Possible successors to the Space Shuttle

[Schadenfroh]

the ESA has a simple solution, we bought the Soyuz and build a new launch platform for it. Proven Russian technology!!! No need to spend billions on a new design

No need to innovate, everything that will be invented has already been invented. Why invest in the hopes of new discoveries when what we have now is fine?

Aren't some of you guys big supporters of small government? Why should the government be involve in space travel\exploration?

In my case, I do not consider myself a fiscal conservative. I will still collect a good bit of tax revenue across all income brackets. The difference between myself and the left-wing of the Democratic Party is that I would spend that income on the military (although much less than current levels), NASA, higher education and especially pure scientific endeavors (think supercolliders, research reactors, expanding national labs, etc.) at the cost of social welfare programs. This after the budget is balanced, of course.

 

[Slew Foot]

Sacrificing the future of mankind to bail out banks and pay people not to work for two years. GG Obama.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Obama seems to be able to throw out 100's of billions at everything else. Not sure why he is so anti-science.

 

[ichy]

Obama seems to be able to throw out 100's of billions at everything else. Not sure why he is so anti-science.

Manned spaceflight is a noble and worthy undertaking IMO, but it has NEVER been about science.

 

[Fear No Evil]

Manned spaceflight is a noble and worthy undertaking IMO, but it has NEVER been about science.

Oh.. my bad. So can I rephrase and say why is Obama against noble and worthy things?

 

[ichy]

Oh.. my bad. So can I rephrase and say why is Obama against noble and worthy things?

It was George Bush who made the decision to kill the shuttle. People are going to say "well Obama killed Constellation," but Bush never got it the funding that it would have needed to succeed. You're probably too stupid to read anything that conflicts with your simplistic, partisan worldview, but here's a more detailed story of why Constellation was never going anywhere.

http://waynehale.wordpress.com/2010/09/23/6/

We presented the case to the NASA administrator, Sean O’Keefe. It was not a pleasant meeting. It was the politest tongue lashing I have ever gotten. But we stuck to our guns; we needed more money, a request for supplemental funding from Congress must be made.

Shortly thereafter the decision was made at some high level to take the money out of the existing NASA budget; there would be no new request to Congress. So aeronautics and science were hit hard. And the nascent exploration program was strangled for money. So much for the ‘sand chart’. That was perhaps the first strike against Constellation, before it was really born.

Later on we found that we could not return the shuttle to flight in late 2004. Our first attempt did not come until late July 2005; and then even that was not successful. Returning the shuttle to reasonably safe and regular flight did not happen until July 2006. Completion of the ISS was stretching past 2009 into 2010 – and now into 2011. The shuttle was taking more and more of the ‘sand’ leaving less and less for the exploration initiatives in the critical design and development years.

There are probably any number of factors which have wounded the Constellation program, perhaps mortally. But taking longer to return the shuttle to flight, costing more to return the shuttle to flight, and delaying the completion of the ISS and the retirement of the shuttle; those were major causes too. Coupled with the top-level decisions not to ask the Congress for more money, the squeeze was well-nigh intolerable. From my standpoint the consequences were unintentional. But unintentional or more precisely with the best of intentions, the result was severe.

So yes, I had a role in the killing of Constellation; a long time before February 1, 2010.

The blame for the demise of America's manned space program is shared by many, many people.

 

[freegeeks]

the shuttle is an amazing technical achievement and a failed project at the same time. The idea was a cheap reusable vehicle that would make the trip to space cheap and easy. It turned out to be a hugely expensive program and it failed on it's basic promises. An amazing piece of kit nonetheless. The more worrying is that it leaves the US without any capabiltiy to get someone in space for the next decade or so

 

[ichy]

Freegeeks:

A very impressive solution in search of a problem is the best way to put it. Building a re-usable spacecraft was a huge challenge, and the fact that NASA was able to get it to work 133 out of 135 times is a remarkable achievement. The only problem is that it turned out that re-usability had no cost benefits. All that work to create a solution that didn't actually solve anything.

 

[freegeeks]

Freegeeks:

A very impressive solution in search of a problem is the best way to put it. Building a re-usable spacecraft was a huge challenge, and the fact that NASA was able to get it to work 133 out of 135 times is a remarkable achievement. The only problem is that it turned out that re-usability had no cost benefits. All that work to create a solution that didn't actually solve anything.

yeah, an amazing techological achievement but a giant financial disaster
The Russians have it right, they are using a cheap, proven design that they don't have to babysit all the time.

 

[Fern]

Aren't some of you guys big supporters of small government? Why should the government be involve in space travel\exploration?

Similarly to the military, space exploration (or monitoring volcanic and seismic activity, exploration of the deep sea or the arctic zones) is the domain of the government.

As a practical matter, this kind of tech R&D is too big for a private firm. Plus, I don't want the fruits from this kind of research to be exclusively owned by some private firm with a horde of patent attorneys.

How far out do you want to envision space exploration/travel? Do you prefer a Star Trek model, where it's government?

Or do you want to see huge private firms operating in outer space more-or-less unconstrained by anything other than a profit motive (Alien etc)?

At it's core, I think space exploration etc is a military matter.

Who's suppose to provide protection should we discover an asteroid on a collision course? The US military or the G.E. Deep Space Division, LLC?

Fern

 

[freegeeks]

Similarly to the military, space exploration (or monitoring volcanic and seismic activity, exploration of the deep sea or the arctic zones) is the domain of the government.

As a practical matter, this kind of tech R&D is too big for a private firm. Plus, I don't want the fruits from this kind of research to exclusively owned by some private firm with a horde of patent attorneys.

How far out do you want to envision space exploration/travel? Do you prefer a Star Trek model, where it's government?

Or do you want to see huge private firms operating in outer space more-or-less unconstrained by anything other than a profit motive (Alien etc)?

At it's core, I think space exploration etc is a military matter.

Who's suppose to provide protection should we discover an asteroid on a collision course? The US military or the G.E. Deep Space Division, LLC?

Fern

If Europe, China, Russia and USA would work more together, we can have someone on Mars in 10-15 years.

 

[werepossum]

Similarly to the military, space exploration (or monitoring volcanic and seismic activity, exploration of the deep sea or the arctic zones) is the domain of the government.

As a practical matter, this kind of tech R&D is too big for a private firm. Plus, I don't want the fruits from this kind of research to be exclusively owned by some private firm with a horde of patent attorneys.

How far out do you want to envision space exploration/travel? Do you prefer a Star Trek model, where it's government?

Or do you want to see huge private firms operating in outer space more-or-less unconstrained by anything other than a profit motive (Alien etc)?

At it's core, I think space exploration etc is a military matter.

Who's suppose to provide protection should we discover an asteroid on a collision course? The US military or the G.E. Deep Space Division, LLC?

Fern

Good points.

If Europe, China, Russia and USA would work more together, we can have someone on Mars in 10-15 years.

Ooh, can it be a politician?

Wait - they aren't coming back, are they?

 

[Schadenfroh]

If Europe, China, Russia and USA would work more together, we can have someone on Mars in 10-15 years.

Can we include Iran and North Korea? I hear that they could really use some advances in aerospace and rocketry for their "delivery" systems.

Russia and America do not want the Chinese to advance in the fields of aerospace, ICBMs and other ballistic missiles.

Notice that nearly all of the countries participating in the international space station project either have missile technology on-par with Russia or are members of NATO?

A space program is like a civilian nuclear power research program, both are public relations front-ends for military projects (but, they do deliver solid benefits).

 

[K1052]

If the government was interested it could fairly easily re-fund the X-33 demonstrator and have it in space within a couple years and back on the road to the Venture Star. The technical issues were well understood and are solvable (probably even easier now).

 

[Whiskey16]

A space program is like a civilian nuclear power research program, both are public relations front-ends for military projects (but, they do deliver solid benefits).

The former Atomic Energy of Canada and its 1960s-present CANDU programs were certainly not front ends for military projects. Though, the original atomic research plants in the 1940s were directly attributed to cooperation upon the Manhattan Project.

 

[CaptnKirk]

I've lived this thing - from first landing ALT in Aught'77 to the last one today.

Birth to Tomb.

If we really want to get serious about exploration of space, either close beyond LEO, or out to the fringes of our
solar group we need something large - not a can of spam for sitting in an outhouse for years at a time in diapers.

Logistics dictates that you need supplies to be re-stocked, and waste disposal at frequent intervals.
Do you want to spend 30 - 60 days in such confined quarters, and conusume minimal quantities of proteoid capsules
and recycled water filtered for by-products, and save every piece of trash and assorted waste particulates?

We took on a program to modulary configure the ISS, and that's been shown that would be a do-able program.
The single biggest barrier is the initial gravity well that we have to lift above to some quasi-stable orbit
in order to emplace some form of structural assembly position, where modular components can
be positioned, collected, and assembled into some intercoupled integrated system, like the ISS is designed
except make it assemble into a large spacious homogenous structure that can safely accomodate a large crew
as many as 20 individuals in a big robust enviromental container with subsystem walls, bulkheads, presssure
hatches and portals that permit the crew freedom to move around, and a large enough vessel to carry
supplies, methods for conversion/disposal, and scientific equipment to explore any event that manifests intrest.

We already would have to stage payloads along the way to Mars if we just want to tweak out for a look.
It's at least 6 months out one way, so there you have to place 3 supply vessles in pre-determined rendezvous
places, first pair as supply vaults 60 days out and another 60 days apart, with the third having a lander
if any attempt is made to go to the surface.
If this is done, the lander has to also ground launch, return to mother, dock and transfer.
The way back can take another 9 months, so coming back after the first 30 days will need re-supply
as some of the lander/supplier materials will be nearing exhaustion, so 30 days after maybe 2 or 3 weeks
on target, with a couple or 3 days on the surface, they need to exchange supplies before takin on
the longer 60 days between stations - they have to make transfer 4 more times.
Each re-supply vault has to launch and be parked before the launch on the way out,
the outermost
return module can be launched at the same window to their predetermined rondezvous points,
and the remaining 4 can go out incrementally for their specific locations, and be met when needed
but you can't miss the target or it's over, terminally.
It would take 7 supply heavy lifter, and one man-lifter to start the ball rolling - spam grand tour.

But . . . if 7 missions were flown with cargo, and personel, to assemble an interlocking
mechanical construction
which modulary composed a larger vessel which incorporated the 27.5' Dia. x 154' tanks like the Shuttle,
or 33' x 138' like Saturn S-1C for external tanks, and grouped the tanks into nestling cores
placing a ring of 6 around 1 central tank into a cluster, and add the interlocking modules at the 'front'
leaving the thrusters in place in the rear.
Residual propellants, if suitable, can be used to supply water, breathable oxygen atmoshpere,
and to supply electrical power with fuel cells to augment deployed solar arrays that can
overlay the
entire vehicle. We have already thrown away 135 external tanks of this size, they are already spaced
so insert, capture, and collect to assemble a vast self contained structure - the mating elements
are already there, it needs the interface modular components, and becomes an expandable item.

Throw that out on a mission where it can rondezvous with deeper staged re-supply vehicles in
LaGrange Points, and make some serious push outward, and after a year outbound bring it back.
meanwhile in the 2 year travel interval, continue building the next expansion modular phase that will
attach on orbit and change crews, and make the next deep exploration to possibily a Jovian LaGrange
and deposit that second phase modular collection there, and go back and get another.

7 tanks to a cluster - we've thrown out 135. That could have made almost 20 LaGrange elements.

An alternate configuration would be a wheel of 6 tanks with spoke clusters forming tripods
on either side of the wheel, with modules forming the wheel to spoke interfaces and the end hub sprockets.
That would make LaGrange Station Orbits functional, while the other module cluster is the traveler.

 

[disappoint]

I'm extremely disappointed in how NASA has been left to whither and basically drift aimlessly.

Somehow we can afford all kinds of money for various research into cocaine and monkeys and lizards running treadmills (or some such crap), but somehow not something high tech that has high potential to provide broad and numerous benefits. When I think of all the things that are said to have resulted from our space program it's truly sad we've abandoned it.

Fern

This. And I'll add there is plenty of money for the military industrial complex to swindle our govt into spending unbelievable amounts of taxpayer money to chase after a few delusional neanderthals moping around the desert.

 

[NetWareHead]

yeah, an amazing techological achievement but a giant financial disaster
The Russians have it right, they are using a cheap, proven design that they don't have to babysit all the time.

Agreed. Soyuz is longest serving, safest and arguably cheapest vehicle to launch and safely return astronauts back to Earth.

 

[rchiu]

Agreed. Soyuz is longest serving, safest and arguably cheapest vehicle to launch and safely return astronauts back to Earth.

That depends on what you think is the objective of the Space Shuttle Program. If it's just putting a few people in space and bring them home using cheapest mean possible, then sure Soyuz wins.

But if you think the space program is about developing new technology, exploring new ways to travel in space and pave the way for future space travel, I think the space shuttle program is somewhat a success. Sure it didn't reach the original goal of weekly launch, but the R&D gave scientists and astronauts data to design spaceships, and not just rockets with limited reach and destroyed upon returns.

 

[AeroEngy]

IMO one of the problems with relying on the private sector to come up with an alternative is the huge R&D cost that this would entail and the extreme risk in developing something so costly. If the government really wants the private sector to take the lead then they need to at least step up and increase tax incentives on R&D spending to mitigate some of the risk.
Also FYI, I was never a fan of the Constellation program and wasn’t that sad to see it go. However, I do like the designs proposed by the Direct/Jupiter team. That would reuse existing manufacturing/transportation infrastructure as well as shuttle program components (Tank, SSME, SRBs, etc.). Basically stick some SSME on the bottom of the tank, leave the SRBs on the side, build a new giant fairing for cargo or stick on an Orion crew module to haul astronauts. It is just that someone has to pay for it and the random NASA engineers who designed it in their spare time don’t have that kind of cash

 

[werepossum]

I've lived this thing - from first landing ALT in Aught'77 to the last one today.

Birth to Tomb.

If we really want to get serious about exploration of space, either close beyond LEO, or out to the fringes of our
solar group we need something large - not a can of spam for sitting in an outhouse for years at a time in diapers.

Logistics dictates that you need supplies to be re-stocked, and waste disposal at frequent intervals.
Do you want to spend 30 - 60 days in such confined quarters, and conusume minimal quantities of proteoid capsules
and recycled water filtered for by-products, and save every piece of trash and assorted waste particulates?

We took on a program to modulary configure the ISS, and that's been shown that would be a do-able program.
The single biggest barrier is the initial gravity well that we have to lift above to some quasi-stable orbit
in order to emplace some form of structural assembly position, where modular components can
be positioned, collected, and assembled into some intercoupled integrated system, like the ISS is designed
except make it assemble into a large spacious homogenous structure that can safely accomodate a large crew
as many as 20 individuals in a big robust enviromental container with subsystem walls, bulkheads, presssure
hatches and portals that permit the crew freedom to move around, and a large enough vessel to carry
supplies, methods for conversion/disposal, and scientific equipment to explore any event that manifests intrest.

We already would have to stage payloads along the way to Mars if we just want to tweak out for a look.
It's at least 6 months out one way, so there you have to place 3 supply vessles in pre-determined rendezvous
places, first pair as supply vaults 60 days out and another 60 days apart, with the third having a lander
if any attempt is made to go to the surface.
If this is done, the lander has to also ground launch, return to mother, dock and transfer.
The way back can take another 9 months, so coming back after the first 30 days will need re-supply
as some of the lander/supplier materials will be nearing exhaustion, so 30 days after maybe 2 or 3 weeks
on target, with a couple or 3 days on the surface, they need to exchange supplies before takin on
the longer 60 days between stations - they have to make transfer 4 more times.
Each re-supply vault has to launch and be parked before the launch on the way out,
the outermost
return module can be launched at the same window to their predetermined rondezvous points,
and the remaining 4 can go out incrementally for their specific locations, and be met when needed
but you can't miss the target or it's over, terminally.
It would take 7 supply heavy lifter, and one man-lifter to start the ball rolling - spam grand tour.

But . . . if 7 missions were flown with cargo, and personel, to assemble an interlocking
mechanical construction
which modulary composed a larger vessel which incorporated the 27.5' Dia. x 154' tanks like the Shuttle,
or 33' x 138' like Saturn S-1C for external tanks, and grouped the tanks into nestling cores
placing a ring of 6 around 1 central tank into a cluster, and add the interlocking modules at the 'front'
leaving the thrusters in place in the rear.
Residual propellants, if suitable, can be used to supply water, breathable oxygen atmoshpere,
and to supply electrical power with fuel cells to augment deployed solar arrays that can
overlay the
entire vehicle. We have already thrown away 135 external tanks of this size, they are already spaced
so insert, capture, and collect to assemble a vast self contained structure - the mating elements
are already there, it needs the interface modular components, and becomes an expandable item.

Throw that out on a mission where it can rondezvous with deeper staged re-supply vehicles in
LaGrange Points, and make some serious push outward, and after a year outbound bring it back.
meanwhile in the 2 year travel interval, continue building the next expansion modular phase that will
attach on orbit and change crews, and make the next deep exploration to possibily a Jovian LaGrange
and deposit that second phase modular collection there, and go back and get another.

7 tanks to a cluster - we've thrown out 135. That could have made almost 20 LaGrange elements.

An alternate configuration would be a wheel of 6 tanks with spoke clusters forming tripods
on either side of the wheel, with modules forming the wheel to spoke interfaces and the end hub sprockets.
That would make LaGrange Station Orbits functional, while the other module cluster is the traveler.

Interesting concepts. I hope we do something like this - AFTER we get our financial house in order and our economy is fixed.

 

[freegeeks]

That depends on what you think is the objective of the Space Shuttle Program. If it's just putting a few people in space and bring them home using cheapest mean possible, then sure Soyuz wins.

But if you think the space program is about developing new technology, exploring new ways to travel in space and pave the way for future space travel, I think the space shuttle program is somewhat a success. Sure it didn't reach the original goal of weekly launch, but the R&D gave scientists and astronauts data to design spaceships, and not just rockets with limited reach and destroyed upon returns.

it didn't really add anything, it was a very expensive way to get people and cargo to LEO

 

[hal2kilo]

Bring back the Aerostar program or something like that. Just stay away from exotic technologies like carbon fiber fuel tanks. That pretty much killed that program. Not sure if linear aerospike engine technology is necessary either. SSTO is the way to go to reduce launch costs.

 

[NetWareHead]

That depends on what you think is the objective of the Space Shuttle Program. If it's just putting a few people in space and bring them home using cheapest mean possible, then sure Soyuz wins.

But if you think the space program is about developing new technology, exploring new ways to travel in space and pave the way for future space travel, I think the space shuttle program is somewhat a success. Sure it didn't reach the original goal of weekly launch, but the R&D gave scientists and astronauts data to design spaceships, and not just rockets with limited reach and destroyed upon returns.

I still dont think it was a success. The reasons the shuttle was designed (frequent launches, low cost) and helped the govt approve the shuttle, were goals never reached.


Maybe the only successful component of the program was its reusability, and even then a new external tank was needed each launch. Shuttle failed to reach any of its other goals all the while being way more expensive than tried and true rocket + crew capsule technology.

Hence, the designated successor to shuttle is returning to Apollo style crew capsule design. There is a reason why the Russians continuously stuck with Soyuz and for its success and safety rate. Even the Chinese have copied Soyuz. Even the Euros have redesigned the French Guiana spaceport to support Soyuz launches. Hell if you want to talk dollars and cents, the Russians turn a PROFIT by using their launch vehicles!

When the shuttle was designed, it was toted as being critical to the resupply of a future space station. However, the Russians showed us that using capsules and unmanned space vehicle, supply of space stations was not only possible but more economically feasible (yet another vote for Soyuz/Progress space vehicles). After Challenger, NASA banned the carrying as payload the powerful Centuar upper stage, crucial for outer planet and deep space probes as they needed the push provided by this stage. The task of carrying these probes and upper stage went to unmanned expendable rockets. Serious flaws were also made in launch frequency predictions. No where near the 55 launches per year (original predictions) was ever achieved. Instead of the "once a week: launch schedule, the average was 4 launches a year. The shuttle could never come near this fantasy. Even the Michoud facility (manufactures the external tank) could only turn out 24 per year! Such delays in shuttle launches caused it to miss many launch windows and draw launches back towards unmanned expendable rockets. Also, the shuttle could not launch satellites into polar orbits (capability needed for Air Force/DoD satellites) and the Air Force/DoD came to rely (Again) on other launch vehicles and VandenBurg Air Force Base in California for their launches.

Furthermore, my main beef with the shuttle was the complete lack of an astronaut escape system. There is no way for the astronauts to escape a launch failure like other crew capsule rockets (even Mercury capsules had this capability; absent in the shuttle). Whether or not the Challenger's astronauts would have survived such an accident remains a debate, but regardless, the Shuttle crew escape modes are lacking.

All of the R+D and funds that went into the shuttle could have gone into a space station, moon or mars base, asteroid expedition, continued research in other more important areas etc.... Did it get us into space? Yes. However we tied ourselves to a wheelchair for 30 years while other space agencies avoided our costly errors and were flying the equivalent of sports cars to space. I for one and glad the shuttle is gone...long overdue.

 

[ichy]

Furthermore, my main beef with the shuttle was the complete lack of an astronaut escape system. There is no way for the astronauts to escape a launch failure like other crew capsule rockets (even Mercury capsules had this capability; absent in the shuttle). Whether or not the Challenger's astronauts would have survived such an accident remains a debate, but regardless, the Shuttle crew escape modes are lacking.

I don't know if you've read "Riding Rockets," but according to the author of that book (a three-time shuttle mission specialist) a Challenger-style accident would have been survivable if it had happened on STS-1 through -4. Those first four test flights had the crews in ejection seats and wearing pressure suits, and it has been pretty conclusively established that the Challenger crew survived the actual break-up of the orbiter. Unfortunately putting ejection sears in the mid-deck (which they would have had to do for a full-size crew) would have been close to impossible.