NASA's New Shuttle

j0ugh writes "NASA releases plans for a new spacecraft (Audio stream contains the meat) that would replace the space shuttle. The vehicle is part of a system that will be capable of putting astronauts on the moon by 2018, laying the groundwork for space travel to Mars. NASA says the new system is designed to be 10 times safer than the space shuttle"

Comments

Re:Why fly...

[minginqunt]

When you put a date of '2018' on something, being at least two US administrations away, isn't that akin to basically saying "maybe, one day, but I wouldn't count on it"?

I wish we could be honest. Nobody really can be bothered to put a man on the Moon or Mars. It's faster, cheaper and easier to have a little wheeled avatar nipping around for us, searching out prime real estate and letting us know that the nightlife in these places isn't a patch on Vauxhall, daahling.

I mean, I'd like it to happen, but we all know it won't, right?

Martin

New wine, old bottle

[FishandChips]

Perhaps we've moved a bit beyond this stuff, though NASA hasn't yet gotten the message or is worried about its future funding. For a start it looks as if unmanned missions could achieve the same at far less cost. Second, missions like this are really about the future good of all mankind, unless you're some crazed tycoon who wants to own space, the planets, etc. So perhaps the other major power blocks in the world could be induced to cooperate and to spread the cost. Who knows, they might even come up with some good ideas or tasty new technology. The US is financially overstretched as it is.

Back to where they begun?

[Andr0s]

I must say, it is interesting to notice that NASA has, in fact, finally opted to return to the old, well-tried capsule approach, as opposed to reusable reentry vehicles such as Shuttle. Especially when one takes into consideration the significant amount of resistance NASA experts have been offering to the idea for years and years, despite the poor cost-to-results ratio of Shuttles and, apparently, high(er) risks involved in Shuttle flights as compared to capsule flights.

Perhaps it is a bit of me that loves rubbing it in to american 'rocket scientists', but it might be interesting to notice that Russians never fully embraced their shuttles (Buran, http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/rsa/buran.html ) despite it posessing payload and operational capacities superior to those of US Shuttle...

Re:Back to where they begun?

[AKAImBatman]

No offsense, but the Russians were stupid to build the Buran in the first place. The only reason why they built it was that Reagan had them convinced of the need for "technological parity". They bought it, hook, line, and sinker.

The Buran never flew again, because Russia went bankrupt and experienced a coup. There was no money left to fly the Buran (or much else until the US starting pumping $$$ into it), and the orbiter and facilities were all pawned to the Ukrainian government for a loan.

Re:SSME complications

[mj_1903]

I don't think they will. The J-2 hasn't been built in years and while the J-2S (the more modern version) could have production restarted Thiokol believes it would take more than 4 years to restart production.

I suspect that development and certification of the SSME for orbital restarts would take significantly less time and money than the restarting of the entire J-2S program.

Re:SSME complications

[AKAImBatman]

I did hear about this, but the last thing I heard was that the J-2S plan was scrapped. Since the J-2 is no longer in production, it would be costly to rebuild and recertify it. So costly that it seems easier for NASA to modify the SSMEs, of which they have a great deal of experience.

On the big launcher, there has been talk of using the RS-68 engines from the Delta IV instead of the SSMEs. Supposedly that would increase the payload capability of the craft. No idea if that's going to go anywhere.

I like it, but I also have questions and doubts.

[Zobeid]

NASA have needed a heavy lifter ever since they (foolishly) retired the Saturn V. Now they'll finally have one again, and that's good. However, it doesn't seem to me like a big step up from the Saturn V -- unless I'm missing something. How does the payload capacity to LEO compare? Off the top of my head, I thought the Saturn V was rated for 220 tons to LEO, the new rocket only 125 tons. But maybe I am mis-remembering something, or reading something wrong?

I'm a little disappointed that nobody seems interested in reviving the old Sea Dragon concept from the 1960s. If you were really serious about going to Mars, that would make a good foundation for it.

The CEV and associated launcher look sensible. I'm not sure about the CEV's crew capacity. NASA say it can carry four astronauts to the Moon or potentially six to Mars. Do I sense a problem with their math skills? Maybe another of those pesky metric conversion errors. :p Anyhow. . . To me it looks adequate (not great) for lunar missions. The idea of sending it to Mars is ludicrous, it would be like sticking Columbus in a rowboat with five other guys and sending him out to find America.

The good news is that NASA are finally picking up where they left off 30 years ago. The bad news is that NASA are picking up where they left off 30 years ago. . . and we have precious little to show for the decades, lives, and many billions of dollars sacrificed to the Shuttle.

Re:Why fly...

[orac2]

OT, but if you're interested in the elevator, you may want to check this feature by elevator guru Brad Edwards in last month's IEEE Spectrum magazine.

Innovation is obviously lacking at Nasa

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I guess unwilling for radical new designs, Nasa is opting to go back to more trial tested designs in an effort to increase safety in their missions.

The only problem is, I don't see how something that simply falls out of the sky and drops into the ocean as being safer then a shuttle glider configuration. I guess the shuttle pretty much drops out of the sky as well, and has greater surface area which could become damaged, as we have learned.

What I don't get is that the payload section doesn't seem as well conceived on the "new" shuttle and they seem to be focusing mostly on a Moon landing. Is this configuration ideal for general orbital work? The Shuttle has proven to be very versitle once in space, I don't see a capsule offering the same maneuverability and adaptability as a Shuttle with the robotic arm and large payload section.

I think Nasa is on the brink of ruin if this is what they can come up with after 40+ years of innovation. Going back to an old design might improve safety at the cost of being robust and versitile. This is not a step forward. If Nasa's greatest goal is to go the moon after 13 years of preperation (after they have already been there once), one has to start questioning the usefullness of Nasa.

I think ultimatly that while Japan, China, Russia, and possibly Canada (talking about it) having launch capabilites, Nasa will become redundant as enterprises will opt for a more forward thinking and fruitfull space programs. Also, when "amateurs" can build space craft, Nasa's role in space is quickly becoming deprecated if there is an emerging privatization of space.

Re:Innovation is obviously lacking at Nasa

[Edward Ka-Spel]

This system takes a different attack than the shuttle. One of the biggest problems with the shuttle is efficiency. If you want to launch a large satellite, why do you need to include all the huge amounts of junk to hold the life support for 7 people. On the other hand, if you just want to get people to and from the ISS, why do you need to haul up this great big huge payload section. The shuttle tried to do everything for everybody, all at the same time. This created a huge amount of complexity and drove the price way up.

The new system would split that up into smaller sections. The CEV could be configured to hold only crew to go to the ISS. To hold only cargo, where it can carry as much as the shuttle, or to carry a mix of crew and cargo. That's not even counting the heavy lifter. This system is a much more cost effective and robust launch platform than the shuttle.

And if it isn't immediatly clear how a capsule can reenter safer than a huge glider, I'm not sure how to explain it. Other than it is easier for a parachuter to land than for a 747.

As for the old design, we've been stuck on this airplane design since the 30s. Foreward wings, rear wings, tail, big propulsion engine, etc. When are we going to see some innovation there?

Common sense

[joib]

I mean, the space shuttle was an experiment in how to screw it up. Expensive, unsafe, you name it.

When we have non-chemical propulsion and somewhat fancier materials it might be time to take another look at the reusable space plane approach. Until then, the basic multi-stage capsule on top design seems to be the best choice in terms of operational cost and safety.

I wonder

[Shivetya]

how many NASA engineers and others secretly cheered when Bush and Co. announced the end of the shuttle?

For too long we spent out time focused on the Shuttle instead of space itself. Everything other than a few probes was centered around the space shuttle. How much of the ISS was compromised because of the shuttle? Perhaps the original glamour of a flying space plane helped NASA but it sure turned into a Spruce Goose pretty damn quickly.

I really like this new direction. Getting the moon is the first step. While we might not reach Mars from there we never will have any chance if we just putz around in Earth orbit.

Perhaps the next habitation in space can be built on the moon. That can put the glamour back into the space age in a more practical method than a space plane.

Public Support

[SkyFire360]

While this may seem superficial, I think this design may be a step backward for NASA in terms of both design and public image. This seems to be nearly identical to the design we used to land on the moon almost 40 years ago. With all the designs being submitted by Lockheed Martin and Boeing for next-generation spaceflight, it makes me wonder why they chose the same route for technology they used before.

In addition, the space shuttle had the wow-factor for the public: it was a step right direction on the long road to Star Wars/Star Trek technology. I hope the public doesn't look at this design and begin to lose interest in the space program, if only because it looks like 40-year-old technology.

Re:Good Design (for 1960)

[feloneous cat]

This design will be inexpensive (NASA is merely redirecting the shuttle buget plus a little extra), reuse existing components/industry, will be more powerful than any rocket ever designed, and will finally give us back the ability to put USEFUL stuff into space.

If I recall, the biggest bitch people had at the time of the Saturn V was how MUCH it cost to put stuff into orbit. The result was the shuttle was supposed to reduce this cost.

But, instead of using boosters WITHOUT gaskets (which could be built down the road) someone decided they needed pork. So the boosters had to be built in sections. Which required gaskets. Which resulted in the first big boom.

I remember when Grissom, White, and Chaffee died in the Apollo fire. I remember Apollo 13 (another near disaster). Don't tell me that this is a safer design. Heck, let's just start using statistics to lie with while we're at it.

And yes, it is a step back. NASA, as far as I'm concerned, is dead. It was supposed to be civilian, but has been slowly sucked into being part of the military.

This is nothing but bad news....

I, explorer

[rumblin'rabbit]

Robots are all well and good, but contrary to the popular conceit, you can't explore with telescopes and probes. To do anything truly worth the effort, you need to send people there, and there'll never be a shortage of willing souls, so why not go for it?

Actually, robots have been great explorers, and will only get better. What's more, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than humans because they don't require food, water, or air, they don't defecate, you don't have to return them to earth (astronauts are picky about that one), and they eat sunshine. As well, they don't mind being sent on multi-year missions (being far more patient than us apes) and if things go horribly wrong, it's a disappointment but not a tragedy.

Because of the difference in cost and risk, you can do vastly more exploration with robots than with people. I think sending people is the real conceit, and one that costs lives.

Re:I, explorer

[iamlucky13]

My point is this: Anything that can be done by robots should be done by robots. And exploring Mars can be done by robots.

True. But it is hardly conceit for humans to explore space and further the technologies to do so. If we never start exploring and learning how to survive in space, we will never colonize. Baby steps. The mars rovers figure out where we want to go and what resources are available when we get there, the lunar missions teach us how to get there and survive in the process, then we actually go to Mars (or Europa, or maybe someday Alpha Centari), and last of all some other slashdotter adds in the cliche "3.) ???; 4.) Profit!"

As to the capability of robots, it is true that they improve constantly, but they still aren't human. If a robot truly could match a human, not just in dexterity or sensors, but economically and intelligently, as well, there wouldn't really be a need for risky jobs like combat soldiers, firemen, demolition experts, coal miners (the most hazardous peacetime occupation, as far as I know), etc. Ultimately, I guess it comes down to money.

Why do we still use solar panels?

[notbob]

Can anyone explain why we are constantly still using friggin solar panels?

I understand they're renewable energy and I think they make great backup generators.

But umm how about a nuclear reactor instead please? Something to make some serious power.

Also if you're sending a lunar lander thats going to leave part of itself behind why not design it in a modular fashion to become part of the lunar base?

Nasa needs a better lego's set, if supplies can be autonomously launched to the moon why not send everything you could ever need there to try to build a base? "maybe one day make methane" on the moon... ok so send every possible way of making methane up there and have one of the astronaunts test the idea

Drop off a lunar rover etc..., how about dropping off something to grow plants in to make some food? Something to make oxygen? I mean really quick, cheap, dirty concept works great... who cares if we litter the moon with stuff? Nobody's been there in 30 years, if some stuff breaks on landing well we'll scavange from it, fire up the replacements scotty.

Increasing HLV Capacity with more SRBs

[IdahoEv]

Is there any fundamental reason they are limited to two SRBs for the HLV unit?

SRBs have a lot of residual thrust for fairly cheap. Once you have a rotationally-symmetric stack, eliminating the balance considerations of the SSTS, it would seem you could significantly increase your maximum lift capability by putting four or six SRBs around your central unit. More lift with very little redesign requirements.

No tubes in the COMPUTER, but other systems

[Ellis D. Tripp]

still used them. The RF power amplifiers for communications, the klystrons/magnetrons for landing/docking radar, TWTs in the telemetry transponders, and the vidicon and image dissector tubes used in the TV cameras. I believe there was also a CRT used for one of the cockpit displays (radar?).

Re:News?

[delong]

Note to all the Rutan freaks out there: if you can do this was less than $60 billion, feel free to try. Even better, volunteer to be a test pilot...

I'm sure he could.

http://transformspace.com/

By putting the CEVs permanently in orbit, and putting permanent tankers in orbit, you reduce overall cost. You put the infrastructure up ONCE, and reuse. The rest is crew and supplies, and extra goodies like moon base infrastructure.

This is really the most unimaginative proposal NASA could come up with. $104 billion for Apollo II? Come on.

Re:Why fly...

[Rei]

Beagle was designed to take core samples (that a "human with a shovel" could not); MSL will be able to as well. Plus, the amount of science that they'll be able to do on the samples on MSL is incredible. MSL will even have a laser to burn coatings off rocks at a distance for spectral analysis. It will move quickly, determine mineral and isotopic contents, last for long periods of time, and yet only be the size of a SUV (compared to the various monstrous craft needed for manned mars missions), and cost perhaps 1/30th as much as the cheapest proposed manned Mars program (Zubrin's).

As for the MER rovers, their rock abrasion tools are not designed to dig; they're designed to abrade, which is more in general important (surface coatings distort what a rock is made of). Plus, they weigh a tiny fraction as much as a shovel ;) When the MERs want to dig, they use their wheels (which cost no extra weight).

Really, a shovel would be somewhat of a bad tool on Mars anyways, because it doesn't cut through rock (which is where the most history-providing information is - in bedrock), and you have less gravity to help you force it into the ground. If you want samples, you really want a drill designed to take core samples (roughly, a hollow pipe with diamond bits on the end which is rotated in place).

Finally, why should you be concerned about the time it takes? It takes *months* just to get to Mars. Rover missions can overlap (and for the cost of a manned mars program, you could have a huge number of overlapping missions). What's the urgency on getting your data on a region back in a week when it takes a year to design the craft, a year to build it, and a year to get there?

Re:SSME complications

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Plus, the SSME is very expensive and complicated. If they can't get the J-2 line going quick enough, maybe they could buy some very nice engines from the Russians.