Shuttle Set for Launch on Dec 18th, Says NASA

Tony J Case writes "Just a quick note for you guys - According to space.com, NASA's target date for the next shuttle launch is Dec. 18th, with a whole bunch of new guidelines."

Comments

Good.

[Schezar]

I really can't believe they're actually resuming Shuttle flights. I was worried that we would bury our heads in the sand for a few years like we have after similar accidents in the past.

I'd still like to see an actual, cheap, reusable space vehicle though.. The shuttle isn't so hot on that front (no pun intended).

Better uses

[flez]

Maybe they should think of some better uses for the shuttle than literally shuttling stuff back and forth from the ISS.

It's time for something new and exciting.

exploding bolts

[Potor]

discovery.com is just now reporting a new problem with the shuttles; the force of the exploding bolts that detach the boosters has been found to be too close to the strength of the dome that catches them. they predict that this will ground them further.

Needs Another Seven Astronauts

[arth1]

Perhaps it's time for NASA to take a look at how the Russians handle things -- their track record for the last 25 years is much better. At least no fatalities, and guess who had to step in when the US didn't dare send up another shuttle to rescue the stranded ISS 'nauts.

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Needs Another Seven Astronauts

[arivanov]

If we count the entire soviet + russian space programs we are talking at least 10 times more manned flights, at least 100 times more time in space. Losses AFAIK were all in all 3+2 in two accidents. There were rumours of several more but these have never been confirmed so we can so far assume that it is what says on the label. And that stacks up.

If we are talking about people on board - shuttle crews are too bloody big. Period. A decent spacecraft should be able to take of and land automated (as the Buran did). And require two people at most to run.

Also, the shuttle leaks like there is no tomorrow and its life support system sucks rotten eggs through a thin straw. IMO this, along with the absurdly big crew is actually the primary reason for the disaster. It could not stay in orbit a reasonable amount of time even if a check showed a problem. So nobody even considered a check to be a reasonable option.

Also, Russia (in those days SU) handled Buran launches on a platform that did not require ugly hacks like strapping foam coated fuel tanks and uncontrollable solid fuel boosters. Also AFAIK the original design for the first stage of Energia assumed a controlled descent and reuse. And until there is a reasonable platform for a horisontal take off launching on the back of a real launcher is the only right way to launch a reusable vehicle.

So all in all: US needs to buy (or redesign its own for carrying large off-balance loads which is not easy) some launchers useable for strapping a shuttle to them and buy (or license) some proper life support systems. After all the superiority of the latter was admitted for the ISS and the ISS runs with russian life support. So sticking to the 20+ year old crapper (literally) used on the shuttle is outright stupid.

Re:New Guidelines

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Note: they aren't fixing any of the actual problems. They are going through painful steps to make it look like progress. Some of these steps sound like the "Hightened Security" measure at the airport.

While I am all for a manned space program, it's time to stop flying the shuttle. It's a white elephant, and the costs of keeping it up in the air are siphoning money out of developing its replacement.

And note that they aren't even discussing the 40 pound bolt fragment that periodically comes off the SRB's.

Re:Just a thought...

[andreMA]

Without getting overly technical, that's not feasible because it's necessary to have a significant percentage of the thrust be variable and steerable. While the SRB nozzles can gimbal a bit, the thrust is totally predetermined. Also, I don't see sitting next to huge steel cylinders of ammonium perchlorate/aluminum powder as being safer than the cryogenic gasses used by the SSMEs. There was much resistance at the outset of the shuttle program to using solid fueled boosters on a manned vehicle, and those concerns are still valid. No, I'm not a rocket scientist.

If limited to the ISS....

[reality-bytes]

Its going to make the shuttle one incredibly expensive taxi service for the ISS.

When the shuttle launches equipped to dock with ISS, it has an ammount of its payload bay consumed with the docking adapter.

If the shuttle is used for the originally slated US module launches, this would indicate a valid use (although still very expensive in comparison to a Soyuz module launch).

Now, here's my thinking. The Shuttle was a severe compromise of an originally good system (Flight launch Horizontal TakeOff and Landing) but ended up with the return vehicle pointlessly (and expensively) attached to an SRB+LOX rocket system.
NASA is now likely to resume using the Shuttle - apart from anything this is quite political with China probably joining the elite club of nations who have launched people into space later this year. What NASA ought to be doing is saving the pennies by retiring the shuttle - not neccesarily immediately, but soon and putting out to tender a contract for a brand-new cost-effective launch system.
The new system could be based around the original Ho.T.O.L concept which was mean to be the Shuttle.

At the same time, NASA can be doing lots of new research into aerodynamic re-entry to safeguard lives in the future (FYI 2 aero-re-entry incidents to date - 1, X-15 and 1, STS).

The major sticking point is simple: The U.S. government would have to get their wallet out!

Re:Good thing, hopefully

[arth1]

I hope NASA (and maybe other agencies around the world) are researching new forms of reusable craft...

Reusable? A tiny fraction of what's launched actually returns in reusable form. The costs for transporting and overhauling the 30 year old shuttles between launches probably costs MORE than building new ones. Never mind that most of what's being launched is fuel -- solid, liquid and gas. If the point is being environmentally friendly, a rocket launch is less damaging. If the point is saving money -- well, it isn't saving money either, just spreading it over multiple budgets. Regards, -- Arthur Hagen

Re:Bubba Say Aint Gonna Be Cheap

[rusty0101]

One thing to remember is that most of our rocket technology is based around getting ICBMs off the ground, and over the horizon. In other words they are designed around high thrust to weight ratios, and fairly high G forces.

There have been a few other concepts for rockets, including variable thrust and SCRAM jets, (for the in atmosphere portion at least) that do not have the same requirements for thrust to weight, and can be less costly to operate.

Another observation is that there are several alternative launch mechanisms that do not require nearly the volume of fuel that the current mechanism does, as they launch from higher altitudes, or from launch platforms that are already moving in the direction they desire the orbiter to go.

As far as space travel being safe, it is neither safe to stay in bed, nor to get up. And that's without leaving the planet. That's part of life.

-Rusty

December 18th - Reasoning

[reality-bytes]

Its good that America wants to keep sending people into space but I can't help wondering about the politicism of the date.

After all, rumoured to be around December this year, China is preparing to strap a hero of the communist state (a Taikonaut) to the front of an over-engineered Long-March rocket and send him for a couple of laps.

I hope that NASA isn't being asked or pressured to rush things.

In Communist China the rocket launches you!......oh wait......