I said that. "The X-33 was scrapped in favor of the X-43A."
Some think that the X-33 was finished for the military.
I can't say I've ever heard that. I do find it somewhat doubtful, though. The X-33 prototype hit the ground and blew up. If they wanted to finish it, the engineers would have had to start over with a new vehicle.
Sounds like in this case NASA is doing what it should be doing -- research.
Not quite. NASA was trying to make fully usable vehicles instead of research vehicles. The X-43 is the first item on that list that gets back to the core research aspect.
How exactly is that "all the power of the Saturn V, and then some."??
Because the shuttle is cargo. It's all about what makes it into orbit. In the case of the Saturn V, a mere fraction of the vehicle ever makes it up. In the case of the shuttle, a large percentage of the vehicle's mass makes it up.
I agree. Whatever tech that was designed in the SSME program should be leveraged, just as the Saturn V tech was leveraged for the SSMEs. And just like the SSMEs, the tech should be further improved upon. For example, aerospike engines are well understood at this point and should be designed into the next LHOx engines if at all possible. Such a design may provide the extra efficiency needed to allow the next vehicle to be 100% LHOx.:-)
Skylab was actually a little weird. See, the US decided that they had to have a response to Russia's Solyut station. An idea was hatched to take the third stage of a Saturn booster (A Saturn IVB, IIRC) and modify the interior to be habitable. Of course, the problem was that the Saturn IVB didn't have enough fuel to actually get the entire thing into orbit. So Skylab was going to have to liftoff fuel of rocket fuel. This decision resulted in a lot of weird design choices for the station. Chief among them was the grated floor, through which the fuel was supposed to pass.
Before Skylab was ready for launch, however, a Saturn V became available from the cancelled Apollo missions. Thus Skylab went up dry, but the population had to suffer through Star Trek TNG's grates-for-flooring ships.:-)
Yes, the Space Shuttle can perform a variety of maneuvers in a short time that make it a nice delivery system for the ISS. However, the Titan is a maneuverable craft, and can place the cargo within reach of the arm. Obviously, there is no maneuvering ability once the Titan releases its cargo, so they need to make sure they get it right the first time.
No redesigns are required, but then NASA tends to be a little touchy on changing mission profiles.
Even if overall lift capacity is not a problem, what makes you think that a shuttle payload would fit in any launcher besides the shuttle
Granted, I don't know for sure, but I do know a few things:
1. The Titan IV is a USAF rocket. The Space Shuttle was supposed to replace it, the Shuttle failed to meet its weight to orbit goals. Cargos designed for the shuttle ended up being launched on the Titan.
2. The Titan has a lot of room and twice the cargo capacity. I'd be mightily surprised if a mounting adapter couldn't be cheaply developed.
3. The use of disposable rockets is NASA's idea, not mine. We do have to assume that they realize the implications of swapping out the launch system.
If you want to lift a massive amount to LEO at once, the Saturn V was the way to go.
I'm certainly not arguing that. I'm merely attempting to point out that the Space Shuttle received all the power of the Saturn V, and then some. In certain ways, it's actually more powerful. The only problem with it is that we sacrificed the ability to replace a manned vehicle with cargo.
So now you're talking about 60% of the shuttle's cost
And over twice its cargo capacity.
without the ability to steer the space vehicle to exactly where you need it to be
BULLSHIT.
Sorry for that outburst, but you're attacking me without understanding what you're talking about. Take a look at this picture. You see that large cylindrical section at the top? That's the space craft that's carrying the cargo. It has full maneuvering abilities, and should have no difficulties in moving the cargo where it needs to go.
By the time you develop those systems and install them, your ~ 300m has approached ~ 500m, the cost of a shuttle launch anyhow
Let me make this as clear as I can. Commercial rockets can take cargo ANYWHERE the Space Shuttle can go, and MUCH, MUCH FARTHER. The Titan IV could precisely deposit a 12 tonne payload anywhere in Lunar orbit, or Mars orbit, or a million other places in the solar system.
You don't really think we'd fly rockets that can't adjust their position, do you?
The Supersonic Spaceplane was scrapped in favor of the ScramJet Spaceplane, which was scrapped in favor of the DC-X Delta Clipper, which was scrapped in favor of the X-33 VentureStar, which was scrapped in favor of a little ScramJet missile (the X-43). Thus we've come full circle.
The real problem is that NASA has been trying to build craft out of untested technologies. The end result is that each program (with the exception of the DC-X) failed due to delays and cost overruns. For example, the VentureStar HAD to have hydrogen slush, composite tanks, linear aerospike engines, and new thermal protection systems all working perfectly the first time. There was no room to change out anything that didn't behave as expected.
As a result, we've been kind of chasing our tails around a bit instead of building craft out of proven technology.
118000 kilos to low earth orbit! It would take about 5 space shuttle missions to lift that same amount.
Actually, the space shuttle puts 104,000 kg into LEO. That same amount comes back at the end of the mission.
For all intents and purposes, the Space Shuttle was the successor to the Saturn V. It used all the engines and knowledge we'd gained in that program, as well as the knowledge from the X-15 and Dynasoar projects. It is truly an awe inspiring piece of technology that simply tried to be too many things to too many people.
The Delta II's have a similar launch success rating. Which is more than sufficient for cargo. Manned flight would require a greater degree of preparation and certification for the rocket.
Yes, when trying to dock with the International Space station, how is this done with the Delta II rocket?
AFAIK, we're talking about cargo. Specifically the missing pieces of the ISS. i.e. The stuff gets boosted in near the ISS, then the occupants move it into its spot in the assembly.
How much oxygen and how much livable space does the Delta II rocket provide?
None. But you could put a capsule on top of it. Thus you'd have one manned mission, and nine cargo missions. You're still saving money.
Listen, I'm all for the Shuttle program. If it gets killed, we will have no manned space program. But if it's phased out with replacement manned travel, then the space program has a chance for development.
As for your other remarks, I find them offensive and inappropriate for a public forum. Thus I call upon the moderators to MOD PARENT DOWN.
Why do we need to travel faster than light? In a space society, a large number of people could be traveling from one end of the universe to the other in one day. So what if everything planet based ages a few billion years in the meantime? They should've gotten off their asses and hopped on a.99c space ship!
Let me put it this way. The Space Shuttle costs $500 million dollars for each flight. A Delta II costs ~$50 million (with possible bulk discounts bringing the price down from there). The shuttle has a maximum cargo loadout of 28.8 metric tons. The Delta II has a maximum loadout of 10.9 metric tons.
Right, but what you just told me is that a reader is more expensive than a usb token.
Actually, I believe I listed the USB token as a MINIMUM of $15, while I gave the reader range as $10-$20. Consumer prices are always much higher. i.e.:
So to a consumer buying all the equipment, Smart Cards and USB keys are competitive on a 1 USB Key vs. 1 Smart Card + Reader basis. Now remember the backup. 2 USB Keys are significantly more costly than 1 Smart Card reader + 2 Smart Cards.
And if the card readers are built into the system, the cost will be hidden from the user (although it's MUCH cheaper still). And smart cards are so cheap, the manufacturer can include a 10 Pack.
Just to add to my previous post, I checked out card readers and such after I posted this idea a few months ago. I've been kind of infatuated with building my suggested system since then.:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Nebraska's splits their EV's by area. Thus the votes can be split between the candidates. CNN is only calling four out of the five electoral votes.
:-)
Don't worry, I had the same question. You just have to drill into the numbers to figure it out.
Actually, X-43 was started shortly after X-33.
I said that. "The X-33 was scrapped in favor of the X-43A."
Some think that the X-33 was finished for the military.
I can't say I've ever heard that. I do find it somewhat doubtful, though. The X-33 prototype hit the ground and blew up. If they wanted to finish it, the engineers would have had to start over with a new vehicle.
Sounds like in this case NASA is doing what it should be doing -- research.
Not quite. NASA was trying to make fully usable vehicles instead of research vehicles. The X-43 is the first item on that list that gets back to the core research aspect.
How exactly is that "all the power of the Saturn V, and then some."??
Because the shuttle is cargo. It's all about what makes it into orbit. In the case of the Saturn V, a mere fraction of the vehicle ever makes it up. In the case of the shuttle, a large percentage of the vehicle's mass makes it up.
I agree. Whatever tech that was designed in the SSME program should be leveraged, just as the Saturn V tech was leveraged for the SSMEs. And just like the SSMEs, the tech should be further improved upon. For example, aerospike engines are well understood at this point and should be designed into the next LHOx engines if at all possible. Such a design may provide the extra efficiency needed to allow the next vehicle to be 100% LHOx. :-)
Skylab was actually a little weird. See, the US decided that they had to have a response to Russia's Solyut station. An idea was hatched to take the third stage of a Saturn booster (A Saturn IVB, IIRC) and modify the interior to be habitable. Of course, the problem was that the Saturn IVB didn't have enough fuel to actually get the entire thing into orbit. So Skylab was going to have to liftoff fuel of rocket fuel. This decision resulted in a lot of weird design choices for the station. Chief among them was the grated floor, through which the fuel was supposed to pass.
:-)
Before Skylab was ready for launch, however, a Saturn V became available from the cancelled Apollo missions. Thus Skylab went up dry, but the population had to suffer through Star Trek TNG's grates-for-flooring ships.
Hmm... seems you're right. I am tired. I mixed up the pounds (47,000) with the kg (21,000). I think I need to get some sleep. Sorry 'bout that.
My apologies. I think I'm getting a bit tired.
Yes, the Space Shuttle can perform a variety of maneuvers in a short time that make it a nice delivery system for the ISS. However, the Titan is a maneuverable craft, and can place the cargo within reach of the arm. Obviously, there is no maneuvering ability once the Titan releases its cargo, so they need to make sure they get it right the first time.
No redesigns are required, but then NASA tends to be a little touchy on changing mission profiles.
Even if overall lift capacity is not a problem, what makes you think that a shuttle payload would fit in any launcher besides the shuttle
Granted, I don't know for sure, but I do know a few things:
1. The Titan IV is a USAF rocket. The Space Shuttle was supposed to replace it, the Shuttle failed to meet its weight to orbit goals. Cargos designed for the shuttle ended up being launched on the Titan.
2. The Titan has a lot of room and twice the cargo capacity. I'd be mightily surprised if a mounting adapter couldn't be cheaply developed.
3. The use of disposable rockets is NASA's idea, not mine. We do have to assume that they realize the implications of swapping out the launch system.
What happens when you want to lift something that masses 27 metric tons?
You RTF Responses.
If you want to lift a massive amount to LEO at once, the Saturn V was the way to go.
I'm certainly not arguing that. I'm merely attempting to point out that the Space Shuttle received all the power of the Saturn V, and then some. In certain ways, it's actually more powerful. The only problem with it is that we sacrificed the ability to replace a manned vehicle with cargo.
So now you're talking about 60% of the shuttle's cost
And over twice its cargo capacity.
without the ability to steer the space vehicle to exactly where you need it to be
BULLSHIT.
Sorry for that outburst, but you're attacking me without understanding what you're talking about. Take a look at this picture. You see that large cylindrical section at the top? That's the space craft that's carrying the cargo. It has full maneuvering abilities, and should have no difficulties in moving the cargo where it needs to go.
By the time you develop those systems and install them, your ~ 300m has approached ~ 500m, the cost of a shuttle launch anyhow
Let me make this as clear as I can. Commercial rockets can take cargo ANYWHERE the Space Shuttle can go, and MUCH, MUCH FARTHER. The Titan IV could precisely deposit a 12 tonne payload anywhere in Lunar orbit, or Mars orbit, or a million other places in the solar system.
You don't really think we'd fly rockets that can't adjust their position, do you?
The Supersonic Spaceplane was scrapped in favor of the ScramJet Spaceplane, which was scrapped in favor of the DC-X Delta Clipper, which was scrapped in favor of the X-33 VentureStar, which was scrapped in favor of a little ScramJet missile (the X-43). Thus we've come full circle.
The real problem is that NASA has been trying to build craft out of untested technologies. The end result is that each program (with the exception of the DC-X) failed due to delays and cost overruns. For example, the VentureStar HAD to have hydrogen slush, composite tanks, linear aerospike engines, and new thermal protection systems all working perfectly the first time. There was no room to change out anything that didn't behave as expected.
As a result, we've been kind of chasing our tails around a bit instead of building craft out of proven technology.
You fly it on a Delta IV Heavy or Titan IV. (The Titan IV can actually boost more than twice the Space Shuttle's cargo capacity.)
Last time I checked, a Titan IV launch costs $300m. I have no numbers for the Delta IV Heavy.
118000 kilos to low earth orbit! It would take about 5 space shuttle missions to lift that same amount.
Actually, the space shuttle puts 104,000 kg into LEO. That same amount comes back at the end of the mission.
For all intents and purposes, the Space Shuttle was the successor to the Saturn V. It used all the engines and knowledge we'd gained in that program, as well as the knowledge from the X-15 and Dynasoar projects. It is truly an awe inspiring piece of technology that simply tried to be too many things to too many people.
That was just an example. There are other rockets they could use, all of which have greater cargo capacity than the Delta II.
we need to work on something similar to NERVA.
:-)
You mean, something like this?
The Delta II's have a similar launch success rating. Which is more than sufficient for cargo. Manned flight would require a greater degree of preparation and certification for the rocket.
Yes, when trying to dock with the International Space station, how is this done with the Delta II rocket?
AFAIK, we're talking about cargo. Specifically the missing pieces of the ISS. i.e. The stuff gets boosted in near the ISS, then the occupants move it into its spot in the assembly.
How much oxygen and how much livable space does the Delta II rocket provide?
None. But you could put a capsule on top of it. Thus you'd have one manned mission, and nine cargo missions. You're still saving money.
Listen, I'm all for the Shuttle program. If it gets killed, we will have no manned space program. But if it's phased out with replacement manned travel, then the space program has a chance for development.
As for your other remarks, I find them offensive and inappropriate for a public forum. Thus I call upon the moderators to MOD PARENT DOWN.
Why do we need to travel faster than light? In a space society, a large number of people could be traveling from one end of the universe to the other in one day. So what if everything planet based ages a few billion years in the meantime? They should've gotten off their asses and hopped on a .99c space ship!
Seeing the look on Ohreally_factor's face after he gets modded down for confusing Smart Cards and RFID tags?
:-)
Priceless.
For everything else, there's RTFM.
Let me put it this way. The Space Shuttle costs $500 million dollars for each flight. A Delta II costs ~$50 million (with possible bulk discounts bringing the price down from there). The shuttle has a maximum cargo loadout of 28.8 metric tons. The Delta II has a maximum loadout of 10.9 metric tons.
1 Shuttle Flight:
$500m
28.8 metric tons
10 Delta II flights:
$500m
10 x 10.9 = 109 metric tons
Any questions?
Except that it has already happened. Can anyone guess who the ATM manufacturer was? (Here's a hint: They make lousy voting machines.)
Right, but what you just told me is that a reader is more expensive than a usb token.
Actually, I believe I listed the USB token as a MINIMUM of $15, while I gave the reader range as $10-$20. Consumer prices are always much higher. i.e.:
Cheapest Amazon USB key
$25 External SmartCard reader
1K SmartCards
8K SmartCards
So to a consumer buying all the equipment, Smart Cards and USB keys are competitive on a 1 USB Key vs. 1 Smart Card + Reader basis. Now remember the backup. 2 USB Keys are significantly more costly than 1 Smart Card reader + 2 Smart Cards.
And if the card readers are built into the system, the cost will be hidden from the user (although it's MUCH cheaper still). And smart cards are so cheap, the manufacturer can include a 10 Pack.
Just to add to my previous post, I checked out card readers and such after I posted this idea a few months ago. I've been kind of infatuated with building my suggested system since then. :-)