Slashdot Mirror
NASA Considering Early Retirement of Shuttle Program
Rei writes "While publicly assuring the public that it has no plans to do so, leaks have indicated that NASA has been quietly investigating plans to get rid of the Space Shuttle as soon as possible, and finish the International Space Station with disposable rockets, even as NASA works on achieving Return to Flight in 2005."
Ever heard of the Apollo program? Saturn-V?
Like this.
+++ATH0
Well, after a few years, technology tends to be more than just a few years old. (Yes, it is now time to slap yourself on the forehead.)
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas expressed in software form.
But are the reusable rockets rated for manned space-flight?
a) The story says disposable, not reusable
b) Doesn't look like it -- the article mentions relying on Soyuz (and potentially Shenzhou) for manned flights in future.
Let me put it this way. The Space Shuttle costs $500 million dollars for each flight. A Delta II costs ~$50 million (with possible bulk discounts bringing the price down from there). The shuttle has a maximum cargo loadout of 28.8 metric tons. The Delta II has a maximum loadout of 10.9 metric tons.
1 Shuttle Flight:
$500m
28.8 metric tons
10 Delta II flights:
$500m
10 x 10.9 = 109 metric tons
Any questions?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Named after the patterns that stars form in the night sky, Constellation Systems is responsible for developing the Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) and related exploration architecture systems. Constellation Systems is the combination of large and small systems that will provide humans the capabilities necessary to travel and explore the solar system. Constellation Systems will be made up of Earth-to-orbit, in-space and surface transportation systems, surface and space-based infrastructures, power generation, communications systems, maintenance and science instrumentation, and robotic investigators and assistants." (source)
The moral of the story is that when you shut down the manufacturing line for a complex product, you shut it down for good.
The shuttles are cool but they've never gotten anywhere near to the cost/lb that the program was started for. I remember as far back as the mid-seventies that they were being critisized for being too expensive as compared to one-shot rockets. It's not really NASA fault, they kept having to scale back the designs due to budget cuts, the origional vision was to have a 100% reusable system built out of titanium alloy instead of the partially resuable alluminum design that they ended up with. The lighter weight of a more expensive alloy and not throwing away the fuel tanks might have made the cost/flight cheap enough to be competative.
This is silly. The modules currently built or under construction won't fit. They are designed specifically to fit in the cargo bay of the shuttle, both in shape and the location of attachment points. This is mentioned in the article.
They are magnificent! I think they still stand as being some of the most complicated and powerful things ever built! And all that was done 40 years ago... they were absolutely amazing.
A little snippet from wikipedia: "The Saturn V is arguably one of the most impressive machines in human history. Over 110 m high and 10 m in diameter, with a total mass of three thousand metric tonnes and a payload capacity of 118,000 kg to LEO, the Saturn V dwarfed and overpowered all other rockets which have ever successfully flown, with the exception of the Soviet Energia booster."
118000 kilos to low earth orbit! It would take about 5 space shuttle missions to lift that same amount. I wonder what could be accomplished now given our advances in lightweight materials and computing power?
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
Not at least until the private sector comes up with a vehicle that is capable of what the shuttle accomplished.
Which was... what? Not live up to the plans for it?
Orbit
* * * --they cant all be your best, that would be confusing
To follow the space election political discussion including the fate of the shuttle from both sides, read this thread on NASA Watch.
What is the "big dumb booster"?
Only the shuttle and the SRB's have engines. The external tank is just what it sounds like - a tank. Not a booster.
And of course it wouldnt get very far without the ET or SRB's, thats like saying a plane wont get very far if you take off its engines and remove its fueltanks!
The russian proton rocket offers a cost effective alternative to the shuttle, and it doesnt need several 100 people watching it 24/7...
And it is also a very bad comparison to compare an aircraft servicing to a spacecraft servicing.
After all, your standard aircraft doesnt have to sit atop the equivalent (in explosive terms) of a small nuclear bomb. It also doesnt need to travel at ~17500mph, or, in fact, endure temperatures of more than 3000K! If an aircraft has a fault during flight it can, most of the time, simply divert to an airport for repairs - a task that is simply impossible in orbit.
And i really dont think the shuttle has a poor safety record considering the complexity of the system. 2 failures out of over 100 flights isnt bad for a massively complex vehicle that does what the shuttle can.
And finally, i really dont think nasa has the shuttle because it looks cool.
It may look cool but it has to get the job done. It is the only vehicle in history to be able to carry men into space on multiple occassions and that in itself is an achievement.
Cheers,
Simon
The Supersonic Spaceplane was scrapped in favor of the ScramJet Spaceplane, which was scrapped in favor of the DC-X Delta Clipper, which was scrapped in favor of the X-33 VentureStar, which was scrapped in favor of a little ScramJet missile (the X-43). Thus we've come full circle.
The real problem is that NASA has been trying to build craft out of untested technologies. The end result is that each program (with the exception of the DC-X) failed due to delays and cost overruns. For example, the VentureStar HAD to have hydrogen slush, composite tanks, linear aerospike engines, and new thermal protection systems all working perfectly the first time. There was no room to change out anything that didn't behave as expected.
As a result, we've been kind of chasing our tails around a bit instead of building craft out of proven technology.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
The shuttle's max payload to LEO is 28800 kg. If you include the weight of the shuttle itself, then, yes, it is 104000kg.
Saturn V's payload is 118000kg. If you want to lift a massive amount to LEO at once, the Saturn V was the way to go. Skylab was launched with a single two stage Saturn V. What normally would have been the third stage was the entire Skylab space station.
In fact, if you examine only lifting capacity, you could have boosted the entire International Space station to low earth orbit with two Saturn V's (with plenty to spare). How many trips have the shuttle and other rockets made to take parts up for that thing? Certainly more than two. As a heavy lifter, few have matched the Saturn V.
"False hope is why we'll never run out of natural resources!" - Lewis Black
The problem with the ISS as a base, is that it's in the absolute wrong orbit. It only gets a few economical opportunities for lunar launch angles a month, is equally sub-optimal fuel-wise for both the Russians and the US. And space construction techniques are hamstrung by NASA not letting any ISS astronauts even *try* to debug broken modules and by spacesuits that require long pre-breathe procedures and are essentially minor-change versions of the suits from Apollo.
Gentoo Sucks
Thank you Ghost of Wernher von Braun!
Hmmm... I'm not sure Von Braun's ghost is the best entity to summon here. Von Braun had more than a little to do with putting the shuttle on NASA's technology roadmap. Mars Direct is called Direct partly because it deliberately abandons a big chunk of the Von Braun architecture, which is that you have a space station, serviced by shuttles, where you assemble your outward bound spaceships. Even when you take out the station, Von Braun's 1969/1970 Mars architecture relies on shuttles to cover the gap between LEO and the ground. This article entitled The Von Braun Master Plan: National Dream or National Nightmare? sums up the objections to Von Braun's architecture -- and NASA's long term adherence to it -- concisely.
BTW, Here's Von Braun's 1950's vision
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
References:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/000323.html#more
Read that for the official response from NASA.