Slashdot Mirror
Next Generation Space Shuttles
zymano writes "Popular Science has an article about the next generation space shuttles. If you're wondering about what happened to all those cool ideas for a new shuttle and what happened to them then this story will explain it. Mentions the politics, design, costs and time for a new shuttle." There's some neat images of mockups as well.
As long as the new space shuttles have some modern computers on board (as opposed to the dated ones on the current shuttles) and the re-entry tiles are properly glued on, then the new shuttles will be just spiffy.
...I don't see a saucer-section, or anything of the sort. What kinda 'Next-Generation' is this, anyway?
I swear to God, though, if they make a mock up of this one, call it 'Enterprise', and try to pretend like it was actually made before the first shuttle Enterprise , I'll shoot someone.
Informatus Technologicus
My question is if they need to think out of the box, particularly for the manned portion. I wonder if it might be better to go with the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo-Soyuz technology. Forget wings. Come back on retrorockets and parachutes. Focus the reusable technology on the boosters and other rockets.
is one of the few places where I don't mind seeing my tax money used more often. Its a shame more money can't be dedicated to this field of research. A new reusable space shuttle that dosent require expendable fuel tanks or boosters would be a big benifit.
i cant seem to come up with a sig.
A viable alternative to the shuttle was on the drawing board as far back as the late 1980s. HOTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing), similar in appearance to current generation supersonic aircraft was designed by British rocket veteran Alan Bond.
Unfortunately, as soon as Bond had designed the revolutionary air-breathing engine that the project was based on, it was classified by the British government. Score one for stupid politics. So, perhaps the best rocketry engine designed never got built.
Later, HOTOL variants and derivatives were proposed, including an Anglo-Russian project called Interim HOTOL.
Here are a few related links to check out, most of which contain illustrations of what the orbiter would have looked like:
HOTOL
HOTOL and Interim HOTOL
Wikipedia entry for HOTOL
Google search for "HOTOL"
Of course, HOTOL and HOTOL-derived orbiters are still a viable alternative today. Air-breathing engines seem to be the logical next step.
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I wouldn't exactly call the existing space shuttles "disaster prone".
They've flown for 22 years. Imagine what the mileage is? Somewhere in the millions, maybe even billions.
Only two out of five have failed.
I would only concede the disaster-prone point when considering that the astronauts lives were lost; that's certainly a little more impactful than a bunch of drunken teenagers totalling a car, right? But even then, the shuttles themselves are not disaster-prone; it's just that any slight mishap is instantly promoted to National Disaster and Mourning Period status.
The person's point above, that the shuttle's computers are outdated, is partially true - but they are entirely adequate for running the onboard software. When you're developing a system like the shuttle, you simply cannot use the latest technology. It has to be military-certified for mission critical systems, and it has to go through about two years of testing to acheive that status. That point was made in the article, that once you "freeze" development, that's what you're stuck with.
The shuttles work as they were designed.
The problem is that NASA made them too high-maintenance.
I fully agree with the article's point, that an automated human escape mechanism is required in reusable space flight vehicles. Heck, even Star Trek has escape pods.
Point 1: skylab
Point 2: Islam isn't a superpower; it's a religion that spans a wide variety of implementations; from mild/tolerant to the fanatical.
As a rule of thumb, it doesn't make sense to design a new reusable or semireusable launch vehicle unless you're going to be using it at least 1000 times. Otherwise, the design costs don't get recouped. Realistically this means NASA is going to have to find enough payloads to launch one of these every week or so.
At current launch rates, NASA should stick with expendable vehicles.
Why is so absolutely necessary to have a fleet of reusable space vehicles? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a simpler, cheaper, one-time-use vehicle that can be customized for each mission and then scrapped for parts upon landing? I mean, $500 million per launch is a lot, and reducing complexity and reusability requirements could probably go a long way toward reducing that. Why is "reusable" such a huge buzzword?
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
The current shuttle fleet is silly. In effect, NASA has a fleet of enormous dump trucks that it uses as taxicabs. They should have more than one type of craft - a small safe one for carrying people, and a big honkin' unmanned one for carrying freight.
If in a hundred years time AMD is producing the CPUs for NASA spacecraft, they won't need tiles. They'll need cooling fins instead.
Supporters of the Space program (myself and most other /.-ers i guess )tend to find it hard to believe so little prgress has been made in this field over the last 30 years.
Generally NASA and the lot get blamed for being inefficiate, wasing the money, etc. But as a European I have to make the reflection , if that we're the reason why aren't us European ahead of NASA with ESA, and the Russians even with their money problems . Even That Billion Chinese peolple are quite recently joining...
I think we can only conclude it's NOT as easy as it looks/seems...
(Allthough a bit faster must be possible no ?)
I want one.
It's very simple. What we need are reusable ships with a modest cargo capacity, plus maybe a few "big dumb boosters" for launching big things.
It's also very clear that NASA is not capable, as an organization, of doing this. NASA has some smart people working there, but any really large project will safely bury the smart ones under red tape where they can't do anything. If you want to convert money into piles of paper, have NASA attempt to make a follow-up to the shuttle.
The US government should make iron-clad promises to buy launches. Station re-supply launches for the International Space Station would be a great place to start. If John Carmack's company, or any other company, can get a vehicle going that can run supplies to orbit, the government should hire them to do it. In other words, pay for results but for nothing else, and don't have any part of the government (especially NASA) trying to help design the ships.
steveha
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
More accurately, NASA itself decided to give up on the project. In September 2000, the NASA Advisory Council recommended that X-33 be mothballed, with good reason. Upon its cancellation, the Space Access Society rejoiced, saying "the project was mis-specified, mis-selected, misdesigned, misdeveloped, and mismanaged, and its demise is long overdue." NASA decided to push the decision back to March 2001 on the remote hope that a new administration would give the project some new funding, because NASA itself didn't want to use any of the billions from the Space Launch Initiative (which was precisely designed to pay for such projects) on the doomed, bloated project.
Care to be asshole buddies?
The proposed shuttle looks like Crightons experimental shuttle that can go through worm holes in space.
I keep reading that the National Aerospace Plane was cancelled in 1993 because it was "too soon for the scramjet".
Is that still the case? That was a decade ago, have no other improvements been made? The idea of something that takes off and lands just like a plane still seems very, very appealing.
My suspicion is that this is another one of those cases where the too-early version failed, and now everyone's afraid to try it again.
-Zipwow
I don't know which is more depressing, that 2/3 didn't care enough to vote, or that 1/2 of those that did are crazy.
Well, as clearly stated in the article (hint), the outdated systems on the shuttle is a BIG part of the problem. Each system on the shuttle is autonomous, and requires one or more individuals on the ground to monitor it the entire trip. This results in thousands of people on the ground monitoring these things. Alternatively, if you modernized the equipment, you could DRASTICALLY reduce the people required to monitor the Shuttle while in orbit.
This could save NASA billions in costs. The problem is that NASA wants a new device that is massively better than the shuttle, instead of doing a CBA and get a fleet that is modern, 2-4 times safer, and costs half to operate.
The problem is that NASA won't go with replacement programs until they get a 200-fold safety improvement and a 10-fold cost savings. So as a result, we are spending a fortune on an aging fleet of increasingly primitive vehicles.
Instead, it would be nice if NASA would go for 2-4x safety improvements and 50% cost savings, and then build a new reusable launch vehicle every 10-20 years.
If we left alone or increased NASA funding, we could support perpetual research on new shuttles, with each generation bringing down in costs. If the operating costs dropped, you could save the money and use it towards research. The shuttle program produced a LOT of technology for the US economy (remember everything was space-age in the 80s), and new research programs will continue to do so. However, just relaunching the same thing for billions doing retarded thing like ants in space isn't pushing technology forward, it's just spending money to protect NASA's turf.
... are all bad ideas. It is not time to rearchitect the shuttle. It has worked, albeit with some catastrophes, for the past 30 years and it shows that the original design has merit. What needs to happen is actual *construction* of new shuttles based on the old design rather than the *design* of new shuttles based on pure theoretical, untested theory.
It's classic "don't want to fix the bugs, let's rearchitect" syndrome. However, if NASA and its partners hunker down and fix the problems, we can have a new fleet that will last another 30 years *without* catastrophe.
Here's what they should do:
1. Use their crash data to make whatever improvements necessary to enhance reliability
2. Upgrade their computer systems, perhaps removing a significant amount of bulk. (A $999 laptop has 10x the computing power of the original refrigerator-sized computer)
3. Expand the cargo bay a little bit. If carmakers can do it each and every model year, surely they can, too.
4. Better computer-assisted rocket thrusters for far better maneuverability in space. A next-gen space station will require more agility.
5. Improved ground control procedures. This means redundant, randomly paired inspectors, more stringent weather parameters, etc.
These sorts of things are what will make a better space program. Not pie-in-sky next generation planes that will be even more subject to catastrophe. Let the military figure out how to create a scramjet, fly suborbital, etc. NASA has shown it's no longer fit to push the cutting edge of aerospace.
Co-develop the next gen shuttle with the Japanese. The Japanese have a knack at improving efficiency and reliability. Overall, the Japanese lead reliability in cars, computers (vaio's excepted), and general management.
That's not actually true. A rocket produces about the same amount of pollution as burning the same amount of fuel in a car engine. The main pollutant it creates is CO2, and it doesn't, overall, produce any CO2 if you use biomass to make the rocket fuel (since the plants suck up as much CO2 as they grow as the rocket produces).
Yes, rocket propulsion is efficient in a chemical-kinetic energy transfer way, but not efficient if all other costs are taken into account.
Nonsense. It doesn't even use that much fuel. First, 2/3 of the fuel is liquid oxygen, it's cheap and environmentally friendly. That's produced from liquid distillation of air. That leaves about 20 kgs of fuel needed for each kg of payload. A person weighs, say 200 kg, including spacesuit. That means you need 4000kg of fuel. That's about the same amount of fuel as I burnt in my car last year. It's a lot, but not an overwhelming amount, and it's not like I go shopping in my rocket every day, going into space is a rare event.
Use geo-thermal energy to power such a mag-lev launcher thing... I find that preferable.
Yeah, but if you have the geo-thermal, why not use it to make hydrogen, and launch with that in a conventional rocket? That way you can do it for a few billion rather than 100 trillion dollars or whatever a 50km long mag-lev launcher would cost. How much pollution would be made in constructing that anyway?
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"There is no next-generation space shuttle, and there never will be. Boosting NASA's budget doesn't get senators re-elected, and no private companies are willing to look far enough ahead to see the potential profits in spaceborne industry.
Nobody cares about science or exploration, all that matters anymore is who owns which patch of oil-laden sand in the middle east. NASA has lost both the budget and the backbone for manned spaceflight. We went to the moon almost half a century ago, and now all we can do is putter about in low orbit building overpriced, underperforming space stations. Pathetic.
The human race will die on this godforsaken rock.
0 1 - just my two bits
It seems to me that all these designs are made for one thing alone, and that is to ferry astronauts back and forth to that other orbital albatross...the ISS. If they are never going to get any real science going on that damn thing I would much rather that they can the whole thing entirely. I would like to see NASA devote all the money that goes to the the shuttle, iss, and all the other NASA garbage to programs that will get humans out of Earth orbit and into the rest of the solar system.
NASA research programs are sitting on all sorts of interesting innovations and inventions. I think it would be great if some of those innovations got the kind of funding that would allow them to be realized on a useful scale. I want to see a nuclear powered rocket fly to far reaches of our solar system. I want to see some of the technology put to use in putting humans on Mars and a permanent settlement on the moon.
I'm tired of seeing tax dollars blown on orbital crap that can be done faster, better, and cheaper with robots and computers than by humans in flying tin cans when there are far more exciting possibilities for human exploration of space.
Suitably updated where necessary and with an eye towards reusability if feasible. The Saturn V kicked ass and shows what a kludge the shuttle is, we're talking about a booster that could put a Mack truck in orbit around the moon. The Shuttle was a huge step backwards in every area except for reusability.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
I read the article and have seldom seem such unassuming outrage in my life.
... to 2010!
The engineers (at least those who are doing the acutal work) knew the shuttle was heading for another loss-of-all-hands.
... and goes on to present several.
I'm not worried about options ... I'm worried about cost.
With prior projections of $6 to $35 (!!!) billion, I don't feel particularly compelled to keep NASA in the space-shuttling business.
Instead, with the basis for the current shuttle being $500 million per flight, see if we can task those much-vaunted aerospace companies to build a system and run it, at LESS THAN THAT COST.
If it turns out for their launch system that they use a gigantic rubber band stretched between two immense pylons, and charge $10 million per flight, then ... GREAT!
The current shuttle is a terrible system that started out with too many compromises. It smacks of a political statement. The same system could have been accomplished with two other, smaller, cheaper systems: crew-mission ships (very X-15 like) and heavy-cargo lifters. But those were too functional (i.e. not sexy enough) and frankly couldn't have funneled that much money into a mondo-beyondo development program run by an aerospace company or three. So, instead, we got a moderate-lift, heavily-crewed ship that tumbles in the airstream of some mishap (thus being completely destroyed) once every 50 to 100 flights.
What was NASA's response to this last November?: let's keep this good thing going
The article claims that for replacement programs, there's "no shortage of ideas"
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Also check out their current indiginous fighter project - even given the basic F-16 design to copy, it's still not finished (it's not an exact copy, but it's taken longer than some of from-scratch designs).
Japanese companies are very good at using mature technology, and at making technology mature. They are fairly bad at using immature technology for end products. Rocket technology is still a long way from being mature.
Although a lot can be done with the technology that is mature. An example was the McDonnel Douglass Delta Clipper X, which was almost all off-the-shelf technology on a small budget. The rocket engines weren't reusable, but they were just driven at a much lower thrust, eliminating most of the wear allowing them to be reused anyway.
Sadly, after being sold to NASA, the DC-X fell victim to its budget - it was so cheap to operate, it was run mostly in a seat-of-the-pants fashion. During its last flight, a technician forgot to plug in the hydrolic hose to extend one landing gear (it had four), so when it landed, it simply toppled over.
Still, when NASA was looking for its last "replace the shuttle" program, it (or the larger Delta Clipper Y version) was one of three proposals - the other two were the Lockheed VentuStar, and a re-worked Space Shuttle. Although the two that lost were based on working technology, the main goal at NASA was for new technology development, not product development, so the riskiest project was funded (Lockheed's).
It didn't fail, in NASA's view - the innovative engines were developed, and aerodynamic studies performed. They just ran out of money and decided to stop it (the composite fuel tank technology was not completed). An end product wasn't really the goal for them - in the end of the program, Lockheed would have been responsible for building the actual vehicle, operating it, and marketing launch services - NASA would just be another customer. It was Lockheed's choice not to without the NASA funded prototype complete to show investors.
In my opinion, the DC-Y was the best choice - no new technology, just build the prototype and go. But it the program had succeeded, I would have been wrong, so blame doesn't work unless you know the future ahead of time.