Shuttle hijinks

[MaxKaladin]

So you don't want a ship that remains in space permanently that we can use to explore the solar system? Instead, you want something that can go up into space, and no further, and then back to Earth. Project Constellation isn't a shuttle replacement, its the first real step in space exploration.

Reading that wikipedia article doesn't really give the impression that Project Constellation is that. Yes, it's intended to go beyond LEO, but it also talks about having a crew module that will be good "for up to 10 flights" and sending the whole package into orbit with a solid rocket booster like the shuttle uses. I would like to see them build a space truck that carries cargo and crews to orbit and then an actual space ship that never lands to use for exploration.

I'm pretty convinced that the best thing that can be done to spur space exploration is to build a "space truck" that can (relatively) cheaply get stuff to orbit without the massive production a space shuttle launch is. Once you've got that, the rest becomes easier.

 

[Darrin Drader]

I'm pretty convinced that the best thing that can be done to spur space exploration is to build a "space truck" that can (relatively) cheaply get stuff to orbit without the massive production a space shuttle launch is. Once you've got that, the rest becomes easier.

I'm sure you're right about that. The question becomes how to actually accomplish that. Unless they build that elevator they were talking about, you still need to get a ship up to escape velocity in order to leave the planet.

 

[WayneLigon]

And we probably can't build the elevator until we can move asteroids. Everything I've seen always has an asteroid as a counterweight.

 

[wingsandsword]

We know disposable rockets work. Rockets that have been human-rated for space launches have had a much higher safety record than the shuttle actually. We've never had a failure with an ablative heat shield, and pound-for-pound the Shuttle is an extremely inefficient launch vehicle. The only thing it has going for it is that it can put 7 people in orbit and double as a cargo lifter, but it does neither cheaply as a dedicated crew capsule or a heavy-lift rocket. Remarkably, everything I've read says that a full Saturn V stack for a moon launch costs less than a shuttle flight, when you factor in upkeep and refurbishment of the shuttle over time, dividing out the cost of the orbiter over the multiple launches, dividing out the cost of the initial development, reprocessing the SRB's, and replacement of the ET.

Project Constellation goes back to what we know works: rocket stacks and capsules. The CEV is meant to be a modular system, which means we can launch a smaller rocket with a CEV Block 1 capsule to access the ISS or other low-earth-orbit missions, or assemble a larger stack to reach the Moon, Mars or even a NEO Asteroid. It's meant to be an expandable, modular system that balances a degree of reusability with the long term costs of wear and refurbishment. The CEV is also designed to be improved over time, with new models coming into service regularly, and since it is a modular design, improvements in the design can be implemented in one element much more easily. Once we have working moonbases, private space stations, a mars base, and missions to NEO's, we'll have enough of a space presence to justify a space-located shipyard for construction of dedicated spacefaring craft.

One leading concept behind Project Constellation is: Get it working quickly. We have the design legacy of things like the Crew Escape Vehicle concept and the DCX to work with besides the Shuttle, as well as the huge engineering lineage of the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo programs. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we're using the best parts of everything we've done and making a vehicle that can be brought into service quicker, and presumably safer by using time-proven technologies.

In a perfect world, SSTO (single stage to orbit) spaceplanes would be perfect, and it looks like Scaled Composites is working on that in the private sector. However, SSTO will probably lack the heavy lift capacity, at least for a long time, needed for space construction as well as reaching beyond LEO. Private SSTO spacecraft will be good for reaching the ISS (or private space stations, like the Space Hotel concepts under construction), and once there is a moonbase established I can imagine a SSTO launch mating with a booster for a translunar flight, for private spaceline access to the base.

Also, as was noted, to build a space elevator requires, among other things, the ability to visit an asteroid and move it into a geosynchronous orbit. Project Constellation has as a design capacity the ability to reach such an asteroid, and a feasible mission for a CEV could include astronauts mounting thrusters on an asteroid to shepherd it into a viable orbit.

 

[Jonny Nexus]

Also, not to lessen the sacrifice of those men and women who have died in shuttle disasters, but there was a pretty significant death toll in all of the X-plane tests in the 1950's, and the Mercury initial test flights, too. There's always a good bit of risk assumed in anything as hazardous as space travel.

Minor quibble (don't disagree with the thrust of what you are saying): I was under the impression that no-one died in the Mercury test flights (certainly none of the seven Mercury astronauts died, although Gus Grissom - after flying successfully in Gemini 3 - was later killed in the Apollo 1 launch-pad fire).

I suppose the point I would make is that while there has always been an element of risk in space flight, the shuttle has two big areas of risk that previous American manned space craft didn't.

1) It uses solid-rockets that, unlike liquid fuelled rockets, cannot be turned off once lit.

2) It has no proper launch escape system. (Mercury and Apollo both had escape rockets to lift the capsure clear of an exploding rocket, while Gemini had ejector seats).

 

[Gnarlo]

I'm pretty convinced that the best thing that can be done to spur space exploration is to build a "space truck" that can (relatively) cheaply get stuff to orbit without the massive production a space shuttle launch is. Once you've got that, the rest becomes easier.

We had that way back in 1979, surely yall haven't forgotten the Vulture....

 

[Umbran]

A few occasionally disconnected thoughts...

"What we need is X." There is no one single X that will make space exporation perfect, or even especially good. It is a complex problem, without a simple solution. One hunk of hardware won't fix the world.

We also need a public and media that realizes that getting to orbit entails strapping the cargo to a gigantic bundle of high explosives, so that it is inherently risky. There is only so much that can be done to make is safe, and excessive safety requirements can make the overall performance of the program worse, rather than better. Spending two and a half years to make safety changes to a system that would afterwards continue for only 5 more years in a limited fashion was not a cost-effective approach to the problem.

We could use an Administration with a less politicized approach to setting space policy.

We need a series of administrations and a public that realizes that the capital investment required to explore and exploit space is enormous, and that the investment will require generations to pay off. This is not a program from which we should expect profit within our own lifetimes.

It'd be a big help if some folks realized that the space program is not entirely about science. It is about engineering, and developing good process, and a whole lot of other things.

NASA is not the enemy. NASA takes it's orders from the government, and is answerable to that government and the court of public opinion. If you want to blame someone for how NASA approaches things, look at the climate in which they have to work.

The Shuttles are old... sort of. It is more accurate to say that the airframes are old. Note that none of the issues we've seen of late has been due to a problem with the airframe. The heat-resistant tiles are replaced/repaired regularly, as is foam on the external tank, as were the o-rings so long ago. None of these problems had anything to do with the age of the shuttles.

 

[Belen]

Well, everything I've read says you're wrong, and that the shuttles will be replaced by another reusable system. But what's so moronic about rockets? The Russians have been doing it that way for decades. And who says you can't test a rocket? Rockets get tested all the time. Hell, the rockets that power the shuttle into orbit get tested. What's the difference?

They are building a reusable capsule, not a full-fledged spacecraft. The capsule will sit on top of a huge roman candle. Rockets are moronic and the only parts that they test beforehand are the engines. It's like driving a brand new car every day because your car is only used for one shots.

Also, while NASA does reuse the boosters, they cost a crapload to recover and refurbish for every launch. Why? Because they closed the factories that made the boosters a long time ago.

Going back to technology we used for manned flight 40 years ago is not the answer. NASA has proven that such technology does not lead to an investment in space assets.

If you want the skinny on space travel, I recommend reading Transterrestrial Musings, http://www.transterrestrial.com/, although be careful because he can get political at times. Rand Simberg is a great source for news and views on the space program.

 

[Belen]

We also need a public and media that realizes that getting to orbit entails strapping the cargo to a gigantic bundle of high explosives, so that it is inherently risky. There is only so much that can be done to make is safe, and excessive safety requirements can make the overall performance of the program worse, rather than better. Spending two and a half years to make safety changes to a system that would afterwards continue for only 5 more years in a limited fashion was not a cost-effective approach to the problem.

Correct. We also need the public to realize that people die. None of those astronauts went up thinking that it would be a safe journey. Exploration is hazardous. Just look at how many people died exploring the New World.

We could use an Administration with a less politicized approach to setting space policy.

Actually, the current administration has been very good for space policy, especially with the deregulation of the FAA-AST guidelines for private space enterprize. Privatization will do what no government could ever do. Bush may have his faults, but he has forwarded space policy more than any administration in 40 years.

We need a series of administrations and a public that realizes that the capital investment required to explore and exploit space is enormous, and that the investment will require generations to pay off. This is not a program from which we should expect profit within our own lifetimes.

Our lifetimes could be fairly long. You should read Ben Bova's nonfiction book "The Immortals." There are advanced coming that could double or triple the lifespan of those people born in the 70s and later. If we relied on the government for advancements in space, then we would have to wait generations. The government needs to get out of the way and make sure that Lockeed and Boeing do not try to smash the little guys for jumping into their sandbox.

It'd be a big help if some folks realized that the space program is not entirely about science. It is about engineering, and developing good process, and a whole lot of other things.

Bingo. Science is great, but the only reason we need to go out there is because "it's there."

The Shuttles are old... sort of. It is more accurate to say that the airframes are old. Note that none of the issues we've seen of late has been due to a problem with the airframe. The heat-resistant tiles are replaced/repaired regularly, as is foam on the external tank, as were the o-rings so long ago. None of these problems had anything to do with the age of the shuttles.

The airframes are rated for 100 flights. None of the shuttles have approached that number. The problem with the shuttles are that they are old tech and none of the lines are operating anylonger. While they may get some new advancements, most personal computers have more computing power than the shuttle. The shuttle was always a compromise design. It is not truly a resusable vehicle and takes huge resources to maintain.

We do not need ONE single launch platform or vehicle. This is why we have a dozen different types of sedans, SUVs, etc. We need lot of competing platforms for the industry to survive.

 

[Umbran]

Bush may have his faults, but he has forwarded space policy more than any administration in 40 years.

Yes, but his mission to the Moon and Mars initiative looks to be poorly considered, funded and executed. That may (will likely, imho) overwhelm what good he has done.

Our lifetimes could be fairly long. You should read Ben Bova's nonfiction book "The Immortals." There are advanced coming that could double or triple the lifespan of those people born in the 70s and later.

Perhaps, but looking at it that way would be couting chickens before they've hatched. We may also be in for an ecological disaster that will wash Mr. Bova's projections into the ever-deepening ocean. Or not. Or lightning may strike a young man in South Dakota, revealing him to be the space-faring son of interstellar pirates. Lots of things might happen.

If we relied on the government for advancements in space, then we would have to wait generations. The government needs to get out of the way and make sure that Lockeed and Boeing do not try to smash the little guys for jumping into their sandbox.

Hardly. While NASA and the ESA and the Japanese have now worked with low-earth orbit stuff enough to shift that off to the private sector, anything beyond that is still too expensive and risky for any currently existing private enterprise to tackle. Private enterprise exists to make money for people now. They are (and should be) more focused on the profits of their current investors, and that precludes tossing out money that may not see a return for a century or more.

Simply put, nothing short of a first-world nation has the excess wealth to invest in so high-risk and long-term investments as the cutting edge of space flight. Putting stellites in orbit is no longer cutting edge, so others can manage that. But going even deeper will still require massive federal funding.

Science is great, but the only reason we need to go out there is because "it's there."

For some, that may be enough. But in every age, only a small number of people were really into exploration. Most people are "stay-at-homes", and it being there often does not seem to them to be sufficient cause for spendign tax dollars. Advancement (scientific or otherwise) that benefits future generations of their families, however, most folks can understand.

We do not need ONE single launch platform or vehicle. This is why we have a dozen different types of sedans, SUVs, etc. We need lot of competing platforms for the industry to survive.

No, we don't need competing platforms. We need complimentary platforms. Sedans and SUVs are not really in competition - they serve different needs, and fill separate niches.