You are not logged in.
At the same time, a new ISS plan is coming together. The station will be disembowled compared to previous estimates (no Science Power Platform, one truss segment and solar array assembly gone, one of the Japanese modules will stay grounded.)
It makes the ISS expenditures seem like a waste of money, but it balances science needs with the inherent difficulties of operating the shuttle. The new ISS design can realistically be completed by the end of 2010, assuming that operations aren't impacted by Hurricane Katrina.
Of course, American expeditions to the moon will mean increasing European, Russian, and Japanese control over ISS. If they want to add on to ISS at a later date, more power to them. Kliper flights to ISS, with Proton delivering expansion modules? Sounds like a plan to me.
On the subject of encounter with Tiber, it really illistrates how we should have reacted to columbia
There are a lot of similarities between the events of "Encounter With Tiber" and the post-Columbia space program. We are committed to going back to the moon and Mars. We will do so in a ship that likely resembles an enlarged Apollo capsule. Burt Rutan (mentioned by name in Buzz's book) won the X-Prize. The next new rocket after the shuttle will be an ET with engines bolted to the bottom and a payload on top.
I don't feel there is any kind of magic or any conspiracy behind the fulfillment of "Encounter With Tiber." The inevitability of a shuttle accident, combined with a desire to really explore space (moon & Mars,) the logic of building an in-line SDV, the robustness of Apollo, and Burt Rutan's awesomeness have all combined at a precise crucible in our history. Buzz Aldrin is clearly in-tune with the momentum of human spaceflight at the present time.
Granted, Buzz had a few misses, like the ET station, Starboosters, and the accelerated schedule of exploration. Other prophesies (like orbital commercial spaceflight) are too early to judge. I chalk up Starboosters to Buzz's desire to promote his brainchild, and the accelerated exploration timeline to Buzz's desire to tell a good story without dragging it out. Overall, I think "Encounter With Tiber" is a good blueprint for us to follow in the post-Columbia era (as long as we ignore the fuzzy cat aliens who have nothing better to do than mate and fight.)
He always has been Pro space. Was he not involved in a plan to create a series of cyclers so that large missions and transportations can be done to Mars.
You're thinking of Buzz Aldrin. Since his return from the moon and recovery from his breakdown, Buzz has been a very active space visionary, promoting space tourism, flights to the moon and Mars, and flyback boosters. His sci-fi book "Encounter with Tiber" runs down his myriad of ideas (I found the parts about the furry extraterrestrials to be dull, but the beginning and end of the book are pretty good.)
Assuming that Discovery can be prepped in time and the ET mods at the cape stay on schedule, NASA will be able to launch in March and May with the ET's on hand. After that, we'll have to wait and see how long it takes for Michoud to get up and running. Current estimates say that New Orleans will not even be habitable until after May 2006.
The shuttle program has a lot going in its favor, though. Manned spaceflight is used as a measure of how great a nation is; it makes sense that the US will spare no expense in getting Michoud running again, even if the surrounding areas aren't ready.
At least Congress will take up the Iran Nonproliferation Agreement this fall. If it's amended, NASA won't be burdened with schedule issues owing to ISS crew transfer.
The hurricane's impact on the shuttle schedule is being exaggerated. NASA still has 2 or 3 ET's at the cape, and will likely perform the modifications there while power is being restored to Michoud.
Current damage assessments on Michoud indicate that the plant got off fairly lightly after the hurricane. It's doubtful that power will be restored anytime soon, however. As for The Stick, development will be unaffected since the SRB plant is in Utah.
Imagine how things would have been different if NASA selected Aerojet as the SRB contractor during the 70's. Aerojet's single-segment design would have been safer, but the Florida manufacturing plant would have been more vulnerable to hurricanes than the eventual Thiokol plan in Utah.
As for the space shuttles themselves, I have it on good word that STS-121 was facing delays (past March 2006) before the hurricane hit; damage to Michoud is a secondary worry right now.
I agree it doesn't make alot of sense to launch from pad 39a and b for EELVs. Prehaps it would be cheaper to launch from a new facility at Vandenburg?
Due to Vandenberg's location, it can only be used for high inclination (polar or near-polar) missions. This is very neat, but doesn't nelp us if we want to get to the ISS, the moon, Mars, or any place that's exciting.
The cursed SLC-6 launch pad at Vandenberg was supposed to launch manned missions to polar orbit--originally with the Titan IIIM (Manned Orbiting Laboratory,) and then with the DoD shuttle missions. All of these plans were scrapped.
Back when EELV was under consideration to launch the CEV, I held out hope that human missions to polar orbit could be launched with the EELV + CEV combo. Ironically enough, Delta IV will launch from SLC-6. With EELV yielding to "The Stick," the dream of man in polar orbit is fading yet again.
Looks like I was wrong about the holdup--the sticking point is the accelerated CEV development, not the drawn-out SDV development.
If one looks at the history of the shuttle's development, the real bad guys are the OMB. They forced NASA and the Air Force to share the shuttle, even though the Air Force didn't want it (manned launches draw too much attention on secret missions) and the Air Force requirements created a vehicle that was too large and complex for the NASA mission. Then the OMB had the gall to cut the shuttle development budget in half.
OMB is repeating many of the past mistakes. You'd have hoped they'd learn by now.
The distinction rests upon whose definition of space we use...
The Air Force awards astroanut wings for flights to 50 miles, while the FAI defines space as the region above 62 miles (100 km.) In the X-15 program, only Joe Walker would have been an astronaut according to FAI rules. Although Air Force pilots were given recognition for their 50+ mile flights, NASA pilots were not.
I would tend to side with the Air Force in terms of awarding astronaut wings, because an aircraft produces very little lift at 50 miles and must be flying on rocket power. However, even the 100 km mark is too low for achieving a useful, long-lived orbit.
Alt.space firms actually have a good shot at ISS resupply in the 2010 time period, as long as they can back up their rhetoric with hardware. NASA will be willing to give them a chance.
At the same time, it's not clear what's going to replace the Delta II. The rocket has launched a variety of space probes, plus Air Force GPS sats. Boeing isn't likely to pursue the Delta IV Small, but Falcon V could be a viable replacement.
Karl Rove's opinion is very important to the president, but he doesn't have any official authority to approve or reject NASA plans. The ultimate authority rests on Congress to fund the VSE.
I suspect the delay has to do with the selection of the in-line SDV. In-line requires more funding than the side-mount, and NASA will probably require more money beginning in FY 2007 to begin development in time for a 2018 moon mission.
The lesson NASA has hopefully learned from the shuttle is that you will get a lemon if you don't spend enough money during the development. Let's hope that in-line SDV doesn't become an albatross like its predecessor.
The thing I like about the enclosed lander is that it's an extra level of safety. A micrometeoroid strike would be a disaster for astronauts in suits, but the thin skin of the LSAM would be enough to slow it down. If the suits lost pressure, the LSAM would be a redundant pressure vessel.
That's not to say that an enclosed lander would necessarily be a pressurized lander. But this is the design solution I prefer because it gives the biggest safety margin.
The shuttle program has used more main engines than one might think. The test articles and the engines lost with Challenger and Columbia count towards that total. It should also be noted that shuttle engines have a finite lifetime--I believe they are reused about 25 times before retirement.
However, the 342 number is probably incorrect. The PR person writing the article probably multiplied 114 shuttle missions by three SSME's per mission. If you pick up the Dennis Jenkins book on the shuttle, he lists the serial numbers and histories of each SSME produced up to the point when he wrote the book.
John:
As currently envisioned, CEV is like the Apollo CSM and the LSAM is like the LEM. Aside from the fact that the CEV launches on a different rocket than the LSAM, it's the same mission architecture as Apollo.
It might be possible at some time in the future to make a reusable LSAM and reusable CEV. The current plan is to reuse the CEV on ISS missions, but to discard it after moon missions. The reason is because the heat shield ablates less when returning from LEO versus returning from the moon. The heat shield that can survive one lunar reentry will survive 10 ISS re-entries, in theory.
Sanity is on the march down the halls of NASA.
I'm glad that the agency is spending money upfront to build the SDLV correctly instead of cheaping out and getting a Shuttle-C knockoff that doesn't leave room for growth. The in-line SDLV won't be a true clean-sheet design, but with all of the necessary changes, only the SRB's will look remotely like the ones on the Shuttle.
Because NASA needs to rebuild the crawlers to support SDLV, I wonder if NASA will refurbish the third crawler from the Apollo days, which has been rusting away in a field. My experiences in Florida tell me that 30 years of Florida humidity have not been kind to it. If it's not going to be fixed, it would be possible to use one crawler for Stick launches while the other one is being redesigned.
Make no doubt about it that Russia has a realitic plan to go to the moon. However, the ship of choice will be the venerable Soyuz (docked to a new rocket stage,) and it will transport American "capitalist pigs."
Soyuz was Korolev's moon ship; the Zond variant would have flown around the moon (it succeeded in this feat in unmanned flights,) and the LOK version would have docked with the LK lander on the admittedly-dangerous Soviet moon mission.
With Space Adventures offering Russia cold, hard cash, the Soyuz translunar mission is back on the table, as long as Americans are willing to fork over some serious money. If the initial flights should succeed, perhaps the Russians would try to resurrect the LK. A different launcher will be needed, though--N1 was hopelessly complex. Perhaps an earth-orbit rendezvous mission using multiple Soyuz or Onega rockets would do the job.
One thing is for certain: shuttle ET's will always be made at Michoud, as it's the only facility large enough with the right tools for the job. The question is whether Lockheed Martin will still be running the show at Michoud. It's hard to imagine anybody else doing it, seeing as how Martin-Marietta was the original prime contractor for the ET.
Adoption of the SDLV will ensure that the Michoud workforce stays gainfully employed for decades to come.
A few comments about the chart:
--RLX is a paper engine until they can build and certify a flight article. Same thing for J-2S, as nobody's demonstrated that it can be put back into production economically.
--I don't know how feasible it is to have 200t and 300t upper stages. Can the booster handle the compressive loads from a heavier upper stage?
--The Isp for RS-68 seems high. 410 sec in a vacuum is more realistic.
Other than that, the chart's pretty comprehensive.
Not to mention that t/Space's air launch method squanders the release velocity and doesn't take advantage of the reduced gravity losses inherent in winged vehicles.
John:
The X-37 was supposed to have been launched to orbit by the shuttle or Delta IV, hence the "mach 25" top speed. It would have re-entered with the nose at a steep angle of attack, and the underside of the fuselage would provide the lift. The twin, canted rudders ensure yaw and stability at these high angles of attack. The tiny wings become useful once the X-37 has slowed to subsonic speed.
Will X-37's shape be a good candidate for a flyback booster? It's got the subsonic approach and landing qualities, but the vehicle's fuselage is too short and stubby to be a good booster during the ascent phase. It would have a lot of drag compared to a rocket with a similar propellant volume. The design is optimized for re-entry.
Short-span, long-chord delta wings on the X-20 and Kliper reduce drag at high speeds but aren't very effective on approach and landing. In this case, mach 25 vs. mach 30 is irrelevant. I don't expect Kliper to ever be used for trans-lunar re-entries. It will burn up like a piece of newspaper.
Aside from the PAL ramp oversight, it looks like NASA made some herculean efforts at reducing the foam shedding. Of course, a herculean effort isn't good enough when you're dealing with a fundamentally flawed system. Even NASA's fixes have caused unintended problems; the insulation on the heater wires for the bipod caused an unacceptably large piece of foam to fall from that area.
With the flaws of the shuttle as apparent as ever, NASA and Congress will have to decide if the shuttle is worth the risk and the money. If the shuttle is to be retired before STS-121, NASA had better make that call before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30.
Kliper has evolved into something that closely resembles the old X-20 (which I am very fond of.) Recent statements from Russian space officials (which should be greeted with some skepticism) indicate that Kliper will indeed land on runways. Perhaps a parafoil will be used.
Kliper, new and improved with winglets. They improve the craft's looks but add dead weight. I'm assuming that the original, pure cone shape didn't give the engineers the low-speed handling qualities they wanted. Maybe the wings are just for show on this mockup. We'll see, come 2010 or so when Kliper is supposed to fly.
Zubrin is basically proposing that we return to the Apollo launch mode (single launch on HLLV) but wants to discard Lunar Orbit Rendezvous for direct landing & ascent. That's pretty misguided, considering that NASA was designing the "Nova" rocket (larger than Saturn V) back when direct landing was still a viable option.
I really wouldn't have a problem with launching the crew atop an HLLV as Zubrin proposes, except that I would demand they ride in a small capsule with escape rockets (ala Apollo on the Saturn V.) In all of Zubrin's writings and presentations I have seen, I still don't know where in the Mars Direct hab the crew will sit during launch. I assume they will strap themselves down to their bunks and enjoy the ride. A capsule is the way to go.
I don't want to rain on the "5-seg SRB" parade, but an unforseen consequence arises when one considers the weight of the new SRB casing. The casing's nozzle sits so low in the water after splashdown that OSHA regulations prevent the divers from attaching the plug and purging the water.
The best way around this is to petition OSHA for an exemption. Barring this, ATK will have to either lighten the casing (filament-wound SRB's, anyone?) or attach a scissor-wing and glide the casing back to KSC. Any way you look at it, an engineering solution will take a bit of time and money.