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.'"

6 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. 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?
  3. 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.

  4. 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
  5. 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.