Slashdot Mirror
Next NASA Vehicles To Resemble Shuttles
ausoleil writes "Spaceref.com has an internal NASA memo outlining potential plans for the next generation of launch vehicles. They will closely resemble the current Shuttle and use some of the same hardware. Of course, they plan to leave the exploding parts out of their next versions. From the article: 'NASA has decided to build two new launch systems - both of which will draw upon existing Space Shuttle hardware. One vehicle will be a cargo-only heavy lifter, the other will be used to launch the Crew Exploration Vehicle.'"
To obscure that fact that we are going back to a model used back during Apollo. After all this waste, we go back to non reusable heavy lifting and deorbiting like a stone.
Erm, actually they are keeping the "exploding bits" and leaving out the bits that so far haven't exploded. The SDV will include the solid rockets (which doomed Challenger) and the fuel tank (which doomed Columbia). The only bit they are leaving out is the orbiter, which has so far has worked properly.
Having said that, it is still an extremely good design. It's almost exactly what the Soviet Union built (separate Energia heavy lift and Soyuz crew vehicles). The only difference is the use of solid motors (which explains why the stock price of Thiokol's parent company has been going up like a, erm, rocket).
Slashdot monitor for your Mozilla sidebar or Active Desktop.
The solid boosters ignition starts with a small Nasa Standard Initiator (NSI) http://www.hstc.com/pdf/nsi.pdf.
That then ignites a small pellet of boron / potassium nitrate.
Which ignites a small rocket motor which is about 4 inches long.
Which ignites a medium sized rocket motor about three feet long.
Which fires a jet of flame for about a tenth of a second, all the way down the whole inside length of the solid boosters, which ignites the whole inside at the same time.
Well, I've been trying to submit a story to slashdot over the past few days about a "parallel path" to government-built shuttle-derived that NASA recently announced, but I haven't had any luck. I've already had four or five variations on it rejected. Anybody have ideas on what might be wrong with the following submission?
At a recent talk, Michael Griffin outlined NASA's plans for helping to generate a robust and competitive commercial market in orbital spaceflight. The speech and Q&A transcripts from the talk are available. In a move reminiscent of the US government kickstarting the early airline industry by purchasing airmail services, NASA plans on supplementing government-derived transport by purchasing cargo delivery services to the International Space Station from commercial providers, followed by crew transportation after the systems have proven themselves. Unlike traditional government contracts, sellers wouldn't see a profit before the services are delivered and the emphasis will be on actual performance instead of process and specifications. Aviation Week has some commentary on the announcement.
The vehicles being proposed do not at all resemble the shuttle. The shuttle itself is being scrapped. The solid rocket boosters, a modified external tank, and the Space Shuttle Main Engines (SSME's)
The key difference between the new models and the existing shuttle is serial architecture versus parallel architecture. The Space Shuttle is an example of parallel architecture - all of the stages firing together. The new proposals operate in serial, one stage at a time. That's a lot safer: abort modes are easier to implement. A first stage failure is not immediately a fatal incident. Also notice they are implementing the CEV for the crew module, not a shuttle.
And although the spaceref article and pretty pictures are new, the ideas/rumors have been floating around the Aerospace community for quite some time now.
-everphilski-
I'm not old enough to have remembered anything about anything to do with space launches and exploration, beyond historical events (landing on the moon almost a decade before I was born or updates about space probes that were sent out before I was born).
The only "big" space events and launches in my life time were the Columbia, which exploded, when I was seven years old, the next successful launch to occur after that disaster (not a big deal, other than everyone in the world tuned in to see if they made it through the launch) and then the explosion upon re-entry a couple years ago.
So really, my generation knows little more of the space program outside of historical events, save for disasters and budget crunches.
People are so narrow-minded and short-sighted that they think "we should be spending money on helping our own people here on earth instead of exploring space". Well, look, there will always be misery and poverty and hunger and war on earth. We're not going to change that and we can't sacrifice exploration and the future of the human race (and ever creature on the planet for that matter) for some fantasy date way off in the future when the world will be perfect and we can proceed with uncharted territory.
Personally, I want us to be a major player in space. We should have stations and colonies already. We should be looking toward a future when mankind has several planets and when his existence as an entire species isn't hinging on the potential devestation of any number of cosmic events that could occur on his home world.
Space exploration is inherently about the continuation of the human race. There is nothing more natural, human or - even - American than that. And damn it, I want to have the awe and thrill of watching heros do amazing things and take amazing risks to explore the universe. My generation needs their own Right Stuff. We need our own glued-to-the-television-in-anticipation experience.
I mean, does anyone even think that landing on the moon a second time is going to be much of a news story? I doubt there will be much coverage (and certainly not real-time) of the launch. And even when they make it to the moon, it will probably rank as a quick blurb in between sports scores and weather on the news. Nothing more. There won't be parades. There won't be speeches. There wont' be much of anything. And I sympathize with the astronauts who probably themselves dream of conguering new territory rather than re-hasing what others have already done.