OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

tim_perdue · 2003-03-06 12:07:20

*Shaun is Australian.

I'll try not to hold that against him.

I, for one, took this thread seriously and I sent an email to my Senator here in Iowa, Chuck Grassley, and urged him to support Project Prometheus, the Orbital Space Plane, and to CANCEL the existing space shuttle.

dicktice · 2003-03-06 12:17:36

tim_perdue:Would you mind clarifying that: Mothball the existing shuttle orbiters? or fly them but don't replace them? (The Russian Soyuz/Progress programme will still be needed, in either case, to maintain the ISS in operation, so that's not my motive in asking.)

Ad Astra · 2003-03-06 17:02:33

After Columbia, my immediate reaction was to retire the shuttles and stay grounded until OSP was built. I felt that doing so would also stop us from tossing money at the ISS. But I thought about it a while and begrudgingly said that the shuttle had to be flown again (although I still strongly feel it should be retired when the ISS construction is complete.) The ISS has value, but that value cannot be tapped until it's complete and OSP is built. In order to finish the station, we need the shuttle.

Back in 1986, we made the fateful decision not to fly commercial payloads on the shuttle and not to fly the shuttle from Vandenberg AFB. These two decisions cut back the frequency of shuttle flights and made certain that expendable rockets would always be cheaper than the shuttle. (Of course, government launch of commercial satellites destroys the free market, but it was hoped the shuttle could be privatized.)

I guess the lesson here is not to be rash in our decision making and avoid reactionary decisions that will harm our cause in the future. ISS is an important part of space infrastructure, and a step towards becoming a spacefaring society.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-07 09:36:45

There's got to be a better system than democracy! This short-term, near-sighted, to-hell-with-it-as-long-as-I-get-back-into-office-next-election kind of mentality is the scourge of today's society. It's remarkable that such a system has produced any progress at all since it replaced monarchies in the western world!
So pardon me if I hold you the American voter accountable for the actions of your elected officials. It is up to you to continue to push them to do the right thing.
*Shaun is Australian.
--Cindy

I apologize for the rant. I didn't realize Shaun was Australian. I shouldn't criticize American voters when the person calling for an alternative to democracy isn't an American. Still, average citizens can make a difference. I heard it said that democracy is advanced citizenship. You do have to get involved.

Part of the reason my education proposal was listened to was that I was a member of the chamber of commerce, a member of the chamber's federal-provincial finance committee (which produces the chamber's critique of government budgets), a former instructor at the local college that the current governing party likes to support, and a member of the local resident's association. I was later elected president of the associated community organization, the one which receives funding. I also live in a riding that always elects a representative for that party. These things tend to get politicians' attention. One reason I submitted my education idea was that the premier made an election promise to reduce post-secondary tuition, but didn't say how he would do that. It turned out he wanted to raid the surplus from the government owned insurance company to subsidize universities and colleges. Since that insurance company has a legislated monopoly on personal vehicle insurance in this province, the voters screamed "no". My idea gave him an alternative without costing any money at a time when he was scrambling for a way out.

My letter to the federal government included the education plan and how the provincial government was implementing it, so that showed my suggestions are successful. Politicians like individuals who are successful with politics. But another reason was that I sent a printed letter, not an email. It takes more effort to hit the print button and put it in an envelope that just to send an email. Very few people bother to write to their representative or senator. Consequently politicians take written letters very seriously.

tim_perdue, I was quite serious. I would want to push members to write their congressmen more so than to advocate a particular point of view. However, to be more effective we should have a unified message. The steering committee would want to decide any official Mars Society position, but we on this board could decide what we want to do. Perhaps we should debate a good over-all plan.

I would argue that as long as the ISS is international, and includes Europe and Russia, then the American plan should fit with and complement assets of the ESA and Rosaviakosmos. That means maintaining Soyuz and Progress spacecraft, and ESA producing a large expendable cargo spacecraft to be launched by Ariane 5. America should complete and maintain the EELV launch vehicles (Atlas V and Delta IV), build a 4-person Orbital Space Plane, and proceed with Project Prometheus. If Russia builds MAKS then the current Shuttle can be retired. For the long-term we need a fully reusable launch vehicle, but perhaps only something the size of MAKS; large cargo can be lifted with an expendable launch vehicle. We need to go efficient before we go big. Continued research into hypersonic air travel will help, even if only to produce a mothership for something like Bristol Spaceplane's Spacebus.

Palomar · 2003-03-07 10:04:34

I apologize for the rant. I didn't realize Shaun was Australian. I shouldn't criticize American voters when the person calling for an alternative to democracy isn't an American. Still, average citizens can make a difference. I heard it said that democracy is advanced citizenship. You do have to get involved.

*I couldn't agree more. I do frequently write my governmental representatives, etc., on various issues.

But do you know what? I think the current Administration in D.C. could give a damn. Really. But of course that doesn't excuse apathy on the part of the voter asserting his/her rights, particularly as regards writing letters.

I just read a headline that a little over 300,000 jobs were lost in the U.S.A. in February alone. Within 28 days. The Bush Administration doesn't seem to be very concerned with the economy, unemployment situation, etc.

Sorry to get off topic.

--Cindy

dicktice · 2003-03-07 10:11:05

RobertDyck: I wish I had something to add to your diatribe, but you've said it all! Thanks, heaps. Now let's get down to specifics, since your conclusions are probably too general to catch the interest of the news media. Great stuff, though!

soph · 2003-03-08 11:57:11

dicktice: I read your comment about subsidizing the Soyuz, and I agree, but I disagree.

We shouldn't subsidize the Soyuz or Progress. We should build our own. The OSP should arrive at 2 vehicles-an unmanned cargo vehicle (ala Progress) that should be capsulized, and a manned taxi-no payload, varying design possilbities. We don't need a $500 million shuttle. But we can't rely on the Russians-they don't have the money, and they have defaulted on many contracts for the ISS.

So, we need an American Soyuz and Progress.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-08 12:48:14

we need an American Soyuz and Progress.

My suggestion is for an American OSP to provide an alternative to the Russian Soyuz, but encourage the Russians (possibly with European assistance) to continue Soyuz as well. I think Columbia has demonstrated the need for second system as a redundant backup, and the Russians want something independent of America. The OSP could provide some small cargo transport capability by removing seats, but not on the scale of a dedicated cargo craft like Progress. Let Europe provide the alternate cargo craft. The current NASA requirements to call for a cargo craft, possibly built as a second vehicle, but I am asking why America should do it all itself when Europe wants to get in the game and provide major launch capability to service ISS. Europe has even started development of an Apollo-style capsule as a manned vehicle. I think we don't need more than two systems to meet each requirement: let Russia and America provide crew transport, Europe and Russia provide cargo. Modules can be delivered via Proton, Atlas V and Delta IV.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-08 12:52:09

The Soyuz and Progress represent the state of the art from the 1960's. Why, then, are we still using them when we could have a better system (OSP) ? Once OSP is a proven system, there is no reason to continue with these aging vehicles. Ending Soyuz/Progress production might be a blessing for the Russians, too. More funding can be transferred from production to R&D, a field that has stagnated in Russia since the end of the Soviet Union. More R&D is needed before we can proceed with a MAKS / Spacecab, and I feel that the engineers and other "free-agent" scientists of Russia should be employed in this task.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-08 14:53:22

Ending Soyuz/Progress production might be a blessing for the Russians, too. More funding can be transferred from production to R&D ... More R&D is needed before we can proceed with a MAKS / Spacecab

Good point. Once MAKS is operational then Soyuz/Progress could be retired. I still think it is a good idea to maintain crew and cargo transport with at least 2 different systems in different countries, but Russia only needs one. Once OSP, the last EELV, and the European cargo craft are operational, as well as MAKS, then the American Shuttle can be retired. Retiring the Shuttle could direct finds into an America medium size shuttle of the size of MAKS.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-08 17:52:46

In order to replace the resupply functions of the shuttle, a vehicle such as MAKS or OSP would need to carry 9,000 kg or so of cargo to the ISS orbit. This is the amount carried in the multi-purpose logistics module. Without this capacity in an alternate access vehicle, the shuttle will continue to be used (perhaps in an unmanned fashion) to resupply the station with experiements. Take a look at the future shuttle flight manifest, now uncertain, and how many flights were devoted to resupply. A significant cargo capacity must be added to OSP to save astronauts' lives and NASA's budget.

Another consideration for OSP is its shelf-life. After all, each Soyuz must be replaced after six months to avoid a systems breakdown. The Air Force and Aerojet have been working on storable, peroxide-based propulsion systems. I don't know how reliable today's level of technology is compared to the 60's vintage Soyuz in terms of long-term system life.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-08 20:55:11

The Leonardo Multipupose Logistics Module masses 4 tonnes and can carry up to 9 tonnes of cargo packed into 16 standard space station equipment racks. That is a total of 13 tonnes launch weight. The 2-crew cockpit version of MAKS can carry 7.0 tonnes to the ISS or 3.6 tonnes if the airlock is carried. Perhaps it is simpler to carry fewer equipment racks per launch. The maximum the Shuttle can carry to the ISS is 16.050 tonnes, so anything that tries to carry the current logistics module would be about as large as the current Shuttle. Adapting to a smaller shuttle means fewer equipment racks per launch and more launches.

Progress-M can carry 1.340 tonnes of equipment and supplies, and 1.200 tonnes space station propellant. Progress-M1 can carry 2.230 tonnes of cargo of which a maximum of 1.800 tonnes is equipment and supplies and a maximum of 1.950 tonnes of propellant.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-10 09:57:45

NASA essentially has to choose between the HL-20 or the larger HL-42. The former was a 17 tonne lifting body with 4 tonnes of payload, the latter was a 31 tonne lifting body with 9.3 tonnes of payload. Because the HL-42 would require a new booster, it probably will not be pursued, although the HL-20 is more suited for launch on a smaller (and cheaper) variant of Atlas V or Delta IV. Orbital Sciences has drawn heavily on these lifting bodies for their earlier OSP studies. One area that needs changing is the heat shield: the lifting bodies used a system of tiles, similar to the shuttle. Although lifting bodies encounter less heating during re-entry, I still do not have enough faith in the shuttle heat shield to justify using it.

My guess is that the final OSP will be sized to take full advantage of the "heavy" EELVs, and the payload will fall between that of the HL-20 and HL-42. The reduced mission cost will allow more resupply flights to the station to compensate for reduced payload in comparison to the shuttle.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-11 09:39:05

The X-38 was developed from the HL-20 as a smaller version. NASA could pay for construction of a still smaller one. NASA's requires do state it "shall provide rescue capability for no fewer than four ISS crew". The HL-20 specifications accommodate 2 flight crew plus 8 passengers for a total of 10 astronauts onboard. The HL-20 is way too big. Since it would require a Delta IV Large to launch it, the launch vehicle would cost $170 million per launch. That makes it way too expensive. You are also falling into the trap of believing that if it hasn't already been done, it can't be done.

Ad Astra · 2003-03-11 10:39:22

The HL-20 is way too big. Since it would require a Delta IV Large to launch it, the launch vehicle would cost $170 million per launch. That makes it way too expensive. You are also falling into the trap of believing that if it hasn't already been done, it can't be done.

The HL-20 weighs only 17 tonnes, putting it in the range of a Delta-IV medium. Further, the eight-crew requirement only allows for astronauts sitting upright. Orbital Sciences has modified the design to accomodate a flight crew of two and three astronauts, allowing the astronauts to recline to a horizontal position as they return from a long-duration space mission. Clearly, the extra volume is necessary.

It's also incorrect to say the X-38 was developed from the HL-20 when, in fact, the X-38 is based on the X-24 shape. The X-38 was actually developed as a low-cost alternative to HL-20, using parafoil landing to keep size and weight down but sarcrificing the gliding landing.

RobertDyck · 2003-03-12 06:12:55

The HL-20 weighs only 17 tonnes, putting it in the range of a Delta-IV medium. Further, the eight-crew requirement only allows for astronauts sitting upright. Orbital Sciences has modified the design to accomodate a flight crew of two and three astronauts, allowing the astronauts to recline to a horizontal position as they return from a long-duration space mission.

The human body has a certain volume. Only that volume is required for the crew compartment. That volume can be accommodated in various configurations, upright and supine, but the volume does not change. A design that provides for 5 astronauts when it used to accommodate 10 in the same volume is just inefficient.

The Delta IV Medium can lift 8.6 tonnes to a 185km orbit at 28.5? inclination. I interpolate that to 5.1 tonnes to a 407km orbit at 51.6? inclination. This is much lower than 17 tonnes. The Delta IV Medium+(4,2) can lift 11.7 tonnes to 185km orbit at 28.5?, the Delta IV Medium+(5,2) can lift 10.3 tonnes to that same orbit, and the Delta IV Medium+(5,4) can lift 13.6 tonnes to 185km orbit. The Delta IV Large can lift 25.8 tonnes to 185km orbit at 28.5? inclination but I interpolate that to 17 tonnes to 407km orbit at 51.6? inclination. The Atlas V 551 can lift 20.050 tonnes to 185km orbit at 28.5?. That means you need a Delta IV Large to lift the HL-20 to the ISS.

An efficient and cost effective OSP will keep operational cost to a minimum. We don't need yet another white elephant. The Atlas V 401 can lift 12.5 tonnes to 185km orbit at 28.5? inclination, which I interpolated to 8.25 tonnes to an ISS orbit. That must be retained as the limitation. Remember that an Atlas V 401 cost $77 million in 1998 dollars. The Soyuz-TMA spacecraft can carry 3 cosmonauts to the ISS and the Soyuz FG launch vehicle only costs $50 million in 1999 dollars. Cost effectiveness and competitiveness demands it.

The Soyuz-TM masses 7.150 tonnes and can accommodate 3 crew for 2.3833 tonnes per crew member, the Soyuz-TMA masses 7.250 tonnes for 2.4167 tonnes per crew member. These have 14 days of life support and are made with metal hulls and tanks. You should be able to fit a 4-crew OSP with composite materials and 48 hours life support on an Atlas V 401.

Palomar · 2003-04-01 11:23:02

The Soyuz-TM masses 7.150 tonnes and can accommodate 3 crew for 2.3833 tonnes per crew member, the Soyuz-TMA masses 7.250 tonnes for 2.4167 tonnes per crew member. These have 14 days of life support and are made with metal hulls and tanks. You should be able to fit a 4-crew OSP with composite materials and 48 hours life support on an Atlas V 401.

*Not according to what I've read. The Soyuz-TM masses 7.150 tonnes can accommodate a 4 crew for 2.0050 tonnes per crew member.

???

--Cindy

RobertDyck · 2003-04-01 11:58:23

*Not according to what I've read. The Soyuz-TM masses 7.150 tonnes can accommodate a 4 crew for 2.0050 tonnes per crew member.

Curious. The information I have always indicated the Soyuz-TM spacecraft has 3 modules: a descent module, orbital module, and service module. The docking system and most of the life support is part of the orbital module. The service module has fuel tanks, engines, and solar panels. The descent module has enough life support for re-entry. In fact, the descent module requires compact Sokol spacesuits; there isn't room for the full Orlan spacesuit. Orlan is used for EVA. Where did you read that Soyuz-TM can accommodate 4 crew members?

Palomar · 2003-04-01 12:08:31

*Not according to what I've read. The Soyuz-TM masses 7.150 tonnes can accommodate a 4 crew for 2.0050 tonnes per crew member.
Curious....Where did you read that Soyuz-TM can accommodate 4 crew members?

*What day is this, Robert? Sorry -- I've got to ::ping:: someone; might as well be the folks participating in this thread!

Happy April 1st.

--Cindy

Shaun Barrett · 2003-04-02 04:30:30

Ha ha ha !!! :laugh:

Much as I love Robert - an ornament to these pages - I have to say how much I enjoyed that little joke at his expense!!!
No offense, Robert, but you have to admit Cindy did a great job with that one! I have to confess ... she had me going for a while there too.

Nice one, Cindy!!

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2003-03-06 12:07:20

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#52 2003-03-06 12:17:36

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#53 2003-03-06 17:02:33

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#54 2003-03-07 09:36:45

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#55 2003-03-07 10:04:34

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#56 2003-03-07 10:11:05

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#57 2003-03-08 11:57:11

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#58 2003-03-08 12:48:14

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#59 2003-03-08 12:52:09

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#60 2003-03-08 14:53:22

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#61 2003-03-08 17:52:46

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#62 2003-03-08 20:55:11

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#63 2003-03-10 09:57:45

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#64 2003-03-11 09:39:05

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#65 2003-03-11 10:39:22

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#66 2003-03-12 06:12:55

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#67 2003-04-01 11:23:02

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#68 2003-04-01 11:58:23

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#69 2003-04-01 12:08:31

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

#70 2003-04-02 04:30:30

Re: OSP or air-launched vehicle? - Tell me what you think!

Board footer