Future man in space/shuttle replacement vehicles

wrote:

Ben Hallert wrote:

The manned craft will obviously have to splash down in the ocean!

Obviously, just like the Soyuz, right?

Oh wait.. Soyuz lands on... well, land. If Rogalo parachutes are
used, no reason these new guys can't land on a runway or the front lawn
at KSC.


Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

I'm not sure I'd characterize the Shuttle Program as a "disaster".
Including the latest, the shuttles have flown 114 missions in a pretty
"grueling" environment. The fact that NASA and contractor engineers and
scientists may have under estimated the rigours and over estimated the
life expectancy of these craft wouldn't be strange given the novel
design considerations and virtual complete lack of experience. I suspect
that it they can fund a replacement design, it will prove to be a
significantly better craft and that they (and we) will have more
realistic expectations...

....Ken

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"AES" wrote

As a follow-on to recent discussions of the shuttle or manned space
exploration in several threads on these two groups, an illustration of
one of NASA's current concepts for future space exploration vehicles is
temporarily available at

http://www.stanford.edu/~siegman/shuttle_replacement.gif

Bring back the Saturn 5-B!
Someone still has the drawings around, I'll bet!
--
Jim in NC

I think I remember reading somewhere that if they wanted to bring back the
Saturn VB, it would take them almost as long to gather back up all the
drawings and schematics as it did to develop the rocket in the first place.

Seems stuff is scattered all to hell and back...throughout NASA, at museums,
etc...

Jay B

nooneimportant wrote:





Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.

--
Cliff



I kind of agree... seems like a capsule program is a step backward... but
then again, isn't it cheaper to build a brand new Saturn V rocket and capsul
for every launch, then it is to refit a "re-usable" shuttle (just pulling
that out outa my rear, but i seem to recall somewhere seeing that building a
SatV in todays dollars is still cheaper than refitting a shuttle)? I still
don't see why a capsule system can't be "re-usable" boosters seperate,
deploy chutes and land, lower stages sep and land, upper stages will likely
be lost, but crew capsul can be reused..... The real downside i see to that
particular system is the need for two vehicles at each launch... cargo and
crew, why not beef up the cargo launch system, and throw the crew cap on top
of it, ship them individually as needed to support the ISS with
crew/supplies.

Frankly I think the ideal way to go would be a single stage to space
aircraft, that can land, get fuel/supplies, and be back in space within a
few days, but i don't see that anytime soon.





If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

Ken Chaddock wrote:

wrote:

Ben Hallert wrote:

The manned craft will obviously have to splash down in the ocean!


Obviously, just like the Soyuz, right?

Oh wait.. Soyuz lands on... well, land. If Rogalo parachutes are
used, no reason these new guys can't land on a runway or the front lawn
at KSC.



Ben, my main point, that you apparently missed, is that NASA
intends to go back to the methods of 40 years ago. But with
the disaster that has been the shuttle program, I guess this
inclination is understandable.


I'm not sure I'd characterize the Shuttle Program as a "disaster".
Including the latest, the shuttles have flown 114 missions in a pretty
"grueling" environment. The fact that NASA and contractor engineers and
scientists may have under estimated the rigours and over estimated the
life expectancy of these craft wouldn't be strange given the novel
design considerations and virtual complete lack of experience. I suspect
that it they can fund a replacement design, it will prove to be a
significantly better craft and that they (and we) will have more
realistic expectations...

...Ken


The disaster is the cost sink that the shuttle has become. Instead of
being a cost efficient means of putting man in space it has been a
severe limitation and a cost sink that has ruined science in space,

mrtravel wrote:
[ about landing on land instead of water ]
The Russians have been doing it for almost 50 years, I doubt the US has
learned the economics of this yet.

Another thing about the Russians... thank goodness they built that
Progress automated supply rocket. With all the shuttle delays the past
few years, their unmanned device has kept the ISS going. So unmanned
is handy sometimes.

OTOH, man is adventurous, and I believe we need the knowledge gained by
sending people into space. Think of it this way: would millions of
people around the world have watched as closely back in 1969, if it
were just a robot setting foot on the moon? No way. The whole point
was sending men to the moon and bringing them back again safely.

I cannot imagine not exploring space at least partly in person. That'd
be like all of us still sitting in Europe while robots roamed North
America since 1492.

Cheers, Kev

That's not entirely accurate. They have all the plans and diagrams
archived centrally, and there are many copies. The problem is that
many of the components were built by suppliers that no longer exist.
It would take a long time to re-engineer the parts, re-certify them and
so on. Need a Framson Mk VI dipolar capacimator in the twenty one volt
variety? Whoops! Nobody makes equivalent stuff anymore, and Framson
went out of business in the 70s. Because of millions of little
examples like this, there would need to be a substantial re-engineering
effort to re-invent thousands of tiny wheels, so the logic is that it's
better to build a heavy lift system with the skills and parts we have
now. Hence, the Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles, one of which is a
heavy lifter that would throw Saturn V class payloads.

Read more he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLV

Ben Hallert
PP-ASEL

"Frank F. Matthews" writ gravenly....


If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

No, if the Congressional pork barrels weren't so deep (and so many) and the
"required " expenditures of the USG so high more funds would be available.
There's no making things "cheaper", but the priorities involved in
allocating the funds necessary. No Congressman would allow NASA's needs to
get in the way of a highway or a subway in his/her district.

We've dithered along now for 20 years spending money on a dead-end "bridge"
program, using all available funds to kerep the current program alive,
subsidize Mir's operations (another "PR in the sky" effort for the Russians
and for us.

In article ,
"Frank F. Matthews" wrote:

If the cost prevents developing a cheap cargo lifter then the space
program will continue to be a disaster.

If costs prevent developing a cheap cargo lifter, then people
will just have to figure out the benefit of space travel.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

"Ben Hallert" wrote

Hence, the Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicles, one of which is a
heavy lifter that would throw Saturn V class payloads.

Read more he
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDLV

Seems a lot of engineering would have to be done to the shuttle's main fuel
tank, to use it as a heavy lifter. The thrust of the shuttle engines are
applied to the mounts on the side of the tank, and the proposed lifter has
them on the bottom end of the tank.

Also, you would need to stage, and get rid of the main tank, (my guess, not
anything I read) so you would need some more engines on the second stage,
and more tankage, right?

I do like the idea, but I'm not so sure it would not be easier to start with
a clean piece of paper, except for a few things like engines, and solid
boosters. Come to think of it, the solid boosters have had their problems
too, right?
--
Jim in NC