Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-31 14:22:46

Yes yes MR, but you are just proving my point for me... all this equipment which has to be brought from Earth, the heavier ISU plant, the water drilling/purification gear, the heavier nuclear reactor... all these things will have to be brought from Earth: but they only have to be brought once. Then, the base requires only a tiny fraction of the mass required to operate the base to be brought from Earth. Perhaps down to EELV sized payloads for a modest crew.

THAT is the promise of ISRU... machinery for which is fairly easy to adapt to seperating Nitrogen from the air, producing Ammonia, purifying water, and making polymer feedstocks too. No water, oxygen, rocket fuel, nitrogen, ammonia fertilizer, polymers for greenhouses, a good percentage of foodstuffs, perhaps even machined bulk metal products and engineering polymers. If you look at a typical ISS manifest at what a crew needs to survive, that covers practically the majority of materials needed from Earth.

That said, of course Mars will not be a viable economic outpost, not for a while... the long term goal will be self sufficency such that any special wares needed from Earth can be purchased without signifigant outside investment. Then, the base wouldn't need to be bound by corporate profit motives much anymore.

Dayton: You are correct, Ares would retain a smaller chemical second stage and operate an NTR engine not much bigger then other plans.

I don't agree that placing the ERV on orbit is a signifigant risk worth the trouble of lugging it to the surface and back, because on Mars there won't be that much you can do about problems anyway that you couldn't do by remote. The thing will be sitting on orbit in storage, there won't be much operating to break down. Furthremore, the MarsDirect ERV is by nessesitty more complex because of its staging and multiple engines, plus you have to rely on the equipment surviving not one launch but two and an entry... all that vibration, heating, and stressing.

As for reuseability, absolutely I mean it. Once there is a HAB operating on the surface with a heavy ISRU plant with water source, a reuseable MAV capable of multiple annual flights, then get this: the number of expensive HLLV launches per crew is cut by as much as two thirds. The ERV becomes purely a transfer vehicle, which is reused for several trips. So for each Mars crew, one NTR TMI stage for the ERV is launched with some bulk consumeables plus one or two HLLV cargo flight to the Martian surface for the crews' stay planetside.

Two or three HLLV launches is about half NASA's capacity probobly, so the rest could be new materials and equipment to grow the base instead of sending six HLLV launches just for a crew rotation every other year. The crew and the remaining fresh supplies for a one-year stint in the ERV would be brought up by an EELV+ flight once the ERV has returned to LEO, and the MAV on the other end would have a full two years to bring up the fuel for the return trip on the second ship.

MarsDirect however... can do none of this because it foolishly combines too many jobs to make the mission fit in two launches total.

I would like to reiterate that MarsDirect's mass margins are still terribly low given what it aspires to do considering the wildly optimistic assumptions in minimum componet mass and volume, all for a system which cannot carry large enough crews or payloads to begin with to be anything more then a scouting mission. There is no real future foresight for the design.

Dayton3 · 2004-12-31 16:14:54

Sorry GCN,

Your proposal is attractive, but there is no way NASA will ever be authorized to do a Mars program that takes SIX launches per mission.

Three maybe (Mars semi-direct) two preferably.

Launches from Earth are when the most things can go wrong with the program. You've got to minimize them if at all possible.

If that means putting together a 500,000 lb. to LEO capability booster, then so be it.

GCNRevenger · 2004-12-31 17:15:29

...Three maybe (Mars semi-direct) two preferably."

http://ares.jsc.nasa.gov/HumanExplore/E … ...m#Title

Well you might want to tell that to NASA then. The updated NASA DRM V3.0 indeed calls for six flights to orbit. Instead of sending each payload direct to Mars using a gargantuan megabooster that would likly cost >$10Bn to develop, instead it uses two ~80MT launches per sortie, one for payload and one for the standardized NTR TMI stage.

One of the big expenses to the original NASA DRM V1.0 and MarsDirect is developing the rocket. Zubrin is decieving himself and us if he thinks that Ares would be easy to build, and the NASA DRM admits that building a superbooster would be expensive. An 80-100MT range launcher however, that is within the reach of a relativly simple Shuttle-derived vehicle or a scaled up EELV-derived clean sheet, either of which would be much less expensive to develop. A small HLLV vehicle also has the potential to have signifigantly lower per-flight costs, perhaps as low as $300M. I figure that a superbooster will have a hardware cost of around $400-500M alone.

Launching from Earth is not that huge of a risk, and the crew need never ride on the HLLV at all. With a short stop in LEO, the crew could be sent up via CEV, with this capsule reused later for crew return later when the ERV becomes reuseable.

Upon reflection, the return fuel for TEI could be lifted by uprated EELV+ as well in a single launch if launching fuel from Mars to LMO were a problem.

I also bet the bigger Thiokol five-segment SRBs could increase the power of a Shuttle-C/Shuttle-B style SDV up to around 100MT, which would give 200MT on orbit to work with, and hit the 50MT benchmark for heavy lift to Mars.

Dayton3 · 2005-01-01 11:51:20

Yes GCN, I DO DISAGREE with NASA.

I'm in agreement with the guy who wrote "Lost In Space:The Rise and Fall of NASA" that after Dr. Robert Zubrin presented Mars Direct to Nasa that NASA DELIEBERATELY set out to make the mission architecture far more complicated to avoid encouraging a manned Mars mission from becoming their primary mission.

I believe NASA officials are terrified of being ordered to undertake a manned Mars mission because it would probably be the end of the station and shuttle programs.

The Nasa staff is old. They don't want to rock the bot just a few years before retirement.

GCN, your mission architecture makes alot of sense.

From the MARS end of it.

From the Earth, Kennedy Space Center end of it though. It makes NO sense whatsoever.

You're talking about, for a mars mission SEVEN thats SEVEN launches from Earth. Thats SEVEN assemblies in the VAB.

Thats SEVEN trips by Hans or Franz to the launch pad.

SEvEN on pad fuelings, checkouts, countdowns, and launchings.

FOUR in space rendevous.

No way.

Three launches from KSC for each Mars mission.

Or none at all.

Thats the way it goes.

Commodore · 2005-01-01 12:22:42

Yes GCN, I DO DISAGREE with NASA.
I'm in agreement with the guy who wrote "Lost In Space:The Rise and Fall of NASA" that after Dr. Robert Zubrin presented Mars Direct to Nasa that NASA DELIEBERATELY set out to make the mission architecture far more complicated to avoid encouraging a manned Mars mission from becoming their primary mission.
I believe NASA officials are terrified of being ordered to undertake a manned Mars mission because it would probably be the end of the station and shuttle programs.
The Nasa staff is old. They don't want to rock the bot just a few years before retirement.
GCN, your mission architecture makes alot of sense.
From the MARS end of it.
From the Earth, Kennedy Space Center end of it though. It makes NO sense whatsoever.
You're talking about, for a mars mission SEVEN thats SEVEN launches from Earth. Thats SEVEN assemblies in the VAB.
Thats SEVEN trips by Hans or Franz to the launch pad.
SEvEN on pad fuelings, checkouts, countdowns, and launchings.
FOUR in space rendevous.
No way.
Three launches from KSC for each Mars mission.
Or none at all.
Thats the way it goes.

Why not?

At the height of the Shuttle program there were roughly 6 launches a year.

Dayton3 · 2005-01-01 17:15:55

Because, thats SEVEN launches within a probable one month time frame at most in order to get everything in orbit for the window to open for a trajectory to Mars.

Unless you want six separate pieces of ONE mission orbiting the Earth for months until you decided tro start connecting them.

Bottom line. More launches. More risks. More costs.

Commodore · 2005-01-01 18:35:01

Because, thats SEVEN launches within a probable one month time frame at most in order to get everything in orbit for the window to open for a trajectory to Mars.
Unless you want six separate pieces of ONE mission orbiting the Earth for months until you decided tro start connecting them.
Bottom line. More launches. More risks. More costs.

I don't think its fesable to ripple fire everything on a direct line to Mars in a single window, at least without for than one launch pad. Your going to use up too much of your payload in transit propulsion.

Its better to launch larger pieces to LEO, and then send them all out at once on some sort of reuseable nuclear transit stage.

RobS · 2005-01-01 23:38:44

You only need to launch the rocket fuel close to trans-Mars injection. The equipment could go up six months early. It'll spend six months in transit, after all, and some won't be used for two years.

-- RobS

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 00:02:37

Six launches (seven if you use a CEV to deliver the crew to the Mars vehicle in orbit) is still way too many.

Why not just build a huge booster? Large boosters are nothing new for NASA. There were designed variants of the Saturn V that could put up to 1 million pound (500 tons) into LEO.

One of the major points of Mars Direct was "no orbital assembly"

Austin Stanley · 2005-01-02 00:31:35

While I agree that a bigger booster is probably the solution, I don't see "orbit assembly" as you call it as realy being a showstoper. This isn't realy orbital assembly, it's just orbital docking, something the US and the Russians have LOTS of experience doing, dating all the way back to the Geminin missions.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-02 01:23:51

Thats correct, seven flights. It doesn't matter how you get the payload up there, as long as you get it up there on time. Small numbers of rendevous on orbit is a trivial concern, so the big questions are cost, flight rate, and reliability. You are being arbitrary in rejecting this modest number of flights, probobly in the vain hope of salvaging the obviously defunct MarsDirect arcitecture.

The launch rate is actually LESS of a problem for the Earth-orbit rendevous then it is for direct flight. All the rockets will need to leave within a few month window of eachother, but if they are placed in a parking orbit prior to the window then this isn't a problem. The NASA DRM plan calls for a few months of excess LH2 fuel for the TMI stages, so you could launch all the vehicles and TMI stages prior to the departure window.

Without the orbiter or man rating, the Shuttle stack could theoretically be launched every month or so, and the VAB at the Cape' has room for four vehicles to be assembled or stored at once. With a whole year or so between "launch years," the staff would be pretty idle just preparing two or three flights. As long as the TMI stages are used within a few months of launch, there is no rush. Direct flight on the other hand, you have to fire everything off within a tight schedule.

Now, about being risky... I don't think so. In fact, MarsDirect is the MOST risky mode of them all. Direct flight straight to Mars leaves you no opportunity to checkout the vehicles in LEO before the irrevokable departure. Spending an additional $150-250M for a CEV launch for crew is also well worth the big improvement in launch safety, plus the reduced reliability demands for the HLLV, and you get a "free" Earth reentry vehicle if checkout fails or crew return when the ERV is reused. Furthermore, you must make the HLLV launch vehicle (Ares in MD's case) man-rated and safe enough to launch humans on.

Unmanned launches with similar reliability to today's launchers is sufficent, with Delta and Atlas rockets having about 99% reliability, which is good enough for Mars payloads but not quite the desired 99.9% for humans. If a few orbital docking events are a show-stopper, then there is no way the rest of the system would be safe enough for people.

Now to shop for rockets... but first a side note, that I want to reiterate that comparisons with MarsDirect are not valid because MarsDirect is not possible. It is fatally over optimistic about almost every single mass estimate concerning it and it would never work in reality, almost to the point of a farce. Anyway...

The objective is to place 200MT of payload on orbit, which is what it will take to do Mars right, which is to put six men on Mars (or eight without science gear/labs preferably) with large mass margins for safety and future heavy payload demands. It is beyond question that a single launch of any concieveable Shuttle-derived vehicle cannot meet this mark... which automatically disqualifies Ares....

This leads to three options, two launches of Shuttle-derived, two launches of a light clean-sheet HLLV, or a single launch of a massive superheavy HLLV. A superheavy launcher however will also preclude reuseability of the ERV (no seperate TMI launch) or sending intermediate payloads to Mars.

~Two launches of a Shuttle-C/B style SDV vehicle probobly offers the very lowest development cost, perhaps as low as only $3-5Bn. Launch costs are unclear, granted, but they will not likly be greater then $400-500M each, given the hardware will cost well under $200M. This option uses only four engines per flight not counting OMS (2 SRB + 2 RS-68).

~Clean-sheet light HLLV, probobly based on the Atlas rockets or somthing for around $8-9Bn (double EELV), perhaps a little more. Since launch operations are fairly simple, this option would probobly cost no more then $300-400M per flight as a rough estimate.

~The superheavy... development costs will probobly be quite high because of its huge size, which exceeds the extremely expensive Saturn-V, and could easily run into $15Bn+ range because of its sheer size. Each vehicle will likly have about 10-12 engines which may pose a reliability risk. Each flight will be expensive, the smallest hardware cost for such a monster would be ~$500M, perhaps more, and will have a low flight rate. All in all, this option doesn't offer a clear-cut cost advantage over two flights of smaller launchers.

So... Shuttle-B/C seems to come out on top because of its low development costs, high proven flight rate, and future versatility (ERV reuseability, flexibility, non-Mars missions). I am not biased to either solution much, but this one seems to be best on paper since much of the hardware already exsists. That said, there is a risk that flight operations will be more expensive then double the hardware costs, but I think that NASA will come through on this one since the Shuttle gravy train will end soon. If not, then clean-sheet light HLLV based on EELV parts, perhaps with Shuttle boosters... Superheavy would be nice, but it isn't very versatile for future or non-Mars use.

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 09:55:16

Well, I guess I'll have to go back and defend Mars Direct yet again.

1) The assumption that a crew of four CANNOT accomplish the goals of an initial mission is flawed. Two scientists on Mars for 18 months in constant consultation with scientists on Earth and a ton (literallyl) of equipment can do a great deal of usefull work.

2) I think Mars Direct (as initially designed) is workable. Sure, it allows little margin for mass growth, but who is to say that mass would inevitably surge?

3) Mars Semi-Direct (as initially designed) is CERTAINLY workable given its more generous mass budget. The three launch variety that is.

4) If the Ares booster as designed isn't big enough. Just build a bigger one. A booster utilizing four SRBs, and five RS-68s in the first stage has been estimated to be capable of 450,000 to 500,000 lbs. to LEO. This is CERTAINLY enough lift capacity to launch the original Mars Direct. MOST CERTAINLY enough to do the mission using Semi-Direct.

5) There is no reason such a large booster need "break the budget" when it comes to development. It requires no new engine development which is one of the driving costs of larger boosters.

6) Politically, seven launches for each mission is a nonstarter.

REGARDLESS of what advantages it has, seven launches makes the mission look hideously complicated and excessively costly.

Back to the original thread topic now.

An interim measure might be to cancel usage of two of the three orbiters. Use only the one that is in the best condition (Endeavour probably). Use the other two for parts (and new lawn ornaments) That gives us one orbiter still to use on occasion for vital missions (such as Hubble repair) and for the OCCASIONAL trip to ISS (just to keep our oar in for a few years).

Use the last shuttle for a maximum of three missions per year.

Martian Republic · 2005-01-02 11:17:26

Well, I guess I'll have to go back and defend Mars Direct yet again.
1) The assumption that a crew of four CANNOT accomplish the goals of an initial mission is flawed. Two scientists on Mars for 18 months in constant consultation with scientists on Earth and a ton (literallyl) of equipment can do a great deal of usefull work.
2) I think Mars Direct (as initially designed) is workable. Sure, it allows little margin for mass growth, but who is to say that mass would inevitably surge?
3) Mars Semi-Direct (as initially designed) is CERTAINLY workable given its more generous mass budget. The three launch variety that is.
4) If the Ares booster as designed isn't big enough. Just build a bigger one. A booster utilizing four SRBs, and five RS-68s in the first stage has been estimated to be capable of 450,000 to 500,000 lbs. to LEO. This is CERTAINLY enough lift capacity to launch the original Mars Direct. MOST CERTAINLY enough to do the mission using Semi-Direct.
5) There is no reason such a large booster need "break the budget" when it comes to development. It requires no new engine development which is one of the driving costs of larger boosters.
6) Politically, seven launches for each mission is a nonstarter.
REGARDLESS of what advantages it has, seven launches makes the mission look hideously complicated and excessively costly.
Back to the original thread topic now.
An interim measure might be to cancel usage of two of the three orbiters. Use only the one that is in the best condition (Endeavour probably). Use the other two for parts (and new lawn ornaments) That gives us one orbiter still to use on occasion for vital missions (such as Hubble repair) and for the OCCASIONAL trip to ISS (just to keep our oar in for a few years).
Use the last shuttle for a maximum of three missions per year.

Up to now I have not taken a position on whether we should go with a shuttle derivative or another similar size booster or go with a super size one shot booster. Building a super booster every two or three years will look like a basket ball coming down a garden hose. We will probably have to build special launch pads and probably alter there manufacturing process and maybe buy new machines to accomplish our goals. We will have to hire and lay people off every two or three years as our launch cycle come around. We will have machine that will have to be idle most of the time. I use to work in an Air Craft Landing Gear Manufacturing Plant that bid on different landing gear contracts. I can assure you that you need different kinds of cutter, fixtures, sometime specialty machines of a particular job that we doing, etc. We get a job back that we haven't in eight to ten years and they would come back and ask why we can do that job that we did ten years ago and we inform them that we had a machine that use to do that job that they got rid of five years ago. We could wail the tare out of it, but we can't do that with the machine that we still have without the risk of tearing it up or possibly wiping out our cutter or doing some other bad thing. Personally I think we would be better off just having a dedicated teem working on this project in both NASA and Private sector that manufacturing those rockets. If we going to have a dedicated teem working on it, we can't build just one of something every two or three years.

As far as your shuttle idea. Why would you through away two of the three shuttle that we still have if we don’t have anything to replace it with? That make no sense, I can't see spending one to two billion dollars per year so that we might be able to do repairs on Hubble Telescope. The Hubble Telescope is not worth spending two billion dollars a year that we would justify keep one of those shuttle for that maintaince.

Larry,

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 11:23:47

A superbooster of the "four SRBs, five RS-68s" variety would be pretty compatible with current launch facilities and with current manufacturers.

We don't really need the shuttles at all. The Russians can send our people and modules to the ISS alot cheaper than we can.

But keeping one for a few years might ba a more acceptable alternative than a complete shutdown.

Remember, EVERYTHING we propose must be considered from a political, social, and beauracratic context as well.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-02 13:04:14

The fact that MarsDirect won't work is not a matter for subjective debate about its capabilities: the standard MarsDirect is simply not possible, that the vehicle itself cannot be built that light weight. The reactor is a fraction of the mass even the most optimistic NASA estimates, the aerobrake shield mass alotment, the rover is 50-100% too optimistic, both vehicles are too cramped even for four men (largest volume is under 4m triangular, and thats the spacious HAB), and the ERV is quite plainly not possible by any stretch of the imagination - there isn't any mass allowance for the return capsule or LSS hardware, much less samples... It doesn't need to surge, MarsDirect is already overweight before it even goes to the drawing board. I am satisfied that either Zubrin cooked up MarsDirect as a thought experiment looking for the minimum absolute acceptable mission or else Zubrin is incompetant at designing space vehicles.

...Which if he is serious makes him either crazy or guilty of what you are accusing NASA of Dayton, that Zubrin wants to have MarsDirect started by selling a mission he knows is impossible, but will be impossible to cancel. It will turn into another black hole of money in order to make it work and wind up with a MUCH less capable system for similar money as NASA DRM plus has no upgrade path.

Back to rockets...

"Politically, seven launches for each mission is a nonstarter."

Why? This seems pretty arbitrary to me. If you put the two systems side by side, it is clear that the superbooster doesn't nessesarrily offer signifigantly better launch costs, especially because it will idle the launch staff for long periods instead of assembling rockets between "launch years." High flight rate can lower cost per kilo.

The superbooster option is as previously stated much less flexible too: if you only want to launch the TMI stage for a ERV to make the next trip to Mars, then using such a massive rocket would be vastly overkill and inefficent. If you want to only send smaller supply missions or launch other things like JIMO, a smaller 100MT class launcher is also obviously preferable, particularly with a future solar/ion tug.

The only way I can see a superbooster being preferable is if the "Mars-end" cannot refuel the ERV for the return trip to Earth: in that case, then a superbooster could make sense to bring up the TMI stage, TEI stage, and consumeables in one flight. The largest EELVs however should be powerful enough to lift the TEI stage too, and we'll need them for Lunar and CEV missions anyway.

Building a superbooster will not be that easy simply because of its sheer size and complexity; the monster will have at least ten and as many as many as 12-14 engines, it will use the full 10m diameter stages like Saturn, and will hardly fit in the VAB. A rocket like Shuttle-C on the other hand, all you realy need is the engine pod and the kick stage, which only adds up to four or five engines. It may not break the bank, but it is certain to cost signifigant money.

As for keeping Shuttle around, that probobly isn't going to happen. The launch pad will need to be changed, the SSME/TPS/etc crews will be gone, etc etc... Keeping this capability isn't worth the money, especially not to prop up the ISS.

Edit, more thoughts...: I am not deeply opposed to building a superbooster, especially if it looks like the Mars base can't launch much fuel to orbit on its own, but the inferior flexibility is pretty unattractive I think. I suppose it really depends on how much we need the light HLLV for other things... if the EELV+ rockets can move supplies efficently enough to Mars, then the light HLLV justification is thinner.

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 13:54:19

GCN, I was wondering if you could address the following:

1) What is your background in engineering that allows you to be so certain about Mars Direct?

2) Has Dr. Robert Zubrin or any other major Mars Direct supporter ever addressed your concerns directly?

3) You do realize that the NASA Reference Mission is basically a more complicated version of Mars Semi-Direct. Which itself is a derivative of Mars Direct. Wouldn't the NASA Reference Mission plan carry with it many of the flaws you've mentioned in Mars Direct?

After all, the NASA plan utilizes six launches (or seven) these days AND NTR propulsion

But these chances were only added to reduce the booster size to be developed. Not to increase the mass delivered to Mars surface.

4) I really think you're overlooking the political angle of a large number of flights being required for each mission.

I can just see Congressman arguing and saying "Why does this thing take seven launches for just one mission? Lets just cut that in half and save the money". "It only took one rocket to get us to the moon. And that was 40 years ago".

I mean no offense in bringing all this up. Like I've said before. I'm merely a high school history teacher and football coach.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-02 15:04:18

*Waves his hand dismissively* Please, not the typical "what makes you qualified?" line... Any reasonably intelligent and objective person can tell you that MarsDirect as envisioned is never going to work when you look past Zubrin's evangelistic zeal, which people seem to fall for too easily. The broadest strokes of technical matters are not difficult to understand.

The ERV manned portion of the ERV, including reentry capsule and LSS systems, has even less mass budgeted then a Soyuz capsule. And thats for up to 2.5 years in the event of an abort senario... All the rest of the stuff, the reactor, the rovers, the aeroshield, radiation shielding, all of them are too optimistic about mass goals, and MarsDirect will never fly especially when some of these goals are inevitibly not met.

The NASA DRM is not a "upgrade of Mars Direct" for one very important reason: It is realistic about vehicle mass. THATS what sets it apart from MarsDirect more then anything. Doc Zubrin's zealousness, for whatever motive, has led him to propose a mission that just isn't realistic. The NASA one is.

NASA DRM actually did start out with NTR propulsion to increase payload, with the original desired payloads in V1.0 above 50MT. Since it it becomming clear that development cost is a bigger deal then it used to be, switching to a modification of an exsisting booster makes sense instead of building a giant monster rocket from scratch.

As far as "flaws," NASA DRM corrects several of them. It eliminates the dangerous and expensive directly crew launch, DRM disposes of the silly idea of launching the ERV from the Martian surface, and it provides real upgrade options for a larger scale sustained presence later on.

If Congresses thinking is limited to "seven bad, three good!" then we're in big trouble... I am sure that Congress will drop pretenses that they are rocket scientists and listen to a side-by-side presentation of the options. Which are:

A: Build Shuttle-B/C or light 100MT HLLV. Seven launches per expedition for the first half a dozen (6+1 EELV), followed by reuse of the ERV, drilling for Martian water, and the reuse of the MAV. Each rotation will then be the launch of one TMI stage and 1-2 EELV+ launches for crew and (if nessesarry) TEI stage. Supplies will be sent by an intermediate vehicle direct to Mars with a single HLLV flight and heavy payloads (machinery, base kits) with standard two-HLLV loads.

B: Build the 200-250MT superbooster, with each mission having four launches (3+1 EELV) for the first half dozen, then the ERV would be reused with the TMI and TEI stages launched together (perhaps with ancillary payloads) and the crew by EELV. Supply would instead be sent by EELV+, perhaps in concert with a solar/ion tug, and heavy payloads would be sent by a single superbooster.

Dayton3 · 2005-01-02 15:29:14

So GCN, would you agree that Mars Semi-Direct (three launches, four astronauts) IS doable?

Austin Stanley · 2005-01-03 02:57:47

A well designed superbooster might be something somewhat akin to the Saturn or Energia series of rockets. That is, it would have various different configuartions for launching diffrent masses of cargos.

Another point in favor of multiple launches, Kennedy Space Center already has most of the necessary facilties, although some of them are in disrepair.

SpaceNut · 2005-01-03 06:46:29

Cancelling the shuttle out right is not a possibility though it would be for the best. So what can be done to make the best of the situation?
Trying to off load launches that are borderline as to the need of a shuttle and making sure that we launch each shuttle 3 times each year. Other than that what else can be done to retire the shuttle early?

Martian Republic · 2005-01-03 08:47:43

Cancelling the shuttle out right is not a possibility though it would be for the best. So what can be done to make the best of the situation?
Trying to off load launches that are borderline as to the need of a shuttle and making sure that we launch each shuttle 3 times each year. Other than that what else can be done to retire the shuttle early?

For the next five years or so, I'm not sure that anything can be done with the current configuration with the shuttle, because we don't have a replacement for it. so for the next four or five year we should be figuring on making four or five launches a year for four or five years. So we are going to be launching between sixteen to twenty five shuttle flights for a cost of between two billion to two and a half billion a year or between eight billion to twelve and a have billion for four or five years or possibly twenty billion over the next five years. I don't particularly like the current shuttle either, it a cross between being scientific experiment, but just short of being some thing that can be used for commercial use. It got the expense of being experimental, but not the efficiency that a commercial craft needs to have. I mean it a real dog as far as what we need and to what it cost to get what we need in space.

At this point we need to decide which way we intend to go in space. We need to decide whether we are going to either open up space for colonization or to continue to leave space a laboratory experiment with limited use.

If we decide to open up space colonization, then were going to have to spend the money do develop a new shuttle with a goal of reducing the cost of getting into space by 1/10 of the currently shuttles or we can forget about colonizing space. But it we do that, it going to cost some money and there no way around it. I currently favor a two piece shuttle with a scram jet piloted lower section with a rocket piloted upper section that goes into space. It kind of a white knight and space ship one configuration, but it a little different drives and such.

If we decide to go the scientific rout or exploring, then we need to go back to rockets, because there cheaper than the current shuttle and we can redirect the NASA budget for those activities.

Larry,

SpaceNut · 2005-01-03 09:06:56

The trouble is no work will be done on completing a new rocket design during the shuttles continued use and will need a 4 to 5 years to even if all money is promised for the working design. Raising the grand total to replacement of close to 10 years before first launch of a non man rated vehicle. That sounds just like the rest of the time line that was given in the presidential plan.

GCNRevenger · 2005-01-03 10:46:11

If by "semi direct" you mean NASA DRM, then yes. If you mean MarsDirect with seperate ERV and MAV parts, then it depends... I don't think that its possible to safely and sanely try and execute a mission design with such a small payload margin (whatever regular Ares can throw) for four men in a HAB. I think that there should be a much bigger margin if you are intending to do anything but a crew taxi, and even thats iffy.

Not to mention that I think Ares can't send big enough payloads for Phase-II anyway.

I think that it will be hard to develop a superbooster that comes in various configurations, the giant 10m central core with five RS-68R engines takes advantage of the low tank area per volume, and with the five-engine cluster gives you some engine-out capability like the Saturn F-1 stage.

But if we need a Plan B...: stick with Shuttle 8m tankage and put two or three RS-68R engines under it. On the sides, mount four Shuttle SRBs in two tightly packed pairs, and add a pair of standard or stretched Boeing Delta-IV CCBs with a single RS-68R each and Lithium/Aluminum alloy construction. Top it with a optional single RS-68R upper stage or a small storable kick stage for circularizing.

If you want to send smaller payloads, drop the CCBs and half of the SRBs and you are left with a rocket much like Magnum or Shuttle-B. Drawbacks are no engine out capability and higher fuel tank mass & structural reqirements, but this might be partially offset by the benefit of CCB staging.

We should be greatful that the Shuttle nightmare will end in 2010, NASA was originally going to stretch out their service until 2025 before Columbia blew up. A new Shuttle-II will be needed for colonization, but expendable rockets can build and tend a small base as a precursor and science center.

My favored configuration is a runway takeoff TSTO with low-hypersonic lower stage powerd by LOX-augmented turbines, perhaps with a Kerosene rocket for the sprint to seperation, and a lift body cryogenic rocket upper stage, coming in two or three versions (crew, cargo, perhaps tanker). Target price should be below $500/lb in full scale operation with payloads not smaller then 20MT/12 crew. Right now the price to beat will be around $2,250/lbs (super Delta-IV), ~$1,750/lbs (light 100MT HLLV @ $400M each) to around ~$1,500/lbs (super 250MT HLLV @ $800M each).

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-01-08 19:29:11

more news items

japantimes happy with mars rovers but unsure with shuttle

People often question the social worth of scientific ventures, especially such costly and quixotic ones as space exploration programs. In the case of the Mars rovers, however, the answer is obvious: In a year that seemed custom-designed for pessimists, Spirit and Opportunity made the case for optimism. Reading of the futile search for Osama bin Laden, or the futile quest to end the murderousness in Sudan, or the futile push for a just peace in the Middle East, or even the futile efforts to restart the space-shuttle program, one is consoled by recalling how these golf-cart-size ambassadors have achieved goal after goal in their silent haven.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/get … 0109a1.htm

experts want Bush to use Shuttle to save Hubble

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/ … ...florida

http://www.sptimes.com/2005/01/08/World … ...r.shtml

Astronauts - ready but realistic

Bush 43 vs. Bush 41 in space
Bush's proposal, once the shuttle fleet has returned to flight, it will be used to complete construction of the International Space Station

http://www.washtimes.com/upi-breaking/2 … -5325r.htm

Commodore · 2005-01-08 20:11:39

The trouble is no work will be done on completing a new rocket design during the shuttles continued use and will need a 4 to 5 years to even if all money is promised for the working design. Raising the grand total to replacement of close to 10 years before first launch of a non man rated vehicle. That sounds just like the rest of the time line that was given in the presidential plan.

Odds are that the CEV will be launched on existing EELVs. Given the number of flights they've already had, man rating can't be all that difficult.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#51 2004-12-31 14:22:46

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#52 2004-12-31 16:14:54

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#53 2004-12-31 17:15:29

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#54 2005-01-01 11:51:20

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#55 2005-01-01 12:22:42

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#56 2005-01-01 17:15:55

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#57 2005-01-01 18:35:01

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#58 2005-01-01 23:38:44

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#59 2005-01-02 00:02:37

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#60 2005-01-02 00:31:35

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#61 2005-01-02 01:23:51

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#62 2005-01-02 09:55:16

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#63 2005-01-02 11:17:26

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#64 2005-01-02 11:23:47

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#65 2005-01-02 13:04:14

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#66 2005-01-02 13:54:19

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#67 2005-01-02 15:04:18

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#68 2005-01-02 15:29:14

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#69 2005-01-03 02:57:47

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#70 2005-01-03 06:46:29

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#71 2005-01-03 08:47:43

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#72 2005-01-03 09:06:56

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#73 2005-01-03 10:46:11

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#74 2005-01-08 19:29:11

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

#75 2005-01-08 20:11:39

Re: Just Cancel The Shuttle Program - Not in five years, do it right now.

Board footer