Separate Cargo and Personnel Missions for NASA?

l8f57 writes "Hal Gerham (from the NASA CAIB report) is calling for cargo and people to be separated into different missions. He also goes on about how a re-usable spacecraft may not be the most cost efficient vehicle."

Comments

Is This Wise?

[Urantian]

Separate the cargo from the crew? That might make sense, but it raises other concerns. It is indeed a tragedy when a shuttle is lost. The crew, the ship, and the cargo are lost.

Are they attempting to minimize the impact of potential losses by proposing this separation? We already know that NASA projected the odds of losing a shuttle. What is it, about than 1 out of 200 or so missions could be a loss? What are the odds of losing both the crew and cargo shuttles during the same mission? If the shuttle carrying the crew is lost, they will be able to continue the mission of the cargo with a new crew, if they can avoid obvious delays.

I realize that NASA may be applying logic about how to make their missions safer, however it appears they are more concerned about protecting themselves, and their bottom line. The cargo is expensive, and may be impossible to replace. The crew CAN be replaced. It's just like corporations, in how they manage their infrastructure and employees. The employees are unfortunately expendable in many respects.

This story reminds me of the movie Capricorn One. NASA was shown as running scared, doing anything necessary to cover their mistakes.

Re:Is This Wise?

[stratjakt]

I believe this is about minimizing cost and lead times, not risk reduction.

I think the idea is that each type of ship would have different requirements, so you could design each to meet the requirements of its cargo, be it human or stuff.

Ie; a cargo shuttle full of tiny screws to be sorted in space doesnt need fancy atmospheric systems and oxygen recirculators and a seven million dollar toilet, etc.

The Russians did this, all through Mir. They had the Soyuz (sp?) rockets for people, and another kind to send supplies up. Or something like that.

Re:Is This Wise?

[gantzm]

Sorry, you are wrong. So if I purchase a lottery ticket tonight and win, are my odds now 1 in 1 of winning the lottery if I purchase another ticket? Past performance does not dictate future performance a string of close spaced events will most likely be outweighed put future events being spaced further apart.

Re:Is This Wise?

[RevMike]

Separate the cargo from the crew? ... The cargo is expensive, and may be impossible to replace. The crew CAN be replaced. It's just like corporations, in how they manage their infrastructure and employees. The employees are unfortunately expendable in many respects.

I don't think this is really what they intend. I think their fundamental premise is that the shuttle is needlessly complex - and therefore expensive and possibly dangerous - because it has to do too many missions at once. Operating a simple/cheap/reliable crew vehicle and a separate lift capability, which need not be as reliable, might be more effective.

This is the model that the Soviet space program followed: Soyuz (sp?) for crew and Progress for cargo. It has been effective. The Russian crew vehicle, I believe, only failed once in history.

I don't think the issue is cargo cost, either. The cargo is usually not very expensive compared to the cost of the launch. The issue is that an accident with a crewed vehicle puts us out of the manned space flight game for at least close to a year. When an Atlas rocket is lost, everyone says "oh well" and they launch again in a few weeks. Not so with a manned craft.

Re:Is This Wise?

[RevMike]

Name one thing that they would need to bring up as cargo, that NASA could not replace....?

If they sent up DVDs so the astronauts could watch movies, they could not replace them since the MPAA wouldn't let them rip a backup copy before the mission left.

Re:Is This Wise?

[AlecC]

I think this idea is post shuttle, not separate human/cargo shuttle flights. You design a small, safe dedicated people carrier. 4 seats, about the size of a small business jet. Payload - 4 human beings, kept very safe. Allow each human half a ton, including space suit, enough oxygen and water for a couple of days in orbit in case things go wrong. No food - you wont starve in two days - and minimal toilet facilities. Payload two tons. Keep one on standby for rescue duty; can launch unmanned, so can bring back 4 astronauts in a hurry. Don't compromise the design for military reasons, as the shuttle was; the cold war is over and anyway it will only carry people, so secret gismos.

Send the cargo up on disposables - Atlas, Delta, Ariane. We know how to build them, and their 99% reliability is acceptable for cargo whereas it would be totally unacceptable for freight.

The people carrier may be re-usable; it will be relatively light and will carry a lot of expsnsive safety equipment. But let the engineers decide, not the politicians. If disposable is cheaper, for the desired level of safety, go disposable. Probably not all disposable - it might have something like the Saturn's launch escape tower.

Once you have a component, rather than monlithic, system, you can start on other interesting developments like a dedicated Earth Orbit to Lunar Orbit ferry - and so on. You make rational decisions instead of being blinkered by a huge white elephant. The ISS, while (currently) needing the shuttle, also makes it obsolete: it provides a rendezvous point for people and cargo.

Maybe, but....

[ChrisHanel]

Ironically, the astronaut's luggage would accidentaly be rerouted to Topeka.

Sure makes sense for large missions

[scottganyo]

For example, if you were planning to start a colony on Mars, you could use cheaper methods to send the suppies to the planet ahead of time. Then, use the most reliable methods to send the people. The whole enterprise would be cheaper, you could use the most reliable methods to ensure that the colonists would arrive safely, and you could guarantee that the supplies would be waiting for the colonists when they did arrive.

Re:Easier to have single-use ships?

[ChrisHanel]

...thank goodness we're not in the Federation yet, or we might have to worry about that.

Seriously, our ability to send any kind of material close to effecting another civilization of any kind is nil. We can't even get next door without hyperventilating, let alone outside the solar system to throw garbage on Spock's lawn.

Let's just have this conversation again in 100 years, k?

ENTER the space elevator

[Chuck Bucket]

This makes sense, and I'd love to see something like the space elevator that Arthur C. Clarke's brought up in Fountains of Paradise happen. This way, cargo could be brought up, followed by crew if the cargo run was successful.

An article written about the idea, this year:

Space Elevators Maybe Closer To Reality Than Imagined

Much more info here:

The Space Elevator Reference

CB

Just what we need... more logistics!

[Not_Wiggins]

NASA: "In order to ensure the safety of the crew in flight, we're shipping all the dangerous gases, such as highly explosive oxygen, up separately."

(hours after launch)

NASA: "Um... we have good news and bad news. The good news is the crew made it into space without a hitch. The bad news is all the cargo that was supposed to go with them was lost due to a malfunction. Errrmmm... how long can you guys hold your breath up there?"

This is a good thing

[Dav3K]

I agree with this. By separating out the cargo, the personel-carrying missions can actually become more predictable (less variance due to cargo weights) and are unencumbered with the reusability goals. This means Safety can always be the primary goal for person-carrying missions.

Cargo missions are a much more appropriate area to experiment with reusability or cost-lowering goals as the failure costs are significantly lower. NASA would have a much easier time explaining how they blew up a $40 billion cargo payload to the press compared to the media frenzy created when an astronaut dies.

Just look at the media attention given to this last disaster - how much was covering the loss of human life and how much was covering the financial losses incurred?

Re-usable is only the cheapest when...

[cmowire]

You are using it all the time.

We really haven't explored the limits of reusability or expendability.

If we were to contract out for expendable boosters, built in as cheaply and expendably as possible in batches of 100, it would end up with the launch costs way below what they are now. Our current batch of expendable boosters are far too complicated and are built far too slowly to give us savings like this. This is what is called the "Big Dumb Booster" notion.

The shuttle is a poor example of reusable boosters. The cost for refurbishing between launches, maintaining an army of technicians, etc. is incredible. If we were able to fly one, with the same safety and without appreciable yearly budget increase, once every week, the shuttle would start to look good.

The CAIB's trying to say what has been repeated over and over and over again. One of the reasons why the shuttle has problems is because they tried to create one space vehicle that can do everything. It's like trying to combine a sedan, truck, and crane into one vehicle.

And it's probably easier to build an inexpensive production-grade partially or fully reusable craft before somebody gets a better idea if it just has to do one or the other.

Its about engineering economics

[numakris]

When you return with a ship of empty space (the cargo bay empty) you are paying an aoerodynamic PRICE. By discarding the cargo transporter, you save because that aerodynamic cost is left in orbit. The aerodynamic cost of the capsule to earth is TINY. That way you can bring back the crew in a capsule,which is easier and safer. So they have to splash down in the ocean, big frickin deal.

Irony of Ironies

[Jeremy Erwin]

The Columbia mission wasn't a cargo mission. It wasn't even an ISS mission. It was scientific mission using SpaceHab.

We do this today with airlines

[Uncle Op]

Every day we separate people transport needs from cargo moving needs. The major people movers may also have a cargo arm (or vice versa), but they usually do them in frames that are perhaps similar but implemented for their specific tasks. Sure, some stuff doubtless travels with people in the cargo/luggage hold (though 9/11 may have stopped some of that), and we saw in CastAway that Tom Hanks was one of a handful of crew/passengers on the FedEx plane. But we have been sending unmanned rockets up for a long time.

So it does make sense for both viable manned and unmanned space flight. I just don't want to see all space exploration done by wire because, ultimately, it just doesn't feel right.

Reusability is orthogonal to this, I think, though once again it Just Makes Sense to reuse what you can. There are extremes that we don't need to go to, though. There aren't too many times I've really wanted a reusable cable tie, for instance.

Finally!

[cybercuzco]

Finally, somone talking some sense about NASA. Its really stupid to send up the crew and the cargo simultaneously. Cargo missions can have a higher margin of error, which translates into cheaper. They can also be one use, which for the time being also translates to cheaper. Cargo by its nature is heavy, so its wiser to make a big cheap nonreusable cargo rocket and send things up that way. Most cargo on earth is not transported by Jet airplane, most is transported by ocean going ship or train. We need a container ship for space, and a little jet airplane for the people. Further, the smaller the craft the fewer parts it needs and the simpler it can be made. So by its very nature a smaller ship can be made safer than a larger more complex one.

Ultimately NASA needs to get back to its beginnings. NASA does the big expensive but basic R&D needed for commercial companies to take over. NASA should have a baseline rocket engine research program continually ongoing. They need to have a standard model rocket engine that is continually upgraded and simplified. the design is then published annually for any and all to use (with security clearance) Same needs to be done with tanks, guidance and control systems, reentry systems, spacesuits, life support systems etc.

Should we scrap the shuttle now?

[adeyadey]

Why continue to run the shuttle? Why not just use the money for fast development of new vehicles? Cheaper to buy Soyuz/Progress rockets from the Russians for now..

Now isnt that ironic - The US would end up having to buy what is essentially much the same rocket that Uri Gagarin used in 1961.. :-)

Gehman Is Absolutely Right

[reallocate]

Admiral Gehman is right. I hope someone is paying attention. He's right because there is no requirement to add a Shuttle crew to a flight that delivers cargo to the ISS. He's right because making a vehicle system safe enough for humans wastes money if the vehicle is also used to carry cargo.

There's too much emphasis on debates about winged spaceplanes versus Apollo-derived capsules; too much debate about reusability versus expendable boosters.

Let's be sensible. If you need to send tons of cargo from New York to Los Angeles, you can stuff into a truck or a freight train. That is, a vehicle deisgned to carry cargo. If you want to send your family from New York to Los Angeles, you would put them on an airplane, a bus, or drive them there in your car. In other words, a vehicle designed to be safe enough and comfortable enough to carry people. We should follow the same principle in getting cargo and people to LEO.

And we don't need to develop new techology to do this. We solved the problem of getting into and out of LEO 40 years ago.

What we need is:

1) A reliable heavy-lift booster that can orbit cargo to the ISS; I argue that we should go the expendable vehicle route because any attempt to design and build a reusable vehicle will add years and dollars chasing a dubious goal. Since the ISS is designed to accept cargo from the Shuttle's bay, I would create this new heavy-lift vehicle by launching the Shuttle without the Orbiter. NASA has had a heavy-lift vehicle within its reach for 25 years and refused to build it, chossing instead to unnecessarily put live at risk. (Meanwhile, we also have the new Delta and Atlas designs at our disposal. Their heavy-lift configurations are nothing to sneeze at.)

2) Every effort to build a winged and resuable spacecraft has failed because it would have required technology that does not exist yet, or cannot be used without skyrocketing costs. The nascent Orbital Spaceplane will face the same problem. Let's shuffle this problem over to the advanced research department, and use technology that we know works to get humans into and out of LEO: capsules. Let's go the Apollo-derived route and get something flying ASAP.

The biggest advantage

[Mr. Darl McBride]

The biggest advantage, partly addressed in the article, is that you can send non-living cargo up with a much, much, much hotter burn. The shuttle could accelerate many times faster than it does if the G force for the humans inside weren't an issue.

Experiments have been done with animals, accelerating them more quickly by suspending them in liquids and otherwise distributing the G forces, but the advances in this area of research have been slow and often times erratic. Monkeys have seemed fine after the research, only to show internal damage months or even years later.

That the idea of pre-shipping cargo is being taken seriously is a very, very exciting thing!

Do one thing, do it well.

[MightyTribble]

It's smart to pick *one* requirement (like, say, get 4 people to and from orbit in the safest manner possible) and let that be the only criteria for equipment design.

It may well be that we'll end up using simple rockets for this, like the Russians. Sure, it's not sexy, but I bet it'll be both cheaper than Shuttle and safer. Shuttle suffered from 'feature creep', from wacky Air Force 'cross-range' requirements and serious pork. Get rid of all that and NASA could build a safer crew vehicle.

We'd then use the (not human-rated) big dumb boosters like Delta and Atlas to get cargo up. That, too, would be cheaper than Shuttle. Hrm. So, why do we have Shuttle again?

Re-usability seen as harmful

[PCM2]

He also goes on about how a re-usable spacecraft may not be the most cost efficient vehicle.

That's not how I read it. To me, it sounds like he's saying that any efforts by NASA to divert time/energy/know-how/budget into making things more re-usable as a way of cutting long term costs will only divert those resources from the effort to make the space program more safe. If we agree that, having had some really bad setbacks, safety is now the top priority, then it doesn't make sense to keep focusing on issues like re-usability. The exact quote:

"Any other requirements, like reusability to reduce costs, the ability to also carry cargo, or additional functions besides crew transport, would eat into the vehicle's safety margin."

The shuttle is just barely reusable as-is.

[raygundan]

Calling the shuttle reusable is specious at best. The thing requires a $500Million retrofit for EVERY SINGLE FLIGHT it makes. The tiles all have to be reglued, things have to be towed out of the ocean, etc...

It's a one-time use vehicle that we are spending unholy sums of money to fly repeatedly. A split system is a much better idea-- launch the people on a small but completely reliable people-mover, to catch up with a large-but-sloppy-and-cheap cargo hauling ship. Sure, you'll lose an occasional cargo ship-- but if you can make it enough cheaper, people can afford to rebuild and send their crap up twice for the same price as one trip today.

Safety and Reusability

[mnmoore]

Agreed, using the same vehicle for crew and cargo clearly compromises safety and capability for both.

I'm a bit perturbed, though, by the idea that we should go back to launching crew in single-use vehicles a-la 1960. Sure, it would probably be safer than the shuttle, but (and I'm getting tired of hearing it) safety should not be NASA's primary goal. If you want safety, stay home already. Safety as an open-ended goal cannot be satisfied; it is both a money sink and a rhetorical ace-up-the-sleeve. Witness the current "safety from terrorism" efforts.

Part of NASA's reason for being is to advance the state of the art for the public benefit; redeploying fourty year old technology won't do that. The purpose of the Mercury and Gemini projects were to make mistakes and learn from them, to eventually culminate in Apollo. The shuttle is the Mercury of reusable ships. Twenty-five years between technology generations is far too long. Let's learn from our mistakes and (with the cargo-carrying requirement dropped as a mistake) build the next generation shuttle already.

Reusable crew vehicles are ultimately preferred, as they have greater inherent capacity for safety than single-use craft. Which flight of an airliner would you rather be on - its 1000th, or its very first?

Launch the cargo on big dumb boosters but develop an elegant, safe way to get people to and from LEO .

Re:Scrap the space station

[confused one]

What is the point of the space station?

To learn. To build an experience base for human operations in space. So we're not 100% clueless when we decide to actually put people into space to do something serious.

Sort of like practicing how to swim. If you've never practiced, what's gonna happen when you're thrown in the ocean?

Lost Luggage

[No2NT]

It goes without saying, almost...

"I'm sorry, you're luggage is on another flight!"