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.
I, for one, would rather see NASA go with the "overpowered sports-car" model (AKA Ferrari). Those pictures of the "sedan" models aren't nearly sleek enough.
Let's build a Star Wars style ship and paint it Empire black! Yeah! Now that would increase the support for the space program. It's all about marketing...
NASA did a great job getting us to the moon during the cold war, but it has since turned into a bureaucratic machine, as highlighted in the Columbia post mortem report. I doubt this will change in the future, regardless of any efforts to do so, because bureaucracy is the nature of such agencies.
It would be MUCH better if the Government provided incentives to the various companies who are attemping to build space transportation systems. Those folks will be in it for profit, and their isn't any profit in destroying your launch systems to meet a schedule.
enter this design in the X-prize competition and win themselves $10 million.
For those too lazy to read the article, this is only designed to be a commuter to the space station and back. It only would have a crew of 4, and would carry light cargo. It isn't meant as a do-everything satellite launcher/people mover like the current space shuttle. They plan on developing another vehicle to do the other chores of the space shuttle. Frankly, with the budget constraints NASA is under, I'm really surprised to read about them seriously developing more than one type of shuttle replacement, although I do think they are going in the right direction. We have several rockets designed to carry heavy payloads, I really don't see why they need to have the payload and crew all in one vehicle. What they should do is keep the rockets to lift the heavy payloads safely into space, then have the humans do what they need to do to the payload once it is in space (such as fine tuning, final preparation, and/or activation).
today is spelling optional day.
Rockets, my man, rockets. Shoot Hubble II into orbit with a rocket, and if a EVA is necessary to "assemble" it, then put the space plane on station and get it done. No hauling needed.
Granted, though, I'm not entirely certain that this 2 step process would be entirely cost effective. It's cheaper to shoot a rocket than it is to fire up the current Shuttle system, and I would imagine the proposed Space Plane system would have a significantly lower cost-per-flight, given the much reduced weight, but will both of those factors mitigate the cost of the single Shuttle flight? Only time will tell.
Because the shuttle had to be made far larger than the first one planned, too much new technology had to be invented to make it fly. If the planned progression happened as planned, the shuttles would have cost $200,000,000 rather than costing $2,200,000,000 each.
I predict that the progression of craft will not happen.
The leading article of this week's Economist (subscriber-only unfortunately) is a great summary of why the space shuttle needs to be retired. The shuttle is too expensive, unsafe, and unnecessary to justify dumping more money into the program. The vast amount of money that NASA spends on the shuttle and space station could be much better spent elsewhere. The space station exists because of the need to give the shuttle a purpose and the shuttle program only continues because of the space station. NASA should ditch the shuttle, encourage private enterprise in the space business, and concentrate on developing new methods of space travel that might actually result in new exploration instead of simply traveling around the earth in circles.
What the space program really needs is a lofty goal and a challenge. We should aim for something like Mars, or semi permenant lab on the moon. We need someone to compete against. (I heard the private sector is starting to get interested in space so maybe in time?) We need a challenge like JFK's challenge to get to the moon. We need to find the drive to continue exploration. The tech gap to get to Mars is far less than it was to the moon. I just think motivation and $$$ are all that is really needed.
Of course, NASA will select the design with wings, probably the most expensive and error-prone variant, because it will be pushed through by the aerospace industry lobby.
We will observe this agency bypass any principle of common sense and experiences from successful space programs, just to have a new shiny and politically pleasing toy. It's like re-inventing the wheel - this time not a round, but a square shaped one.
What's so bad about winged designs?
- Wings are useless during launch and in space, they just add to weight penalty.
- Winged vehicles are unstable during re-entry and need a complex and error-prone automatic flight control system.
- Wings are less fault tolerant and more vulnerable to damage.
The worst idea is however to put a winged vehicle on top of a rocket! This concept has been repeatedly rejected due to very good reasons, the most important one being the high lateral and bending loads on the rocket!The good old ballistic capsule still holds all safety records in manned spaceflight - there are only very few lethal accidents, related to the large number of successful launches and returns. The Apollo capsule could land in an area of about 2 miles diameter so accuracy is not such a big concern. It could be further improved by using a parawing instead of parachutes.
The only real problem with ballistic capsules is the high re-entry deceleration due to the low drag and therefore the late beginning of aerobraking. However, no astronaut was ever killed due to re-entry or landing impact deceleration and the problem could be dealt with by using additional inflatable structures to increase drag during the early re-entry phases.
Read this to find out what knowledgeable people think about the "Smaller Shuttle" idea.
The space plane will have only two missions: [...] and to act as a standby lifeboat, parked at the space station for the evacuation of astronauts if there is an emergency.
This strikes me as a complete waste of money, if that's one of it's uses.
Come on people! Use a bloody Soyuz for that! They're a hell of a lot cheaper than $2.4 Billion Dollars! It's a freakin' lifeboat!
Okay, I understand that we would be limited to six people instead of seven. I don't have a problem with that, personally. We might have to be build another docking area. Fine. I think a Soyuz and a second docking area would be a hell of a lot cheaper than $2.4 billion dollars!
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).
But leaving one of these expensive things docked there just to get astronauts back to the ground in the event of a catastrophe? Why not just use a Soyuz capsule which does the same thing at possibly a quarter of the cost?
There was a previous article posted on slashdot regarding this that made a lot of sense. Unfortunately i do not remember the authors name and cannot do a search. If anyone remembers pelase post a link.
... something that can be done relatively simply and reliably using balistic capsules.
The article made a lot of sense. It basicly said the following things:
building spaceplanes is stupid. They are expensive and dangerous. And what is even worse most of the expense and danger on spaceplanes does not have to do with space exploration at all, but with take off and landing
A simple ballistic capsule with a parachute is many times simpler, safer and cheaper than a space plane. Every other space agency has figured this out a long time ago, but apparently NASA has too many Billions to burn through in order to have this simple revalation.
Saying the thing is projected to cost only 2.3 billion (or whatever they said) is completely meaningless, because if anyone pays attantion to the history of these projects they would know that this is guaranteed to go over budget.
Making the craft smaller will not bring much savings in development. The greatest development costs of a space plane that carries people will go in engineering and testing to ensure safety. The level of safety required is the same for four or seven people.
Well these are not my points they are from the article i mentioned. But I think they are good points.
I am for space exploration, but lets face it projects like these are clearly wastes of money.
Nasa should develop a simple safe ballistic craft, (something like the soyuz) and use the big bucks for actual space exploration.
It is completely mindbogglig that we are wasting money and lives because nasa insists on exotic ways of going into and out of orbit.
From the article:
"We're doing everything we can to get it up by 2008"
Have they tried viagra??
The Shuttle, and any next generation craft, is an attempt at creating not just a reusable vehicle, but also one which offers control at landing at a specific place; in this case a runway. Unlike a reentry capsule, which decends to some semi-random location by parachute, the Shuttle can glide toward a specific spot and land. This is a definite step up from previous capsuls in terms of technology and space readiness. And NASA wanted to do even better with their nextgen shuttle, the X-33 design goals were 'single stage to orbit', and would have allowed for a launch and land system without the costly solid fuel rockets. Also a reasonable design goal. Too bad the materials science for the hydrogen tanks isn't quite ready yet, nor are funds available to continue R&D.
NASA is failing because of two primary problems:
a) They lack funding from Congress, and as such are unable to both meet their launch goals and provide the necessary R&D for nextgen launch vehicles.
b) They have foolishly cut safety funding in order to meet those same launch goals, as demanded by Congress. They should have either said straight - we can't meet your goals with the funding alloted, or dumped the Shuttle program and moved to traditional rockets (as you stated in your previous post).
But to say that their R&D toward an orbital space plane was misplaced goes against the very grain of space exploration. At some point we're going to need vehicles that can operate in both space and the atmosphere. NASA obviously committed themselves toward the goal of creating such ships. Space will go nowhere if we only launch rockets into LEO and land in capsules by parachute. You can argue that our materials technology isn't ready yet for the challenges creating real land to space ships, but you can't argue that such a technology is the end goal for any space faring society.
This is JMO, coming from someone who isn't either an aerospace engineer or involved with NASA - and as such has simply a semi-informed opinion to offer.
Best,
Maynard
Anyone who doubts NASA is in its glory age right now, needs to scribble out a Perl Script (or your language of choice), and download all these NASA Pictures of the Day. NASA in the 90's and this decade is accomplishing FAR MORE than the NASA of the Apollo Era.
. htm
http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html
This Space Plane is an excellent solution to a pressing problem.
The NASA program that holds the most incredible promise is Project Prometheus. This program should have an incredible impact on the future of mankind, yet is barely known. It is the coolest thing America is doing today. It is highly inaccurate to suggest NASA is idle or unsuccessful. Remember, the Space Shuttle is an important, highly visible PR project as much as a serious project. Much of the real scientific and engineering achievement occurs beneath the publics radar by computer controlled machines.
http://www.nuclearspace.com/a_project_prometheus3
HenryJamesFeltus.com
You haven't been keeping up. The Delta IV Large, which is the current largest available production booster, has a 5 m diamater fairing and can lift 25,800 kg to LEO. The Hubble Space Telescope is a mere 10,863 kg. At that rate, even the Delta IV Medium could lift it.
Gentoo Sucks
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.
I'm not sure where they got the figure for the Ariane 5V, that sounds a tad heavy.
I wouldn't bank on the return of the Energia. It's big and requires cooperation between the Ukraine and Russia, which doesn't happen so easily. Right now, there's some good potential for heavy lift boosters via straightforward structural modifications of the Delta and Atlas boosters (to allow them to support a heavier payload) clustered in various configurations -- they don't have to stop at three boosters. It's theoretically possible, and I'm wagering that the people who designed the Delta and Atlas probably had that in mind for future development, because satelites keep getting bigger.
See, the interesting part, and the thing that makes it impossible for NASA to get a shuttle replacement together, is that you generally don't need to get even 28,000kg to a useful orbit. If you could get 5,000 kg to a useful orbit cheaply, you'd send up your satelite in 5,000 kg chunks and put it together while up there. But in order to do that you either need spacesuits that don't require prebreathing and extended preperations, an inflatable, presurized drydock, or really good robotics. And you'd need to fly it on a regular schedule.
The problem is that we need to keep the shuttle around until we're at least done building the space station because none of the exsisting modules would fit on it and would require a LOT of modification in order to be launched on a Delta or an Atlas booster, and might require some booster modifications to boot. And NASA really didn't want to give up their existing abilities, so they kept trying to avoid this.
I think that part of the drive for the OSP by NASA is because they realize that they are eventually going to be forced to give up the shuttle. The timings might be such that the shuttle is canceled shortly after all of the completed station modules are sent up. So the OSP is insurance that they will be able to stay in the manned spaceflight business after that happens, even if it takes a while before a true shuttle replacement shows up. They are going to railroad it through congress and hope that they can get it built and operational before they have to give up the shuttle.
And the railroading of the OSP is probably a good thing. Part of the problem with the X-30 and X-33 projects was that they took far too long to produce anything even mildly useful with them, so people would try to get a nice career as a middle manager, instead of designing and building the fscking thing. Remember that the most impressive aircraft of the cold war (U-2, SR-71, F-117) were build in the Skunk Works using an astonishingly small number of people in an incredibly short time span.
Gentoo Sucks