Slashdot Mirror
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"
Why fly a spacecraft, when you can just take the elevator?
The video and other information make several things quite clear:
Overall, this looks like good technology to me. Anyone who thinks NASA is taking a step back (except for the capsule configuration, I agree with you there) needs to pull his head out of his rear. 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. Good job, NASA!
P.S. On the capsule (again), I'm surprised they didn't even consider the Big Gemini design. The BG would have been a very large capsule (more crew than the Shuttle!) with a parawing for smooth touchdowns on Earth.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
How do you classify something as 10x safer than something else? Do they expect 10x less people to die, 10x less frequent explosive disasters, or are the events themselves 10x less dangerous, meaning astronauts could survive?
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/
113 shuttle flights, 2 catatrophic failures. A ten-fold improvement means we should only lose the entire crew 1 time in 560.
It looks almost exactly like the Apollo system.
(if we're going back to 1969, can we also drop the war on drugs? thanks.)
Next they'll be telling us that they plan to have that "powered flight" thing all sewn up by 2040.
where there's fish, there's cats
Obviously it means 1/10th as many deaths per N usages. Of course, this thing will probably be less then 1/10th the cost of shuttle mission, so it will be used more then 10 times as often, meaning more death. Oh well. It will probably have 10x fewer people dying, and 10x fewer explosive disasters.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I expect the SSME on the second stage of the manned launcher will be replaced with a J-20S.
The reason: Restarting.
The SSME has never been restarted in flight, and there's a big cost associated with adding/certifying this capabillity. The J-2, on the other hand, was used by the Saturn V's third stage, and this restart is needed for trans lunar injection.
So NASA's going to be using the latest in 1970's tech? Woo Hoo!
Best Slashdot Co
and 30% cooler, with 200% more wiz-bang factor!
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
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.
Las qué passoun
tournoun pas maï
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...
'...computers in the future may have only 1000 vacuum tubes and perhaps weigh 1.5 tons...' Popular Mechanics, 03/49'
The point is that at this rate, with exceptions such as the Hubble, it's cheaper to deorbit a broken sat and send up another one ( 200kg of stuff to send upstairs) than to send up a shuttle to service it (20 tons of stuff to send upstairs).
Most of the cost of an earth-orbiting sat is ultimately the launch vehicle.
If the last system had one fatal failure in 57 flights, then the new one is supposed to have one in ~570 flights. If you want to convert that to percentages you'll end up with an exponential curve requiring an endless number of flights before a fatal failure, which is not achieveable. That's not exactly rocket science :-)
The funding of the space program continues to be less and less each year (adjusted for inflation). Even those in NASA recognize it depends on the "will of Congress" to fund such an effort at a time when we are spending $180 Billion a year in Iraq, $200 billion on Katrina, Billions upon billions for Homeland Security and we still have other natural disasters to face (Rita is on her way now).
Further, we do not have the motivation that existed in the 60s, when Russia beat the US into space. It was not just American pride, it was a deterrent, to both sides, to show they had the technology to be a leader in the world. Unless we see China, or India on the moon, it is unlikely to be of such importance that NASA would be funded for it. Even if we do see them, the question may be "So what? We were they ~40 years ago."
Talking about precursors, or the technology we would derive from such an effort, will be lost on the "yes, but we have "X" that needs to be paid for first." I wish it were otherwise, but I just do not get the feeling we have the 60s excitement around space. People look at the technology and fail to see it was possible because it was necessary to fulfill the mission. They are thankful for the derivatives, but many believe another Steve Jobs could create the same in IPOD like fashion.
Any comments on the following analyses? Transterrestrial Musings
Space Access Update #112
This is all quite unnecessary. The private sector is already chomping at the bit to invest in manned space. Griffin says $100M over 13 years is going to be spent within the existing NASA budget for this initiative but if that $100M were simply available as incentives, be they prizes, tax credits for manned space transport and habitation, there would be an explosion of alternatives in a highly competitive environment that would yeild results in a short time.
Seastead this.
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?
: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.
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.
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.
So, what exactly is the point of going to the moon, staying a week and then coming back? There must be one but I don't know it. America gave up for lack of interest last time 30 years ago, so why is that not going to happen this time? What's different?
My Karma: ran over your Dogma
StrawberryFrog
Well, what does the shuttle really do?
1. Capable of bringing a shitload of material into orbit. Yup, this can do that two.
2. Repair craft in orbit. How often have we used that capability? At max 5 times, and I think I'm being generous...
3. Building the ISS. Well, the ISS have a pretty capable arm and gantry system. Once things are boosted up to it and attached, it can build itself.
The shuttle has served us well, but I see it as a first step and it has outlived its usefulness. What we should do is scour the shuttle for all of it's great ideas, carry them forward and leave the bad ideas behind.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Read Richard Feynman tearing them a new one over exactly that sort of language. It's disheartening that they still apparently have marketdroids doing their press releases.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Yeah... Especially since it took about nine years the first time.
My left arm is all scars and I consider that a valid excuse...
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.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Well, they're still using the SSME's on the heavy lift vehicle and on the second stage of the crew launch vehicle. Only the Earth transfer stage will use the J-2S. The CEV and ascent stage of the lander will used methane-based engines (based on the RL-10 perhaps? Maybe an americanised RD-x, given the Russians have much more recent experience with CH4-based engines), and the descent stage will use a LOX/LH2 engine.
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
>Note to all the Rutan freaks out there: if you can do this was less than $60 billion, feel free to try.
Feh. After seeing what that dude managed with $30M, I'm guessing *he* could do it for $6B (with half the crew made of up paying passengers - "Mr Gates, please stop hogging the windows. These are *mine*.").
>Even better, volunteer to be a test pilot...
Damn skippy.
Nasa method: train about 10 years for grand total of 164 hours in orbit, if program isn't shut down for a couple of years due to freezer burn.
Rutan method: train for a few months, take off on Saturday morning, fly again after dinner.
Ooh! Ooh! 'What is choice number two?', Alex!
Foolishly? Last time I checked, money didn't grow on trees. The Saturn V was very expensive to build and launch. That was a major reason why it was retired, NASA couldn't afford to operate it after its budget was slashed.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
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.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
"A forward thinker with some goals to run this goddamn outfit. You know, someone who can say yeah. "It'd probably be a good idea to have a Base Station in outerspace where we could easily launch missions from instead of having to worry about earths atmosphere and large gravitational pull. Ok, lets do it"."
At which point a person not enamored with the idea of a base on the moon would reply "I'm so glad we only have to worry about the atmosphere and gravity EVERY F-ING TIME WE SEND SUPPLIES." Stuff still has to get there so we can launch it into space. (and please don't try to tell me we'll manufacture it on the moon. That will work for simple substances, but a satellite? Riiiiight)
I'd love a moon base, but let's not overlook the problems having one would create, especially in an attempt to discredit current alternatives.
I don't think there's anywhere in the universe to "easily launch missions from." You're just trading one set of problems for another.
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.
According to this site
Saturn C-5 max payload: 127 metric tons
New Booster may payload: 100+ metric tons
May be less payload, but last time I checked we weren't building Saturn 5 components.
For crew capacity, technology has changed. We can take out a lot of mass and replace it with new technology compared to the apollo era. Remember, we were still using vacum tubes then and no solar panels. Adding solar panels (which is in the plans) means fewer batteries are needed. Replacing vacume tubes with solid state decreases power and mass and space.
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.
We got some info out of it, just not as much as we could have since we got sidetracked with the original moon missions. I've heard that JFK set the space program back (or held it back) 50 years. However, that does not mean we haven't gotten anything out of the shuttle. Otherwise we wouldn't be using shuttle components in these new lifters.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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....
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
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.
- NASA's new heavy lifter: 125t
- Saturn V: 110t
- Russian Energia: 100t
- Space Shuttle: 29t
- Commercial Falcon 9 S9: 25t
- ESA Ariana 5ECA: 21t
- JAXA H-IIA: 12t
All to LEO (low earth orbit).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
:-D
Metric humans, like the ones in europe, are smaller than the imperial humans here in the US. So you can fit more of them in the capsule.
Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
we were still using vacum tubes
A nit, but I don't think there were any vacuum tubes in the Apollo/Saturn stack -- transistors were already commonplace, and the Apollo Guidance computer pioneered the use of ICs, albeit not microprocessors. But if you've got a reference that describes tubes, I really would like to see it (I'm not being snarky, I really would!)
"Just once, I'd like to meet an alien menace that wasn't immune to bullets." -- The Brigadier, Dr. Who
While "we" were still using a lot of vacuum tubes in 1969, the Apollo program did not. Their computers were solid state; in fact, the onboard flight computers were the first ever built with integrated circuits, and the Apollo program absorbed a significant fraction of all the integrated circuits manufactured in those early years.
Brackets contain world's first nanosig, highly magnified:[.]
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.
As far as I can tell, the SSME has to be the most complicated rocket engine ever designed. Using the older and simplier J-2S should significantly reduce costs and improve reliability.
I'd agree. The SSME has the design constraint of operating from sea level pressure to vacuum. Thus it runs at a very high pressure, which complicates things. Rocket motors designed to operate at altitude can be made simpler and more reliable.
If its not on the first stage it doesn't need to be a SSME, and it probably shouldn't be.
Actually, I've heard about studies stating that the main driver for launch cost is neither the total payload nor the technology but the launch rate. That is, for the same payload weight, a light booster that flies a hundred times a year will probably be cheaper than a heavy lifter that flies only a few times a year. It doesn't really matter if they are expendable, reusable, cryogenic or whatever.
See for example this 1994 study ("This indicates a potential paradox in the commercial space transportation market. High flight rates appear to be necessary to reduce the price per flight. However, reduced prices per flight reduces the revenue per flight, and consequently the cash flow available for investment payback.") or A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away.
Sure, a lower payload capacity means more orbital assembly required, more modular systems, which will make them heavier. But they will be more versatile, possibly cheaper, and the lower launch cost will offset the added weight.
OTOH, developing a heavy lifter starts from the opposite premise: a launch has to be expensive, so their number has to be minimized, with more payload per launch. This makes low flight rate a self-fulfilling prophecy and almost calls for a high cost.
The funny thing is that NASA arbitrarily set the CEV weight at 25 tonnes, just above the LEO capability of the heaviest rocket currently available (Delta 4 Heavy). Almost as if they wanted to need a new launcher, which then could be developed from Shuttle parts, keeping the existing workforce with a job, maybe even the very same job...
The funny thing is that NASA arbitrarily set the CEV weight at 25 tonnes, just above the LEO capability of the heaviest rocket currently available (Delta 4 Heavy).
The Delta 4 is not rated for human spaceflight, and probably cannot be without huge changes in technology and redesign.
So they needed a new rocket anyway, and one might as well set your capacity high so you can get more done in orbit and on the moon.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
The current plan is:
Retire shuttle fleet: 2010
CEV/HLV system online for trips to the ISS: 2011
Return to the moon: 2018
So the are hoping to have the system online for orbit functions only one year after the shuttle fleet retires. It's the moon shot that's a few years later.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
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.
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
If you're looking for drama, go join a theatre company. It's not ethical to waste astronaut's lives solely for our entertainment.
But it's great for NASA bureaucrats. They can just idle along, issuing press releases, running their "centers", and promoting their "education" programs, without actually building anything flyable. And they get to blame Congress for not providing more money.
You can see this already. NASA just converted their home page to Flash.
The next people on the moon will be Chinese. They have such a strong manufacturing economy that it won't be a stretch to build a big booster. The "China price" on a booster should be low. Maybe the US will buy some.
Do you think taht by 2018 CmdrTaco will know the difference between "to" and "too"?
"from the stuff-to-listen-too dept"
Scientists predict that Taco's spelling will be 10 times more accurate, with sufficient funding from Congress.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
There are 10 kinds of people: Those who think in binary, and those who don't.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
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?).
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
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.
"I've got it - Let's take an SRB, put the fuel tank on top, and put a bigger Apollo capsule on top of that... And it will only cost $100B!"
My wife doesn't listen to me either...
It's sad that this is the kind of post that passes for infomative.
First of all, for those who actually read rather than just look at pictures, there's a lot more information at the NASA site than what the OP writes here, and, unlike that post, it is correct.
Now...
>> There appears to be an Apollo age escape tower on the crew capsule. This doubles as a docking port.
No. That's part of the abort apparatus. it is jettisoned during the trip to orbit. It has nothing to do with docking.
>> The mission plan given is basically the same one used on Apollo.
Wrong. There are significant differences with Apollo, including flight profile, length of stay, size of crew, and the ability to land anywhere on the Moon (Apollo was confined to equatorial regions).
>> We use big booster to light up millions of tonnes of mass... Kind of pathetic,
It is not pathetic. That's how rockets work. Almost all the mass in a rocket is propellant.
>> I'm surprised they didn't even consider the Big Gemini design...
Probably because it is essentially the same design: a blunt conical object with a heatshield. We've seen more than 40 years worth of avionics and electronic advances since Gemini. There's no reason to resurrect the dead. Remember, too, the CEV is supposed to bulk up for the Mars trip. Gemini couldn't survive more than a few weeks. (It barely made it through the two-week endurance mission.)
>> Anyone who thinks NASA is taking a step back (except for the capsule...
The capsule is not a backward step. That's equivalent to lamenting the lack of innovation in aircraft design because they all have wings. If you design a spacecraft to be launched by rocket from and to return to a planetary surface, that's the vehicle shape you'll have: conical for aerodynamic purposes during launch, with a blunt heat shield on the other end. So long as we launch such vehicles via rockets, that's what they're going to look like. (Remember, we don't have the technology to protect leading wing entries at escape veleocity speed, which a returning lunar mission will see. A returning Mars mission will reenter at higher speed.)
>> With this HLV booster, we could put a brand new space station whereever the hell we want it...
Why?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Actually, the shuttle system is one hell of a heavy lifter. What is the weight of that thing - 50 tons?
Oh well, what the hell...
The best reason for going into space now is scientific, and making it more dangerous and expensive than it need be jeopardizes the whole program. Gotta use our brains, not our balls.
Unfortunately mergers keep reducing their numbers - for large payloads it's down to Lockheed and Boeing now, with SpaceX planning to enter the fray soon.
Of course this is a chicken and egg problem: when your largest potential customers swear they're going to create their own product from scratch and have billions of dollars a year to spend on it, investors tend to be wary about jumping into the market.
Getting to LEO is hard, and there are now only three countries who have ever gotten a manned craft into orbit: China (the newest club member), Russia/USSR, and the US. No private venture has gotten even close. Ever.
Private ventures send large payloads into LEO and further all the time. The reason they're all unmanned isn't because life support is an insurmountable problem, it's because comsats are automatable.
Could someone explain to me why thousands of my hard-earned dollars should be spent so that a couple guys I'll never meet can walk on the moon for a week?
This is a serious question. NASA claims that returning to the moon will cost $108 billion. I personally paid 8.5 ppb of the federal government's tax revenues last year (a bit over $15,000, in case you're wondering). Let's do some math: Suppose this moon-doggle ends up costing $200 billion (that's being very generous -- usually NASA manned missions cost 4-6 times their initial estimate). My part of that bill will be $1,700.
Any NASA folks around? What am I getting for my $1,700? Because honestly, I'd rather drop it in my wife's IRA, or save it for my daughter's college education. At what point did it become ok to seize another person's hard-earned money at gunpoint and blow it on something you think might be "fun"?
Dear President Bush: Stop being such a socialist and get with the conservative program. Shut down NASA, please.