Shutte ET as ISS module

SpaceNut · 2015-01-16 18:08:44

More Shuttle Factoids http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/SSP.pdf
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf … ants08.pdf

Since the re-hash of SLS has a 70 mt payload why not just send up what you want to build with as an unmanned launcher on it? But if we must use the ET and SSME engine then create a shuttle pod for the tank might even be able to use the RS68 as well then place the payload tank or what even you want in the shuttles attachment location add to it the booster section to move it into desired orbital location..

kbd512 · 2015-01-17 13:25:10

RobertDyck wrote:

You have to ask why there is an OMS-1 burn at all. That is so Shuttle can jettison ET on a trajectory for safe disposal in the Indian Ocean. For normal operations you wouldn't stop the core stage there. Thrust to apogee makes sense. The Orbital Manoeuvre System should only be used for circularization. That means "direct ascent". So looking at the whole system, you wouldn't continue with a flight profile that is modified for ET disposal, then tack on an additional booster to prevent disposal.

Okay, my mistake. I was not clear. I was trying to imply that I don't want to change any OMS burns. I want the ET well clear of the orbiter prior to any circularization of their orbits. The ET costs $50M. That's a lot of money for a throwaway gas can, but it's pocket change compared to the cost of an orbiter and probably costs less than the training for the astronauts.

RobertDyck wrote:

You're looking at the material as raw resource. Bureaucratic management does not think that way. They see manufacturing as some mysterious black box. They can't conceive of repurposing equipment. They certainly can conceive of any sort of industrial work in zero-G. But there are also scientists. They find industrial work even harder to understand. They may be "technical", but I've attended conferences. Watch the TV show "Big Bang Theory", look at how the character Sheldon treats Howard. I've seen it; it happens. Any responsible use of resources is beyond their comprehension.

Yeah, there's a difference between having lots of information and having wisdom. A scientist probably looks at the disposal of the ET's as a $15M-$25M loss of materials over 30 years and thinks to himself, "Compared to the cost of the program the cost of the materials was nothing, so who cares if we dumped them in the ocean." An engineer looks at the same situation and thinks to himself, "These things aren't cheap to make, but we can manufacture them at a rate sufficient to meet consumption and using them for anything else isn't practical, so why would we try to reuse them?" An economist looks on, aghast at what he sees, and thinks to himself, "Whoa there, Buck Rogers! We're dumping $50M gas cans in the drink after less than ten minutes of use, to say nothing of the truly monumental cost of putting them into orbit in the first place."

RobertDyck wrote:

Another example: after Mars Polar Lander failed, the Mars 2001 Lander was postponed. It used the same chassis, so they wanted the problem solved before launching another potential failure. Good decision. However, once they found the problem, then didn't just fix it and launch. They lost interest and forgot about it. Then years later some scientists found it in storage, and decided to modify it for their needs. They removed all the engineering experiments, to make room for more fundamental science. They removed the radiation sensor, and the In-Situ Propellant Production Precursor. The repurposed lander became Mars Phoenix. A radiation sensor is on Curiosity, but we still don't have anything to demonstrate ISPP.

This is another prime example of how NASA is desperately trying to do anything but a real, sustainable manned space exploration program. I just want the manned space exploration program shut down or I want NASA to demonstrate a coherent and sustainable strategy that actually achieves the goal that the administration continues to talk about, but isn't really seriously trying to accomplish.

Here's what a real manned space exploration strategy looks like:

- Orion is cancelled and the useful aspects of the program, like the avionics development, are applied to STS

- A substantial portion of funds are invested into space nuclear power and propulsion technologies so that considerable payload mass versus propellant mass can be shipped to its destination

- For operational support, all far-flung contractor facilities for STS and SLS are moved to a centralized location and proper accounting of contractor activities is made by NASA so there is no guessing about where all the money is going

- STS is reactivated for SLS hardware retrieval only

- ISS receives an orbital manufacturing module or modules to produce spacecraft and modules for ISS from what would otherwise be space junk

- SEP tugs collect and repurpose space junk, expended STS and SLS hardware in particular

- SpaceX and Orbital continue to provide for ISS crew and cargo requirements

- Science experiments focus on answering questions about how humans can sustainably live in space and on other planets

RobertDyck wrote:

Use of resources generally sounds good. But you're going to require practical processes to use those materials before anyone lets you accumulate them.

As far as an orbital manufacturing facility is concerned, you need a few smelters (there are several kinds of alloys in the ET or any other rocket for that matter, so rather than trying to come up with some overly complicated method for cleaning a single smelter after each use, each smelter handles a particular kind of alloy), machines to produce bar and flat stock, two or more CNC machines, a welding center, a machine for tooling repair, and an area for assembly (the space hangar that NASA wanted on ISS). Apart from that, a robotic disassembly station is required to break down spacecraft parts into pieces small enough to fit in the smelters.

I'm not suggesting that every part of an ISS module or lander be built at ISS, rather, using the repurposed materials, the heavy shells can be assembled on orbit. Supply vessels can provide workers and unique items requiring complicated manufacturing or assembly techniques (like computers, wiring, engines, for example). The parts of the supply vessels that are discarded need to be repurposed, too.

It simply costs too much to trash the materials or working spacecraft parts once you spend the money to get them to orbit.

RobertDyck · 2015-01-17 15:21:11

Actually, engineers in 1968 designed a fully reusable Shuttle. NASA requirements were fully reusable, Two-Stage-To-Orbit, lift 7 astronauts and 11 metric tonnes of supplies to a space station in the same orbit as ISS is now, and launch 50 times per year. They had a flight manifest drawn up; one year during station construction Shuttle would launch 66 times, but other years 50 times. NASA intended to use Saturn 1B for construction, Shuttle for crew and supplies. Then Nixon got elected and gutted NASA's budget. He told the military and NASA they couldn't have separate launchers, they had to share or neither get anything. The military wanted spy satellites in polar orbit, but the lifting body orbiter that NASA was planning couldn't handle long enough glide so safely enter over a pole and make it to an airport. So they changed to a delta wing and fuselage. That made it heavier. And Shuttle had to be larger to accommodate the spy satellite the military wanted. That made it heavier still. The budget Nixon authorized didn't have enough money for both the orbiter and piloted fly-back booster, so they kept the orbiter, but replaced the fly-back booster with what the military calls a drop tank. The air force used drop tanks in World War 2 to extend the range of bombers over Japan. That's what ET is: a big drop tank. Then a senator for Utah said he had a company that makes segmented solid rocket boosters for Titan III missiles; where do the segmented solid rockets go on your new Shuttle? NASA argued that solid rocket boosters were not safe for human space flight, especially with nothing but a rubber O-ring right beside a liquid hydrogen tank. But the senator was on the Congress appropriations committee, so no SRBs, no Shuttle.

Don't blame the design of Shuttle on engineers. They did what they had to do, and got the world's first Shuttle to work. Blame Nixon and Congress.

Terraformer · 2015-01-17 15:29:02

Perhaps it would have been cheaper to build an Air Force base in northern Alaska...

RobertDyck · 2015-01-17 16:18:07

Manufacturing in space: When the Ronald Regan was president the US was planning to build space station Freedom, Canada was asked to join. Canada planned to contribute a whole, full-size module. This would be a satellite service module. With all the tools and machines necessary to repair satellites in orbit. But when Freedom was cancelled, Canada cancelled their module. When NASA announced ISS, the Canadian federal government said they wouldn't resurrect their module, instead only provide a robot arm. That was the only planned machine shop for space.

Your list of stuff sounds good. But Robert Zubrin has pointed out SLS is intended to launch Orion. He doesn't like Orion either, but he wants SLS. His worry is if Orion is cancelled, then SLS will too. Dr Zubrin has a point.

I have pointed out that NASA has enough money right now for a human mission to Mars. They don't need any more money at all. And the human mission could be done within 8 years, so one presidency. However, to do that you have to be frugal:
- keep SLS
- use that newly build test stand to test J-2X engines for the upper stage of SLS Block 2
- forget Constellation
- cancel any asteroid mission
- forget the Moon
- keep ISS, and continue operation
- use ISS to test/demonstrate life support for Mars
- cancel Orion
- keep Dragon Rider or Dragon V2 to deliver crew to ISS.
- I don't know about CST-100. It's 10 metric tonnes while Dragon is 8. But at least it isn't the 28.5 metric tonnes for Orion with ATV-based SM, LAS, and fairing. However, the contract for CST-100 is awarded, so it's done.
- keep Dragon and Cygnus to deliver cargo to ISS. Don't know what's going to happen with the Russian engines for Antares.
- reassign NASA centers for Orion to service the Mars mission

Nuclear sounds good, and I have argued for it before. But if Congress is going to panic over political repercussions, then we can go to Mars without it. Others here on New Mars have made that point. Ok, I'll accept that. Can we go now?

kbd512 · 2015-01-17 19:27:48

Rob,

If ULA and the Air Force have any desire to continue to fund the Orion program for military space flight operations, that's fine. I expect some of the development of the systems for Orion to be incorporated into the refurbished orbiters. The money not wasted by NASA on CST-100 and Orion can be utilized to reactivate STS. The money expended by NASA to fund development of the capsule systems is not a total loss, either way.

Boeing and PWR can continue to support STS and SLS, at one and only one facility controlled and operated by NASA, preferably KSC. This means that the manufacturing facilities and test stands for the RS-25, RCS/OMS, avionics, the robotic weld tool from MAF that produces the ET, and virtually everything apart from the SRM's would be moved to KSC. Moving the SRM manufacturing facilities to KSC is probably impractical.

The STS program was so expensive, as the SLS program is and will be, because of the number of facilities dispersed across America. The movement of components from building to building at one facility is an entirely different operation than moving components across a continent.

The government can never let contractors on cost plus contracts decide how and where to execute operations. There's no incentive for them to deliver on time and on schedule. Run the programs, but run them intelligently.

If Orion is permitted to exist, NASA will go ten years, and most likely more than ten years, without a manned space flight capability of any kind.

There's no clear reason to cancel SLS, absent comparable capability at reduced cost, simply because Orion is cancelled. The lift capability lost with the retirement of Saturn V should have been a painful lesson for NASA. The mistake doesn't need to be repeated twice.

If I could undo the stupidity of it all, STS would be cancelled and Ares/SLS would never have existed. Instead, a practical approach to restoration of heavy lift capability would have been instituted. The LOX/LH2 propulsion systems that NASA and tree huggers love so much would have been replaced with simple and practical pressure fed LOX/RP-1 boosters with aerospike nozzles.

My proposals are directed at salvaging a manned space exploration program in a practical way because NASA and their favorite contractors have engineers who continually attempt impossible tasks to demonstrate how clever they are, rather than how efficient and economical their solutions can be.

RobertDyck · 2015-01-17 21:24:09

kbd512 wrote:

Boeing and PWR can continue to support STS and SLS, at one and only one facility controlled and operated by NASA, preferably KSC. This means that the manufacturing facilities and test stands for the RS-25, RCS/OMS, avionics, the robotic weld tool from MAF that produces the ET, and virtually everything apart from the SRM's would be moved to KSC.

Sounds good. Good luck with that. Remember Congress is composed of how many Congressmen and Senators? All vying for jobs in their Congressional District.

SpaceNut · 2015-01-19 19:02:16

Concepts for a Shroud or Propellant Tank Derived Deep Space Habitat

RobertDyck · 2015-01-19 20:43:03

Excellent. Thank you SpaceNut. However, that paper talks about parking the habitat in L1. Why? I keep saying use aerocapture for return to Earth from Mars, then aerobraking down to circularized LEO, rendezvous with ISS, and dock. This uses ISS as a "bus station". You can also use ISS as a ship yard for any upgrades or re-fit, or simply refuel/replenish for the next mission. So the best place to park is docked to ISS.

This paper shows a 4-deck layout using the LH2 tank of the upper stage of SLS. That's still 8.4 metre diameter. This paper says 8.5m, but SLS core is 8.4m, so the upper stage would most likely be the same. Now try doing the same with a tank 3.66m diameter. Actually, I think that's too small for a vertical orientation. Zvezda is 4.35m at its widest. A zero-G ITV like Zvezda is possible. Instead of a narrow waste to accommodate solar arrays within a fairing of the same diameter, instead add the solar arrays to the outside with a "lid" fairing like the Dragon trunk. Is the word "lid"? I made that up, but you get the idea.

Or just launch the ITV dry. Falcon Heavy accommodates a 5m payload fairing, so the ITV itself could be 5m diameter with no fairing. The upper stage cannot be expanded to 5m diameter, because the additional cores of Falcon Heavy are not the same length as the central core. The central core is the same as Falcon 9, but the strap-on cores are actually taller. It appears the LOX/RP1 tank plane is higher as well, indicating the strap-on cores are larger. If the upper stage were 5m diameter starting at the bottom of the tank, not the interstage, then it would still intersect (collide) with cones on the strap-on cores. Too bad. So we're left with 3.66m diameter wet, or 5m diameter dry.

SpaceNut · 2015-01-19 22:07:15

http://www.ulalaunch.com/products_atlasv.aspx

There were also plans to create a super heavy atlas with the triple common core and the super size shroud, which was anywhere from the current up to 12 meters or large if I remember correctly but that was before constellation and SLS.

At one time we were talking abount the centaur tank as one to be used for habitat building but that was along time ago....

Last edited by SpaceNut (2015-01-19 22:09:31)

RobertDyck · 2015-01-19 23:13:50

A custom upper stage, 5 meter diameter, would make a nice wet-launch hab. The Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage (ICPS) planned for SLS is a modified Delta Cryogenic Second Stage (DCSS). The current DCSS is 4 metre diameter, ICPS is planned to be 5m diameter. Since ULA has merged Atlas V and Delta IV hardware, imagine Atlas V with 5 solid rocket boosters, and replace the centaur stage with ICPS. Cover the inter-tank area, LOX tank, and engine with an interstage. The LH2 tank would make a nice ITV hull. But to do that, the LOX tank, engine, helium tanks, and inter-tank support struts, plumbing and control wiring would have to be ejected. Would be simpler to use a tank with bulkhead. That is a single tank for LH2 and LOX, with bulkhead between. Just like S-4B. Then a hatch installed between tanks. Less hardware to eject, and larger habitat space. Hardpoints would have to be machined into the inner surface of the tanks. "Hardpoint" means a thickened patch of tank wall with a hole drilled part way, and threads tapped into the hole. Basically a nut machined into the metal. And the tank wall built robust enough to support the weight of equipment attached to the hard point. This is where equipment, deck floors/ceilings, walls, etc will be attached. And as much as possible pre-installed in the tank. OMS and RCS systems would have to be separate from the main engine. The main engine itself would not be used once on-orbit. The ITV would require a separate TMI stage.

Look at this thing. I thought 1960s electronics were big and bulky. And advance for their day, but modern microcontrollers should be tiny. This is ridiculous. What's up with that?

SpaceNut · 2015-01-28 18:11:30

I was thinking about this topic and remembered some of the older topics of the expendable engine pod, using shuttle C and so began the wheels in my head a turning again.

The thought was to use the location for the orbiter as the mounting location for as many of the iss modules as we could fit in the same length and to include a push stage with j2 engines and a tank in the design with a drop engine pod of rs68's instead of the rs25's at its end to make use of the normal ET launch with SRB profile...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2015-01-16 18:08:44

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#27 2015-01-17 13:25:10

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#28 2015-01-17 15:21:11

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#29 2015-01-17 15:29:02

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#30 2015-01-17 16:18:07

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#31 2015-01-17 19:27:48

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#32 2015-01-17 21:24:09

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#33 2015-01-19 19:02:16

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#34 2015-01-19 20:43:03

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#35 2015-01-19 22:07:15

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#36 2015-01-19 23:13:50

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

#37 2015-01-28 18:11:30

Re: Shutte ET as ISS module

Board footer