Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

samy · 2006-10-15 08:59:34

After a lot of thinking, I have come to believe that the realistic (as opposed to idealistic) model will have to feature at least one self-sufficient biosphere space station before Earth will consider colonizing any other celestial body. ISS was a baby step, now it's time for a bigger project, a Stanford torus or an O'Neill cylinder for hundreds or (unlikely) thousands of people, and I do believe this intermediate step is practically mandatory before we can realistically push for Mars colonies or any other colonies.

And even prior to that step, we really do need to get 100% biosphere recycling right. I'm honestly quite astonished that we don't have *dozens* of Biosphere 2 -type projects going on right now (and if we do, that they aren't being publicized enough). The most important concern in colonizing off-Earth (whether space or planetary bodies) is being able to recycle the biosphere indefinitely. We can practice that here, on Earth, in closed systems, but I'm seeing very little progress in that direction. ISS requires resupplying. We will be forever limited to Earth until we actually do the first closed environment that *doesn't* require resupplying like ISS does. Even Biosphere 2 needed resupplying 1 year into the mission. What are we going to do if a Mars colony requires resupplying 1 year into the mission and our next launch window is a year away? Let them suffocate there?

No, we need to solidly, conclusively estabilish that we *can* build a fully closed, 100% recycling biosphere, indefinitely. We, humans, *have not accomplished this yet*. Until we do, our dreams of colonization are ashes.

cjchandler · 2006-10-15 10:45:26

I'm not sure that re-creating the biosphere is possible on a small scale, or if it is it's probably not going to be practical. However, I went on a tour of Biosphere 2 and the thing that sunk it was the bacteria that grew on the foundations while it was half built, that shouldn't be such a large problem in space . In all probablity though it won't be that simple to get rid of the foundation bateria. The one thing that struck me when i was there though was that though the land based ecosystem failed misserably and the people were barely scraping by, the little "ocean" worked fantastic. It wasn't highly productive, but the fish hadn't been fed in 10 odd years. So, as far as space goes, I woúldn't try to recreate the whole ecosystem. It's too hard. I'd just have a whole wack of shallow ponds with lighting, plancton, and some catfish if people don't like the all alge diet. It's easy to add the nessisary trace elements to the water as nessisary, unlike soil, and quite a few of those extra ellements could be mined from the asteroids and the moon. Perhaps we will never have a completly closed cycle, but one that can be resupllied easily from the surrounding resoures is almost as good.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-15 12:41:55

Here are a few small scale, bioshere like projects:
Advanced Life Support - Johnson Space Center - NASA
closed ecological life support system (CELSS) - International Space Exploration and Colonization Co. - Fairbanks, Alaska
Arthur Clark Greenhouse - Devon Island - Haughton Mars Project/NASA/CSA/Mars Institute/SETI Institute
Mars Dessert Research Station - Mars Society - Utah
Faerie Hill Ecoark - CELSS test bed - Faerie Hill Farm

dicktice · 2006-10-15 14:36:38

No. Tom: I only meant that the next step should be travelling within the confines of Cis-Lunar space: between Earth and the Moon. By one or more space stations, I meant that we shouldn't imagine the ISS will be adequate once we learn how to survive and work in LEO. The number of orbital "waystations" around Earth and Moon will multiply, it seems to me, once we have done that.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-15 19:34:02

Problems on the cash flow for shuttle use again and its not as previously indicated when we had the initial return to flight cost put in to the picture.
NASA may have to change launch dates for some space shuttle missions due to money issues.

Internal documents obtained by News 13 show the space shuttle program manager says the launch schedule does not match the budget.
NASA is considering delaying launches until the next fiscal year so it can pay for them.
The issue mainly concerns next year’s launches.

Article also indicated hardware thruster engine issue for remaining flights.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 00:46:03

No. Tom: I only meant that the next step should be travelling within the confines of Cis-Lunar space: between Earth and the Moon. By one or more space stations, I meant that we shouldn't imagine the ISS will be adequate once we learn how to survive and work in LEO. The number of orbital "waystations" around Earth and Moon will multiply, it seems to me, once we have done that.

Why should this be something NASA's doing? Private Enterprise should be constructing the Space Stations and building the next generation Shuttle. Government has had a rather poor track record in doing this, the ISS is way over budget. The main thing is what the space station is supposed to be doing? The main thing is that a space station doesn't need to be self-sufficient if it is always orbiting Earth, as it always can be resupplied, and it is always more economical to do so. If you build a self-sufficient space station, you might as well have it go somewhere interesting rather than endlessly circle the Earth. There is the space Hotel business for example. You know by now that I love prizes. NASA could put up prizes for the first 3 space hotels for example. The prizes will recoup the construction and development costs, or at least some of them afterwards, the companies that run them will have to find someway to make them profitable. Prizes can induce other companies to build economical orbital vehicles that can ferry passengers between Earth and the Space hotels, and once that is established, the companies will have to find someway to operate them economically, and if they did their vehicle development right, they should be able to do that. On the other hand, I'm not going to live forever, I'd like to see men walk Mars in my lifetime, if nothing else it will be a great morale booster. The key to colonizing Mars however is to reduce space trasportation costs. Encouraging the development of space hotels and orbital vehicles by private industry will help this along. What NASA has been doing up to now sure hasn't helped much.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-16 06:38:00

Private industry has no desire at this time since there is no profit to be made. They only see the expense of putting forth an effort. Sure they could build anything but with no financial backer to pay for it they will not do it on there own. Gone are the days of volunteering to go beyound if you have the capability.
Prime examples are with both Lockheed and Boeing neither of which will construct a capsule capable of being launched on there own respective rockets without a contract to pay for its developement, construction and use for there is no one capable of paying for it other than the government, Nasa and Military.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 08:47:16

Here we go round again. I keep on saying that government provides the profit and private companies go after it. Government can put up a prize for a profitably operated space hotel. If a space hotel company can generate a profit, any kind of profit whatsoever, it would be awarded a prize if it can do so ahead of its compeditors, and those that lose, well they still get to keep their profits if any.

Just because government pays for something doesn't mean it has to run the project. The problem is, when ever you think of a government program, you think of government workers getting paid government salaries with benefits doing what the government wants. The government gives every detail about what sort of space station it wants to build, and specifies every nut and bolt, says what the space station is made out of, how it is launched, and how it is put together. What I'd much rather have, is the government giving a broad outline of what it wants and private companies filling in the details as economically as possible to maximize their profits. The way government does things, doesn't work, or haven't you noticed? Why is the ISS still under construction? Shouldn't it have been finished by now? I'll bet if a private corporation were building it instead, it would have been finished by now. I have lost faith in these government programs after 22 years of spinning their wheels and not accomplishing much. Why do you want more of the same?

dicktice · 2006-10-16 09:05:41

Tom: Well, since NASA was instrumental in putting up the ISS in the first place, they should see it through before handing it off to, (say) a strictly operating agency or company. With our first space station up and running (nice turn of phrase for not shutting it down) and the existing Space Shuttle plus Soyuz transportation systems supporting it, the experience by all and sundry in orbit will feed the on-going planning and development on the ground towards follow-on space survival and in-orbit working solutions. Government is of course necessary to control the traffic, so to speak, internationally especially. Also needed to prevent piracy by rougue nations. The poor track record and over-budget criticism is pretty unfair, regarding the ISS, when you consider its historical beginnings. I think that budgeting something absolutely new and untried is pretty laughable even as I realize such has to be done in order for everyone to be paid to do the work, and I'm aware that much unpaid work went into it just because without that it never would have happened--and the Russians would be selling the knowledge gained from Mir II to everyone else. You're right, LEO space staions don't need to be self-sufficient, but they provide the only radiation friendly, free fall environment in which to test self-contained habitats in preparation for space travel. Economy always gets in the way of your arguments for and against. Why? The example of the current war, in which what has to be done gets financed regardless of whether it's "over budget" is one horrible example of the flimsiness of this argument. Sorry for that, since once for-profit space enterprise gets going for-profit enterprise in space will be cost driven. My argument began when every other post seemed to be denegrating the ISS without offering any alternative for situating the necessary experience-gaining personnel in space. That's the Russian way, and if we can't do them one better our way, then maybe they've found to right way to progress and we should proceed to build on that instead of always trying to start all over again as if we were all going to live forever, eh?

SpaceNut · 2006-10-16 09:43:14

Tom the method of show me you can did it before you get the money will only work for those that have that amount plus in order for them to go after it. In other woulds they do not need the money but are planning on interest after its maden voyage. The old atage that you got to have money to make money.

What works for Russia is gradual change of what works and addapting it to make it work as dicktice put it

they've found to right way to progress and we should proceed to build on that instead of always trying to start all over again as if we were all going to live forever, eh?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-16 10:03:39

The Space Program has been gradual enough for the last 40 years, and we haven't gotten anywhere.

Let me correct that. We've gotten to the Moon in the first 3 years after 1967 and then for the next 37 years we didn't go anywhere else. I think we are capable of doing much more than we have been doing since Apollo. The Soviets haven't been the most brilliant compeditors, all the did was build space stations in low earth orbit, and as long as we pulled into ourselves and smoked the weed, they didn't have to do much more than that to show they're better than us. In the late 1970s were were in our post Macho phase, and we didn't mind getting beaten by the Soviets. We elected Jimmy Carter after all. Now we Americans want to be compedative once again. I don't care what those long haired, weed smoking "girlie men" once wanted, their time as come and gone, now its our turn.

RedStreak · 2006-10-16 16:49:44

Heck of a way to put it Tom...

dicktice · 2006-10-16 18:38:42

"I don't care what those long haired, weed smoking "girlie men" once wanted, their time as come and gone, now its our turn." What, precisely, has that utterance got to do with anything we've been discussing up to now. Please ellucidate, Tom, if you want to continue the thread....

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-17 09:07:57

I lived through the 1970s as a child, it wasn't my favorite decade. Through the 1960s our space program took off from Mercury to Apollo. We were hypercompeditive through most of the 1960s until 1968, which was fashinably called the turning point of the Vietnam War, then some girlie men decided it was time not to win the War. Also at that time some people in some liberal party I shall not name decided thet we should not be competing in the space race any more. Momentum carried us to the Moon, but the budget cuts started happening that year. All the girlie men started chipping away at NASA's budget, and slowly having beaten the Soviets to the Moon, the Girlie men took charge in Congress and chipped away at the budget, while the Soviets continued to orbit their space stations. After 1975 we dropped out of the manned space program entirely, and pursued this thing called the Shuttle with smaller and smaller budgets, that was the age when the girlie men ran things, we shied away from cometing with the Soviets and we let them beat us, it was the age of the "post macho man", with long hair and ear rings.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-17 11:27:54

Richard Nixon was elected on a platform of a secret program to end the Vietnam War quickly. It turned out that plan was to raid NASA's budget, hand the money to the military. He told NASA and the military they can't both have a shuttle, they must share or the both get nothing, and the shuttle has to be cut down to fit space budget cuts. Richard Nixon was Republican; I don't know anyone who accused the Republican party of being liberal. Richard Nixon was president January 20, 1969 to August 9, 1974.

Before Nixon the plan was to build a fully reusable, two-stage-to-orbit shuttle with piloted fly-back booster, no solid rockets, and a lifting body orbiter. This would lift 11,340kg of cargo to supply a space station at 400km orbit and 50° inclination. The station itself would be built of large modules based on Skylab, launched with Saturn 1B rockets. The shuttle wouldn't launch station modules themselves.

When NASA's budget was slashed further, but the shuttle experienced budget overruns, NASA administration was worried they would end up with no manned spaceflight capability at all. Remember the Johnson Space Center was built as a campus on land rented from Rice University at $1 per year. This was a fall-back feature from the beginning; if manned spaceflight was cancelled then JSC would become a university. To ensure manned spaceflight wasn't lost, the NASA administrator used a military technique from ancient history. When Julius Caesar invaded Britain round 55 B.C. he ordered his men to burn the ships. Cortez did that in Mexico in 1519. NASA did this by chopping up Saturn V mobile launchers, converting them into Shuttle mobile launch platforms. The last Saturn V rockets were taken out of the vehicle assembly building and left in fields as museum displays, left to rust in the rain. Interstages (connecting bits between stages) were removed and used as storage sheds.

Gerald Ford was president from August 9, 1974 to January 20, 1977; also Republican. John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson were president 1961-1963 and 1963-1969 respectively; both Democrat. So who are these "girlie men"?

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-17 12:41:09

Richard Nixon was not quite the conservative, it todays terms he would be called a moderate, his economic policy certainly wasn't conservative, he introduced legislation to ration gasoline for instance, instead of letting the market forces do their thing during the oil shock. The Conservatives were only starting their rise to power in the Republican Party at this time, but they had not reached the top yet. While the Republican Party was moving to the right, but had not quite goten there yet, the Democratic Party was moving to the left and had not quite goten there yet either. John F. Kennedy wasn't all that liberal by the modern definition of the term. J.F.K. was a patriot, he fought in World War II, and he believed the US was going somewhere and had a mission, and he believed in the space program, Lyndon B Johnson was also a moderate, he belived in winning the Vietnam War, and it was during his Administration that the hard left took over his party and turned on him. Bobby Kennedy was the first, he campaigned on an anti-war platform, his attitude was to use the war to get elected rather than win it, he was shot by a terrorist and died, and then this other non-entity campaigned on an antiwar platform and Nixon won by default. Both Parties were in the middle at this time. Nixon screwed up with some dirty dealings and then the Democrats painted the whole Republican party with a broad brush, thus winning the 1974 election in Congress, and that was when funds were cut in the War effort. Gerold Ford became President when Richard Nixon resigned, but with a Democratic Congress, he really had no influence over the Budget process, he could only approve or veto the budget, so the ones really responsible for cutting NASA's budget were the Democrats. Ford had one last Apollo/Soyuz mission, and that was it for US Manned space activities for the rest of the 1970s. Ford was not elected, he simply continued Nixons final term in office and then Jimmy Carter got elected in 1976. Jimmy Carter rose with the New Left tide in congress, and that was the first time that America got a good look at the New Left Policies, always appologetic about being American and trying not too hard to show the world what a great nation we were. Jimmy Carter did little, he talked about the sacrifices the American people must make, how we should turn down our thermostats and wear sweaters, and perceiving weakness, the Iraninan Students took over the US Embassy in Iran. Jimmy Carter and his Democrats in Congress did nothing for manned space activities, basically all he did was keep the Shuttle Program on life support and that was it. There were tremendous fights in Congress about whether to continue the manned space program whatsoever, and barely by skin of the teeth votes the Shuttle Program was continued, which by this time was the only game in town. The feeling back then was that we didn't need to beat our chests, and that the space race was immature, and all the money spend on the space program could be spent elsewhere to aleviate poverty. So much was being spent on poverty, and the little bit NASA had at this time would not have made that much of a difference. Sure you can site thousands of homes that could be built, but when you compare it with the big picture, so much was already being spent on Welfare, that this little bit extra would not have made that much of a difference.

The Space Program got turned around when Reagan came to office, but so much was done in the Post Apollo era, and Reagan had other priorities in closing the missile gap and building up the military, that NASA was sideline, and only given intermittent attention. There was the NASP (National Areospace Program) involving research on scramjets, but all it was and still is is research, no space vehicle was ever built. Also too was the Space Station Freedom, which was intitially estimated at $8 billion, and all the Democrats kept on looking at it as a piggy bank and a container to hold that $8 billion to spend on other pork barrel projects. Republicans in congress had to fight this off and save what they could to keep the Space Station going. OF course fighting every year, forced endless redesigns to reflect varying budgets, and it ultimately made it more expensive. The Shuttle got going during the Reagan Administration though and manned space activity resumed.

George Bush did more of the same, more shuttle flights, launched some satellites, then the Challenger Tragedy happened, and in its wake, new attention to the space program occured and the Space Initiative was launched to send men to the Moon, and Mars, build space stations, and try out a whole host of new things to settle the Solar System. Congress, being still filled with Democrats who got elected in 1974 naturally balked as was their nature when enountering Grandeose projects that would make Americans feel good about themselves.

Then came Clinton, he cancelled NASP, and SDI, and continued the Space Station program only on the condition that it was renamed and no longer called Freedom, and that we brought the Russian on board. The Space Exploration Initiative was cancelled and only the Space Station was continued.

George W. Bush took a while to get going, having to deal with terrorists in 2001 for instance, but eventually the Manned Moon and Mars programs wee given approval under a Republican Congress, and now its finally building momentum, having gotten the Shuttle out of the Way. Project Constellation basically is the Space Program right now. Old Democrats like JFK and LBJ are dead, their are a few holdovers from those times, but the Democratic Party most mostly filled with the New Anti War Left right now. I think if they get elected to congress, the people in the Mars Society will be very sorry they got there, they aren't the John F. Kennedy Party any more.

dicktice · 2006-10-17 18:55:06

Congratulations, Tom: Unless I'm not mistaken, there wasn't a singlet reference to "girly men" in the entire last tirade! Robert Dyke's history is exactly as I remember it. Your points are a little too politically oriented for me to swallow without wincing when you write about "moderates" and "liberals" and "conservatives." All meaningless to the engineers up to their necks trying to keep up with the imperatives foisted upon them by the Race to the Moon. It was great drama, though, but as I wrote earlier, Vikings to Vineland.... As to "girly men," isn't that what Arnold Whatzisname coined? Correct me if I'm wrong. You wrote "... having got the Shuttle out of the way." Wrong: The two Canadian manipulation arms have enabled the Space Shuttle to live on and, barring any further political interference, complete the International Space Sation. It matters not if you don't like it, but that's how it's going to happen. And nobody but the engineers, astronauts and cosmonauts, etc., now in training for each on-going mission are gonna make it happen. So, Tom ... that was then, this is now, and the future is yours to make better, kid.

Tom Kalbfus · 2006-10-18 08:28:55

Congratulations, Tom: Unless I'm not mistaken, there wasn't a singlet reference to "girly men" in the entire last tirade! Robert Dyke's history is exactly as I remember it. Your points are a little too politically oriented for me to swallow without wincing when you write about "moderates" and "liberals" and "conservatives." All meaningless to the engineers up to their necks trying to keep up with the imperitives foisted upon them by the Race to the Moon.

Engineers wondered what happened to their work after Apollo. Being up to their necks in imperatives foisted upon then by the race to the Moon, doesn't mean they shouldn't keep an eye open on their future source of employment, namely politics and the government. If they don't care whether liberals or conservatives get elected and the liberals take power and cut the programs which employ them, they are twice the fool. There has been a definite anit-space bias among the liberals.

It was great drama, though, but as I wrote earlier, Vikings to Vineland.... As to "girly men," isn't that what Arnold Whatzisname coined? Correct me if I'm wrong. You wrote "... having got the Shuttle out of the way." Wrong: The two Canadian manipulation arms have enabled the Space Shuttle to live on and, barring any further political interference, complete the International Space Sation. It matters not if you don't like it, but that's how it's going to happen. And nobody but the engineers, astronauts and cosmonauts, etc., now in training for each on-going mission are gonna make it happen. So, Tom ... that was then, this is now, and the future is yours to make better, kid.

The Shuttles are ending as of 2010, the production line of spare parts has stopped.

cjchandler · 2006-10-18 08:57:39

Um, I'm not sure that the one piece of equitment that made the whole shuttle workable was the Canada arm (1 and 2). I'm Canadian too, and proud of it, but you have to admit, any other space organization could build something similar. I think we Canadians have got to get going if only for braging rights. Having the Canada arm as you greatest achivment isn't as cool as some other things, like a rocket booster made in Canada for instance.

dicktice · 2006-10-18 17:05:40

Not my point. Given the impass prior to the last two launches (or three, I forget which was the definitive proving one) every mission had a Russian Roulett aspect due to the impossibility of 100% in-orbit inspection prior to reentry burn. It was the versatility of the original Canadarm, and the just-in-time addition of the extension which made solid mission planning sans the roulette aspect possible. We not only "stood on guard" for the Space Shuttle ... we defended it from the nay sayers who would cancel the whole thing in an instant. Now it's their turn to burn up, eh?

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-18 18:08:44

You make it sound like the Canada arm and minor tank modifications have made Shuttle "all better" and "eliminated" the threat of heat shield damage.

Of course, this is a lie

Pieces of foam perhaps large enough to wreck the heat shield still fall off the tank, as they did on the recent launch of Discovery, and on Discovery's launch last year, and of course on Columbia. Three times in a row, the latter two despite years of work and billions of dollars. Bottom line: the foam problem still exists.

The arm extension with the cameras and whatnot does absolutely nothing to prevent impact damage from occuring. Astronaut repairs don't really help the situation much, its questionable if a suited man can really do much on the end of the extension as it sways about. But I digress, there simply isn't a whole lot an astronaut can do anyway.

NASA engineers are still working on a "shroud" to cover large holes along the leading edges, and presently there is no way to fix damage like what occured to Columbia. None. Even the tile loss on the underside isn't very repairable, only having special ablative caulk for small shedding problems. And if there is tile loss astride a landing gear or fuel port hatch? Hot gasses would destroy the landing gear or wreck the engine compartment... All of this adds up to the loss of a Shuttle.

Now, if you are NASA, and you know there is a big hole in the Shuttle's heat shield that has a questionable repair job that may or may not hold, what do you do? Do you send the astronauts back down in a band-aided ship? If not, then what? So much for the ISS assembly or cargo supply chain, crew transfers, time-sensitive experiments or gyros that desperately need refurbishing.

And what do you do with the bad bird? Since the Shuttle landing gear and control surfaces are hydraulic, and the hydraulic pumps are powerd by the Hydrogen-fueled APUs, then there is a limited time that Shuttle can be stored on orbit before it becomes lost. So, the crew can take refuge on the ISS for a little while, but Shuttle really can't for too long. If a second Shuttle is sortied to retrieve the crew, and that takes longer than the first Shuttle can loiter, then you are down an orbiter too.

No, Shuttle is not "fixed," its barely band-aided well enough to soldier on just long enough for the ISS to get more-or-less done. Its too risky to fly it any more times than are presently planned.

Edit: And this is, of course, on top of all the other things that can go wrong. Atlantis had an SRB burnthrough (nonfatal), Columbia had a bum engine computer, MECO sensors in the fuel tank, and that the thing never was that reliable to begin with.

SpaceNut · 2006-10-18 20:04:02

Here is the last ET contract that I have a reference to NASA extends Shuttle External Tank contract with Lockheed Martin to September 2008

Under the modified contract, the 35 tanks will be produced at a rate of not less than six per year, versus the eight per year agreed upon in the original contract issued in October 2000.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-18 23:45:13

I remember Americans, especially space fans posting on this site, criticizing Mir as a piece of junk. Rather than learning how to work with an existing space station, they wanted to scrap it and build a new one. Now the new station is experiencing problems of its own, none of them exactly the same but the principle of maintaining what you have is the same. You haven't learned? If you scrap the shuttle for a new one, don't you think there will be similar problems? What happens if the new vehicle has a ding in it's heat shield? Don't you think it better to patch the heat shield and get the vehicle down where it can be repaired properly? True a patch is not perfect, but even if it damages more heat shield tiles around the patch, and even if one landing gear is heat stressed so it has to be replaced, the rest of the shuttle is still serviceable.

Most importantly, the ability to inspect and patch a shuttle means a Hubble service mission is now practical. As a principle, a new shuttle may need to service some other space asset. Don't you think it worth while to develop the ability to conduct missions like this?

To be technical rather than partisan/patriotic, a more efficient shuttle inspection tool would be AERCam Spirit or Mini-AERCam. AERCam Sprit may be a bit bulkier, but it flew on December 3, 1997, on STS-87. It's smaller and lighter, better able to inspect. I guess the arm extension provides a work platform for repairs, but as GCNRevenger pointed out its kind of wobbly with the extension. Would a manoeuvring pack work better? Repairs to Skylab required a cable to hold the astronaut down so he could stand and get a good grip on the tree cutter he used to cut a cable, releasing a main solar array. You can do that with a metal hull, not over tiles as fragile as styrofoam. Although AERCam can inspect, you still need the arm to repair.

Examining ET foam has convinced me there is a need for a new vehicle. There is no way to eliminate foam loss without putting a skin over it. I still think a fluoropolymer film would work better than any form of netting, but that would reduce lift capability. It's really time for a new vehicle. I would have preferred a fully reusable shuttle rather than Apollo on steroids. But inspection and patch capability does permit the current vehicle to operate until the next one is available. Call it limping if you must, the bottom line is getting the job done.

GCNRevenger · 2006-10-19 06:20:48

That would be because Mir WAS a piece of junk, and building a new one would (or was supposed to) give us more "bang for the buck" so to speak. Mir design was never that good in the first place, and the Russians tried to prop it up much longer than the should have. The only practical option would be to replace modules, and if you are doing that, you really are just building a new station. No Robert, you haven't learned, still spouting the dogma and doctern of reuseability and proping up bad programs as some sort of objective exsistential, perhaps even moral, imperitive.

Lucky for us, the CEV's heat shield will be safely hidden behind the service module, so the shield won't be a problem. As for a future Shuttle-2.0 or something, the great majority of the shield will be made of metal rather than glass foam, and if RCC panels are used there won't be any foam to threaten them. They will be far stronger than the ones used on Shuttle too I imagine, with advances progressing in Boeing/Darpa's SMV project.

As far as the present Shuttle-1.X goes, no I don't think its a good idea to bring down an orbiter with serious heat shield damage even with a "repair," at least not manned. The chance the repair will fail is an awful risk, and could lead to a repeat of Columbia. I think you misunderstand my criticisms of the repair option, that I am not at all concerned about the expense or difficulty of fixing the thing "right" on the ground, but rather if it even survives reentry at all, and if so in landable condition. Serious tile shedding can make a fatal hotspot and melt the aluminum understructure if the "space glue" doesn't hold, or we might get Columbia over again if the RCC shroud falls off, and "heat stressing" the landing gear with a knife-edge of superheated plasma would destroy the tires/hydraulics/hatch opening mechanism too. The Shuttle is a fragile bird.

I am still a little skeptical if its practical to even try such a repair with the Shuttle arm extension, no a jet pack would be very practical I don't think. You need the ability to apply continuous pressure against a surface, which you don't really get with a jet pack.

Makes a Hubble repair practical? No, not it doesn't, not unless NASA is willing to bring a crew back down with a heat shield patched with suped-up bathroom caulk or whatnot. Still the fact remains, as far as science-per-dollar, Hubble is still a bad deal even irrespective of the risk to the crew and bumping another ISS flight before 2010. The same goes for other repairs that Shuttle could do, that there isn't anything up there that wouldn't be cheaper, better, and safer to just replace so no I don't think we need this capability.

Ah yes, so we have to keep the ISS and "learn how to deal with it because we should learn how to deal with things" but in the case of Shuttle we should throw it away and build something new because the foam problem isn't practical to fix? Anyway, a fully reuseable Shuttle doesn't make much sense until there is a place to fly it to, and there won't be any good reason to have a space station until we have a base on Mars and want to begin regular flights there or else we're ready to explore the outer planets. Or at least not until we want high flight rate Lunar transport.

The NASA budget the way it is basically means that there will be no new vehicle until some time after Shuttle is gone, when its monies can be freed up to complete development and infrastructure modifications.

RobertDyck · 2006-10-19 09:16:42

I think it would have been better to replace the core module of Mir, de-orbit the damaged module and live without it. Although the core module was 14 years old, the remaining modules were 4 to 5 years old. Russia built 2 additional copies of the core module, one intended for Mir-2 and the other a backup. One is now called the Service module on ISS, the other is in a warehouse in Russia. Mir Corp. was a commercial corporation of American and European businessmen willing to rent Mir for commercial profit. Russia should have let them. It was a colossal waste of money (rubles) to destroy it. However, you miss one more thing: I would have preferred America not build ISS. Instead live with Mir and go to Mars.

NASA's plan in 1968/69 was to build a temporary 7-crew space station that would last about a decade before it was de-orbited. Then it would build a permanent 50-crew space station. So far NASA has demonstrated it can't even finish the little one. This is not good, not good at all.

Start regular trips to Mars and/or frequent trips to the Moon? Ok, I'm all for that.

I have recommended various means to complete ISS with fewer if any Shuttle flights, retiring the Shuttle early. The reason isn't that it's impractical to fix, the reason is the cost is unreasonably, prohibitively high. Yes, I still think a fluoropolymer film skin could be added to the external tank to make it safe. However, NASA now addresses that exact modification on one of their websites. They say it would take too much work, that it isn't worth it for the number of flights the Shuttle has before it's retired. From my one experience bidding on a Shuttle contract the costs are not due to anything technical, but rather who is managing the contract. A Shuttle replacement cannot be managed by United Space Alliance or you'll have the same cost problems.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#276 2006-10-15 08:59:34

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#277 2006-10-15 10:45:26

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#278 2006-10-15 12:41:55

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#279 2006-10-15 14:36:38

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#280 2006-10-15 19:34:02

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#281 2006-10-16 00:46:03

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#282 2006-10-16 06:38:00

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#283 2006-10-16 08:47:16

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#284 2006-10-16 09:05:41

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#285 2006-10-16 09:43:14

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#286 2006-10-16 10:03:39

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#287 2006-10-16 16:49:44

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#288 2006-10-16 18:38:42

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#289 2006-10-17 09:07:57

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#290 2006-10-17 11:27:54

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#291 2006-10-17 12:41:09

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#292 2006-10-17 18:55:06

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#293 2006-10-18 08:28:55

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#294 2006-10-18 08:57:39

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#295 2006-10-18 17:05:40

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#296 2006-10-18 18:08:44

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#297 2006-10-18 20:04:02

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#298 2006-10-18 23:45:13

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#299 2006-10-19 06:20:48

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

#300 2006-10-19 09:16:42

Re: Nasa Shuttle, ISS Woes & To-Mars

Board footer