for a moonbase per
> se for it to be justifiable in opposition to exploratory missions. (An
> analogy was a suggestion, from the early 60s, for a manned station as
> being a good place to launch satellites from.)
>
The problem with a Moon base is how far you dare travel from it in case
your rover or rocket flyer breaks down.
Back during Apollo, the astronauts weren't allowed to travel further
away from the LM than they could walk back in case the LRV quit on them.
If you are 100 miles away from the base and you get stranded, you are in
a world of hurt unless they can get some sort of rescue vehicle to you
before your life support runs out.
Pat
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>The problem with a Moon base is how far you dare travel from it in case
>your rover or rocket flyer breaks down.
>Back during Apollo, the astronauts weren't allowed to travel further
>away from the LM than they could walk back in case the LRV quit on them.
>If you are 100 miles away from the base and you get stranded, you are in
>a world of hurt unless they can get some sort of rescue vehicle to you
>before your life support runs out.
That's easily solved by having two Rovers or two Altair-Lite "hoppers"
and having the four astronauts go out in pairs. If one team's
conveyance breaks down, the other goes to get them.
Brian
Rick Jones
> That's easily solved by having two Rovers or two Altair-Lite
> "hoppers" and having the four astronauts go out in pairs. If one
> team's conveyance breaks down, the other goes to get them.
S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you
can have two at twice the price?
from:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway... :)
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...
Brian Thorn
wrote:
And skydiving, and climbing the Himalayas, and NASCAR... (poor Dale
Earnhardt! how on Earth could we let him risk his life so needlessly,
we'd better take Sylvia's advice and shut down Daytona, too..)
And oh my God! Look at these damned fools who fly in airshows, they're
just WAITING to die! Ban them! Now!
Brian
Pat Flannery
Rick Jones wrote:
> In sci.space.history Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>
>> That's easily solved by having two Rovers or two Altair-Lite
>> "hoppers" and having the four astronauts go out in pairs. If one
>> team's conveyance breaks down, the other goes to get them.
>>
>
> S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you
> can have two at twice the price?
>
> from:
>
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/quotes
>
Makes one wonder...would they be able to send more people through the
Japanese one, or was it a one-shot design?
Meanwhile, back up on the Moon - although rocket-powered hoppers might
give you a lot more range than a wheeled rover, it's not going to have
anywhere near as benign of failure modes as a rover. Unlike a
helicopter, you can't autorotate down to a safe landing if you have an
engine failure. So do you strap rocket belts on the astronauts in case
their Moon hopper suddenly quits a couple of thousand feet up in the
air? Of course, unlike shown in "2001", it makes a lot more sense to
launch the hopper on a ballistic path between its take-off point and
destination, and just let it free fall back towards the surface with
hard braking just before landing, rather than flying around horizontally
like a helicopter under steady rocket thrust.
Pat
Brian Thorn
wrote:
>Makes one wonder...would they be able to send more people through the
>Japanese one
The Alien Dad (David Morse) said something like "not until you're
ready" didn't he? Implying they could turn it off. But it is odd that
the IMC didn't even try to send the second runner-up through after
Jodie Foster to verify her story.
>Meanwhile, back up on the Moon - although rocket-powered hoppers might
>give you a lot more range than a wheeled rover, it's not going to have
>anywhere near as benign of failure modes as a rover.
I'd have it powered by a bunch of little engines instead of one or two
big engines. It won't take a lot of thrust to "hop" around, the LM
ascent stage was a whimpy engine by most standards, but that LM ascent
stage blasted off like a canon shot.
If you lose one thruster, or even one quad of thrusters, no problem.
Brian
Brian Thorn
<rick....@hp.com> wrote:
>In sci.space.history Brian Thorn <btho...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
>> That's easily solved by having two Rovers or two Altair-Lite
>> "hoppers" and having the four astronauts go out in pairs. If one
>> team's conveyance breaks down, the other goes to get them.
>
>S.R. Hadden: First rule in government spending: why build one when you
> can have two at twice the price?
Presumably, we aren't only going to send one crew to the moon, so
we're not going to be building just one of anything (unlike The
Machine and its secret duplicate in Japan...)
Design Altair to be flexible from the outset, so that the standard
design can be modified relatively cheaply for multiple missions.
Brian
Pat Flannery
Brian Thorn wrote:
> Design Altair to be flexible from the outset, so that the standard
> design can be modified relatively cheaply for multiple missions.
>
Well, they already tried the Space 1999 Eagle clone, but it came out too
heavy.
Pat