Early retirement for orbiter?

BWhite · 2005-07-13 19:27:16

Getting Discovery into the Air & Space Museum at Dulles by 2007 (ISDC had a COOL dinner party there) best assures whoever is President in 2009 doesn't try to extend the 2010 retirement date.
It also opens the door to spending the next 15 years trying to get humans back into space.
Remember the doom and gloom and worry involved with a 4 year absence of humans to space?
Without ISS, we no longer have the same compelling reason to keep funding NASA as is (at least as far as human exploration is concerned).
I didn't see this one coming, and I think it will change things...

IMHO, Griffin wants CEV flying before the last orbiter is retired precisely to avoid this issue.

BWhite · 2005-07-13 19:28:24

I really don't see how the ISS could be curtailed beyond 15 flights to even feign to call it "finished"
I never said that was a showstopper about the SRB launcher Bill, actually you said it was. It just didn't like it since I thought it was risky... infact, it probobly will still have the same high G-loading, or at least a high-G mode, in case the booster puncture fails.
"using launchers other than orbiter"
Ya huh. How?

Legitimate concerns. Lets see what happens.

And yeah, you are right about the SRB comments.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-13 19:31:32

It also opens the door to spending the next 15 years trying to get humans back into space.
Remember the doom and gloom and worry involved with a 4 year absence of humans to space?
Without ISS, we no longer have the same compelling reason to keep funding NASA as is (at least as far as human exploration is concerned).
I didn't see this one coming, and I think it will change things...

That would be a HUGE amount of money to suddenly pull from NASA to go to other non-space congressional interests... I don't think that would be very likly, early CEV or no CEV. And that killing off NASA wouldn't be very popular.

clark · 2005-07-13 19:34:12

IMHO, Griffin wants CEV flying before the last orbiter is retired precisely to avoid this issue.

Okay, so logical cap thinking here:

We want CEv flying as soon as possible. So we make the requirement that CEV phase one can go to the ISS.

We design CEV phase one to go to ISS, but then the ISS is dunked into the Pacific Ocean.

Now we have a CEV phase one, billions spent, designed for a purpose it no longer can fill.

Ladies and Bill, I give you the Shuttle Redux!

Short term planning is undermining the long term "journey".

We will pay later on, just like we paid with with the Shuttle.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-13 19:40:37

Hey Clark, check your dates perhaps? The ISS isn't going to go away most likly until 2015ish. That gives the thing-after-shuttle a good half decade or more of life. Your calculus of the situation is probobly wrong. Get off your anti-NASA kick will you.

The REAL deal is, CEV "spiral one" should be (if it will be or not remains to be seen) closely related to the Lunar-capable spiral two vehicle. Not a waste. If its a capsule, then that capsule can do both... Thicken up the heat shield (if its not already) and enlarge the tankage. Thats all thats really needed, and The Stick should be able to launch both no problem.

clark · 2005-07-13 20:14:11

Hey Clark, check your dates perhaps? The ISS isn't going to go away most likly until 2015ish.

Okay commander Nuclear! :laugh:

The CEV will not be ready until 2010, and that is an optimistic assesment. 5 years of a crippled and useless ISS is just a waste of time.

A more realistic assesment is CEV spiral one in 2012 (two years prior to intial timeline). 2 years after Shuttle retirement, and three (or more like two given a late end year launch) years of ISS duty.

We spend billions to rush CEV so it can do station duty for a couple of years in a limited ISS? Stupid and short sighted.

Get off your anti-NASA kick will you.

Coming from you, that's almost a compliment. :laugh:

The REAL deal is, CEV "spiral one" should be (if it will be or not remains to be seen) closely related to the Lunar-capable spiral two vehicle.

I still stand by my analysis, if SRB and SDV are developed, then Lockheed is the horse to bet on. If EELV, then Boeing.

Boeing is going to come in light, which dosen't help justify SRB and SDV. You do the math.

Griffin wants SRB and SDV, that mean he will be inclined to choose Lockheed because they cannot cut mass like a capsule design can. Griffin will choose Lockheed because it will justify SRB and SDV development.

Want to bet? If not you, Bill?

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-13 21:22:08

"We spend billions to rush CEV"

*BZZZT* Sorry, but thanks for playing anyway... Why exactly will pushing up the introduction date by two years of a generously long development somehow cost heaps and heaps more money? Particularly when Griffin is bent on going with the SRB launcher, which should be a relativly simple vehicle to develop. An enlarged knockoff of Apollo should be fairly easy too, and only a modern service module and maybe throttleable escape motors would be "high tech."

"so it can do station duty for a couple of years in a limited ISS? Stupid and short sighted."

But it WON'T have to soley be an ISS ferry! A little thicker heat shield, stretched service module, and thats all you need to make an Apollo-CSM equivilent vehicle for a trip to the Moon.

"then Lockheed is the horse to bet on. If EELV, then Boeing."

Where in the heck did you get this notion from? The only thing Lockheed has going for them is their dumb "OSP 2.0" which would maybe save a few tens of millions per sortie for ISS duty, and their large stake in running Shuttle hardware. Barring some serious Griffin/Rumsfeld head-butting, EELV for VSE is out.

The reason why Griffin has dialed up the mass requirement for CEV is not for Lockheed's bennefit is to make sure CEV can carry enough fuel to get home, and so weight creep won't kill it... and to avoid having to buy EELV, keeping it as much a NASA operation as possible. Lockheed's design, being unable to return from the Moon, is out for Spiral Two.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-13 21:25:36

Finish the ISS with current launchers and current technology ?

USA's great launches bring back the Saturn V 2-stage, there must be some in a museum or exhibition that can get dusted down. Skylab from USA was sent up by NASA on a Saturn V ( Apollo rocket ) and the Titan IV-B/Centaur launch vehicle can carrying a large mass of into orbit, while Boeing and Lockheed have great launcher deisgns Big Delta launches and Large Atlas Launches are coming. USA can also do it with the STS-Shuttle, the Skylab and Shuttle are the largest payloads ever put into Space !!

Russia and former Soviet ideas, Soyuz, Energia, Molniya, Zenit and Proton did very well. Zenit 3SL a Ukraine rocket could do big launches to LEO, Russian Progress-M is very helpful and Russian's already have great knowledge from MIR launches Mir Core had a Mass of about 21,000 kg and a lenght and diametre of 13 by 4 metres. Buran Space Shuttle but N-1 was able to lift 90 metric tonnes powered by 30 Kuznetzov NK15 engines but Energia fell into disuse with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Russia could help in other areas or maybe lift more American astronauts up from Baikonur and Soyuz ST are great Russia launches with other Salyut Space stations - Mass less than 20,000 Kgs. Russian technicians have already visited European space launch base in French Guiana and Europe is to pay Russia to build Soyuz pad at Kourou

China have good launches like the CZ-2C China has used the Long March rocket family, China eyeing new HL and the old CZ3B was a good rocket the new HL can put perhaps 25 tonnes or so in LEO. The USA however didn't welcome Chinese yet to the ISS idea, plus the China scientists anyway wanted to push Chinese space science up to speed and improve on their launcher technology

ESA have done good launches with Ariane-4, now Europe has the Large Ariane 5 launches and they are already paying Russia for setting up a Soyuz pad and they are looking at the Russian Klipper Spacecraft. The Anik F2 launch weighted about 5,950 kg ArianeV double can launch 10,000 Kg to 800 Km at 98 inclination, Europe is thinking of the Ariane-M for a Mars flight. Ariane 5 ECA, is designed to place payloads weighing up to 10 tonnes into geostationary transfer orbit, ES ATV version of the Ariane 5 has been designed to place ESA's Automated Transer Vehicle into Space with aPayload mass up to 21 tonnes, the European ATV will supply the ISS with pressurized cargo, water, oxygen and attitude control propellant it could also bring materials and reboost the ISS to a higher altitude . ESA Enhanced Ariane 5 demonstrated heavy-lift capability in 2005 Ariane ECA can carry up to ten tons of payload first ATV mission, Jules Verne will have a mass of 19,500 kg there is also an idea for a 20,900 kg ATV mass to launch

Commodore · 2005-07-13 21:28:22

Griffin wants SRB and SDV, that mean he will be inclined to choose Lockheed because they cannot cut mass like a capsule design can. Griffin will choose Lockheed because it will justify SRB and SDV development.
Want to bet? If not you, Bill?

I really don't think Griffen will limit himself like that.

With a EELV, we could in theory do a "quick and dirty" Capsule CEV with legs that would do a direct shot, short duration mission that would be perform pure local science, and allow us to cover a couple dozen sites in a few years.

Mixing and matching is the key.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-13 21:36:41

The problem isn't payload mass Yang, the problem is three fold:

-Once you get the payload into a similar orbit with the ISS, how do you get it within range of the stations' robot arm safely, accurately, and with low risk of accidently ramming it.

-Payloads deliverd into orbit without the ability to know and control their orientation will enter a spin due to orbital perturbations, and spinning objects cannot dock to anything safely. None of the ISS payloads have this ability, and it would have to be added at huge expense, plus the extra weight may make the whole package too heavy to launch to the ISS's bad orbit.

-ISS payloads were designed expressly for Shuttle, which clamps items on the side to the floor of the cargo bay, and not push from the end like a regular rocket. Redesigning the payloads is not happening, many of them being just loose peices, and building a cradle for them will be heavy, which will also make the whole package too heavy to launch.

They were designed for Shuttle, and Shuttle is really the only option to get the ISS done in a reasonable timeframe.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-13 21:38:01

Griffin wants SRB and SDV, that mean he will be inclined to choose Lockheed because they cannot cut mass like a capsule design can. Griffin will choose Lockheed because it will justify SRB and SDV development.
Want to bet? If not you, Bill?
I really don't think Griffen will limit himself like that.
With a EELV, we could in theory do a "quick and dirty" Capsule CEV with legs that would do a direct shot, short duration mission that would be perform pure local science, and allow us to cover a couple dozen sites in a few years.
Mixing and matching is the key.

Direct shot? No way, none of the Delta rockets are even that powerful.

Mixing and matching is EXPENSIVE, and NASA can't afford expensive.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-13 22:34:51

The problem isn't payload mass Yang, the problem is three fold:
-Once you get the payload into a similar orbit with the ISS, how do you get it within range of the stations' robot arm safely, accurately, and with low risk of accidently ramming it.
-Payloads deliverd into orbit without the ability to know and control their orientation will enter a spin due to orbital perturbations, and spinning objects cannot dock to anything safely. None of the ISS payloads have this ability, and it would have to be added at huge expense, plus the extra weight may make the whole package too heavy to launch to the ISS's bad orbit.
-ISS payloads were designed expressly for Shuttle, which clamps items on the side to the floor of the cargo bay, and not push from the end like a regular rocket. Redesigning the payloads is not happening, many of them being just loose peices, and building a cradle for them will be heavy, which will also make the whole package too heavy to launch.
They were designed for Shuttle, and Shuttle is really the only option to get the ISS done in a reasonable timeframe.

Ok, I think I understand
so Clark, BWhite, GCNRevenger and Commodore have given me more info on this

Here are my thoughts

So many paylaods can't go into orbit because of docking problems, and a lot of the ISS modules, living quaters and cargo docking was designed exactly for the STS Shuttle launches delivery of paylaods to the ISS, like GCNRevenger has tried to explain to me

So far, all members of the (permanent) crew have come from the Russian or United States space programs, its time to get another nation to join in and help take the risks and do the work. On today's International space station Brazil promised to build special carriers, the ISS had a design to be 80 metres wide, ISS has been far more expensive than originally anticipated. It is thought that perhaps about 40 Space Shuttle flights will be needed to assemble parts and over 30 Progress Russian spacecraft flight, but things were very expensive. Today the station mass is about 187,000 kg and is aprox 70 meters wide and 50 meters long, building this had included 16 American Space Shuttle flights and 22 Russian flights. ESA were supposed to be sending up their astronauts by getting on USA's Shuttle and doing work on the ISS, the International Space station is suppoed to be 110 metres long, the Space station can not accommodate the expected crew and Canada is supposed to install sophisticated robotic systems, Japan announced that due to reduced funding and technical problems the Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM) would not be ready for delivery to ISS until 2008, 2 years behind schedule and back in 2002 Japan citing reduced government budgeting but not technical problems, announced delay of its Kibo Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) by one year to 2006, Japan's NASDA contributed into the project but the original plans expected that Japanese launch vehicles and mini-shuttle could support the program, but neither was ready and today the international station has a only a capacity for a crew of three it is thought it will have a mass of about 420,000 kilograms.

Tourism to the station could return some of the big costs ISS has seen the first space tourist, Dennis Tito, who spent 20 million Dollars to fly aboard a Russian supply mission. Russia has announced the design of the Clipper spacecraft, the successor to the Soyuz TM/A manned spacecraft and on the USA's side Congress decided not to terminate the X-38/CRV program but to simply reduce its funding and Loss of the CRV would have meant that the crew sizes onboard ISS would not be able to increase beyond 3 so O'Keefe gave his assurances that "after 2007" a Crew Transport Vehicle (CTV ) along with a Habitation Module would be delivered to ISS and thereby allow for the expansion of permanent crew sizes onboard the space station.. The ISS is needed for many future sciences and the study of the long term survival of biology in outer-space, other future space telescopes also depend on being able to get service from the ISS crew. The
Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency JAXA and Canadian Space Agency CSA/ASC should help out more, perhaps have more of their people go up on Russian or US launches to finish work on ISS. Research modules have not been installed, Russia have not added their docking compartment, the USA have yet to put in the other Thermal control systems, Russians have not put in SPP solar arrays, the Japanese economy is somewhat stagnant so they now have bad budget problems with the ISS and Japan JEM's may be years behind the timetable, Hope-X space vehicle with H2 launch is in trouble, ESA were supposed to send up European astronauts on Shuttle flights, NASA has been behind on adding the integrated truss structure and Brazil didn't put up the Express pallet. Europeans could be sending more ATV to carry up to tonnes of ESA cargo including provisions, future space telescopes had plans to be alongside the ISS design and to get service or upgrades from the International Space Station, a lot of work must be done. Brazilian Space Agency the AEB and the European Space Agency should send their people up to spend much needed time on the ISS to finsih its construction,a nd do the science missions. The ISS is supposed to have a pressurized volume of about 1,200 cubic meters, a mass of almost 420,000 kilograms and energy supply of 110 kilowatts power output. The future of NASA's work with the CTV or X38 could be very important, science labs and a free-flying platforms and the number of flights that Russia can add will help matters more, ISS is what is needed for long term space plans as it is the only current long-term orbiting laboratory.

There are the possibility of other docking for the Space Station, Russia could add more Soyuz TMA while the Japanese ISAS and NASDA were supposed to build a mini-Shuttle called Hope-X but they are already far behind on other issues like their Labs and Module parts, ESA could send up the European ATV but I think they are testing the latest version of Ariane to make sure everything is good, ISS plans are deigned to link up with the European launched payloads but so far no ATVs have been launched, Russia could put up more Progress-M launches.

NASA and the US Shuttle are the major player in the ISS, Space Shuttle Atlantis, Endeavour and Discovery have done great mission to the Space Station. For far there is only other nation with the ability to keep the ISS alive, and this is the Russians with the Progress launches and Soyuz TMA.
Everybody else are just minor paper players they can not add anything to the ISS, and Space Agency like the Europeans, Brazil, Japan, Canada depend on Russia or the USA for their Space plans.
However that said ESA looks like it has been moving forward recently, they are pushing other planetary science missions like Mars Express and the joint Cassini-Huygens mission, the Europeans are looking at the ATV launch and perhaps are building a Soyuz pad from French Guiana South-America, and ESA have manned Mars plans like Aurora and are looking into Moon missions like Smart-1, Europe's other mission shoudl give it better ability and knowledge in helping in Space projects and ISS work should be easier as ESA is growing. It looks like that in a few years or perhaps just a few months time there will be other nations ready to help greatly with the ISS and take pressure off the Shuttle mandate launches, it will require a lot more Shuttle flights to finish the ISS.

ISS current mass 187,000 kg - it is missing an integrated truss structure, the ISS has no real photo-voltaic modules, the Japan-JEM is not there, SPP solars arrays are missing

ISS is supposed to have multiple docking ports, the massive photo voltaic solar pannel, larger living quaters, labs, and experiment modules and have a mass of 420,000 kilograms

The station isn't even half finished, there is a massive bulk of work to be done

RobertDyck · 2005-07-13 23:27:41

USA's great launches bring back the Saturn V 2-stage, there must be some in a museum or exhibition that can get dusted down.

I'm afraid Saturn V is long dead. F-1 engines have been out of production since Nixon cancelled Apollo in 1972. J-2 engines for the 2nd and 3rd stages have been upgraded to J-2S, which are now available. The Michoud Assembly Facility that built Saturn 1C stages (first stage) has been converted to make Shuttle external tanks. Mobile Launchers (ML) have been converted to Mobile Launch Platforms (MLP) for Shuttle, and the service structure tower from 2 of them has been converted to the static service structure on pads A and B. The tower from the 3rd ML was cut into pieces and lies rusting in a field on Merritt Island. The http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/retf/textFi … tml]Rocket Engine Test Facility that tested F-1 engines at Glenn Research Center was kept for many years, but was demolished in 2003 to make room for Cleveland's airport expansion.

There were 3 Saturn V rockets built for Apollo 18, 19 and 20. According to http://www.apollosaturn.com/otherhw.htm]Apollo Saturn Reference Page, 1st and 2nd stages for Apollo 18 was used to launch Skylab. The 3rd stage for Apollo 20 was converted into Backup Skylab, which now sits in the National Air and Space Museum. 1st stage from Apollo 19, 2nd stage from Apollo 20, and 3rd stage from Apollo 18 sit at the Johnson Space Center; they were left rusting outdoors until a building was constructed around them last fall. 2nd and 3rd stages of Apollo 19 are in the Apollo-Saturn V Center, Kennedy Space Center, along with a fully functional test 1st stage. They were also left outdoors for years, although a building was built for them a few years ago. 3rd stage for Apollo 20 is still at the Michoud Assembly Facility. The Alabama Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville has a Saturn V composed entirely of test stages; 2nd and 3rd stages are fully functional but the 1st stage only has 1 real engine. The other 4 engines are dummies: same weight and balance but they're only hunks of metal. The one in Alabama is still outdoors, exposed to rain. None of these rockets have http://www.apollosaturn.com/interstg.htm]interstages: connecting bits that attach stages together. They were used as storage sheds, but are now lost.

RobertDyck · 2005-07-13 23:53:26

So many paylaods can't go into orbit because of docking problems, and a lot of the ISS modules, living quaters and cargo docking was designed exactly for the STS Shuttle launches delivery of paylaods to the ISS, like GCNRevenger has tried to explain to me

I've explained that Shuttle-C with a recoverable engine pod would have OMS pods capable entering the correct orbit, and RCS thrusters capable of rendezvous with ISS and stabilizing cargo so Shuttle's arm could pick off pieces and carry them the last few metres to the station. If you're good you could dock Node 2 while the entire pallette of trusses and solar arrays are still attached, then use the station's arm to pick off pieces. Expendable rockets he likes wouldn't have any RCS system.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-14 08:07:42

So many paylaods can't go into orbit because of docking problems, and a lot of the ISS modules, living quaters and cargo docking was designed exactly for the STS Shuttle launches delivery of paylaods to the ISS, like GCNRevenger has tried to explain to me
I've explained that Shuttle-C with a recoverable engine pod would have OMS pods capable entering the correct orbit, and RCS thrusters capable of rendezvous with ISS and stabilizing cargo so Shuttle's arm could pick off pieces and carry them the last few metres to the station. If you're good you could dock Node 2 while the entire pallette of trusses and solar arrays are still attached, then use the station's arm to pick off pieces. Expendable rockets he likes wouldn't have any RCS system.

Thats placing an awful lot of faith in the maneuverability of the vehicle Robert. Both Shuttle and Soyuz/Progress uses radar to assist in the rendezvous with the ISS, does your pod have it? GPS systems from DART aren't quite up to speed yet. And the control computers? And the extended multi-day power supplies? No 15min batteries here. Substantial guidence changes to accomodate remote control, cameras, etc. Range detection systems other then radar for emergency docking abort, plus computers and software to effect this automatically. Extended RCS systems with thrusters in the nose are a must - just putting them in the back isn't good enough, and prevents translational navigation. Lets see, what else? Backup power supply ought to be included too.

The vehicle you keep on trying to describe Robert keeps getting more and more and more complex, which is exactly what it cannot be. SDV absolutely must be kept simple, that is not optional, and your vehicle is anything but. Your rocket pod alone is of comperable complexity to the billion-plus dollar CEV capsule, which radically increases total system risk since reliability is spread over so many launches, and in the end doesn't save much money thanks to development costs. Its also heavier, and if you absolutely insist on only building one or two pods, that eliminates surge-launch (desireable for Mars) and holds all of NASA hostage to that pod working flawlessly.

And now you want to go and add all the hardware for rendezvous and docking to the thing? And if that stuff won't fit into the cramped nose section, then its going to cost Shuttle-C even more payload volume which is already suffers a terrible lack of for its mass capability. Oh, and if you can't use a "dumb" nose faring like other rockets, now you are going to need an extra-strong "backbone" and probobly some side supports too. How much are they going to weigh?

So we go ahead and build your rocket... Its going to take a few years to finish and test it beyond any doubt before we go and risk it with carrying irreplaceable ISS componets... and by that time, Shuttle will already pretty be finished with how much more the US is going to fool with "finishing" the ISS. So, lets see what you've paid for selling out the future for the d**n ISS...
-No surge launch ability
-Reduced total payload mass by ~10-15MT+
-Much lower system reliability averaged over multiple flights due to the pod
-Maximum payload diameter of ~7m, too small for DRM ships
-Much smaller total payload volume, severely limiting low-density lift capability (Hydrogen fuel, one-piece space stations, one-piece Lunar/Mars base modules, mega space telescopes, etc)
-No vehicles with integral aerobrake shield (like DRM) due to Shuttle-C nose cone equipment and "backbone" supports
-Not as practical to use for escape velocity missions if desired.
-High risk that pod reprocessing will meet expensive difficulties or delays due to high level reliability required and severe dynamics involved with reentry/landing.
-Addition of $1-2Bn+ to development cost for a savings of a mere few tens of millions per sortie thanks to the pod's (and now the nosecone too) complexity.
-And finally, much higher risk that development will not go smoothly, which could add years of delay and cause unsurviveable cost growth because of the added complexity.

There is no other way to say it really... your plan for Shuttle-C is simply a bad plan. Even if we started today, it would not finish the ISS any faster, and the above clearly proves that its no where near justifiable to ruin the future usefulness of SDV in a futile attempt to "save" the ISS from worthlessness.

RobertDyck · 2005-07-14 09:26:45

No, you forget I still said send the orbiter with Shuttle-C. That means use the orbiter and its arm to guide the cargo palette end with Node 2 to dock with ISS. Can it be done or would parking it beside ISS be better? DO NOT even think about putting RCS thrusters on the nose of the unmanned cargo vehicle; they would be expensive, high development time, reduce cargo mass, and completely unnecessary. You keep assuming nothing will ever work. You also keep assuming the $11-$13 billion development price for OSP was reasonable. We already discussed this and determined the asking price was 10 times what it's worth, which was why congress pressured NASA to cancel it. Also expect the flight rate to return to every second month, 6 missions per year once flights are resumed. NASA never said anything different.

You keep claiming creating solutions are bad. Reality is if you're incapable of creative solutions then you don't belong in vehicle design. You also keep arguing to destroy ISS, but even the NASA administrator couldn't do that if he wanted to. Not going to happen, get over it. What have you done that's actually constructive? Since you're a polymer scientist I asked your help with film for an inflated greenhouse or inflated walking tube between habitats. How can you do this for your day job and not know PVB? You claimed a binder was necessary for a laminated film, I just suggested the standard binder for laminated car windows. I asked you to look up the cold temperature characteristics of PVB, at Mars temperatures and gave you the numbers. If you don't know off hand then look them up. You can't even look that up? This is supposed to be your field. I said before you don't qualify to criticise unless you actually do something, you can't peer review unless you are a peer which means you have to work in the field. I gave you a project to prove yourself and meet the qualification. Can't you even look up a simple little statistic for a constructive project in the same field as your day job? I know, doing anything constructive exposes you to the same criticism that you heap upon everyone else; that's part of the point, to make you think before slamming someone else's idea.

Yang Liwei Rocket · 2005-07-14 10:10:17

What ever happened to NASA smaller crew transfer spacecraft for the ISS, I thought some of these had very good designs and would have helped take some work loads away from Shuttle and instead use the Crew tranfer vehicle to bring Russians and Americans around the ISS station, here are some links to those X-38 plans, it looked like it was way beyond the design stage and almost ready for launch. Did the project sink or get axed down, was X38 too expensive ?
http://www.ohb-system.de/MannedFlights/ … ...38.html
http://raumfahrt.aligini.de/content.php … nt.php?8&1
http://www.gom.com/En/Applications/Digi … l/x38.html
Will NASA now depend on more Russian Soyuz-TM launches to ISS, and ask Europeans to build more stuff and send more projects to the ISS like the JulesVerne-ATV, or will they need more Russian Progress to fill the gaps ?

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-14 12:48:43

"I still said send the orbiter with Shuttle-C"

Ah ha... so, you want to rush to build Shuttle-C to save the ISS from irrelivence, and it will be pretty useless for Mars plus unable to lift as much as Griffin wants for the Moon, but then we can't send it to the ISS after Shuttle is gone?

"You also keep assuming the $11-$13 billion development price for OSP was reasonable. We already discussed this and determined the asking price was 10 times what it's worth..."

$11Bn was too high, but not by that much... The dinky HL-20 would cost $3-4Bn just correcting for inflation, and another billion or two to account for its overoptimistic price... then figure in a billion or two for EELV modifications to make it manrated and powerful enough... another few hundred million for launch pad/ground control modifications. $9-10Bn wasn't outlandish at all. The real nonsense is about a fully-functional X-38 crew ferry complete with man-rated launch vehicle for only $1-2Bn, that is what is outlandish.

"Also expect the flight rate to return to every second month"

Thats crazy, Griffin knows it, and you know it too. Shuttle flights are never going to be "business as usual" ever again, and with only three orbiters (which all need heavy work between now and 2010) that flightrate is just plain unrealistic.

"NASA never said anything different."

Oh really? Griffin has... something to the effect of we'll never be able to fly the 28 missions before the deadline, so we're only going to do the 15.

"You keep claiming creating solutions are bad. Reality is if you're incapable of creative solutions then you don't belong in vehicle design."

Please... if your plan can't sustain criticism of its basic capabilities and strategy, then it shouldn't ever leave the drawing board. You also talk about creativity like it is always by default a good thing; nothing could be further from the truth, many many creative options are simply bad ones. Especially ones that make the system more and more and more complicated.

"You also keep arguing to destroy ISS, but even the NASA administrator couldn't do that if he wanted to."

Sure I WANT us to get rid of the ISS, but I have no illusions that will happen. Realisticly what I want us to do the simplest thing, to use Shuttle to bring the ISS to something we can call "finished" in 15 flights with Shuttle by 2010 because no other option is practical or benneficial, support it with flights with a prototypical Lunar CEV until 2015ish (perhaps making a long-life storage version for CRV), and then end involvement while holding operating costs as low as possible. Ditch the ISS, then put the money into a Lunar base.

"Since you're a polymer scientist I asked your help with film for an inflated greenhouse or inflated walking tube between habitats. How can you do this for your day job and not know PVB?"

Excuse me dear Robert, but did you know that there are quite literally thousands of industrial polymer products? I do, and you know what? The physical properties for the majority of them in conditions they wern't intended for probobly have never been reccorded by anyone. It is very possible that the information you want isn't available at all.

"I gave you a project to prove yourself and meet the qualification. Can't you even look up a simple little statistic for a constructive project in the same field as your day job?"

"Gave me a project" sounds like you are my superior or something Robert, which is not the case, and I looked through the usual handy chemistry references as a favor, not a test. I am quite offended that you think I am perhaps "not on your level," which I most certainly am.

That "little simple statistic" would involve some days or perhaps a week or two of work and probobly several hundred dollars worth of supplies and instrument time, if equipment for very low temperature testing is even readily available... Which is probobly why nobody has botherd to do it on a obscure and expensive polymer of limited usefulness to get into the Polymer Handbook.

I don't think you even know the difference between a chemist and a chemical engineer anyway.

Now if you will ask very nicely, maybe I will take some nontrivial time out of my day to look for dead-tree chemical engineering references (rather then the straight chemistry ones at the office) at the library the next time I am by that way. I try and do something nice for you, and look how I am repaid.

Grypd · 2005-07-14 13:24:07

So if Griffin wants to get rid of the Shuttle Early but he needs it to get components to the ISS. And that the ISS components need a means to get maneuvered to the ISS.

Sounds like a space tug is needed does it not. How much would it cost to have one made and delivered and if it only needs to be fueled from the cheaper to launch DaStick would it not make economic sense.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-14 13:27:59

Its still not that easy Grypd, for the tug to be able to capture the payload sent up on a regular rocket, the payload itself has to at least have attitude control (to prevent natural spinning), and it will need a "cradle" to support pieces since they were intended to be lifted from the side in Shuttle's bay, not pushed from the end like a rocket. Many of the pieces are just loose bits too, which doesn't do you much good... And a cradle with control jets, attitude sensors, and power/avionics combined with the payload mass will be too heavy for any present day rocket to lift to the ISS orbit.

Grypd · 2005-07-14 13:41:47

But a mass produced attachment could be made that would do the job at least for keeping the modules in the correct axis. It would also allow the "tug" to find the target easier.

One other thing is that as the ISS modules will require a support to hold them tight then use that to provide the hold and attachment for the altitude jets. It can also have a place for the "tug" to grapple without risking the reather fragile components.

And would it really be that difficult to make a frame that has the same points to hold the modules.

GCNRevenger · 2005-07-14 18:08:21

Well, you are talking about a structure and heavy-duty clamps that has to be strong enough to resist high accelerations (up to 5G if riding the SRB launcher) while carrying a load weighing up to twenty metric tonnes or so, with a power supply enough for several days (time required to synchronize ISS orbit and rendezvous with tug plus margins), which probobly means heavy batteries.

The clamps should be able to unlatch by remote, which adds a bit more complexity, extended power supplies if not wired into the tug's fuel cells, radio link to mission control, control computer(s), and then you can start talking about the attitude control system. You will need fancy gyros or accelerometers to judge your rotation rate, GPS probobly doesn't have the resolution for fine control so thats likly out. And you will need rocket clusters on the corners of the frame, which will take time to develop and probobly weigh quite a bit. Each payload will probobly need some work done clamp arrangement and flight software, since the center of gravity would be changed.

I think that its fairly likly that the frame/etc will be too heavy for any currently available launch vehicle. The current Delta-IV HLV can't quite match the Shuttle's payload capacity, but now you will add several more tonnes on top of that?

If its not an impossible order, building it plus the tug plus building the SRB launcher (unless you buy the expensive Delta-IV HLV instead) will probobly take a few years to develop. Depriving the ISS of heavy payload capability for several years is probobly pretty risky, since it was never intended to go without it for any length of time. Plus, I think its arguable if the ISS has much life left in it, and the 2015ish date for retirement is pretty optimistic. And finally, the ISS, if it is ever to do any useful work for anyone, needs to be able to send payload back down to Earth too, which isn't solved by the tug/frame/etc.

Shuttle is the best option for getting the station "done" in a short amount of time as practical.

RobertDyck · 2005-07-14 19:36:31

"I still said send the orbiter with Shuttle-C"
Ah ha... so, you want to rush to build Shuttle-C to save the ISS from irrelivence, and it will be pretty useless for Mars plus unable to lift as much as Griffin wants for the Moon, but then we can't send it to the ISS after Shuttle is gone?

Yes, I want to rush completion of ISS so we can move on to Moon and Mars. However, Shuttle-C is optimized for LEO so it can be used for any heavy cargo to LEO including NASA DRM 3. As for Mars, a bulked-up Shuttle-C will have stretched ET and 5-segment SRBs but the exact same engine pod. Once ISS construction is complete I don't expect any further construction, but you could replace the Shuttle orbiter with an on-orbit tug.

"You also keep assuming the $11-$13 billion development price for OSP was reasonable. We already discussed this and determined the asking price was 10 times what it's worth..."
$11Bn was too high, but not by that much... The dinky HL-20 would cost $3-4Bn just correcting for inflation, and another billion or two to account for its overoptimistic price... then figure in a billion or two for EELV modifications to make it manrated and powerful enough... another few hundred million for launch pad/ground control modifications. $9-10Bn wasn't outlandish at all. The real nonsense is about a fully-functional X-38 crew ferry complete with man-rated launch vehicle for only $1-2Bn, that is what is outlandish.

The space taxi I talked about uses a mini-HL-20 with a main engine and expendable ET launched from the back of one of NASA's current 747s. It doesn't use EELV at all. I already explained that Shuttle cost $10.1 billion including the large orbiter, ET, SRBs, MLP and pad modifications, Michoud modifications, the world's first reusable main engine, the world's first reusable heat shield, etc. The X-38 had a budget of $1.2 billion, but crept to $2.0 billion when they changed from 4 to 7 crew, from metal heat shield to shuttle-style, and from a CRV to an OSP launched on Ariane 5. If they stuck with a single design it should have been finished in $1.2 billion. But the space taxi I talk about will also require development of a new main engine and new ET. That will cost more, perhaps $2-3 billion for everything together. The $11-13 billion price that Boeing and Lockmart asked for OSP was just price gouging.

"Also expect the flight rate to return to every second month"
Thats crazy, Griffin knows it, and you know it too. Shuttle flights are never going to be "business as usual" ever again, and with only three orbiters (which all need heavy work between now and 2010) that flight rate is just plain unrealistic.

That's what they said after Challenger.

"NASA never said anything different."
Oh really? Griffin has... something to the effect of we'll never be able to fly the 28 missions before the deadline, so we're only going to do the 15.

That doesn't address flight rate, just number of flights to complete ISS.

"You keep claiming creating solutions are bad. Reality is if you're incapable of creative solutions then you don't belong in vehicle design."
Please... if your plan can't sustain criticism of its basic capabilities and strategy, then it shouldn't ever leave the drawing board. You also talk about creativity like it is always by default a good thing; nothing could be further from the truth, many many creative options are simply bad ones. Especially ones that make the system more and more and more complicated.

I'm tired of arguing the same points over and over again. We already established that the price major aerospace firms asked for OSP was unreasonable, and congress knew that so they cancelled it. Why do you keep defending them?

"You also keep arguing to destroy ISS, but even the NASA administrator couldn't do that if he wanted to."
Sure I WANT us to get rid of the ISS, but I have no illusions that will happen. Realisticly what I want us to do the simplest thing, to use Shuttle to bring the ISS to something we can call "finished" in 15 flights with Shuttle by 2010 because no other option is practical or benneficial, support it with flights with a prototypical Lunar CEV until 2015ish (perhaps making a long-life storage version for CRV), and then end involvement while holding operating costs as low as possible. Ditch the ISS, then put the money into a Lunar base.

I want to see colonization of Mars start before I die of old age. At this rate the first science mission won't happen within my lifetime.

GregM · 2005-07-14 20:42:25

Gentlemen gentlemen

Why is anyone surprised or indignant at the expected announcement of Shuttle Orbiter phaseouts/ISS scalebacks? Consider these items:

1) It is important to NASA that the VSE becomes permanent. For that to happen requires the support of the VSE program over the time span of multiple re-elections and political terms of office. The faster things are changed in a way that doesn’t allow turning back, the harder it will be to actually turn back from the VSE road. Shutting down Shuttle orbiters ASAP is one big way to do that. Once pulled from service and sent to a museum, it would be nearly impossible to put them back into service. Remember as well, it’s not just one Orbiter in 2007, but a second as well in 2009. As orbiters are phased out, facilities are changed immediately to accommodate VSE hardware. No going back.

2) The ISS is going to be scaled back – bank on it. The writing is on the wall here. International ISS treaty (and a treaty is the law of the land for all signatories to it) obligations will be fulfilled however, albeit in some sort of modified downsized way. Baseline Shuttle requirements for ISS construction is to get the European and Japanese labs up, node 2 up, and the truss completed in some sense. Everything else slated for future ISS construction is a candidate for change/deletion. Probably looking at 12-18 Shuttle flights (likely 14-16). That’s 3-5 shuttle flights per year till the end of 2010. Two orbiters doing 2 flights per year is four flights per year total. Achievable.

3) NASA and everyone else have finally come to the conclusion that the Shuttle can never be made as safe as they would really like to be comfortable with. Everyone now realizes it is just way too complicated a machine to ever be able get it all right all the time – even after 25 years of service. When you have that kind of feeling about a vehicle with no crew escape mechanism for critical flight periods, it gets very uncomfortable for all involved. They want to get away from the Shuttle Orbiter ASAP because it is very difficult and expensive to operate – especially at the new heightened safety levels, and even when all is going well it still scares the hell out them now. You get the vibe: “let’s just get through the next 5 years as safely as possible and shut this program down”.

Now look for alternate ways of getting things done:

1) The EELV folks are desperately looking for more government work. The ISS might need a lot of alternate uplift capability if the Shuttles are only going to fly 15 or so more times. Might there be a good fit there? Don’t be surprised to see an American requirement for the sort of multipurpose unmanned tug/docking vehicle that attached the Russian Pirs module to the ISS a few years back and then detached itself and flew away. This sort of American system would allow for the transfer of cargo/logistics modules and even permanent smaller ISS components to the station using EELV’s as a launch system. ISS supporters are happy, the DOD is happy, Boeing/Lockmart is happy.

2) Getting the SDV program going as fast as possible is desirable. There are many reasons for this, continuity being one big reason. Part of that process would be to get launch support facilities for such vehicles up and ready well before the vehicles are ready. One pad at LC-39 is plenty to support 4 or 5 shuttle flights per year. Might as well get the other pad (LUT and hardstand), an assembly bay at the VAB, an MLP, and a firing room at the LCC converted to support the SDV heavy lifter. As soon as 15 or so Stuttle ET’s are manufactured, then Michloud needs to retool in order to build first stage cores for the SDV heavy lifter.

3) The Stick needs to be flight tested prior to manned CEV flights on it – once again requiring support facilities to be ready before the first vehicle arrives at KSC.

4) The CEV will likely be flight prepped in the OPF – therefore at least one bay will need to be rebuilt and ready by 2009-2010 to support CEV flights in 2011-2012. Shuttle orbiters will need to be permanently evicted for that to take place.

There is a lot on the plate here: fly and phase out the Shuttle, finish the ISS and develop alternate servicing for it, develop and fly a Saturn 5 class very heavy launch vehicle, develop and fly a mid-heavy manned launch vehicle, develop and fly a new manned spacecraft. All in 5-7 years! So, things gotta start happening now, not next year, or the year after that. The rate of change will exciting to watch. There will be nothing like it since the mid 60’s.

Commodore · 2005-07-14 21:01:23

One pad at LC-39 is plenty to support 4 or 5 shuttle flights per year.

Just thought I'd add that we now not only have 1 shuttle prepped and launched, but another one on deck to launch within two weeks for a rescue mission. Just how much work needs to be done to a pab after each launch to get it ready?

Although after this week they might just be better off cramming 9 people into a Soyuz.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#26 2005-07-13 19:27:16

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#27 2005-07-13 19:28:24

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#28 2005-07-13 19:31:32

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#29 2005-07-13 19:34:12

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#30 2005-07-13 19:40:37

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#31 2005-07-13 20:14:11

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#32 2005-07-13 21:22:08

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#33 2005-07-13 21:25:36

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#34 2005-07-13 21:28:22

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#35 2005-07-13 21:36:41

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#36 2005-07-13 21:38:01

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#37 2005-07-13 22:34:51

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#38 2005-07-13 23:27:41

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#39 2005-07-13 23:53:26

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#40 2005-07-14 08:07:42

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#41 2005-07-14 09:26:45

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#42 2005-07-14 10:10:17

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#43 2005-07-14 12:48:43

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#44 2005-07-14 13:24:07

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#45 2005-07-14 13:27:59

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#46 2005-07-14 13:41:47

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#47 2005-07-14 18:08:21

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#48 2005-07-14 19:36:31

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#49 2005-07-14 20:42:25

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

#50 2005-07-14 21:01:23

Re: Early retirement for orbiter?

Board footer