Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

clark · 2004-02-10 08:08:15

The Shuttle fleet is slated to be retired by the end of 2010. With it goes America's manned vehicle to space and America's only heavy lift capability. That means in 2010, America will have less capabilities than it had at the end of Apollo. America will then be international partners in an International Space Station (ISS) America cannot service, nor visit, independantly.

America will fufill it's obligation to international partners by completing the ISS by 2010. After completion of the ISS, America will then phase out research on ISS to focus on manned exploration of space beyond Low Earth Orbit (LEO). In order to begin this next phase, NASA must complete ISS assembly, and retire the Shuttle.

This is the situation.

Now, how do we make it better?

Is there a way to retire the Shuttle sooner than 2010 that will also similarly provide heavy lift capabilites beyond 2010? If so, can this plan also ensure that the ISS will be completed by the end of 2010?

Is there a way to gradually phase out the use of Shuttle flights to complete ISS?

I know that different ideas have been discussed in various threads on this board related to this topic, but I was hoping to discuss as many options as available related to trying to retire the Shuttle, and complete ISS by 2010.

clark · 2004-02-10 08:20:37

In the thread [http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1996]Topic: Hubble mistake, Action needed (pg4) I asked RobertDyck about finding some alternate means to deliver ISS modules via a non-Shuttle lauch.

Robert,

Progress could theoretically have the fuel and cargo modules removed, just keep the 2.95 tonne service module, radar and docking collar, and control systems. But that would change the balance requiring modification to flight software. Furthermore, not all ISS assembly missions are complete modules; some are pallets of parts like solar panels and truss segments. That would require a robot hand similar to CanadArm or CanadArm2 to grapple and pull it to ISS. Although the fuel module is designed to deliver fuel to ISS, I don't think the fuel tanks of the service module are designed to be refilled on-orbit, so leaving such a tug docked to ISS as a reusable device would require significant modification. With proper modification it could be refuelled by the fuel module of a standard Progress, but such a tug would have to be developed. The Russians could easily develop such a tug, but couldn't America develop it just as easily?

I apologize about quoting you here, but I want to be specific, what kind of companies, or even which companies, can do something like this?

Sorry, maybe this will help... here is what I was thinking. Evaluate the entire ISS flight load neccessary to complete ISS. Examine where alternate Shuttle flight loads might be creatively placed on other launch systems. Identify those flight loads which, for all practical purposes, can only be delivered by Shuttle flights. Those flight loads that can only be delievered by the Shuttle, accelerate their development and move up their time table for delievery to ISS (where and when possible). All other identified flight loads that *might* be handled by a non-Shuttle launch, we table, or slow down. We then identify the requirements for the remaining flight loads to get these to ISS. Then we either give some aerospace firms some money to figure it out, or give it to some up-start aerospace companies with some new ideas to try out.

This might allow for an accelerated retirement of the Shuttle, it buys us some breathing room if we have problems with the Shuttle fleet, and it gives us some more alternate access (:D) to space.

*End of previous post

I was hoping that this might be a point of discussion, among other ideas presented here. Thanks.

Bill White · 2004-02-10 09:19:03

I know that different ideas have been discussed in various threads on this board related to this topic, but I was hoping to discuss as many options as available related to trying to retire the Shuttle, and complete ISS by 2010.

Why should we finish ISS? I am not saying we shouldn't yet how we answer "why" greatly influences my answers to your question.

Because we already spent $100 billion merely begs the question - - why throw $35 billion new money (more counting ISS direct costs) after $100 billion "bad" money? To finish ISS grudgingly because we "promised" our partners may be a diplomatic necessity yet that influences how we do it.

Form follows function.

If ISS is intended to advance future exploration, then we need to modify ISS design. Add the cancelled TransHab habitat and vigorous CELSS experiments. Learn to re-cycle water. We are not leaving LEO until we do that. Because I have yet to see ISS re-design proposals to allow genuine CELSS research or add TransHab (an inexpensive system) I am suspicious how much ISS completion will actually help future exploration efforts.

I hope to be proven wrong. Anyway, google Constance Adams - - she is my new space "hero" - - great stuff on space achitecture.

Anyways - - answer why finish ISS - - and then we can decide the best how.

= = =

Why is 2010 such a magical date? If new CELSS experimental modules, or TransHab habitats, or centrifuge gravity emulators are added beyond current plans why worry about 2010?

clark · 2004-02-10 09:38:46

Why should we complete ISS? "Before you move a mountain, try finding a path around.

The American President has publicly stated, as part of his Space Policy, that we finish the ISS by 2010. Any deviation from this goal will be rejected out of hand, or meet with strong opposition.

Be like the river, flow around the obstacles in your way, but always towards the goal.

American involvement with ISS beyond 2010 is murky at best. Our goals lie beyond Low Earth Orbit, and much of the research that could be done on ISS can also be done on the Moon, namely research into the effects of micro-gravity and radiation exsposure. It is doubtful that NASA will aggresively pursue any additional modifications of ISS, unless such changes will allow us to complete ISS and retire the Shuttle in 2010.

The people who are in charge of coming up with the solutions to implement policy have their marching orders. They will look at solutions that help implement the stated policy and objectives outlined by Bush. Consider this the boundaries of the sand-box. Anything is fair game, as long as it stays within the sand-box.

Edit: As for centirfuge and other add-on's to the ISS, I believe NASA will pursue non-manned deep space probes (Google "Free Flyer, NASA") to get relevant data.

Bill White · 2004-02-10 10:14:18

Is paying the Russians politically "out of bounds" as well?

Given the Iran nuclear issue, and the current treaty squabbles with the Russians and their "kidnapped?" presidential candidate will President Bush consider cash payments to Russian areospace ventures?

How about disturbing the allocation of the current scheduled Delta IV & Atlas V production run? Can Boeing make more, faster or can the Air Force delay some of their planned Delta IV launches or can we delay CEV testing? We are talking about 25 - 30 additional Delta IVs in the next 5 - 6 years.

Rule out these avenues and that leaves shuttle derived or the orbiter. A 2010 deadline fairly effectively locks us into continuing the status quo except for shuttle derived.

= = =

If we went with shuttle derived, could an orbiter be modified to allow on orbit re-fueling? The whole heat shield issue and damage to the carbon-carbon wing surfaces is irrelevant if the shuttle never comes down.

Develop shuttle derived; then modify an orbiter for extended on orbit operations; dock the orbiter to ISS with a minimal crew and an additional Soyuz emergency descent module carried in the payload bay; throw up shuttle derived payloads as fast as Pad 39 can allow and use the shuttle to capture the payloads and assemble ISS.

Heck, if a redesigned orbiter had its heat shields removed and its wings clipped, couldn't shuttle C carry up a mini-main tank and then SSMEs could be used to accomplish significant plane changes.

Voila! A space utility tug. A better use for the orbiter than the Smithsonian, at least IMHO.

clark · 2004-02-10 10:40:41

I believe that paying the Russians is out of bounds, however, that may change if the rationale is sound. It's a bit harder to go that route, so we should examine other solutions first.

As for Delta or Atlas launches, are they even capable of delivering any of the remaining ISS bound cargo?

Shuttle Derived Vehicle (SDV) may very well be the way to go, but that requires we scale back on the CEV development to find funds to develop SDV sooner; or we ground the Shuttle and use those funds to start on an SDV now (as you have proposed Bill), but that also means we can't work on the ISS until we have an SDV, and have a way to get astronauts to ISS. Is there another way?

Ad Astra · 2004-02-10 15:42:15

It's not like retiring the shuttle will rob the US of its heavy-lift capability. The Titan IV was developed precisely because the Air Force wanted an alternative to the Shuttle. Titan IV will now be replaced by Delta IV heavy, and my guess is that large payloads destined for the shuttle will now be flown on Delta IV (James Webb telescope, etc.)

In terms of ISS cargo, a replacement for the shuttle may be found with the Kistler K-1 or perhaps a cargo module developed for Project Constellation. In a worst-case scenario, more cargo missions on the ATV could be flown. There really isn't much need to return cargo anyway if the ISS will only be used to study effects of weightlessness on humans.

NASA will soon be buying Soyuz capsule, or at least that's my prediction. NASA seems anxious to find shortcuts for the Iran-Nonproliferation Act, and it's my guess that Iran is in store for major upheaval very soon which will leave its nuclear program to languish.

clark · 2004-02-10 15:49:08

Delta IV heavy, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, can only lift 13 tonnes. I was under the distinct impression that the Shuttle could lift on the order of 40+ tons.

Kistler may be an alternative for ISS cargo, but I think NASA is more interested in their autonomous docking technology (they have a contract for this data). Afterall, Kistler is recovering from bankruptcy and has yet to build anything.

I think the current relationship between Russia and ESA may work to the USA advantage in purchasing Soyuz though, making the Iran issue moot.

Bill White · 2004-02-10 23:04:51

Comparisons between tons, tonnes, kilograms and pounds can be confusing. Its the sort of thing that caused the polar lander to crash, right? Different inclinations further complicate the apples/oranges comparisons. Anyway, here are some quotes from astronautix.com

Shuttle orbiter

The manned reusable space system which was designed to slash the cost of space transport and replace all expendable launch vehicles. It did neither, but did keep NASA in the manned space flight business for 30 years (and counting...) Redesign of the shuttle with reliability in mind after the Challenger disaster reduced maximum payload to low earth orbit from 27,850 kg to 24,400 kg. Launches: 113. Failures: 1. Success Rate: 99.12% pct. First Launch Date: 12 April 1981. Last Launch Date: 16 January 2003. Launch data is: continuing. LEO Payload: 24,400 kg. to: 204 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 12,500 kg. to a: space station orbit, 407 km, 51.6 deg inclination trajectory. Apogee: 600 km. Liftoff Thrust: 2,625,932 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 25,751.60 kN. Total Mass: 2,029,633 kg. Core Diameter: 8.70 m. Total Length: 56.00 m. Development Cost $: 10,100.00 million. in 1977 average dollars. Launch Price $: 245.00 million. in 1988 price dollars. Total Production Built: 5. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 63.00 million. in 1988 unit dollars. Cost comments: Shuttle has high fixed costs and low marginal costs. Cost per mission dependent on rate. Flyaway cost is marginal cost for extra mission. Launch cost is cost per flight at 6 per year.

Take home message: 12,500 kg to ISS. Remember this also lifts the dead weight of the orbiter.

Delta IV Heavy

Heavy lift all-cryogenic launch vehicle using two Delta-4 core vehicles as first stage flanking a single core vehicle as second stage. A heavy upper stage is carried with a 5 m diameter payload fairing. LEO Payload: 25,800 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. Payload: 10,843 kg. to a: Geosynchronous transfer, 27deg inclination trajectory. Liftoff Thrust: 884,000 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 8,670.00 kN. Total Mass: 733,400 kg. Core Diameter: 5.00 m. Total Length: 70.70 m. Development Cost $: 500.00 million. in 2002 average dollars. Launch Price $: 170.00 million. in 1999 price dollars. Cost comments: Development cost is USAF portion only in cost-sharing arrangement for all Delta IV models. These funds were accompanied by an order for 19 Delta IV launches at a total price of $ 1.38 billion.

Take home message: LEO Payload: 25,800 kg. to: 185 km Orbit. at: 28.5 degrees. How much less to ISS at 407 km at 51.6 degrees?

If the net payload to 407 km at 51.6 is equal greater than with the orbiter then logic suggests sending an orbiter to ISS and then launching a Delta IV from Canaveral and another from Vandenberg each with ISS components. 3 payloads to ISS per shuttle orbiter flight.

Retire the STS system years early and save billions.

Now for Shuttle C

Marshall design for replacement of shuttle orbiter with recoverable main engine pod. Same concept as Interim Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle; IHLLV. 2 SSME configuration would have a payload of 45,450 kg. LEO Payload: 77,000 kg. to: 400 km Orbit. at: 28.0 degrees. Liftoff Thrust: 2,069,940 kgf. Liftoff Thrust: 20,299.20 kN. Total Mass: 1,966,675 kg. Core Diameter: 8.70 m. Total Length: 56.00 m. Flyaway Unit Cost $: 84.97 million. in 1985 unit dollars.

More conversions necessary, 77,000 kg to 400km at 28.0 degrees. How much to ISS?

Remember shuttle orbiter loses roughly 50% between 204km at 28 degrees and 407 km at 51.6 degrees except the orbiter system also delivers the dead weight of the orbiter itself to ISS. Shuttle C must easily deliver 3 times the orbiter payload mass (1/2 of 77,000 kg) to ISS and therefore depending on packaging shuttle C could replace 2 or 3 orbiter launches. Perhaps more since shuttle C need not deliver the dead weight of the orbiter to ISS.

Finishing ISS with shuttle orbiter will cost $35 billion (the red swath) for 25 flights. That is 1.4 billion per flight, correct? $35 billion buys NOTHING except 25 orbiter missions.

Now consider sending a shuttle C payload to ISS orbit. Six weeks later send the orbiter to ISS orbit. Then as soon as possible thereafter send another shuttle C to ISS orbit. That could include between 5 - 7 ISS payload packages installed with one extended orbiter mission. 5 orbiter missions and ISS complete.

How could shuttle C deployment not save billions?

Then launch those nice new NTRs on shuttle C and rendevous with CEV and deploy BIG habitats on the Moon.

So what am I missing?

Michael Bloxham · 2004-02-11 02:05:10

Im convinced NASA's logic is still backward. A Shuttle C might be seen as a threat to ISS logic, after the shuttle is retired (ie, there's no point developing 100 tonne launch capability to send astronauts and space junk to and from the station). They will justify every last decision, good or bad (Hubble) to their demise. What NASA needs is reform, not vision. They need to change their mode of operations, and Bush's goals will not force or even require that cardinal change.

clark · 2004-02-11 10:30:32

Bill, thank you!

So what we need now is to answer whether or not a Delta IV heavy can lift any ISS component, just in terms of weight and mass. If it can, then we have an opportunity.

If we follow along with your suggestion Bill, and use one or more Delta IV launch for ISS module delivery while the Shuttle is delivering it's own cargo, then we might be able to finsih the ISS sooner, or at least reduce the number of actual Shuttle flights needed to finish ISS. That should be a goal (reduce actual number of neccessary Shuttle flights) Here is why:

It looks like Delta IV heavy is cheaper than an actual Shuttle mission, and safer. Wouldn't we realize some cost savings in the Shuttle budget if we are able to reduce the number of flights the Shuttle is flying? If so, then that provides the seed money to develop the SDV. If we can find a way to reduce the Shuttle flight loads by 2 per year, we might be able to realize about 1 billion dollars worth of extra funds (estimating here).

Now, the problem with Shuttle C is that it dosen't actually exsist quite yet. That's why, IMO, we should look for a way to utilize exsisting space launch services to free up the money to develop an SDV, yet not place all our eggs in one basket. Even if we have problems developing an SDV, all is not lost- we would still be able to complete the ISS as planned.

Assuming that Delta IV heavy can be used to launch ISS modules, which flight loads might be best suited? Are there any?

Bill White · 2004-02-11 10:51:06

Ending the STS program sooner without a follow on shuttle C plan will face stiff opposition from within NASA because of the related loss of funding and jobs at Kennedy. Project Constellation/CEV money will mostly flow to private contractors and the staffing overhead for Canaveral will be far less with Delta IV compared with shuttle.

Paying $35 billion for 25 shuttle orbiter flights seems obscene if Delta IV could save billions and retire shuttle early yet the political calculus suggests that a Bush promise to keep those folks employed through 2010 and hint at SDV potential come 2009 while steadfastly resisting shuttle C now pretty much assures that we will spend $35 billion on orbiter operations and only get ISS completion for our money.

Can anyone challenge that $35 billion buys ONLY 25 shuttle flights to ISS? Am I wrong there? 25 shuttle flights and continued employment for everyone needed to support a program that will be utterly terminated come 2010.

Now, just for fun:

$35 billion divided by 25 = $1.4 billion per flight

$1.4 billion divided by 12,500 kg to ISS = $112,000 per kilogram.

Between now and 2011 the US taxpayers will pay $50,000 per pound to deliver ISS components to finish ISS. And its all the fault of those Euro-loving multi-lateralists.

= = =

Edit to add limited answers to clark's enxt question.

Primarily built of aluminum, the S1 Truss segment is 45 feet long, 15 feet wide and 10 feet tall. Fully outfitted, it weighs over 27,000 pounds. It is one of nine similar truss segments that will serve as the Station's main backbone, measuring 356 feet from end to end when fully assembled. The Space Station's labs, living modules, solar arrays, heat radiators and other main components will be attached to the truss.

Trusses often appear paired with PV modules (solar panels).

27,000 pounds is slightly under the 12,500 kg payload limit to ISS. 45 feet x 15 feet x 10 feet may be too large for Delta IV notwithstanding mass limits.

Shuttle cargo bay dimensions are 15 x 15 x 60, right?

If a larger fairings were added to shuttle C (change the width to 20) then two trusses and more than two payloads of PV could be carried on each flight perhaps with extra supplies tucked in.

A 2 for 1 exchange, shuttle C for orbiter.

= = =

[http://www.esa.int/export/esaHS/ESAWEL0VMOC_iss_0.html]Node 2 dimensions - - 6.7 meters long & 4.5 meters in diameter - - one would fit in front of 2 trusses on a lengthened & widened shuttle C payload fairing.

One shuttle C = 3 orbiters - - launch 2 shuttle C and 2 orbiters and save a year off ISS completion. Is $5 billion enough to design shuttle C and launch 2 of them?

Node 2 fit on Delta? The mass seems okay.

= = =

Node 2 + Node 3 + Columbus appear to fit within the parameters of a single shuttle C launch. 3 for 1 ratio if the ESA will accept all eggs in one basket. :;):

clark · 2004-02-11 11:01:04

I agree with your evaluation related to internal opposition within NASA. Yet, what we are (at least my thinking) trying to do is look for a way to retire STS sooner to make way for a follow-on SDV or HLLV vehicle post STS-retirement. SDV get's a boost in this scenerio becuase it equates into saving the Shuttle infrastructure, and a number of jobs related to it.

Shutting down STS as of today is not plausible. It would be nice, but it will be bad medicine the children refuse to take. So let's take a cue from Mary Poppins, and get a spoonful of sugar.

A plan that calls for a reduction in Shuttle flights gives NASA more breathing room- that works with their constraints given by the CAIB report (which reduces their launch windows considerably), and by the fact that they have only three orbiters. So, if we can reduce the number of neccessary Shuttle flights by two, we give NASA administrators more room with which to work. If we can indentify alternative launch services now we can try to develop a cost savings plan that will provide funds for developing the SDV. That makes everyone else happy, becuase that means we can send up some big telescopes in the future (read science community), and save some jobs of people who would have lost them in 2010.

I think we need some of our home grown rocket scientists to run the numbers on Delta IV heavy and the launch manifest for ISS. Any takers?

clark · 2004-02-11 12:44:55

Speaking of eggs, let's not count our chickens before they have hatched!

Shuttle C is a sound concept, but that's all it is, a concept. It dosen't exsist. We need to figure out how to make it exsist or some other SDV/HLLV, and we need to do so working with the constraints of the Bush Space Policy. We have a better chance of being heard if we stick to this guiding principle. We have a better chance of influencing results.

That means we need to figure out how to maintain 5 ISS flight loads per year, while also reducing the number of actual Shuttle flights by one or more (goal should be two). Three Shuttle flights per year means each Shuttle only needs to go up once a year- totally doable. By reducing the Shuttle flights first we can then argue that the budget allocation for the Shuttle be reinvested for an SDV/HLLV development ASAP. Once that concept is proven, we can immediately retire the Shuttle, and retain, or improve upon our exsisting capabilities. This further allows us to redirect more funds towards completing, or accelerating the next phase of exploration- beyond LEO.

But in order to make the domino's fall, we have to find a way to replace 2 Shuttle flights worth of ISS cargo per year to be serviced by exsisting launch systems.

Can an Atlas V 551 (the biggest) do any better than Delta? What about the proposed Falcon V or any other alternative launch companies?

Bill White · 2004-02-11 12:50:05

Delta IV Heavy with the aluminium isogrid fairing appears [http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/spa … ayload.htm]large enough to carry an ISS truss or the ESA modules.

The truss will depend on whether it can lift the needed mass all the way to an ISS orbit. The lighter, small ESA modules appear to be no problem.

On orbit stability and the ability to "grab" the payload with the shuttle arm are unknown to me.

clark · 2004-02-11 13:39:27

Rxxe gave me this link a while back to the ISS flight schedule:

[http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/index.html]Space Shuttle Flights and ISS Assembly Sequence

If you look at the flight manifest, perhaps the best canadites for the Delta or Atlas heavy would be 12A and 13A. Now, if we launched 12A.1 with a Shuttle, as planned, then we might be able to see if we could make that an extended flight, and try to get 12A and 13A up there at the same time, so it can all be installed at the same time (both 12A & 13A deliver truss segments and solar power batter arrays).

Follow on missions would be for the 15A and 10A (with EELV launch) to follow the Shuttle mission for 13A.1. This would give us US core complete, which is achieved with 8 Shuttle missions under the current plan, with only 2 or 3 actual Shuttle flights. This plan also retains the first two planned Shuttle flights as is (so this gives the EELV companies some time to get things rolling before their actual missions).

Can the Delta IV heavy or even the Atlas heavy be modified to deliver these missions? I hope to find out soon...

RobS · 2004-02-11 13:53:02

I just found the answer to my question about whether the Soyuz pad at Kourou will be used for manned launches:

"Regarding co-operation with Russia, Europe must become involved in installing the Soyuz system at the European base of Kourou, says the Resolution. This would ensure, "the availability of a manned capsule, which could open up the opportunity for Europe to be a full partner in international manned flight projects." (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/esa-general-04c.html)

This means ISS no longer needs to be in a high-inclination orbit. Of course, I doubt it can be moved, even with ion propulsion. More likely, it will be abandoned in favor of a new statin in a lower-inclination orbit.

GCNRevenger · 2004-02-11 14:28:54

The technical problem with the Delta IV HLV or the Atlas 551/552 sending up payloads instead of Shuttle are two fold... one, there is no "last mile" guidance at all, an orbital tug would be required, which if launched with the payload would probably be too heavy. Second, the Shuttle payloads are designed to ride in the Shuttle bay, which has attachments on the sides and not the bottom, requiring some kind of payload clamp structure adapter be added to the Delta/Atlas, a tall order to keep light and reliable.

Bill White · 2004-02-11 15:44:41

The technical problem with the Delta IV HLV or the Atlas 551/552 sending up payloads instead of Shuttle are two fold... one, there is no "last mile" guidance at all, an orbital tug would be required, which if launched with the payload would probably be too heavy. Second, the Shuttle payloads are designed to ride in the Shuttle bay, which has attachments on the sides and not the bottom, requiring some kind of payload clamp structure adapter be added to the Delta/Atlas, a tall order to keep light and reliable.

Wouldn't it be astonishing if Boeing designed the Delta IV Heavy maybe 3% or 5% too light to carry ISS components to the right altitude and inclination?

Given the cost savings of Delta IV versus the orbiter would it help much to lower the ISS orbital altitude and then expend a few Progress to re-boost?

Bill White · 2004-02-11 15:54:16

I just found the answer to my question about whether the Soyuz pad at Kourou will be used for manned launches:
"Regarding co-operation with Russia, Europe must become involved in installing the Soyuz system at the European base of Kourou, says the Resolution. This would ensure, "the availability of a manned capsule, which could open up the opportunity for Europe to be a full partner in international manned flight projects." (http://www.spacedaily.com/news/esa-general-04c.html)
This means ISS no longer needs to be in a high-inclination orbit. Of course, I doubt it can be moved, even with ion propulsion. More likely, it will be abandoned in favor of a new statin in a lower-inclination orbit.

Okay, since Russia has a spare Zarya, and we are discussing the payload limitations of getting Delta IV to 51 degrees, if we substitute Delta IV for half of the ISS launches, couldn't we come close to building ISS-2 at 28 degrees using the $35 billion budget number I have been throwing around?

If the ESA/Russia have been smart they have contingencies just in case the US walks away from ISS altogether.

clark · 2004-02-11 16:03:38

Okay, How, and who, can fufill the role of the 'orbital tug'? Are there any alternatives to do this 'last mile' guidance?

I don't think we should even consider ISS-2 using Delta-IV, or anything for that matter. Don't get distracted, even if the view is better.

Could we really lower and raise the ISS like that? I'm all for it, but keeping it where it is seems to be the safe bet. Nothing wild unless absolutely neccessary...

I'm waiting for a response about the Delta IV helping with ISS construction from Boeing, so I'll let you know what I hear when I hear it.

Ad Astra · 2004-02-11 18:14:08

The statistics for Shuttle-C that were given during the late 80's are a bit underwhelming considering how much better the vehicle can be today. Lighter RS-68 engines, a lighter thrust structure / payload shroud, and five segment SRBs will add a bit more capability to the system.

DannyITR · 2004-02-12 00:27:33

What is a Shuttle C?

Ad Astra · 2004-02-12 07:54:52

The technical problem with the Delta IV HLV or the Atlas 551/552 sending up payloads instead of Shuttle are two fold... one, there is no "last mile" guidance at all, an orbital tug would be required, which if launched with the payload would probably be too heavy.

The Russians have already considered this. Their solution is to launch the modules on a Proton and to mate a Progress freighter to one end of the module to give it the guidance and propulsion it needs for docking with ISS.

clark · 2004-02-12 07:57:14

I wonder if a Progress could be mated to a EELV launched module or other flight load...

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-10 08:08:15

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#2 2004-02-10 08:20:37

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#3 2004-02-10 09:19:03

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#4 2004-02-10 09:38:46

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#5 2004-02-10 10:14:18

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#6 2004-02-10 10:40:41

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#7 2004-02-10 15:42:15

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#8 2004-02-10 15:49:08

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#9 2004-02-10 23:04:51

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#10 2004-02-11 02:05:10

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#11 2004-02-11 10:30:32

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#12 2004-02-11 10:51:06

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#13 2004-02-11 11:01:04

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#14 2004-02-11 12:44:55

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#15 2004-02-11 12:50:05

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#16 2004-02-11 13:39:27

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#17 2004-02-11 13:53:02

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#18 2004-02-11 14:28:54

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#19 2004-02-11 15:44:41

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#20 2004-02-11 15:54:16

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#21 2004-02-11 16:03:38

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#22 2004-02-11 18:14:08

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#23 2004-02-12 00:27:33

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#24 2004-02-12 07:54:52

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

#25 2004-02-12 07:57:14

Re: Retiring the Shuttle ASAP - How do we do it?

Board footer