You are not logged in.
Havent]http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1052]Haven't we discussed this before?
NASA is completing an internal review that proposes using an expendable launch vehicle derived from space shuttle components to launch and complete the International Space Station following retirement of the shuttle orbiters in 2010, according to senior agency and industry sources.
The study is to be completed in the next two to three weeks. As a result, the public release of Mike Griffin's full 60-day exploration architecture study will be delayed until after the House and Senate return from summer recess in early September, sources explained - a delay of almost two months from Griffin's earlier plans.
= = =
At "Return to the Moon" I learned some great stuff about Canadian LIDAR systems and "last kilometer" remote docking solutions.
= = =
If NASA now adopts a plan similar to what I was screaming about in early Spring 2004, do I get a cookie? 8)
Sources familiar with the SDV review say a side-mounted so-called "Shuttle-C" type configuration is once again being strongly looked at as the configuration for the heavy lift booster. Agency planners have favored a stacked or "in line" configuration that mounts a large liquid fueled upper stage and payload module atop a modified space shuttle external fuel tank. While such a design would yield greater payload weight, sources have said that it would also require the most expensive modifications to the existing space shuttle launch infrastructure. A side-mounted configuration, on the other hand, would replace the winged orbiter with the liquid stage and payload module, using many of the same pad interfaces as now employed with the manned vehicle.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Woo Hoo!
Here's the combined Shuttle orbiter / Shuttle-C combined launch manifest that I came up with.
Date |Assembly Flight|Elements |Replaced shuttle flight
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
July 26, 2005|LF1 |• Return to Flight test mission |same
| |• Raffaello Multi-Purpose Logistics Module (MPLM) |
| |• Remove and replace Control Moment Gyroscope |
| |• Logistics Flight |
| |• External Stowage Platform (ESP-2) |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Sept. 2005 |ULF1.1 |• Return to Flight test mission |same
| |• Utilization and Logistics Flight |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Nov. 2005 |HSM4 |• Hubble Service Mission |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
January, 2006|C1.1 |• Second port truss segment (ITS P3/P4) |STS-115
| |• Third port truss segment (ITS P5) |STS-116
| |• Second starboard truss segment (ITS S3/S4) |STS-117
| |• Third starboard truss segment (ITS S5) |STS-118
| |• Fourth starboard truss segment (ITS S6) |STS-119
| |• Three solar array sets and batteries |STS-120
| |• Cupola |UF-4
| |• "Canada Hand" (Special Purpose Dexterous Manipulator) |half of 14A
| |• U.S. Node 2 |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
January, 2006|C1.2 |• SPACEHAB double cargo module |rest of:
| |• Logistics and Supplies |STS-116,
| |• Extended Duration Orbiter Pallet |STS-118
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
March, 2006 |C2.1 |• Japanese Experiment Module Experiment Logistics |1J/A
| | Module (JEM ELM PS) |1J
| |• Kibo Japanese Experiment Module (JEM) |half of 2J/A
| |• Japanese Remote Manipulator System (JEM RMS) |
| |• Japanese Experiment Module Exposed Facility (JEM EF) |
| |• Japanese Experiment Logistics Module - Exposed Section|
| | (ELM-ES) |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
March, 2006 |C2.2 |• Extended Duration Orbiter Pallet |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
May, 2006 |C3.1 |• European Laboratory - Columbus Module |1E
| |• Science Power Platform (SPP) solar arrays with truss |9A.1
| |• Additional Science Power Platform (SPP) solar arrays |UF-7
| |• Centrifuge Accommodation Module (CAM) |rest of 2J/A,
| |• EXPRESS Pallet |14A
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
May, 2006 |C3.2 |• Multi Purpose Module (MTsM) |9A.1
| |• EXPRESS Pallet |
| |• Extended Duration Orbiter Pallet |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
July, 2006 | |• Node 3 |
-------------+---------------+--------------------------------------------------------+-----------------------
Sept. 2006 | |• U.S. Habitation module |Combination flight 1 part 1 (C1.1), flight 2 part 1 (C2.1) and flight 3 part 1 (C3.1) use Shuttle-C. Other flights use a Shuttle orbiter.
Notice combination flight 2 part 2 (C2.2) just has the Extended Duration Orbiter Pallete and nothing else. That gives it room for something more, perhaps a SPACEHAB double module with half the cargo of one of the MPLM flights. If the other half of the MPLM cargo is sent via ATV, that would eliminate one of the 6 MPLM missions.
If another MPLM mission is replaced by 2 launches of ATV, and the Japanese are told to launch HTV themselves on their H-II rocket, that reduces ISS assembly to just 4 MPLM missions after this external assembly manifest. NASA could retire one of the orbiters at fiscal year end, October 2006, and interior construction would be complete by October 2007. That permits retiring the entire Shuttle orbiter program at fiscal year end, October 2007.
Features:
Combination flight 1 brings the station to "U.S. Core Complete".
Combination flight 2 has all Japanese modules, flight 3 has all European.
Node 3 and U.S. Habitat were added for life support, to demonstrate the life support system for a manned mission to Mars.
If Shuttle-C is not ready by January, Node 3 could be launched in January pushing C1 to March. If Shuttle-C still isn't ready, U.S. hab could be launched in March pushing C1 to May. In either case all exterior construction would be complete by fiscal year end, October 2006.
Offline
Like button can go here
Robert, all the talk of a Shuttle-derived vehicle development has been in term of years (plural), not months. Your ultra-short development timeframe, particularly given the lack of development dollars due to parallel STS operations and work on CEV, completly rules out the credibility of your schedule.
As far as actually building Shuttle-C instead of the inline launcher... why? Why NASA? Why are you selling out the future by going with Shuttle-C, just so you can save a buck now? The inline version provides more mass and volume capacity to return to the Moon with more payload, and the greater diameter is nessesarry even for Bob Zubrin's undersized MarsDirect. A shuttle-sans-wings cargo bay is hardly four meters around, less then half of Magnum.
And NASA, how much... how much extra is the Shuttle-C hardware for Shuttle rendezvous going to cost? And when we do get ready to go back to the Moon or on to Mars, and the thing don't fit, then what?
I would like to remind that the difference between Shuttle-C and Magnum are such that all the money spent on one is pretty much wasted for the other.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Magnum is not compatible with recoverable anything. The recoverable engine pod makes Shuttle-C more cost effective than Magnum for LEO operations. The OMS and RCS pods make it ideal for fine manoeuvring like ISS assembly or other LEO assembly. Magnum is fine for direct throw, but not at all optimum for LEO work.
Yes, Shuttle-C has lower development cost and can use existing launch pads and MLP. The only change from orbiter to Shuttle-C is addition of support struts for the engine pod instead of wing supports. Those struts could be bolted on, making the MLP usable for the orbiter or SDV.
Now tell me seriously, is magnum with upper stage really any better than Ares?
::Edit:: And why would it take multiple years to develop a Shuttle-C with the exact same engines, exact same performance, and almost exact same tortional stress as the Space shuttle orbiter? Aerodynamics will be a bit different due to lack of wings or tail, but it wouldn't require redesigning the ET. As Mike Griffin said, the orbiter is an extremely heavy fairing. If you replace that fairing with a light one, why would it take multiple years?
Offline
Like button can go here
While partly I agree with the scheduel, there is the problem of how quick can a shuttle c be built? The various designs have been in existance, some of which date back to 1989 or even earlier. It may be an engineering feat to challenge Nasa to get the job done in a short time but I do not think that there is that much work to be done either.
Offline
Like button can go here
IF, and this is a big if, they were to halt STS ops at the end of the year, keeping Endeavour prepped as much as possible (to keep the senators who demand manned flight capability happy) then we might have the funds to develop the shuttle-c and a CEV, maybe without that special expenditure, which would go over Congress like a lead balloon.
Now if started today it would take at least two years to get operational. And there are other issues. Among them is the fact that the Station was designed to be built from the Shuttle. Pieces would be lifted out of the bay by the CanadArm, crews would work from them, ect. At least one Shuttle-C would have to have its own arm. And that’s assuming that there’s a way save it. Plus we’re going to have to develop a way to control it, preferably from the station. If not, we’ll have to have put some sort of cockpit on the first one. Hopefully in that case we can save the cockpit, and dock later cargo pods with it.
Another issue is crew launch. Without the Shuttle, the only thing we have is Soyuz. And that’s only 3 people. I don't know how many people it takes to do the construction ops. So you have to launch 2 Soyuz. Which were going to have to pay for. And somehow launch very quickly. Which means Congress will have to clear up that thing with Iran. Unless of course Russia can pull a Kliper out of its butt. Come to think of it, the Ruskies would be pretty pissed at having to continue to launch crews all by themselves over the course of Shuttle-C development. Perhaps in the spirit of international cooperation NASA and the ESA can help the Russians jumpstart the Kliper. God knows the Russians can light a fire under its engineers. Literally. Of course for all I know the combination of the 2 man Station crew and a single 3 man Soyuz crew would be enough.
In any event, it would be preferable to spend all this money were spending on the Shuttle on something that hasn't already been earmarked for the Smithsonian. The Shuttle-C a great start as far heavy lift in concerned, and developing it now gives us a jumpstart for the VSE. The Inline option is better, but we won't be starting that until after 2010 anyway. And who's to say we'll want to use the inline option every time anyway.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
::Edit:: And why would it take multiple years to develop a Shuttle-C with the exact same engines, exact same performance, and almost exact same tortional stress as the Space shuttle orbiter? Aerodynamics will be a bit different due to lack of wings or tail, but it wouldn't require redesigning the ET. As Mike Griffin said, the orbiter is an extremely heavy fairing. If you replace that fairing with a light one, why would it take multiple years?
You have to internally support all the pieces like the Shuttle would.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
"The recoverable engine pod makes Shuttle-C more cost effective than Magnum for LEO operations."
No it doesn't. The extra cost of developing the pod combined with the (beyond doubt ex-STS staffed) expense of operating it will not save much money, and will definatly make it inferior in dollars-per-kilo since its extra unessesarry mass (heat shield, faring spine, etc) cuts into the payload signifigantly. In either event, if it saves money or not, the pod idea does severely complicate the development of the vehicle, which is exactly what NASA doesn't need right now, a high-risk development program... and those tend to cost alot more then you think they do.
"Shuttle-C has lower development cost"
Again, no it doesn't. Not a whole lot less anyway... power, avionics, attitude control, etc will probobly not cost any less then a comperable setup for Magnum/inline/etc. About the only real difference is the main tank modifications. In fact, an inline launcher could perhaps use off-the-shelf parts developed for exsisting launchers since it flies in a similar fasion and doesn't need orbital operations ability. Oh, and if cutting big holes in pieces of metal is hard for NASA, then we're doomed anyway. Magnum is just a bigger brother of exsisting rockets, and not brand new a fully autonomous orbital maneuver vehicle.
Now tell me seriously, is magnum with upper stage really any better than Ares?
Ares is merely a concept, and nothing more. So is Magnum. So it Shuttle-C and its various flavors. Magnum, with its engines under the tank where they should be, where they are the most efficent, is well worth the expense of rearranging the launch table. Spend the extra money NOW to get it right, DON'T cut corners just so you can save a dime today. You really have a problem with this concept, don't you?
"And why would it take multiple years to develop a Shuttle-C with the exact same engines, exact same performance, and almost exact same tortional stress as the Space shuttle orbiter?"
Simple. Shuttle-C isn't the orbiter. Obviously... NASA can't just copy the back half of the orbiter, since it would be too expensive to build and throw away often. It would have to be a largely new design around the same mold lines, and as such will not be a quick or easy procedure. Then you have the "scrub," where old Shuttle hardware is gutted, and then all the additional stuff needed for remote control has to be added. Then you have to talk about a test flight or two before risking irreplaceable ISS componets to it, which also takes alot of time, just like the first launch of any new vehicle. (If your reflex is to talk about the pod, see first paragraph).
And again, you keep on wanting to add more abilities to the thing. At first all you advertised was that it would be able to hold orbit/attitude so that Shuttle could rendezvous and tow the thing to the ISS. Now you want to add the last-mile guidence to Shuttle-C itself? Thruster quads and RCS tanks in the nose, LIDAR/RADAR systems, high-accuracy attitude sensors, complex control systems for automatic docking and fault-sensing/docking-abort logic. This would perminantly cement the cramped 4m payload limit and preclude any add-on Shuttle-Z style upper stage to boot.
Listen up Robert, this thing has to be kept simple, and thats all there is to it. Just get the thing to put payloads in orbit efficently and in big packages. The whole reason for HLLV is to do just that, and trying to make it do other things or overcomplicating a typical flight (engine pod) is just a terrible idea. Since the more payload we have for the Moon the less likly VSE will end with Apollo-like flags/footprints missions, and that a launch vehicle with more payload (volume and mass) makes a journey to Mars easier, then I really can't see why NASA should bother with Shuttle-C. Why should they? Just for the ISS? Thats only a few flights of Shuttle-C... then what?
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Commodore: The launch manifest I listed includes sending an orbiter up with each Shuttle-C, so the orbiter's arm does the work. You don't ever put an expensive arm on an expendable launch vehicle. Assembly will be done by CanadArm on the orbiter together with CanadArm2 on the station.
GCNRevenger: we've had the ISS discussion before. ISS will be a failure if NASA cuts its legs out. Fulfilling obligations will result in success. I know, Dr. Z. talked about the station as a white elephant before it was built. That was then, this is now. Money is already spent so destroying it will not save anything. The only logical solution is to complete it quickly. And never forget that NASA tests everything carefully in incremental steps. Experience has shown this is necessary. That means the long duration life support system for Mars must be tested in LEO where failure means dumping out back to Earth. Testing a long duration life support system for 26 months or more means a space station. Scrapping this station just to build another would cost a hell of a lot more. If you think testing stuff on Earth is good enough, I have to remind you that people said that when Mir was having trouble; that it was a piece of crap and ISS would be trouble free. But as Bob McDonald (science reporter for CBC) said, Mir might be 14 years old at that time but 14 years after ISS construction it will also be 14 years old and will have similar problems. Learn from Mir so you don't duplicate them with ISS. Well, ISS is having trouble now, if you don't learn to work with it then you'll just have the same trouble on Mars. Now tell me, how do you expect to survive trouble on another planet that requires 14 months for the return launch window and 6 month transit back home?
Offline
Like button can go here
Commodore: The launch manifest I listed includes sending an orbiter up with each Shuttle-C, so the orbiter's arm does the work. You don't ever put an expensive arm on an expendable launch vehicle. Assembly will be done by CanadArm on the orbiter together with CanadArm2 on the station.
Operating the Shuttle side by side with the Shuttle-C could very well be prohibtively expensive. You'd definately have to suspend Shuttle ops for the duration of the of developement.
Now if I understand your manifest your launching two Shuttle-C's per orbiter flight. Thats quite taxing on the pad and recovery teams. Thats 6 SRBs, three ETs, and a very quick scrub down of one pad. I'd spread that out more, maybe one ripple fire every 6 months. Also, are you planning on putting anything in the Orbiter bay?
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
No, the whole basis of this manifest is to launch Shuttle-C from one pad and Shuttle orbiter from the other pad exactly 1 day later. Earth's rotation will bring the launch center under the orbit of ISS in that 1 day. The purpose of this is to use the heavy lift capability of Shuttle-C to carry a lot of cargo with the Arm, maneouvring thrusters and astronauts of the orbiter. That's why I call it a combination flight: part 1 is Shuttle-C, part 2 is the orbiter.
Suspending orbiter operation is not an option because Shuttle-C is dependant upon the orbiter to deploy its cargo. These must work together.
Offline
Like button can go here
"That was then, this is now. Money is already spent so destroying it will not save anything. The only logical solution is to complete it quickly... That means the long duration life support system for Mars must be tested in LEO where failure means dumping out back to Earth. Testing a long duration life support system for 26 months or more means a space station. Scrapping this station just to build another would cost a hell of a lot more."
On the contrary, ending our involvement with ISS and Shuttle would save tens of billions of dollars over their respective remaining lifetimes! Thats real money, money that could go to further the cause of human expansion into space... wasted... and for what?
You are right, a new space station for testing Mars equipment would cost a healthy eleven digit sum... and so would a Mars ship. Hey, what luck, we can do both at the same time. Build the Mars ship prototype, perhaps the NASA DRM ERV without the TEI rocket stage, and use it for the Mars hardware testbed. I mean obviously! Its stupid to throw away all that money for the ISS, rushing the otherwise inferior Shuttle-C into production or proping up the station for years to come, when we could use the same money to build most of the Mars ship prototype! This justification for the ISS is weak by any measure. We would get to test ALL the systems that way, in their integrated form, to boot.
"if you don't learn to work with it then you'll just have the same trouble on Mars. Now tell me, how do you expect to survive trouble on another planet that requires 14 months for the return launch window and 6 month transit back home?"
Again, more weak arguments... the ISS is a stupid frankenstein of SS Freedom/Mir-II parts, half of it left over bits and pieces, jerry rigged all over the place, a decade in piecemeal construction, barely kept running for years with absolute minimal supplies. A Mars ship will be none of these things... it will be built in a single piece on Earth, brand new, and from a much more diciplined design process. The whole vehicle throughly tested in Cis-Lunar space prior to use unlike ISS... In short, nothing like the ISS. The comparison is without merit.
Edit: Oh, and taking a page from Bob's book, we could send an extra ERV to Mars orbit incase one fails, and perhaps station a fully fueled MAV (no rover, reactor, ISRU) in Mars orbit to rendezvous with a stranded DRM crew.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
Lets see what Mike Griffin decides. September is not that far away.
Don't forget, this thread started because Keith Cowing says Griffin intends to analyze these options.
Give someone a sufficient [b][i]why[/i][/b] and they can endure just about any [b][i]how[/i][/b]
Offline
Like button can go here
Quite possibly this is more in tune with this topics discusion:
While the title is miss leading A vision for commercialization it does mention the process of Lunar Recon orbiter and the eventual flight of man sometime in 2018.
Inaddition some other interseting items to note.
Shank said that NASA looked at using existing EELV vehicles to support lunar missions, but that nine EELV launches would be needed for a single manned lunar expedition.
In his presentation by the DOD, Shank didn’t say what kind of heavy-lift vehicle NASA preferred to develop. However, his slides featured illustrations of both CEV and heavy-lift launch vehicles that closely resembled some of the shuttle-derived approaches advocated in recent months.
One issue that remains is getting the Defense Department to agree to a shuttle-derived vehicle: the space transportation policy announced at the beginning of the year requires NASA and the DoD to submit a joint recommendation to NASA. Shank, though, suggested that the DoD was amenable to a shuttle-derived approach.
Offline
Like button can go here
In case someone from Mike Griffin's office is reading this thread, let me throw out another option. Instead of carrying SPACEHAB on flight C2.2, carry the U.S. Habitation module. That would permit 1 flight of the orbiter with MPLM before fiscal year end in October 2006. Instead of carrying half of an MPLM mission and asking ESA to carry the other half in ATV, it would carry all of it. That would reduce the number of ATV flights from 3 to 2, while maintaining 4 orbiter flights in fiscal year 2007. However, that depends upon carrying both the U.S. Habitation module and the Extended Duration Orbiter Pallet in the cargo bay at once.
Offline
Like button can go here
No, the whole basis of this manifest is to launch Shuttle-C from one pad and Shuttle orbiter from the other pad exactly 1 day later. Earth's rotation will bring the launch center under the orbit of ISS in that 1 day. The purpose of this is to use the heavy lift capability of Shuttle-C to carry a lot of cargo with the Arm, maneouvring thrusters and astronauts of the orbiter. That's why I call it a combination flight: part 1 is Shuttle-C, part 2 is the orbiter.
Suspending orbiter operation is not an option because Shuttle-C is dependant upon the orbiter to deploy its cargo. These must work together.
Ok, I got your system now.
First off, get the hardest part out of the way first. Launch the orbiter first. Otherwise we run the risk of launching the C, only to have the Shuttle delayed, leaving the C to a very uncertain fate.
Second, since launching the Shuttle is by far the most delicate part of all this, I'd pack as much into a single launch as possible. Sending the Orbiter first, give it a couple day to do its heat shield scans, and launch the first C. Then send up the second C as soon as possible. Obviously the Shuttle fuel tanks have time limits on them. But I think we can keep it under 5 weeks. Then you could put the Node 3 and US HAB in the Orbiter bay, and possible get it done in two orbiter launches. If Griffen is allowed to take a risk this September, and get the C up in 2 years we can finish the ISS in 2008. 2008. That might even be in time for the final Shuttle mission to be a combination of the SM4/SM5 Hubble service mission. Needlessly expensive maybe, but a PR coup to be sure. Nothing will get the VSE kicked off better than having everyone feeling all warm and fuzzy inside to start out. And perhaps most importantly, that burst of productivity will prove once and for all that we can do great things even with a burocratic white elephant like the Shuttle. Imagine what else we can do.
Finally, there’s no way to get the C operational that quick, no matter what funding it gets. The best way to do it is to complete the return to flight requirements, and dump as much Shuttle funds into the C as possible for a couple years, since the C is no good without the Shuttle, and the Shuttle isn't going to get far without the C.
But overall, I think its a good plan. We can get done a full two years early, and have a decent medium/heavy lifter right out of the VSE gate.
"Yes, I was going to give this astronaut selection my best shot, I was determined when the NASA proctologist looked up my ass, he would see pipes so dazzling he would ask the nurse to get his sunglasses."
---Shuttle Astronaut Mike Mullane
Offline
Like button can go here
"That was then, this is now. Money is already spent so destroying it will not save anything. The only logical solution is to complete it quickly... That means the long duration life support system for Mars must be tested in LEO where failure means dumping out back to Earth. Testing a long duration life support system for 26 months or more means a space station. Scrapping this station just to build another would cost a hell of a lot more."
On the contrary, ending our involvement with ISS and Shuttle would save tens of billions of dollars over their respective remaining lifetimes! Thats real money, money that could go to further the cause of human expansion into space... wasted... and for what?
I agree. Shocking!
At least we would have an HLLV if Shuttle and ISS were to die.
Offline
Like button can go here
Magnum is not compatible with recoverable anything. The recoverable engine pod makes Shuttle-C more cost effective than Magnum for LEO operations. The OMS and RCS pods make it ideal for fine manoeuvring like ISS assembly or other LEO assembly. Magnum is fine for direct throw, but not at all optimum for LEO work.
Yes, Shuttle-C has lower development cost and can use existing launch pads and MLP. The only change from orbiter to Shuttle-C is addition of support struts for the engine pod instead of wing supports. Those struts could be bolted on, making the MLP usable for the orbiter or SDV.
Now tell me seriously, is magnum with upper stage really any better than Ares?
::Edit:: And why would it take multiple years to develop a Shuttle-C with the exact same engines, exact same performance, and almost exact same tortional stress as the Space shuttle orbiter? Aerodynamics will be a bit different due to lack of wings or tail, but it wouldn't require redesigning the ET. As Mike Griffin said, the orbiter is an extremely heavy fairing. If you replace that fairing with a light one, why would it take multiple years?
Finishing the space station:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/571/1
an essential part of the Vision
Delta heavy for ISS ?
http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2190
Offline
Like button can go here
This topic has been in more recent threads... to recap:
-ISS payloads are either loose bits, or designed to be pulled from the side, not pushed from the end. This means a Shuttle cargo bay analouge "cradle" will be needed to lift the parts, which will be quite heavy.
-No payload can rendezvous nor safely approach the ISS without a fairly complex guidence system, which doesn't exsist. Said system has to be smart enough to abort on its own, and accurate enough to come to an essentially complete stop for the ISS arm to grapple. A tug might be best suited to this purpose
There is also the possibility that the tug would require a robot arm, as the ISS's own arm might be unable to handle some of the componets, since the designers assumed Shuttle's arm would be available.
-The "cradle," tug or no tug, will still need rudimentary power, attitude control, and telemetry because orbiting objects can enter a spin naturally from gravitational effects, and docking with a spinning object is essentially impossible.
If you add up the mass of the payload and the cradle, it will probobly exceed the capacity of the stock Delta-IV HLV or the new CLV.
NASA might be able to work around all these issues - eventually - so flying Shuttle is a the quicker and probobly more reliable solution, particularly since the ISS has probobly less then ten years of life left in it.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
If you add up the mass of the payload and the cradle, it will probobly exceed the capacity of the stock Delta-IV HLV or the new CLV.
NASA might be able to work around all these issues - eventually - so flying Shuttle is a the quicker and probobly more reliable solution, particularly since the ISS has probobly less then ten years of life left in it.
That pretty well sums it up.
Offline
Like button can go here
How much would it cost to just let the ISS burn up and when needed build a new with bigger modules and launched by a heavy lift launch vehicle and built in the right orbit? I no some nations spent a lot on building the ISS modules but I don’t understand why they are so expensive.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
The cost to destroy the ISS?
-Financially: -$35,000,000,000.00 or more (negative)
-Politically: international fallout with Europe, Russia, Japan. Some domestic fallout, used as a canard against Bush to rally internationalist Americans.
Why do we need a space station to do research? Unmanned research vehicles could do the job so much better. Build the X-37, stick an ISS science rack in it, and put it on top of Delta-IV. Fly it around for a few months, land it at the Cape'. Repeat.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here
The cost to destroy the ISS?
-Financially: -$35,000,000,000.00 or more (negative)
-Politically: international fallout with Europe, Russia, Japan. Some domestic fallout, used as a canard against Bush to rally internationalist Americans.Why do we need a space station to do research? Unmanned research vehicles could do the job so much better. Build the X-37, stick an ISS science rack in it, and put it on top of Delta-IV. Fly it around for a few months, land it at the Cape'. Repeat.
An X-37 might do a better job as astronauts bouncing around a space station create more acceleration then is desired in some zero g experiments.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
Finally Bush gets it and speaks out:
"And quite frankly I want to see Americans and our international friends in orbit sooner rather than later. And more importantly I want to see them in an all America rig and not some spam can from Russia that any tourist with a spare $20 million dollars can hitch a ride in.
[color=darkred]Let's go to Mars and far beyond - triple NASA's budget ![/color] [url=irc://freenode#space] #space channel !! [/url] [url=http://www.youtube.com/user/c1cl0ps] - videos !!![/url]
Offline
Like button can go here
The cost to destroy the ISS?
-Financially: -$35,000,000,000.00 or more (negative)
-Politically: international fallout with Europe, Russia, Japan. Some domestic fallout, used as a canard against Bush to rally internationalist Americans.Why do we need a space station to do research? Unmanned research vehicles could do the job so much better. Build the X-37, stick an ISS science rack in it, and put it on top of Delta-IV. Fly it around for a few months, land it at the Cape'. Repeat.
An X-37 might do a better job as astronauts bouncing around a space station create more acceleration then is desired in some zero g experiments.
This is more true then you think
One of the things you would first notice as a resident or visitor on the ISS is the noise, that the life support and cooling hardware inside the closed vessel is signifigant and continuous. And with that noise, comes vibration, which screws up many experiments. Those fancy crystal growth things that only work in zero-G won't work in vibration either.
Among other things... the ISS is filthy inside compared to a clean room, so just how much can an astronaut do? They can't do any experiment that is sensitive to contamination (which pretty much covers all of them: high-purity crystals, bacteria, animals infecting astronauts) except with a glove box, which is this tiny little thing that doesn't work right - and only one person can use at a time - in the US lab. I'm still wondering how you get experiments in and out of it without contaminating the interior either. How much of each experiment rack is wasted with a built-in glove box? And why do you need astronauts for those sealed "black box" experiments?
So, what exactly do we have astronauts up there for again? The vast majority of the stations' volume, its mass, its power & cooling requirements, its bulk, and its cost exsist only to support this crew, so why do we have it again? To test long-term zero-g exposure and life support gear for Mars missions?
NASA is probobly going to spend somewhere between $40-50Bn or more on the ISS between now and the ~2017 mission end date, about half of which will be tied up with actual construction and maintenance rather then crew/supplies. That leaves $20-25Bn, which if you put that into - say - building a NASA DRM-III HAB module instead, you could kill two birds with one stone: put the prototype HAB into Earth orbit and use it as a research station. The HLLV rocket could put it into a high Earth orbit, and the CEV with Earth/Moon return fuel could perhaps reach it too, so you could study the all important question. We know, more or less, that the gravity is not a show-stopping problem, pretty sure but not completly sure, but the cosmic radiation is the question mark. How much shielding is enough? Do our estimates hold? ...Lets go find out. And then stick the thing on the front of a stretch EDS stage the year after and go to Mars.
Edit: Oh, and you could use the DRM-III hab for a Lunar base module too: stretch its made-for-Mars lander or stick it on a cargo LSAM and put it on the maximal Lunar SDV. I wonder if everybody has been forgetting this when listing the bennefits/drawbacks of a Lunar base.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Like button can go here