Possible successors to the Space Shuttle

[NetWareHead]

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.

I'm aware the ejection seats were removed, but even those were not as reliable or safe as a crew capsule escape system, again something the mercury capsules even had. The shuttle did not have the means to permit the escape of astronauts unless you want to count bailing out.

 

[CaptnKirk]

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.

I think you mean the VentureStar, the X-33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

Egos as well as stubbornness by incompenent engineers who thought they knew everything,
and would not listen to anyone who had experience, ultimately terminated it after Congress
was begged for funds that they would not provide, subsequently a deaf ear in the
Whithouse made sure it could not suceed. That was George W. Bush 2001 - 2009.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

And now we have a dysfunctional Congress that is not intrested in funding anything.

 

[ichy]

Netwarehead:

I know the ejection seats had serious limitations, I was just pointing out that they were better than nothing. If the shuttle had been designed for ejection seats AND with liquid fuel boosters which could have been shut down then it would have been much safer. I'm also aware than an Apollo-style launch abort system would be even better, but that system wasn't as foolproof as some people think.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1226607027430.html

 

[NetWareHead]

Netwarehead:

I know the ejection seats had serious limitations, I was just pointing out that they were better than nothing. If the shuttle had been designed for ejection seats AND with liquid fuel boosters which could have been shut down then it would have been much safer. I'm also aware than an Apollo-style launch abort system would be even better, but that system wasn't as foolproof as some people think.

http://blogs.nasa.gov/cm/blog/waynehalesblog/posts/post_1226607027430.html

Interesting and thanks for the link. I was not aware of the launch trajectory issues. But right on with the point about liquid fuel boosters. Another point of space shuttle criticism are also the solid rocket boosters. 1. For the point you just mentioned; once ignited those boosters cannot be switched off. I read an article about Space Shuttle range safety and unless I remember incorrectly, there is a line of explosive running lengthwise from nose cone to exhaust duct of explosive designed to cleave the SRB casing, venting the exhaust pressure and destroying the rocket in the process. Seems like pretty much the only way to "turn them off".

The second criticism about the SRBs is that they obviously need to be transported from the factory all the to the launch pad fully fueled. This creates a logistical problem not present in liquid fueled rockets where an empty lighter rocket needs to be transported and then filled at the launch pad.

 

[davmat787]

I am all for a strong space program, but I do wonder if spending the money on another manned program is the best bang for the buck at this point.

Look at what we have learned from the Hubble Telescope program, the pretty pictures are the least of what it can do. And the successor, the Webb Telescope that is scheduled for launch in 2014 will be even more powerful. These are capable of finding earth like planets, studying supernova, detailing the chemical composition of atmospheres, etc.

Do we learn more from these devices that can see outside our own galaxy or a shuttle that can't leave orbit?

 

[ichy]

I am all for a strong space program, but I do wonder if spending the money on another manned program is the best bang for the buck at this point.

If we're talking scientific return for each dollar spent then no, manned spaceflight is absolutely not worth it. That's not the only reason to send people into space though. I am of the opinion that human exploration (as opposed to pure science) is a worthwhile goal in and of itself. Here's another column that puts it quite well.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/21/space-shuttle-programme

The real science done by Nasa has not involved humans. We have sent robots to places humans could never have survived and peered into the far depths of the cosmos, back to the early moments of the big bang, with instruments far more capable than our human senses, all for a fraction of what it costs to send a living, breathing person into Earth's orbit. The first rovers went to Mars for what it would cost to make a movie about sending Bruce Willis to Mars.

But science is not the real goal of human space travel. As I argued over a decade ago to the House Science Committee when Buzz Aldrin and I were asked to testify before their subcommittee on space exploration, we send humans into space for adventure. Astronauts inspire us by their courage and skill, and not least by the fact that they risk death every time they step into a spacecraft.

I personally have no problems with this fact. I believe the future of the human species will eventually be in space, and that we will one day colonise other planets. But we have to be honest about this goal.

If we are going to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on human space travel, however, we need to have a rational plan, and one that can excite the imagination of the next generation of would-be scientists and explorers. The space shuttle did not provide such a plan.

As Richard Feynman himself said in his final report on the Challenger disaster: "Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."

 

[hal2kilo]

I think you mean the VentureStar, the X-33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

Egos as well as stubbornness by incompenent engineers who thought they knew everything,
and would not listen to anyone who had experience, ultimately terminated it after Congress
was begged for funds that they would not provide, subsequently a deaf ear in the
Whithouse made sure it could not suceed. That was George W. Bush 2001 - 2009.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

And now we have a dysfunctional Congress that is not intrested in funding anything.

Oops, that's what I meant. There was an engineer that quit because he thought going to carbon fiber tanks vice traditional double walled aluminum tanks was the wrong way to go. Turned out he was right. Apparently, minute amounts water eventually seeps in between the fibers and literally split the layers apart when the water expanded due to the cryogenic temperature of the fuel. I was really disappointed that they killed the project it just became a money pit.

 

[werepossum]

I think you mean the VentureStar, the X-33.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_X-33

Egos as well as stubbornness by incompenent engineers who thought they knew everything,
and would not listen to anyone who had experience, ultimately terminated it after Congress
was begged for funds that they would not provide, subsequently a deaf ear in the
Whithouse made sure it could not suceed. That was George W. Bush 2001 - 2009.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2006/01/x-33venturestar-what-really-happened/

And now we have a dysfunctional Congress that is not intrested in funding anything.

Considering that Congress is spending roughly two-thirds more than it takes in, the last complaint I'd have is that they are not interested in funding anything. Assuming that we get our economy fixed and our financial house in order, and we have some strong, affordable alternatives with a clear mission, I'm sure Congress will again fund space travel. If we cannot do those things, then Congress should not fund space travel. It's important to humanity, but it will have to fall to those nations capable of managing themselves so as to afford it.

If we are spending all our money on pork and welfare and are mortgaged to the hilt, then those nations will not include America. Surely no one thinks we should borrow even more money to go back into space.