Slashdot Mirror
More on the Orbital Space Plane
AP has a decent piece looking at NASA's orbital space plane program, and describing it as a sedan compared to a tractor-trailer. National polls show that public support for the space program continues to be very strong.
Read this to find out what knowledgeable people think about the "Smaller Shuttle" idea.
Don't you mean Apollo 1? Apollo 8 was the first trip to the moon whereas Apollo 1 ended with a fire on the launchpad during a test, killing all 3 astronauts.
Erm, no. SS1 will only reach speeds of around mach 5 or so, and altitudes of around 62 miles. And that's a much more benign mission profile than 17,500mph and ~300 miles up.
Mix the failings of Usenet with the shortcomings of the World Wide Web and the result is slashdot.
While I'd like to see more use of disposable, cheaper rockets, it's near impossible to launch something like Hubble into orbit with them. Have you actually SEEN how big Hubble is? Things like Delta or Titan rockets couldn't do it. If we still had the Saturn V, MAYBE that could do it. But we've had nothing like the Saturn for decades now, and the costs to develop an equivilant to it wouldn't make it truly cost effective. There are some missions where we simply need a big 'ole space truck like the shuttle. Don't get me wrong. I'd LOVE for us to bring someting like the Saturn back, but don't bet on it.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Just to set things straight:
But then again, I could be wrong.
The russians had working remote control on their shuttle effort. I actually have the priviledge of working with one of the guys that did it.
This is my sig.
NASA is already relying on Russia for the Soyuz capsules for the lifeboats. Two problems: the Soyuz capsules have a 6 month max lifetime and thus have to be replaced. Also, the Russians are barely able to keep up their commitments to manufacture new Soyuz TMA's and Progress supply capsules. I think NASA's idea is to ensure the continued operation of the station with a reusable vehicle and not having to worry about the Russians going bankrupt.
Don't get me wrong, I think the space-plane is a wise idea. Flying the shuttle is an expensive way to get people up to the space station (unless it's delivering parts, too). I could also see having one docked there if we were going to use Space Station personnel as a "fix-it" crew (if the Hubble has problems, send up the parts and use the "sedan" to drive over and fix it).
You're trying to make the same argument that people were making when they asked why Columbia couldn't have made the station and used it as a sanctuary. The ISS and Hubble (and most everything else in orbit) have very different orbits. It takes fuel to get from one orbit to another and back again. So it is much more cost effective to send the shuttle to fix Hubble than it is to send the parts and the extra fuel needed by way of the space station in order to fix it with an OSP.
Lets not forget the Ariane 5V system in service since 2001 which can launch a 5.4m wide 80,000kg payload to GTO
Then there's always talk of foreign investment breathing life back into the dormant Russian Energia lauch system which was designed to inject up to 200,000Kg of payload into LEO which has already been tested in a 110,000Kg payload configuration for launching the cancelled Buran Orbiter
It makes the shuttle's maximum payload to LEO of 28,803Kg look rather small.
Ripping an new rectum in the fabric of spacetime.
isn't that what the X-33 project was? NASA gave lockheed close to US$1B to design and build a new SSTO technology, giving lockheed the permission to use this new technology in a commercial version called the venturestar. lockheed took the money and never managed to get a workable model before NASA finally pulled the plug in 2001.
Better recheck your numbers, this is WAY off! It is more like 10,000kg at present
Most satellites are much higher in orbit than the shuttle can go. The shuttle cannot get to them without moving the satellite.
The shuttle was touted as the orbiting drydock, but it has never functioned as such. I doubt anybody is designing their satellites with the concept that it can be serviced by the shuttle.
I knew I should have looked that up. Here goes:
As for Apollos 2 and 3, they didn't exist. Before the missions that tested the operations of the actual Apollo spacecraft, there were a series of missions for testing the Saturn V launch stack and the reentry heat shield, designated AS-201, AS-202, AS-203, and AS-204. AS-204 was intended to be the first manned Apollo mission, and was the one Ed White, Gus Grissom, and Roger Chaffee were preparing for when the disastrous fire happened.
After the fire, AS-204 was renamed Apollo 1 as a retroactive memorial. Then it gets a little weird. The NASA Project Designation Committee decided that the first full Apollo test mission would be named Apollo 4, and that the remaining 3 AS-20x missions would not be renamed. Why they did this seems to be a bit of a mystery.
Thus, the lack of an Apollo 2 or Apollo 3 can be blamed on a committee. It seems somehow appropriate.
And just to add some symmetry on the other end, there were 3 missions that were to be Apollos 18-20. These were cancelled to free up Saturn V launchers for Skylab, and funds for...wait for it...the space shuttle.
Only one of the Saturn V's set aside for Skylab was actually used. The other two are on display, one each at Johnson Space Center, and Kennedy Space Center (the specifics of which pieces of what rockets are where is a bit complicated, and not terribly interesting). A full-scale test version is on display at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, but it was not built to actually fly.
But then again, I could be wrong.
One thing to point out - the European Space Agency is not the EU. The 15 Member States of ESA are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
Norway and Switzerland are not members of the EU. Greece and Luxembourg, which are EU members. are not in ESA.
Designing a new cargo sled for the shuttle would be more complex than simply designing a new rocket. The SRB's were a nasty hack to get the shuttle off the ground, and have a lot of problems. No two (including the ones installed at the time) produce the exact same thrust. Once you light the SRB it will burn until it runs out of fuel.
The foam and external tank issue is another problem. The foam keeps splitting off and hitting the spacecraft.
FWIW you would really be better off bringing back the Saturn V.
"Learning is not compulsory... neither is survival."
--Dr.W.Edwards Deming
Space plane? Tsk, we in the UK have this vastly superior modern technology for lifts in VLEO..
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
The Apollo 18 mission gets almost as confusing as the 'whatever happened to Apollos 2-6'.
The Apollo 13 problems led to a rethink/cutback and the cancellation of the originally scheduled Apollos 18-20. Apollo 18 *would* have been to Copernicus, crewed by Richard Gordon, Vance Brand and Harrison Schmidt, if they had stuck to the existing schedule of 'backup crew on mission X becomes primary crew for Mission X+3'.
Then NASA recycled the 'Apollo 18' designation (not unreasonable, as this was an Apollo mission subsequent to Apollo 17) for their part of the July 1975 Apollo-Soyuz linkup, using a Saturn 1B launcher, captained by Vance Brand.
To make things even more confusing, there were also three Apollo-Saturn1B missions in 1973 which were designated Skylab 2,3, 4 (Skylab 1 was the Lab launch itself), between Apollos 17 and 18.
In a sane world Apollo 18 would be Apollo 21, probably.
TomV