Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Next NASA Vehicles To Resemble Shuttles

Posted by Zonk on from the stick-with-a-good-thing dept.

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.'"

18 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Nice to see an Ares stack finally getting props by rossifer · · Score: 5, Informative

    This memo could be a photocopy of something circulating thirty years ago. Sounds like they're finally going to take advantage of the modular parts of the shuttle the way they talked about when the shuttle stack design was being originally being funded twenty-five to thirty years ago. One nice change is that the rumor mill believes the heavy lift stack bears a striking resemblance to Robert Zubrin's Ares stack (a.k.a. Shuttle-Z).

    The "Shuttle-C" cargo stack (and variations) were originally publically discussed in the early '80s as reasons why the shuttle was worth all we were spending (you don't just get the shuttle, you also get a "normal" heavy-lift launcher). Those variants, however, have had problems that could only be resolved by massive cultural change at the NASA level. One of the biggest issues was payload capacity of the side-slung configuration. Since then variations including the Ares stack and the more recent Shuttle-B have appeared and pretty much gone nowhere.

    I suspect that the United Space Alliance's (USA's) "risk averse" culture will actively hinder and ultimately frustrate all of these plans. If you've ever worked for a government contractor, you'll understand the culture I'm talking about. They (Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, the companies in the USA partnership) don't have to compete in markets, and are positively allergic to any hint that they may have to compete with other companies for revenue. If NASA's hoping for bargains, they won't find them when dealing with USA.

    Regards,
    Ross

    1. Re:Nice to see an Ares stack finally getting props by Seumas · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First cynical point: They'll be using the existing shell design, because they're going to use existing everything. We pay billions, they claim to have redesigned everything, they redesign nothing. They make a few minor cosmetic changes and we all live under the assertion that we live in a brave new NASA world of progress once again while some beaurocrat reappropriates the money for his own black-ops.

      Second cynical point: If our one big goal is to go BACK to the MOON within the next decade (or was it twenty years?), why do we need such new complex spacecraft? We did it in April of 1969 with the computing power of today's calculator, but we need a complete overhaul to manage to do something we already did almsot four decades ago?

      I'm seeing us spending a lot of money here. Doing a lot of grunt work here. Yet, all we're achieving is the same thing we've already achieved. How disapointing.

    2. Re:Nice to see an Ares stack finally getting props by Seumas · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

  2. Vehicles only to look like shuttle on the outside by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  3. That's just great by Chmcginn · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As such, while much of what is done by the existing infrastructure and workforce at KSC will be similar to what is done for the Space Shuttle system, it will likely require a much smaller workforce. While members of Congress from the space states will be happy to hear of a new launch system - one that retains some existing infrastructure - they will not be happy to hear that jobs will be lost.

    So, as always, (good science/actual military need/sensible budget-keeping (pick appropriate phrase based on article) ) takes a backseat to Senator Whosit saying, "You won't cost my state jobs!"

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  4. SRBs not SSMEs! by mikejz84 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Overall, not a bad idea--it will be a Saturn V class booster. I am not crazy about using 6 SSMEs however, they are designed to be reusable, not flown on an expendable booster and are expensive as hell (about $300 million for the 6 first stage engines alone) Also, I seems to only speak of using 2 SRBs in the in-line HLLV, it would seem to me to make more sense to use 4 or 6 clustered around the core. After all, the shuttle SRBs are some of the cheapest power you can get.

  5. What's old is new again by AKAImBatman · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Crew Exploration Vehicle is certainly nothing new. Nor am I surprised by NASA's desire for a more powerful booster. It is, however, good to see NASA again contemplating super boosters. While many people feel that such boosters are useless (hi Rei!), there are certain circumstances under which they can be tremendously useful.

    Take the case of SkyLab vs. the International Space Station. According to Wikipedia, the two stack up as follows:
    Mass:
    SkyLab: 77,088 kg
    ISS: 419,000 kg (when completed; currently 183,283 kg)

    # of Lauches for complete construction:
    SkyLab: 1
    ISS: 50 (39 Shuttle flights)
    Now with some simple math, we find that SkyLab averaged 77,088 kg per launch which the ISS averages about 8,380 kg per launch.

    If you didn't just do a double take, you should have. The booster that lifted SkyLab stuck over 9 times the mass into orbit that current ISS flights do! Just what is going on here?

    The answer lies in the Saturn V Booster vs. the current Space Shuttle. A three stage Saturn V had a maximum payload of 118,000 kg. (That's enough to send the entire ISS up in only 4 flights.) The Space Shuttle, OTOH, only has a cargo of 28,800 kg to LEO. So why does NASA want to reuse the tech? Because of the weight of the shuttle itself.

    The Space Shuttle orbiter weighs in at a whopping 104,000 kg! Combined with its cargo capacity, the Space Shuttle is capable of 132,800 kg to LEO! That's way more than the Saturn V could manage on all three stages. So if we ditch the orbiter itself, the shuttle's infrastructure could be the most powerful superbooster ever designed.
    --
    Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
    1. Re:What's old is new again by Rakishi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You're missing certain points. That shuttle weight includes the engines, have fun launching things without those. So that wil ltake up some mass as well. In addition the Shuttle engines were designed along the lines of: efficiency and reusability above all else including cost. Yup, they're expensive, efficient and designed to be reused. So those of course can't be used for a non-reusable launch vechicle which means the engines used won't be quite as good. It can stil lsend a lot into LOE but not nearly as much as you're talking about.

  6. Nope, he's just... by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Funny

    trying to exercise his constitutional right to never, ever be offended.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
  7. What's On The Drawing... by __aaclcg7560 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's nice to know that NASA is putting together two new launch vehicles for cargo and crew. However, what's on the drawing board to follow those vehicles in the next 10, 20, or 50 years from now? Or, is NASA is doomed to repeat the shuttle experience again by using the new vehicles for the next 30 years without having anything new in the pipeline?

    What we need is NASA to get out of the vehicle design business and let the free-market industry come up with innovative designs to build, test and deliver. It should be like building cars when the designs keep getting better and more reliable every year.

    1. Re:What's On The Drawing... by fm6 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...is NASA is doomed to repeat the shuttle experience again by using the new vehicles for the next 30 years without having anything new in the pipeline?
      Short answer: of course. The political situation that created the disastrous Shuttle is still in effect, only more so. Which is: politicians need to be seen to be backing manned space travel, but don't have any incentive to give it real funding. So NASA gets enough money to keep one manned space program going (barely!), and no more.
  8. Do We Have To Keep Carrying Our Fuel With Us? by DanielMarkham · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously. Why are we still building giant fireworks? Couldn't a mass-driver work with new heat-resistant materials? Or those JP Aerospace guys with the blimps-to-orbit plan?
    Even the Space Elevator doesn't have this problem. Surely there are better things to do with the money to lower cost-to-orbit than building giant bottle-rockets. As long as we remain under the paradigm of taking our fuel with us, it seems to me the cost and complexity goes through the roof. My two cents only.

    NASA Budget Shows Shuttle Phase-Out

  9. Exploding bits? by FTL · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "Of course, they plan to leave the exploding parts out of their next versions."

    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.
  10. Re:Exploding parts? by georgewilliamherbert · · Score: 5, Interesting
    without "exploding parts", how will the shuttle take off? Isn't the ignition of the bosters and kind of explosion?
    No, not explosives.

    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.

  11. NASA to Buy Commercial Transport to ISS by FleaPlus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  12. So, to go forwards... by payndz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...it's necessary to go backwards. Expendable stacks and capsules rather than re-usable orbiters.

    On the one hand, I'm glad. The Shuttle has proved to be a horrible waste of money, a boondoggle of 1970s technology dictated by political pork and military paranoia rather than being designed for an actual specific purpose, and I'm glad it's going to be replaced.

    It's just a shame that the only way we can get people out into space seems to be with 1960s technology rather than 2000s. At least, under the current government-funded model.

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  13. Does not at all resemble the Shuttle by everphilski · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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-

  14. This isn't FARK, leave the crude headlines to them by ayeco · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Please, have a little respect. The "exploding parts" comment in the headline was uncalled for and childish.