Slashdot Mirror
The Return of Apollo?
hpulley writes "Bell bottoms are back, the Stones are still touring and Time has a piece on how NASA's _new_ space vehicle may actually be the return of a very old friend, a highly modified and modernized version of the Apollo Space Capsule. Manned spacecraft might actually leave low earth orbit again! Initially they'd fly with Delta and Atlas but more powerful boosters could be developed. We could go to the Moon again, and perhaps to Mars but I'm getting ahead of myself. Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught? Expensive steps backward?"
Didn't they just come off of serious embarassment with the Columbia disaster and now they are going to re-instate 50-year-old technology?
I'm a big fan of capsules to go into space. There's no reason why a capsule can't be reusable. They sit on top of the rocket, the best place for a payload. A rocket can be attached to the top for an escape option. They are a lot cheaper. On and on. NASA can still work on reusable boosters, without having to change the basic capsule design.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Does that mean the last 30 years of space flight have been for naught?
No, it doesn't. We've learned a LOT about spaceflight in the last 30 years, from both successes and failures. The shuttle program had both hits and misses, and a lot of important research was conducted regardless.
And I don't think anyones going to mars in one of those little tin cans. Imagine a year in that thing?
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
It worked. Also a space craft with wings seems to complicate most flight operations as opposed to simplifying them. Is it really more efficient to have the shuttle land than to just fish a capsule out of the water? It seems that numberous take-off and flight issues are created by the addition of wings simply so the craft can land like a plane.
Atlas, etc. are good rockets, but they can't beat the sheer power and relatively low G forces of the Saturn V. Since they'll (mostly) be going to LEO, as well as building a capsule that is 5-8% larger to accomodate a 4th passenger, why not take another look at the Saturn series of rockets?
They could use the upper stage as a cargo hold -- arrive in orbit and unlock/unbolt the sides (can't use explosive bolts that close to the ISS) to remove your stuff. Anyone know the diameter of the Saturn V third stage compared to the shuttle's cargo bay?
Chip H.
The capsules are fine for moving people, but space planes would be better as "trucks" hauling materials into space to build upon the ISS.
An active capsule system will also allow for better and more frequent moon visits and (wildly overdue) MOON BASES which could be visited by SPACE PLANES.
Then we'd be Rockin'... If we can build Moon bases, we can then look at Mars bases... We really need to rationalise this who space enterprise thing, and I think developing a multiplicity of space vehicles is a smart idea - capsule people movers, Spaceplane trucks, it all makes sense...
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
Also, I honestly think this Single Stage to Orbit (SSTO) idea is foolish and stupid. Most of what I have read seems to indicate that a dual stage system would lower the cost per pound from USD 100k to about $6k and one could have two pieces that are reusable. To me that makes a lot more sense and by all acounts more doable.
If we are serious about keeping the ISS up there, the next generation of space craft could save space to be a delivery and construction/repiar work on satelites and the ISS, then save expiraments for the ISS.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Not quite.
We're finally seeing an admission from the aerospace establishment that the shuttle has failed as an experiment. Wings on space craft are essentially a burden. Mercury-Gemini-Apollo demonstrated that you could come back to earth -- even in a controlled fashion -- without wings. Shuttle had wings to meet an Air Force requirement on cross range capability. Now the Air Force doesn't even use the shuttle.
So, the immediate future of vehicles intended to reach orbit looks like something that's been proven to work for both the United States and Russia. It's good to see people actually looking for something that works well.
In other ways, though, this development is a further criticism of the NASA culture. Much has been reported about the suppression of dissent in the safety culture. This is one aspect of a larger suppression of independent thinking in aerospace culture. The lack of new ideas shows another aspect. The unwillingness to examine things outside the industry (the "not invented here" syndrome) demonstrates still another.
New ideas and technologies thrive in free atmospheres. People are more willing to try new things. Good ideas get promoted. Faulty ones, even if held by people with power, are more likely to be challenged. For the aerospace industry to succeed, such a model must be embraced, not shunned.
"Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy." -- B. Franklin
oh right, forgot that for some people world = US
Manned spacecraft might actually leave low earth orbit again!
Again? What again? Soyuz is capable of this all the time (it was meant for moon missions initially)
The capsule system was inherently "modular" thus the inspiration for this bit of classic SF. The only irony I find in all this is how accurate SF may have once again proven to be.
Just don't tell anyone in Hollywood. After seeing what they did with Lost In space, I don't want even a chance of them getting hold of my fave SF series for one of their ticky-tacky plotless rehashes.
As with so much in life an investment is necessary to get the returns. To really benefit from space we must spend tens of billions on basic infrastructure. The ROI will be worth it. Big projects. A catapult for bulk loads would be a good start and possible with off the shelf technology.
Even better would be a genuine attempt to build a space plane. All the half-assed three or four million dollar projects to date were nothing more than a waste of time.
Best would be to immediately begin work on an elevator. Current best estimates say that an elevator could be built in about ten years, with a budget of six billion. Considering that the US is spending more than $8 billion per month in Iraq, I'd say we obviously have $6 Billion to spend over the course of ten years...
When you think small, you get small results. I don't care if its NASA, or a private corporation, or a group of various space agencies and corporations, but we must begin thinking big or else nothing will ever happen.
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
Why have a shuttle of both men and equipment? Capsules have been historically safe. There are very few moving parts, a SMALL area of heating surface, and can be disposable (lower cost?).
Have a seperate vehical for taking materials up, that is unmanned.
Have the manned vehical go up seperate, and reduce RISKS.
Now, the final word: Why have astronaughts go up for such a short time? If they risk their lives, make them stay up their till they can't stand it anymore.
This issue is all about risk, and a capsule solution for taking people into space is the right answer.
A few tonnes?
Saturn V could lift the best part of 100 tonnes into orbit. It could have lifted the whole ISS in 2-3 launches, pretty much. (Skylab was huge compared to the ISS, and was at a much higher altitude).
By way of contrast, the Shuttle has only just got up to 30 tonnes, and the Shuttle is more expensive per tonne; and can't achieve the same altitude, and certainly isn't capable of lunar missions.
So what's the point of the Shuttle anyway? Because it's partly reusable so therefore it's cheaper isn't it? Umm, actually...
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"We actually *have* brought stuff back from space many times. There have been a number of large orbital experiment platforms that were taken up and down on the Shuttle. One, in particular, was taken up right before Challenger and was retrieved sometime in the 90's on a different shuttle flight (I forget the name and am too lazy to look it up). Also, there was one instance where a commercial satelite that didn't make it into orbit was retrieved. I'm not saying that those limited instances justify the design, but it *has* been used.
Go Badgers! -- #include "std/disclaimer.h"
Our space program invested time and money to invent an ink pen for our astronauts that had a pressurized ink cartridge that could still write in both zero gravity and at varying degrees of gravity while held at all pitch angles with respect to the direction force of gravity.
The Russians sent pencils into space with their cosmonauts to write with.
If you think the space shuttle was for naught, you might look at what the shuttle was designed for? Why do we have pickup trucks, 4 door sedans, station wagons, sports cars, buses, tractor-trailers, and trains? Different vehicles, different purposes. Maybe you should have asked, "What if NASA had split time, money, and resources between two big projects over the past 30 years?" Or, maybe you should have asked, "What if NASA has spent MORE money on two big projects? Would we still have the USSR and the cold war?" Now that technology has advanced, we might see some gains from moon visits. However, the liberals will not like "wasting" money on frivolous trips to the moon. They definitely won't like non-reuseable rockets. They'll whine and complain. A trip to Mars? Bah!
-- No sig for you!
"Say Columbus took the Apollo route to the New World. He starts off with three ships. Along about the Canary Islands he sinks the first ship, just throws it away, deliberately. And it's his biggest ship. Come [163] to the Bahamas, he throws away the second ship. He reaches the New World
"If that's what it took to cross the Atlantic, this part of the world would still belong to the Seminoles."
All Troll + "offtopic" mods are meta moderated as "Unfair", because you abused the system.
Don't forget about this from last year. This was a modified Soyuz rocket (not capsule), I think. One soldier was killed on the launch pad. Actually, I stumbled onto a nice chronology of space accidents. To your point--the Russians make good (capsule) and not quite as good stuff (booster). Looking over that chronology, the lesson seems to be that space travel is dangerous.
The Russian Shuttle was built like a tank. Since it was built after the majority of our own shuttles, isn't its heat tiling superior? Perhaps NASA should acquire it...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Remember this?
The people here who bellyache about cost and danger and whether it should look like a plane or not, should look at this. It was a very serious contender for the X-33 program. It is a SSTO vehicle which is far more manueverable than the shuttle and far safer. And until an unfortuneate accident in 1997, the US had an actual working model. It is used to carry people into orbit. You want payload? Use a Detla V or an Arriane. You want a reusable work horse for people? Strongly consider reserecting this.
Oh and BTW
Space travel will be dangerous for the forseeable future. People will die. Maybe less people would die if we are more concerned about discovery and science and exploration than about cost. It's going to be expensive, but as one earlier poster pointed out, we are likely to get more out of a few billion spent on space exploration than we do out of the 8 Billion per MONTH spent in Iraq.
There. I feel better now.
Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
The only rationalization for the design is if you're going to bring stuff back from space
Nixon signed off on the shuttle because he was told we could use it to steal Soviet satellites. He thought it was a cool idea.
Like the Russians wouldn't rig the satellite to blow up. Guess he watched "You Only Live Twice" too many times...
What happened to this idea?
Very long railgun on the ground, gently ascending up a hill?
Sure its a big initial capital investment, but after that you're just paying for the power.
And the vehicles can then basically just be gliders.
I browse at +5 Flamebait- moderation for all or moderation for none.
...we're back to following the Russian's lead on spaceflight? Kennedy is rolling in his grave.
mbbac
The space shuttle was originallt speced out to be a REUSABLE spacecraft, just check the tires, top off the fluids, and it's good to go again.
In part, that changed during it's design when it turned out that reusable in that sense just wouldn't work out for some of the parts.
In other cases, we found out that in practice, various other componants were not really reusable.
Instead, the shuttle was actually REBUILDABLE though it was mostly designed to be reusable.
It probably would have worked a lot better had it been designed to be rebuildable from the start, and it certainly would have been cheaper than rebuilding a craft that wasn't designed to be rebuilt.
For an example, replace the very expensive and fragile (as it turns out, too fragile) heat tiles and carbon panels with a cheap ablative resin. On landing, sandblast the char away and re-apply. Instead, since it had to be reusable, they went with the much more expensive and risky tiles and panels.
Another interesting idea might be to leave parts of the thing in orbit. Each flight could dock with the service module and use it for the duration of their mission, then disconnect and leave it for the next crew. The part that returns would need to carry the expendibles, and have the self contained capability to return should something go wrong. That may or may not be useful (after all, space is a hostile environment, so unpowered equipment may not be durable enough to use again without serious work and time that is not available or worth it), but it's an interesting concept to consider.
That would also shift the burden of redundancy somewhat since it would no longer be necessary to trade off capacity vs. more redundancy. In theory, the entire service module could be replaced in orbit if it came to that. Even life support provisions could be provided. At the end of a mission, just before seperation, any reserves that were not used in the mission could be transferred to the SM for use on a later mission.
Another interesting option after further research is to actually use tethers to transfer momentum from the returning capsule to the SM in order to get what amounts to a boost for nothing.
I don't think that NASA has done absolutely NOTHING in the last few decades, it's just that by sticking with the shuttle as-is, it hasn't been able to take much advantage of the things it's learned. A more modular system is in order so that they don't get stuck again with an all or nothing technology update. Capsule, booster and SM should be seperate projects which are updated and improved more or less seperatly.