Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

Bill White · 2004-01-18 23:27:18

In another thread, Robert Dyck gave us [http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/files/lv.html]this great link. Do I read this right to say shuttle carries 27.8 tons while Delta IV Heavy carries 25.8 tons?

How many ISS components fall between 25.8 tons and 27.8 tons?

Tweak ISS design to add a docking module for additional Soyuz and add Soyuz rescue craft. Then lift ISS components on Delta IV Heavy and use space-walkers from the ISS to install. A January 2005 flight date would seem reasonable for a Delta IV mission to the ISS. Different opinions?

This would avoid any need to return the shuttle to flight and ALL the shuttle savings can be channeled into a new program immediately rather than 2010. Then Shuttle B/C or Ares can be deployed and we get back to the Moon SOONER because we have the lift capacity needed to avoid modular, on orbit assembly of lunar vessels.

If some ISS modules are too big, save those until B/C or Ares comes on line, re-ordering the construction schedule.

Thoughts?

RobS · 2004-01-19 00:54:49

There are also Russian boosters that can launch components to ISS; the Russian unit there already got there via a Proton, I think.

The existing modules waiting for transport are designed to be flown inside a cargo bay and can't be flown without one. It'd take several years to design a Delta-IV heavy cargo fairing to accommodate them, and it'd cost big bucks. So they plan to use the shuttles to get them up. That's my guess.

-- RobS

Rxke · 2004-01-19 05:32:15

That, and the fact these modules havee no steering/docking automatics (or whaddayacall it) They need the shuttle to put them near the station, and then after the shuttle(!) docks, they get connected by the robotarm.

Only the second (Soviet) module FGB did an automatic docking from launch, IIRC... That module has thrusters etc, so it could do that. The modules waiting are simple (well...) 'containers'

Vir Stellae · 2004-01-19 10:04:02

Actually, the payload for the Shuttle has been reduced to 24.4 tons. now the Delta IVH can throw up *more* than the space shuttle! for like 3-4 times less money no less...

Bill White · 2004-01-19 10:14:43

Actually, the payload for the Shuttle has been reduced to 24.4 tons. now the Delta IVH can throw up *more* than the space shuttle! for like 3-4 times less money no less...

Question:

Suppose it took a few years to design the fairings and "on orbit" manuevering systems to allow uncrewed delivery of ISS components via either (a) Delta IV or (b) Shuttle B/C

That is a delay in ISS completion, right?

Except what might the operational tempo be once this new delivery system goes on-line? Couldn't ISS pieces be sent up once a month once the new system is ready?

Delay the next ISS compenents a few years yet still finish by 2010 or 2011 because we fly 10 or 12 mission per year once shuttle B goes on-line or the Delta IV fairing is finished.

clark · 2004-01-19 10:33:08

Delay the next ISS compenents a few years yet still finish by 2010 or 2011 because we fly 10 or 12 mission per year once shuttle B goes on-line or the Delta IV fairing is finished.

10 to 12 missions a year?! What did yo put in your coffee Bill?:p

We can't build the CEV AND a brand new heavy lift. We can't build and test a new heavy lift to meet ISS construction needs within that timeframe. Look, it's going to take at least 6-8 years to validate the CEV.

The ISS is already delayed by a couple years, won't a further delay jeporadize it?

Bill White · 2004-01-19 10:56:02

Delay the next ISS compenents a few years yet still finish by 2010 or 2011 because we fly 10 or 12 mission per year once shuttle B goes on-line or the Delta IV fairing is finished.
10 to 12 missions a year?! What did yo put in your coffee Bill?:p
We can't build the CEV AND a brand new heavy lift. We can't build and test a new heavy lift to meet ISS construction needs within that timeframe. Look, it's going to take at least 6-8 years to validate the CEV.
The ISS is already delayed by a couple years, won't a further delay jeporadize it?

10 or 12 missions per year using Delta IV or shuttle B? If we can't do that, lets all go home, America ain't ready for space travel. Its the orbiter tile maintenance and orbiter refurbishment that causes the long delays between orbital flights, remember?

Money? Shuttle B can lift twice the payload for half the cost per launch compated with shuttle orbiter. Put two orbiter payloads worth of ISS components in each shuttle B payload fairing. 8 launches per year equals 16 orbiter launches. Delay until 2008 or 2009 then send everything up in a single year.

Cancel the orbiter TODAY and see if that $77 billion ($11 billion per year x 7 being 2004 thorugh 2010) can be spent some other way to finish ISS by 2010, 2011 or 2012.

Using shuttle B I think we can finish the ISS for LESS than under the Bush vision AND using shuttle B we can put a man on the Moon by 2014 ALL within the Bush budget parameters.

If we ground the orbiter TODAY and re-direct that $77 billion into a new launch system starting NOW.

Why buy new tires for a car headed to the junkyard?

clark · 2004-01-19 11:02:45

10 or 12 missions per year using Delta IV or shuttle B? If we can't do that, lets all go home, America ain't ready for space travel. Its the orbiter tile maintenance and orbiter refurbishment that causes the long delays between orbital flights, remember?
Money? Shuttle B can lift twice the payload for half the cost per launch compated with shuttle orbiter. Put two orbiter payloads worth of ISS components in each shuttle B payload fairing. 8 launches per year equals 16 orbiter launches. Delay until 2008 or 2009 then send everything up in a single year.

Did you sell the first Shuttle program?

You should add: We believe this is possible...
But what you're really saying is, we 'hope' this is possible. They promised the moon and stars with the Shuttle. Routine flights? Check. Cheap launch costs? Check. Can do everything and fry an egg? Check.

Will we have our own human rated spaceship afterwards? No.
Will we have more than 2 people on the ISS? No.
Will we be able to complete the ISS with only 2 people on board? No.
Will we be able to supply ISS during this time?

This dance is a bit harder then just launching stuff up.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 11:22:45

Where did I say to scrap the Delta IV CEV program?

The CEV proposed by President Bush gets developed exactly the same way. Just spend the $77 billion that will be spent on the orbiter in another way. Not one penny is subtracted from the President's plan for CEV.

Cargo on shuttle B and crews on CEV.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 11:29:10

Will we have our own human rated spaceship afterwards? No.

Addressed above. Not one penny is taken from the CEV program.

Will we have more than 2 people on the ISS? No.

How is the Bush plan any different? CEV won't be man-rated until 2014, remember? And once we terminate US involvement with ISS, the CEV won't be available after that, either.

Will we be able to complete the ISS with only 2 people on board? No.

And the Bush plan fixes this, how?

Will we be able to supply ISS during this time?

If someone pays the Russians, yes.

= = =

Between now and 2010 the Bush plan calls for $77 billion to be spent on orbiter operations which are devoted exclusively to finishing the ISS. How can that be a good idea? Spend this $77 billion in another way.

clark · 2004-01-19 11:32:56

We get 12 billion, over the next five years, to make CEV happen by 2008.

We still need to spend the funds to get the Shuttle fleet to meet the CAIB requirements for return-to-flight.

We can't just close the doors on the Shuttle today unless we KNOW that Russia and the ESA can, and will, provide continued access to ISS. They may not particulary approve of an ISS, with only two people on it, for the next 6 or 7 years, while we try to figure out another way to meet our commitment to them. Not to mention that as soon as we're done, we leave them with the white elephant.

In order to meet Bush's vision, we need to finish the ISS first so that we can put more people up there to figure out how to deal with the space environment so we can send people to the moon and retire the Shuttle so that we can pay for the moon shots. [whew!]

Bill, you're right. But I just think it might be too much.

clark · 2004-01-19 11:37:59

How is the Bush plan any different? CEV won't be man-rated until 2014, remember? And once we terminate US involvement with ISS, the CEV won't be available after that, either.

Man rated by 2014. Tested by 2008. We can cross the finish line before these deadlines.

And the Bush plan fixes this, how?

By declaring that we will, and must, rely on our international partners. Look for some give and take related to the nuclear proliferiation ban on Russia. They may very well decide that they can make more money selling rockets to uncle sam, then selling forbidden technology to the Iranian's.

Between now and 2010 the Bush plan calls for $77 billion to be spent on orbiter operations which are devoted exclusively to finishing the ISS. How can that be a good idea? Spend this $77 billion in another way.

If we want any hope of future international involvement with space, we need to finish the ISS now. We're holding up the party.

I personaly think it will take another Shuttle loss to get them to stop now, and go the cargo alternative route like you are suggesting.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 11:51:42

If we want any hope of future international involvement with space, we need to finish the ISS now. We're holding up the party.

Throw in transporttation of ESA modules to the moon (on shuttle B) as compensation for the delay. Besides, see below, if we lose another orbiter in 2005 or 2006 the result will be to scrap the ISS.

Not to start a shuttle B program from a standing start AFTER billions have been spent refurbishing the orbiter.

I personaly think it will take another Shuttle loss to get them to stop now, and go the cargo alternative route like you are suggesting.

In terms of realistic politics, I agree. Which only proves that the Bush plan is not visionary enough. Its only-half visionary.

It takes a good idea (phase out shuttle) and then doesn't push it hard enough to do us any good. And we will then we will lack the ability to build a substantial moonbase. Earth to LEO is still the hardest leg and Delta IV is far inferior to shuttle derived for moving mass to LEO.

The Bush vision also sets the table for a future decision to end all civilian presence in space.

clark · 2004-01-19 12:04:58

Okay, I cry uncle.

Would we need the 20,000 people who are now currently employed for Shuttle operations on any Shuttle succesor?

RobertDyck · 2004-01-19 14:02:44

In another thread, Robert Dyck gave us [http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/files/lv.html]this great link. Do I read this right to say shuttle carries 27.8 tons while Delta IV Heavy carries 25.8 tons?
How many ISS components fall between 25.8 tons and 27.8 tons?
Tweak ISS design to add a docking module for additional Soyuz and add Soyuz rescue craft. Then lift ISS components on Delta IV Heavy and use space-walkers from the ISS to install. A January 2005 flight date would seem reasonable for a Delta IV mission to the ISS. Different opinions?
This would avoid any need to return the shuttle to flight and ALL the shuttle savings can be channeled into a new program immediately rather than 2010. Then Shuttle B/C or Ares can be deployed and we get back to the Moon SOONER because we have the lift capacity needed to avoid modular, on orbit assembly of lunar vessels.
If some ISS modules are too big, save those until B/C or Ares comes on line, re-ordering the construction schedule.

That table shows the Shuttle can lift 27.77 tonnes to LEO to 200km orbit at 28.5?, not the ISS orbt of 407km at 51.6?. The shuttle can only lift 16.05 tonnes to the ISS. However, Delta IV Large can lift almost as much. Not all shuttle flights to ISS will carry the maximum payload, so Delta IV Large could handle it. By the way, the capacity of Shuttle was decreased by the safety upgrades after Challenger, but increased through upgrades in preparation for ISS construction. Upgrades included the aluminum-lithium alloy external tank, proton transport membrain fuel cells, flat pannel displays instead of CRTs, etc.

Use of Delta IV Large would require some means for high precision rendezvous with ISS. Installation could be done with space walks, but you have to either dock or get CanadArm2 to grab it. I suggested a remotely piloted tug about the size of a Soyuz service module, a radar system, and robot hand identical to the CanadArm or CanadArm2. Give it fuel tanks that can be refilled on orbit, and a multi-year storage time. That means storable propellants, not cryogenic. The OMS and RCS for Shuttle and service module for Soyuz all use storable propellants. A Russian Progress has already been designed to carry fuel. Such a tug would mass about 3 tonnes with fuel tanks full.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 14:23:00

In another thread, Robert Dyck gave us [http://chapters.marssociety.org/winnipeg/files/lv.html]this great link. Do I read this right to say shuttle carries 27.8 tons while Delta IV Heavy carries 25.8 tons?
How many ISS components fall between 25.8 tons and 27.8 tons?
Tweak ISS design to add a docking module for additional Soyuz and add Soyuz rescue craft. Then lift ISS components on Delta IV Heavy and use space-walkers from the ISS to install. A January 2005 flight date would seem reasonable for a Delta IV mission to the ISS. Different opinions?
This would avoid any need to return the shuttle to flight and ALL the shuttle savings can be channeled into a new program immediately rather than 2010. Then Shuttle B/C or Ares can be deployed and we get back to the Moon SOONER because we have the lift capacity needed to avoid modular, on orbit assembly of lunar vessels.
If some ISS modules are too big, save those until B/C or Ares comes on line, re-ordering the construction schedule.
That table shows the Shuttle can lift 27.77 tonnes to LEO to 200km orbit at 28.5?, not the ISS orbt of 407km at 51.6?. The shuttle can only lift 16.05 tonnes to the ISS. However, Delta IV Large can lift almost as much. Not all shuttle flights to ISS will carry the maximum payload, so Delta IV Large could handle it. By the way, the capacity of Shuttle was decreased by the safety upgrades after Challenger, but increased through upgrades in preparation for ISS construction. Upgrades included the aluminum-lithium alloy external tank, proton transport membrain fuel cells, flat pannel displays instead of CRTs, etc.
Use of Delta IV Large would require some means for high precision rendezvous with ISS. Installation could be done with space walks, but you have to either dock or get CanadArm2 to grab it. I suggested a remotely piloted tug about the size of a Soyuz service module, a radar system, and robot hand identical to the CanadArm or CanadArm2. Give it fuel tanks that can be refilled on orbit, and a multi-year storage time. That means storable propellants, not cryogenic. The OMS and RCS for Shuttle and service module for Soyuz all use storable propellants. A Russian Progress has already been designed to carry fuel. Such a tug would mass about 3 tonnes with fuel tanks full.

So, RobertDyck, can you think of any good reason to "buy new tires for the orbiter" only to scrap it all in 2010?

Lets get to the nub of the issue, okay?

Other people?

Josh Cryer · 2004-01-19 14:40:42

I say Bill White should be the next head of NASA. He's being extremely reasonable with his proposals, and he's satisifying everyone in the process. Very good points Bill.

You should write up a proposal for the 2004 Mars Society conference.

clark · 2004-01-19 14:53:08

So, RobertDyck, can you think of any good reason to "buy new tires for the orbiter" only to scrap it all in 2010?

To work with a known quantity and reduce uncertainty while working in a hostile and unforgiving environment. We know what the parameters are for the Shuttle. Any derivitive of the Shuttle is theory, and thus takes longer to work out the quirks associated with the new hardware.

Let's get to the nub of the issue?

Okay, let's. :laugh:

The only reason to develop a heavy lift shuttle derivitive is to keep the fantasy of a Human-to-Mars mission alive within our lifetime.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 15:07:30

The only reason to develop a heavy lift shuttle derivitive is to keep the fantasy of a Human-to-Mars mission alive within our lifetime.

The fantasy of significant lunar or LEO infrastructure requires the same heavy lift. Moon first is acknowledged.

And, if these are indeed fantasies, then finish the ISS with Delta IV and put the savings into a prescription drug plan.

Pouring $77 billion into a system (shuttle) that will be scrapped in 2010 anyways is foolish. What we do with those savings can be debated elsewhere. If ending shuttle in 2010 is a GOOD idea, then ending shuttle in 2004 is a GREAT idea.

clark · 2004-01-19 15:17:33

The fantasy of significant lunar or LEO infrastructure requires the same heavy lift. Moon first is acknowledged.

Who called for a 'significant' lunar base? Bush didn't. Congress didn't. Most of America didn't.

Space advocates and their bards do though.

How many people do we need on the moon to do effective science? What kind of science do we want to do? Do we need thousands on the moon, and the costs that come with it, to do what most agree can be handled by a few people and some robots?

Do we need to do the ISS all over again, this time on the moon? For what?

A small, modular approach, utilizing ion nuclear propulsion from LEO to Luna will give us a moon base. It also means we don't need the Shuttle, or a heavy lift vehicle to throw the stuff up in one go, or with enough delta v for the moon. Infrastructure in LEO (like a space tug or tether) will do the lifting to the moon.

So instead of spending umpteen billions on one super-ton module that does everything, we spending a billion here, a billion there, over several years, and end up with the same thing- which is also more flexible given changes that occur over the years (look at the ISS to see what I mean).

And, if these are indeed fantasies, then finish the ISS with Delta IV and put the savings into a prescription drug plan.

Shhhh! Don't tell anyone.

Pouring $77 billion into a system (shuttle) that will be scrapped in 2010 anyways is foolish. What we do with those savings can be debated elsewhere. If ending shuttle in 2010 is a GOOD idea, then ending shuttle in 2004 is a GREAT idea.

And if we find out that Shuttle C will not work, what then? A bird in the hand is worth what Bill?

I would be happy to see that money redirected- if nothing else, just to shave some years off the President's timetable. But there are some legitimate reasons to maintain the system.

Bill White · 2004-01-19 15:28:47

clark, you and I talk to each other too much. :;):

I will now be quiet until I hear what some other people have to say. I especialy wish to hear from those who are rocket science gifted, unlike me.

clark, I still like you dude, its only that we are monopolizing teh (sic) bandwidth.

= = =

For the record, the idea of retiring the shuttle now is certainly not mine. I may very well have read the idea is another person's post a while back.

Right now, I am merely yelling about it more than other people.

The edit is added to this post to minimize my #### - flood of the site.

RobertDyck · 2004-01-19 15:55:59

So, RobertDyck, can you think of any good reason to "buy new tires for the orbiter" only to scrap it all in 2010?

You make an excellent point, and the same one I have been trying to imply since Congress started to question the direction of the space program. Don't return the Shuttle to flight, instead develop an orbital tug and assemble the remainder of ISS with Delta IV and Atlas V. Once you have a tug you could even use Proton, Angara 5, or Ariene 5. Shift more money to manned space exploration, do it sooner. You might even have enough money left over to maintain Hubble, but that's an arguement for another thread; the point is to retire Shuttle sooner (or now) to free money for other things.

Rxke · 2004-01-19 16:10:19

a tug, my kingdom for a tug!

Seriously, the first commercial tug operator is going to get rich.

This is one piece of equipment that's sorely missed today.

What are they waiting for? If they want it maintenanced, send it to ISS.

(Heck, the Russians could build one, their Automated docking stuff is tried and tested...)

Ad Astra · 2004-01-19 16:13:07

The Russians actually proposed launching remaining ISS modules with Proton rockets. The caveat is that a modified Progress would have to be docked to each module before launch to dock it to the ISS. I'm partial to this idea, but I acknowledge that it doesn't work for certain components that can't easily dock with a Progress, like the robotic hands for CanadArm and the truss segments / solar arrays. For those parts (and ONLY those parts,) a shuttle is necessary.

I also agreee that prts of the new space plan can be sped up. Does anybody think that it will take between 2008 and 2014 to man-rate the CEV? Gemini and Apollo capsules were man-rated after two unmanned launches. CEV should be no different.

Rxke · 2004-01-19 17:50:18

[=http://www.orbitalrecovery.com/]Orbital Recovery could be the answer, to the tug question if they pull this off...

EDIT: nevermind, they're slated for first launch in 2007...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-01-18 23:27:18

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#2 2004-01-19 00:54:49

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#3 2004-01-19 05:32:15

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#4 2004-01-19 10:04:02

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#5 2004-01-19 10:14:43

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#6 2004-01-19 10:33:08

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#7 2004-01-19 10:56:02

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#8 2004-01-19 11:02:45

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#9 2004-01-19 11:22:45

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#10 2004-01-19 11:29:10

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#11 2004-01-19 11:32:56

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#12 2004-01-19 11:37:59

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#13 2004-01-19 11:51:42

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#14 2004-01-19 12:04:58

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#15 2004-01-19 14:02:44

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#16 2004-01-19 14:23:00

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#17 2004-01-19 14:40:42

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#18 2004-01-19 14:53:08

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#19 2004-01-19 15:07:30

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#20 2004-01-19 15:17:33

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#21 2004-01-19 15:28:47

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#22 2004-01-19 15:55:59

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#23 2004-01-19 16:10:19

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#24 2004-01-19 16:13:07

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

#25 2004-01-19 17:50:18

Re: Can we finish the ISS - using Delta IV Heavy?

Board footer