Re: An alternative to Orion/Constellation?

"Jeff Findley" <jeff.findley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"David Spain" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:88GdnZ3vC-NLfm3UnZ2dnUVZ_vmdnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Such a vehicle would be much more expensive to develop than Orion.

Shuttle costs got out of control when we decided to make it big enough
to carry a significant payload other than people [1].

One of the biggest problems with the shuttle is complexity. Making
it smaller wouldn't have made it (much) less complex. Some things could
have been cheaper (i.e. TPS due to smaller surface area and fewer tiles),
but other things would remain the same in terms of complexity (life
support, crew cabin, computers, control surfaces, windows, and etc).

Many people also forget *why* the Shuttle grew like it did. Once the
unmanned heavy lift launcher was removed from the equation, NASA had
little choice. Leaving aside the niggling detail that the heavy lift
never really was in the equation in the first place in the minds of
those paying the bills.

If it were just to ferry people it could have been made a lot smaller
with a lot more launch options which would have improved the economies
of everything.

The economies of everything except actually accomplishing anything
other than limited 'spam in a can' missions. If you're going to LEO
you need a destination - Apollo had to have one provided (Skylab or
Soyuz), while the Shuttle carries it's destination on its own back.

We should be focusing on building what I call a 'traveling space habitat'.
Something on the order of a very small space station that can be sent out
of low Earth orbit (LEO) on orbital exploration missions. First to the
moon, then maybe Venus, and eventually Mars.

Of course, building such a station would be a massively expensive
enterprise - one made even worse by the need to make it survive and
operate in three very different enviroments.

It would be self-sufficient and fully reusable and capable of supporting
a 6 person crew nearly indefinitely.

You (David) have no idea of the vast expense and complexity that
simple sentence implies.

[1] The other reason I remember was the unique ability to 'retrieve'
payload from orbit.
IIRC this was done exactly *once* with a comm sat (whose PAM module
failed to ignite?) and failed to achieve proper orbit. IIRC, the company
that lost the satellite received an insurance payout and the insurer got
back the retrieved satellite which I assume they sold to someone else to
try again? It appears that this once taunted feature of the shuttle was
never really that important.

You forgot LDEF, which was an important thing to retrieve:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LDEF

Not just LDEF. Consider also Spacelab/Spacehab, and the Hubble
restraint/repair facility. There's also the radar experiment that was
modified and reflown. There's also the experiments reflown after the
ATO.

LDEF is the biggie, but there's also the smaller stuff too.

In fact, the argument could be constructed that the most important
thing recovered by the Shuttle - is the Shuttle itself.

[2] No I'm *not* implying that a White Knight could do the job. Only
something new that was designed for a much, much smaller shuttle that
launches from the carrier craft using (expendable) rocket assist with
only OMS pods and wings for return from orbit where it would glide to
a respectable runway landing.

Do the math. Your carrier aircraft is going to have to be really huge for
such a proposal. Note the size of the shuttle ET. You're going to need a
tank almost that size to get your smaller space plane to orbit (no SRB's
means the liquid rocket engines would be doing more of the work).

Many people fail to realize that while WK/SS is an excellent point
solution to what it does - it doesn't scale well at all.

As an aside, I don't for the life of me understand this compulsion to throw
everything out with each new generation of space transport and start over.

When we do this, I'll get back to you.

My whole engineering career in the commercial sector has seen incremental
improvements where technology is refined and refined.

What kind of engineering? I.E. lets compare apples to apples.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

http://derekl1963.livejournal.com/

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: An alternative to Orion/Constellation?
    ... One of the biggest problems with the shuttle is complexity. ... Your cost just went beyond any possible value. ... Note how few air launch systems there are. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: More one NASA management
    ... >scrambling on the outside of the shuttle with just a rope - remember ... in the correct orbit for that. ... when lives are in danger some people belive in trying. ... The cost of having ...
    (sci.crypt)
  • STS-1 DISASTER and COVERUP
    ... and this is my AUDIO LETTER No. 64. ... some two seconds) "...liftoff of America's first Space Shuttle, ... Four days ago on April 23, a news conference about the flight ... The Columbia never even reached earth orbit! ...
    (sci.space.history)
  • STS-1 DISASTER and COVERUP
    ... and this is my AUDIO LETTER No. 64. ... some two seconds) "...liftoff of America's first Space Shuttle, ... Four days ago on April 23, a news conference about the flight ... The Columbia never even reached earth orbit! ...
    (sci.space.policy)
  • Re: shuttle & ISS mistake news article
    ... > Today he was quoted as calling the shuttle and the ISS mistakes. ... > Grail" for reducing the costs of getting to and from orbit. ... > congressional districts, politics, and international relations have ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
Loading