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."

Comments

Re:Why is it bad?

[CtrlPhreak]

Cost per flight

The main idea of a redesign of the shuttle for the new century is that the current system is horribly inefficient and wasteful. Solid fuel boosters are yesterdays news, we need liquid fueled boosters or some new tech that can be controlled and possibly shut off if need be (current ones once lit go untill they're outa fuel that's it). The current external fuel tank (the big on in the middle of the system) just burns up in the atmosphere once it detatches, that's a waste of resources. The shuttle is also much larger than it needs to be, it has yet to consistantly run anywhere near capacity. When designed nasa was anticipating a much larger corporate demand for services of the space shuttle as well as a mandate that it would be able to go retrieve satilites in orbit. That extra space taken out would save lots of money. In short we need a lean mean shuttle machine that does what it needs to for a much lower operating cost than todays shuttle.

obvious

[Thomas A. Anderson]

I think the reason they are fixing the old design rather than using a new one is obvious - money and commitment.

First the money part: while in the long run it will cost more to keep the old fleet alive rather than build new, cheaper shuttles, the short term investment is much lower for the redesign. Especially in this day and age with a monster defecit.

Second, commitment. We have a manned space station up there. On that (this is a guess) will not stand up well to be un-manned. Yes, we have russian rockets we can use, but nasa isn't too happy about not having a backup method to get people up/down. A new shuttle would take 5-10 years to design, build, and test. By that time, all the money invested in the space station would be a waste it it was un-manned for so long.

just my 2 cents.

Sure... but 1)time and 2)$$$

[delorean]

Alright, sounds great. I'd love to see a better space craft (and I have vested interests in space flight).

But let's look at something:

Time

1. It would take minimum of 10 years to design, build, and test a working model.
2. We've got the ISS flying right now that needs service and crew changes-- and more often than the Russian Soyuz can provide. While I'm on the Soyuz-- their last flight wasn't so hot either. That was a new model, too. Did you know it takes 18 mos. to build a Soyuz capsule? Did you know they barely have enough money and crew to meet the six month demand for the ISS? Do you trust the Russians to go drum up people from the unemployment line to ramp up production? Do you... ah, nevermind.
3. Space is not easy or safe. The fact that we've only lost three crews in forty years of space flight is totally remarkable! It is not a safe environment. Tito and the other dude who flew on the Soyuz took their life into their own hands-- and hell I would do the same in a heartbeat! But it is not safe. It is extremeley dangerous and every astronaut knows that. Citizens forget that.

Money

1. It will take billions of dollars to pick one of the many designs for the next orbital plan/vehicle, build and test ONE.
2. We also face increased spending on defense, security, and welfare. (Damn terrorists, criminals, lazybones, and old folks) Which one will you cut?

People see NASA's record and watch Enterprise every week and think it's an easy thing. It is not!

I TOTALLY agree that we do need a new vehicle. But we can't just mothball the Shuttle and stick 'em in museums. They have to be toughened up and fly for the next ten years until the new vehicle is ready. I REALLY want a new vehicle now! But I am fatally realistic: the shuttle will be permanently grounded, the borrowcrats will cut NASA some more causing the space plane to take too long, and the ISS will probably do the SpaceLab thing.

Give the entrepeneurs a chance

[Rxke]

NASA could also hire launch hardware, instead of building it by themselves. it would give a boost to the market, the know they have a customer with certain needs, and they will make sure it is cost-effective. If NASA put up an 'ad' saying: we ned a man rated launcher, for at least 4 launches a year, an unmanned launcher, capacity XXXX et.c., i'm sure SOMEONE would come up with sumtin useful. If they did that, maybe Russia's behemoth ENERGYA booster would become used again, it was awesome, but flew only once, there was no market for it... Also, the small fishes could benefit, if NASA prepaid them for their first several small launches, they could literally go far. And NASA could stick to developping sciencemodules, habitats et.c. everybody wins. (ok; i know, oversiplicized; but hey, i've been thru a long and boring day, so my brainzz are kinda rusty)

Yeah, that's logical...

[NanoGator]

"Seems to me it is time to consider a new design rather than a redesign..."

I agree. Throw out all the stuff that's proven to work 130 times and replace it with brand new stuff.

Suggestion

[schnits0r]

If they are worried about foam, why don't they use Aerogel instead? It's lighter, heat resistant and transparent.

Hermes anyone?

[theolein]

Although this post is about a French craft, and everyone knows how well the Americans and the French get on ;), why the hell doesn't someone use some common sense and use a design that is not some overloaded flying brick.

Cut space efforts into two parts:
1.Launching payloads. Ariane 5, Deltas etc can and do this very well. These launchers are designed for lifting satellites, and other heavy payloads into geostationary orbit and beyond.
2.Launching humans. A small purpose designed craft like the Hermes, that can return to earth like the shuttle, AND be launched on top of a heavy lifter such as Ariane 5 is far more practical than the shuttle could be.

But perhaps Americans dislike the idea too much that it's originally French, and perhaps the French can't afford to pay for this anymore.

Re:Why is it bad?

[stevesliva]

I believe you somewhat blur the distincion between payload capability and "cargo" capability. It'd be neat if the Proton could launch combined payload of a 165,000-pound shuttle (yes, a ridiculously huge crew return vehicle, but still payload) and a 58,000lb "cargo," but I don't believe that there are any other current systems that can launch a few hundred tons into orbit. Yes, the fact that the shuttle reuses the three main engines blurs the payload/launch system boundary, but they are still reusable. Certainly the Soyuz rocket payload capability of about 12,000 pounds includes the crew capsule! You campare the shuttle launch system to the Saturn V. Good comparison... every shuttle launch (except the last) is like launching Skylab and getting it back again in two weeks. Yeah, I can see why you might consider than inefficient. ;) But Skylab only weighed 78,000 pounds, so maybe two Skylabs is a better number.