Slashdot Mirror
NASA Redesigning The Space Shuttle
ekarjala writes "To avoid wing damage from foam separation in the future, NASA is planning a redesign of the existing shuttle. Seems to me it is time to consider a new design rather than a redesign -- let's take the lessons we've learned and create a space craft for the 21st century rather than re-treading a 30-year-old design."
Um, I may be the only one to actually READ the linked article, but it really doesn't say that they're redesigning the Space Shuttle. They're considering a new design for the part that is supposedly responsible for causing the crash. To say that they're redesigning the shuttle I think is overstating things.
Most of what you just mentioned deals not with the shuttles themselves but with the launch systems. Yes, our launch system is *horrible* in terms of fuel efficiency (now I sound like I'm talking about cars) and the economics of it all. However, my question really deals with the shuttle itself.
Yes, if we took out a lot of that extra room then launches would cost less because the shuttles would weigh less. But why don't we just use that extra room instead? We could include additional large-scale experiments that would be too difficult to install in the space station (unless said experiments needed more than a week in space to complete). Why not actually try and retrieve some of the space garbage that has accumulated over the years? Yes, it's cost-prohibitive, but it needs to be done somehow.
I think I read on Slashdot somewhere that there's a laser in development to take care of that problem, though...
They aren't redesigning the shuttle itself. They are redesigning the launch system, to prevent a similar accident ot the last one.
The over all effect on the shuttle itself is nil, as far as I can tell from the article.
It's a lousy design for getting into the atmosphere. One, the winged design adds absolutely nothing but weight. Sure, it makes certain polar orbits easier, but there's no scientific or military need for the Shuttle to launch into a polar orbit. Two, the winged design means that it lands like an airplane. This is great, except for the fact it lands at 220mph (a DC-3 lands at 130mph), its brakes have to bleed off three times as much kinetic energy as a DC-3's, the DC-3's brakes haven't been exposed to the blistering heat, chilling cold and annihilating vacuum of space, and if for some reason the landing gear fails to deploy the Shuttle, since it can't just punch the engines and make another pass, does a 220mph crash into the asphalt.
Sure. Great. The Shuttle is a great idea for re-entry, if you want to put your trust in a couple of thousand interconnected, interdependent systems, the failure of any one of which will totally doom you.
By comparison, a purely ballistic entry is easy. Do you have the right angle? The right velocity? Is your heat shield intact? Do your parachutes work? Great: go for it.
Maybe your old monitor can take you into space. (Here's About.com's take, a bit popsci.) I thought this was bogus until I saw This mouse flying in a lifter - including RealVideo.
Perhaps we have a workable alternative to rockets available. Rockets are a terrifically inefficient way to get, essentially, a 1 to 8 hour drive straight up. In order to do that we have to spit 100 times our mass out the back. That's a lot of commotion and expense and danger. If the tech shown here actually works, it might make the whole concept of rockets obsolete.
It seems this guy Townsend Brown patented what is now mostly called "ElectroKinetic Drive" back in the late 1950's. It was immediately ignored. But it seems to work quite well, even in a vacuum (I'm still a bit skeptical on this point - IMHO the vacuum test I saw pics of on this site was not sufficient.) Lift capability appears to be on the order of 1 gram per watt, perhaps better than that with good design.
At this point, there are almost 200 successful experimenters worldwide, flying lifters using the 'asymmetrical capacitor'. In Japan they have one over 5 meters wide, flying 15 meters in the air. (one of the photos also shows some cool sci-fi looking high voltage equipment below it.)
All of these devices so far have been powered by external high voltage sources, mostly from old PC monitors. I'm not a HW geek, but I figure if you can build a HV system that generates 15KV to 50KV, and enough continuous power to produce 2.5 or more watts per gram, you could build a completely self-sustained lifter.
Of course, I wanna be the first to do this, so I'm not gonna post it on Slashdot. No, really, I hope that lots of people start experimenting with this, and publish their results using a GPL-type approach to patents, so the major tech is bound up in open hardware licenses. This will prevent those who want to own this tech from patenting every nut and bolt and preventing us from building our own. For example, using attitude sensors and a crossover network to vary lift on different sides and maintain attitude and generate horizontal velocity.
Here and Here are some thrust calculations. The latter has a calculator to design your own. If you build one big enough for me, please give me a ride!
Also, if you follow this up, you'll find lots of interesting and downright spooky connections to UFO's, the Lockheed Stealth Blimp (what was that thing that floated over Phoenix in 1997?)
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
No, I didn't miss the point with respect to the Proton-M. It puts 48,000 pounds of cargo into orbit at a cost of $2,000 per pound. The Shuttle puts 58,000 pounds into orbit at a cost of $7,700 per pound. That just means we're spending three times as much as we need to be when we could be buying our ELVs from Russia.
I agree that a totally different launch solution is needed. But the Proton-M is worth noting and comparing the Shuttle to, if only to show how incredibly, mind-bogglingly atrocious a launch vehicle the Shuttle is. It costs three times as much and has a one-in-fifty chance of snuffing out seven human lives? No thanks.