TIME: Space Shuttle: Same Old Damage, Same Old Worries

[herm0016]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
What I wanna know is....

If space travel is gradually being adopted by private companies....will we start to see a rapid advancement of space flight technology previously allocated to government-run organizations like Nasa?

space x has not had that great of luck with their systems. quite a few failures w/ all the tech that nasa has given them. space is a place of little profit and great investment, thus i do not see private companies really gaining much foothold in the near future.

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: herm0016
time is running this:
...
Without the pursuit of knowledge we are nothing.

Without perusing the right course of action we are nothing more than flesh sacks rudely animated for our own self delight. How much of our wealth should be spent on outer space when there is such dire need for our wealth to be spent on the people who, for only a fraction of one year of the NASA budget could have a life time of clean running water.

Please,

NASA is one of the most poorly funded of all government agencies.

Pick on something else.

Agreed. Dixycrat, do you even know what NASA's budget is?
We spend billions of dollars a year on trivial BS like greeting cards (>$3B a year). That money could fund several Discovery Class missions, or 1-2 Flagship Class missions. Or, as you say, provide clean running water for some people.
NASA isn't just about space exploration either, it's also a technology breeder. You can engage in high tech projects there without the constant pressure of profitability - science for the sake of science. Carl Sagan described this sort of thing once, paraphrased here: He spoke of the problem of television. If you were told to build some kind of box that would display moving pictures, would your first train of thought be, "We need electrons and electromagnets. Quick, someone try to discover the electron!" Television came out of what was likely once deemed trivial particle physics research - a waste of time. "Tiny particles? Who the hell cares about them? We could use that money to give people clean wells for water!" Now those useless tiny particles are used to power water pumps.

Point is, many advances made in the course of the space program's research can be applied to problems that do affect people who are in no way directly affiliated with said research.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: herm0016
time is running this:
...
Without the pursuit of knowledge we are nothing.

Without perusing the right course of action we are nothing more than flesh sacks rudely animated for our own self delight. How much of our wealth should be spent on outer space when there is such dire need for our wealth to be spent on the people who, for only a fraction of one year of the NASA budget could have a life time of clean running water.

Either America or Europe could easily provide clean water for all the empoverished people of the third world without cancelling anything. They simply choose not to. I don't see what that has to do with space exploration.

 

[Oceandevi]

Originally posted by: DixyCrat

Originally posted by: herm0016
time is running this:
...
Without the pursuit of knowledge we are nothing.

Without perusing the right course of action we are nothing more than flesh sacks rudely animated for our own self delight. How much of our wealth should be spent on outer space when there is such dire need for our wealth to be spent on the people who, for only a fraction of one year of the NASA budget could have a life time of clean running water.

We could do both quite easily. Why attack 1 nations space program for the faults of human nature?

 

[cyclohexane]

the problem is that each part of the shuttle is built in a different part of the country (to create jobs, go figure). This causes the cost per launch to
be incredibly expensive. However, no one wants to fix this, because no one wants to appear as taking away local jobs.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
the problem is that each part of the shuttle is built in a different part of the country (to create jobs, go figure). This causes the cost per launch to
be incredibly expensive. However, no one wants to fix this, because no one wants to appear as taking away local jobs.

I think a lot of successful products are manufactured using that strategem. Centralized production doesn't always mean lower cost.

Think AirBus.


However, you may have struck upon the truth in the sense that NASA's iR&D department could definitely think about harvesting a few of its ideas from a much broader database.

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Fox5
Why don't they make one last new shuttle? Something with improvements on deficiencies of the shuttle (say those outdated thermal tiles?) that's only used when needed.

Well, considering the budget that Obama approved there is barely enough cash to make a rocket after the shuttle gets scraped. Personally Nasa needs a shit load of money to make something "safe". I don't know what the answer is, but maybe we should be testing out guns that shoot objects into space or the Space Elevator. I'm thinking if we could get something like a space elevator off the ground and into production then maybe in the next 10 or so years we'll have enough cash for a new space vehicle. Now's not the time to just start throwing money (what little is budgeted) for new space vehicles but that's my take.

As for time's article, well some of it is true. The shuttle was MADE a long time ago. I think NASA is late to the game and should have had something in the works LONG ago. Hell, we got massive computer power and they should have had the next gen modeled out and maybe even a prototype made. I think NASA is at fault for dropping the ball. But what else is new? The shuttle is OLD ... It's not a failure but it should have been improved upon long ago!

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: Sacrilege

You should not be surprised. The shuttle thermal tile technology is ancient and dangerous. The system is needlessly complex. The shuttle may have a "special usefulness" but that can be replaced with cheaper, simpler substitutes.

If we didn't have the shuttle, we'd design satellites like the Hubble differently, so whatever spacecraft we did have could service it. We'd have other technologies to work in space.

Why carry the crew and payload up in one complex vehicle with flimsy thermal tile? You can launch the crew in a capsule with more robust heat shielding. And launch the payload on a expendable rocket that hasn't gone through the cost and rigmarole of human flight rating. Then meet up in orbit if you want to do repairs. The Russians seem to have built Mir (and about 10 other earlier smaller space stations) that way just fine. This is exactly the system NASA is wisely moving to.

Of course, most things about the shuttle is outdated, its nearly 30 years old.

The shuttle is not needlessly complex, as it is a reuable multirole vehicle.

the reason the shuttle is problematic, is that the military branches got their greedy hands in the pot during the design. The shuttle we have now, is nowhere near as safe, cheap, or reliable as the one that NASA wanted to build.

 

[CitizenKain]

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Fox5
Why don't they make one last new shuttle? Something with improvements on deficiencies of the shuttle (say those outdated thermal tiles?) that's only used when needed.

Well, considering the budget that Obama approved there is barely enough cash to make a rocket after the shuttle gets scraped. Personally Nasa needs a shit load of money to make something "safe". I don't know what the answer is, but maybe we should be testing out guns that shoot objects into space or the Space Elevator. I'm thinking if we could get something like a space elevator off the ground and into production then maybe in the next 10 or so years we'll have enough cash for a new space vehicle. Now's not the time to just start throwing money (what little is budgeted) for new space vehicles but that's my take.

As for time's article, well some of it is true. The shuttle was MADE a long time ago. I think NASA is late to the game and should have had something in the works LONG ago. Hell, we got massive computer power and they should have had the next gen modeled out and maybe even a prototype made. I think NASA is at fault for dropping the ball. But what else is new? The shuttle is OLD ... It's not a failure but it should have been improved upon long ago!

We are years and years away from anything like a space elevator, plus you'd need some sort of craft to actually get the materials into space to begin with. Linear Accelerators aren't to the point there they are usable yet, we've barely got the tech to build ones to fire bullets yet.

What we need is a vehicle like the old Saturn V, a large rocket style system to lift heavy payloads into orbit, and a smaller reusable craft like the shuttle is now for maintenance projects. In the future we ideally need a platform in space that can handle orbital duties to replace the need for the shuttle entirely. Of course we are still who knows how far from getting anywhere near the resources and technology to make that happen.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: CitizenKain

Originally posted by: ericlp

Originally posted by: Fox5
Why don't they make one last new shuttle? Something with improvements on deficiencies of the shuttle (say those outdated thermal tiles?) that's only used when needed.

Well, considering the budget that Obama approved there is barely enough cash to make a rocket after the shuttle gets scraped. Personally Nasa needs a shit load of money to make something "safe". I don't know what the answer is, but maybe we should be testing out guns that shoot objects into space or the Space Elevator. I'm thinking if we could get something like a space elevator off the ground and into production then maybe in the next 10 or so years we'll have enough cash for a new space vehicle. Now's not the time to just start throwing money (what little is budgeted) for new space vehicles but that's my take.

As for time's article, well some of it is true. The shuttle was MADE a long time ago. I think NASA is late to the game and should have had something in the works LONG ago. Hell, we got massive computer power and they should have had the next gen modeled out and maybe even a prototype made. I think NASA is at fault for dropping the ball. But what else is new? The shuttle is OLD ... It's not a failure but it should have been improved upon long ago!

We are years and years away from anything like a space elevator, plus you'd need some sort of craft to actually get the materials into space to begin with. Linear Accelerators aren't to the point there they are usable yet, we've barely got the tech to build ones to fire bullets yet.

What we need is a vehicle like the old Saturn V, a large rocket style system to lift heavy payloads into orbit, and a smaller reusable craft like the shuttle is now for maintenance projects. In the future we ideally need a platform in space that can handle orbital duties to replace the need for the shuttle entirely. Of course we are still who knows how far from getting anywhere near the resources and technology to make that happen.

. . . . also . . . .

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Fox5
Why don't they make one last new shuttle? Something with improvements on deficiencies of the shuttle (say those outdated thermal tiles?) that's only used when needed.

That would take millions or billions of dollars, tons of development work. Better just to scrap what remains and move onto the next system.

. . . . and . . . .

Originally posted by: Fear No Evil

Originally posted by: Slick5150
They need to develop something more akin to the Virgin Galactic ship that doesn't need to "blast off" to get into space.

It would make shuttle service to the space station, satellite launches, etc.. much cheaper.

It would also make its ability to carry a payload EXTREMELY limited. Thats why they have to strap on the massive solid rocket boosters.. there's no way you are getting off the ground weighing as much as the shuttle can hold in its cargo bay.

The Space Shuttle, through funding compromises, ended up being an expanded launch vehicle with considerable Pentagon influenced modifications.
It became a 'Space-Truck', intended to perform special secret mission capabilities for polar orbit insertion.
It alone can retrieve a satellite, or any other machine from orbit and return with it to Earth.

Once the Challenger was lost, the consideration of using the Shuttle for Polar Orbit launches was abandoned.
You can only carry about 65% of target weight to Polar Orbit, loss of Equitorial launch to the East is a pentalty.

The tools that were used to last build the Endevor were emptied in 1991, and dissasembled for storage, and shipped for archieving.

The few tools that they were able to take apart are stored in New Orleans, if not destroyed. and we know how gentle the trade winds have been in New Orleans in the years since 1991.

So that depleates our options.

We have assets, External Tanks & SRB's that can fly 7 more missions, the next one on Saturday, June 13th. That leaves 6 more flights to fly.

While the Constellation Program is still in an early development phase, further extension of any ET work delays the start of it's successor.
The work space currently used by the Shuttle program is sitting on the shop space that is needed to move forward with Orion, Ares I, & Ares 5.

While the ET for the Orbitor is finished, the SRB's will be modified to produce a single stack SRB stage one booster made of 5 segments.
One more segment than the 4 that the Shuttle uses today, minus the nose cones, there's the extra segment.

Test launch of Ares-x is supposed to be this August, we'll see . .

Building the first test article for the Ares I, stage 2 has to happen before it can be attached to the SRB system, and at the top
we've got to put a space capsule that sleeps 4 or 6, can be moved to rendezvous with compatible air locks presently in orbit on the ISS,
and plunge madly through the atmosphere in a ferrocious flaming environment before gently dropping to the ground, like a feather under a parachute.

Piece of cake.

In the meantime, back down here on Earth, why not use more of the Delta IV and Atlas V
unmanned EELV's to give the Shuttle Fleet those 6 future launches,
2 flights a year - for 3 years, only puts us out of Space access and relying on Russia for Manned Flight co-operation for 2 or 3 years.
One flight each year gets us there for 6 years, maybe even utilize a spare ET tank set to get the seventh flight, and do without a museum piece.
There will still be plenty of museum pieces to share.
It can still reach the Hubble if it had to, or bring back something from orbit.

I don't think we should even try to upgrade the Delta IV or Atlas 5 to replace the Ares 1 concept,
each of them run $350 Million before trying to convert up to a Man Rated system, so you're looking at a redesign that runs the price above $400 Million
- and it's old technology, and effectively de-funds the Ares programs.

Ares I system is projected to fly at $100 Million per mission, recover the capsule for possible refreshment, modifications and reuse,
and the SRB is recoverable for reuse as well - Shuttle Boosters.

Once the ET Tank fabrication tools are taken down, that is the end of Space Shuttle supportability - no tank, no fly . . simple.
But there is where the Ares 5 future Heavy Lift Rocket will be built. (Bigger than Apollo/Saturn)
It can carry massive payloads, and take equipment and supplies deep into space so as to pre-position necessities where crews can access them.
Going out, or coming back - it's 6 month's each way to Mars, and the return path is not the same as the departure path.
You've got to park one 60 days travle time apart, and place them there when you need them.
And one with a lander, service module, supplies, and return boosters.

Slice of pie.

. . and we're taking down the last remanants of ET parts.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
the problem is that each part of the shuttle is built in a different part of the country (to create jobs, go figure). This causes the cost per launch to
be incredibly expensive. However, no one wants to fix this, because no one wants to appear as taking away local jobs.

I think a lot of successful products are manufactured using that strategem. Centralized production doesn't always mean lower cost.

Think AirBus.


However, you may have struck upon the truth in the sense that NASA's iR&D department could definitely think about harvesting a few of its ideas from a much broader database.

It's not about lower cost at all. It's about having jobs in many communities in order to create politicians that are not willing to cancel anything due to losing votes.

Manipulation of the political system, kinda inherent with democracy.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: Praxis1452

Originally posted by: feralkid

Originally posted by: cyclohexane
the problem is that each part of the shuttle is built in a different part of the country (to create jobs, go figure). This causes the cost per launch to
be incredibly expensive. However, no one wants to fix this, because no one wants to appear as taking away local jobs.

I think a lot of successful products are manufactured using that strategem. Centralized production doesn't always mean lower cost.

Think AirBus.


However, you may have struck upon the truth in the sense that NASA's iR&D department could definitely think about harvesting a few of its ideas from a much broader database.

It's not about lower cost at all. It's about having jobs in many communities in order to create politicians that are not willing to cancel anything due to losing votes.

Manipulation of the political system, kinda inherent with democracy.

Ok here's why you just might want to have some of the rocket factory and launch and processing facilities not right there in downtown Cleveland.

Exhibit 1

Exhibit 2 Love the dramatic music.

And for you Virgin Atlantic fans . . .

 

[MadRat]

The Russians had a further evolved space shuttle design than our own. But they too ran into the same roadblocks with survival, operating costs, recovery costs, etc. Instead of building a new turd, you better go for a whole new design. NASA has designed so many generations of space craft past the shuttle its a shame they ever built another couple after the initial few.

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
It's funny with all the hate on the shuttle's in this thread. The current mission (Hubble Repair) where they're able to capture a satellite and bring it in to a bay for repairs is not possible with any other space vehicle at this time. No other nation's space program has anything like this and probably won't until our tech advances for another 100 years that finally allows us to build a reliable spacecraft than can land and be re-used.

I tend to agree. The shuttle has the unique capability to do these kind of repairs that no other spacecraft has. Its primary purpose was the construction and maintainence of a space station, which is what we are finally seeing with the ISS...the original station to be constructed with the space shuttle was cancelled. Once it is complete, it has served its purpose. It is time to move on to another type of craft for human transport/exploration once the station is built.

Hit the nail on the head.

I'm surprised to see the level of hate for the shuttle. Yes we lost 2, which was very sad, but overall the shuttle program has been a tremendous success for which NASA & USA can be justifiably proud. Like any technology they are getting old and need to be replaced which is exactly what is going to happen.

There's only one reason the space shuttle was able to repair the Hubble telescope: the Hubble telescope was in an orbit the space shuttle could reach; the space shuttle put it there. Basically, the Hubble telescope served as something for the shuttle to do. Ditto the space station. Just something to do. Fortunately, we learned a lot from Hubble (not so much from the space station or shuttle, except that we can cooperate with other countries - or rather sometimes can cooperate. Latest I heard is a fight over a toilet.)

However, there have been other telescopes. And, they're not in any orbit that the shuttle could possibly reach.

Only a week or so ago, the European Space Agency launched the Hershel & Planck telescopes. The Hershel telescope is the largest of its type ever put in space, with a 3.5 meter mirror. They're putting the telescopes at a better place than in a low orbit (space shuttle orbit) - they're going to be located at the 2nd Lagrangian point.

One of those telescopes will be observing the cosmic microwave background radiation. The other will be observing in the infrared spectrum. The Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope will also be placed into an L2 orbit (2nd Lagrangian point) - there's no way in hell a space shuttle could get there.

 

[CaptnKirk]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: GroundedSailor

Originally posted by: MovingTarget

Originally posted by: Pneumothorax
It's funny with all the hate on the shuttle's in this thread. The current mission (Hubble Repair) where they're able to capture a satellite and bring it in to a bay for repairs is not possible with any other space vehicle at this time. No other nation's space program has anything like this and probably won't until our tech advances for another 100 years that finally allows us to build a reliable spacecraft than can land and be re-used.

I tend to agree. The shuttle has the unique capability to do these kind of repairs that no other spacecraft has. Its primary purpose was the construction and maintainence of a space station, which is what we are finally seeing with the ISS...the original station to be constructed with the space shuttle was cancelled. Once it is complete, it has served its purpose. It is time to move on to another type of craft for human transport/exploration once the station is built.

Hit the nail on the head.

I'm surprised to see the level of hate for the shuttle. Yes we lost 2, which was very sad, but overall the shuttle program has been a tremendous success for which NASA & USA can be justifiably proud. Like any technology they are getting old and need to be replaced which is exactly what is going to happen.

There's only one reason the space shuttle was able to repair the Hubble telescope: the Hubble telescope was in an orbit the space shuttle could reach; the space shuttle put it there. Basically, the Hubble telescope served as something for the shuttle to do. Ditto the space station. Just something to do. Fortunately, we learned a lot from Hubble (not so much from the space station or shuttle, except that we can cooperate with other countries - or rather sometimes can cooperate. Latest I heard is a fight over a toilet.)

However, there have been other telescopes. And, they're not in any orbit that the shuttle could possibly reach.

Only a week or so ago, the European Space Agency launched the Hershel & Planck telescopes. The Hershel telescope is the largest of its type ever put in space, with a 3.5 meter mirror. They're putting the telescopes at a better place than in a low orbit (space shuttle orbit) - they're going to be located at the 2nd Lagrangian point.

One of those telescopes will be observing the cosmic microwave background radiation. The other will be observing in the infrared spectrum. The Hubble's replacement, the James Webb Space Telescope will also be placed into an L2 orbit (2nd Lagrangian point) - there's no way in hell a space shuttle could get there.

The Sky Lab was not able to be serviced by the Shuttle before it's orbit decayed and it lost - the Shuttle didn't fly until 1981,
the Sky Lab re-entered in 1979 due to the earth's expanded atmospheric envelope caused by heating due to solar activity.

The James Webb Space Telescope is due for launch after July 2013, most likely in early 2014, headed to the L2 Lagrange point - nearly 4 times futrher out than the distance from the Earth to the Moon.
The only vehicle that could provide reach and service at that distance would be Orion.

 

[Colt45]

???? FTW