Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Science

Next Generation Space Shuttles 226

Posted by CowboyNeal from the boldly-going dept.
zymano writes "Popular Science has an article about the next generation space shuttles. If you're wondering about what happened to all those cool ideas for a new shuttle and what happened to them then this story will explain it. Mentions the politics, design, costs and time for a new shuttle." There's some neat images of mockups as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Next Generation Space Shuttles More

Next Generation Space Shuttles

Comments Filter:

  • Hey hey, (Score:5, Funny)

    by Freston Youseff ( 628628 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:42AM (#5980133) Homepage Journal
    As long as the new space shuttles have some modern computers on board (as opposed to the dated ones on the current shuttles) and the re-entry tiles are properly glued on, then the new shuttles will be just spiffy.

    • Re:Hey hey, (Score:2, Funny)

      by gilesjuk ( 604902 )
      Not to mention they need cable TV and a fast net connection to share MP3s, I'd love to see the RIAA send an anti-piracy taskforce into space. I wouldn't put it past them though:)
    • With funding being what it is, they may have to settle for 99 cent scotch tape instead of glue!

    • Much as I love my Athlon... (Score:5, Funny)

      by delphi125 ( 544730 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:16AM (#5980341)
      If in a hundred years time AMD is producing the CPUs for NASA spacecraft, they won't need tiles. They'll need cooling fins instead.

    • Re:Hey hey, (Score:5, Insightful)

      by geoffeg ( 15786 ) <(geoffeg) (at) (sloth.org)> on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:25AM (#5980377) Homepage
      > As long as the new space shuttles have some modern computers on board (as opposed to the dated ones on the current shuttles)

      What's wrong with the current computers on board? Sure, they're old but they still work and if they still work, why replace them? IIRC, the computers did all they could to try and save the shuttle. In the end, I'm sure it wasn't the computer's fault.

      Geoffeg

      • Re:Hey hey, (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Atzanteol ( 99067 )
        If they replaced the computers with newer ones, the savings in weight could be tremendous. Any savings in weight leads to cheaper flights.

        • Re:Hey hey, (Score:5, Insightful)

          by mikerich ( 120257 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @02:15PM (#5981141)
          But the computers are a tiny proportion of the Shuttle's weight.

          The advantage of the Shuttle's computers are that they've been round since the late 1960s, their design has been thoroughly debugged as have the programming tools used to write their code AND the code itself.

          The Shuttle code is widely regarded as some of the best programming ever completed.

          Throw the Shuttle computers away and you lose all those hard-won achievements.

          Best wishes,
          Mike.

          • Sure, I didn't say there were no reasons to keep the existing systems. Just one of the benefits from upgrading the system. At some point we're going to *have* to accept that the existing shuttles will be discarded and replaced. They can't last forever. There will be mistakes made, people will likely die. But that's always been the price 'man' has paid for exploration.

          • Re:Hey hey, (Score:2, Insightful)

            by f16c ( 13581 )
            >

            The problem with this is that the machines will have to be repalced at some point. The MTU (Master Timing Unit) designed by Westinghouse in the seventies was still being used as late as 1993. It was in need of a redesign then because the oscillator used was getting scarce. I have no idea if the thing is still being used but NASA better design a replacement very soon. Half of the parts used in the thing can't be had for love or money. Obsolete technology can be a danger on it's own if it's a critical i

      • Wrong with the computers (Score:5, Insightful)

        by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @01:16PM (#5980856)
        Well, as clearly stated in the article (hint), the outdated systems on the shuttle is a BIG part of the problem. Each system on the shuttle is autonomous, and requires one or more individuals on the ground to monitor it the entire trip. This results in thousands of people on the ground monitoring these things. Alternatively, if you modernized the equipment, you could DRASTICALLY reduce the people required to monitor the Shuttle while in orbit.

        This could save NASA billions in costs. The problem is that NASA wants a new device that is massively better than the shuttle, instead of doing a CBA and get a fleet that is modern, 2-4 times safer, and costs half to operate.

        The problem is that NASA won't go with replacement programs until they get a 200-fold safety improvement and a 10-fold cost savings. So as a result, we are spending a fortune on an aging fleet of increasingly primitive vehicles.

        Instead, it would be nice if NASA would go for 2-4x safety improvements and 50% cost savings, and then build a new reusable launch vehicle every 10-20 years.

        If we left alone or increased NASA funding, we could support perpetual research on new shuttles, with each generation bringing down in costs. If the operating costs dropped, you could save the money and use it towards research. The shuttle program produced a LOT of technology for the US economy (remember everything was space-age in the 80s), and new research programs will continue to do so. However, just relaunching the same thing for billions doing retarded thing like ants in space isn't pushing technology forward, it's just spending money to protect NASA's turf.

    • Re:Hey hey, (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You don't want "modern computers" if you have proven, reliable, working older technology.

      In all likelyhood, the newest computer system with deep-space certification (radiation hardening, etc) would be a 386 or 486.

      Most shuttle flights in the last ten years have taken "modern" laptops for scientific uses. The flight computers have worked perfectly well for over twenty years. The only reason to even think about replacing them is the availability of replacement parts--and it may very well be cheaper to rep

  • Something must be wrong... (Score:5, Funny)

    by HaloZero ( 610207 ) <protodekaNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:42AM (#5980134) Homepage
    ...I don't see a saucer-section, or anything of the sort. What kinda 'Next-Generation' is this, anyway?

    I swear to God, though, if they make a mock up of this one, call it 'Enterprise', and try to pretend like it was actually made before the first shuttle Enterprise , I'll shoot someone.
    • You won't have to. The pile of lawsuits from Rick Berman will make them want to shoot themselves.
    • haha!

      I was thinking about momentum and launching... why not get something really really really heavy to move at a moderate speed (could be through some environmentally friendly means, possibly a mag-lev to minimise friction. This heavy objects then hits the light shuttle, propelling it over some runway at fantastic speeds into orbit (could be in a vacuum tube for some time).

      Maybe the Gs will be too much for a manned flight above... so how about bombarding a capsule with neutrons or something through a la

      • Re:Something must be wrong... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by shadowj ( 534439 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:31AM (#5980397)
        Why not go even further and blow up nuclear bombs behind the thing? That'll sure give it a push.

        Oh, wait, it's been done... it's called Project Orion [angelfire.com] .

        Or we could do something even more efficient... throw stuff out the back at high speed and let the reaction provide propulsion. Hell, if you can throw it fast enough, it doesn't have to be heavy...

        Oh, wait... that's been done, too. It's called a rocket.

        Seriously, though, why do you say a rocket is "flawed and wasteful"? What makes you think that throwing rocks at a spacecraft would work better (or at all)? Have you done any math to substantiate it? Is it, just maybe, possible that all those rocket scientists might know what they're doing?

        • Re:Something must be wrong... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Uber Banker ( 655221 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:46AM (#5980452)
          Yes, I agree rockets are damn good at their job of being very good at moving something very fast.

          But a single space launch uses a hell of a lot of fuel and creates a lot of pollution - this is not sustainable.

          Yes, rocket propulsion is efficient in a chemical-kinetic energy transfer way, but not efficient if all other costs are taken into account. Use geo-thermal energy to power such a mag-lev launcher thing... I find that preferable.

          Save rockets for the last resort. Yes they are good at a quick effective solution... but multiple space launches a day (manned or unmanned but something IMHO, necessary for more than the minor interest we have in space now)... rockets no longer become the best option.

          • Save rockets for the last resort. Yes they are good at a quick effective solution... but multiple space launches a day (manned or unmanned but something IMHO, necessary for more than the minor interest we have in space now)... rockets no longer become the best option.

            Rockets aren't just a "good" solution. They're the ONLY solution we have for getting into space. (And, FWIW, they don't even have to make that much pollution--if the shuttle didn't have to be a heavy-lifter it could ditch the boosters, and

          • Yes, rocket propulsion is efficient in a chemical-kinetic energy transfer way, but not efficient if all other costs are taken into account. Use geo-thermal energy to power such a mag-lev launcher thing... I find that preferable.

            While I was reading about the Space Elevator [highliftsystems.com] , I came across a neat article about something very similar to what you want.

            It was a horizontal platform, very tall (kilometers?), looking like a series of "A"s, with a track running from the top of each "A" to the next. It woul

          • But a single space launch uses a hell of a lot of fuel and creates a lot of pollution - this is not sustainable.

            That's not actually true. A rocket produces about the same amount of pollution as burning the same amount of fuel in a car engine. The main pollutant it creates is CO2, and it doesn't, overall, produce any CO2 if you use biomass to make the rocket fuel (since the plants suck up as much CO2 as they grow as the rocket produces).

            Yes, rocket propulsion is efficient in a chemical-kinetic energy tra

          • Re:Something must be wrong... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Cyberdyne ( 104305 ) * on Saturday May 17, 2003 @02:45PM (#5981269) Journal
            But a single space launch uses a hell of a lot of fuel and creates a lot of pollution - this is not sustainable.

            The present shuttle's main engines burn hydrogen + oxygen --> H2O. The "pollution" in question is... WATER!

            Admittedly, the solid rocket boosters use ammonium perchlorate and aluminum, which does produce nastier stuff - but they're replaced with more liquid fueled rockets in all the proposed shuttle replacements, too.

            Yes, rocket propulsion is efficient in a chemical-kinetic energy transfer way, but not efficient if all other costs are taken into account. Use geo-thermal energy to power such a mag-lev launcher thing... I find that preferable.

            Why? It can't be cleaner environmentally, and I very much doubt you could build such a "mag-lev launcher thing": for starters, a vehicle accelerating along a maglev track to escape velocity would require either insane lengths of track (on a Great Wall of China scale) or acceleration which would pulp the occupants. A rocket, meanwhile, can give a reasonable acceleration throughout the climb to orbit - spreading the acceleration out over a few minutes.

            A space elevator might one day be a feasible approach. Maglev won't, unless/until you find a way to project the magnetic field a few hundred miles away from the ground equipment producing it...

  • Do they think out of the box? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MyNameIsFred ( 543994 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:51AM (#5980174)
    My question is if they need to think out of the box, particularly for the manned portion. I wonder if it might be better to go with the Mercury-Gemini-Apollo-Soyuz technology. Forget wings. Come back on retrorockets and parachutes. Focus the reusable technology on the boosters and other rockets.
    • They should just license the Soyuz from the Russians and launch them from Florida. They cost something like $20 million per launch, and they are probably the most reliable and cost-effective launch system in existence. The article mentions a $6 billion low-end limit on developing a new shuttle. That would pay for 300 Soyuz launches without even factoring in a per-launch cost for the shuttle. But of course, this will never happen due to the NIH factor.
      • It's more than just NIH; if NASA buys Soyuz from the Ruskies, then they've spent American tax dollars on Russian hardware, and the money will create multiple jobs in Russia, rather than jobs in America. Basically, America becomes slightly less prosperous, but the effect is tiny (the proportion of tax dollars that goes to NASA is minute, compared to the overall budget).

        Of course the fact that they don't do this, makes NASA a monopoly and gives it completely no incentive to clean up it's act; so in the long

    • I agree. Or maybe the Shuttle-C [astronautix.com] technology could be used ? Massively efficient and proven and relatively cheap since there is no big orbiter. If you want people up there, stick an apollo capsule on top.

  • The space program... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Atrophis ( 103390 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:53AM (#5980185) Homepage
    is one of the few places where I don't mind seeing my tax money used more often. Its a shame more money can't be dedicated to this field of research. A new reusable space shuttle that dosent require expendable fuel tanks or boosters would be a big benifit.
    • A new reusable space shuttle that dosent require expendable fuel tanks or boosters would be a big benifit

      Maybe we should throw a few dollars towards education first? Hmmm?

  • HOTOL - the unrealised 1980s alternative (Score:5, Informative)

    by WIAKywbfatw ( 307557 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:54AM (#5980193) Journal
    A viable alternative to the shuttle was on the drawing board as far back as the late 1980s. HOTOL (Horizontal Take-Off and Landing), similar in appearance to current generation supersonic aircraft was designed by British rocket veteran Alan Bond.

    Unfortunately, as soon as Bond had designed the revolutionary air-breathing engine that the project was based on, it was classified by the British government. Score one for stupid politics. So, perhaps the best rocketry engine designed never got built.

    Later, HOTOL variants and derivatives were proposed, including an Anglo-Russian project called Interim HOTOL.

    Here are a few related links to check out, most of which contain illustrations of what the orbiter would have looked like:

    HOTOL [geocities.com]
    HOTOL and Interim HOTOL [easynet.co.uk]
    Wikipedia entry for HOTOL [wikipedia.org]

    Google search for "HOTOL" [google.com]

    Of course, HOTOL and HOTOL-derived orbiters are still a viable alternative today. Air-breathing engines seem to be the logical next step.
    • I don't think that's what killed HOTOL. Quite a bit of it is in the public domain.

      The main thing that killed it, was the projected development cost- around $20 billion or more (and I think these are 1980 prices). The engines look like they would be really expensive to design, and they are the heart of the vehicle. Basically, he couldn't find anyone to fund it.

    • It seems a bit odd that the advocates for each type of design never seem interested in combining their approaches for a more effective hybrid.

      Using a host aircraft to take your otherwise single-stage-to-orbit flyer part of the way up may be unsexy, but it provides a significant gain in various launcher design parameters and the safety of a tried and tested technique. (Safer for crew too, not just for the accountants.)

      It would be damn nice to see fewer purity advocates and more genuine engineers in this a

  • Hmm (Score:5, Informative)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:55AM (#5980201) Homepage
    I wouldn't exactly call the existing space shuttles "disaster prone".

    They've flown for 22 years. Imagine what the mileage is? Somewhere in the millions, maybe even billions.

    Only two out of five have failed.

    I would only concede the disaster-prone point when considering that the astronauts lives were lost; that's certainly a little more impactful than a bunch of drunken teenagers totalling a car, right? But even then, the shuttles themselves are not disaster-prone; it's just that any slight mishap is instantly promoted to National Disaster and Mourning Period status.

    The person's point above, that the shuttle's computers are outdated, is partially true - but they are entirely adequate for running the onboard software. When you're developing a system like the shuttle, you simply cannot use the latest technology. It has to be military-certified for mission critical systems, and it has to go through about two years of testing to acheive that status. That point was made in the article, that once you "freeze" development, that's what you're stuck with.

    The shuttles work as they were designed.

    The problem is that NASA made them too high-maintenance.

    I fully agree with the article's point, that an automated human escape mechanism is required in reusable space flight vehicles. Heck, even Star Trek has escape pods.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:07AM (#5980279)
      "The problem is that NASA made them too high-maintenance."

      No. The problem is the 1970s technology made them too high maintenance.

      NASA and the contractors made some bad decisions in reguards to the heat shielding and SRBs that NASA is paying for now.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)

        by Wyatt Earp ( 1029 )
        I know it's bad to reply to one's self, but here I go.

        I came to my conclusions about the STS problems from reading Dennis R. Jenkins's Space Shuttle: The History of the National Space Transportation System: The First 100 Missions and T. A. Heppenheimer's two volume History of the Space Shuttle - Space Shuttle Decision and Development of the Space Shuttle.

        If you read one book on the Shuttle's history, read Jenkin's book.

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

        by ShinySteelRobot ( 674078 )

        No. The problem is the 1970s technology made them too high maintenance.

        Not quite. Sure, there have been advances in computers, metallurgy, etc, in the interening years since the shuttle fleet was built. But the main problem was the short-sightedness of the Congressmen who controlled NASA's budget while the shuttle was being designed. The reason we wound up with a shuttle with so many shortcomings, problems, delays, etc, is largely due to Congress' having cut the shuttle development budget SEVEN TIMES

      • "No. The problem is the 1970s technology made them too high maintenance."

        Yeah, well then they should have used 1960s technology. Saturn V rockets were cheaper to launch than Shuttles and they outperformed shuttles. Suyuz rockets are cheaper than shuttles. The Shuttles are the result of some cold war political goal to best the soviets by trying to build a reusable rocket.... If they would have set out to build a cheaper rocket they would have stuck with expendibles.

        The orbital space plane is finally se

    • Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)

      by steveha ( 103154 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:38AM (#5980428) Homepage
      Only two out of five have failed.

      Official NASA documents estimated that you should be able to fly the shuttle 10,000 times before you lost one ("five nines reliability"). The reality is much closer to 100 times (two nines). This is very poor. If airplanes would kill you one time in a hundred, I sure wouldn't want to fly on an airplane... and there is nothing inherent to space operations which justifies the poor record of the shuttle.

      We need to replace it with something safer, and that is possible.

      steveha

      • Re:Hmm (Score:3, Insightful)

        by arthurh3535 ( 447288 )
        Well, except that Space is much more dangerous than flying around in the air. It's magnitudes more difficult *and* dangerous!

        As an example, please build a rocket car that can go 10 times as fast as a normal car but you want it to run on a normal dirt road.

        There's nothing technically impossible about it, but boy it would take a lot of work and effort.

        And I'd bet that you killed an awful lot of people to do it! :)
        • Well, except that Space is much more dangerous than flying around in the air. It's magnitudes more difficult *and* dangerous!

          It's not as hard as you think.

          A rocket is a fundamentally simple device. You have fuel tanks, some sort of pump, and a reaction chamber. There is no reason to think that all space vehicles will be tremendously unsafe like the shuttle.

          You can always increase risk with stupid design, and I'm afraid that's what the shuttle did. Columbia broke up because of compromised thermal tile

      • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

        by StarFog ( 105918 )
        We've lost 2 out of 5 shuttles due to problems stemming from the expendable launch boosters, not the reusable shuttles. True the Columbia did fail on re-entry, but it is highly likely it would have survived had large pieces of insulation been falling off the expendable fuel tank. The shuttle still works the way it was designed. It just wasn't deigned to have it's booster engines explode on it, or have large objects collide with the wings. So the failure rate of the shuttle itself is fairly good, it just cou

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SN74S181 ( 581549 )
      They've flown for 22 years. Imagine what the mileage is? Somewhere in the millions, maybe even billions.

      Each shuttle launch is ten miles up, and then ten miles down. The rest is just coasting. So the mileage is in the thousands, not anywhere close to the millions.

    • Re:Hmm (Score:2, Informative)

      by Dinosaur Neil ( 86204 )

      Only two out of five have failed.

      Not quite. Yes, only two out of five have failed (that's 20% of the fleet) in 22 years. But thats two out of 107 flights. That's slightly less than a 2% catastrophic failure rate. If commercial airlines failed at that rate, we'd have to have a couple dedicated news channels just to handle the crash coverage for the dozen per day per major airport.

      The sad truth that is starting to bubble to the surface is that the shuttle was simumtaneously the only way NASA could surviv

    • If I were them, I'd get Burt Rutan on board the design team. He seems to have his head on straight [slashdot.org].
    • 1 in 50 flights fails. If 1 in 50 airplane flights failed, you wouldn't want to leave your bomb shelter for fear of falling planes.
      if 1 in 50 trips in a car failed you'd be dead. Long dead

  • Doesn't make sense without large launch schedule (Score:4, Insightful)

    by pfdietz ( 33112 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:06AM (#5980274)
    As a rule of thumb, it doesn't make sense to design a new reusable or semireusable launch vehicle unless you're going to be using it at least 1000 times. Otherwise, the design costs don't get recouped. Realistically this means NASA is going to have to find enough payloads to launch one of these every week or so.

    At current launch rates, NASA should stick with expendable vehicles.
    • Let's imagine that it costs $32 billion to design a new space vehicle like the article claims.

      We know that an existing launch costs $500 million. If this cost only half as much to launch as the existing vehicle, it would only need to fly 128 times to recoup the cost of the development.

      The $32 billion figure is because NASA can't stand to not create new technology every time they build something. They are always looking at lighter fuel tanks using some exotic material that has never been tested before inst
      • Now throw in interest costs (you are paying for development before you get any launches, and the value of the launches in the out years is heavily discounted), as well as a risk premium (there's a chance your $32 billion will be pissed away without getting a vehicle; NASA's recent track record in vehicle development is not encouraging.) The 128 launches balloon rather quickly.

  • Reusable vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sean23007 ( 143364 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:08AM (#5980285) Homepage Journal
    Why is so absolutely necessary to have a fleet of reusable space vehicles? Wouldn't it be cheaper to build a simpler, cheaper, one-time-use vehicle that can be customized for each mission and then scrapped for parts upon landing? I mean, $500 million per launch is a lot, and reducing complexity and reusability requirements could probably go a long way toward reducing that. Why is "reusable" such a huge buzzword?

    • Re:Reusable vehicles (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Fastolfe ( 1470 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:25AM (#5980378)
      It's a matter of balancing the costs. If it's cheaper to build one vehicle and reuse it 100 times versus building 100 new vehicles, then a reusable vehicle is a better choice (all other factors being equal). As it stands today, the shuttle doesn't (as I recall) meet that requirement, which is why it only flies 4-5 times a year: for those missions where the shuttle has unique properties that make it the better choice.

      It's not necessary to have a reusable vehicle, but if it ends up being cheaper, market forces demand that it be developed.
      • As a matter of curiosity, how many non-shuttle launches does NASA execute every year? I know everyone else uses one use rockets to launch, but how many times does NASA do that?

        • Re:Reusable vehicles (Score:2, Informative)

          by Fastolfe ( 1470 )
          I don't know. The most recent one was the GALEX mission launched on a Pegasus XL on April 28th. The next disposable launch (the first of the new Mars rovers) atop a Delta II is scheduled for June 5th. They're not infrequent, and NASA certainly isn't ignoring the value of non-reusable launch systems.
        • i did a paper on NORAD, Star Wars, and the SDI a few years ago (+5) and they said that NORAD monitored 380 launches a year, (thats world wide, france, china, russia, korea ect.. )

          as for how many NASA launches? and how many the Airforce launches out of vandenburg.. thats a good question (one im to lazy to google for)

          also.. i think that %49.9 or %51.1 of the NASA budget comes out of the pentagons budget... so they can hush things up and what not.
      • your math is only slightly flawed

        with a reusable vehicle you need more R&D, more $$$ on better quailty longer lasting parts, more $$$ on repairs and replacments

        with a use once.. it only has to to be build to last that one flight, throw it away, build another.
        • You're picking nits.

          If all of the costs of a reusable program over your operating period can be less than the costs of a disposable program over the same years (ALL COSTS), then it's "cheaper" to go with a reusable program.

          Part of NASA's place is also to spur research. It is anticipated that the private sector will be able to build off of some of some of that research.

          It makes sense (and NASA would seem to agree with me here) that if you can put enough research into a reusable program, you can get the c
          • hhmm.. im not really nit picking i feel ihad some vaild points.

            1 -okay.. if your looking at the TCO you need a team to build it (or 5 of them) AND you team to repair them (yes im sure some of the jobs would migrate over)
            OR
            you could just have one team to build it, and build it right every time

            2-spur research? HELL YA!!
            reusable shuttle = your locked into a vendor specific whatever (metal, parts, technology, whatever) overhauls and upgrades are premo expensive
            disposable shuttle = as soon as new technology,
            • Regarding your first point, you make this statement as though it's the most obvious thing in the world that the disposable option will be cheaper. I don't understand how you keep coming back to this argument with no knowledge of the real numbers. Yes, it will be more expensive to build a reusable vehicle. The idea is that the cost of reuse will be lower than the cost of building a new disposable vehicle. If this is true, then over sufficient time, it will pay for itself. If you still don't understand t

    • Re:Reusable vehicles (Score:5, Interesting)

      by halo8 ( 445515 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @12:00PM (#5980524)
      Some one did an excelent post last week (when that russian re-entry vechicle went off course)

      the russians dont have a reusable vehicle, and that because of that their saving 100's of millions of dollars over the US (original post had facts and figures)

      K.I.S.S
      Keep it simple stupid,
      instead of one vehicle with 3 backup systems.. why not just build 2 of them really really well?

      • Re:Reusable vehicles (Score:4, Interesting)

        by sean23007 ( 143364 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @12:09PM (#5980569) Homepage Journal
        Russia's Soyuz was the idea I had in mind when I posted. Strapped for cash, the Russian space program has had to find many ways to keep their systems as cheap as possible while at the same time competing with ours. The Soyuz saves them hundreds of millions of dollars, and it is a much safer system than our shuttle. Note that when the Soyuz has a problem it gets lost and they have to spend a few hours looking for it, whereas when the Shuttle has a problem it blows up.

        We should probably take a hint from the miserly Russians in this regard.
        • Note that when the Soyuz has a problem it gets lost and they have to spend a few hours looking for it, whereas when the Shuttle has a problem it blows up.
          Not that there aren't examples of both these things happening recently, but come on, you can hardly pretend this is a general case -- like the only problem Soyuz ever has is going off-course, and the only problem the Shuttle ever has is blowing up.

  • tmtowtdi (Score:5, Insightful)

    by trb ( 8509 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:09AM (#5980291)
    The current shuttle fleet is silly. In effect, NASA has a fleet of enormous dump trucks that it uses as taxicabs. They should have more than one type of craft - a small safe one for carrying people, and a big honkin' unmanned one for carrying freight.
    • and a big honkin' unmanned one for carrying freight

      It's called a rocket. That's what people use for freight now. The shuttle is rarely used for freight because it too expensive. i know the private sector almoast exclusively uses rockets.

  • Easy or not... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Sod75 ( 558841 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:18AM (#5980351) Homepage Journal
    Supporters of the Space program (myself and most other /.-ers i guess )tend to find it hard to believe so little prgress has been made in this field over the last 30 years. Generally NASA and the lot get blamed for being inefficiate, wasing the money, etc. But as a European I have to make the reflection , if that we're the reason why aren't us European ahead of NASA with ESA, and the Russians even with their money problems . Even That Billion Chinese peolple are quite recently joining... I think we can only conclude it's NOT as easy as it looks/seems... (Allthough a bit faster must be possible no ?)
    • Why is no one else doing it?

      Simple.

      Money.

      ESA abandoned the Ariane 5/Hermes mini-shuttle when the economics spiralled out of control. ESA have conducted studies on various spaceplanes, but always it comes down to the extraordinary amounts of money that would be required to get such a project up and running.

      Buran was one of the major contributors to the collapse of the Soviet Union. Had it been continued the economics would have been almost as bad as those of the Shuttle. But Buran was a superior craf

    • Of course the Russians have a money problem -- Russia is a third world country. I don't believe that Europe, Russia, the Soviet Union, or China have put anywhere close to as much money into space exploration as the United States.

      Now, NASA arguably has accomplished much more than those other countries, so it's reasonable they'd need more money. But after thinking about it -- what has NASA accomplished? The shuttle, the space station, the Apollo missions... I don't think these accomplished anything. D

  • Just gotta say... (Score:3, Funny)

    by EpsCylonB ( 307640 ) <eps@STRAWepscylonb.com minus berry> on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:20AM (#5980361) Homepage
    I want one.

  • It's simple (Score:5, Interesting)

    by steveha ( 103154 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @11:34AM (#5980407) Homepage
    It's very simple. What we need are reusable ships with a modest cargo capacity, plus maybe a few "big dumb boosters" for launching big things.

    It's also very clear that NASA is not capable, as an organization, of doing this. NASA has some smart people working there, but any really large project will safely bury the smart ones under red tape where they can't do anything. If you want to convert money into piles of paper, have NASA attempt to make a follow-up to the shuttle.

    The US government should make iron-clad promises to buy launches. Station re-supply launches for the International Space Station would be a great place to start. If John Carmack's company, or any other company, can get a vehicle going that can run supplies to orbit, the government should hire them to do it. In other words, pay for results but for nothing else, and don't have any part of the government (especially NASA) trying to help design the ships.

    steveha
    • It's very simple. What we need are reusable ships with a modest cargo capacity, plus maybe a few "big dumb boosters" for launching big things.

      Yes. The "Orbital Space Plane" is supposed to do that. It's basically a winged nose cone that seats up to 7 people for existing boosters. NASA ought to build that and buy heavy-lift boosters from the Russians.

      NASA is a pork program. NASA's charter requires it to spread money around various states. There are 15 major NASA centers, probably about three times

    • Sadly, no one has a truly heavy lifter any more. Russia had one that could lift a lot more than the shuttle, but I think NASA's shuttle fleet has the most capacity still in use. I'm not sure what happened to Russia's system, I think that heavy lifter had chronic problems due to having too many small engines, and that the engines failed too often. I think ESA's Araine(sp?) 5 has suffered something like three or four failures in its dozen or so launches, which is more failures than the preceeding "4" versi
      • Sorry about the italics.

        Sadly, no one has a truly heavy lifter any more. Russia had one that could lift a lot more than the shuttle, but I think NASA's shuttle fleet has the most capacity still in use. I'm not sure what happened to Russia's system, I think that heavy lifter had chronic problems due to having too many small engines, and that the engines failed too often. I think ESA's Araine(sp?) 5 has suffered something like three or four failures in its dozen or so launches, which is more failures than th
  • The proposed shuttle looks like Crightons experimental shuttle that can go through worm holes in space.
  • I keep reading that the National Aerospace Plane was cancelled in 1993 because it was "too soon for the scramjet".

    Is that still the case? That was a decade ago, have no other improvements been made? The idea of something that takes off and lands just like a plane still seems very, very appealing.

    My suspicion is that this is another one of those cases where the too-early version failed, and now everyone's afraid to try it again.

    -Zipwow
    • The most successful scramjets work great for the 30 seconds or so until they, as designed, melt. And it's not that they wanted them to melt, they pretty much melt whatever you do.

      There are lots of problems with scramjets. They've been a research project for decades and it's only in the last few years that one even gave positive thrust in real flight.

      The problems with trying to survive at mach 6+ in thick atmosphere should not be underestimated, it is a far, far worse environment than the Shuttle faces w

    • A lot of improvements have been made to scramjet technology in the last decade.

      The first successful testflight [uq.edu.au] of a scramjet engine occurred at the Woomera rocket range in Australia in 2002. project homepage [uq.edu.au]

      It will be a long time (maybe never?) before this becomes a viable technology for a space shuttle though. Even the more immediate goal, of a cheap launcher for small satellites, is decades away. NASA were completely correct to discount it.

    • I like the idea of the scram jet. That whole concept of actually using ambient "air" rather the having to carry liquid oxygen to get your vehicel off the ground makes a fair amount of sence to me.

      What makes even more sence is keeping a supply of fuel in orbit, as well as smaller craft docked to a space station for the high orbit recovery missions, craft that don't have to be weighed down by needing trivial little things such as heat shielding and enough fuel to reach escape velocity.

      Have three classes of
      • That whole concept of actually using ambient "air" rather the having to carry liquid oxygen to get your vehicel off the ground makes a fair amount of sence to me.

        The problem is that liquid oxygen is both cheap and pretty compact. And, once you burned it, it's gone. Your scramjet design needs scramjet engines, and it will carry those engines to orbit and back. They only help during the initial takeoff phase, but the weight penalty is there 100% of the time. The same applies to the wings.

        You want your

  • The new shuttles... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ... are all bad ideas. It is not time to rearchitect the shuttle. It has worked, albeit with some catastrophes, for the past 30 years and it shows that the original design has merit. What needs to happen is actual *construction* of new shuttles based on the old design rather than the *design* of new shuttles based on pure theoretical, untested theory.

    It's classic "don't want to fix the bugs, let's rearchitect" syndrome. However, if NASA and its partners hunker down and fix the problems, we can have a new f
    • The current shuttle is an inadequate poor solution to the problem for two reasons primarily (which are related) - COST and REUSABILITY.

      The cost per kg for launching the shuttle is astronomical, far too expensive, far more expensive than is necessary, but using the current shuttle & booster design it's a cheap as it's gonna get.

      And after every launch, so much has to be rebuilt/repaired that the reusability is pathetic, this also means that the turn-around time from launch to launch is absolutely hopele

  • Answer is simple and obvious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Co-develop the next gen shuttle with the Japanese. The Japanese have a knack at improving efficiency and reliability. Overall, the Japanese lead reliability in cars, computers (vaio's excepted), and general management.

    • Japanese and technology (Score:4, Informative)

      by John Bayko ( 632961 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @10:14PM (#5983707)
      Actually, large scale Japanese aerospace and military projects tend to go badly, as far a cost and schedule in particular. As an example, look at the H-2 rocket, which is both more expensive and less capable than similar U.S, European, Russian, or even Chinese rockets. Plus a longer development time.

      Also check out their current indiginous fighter project - even given the basic F-16 design to copy, it's still not finished (it's not an exact copy, but it's taken longer than some of from-scratch designs).

      Japanese companies are very good at using mature technology, and at making technology mature. They are fairly bad at using immature technology for end products. Rocket technology is still a long way from being mature.

      Although a lot can be done with the technology that is mature. An example was the McDonnel Douglass Delta Clipper X, which was almost all off-the-shelf technology on a small budget. The rocket engines weren't reusable, but they were just driven at a much lower thrust, eliminating most of the wear allowing them to be reused anyway.

      Sadly, after being sold to NASA, the DC-X fell victim to its budget - it was so cheap to operate, it was run mostly in a seat-of-the-pants fashion. During its last flight, a technician forgot to plug in the hydrolic hose to extend one landing gear (it had four), so when it landed, it simply toppled over.

      Still, when NASA was looking for its last "replace the shuttle" program, it (or the larger Delta Clipper Y version) was one of three proposals - the other two were the Lockheed VentuStar, and a re-worked Space Shuttle. Although the two that lost were based on working technology, the main goal at NASA was for new technology development, not product development, so the riskiest project was funded (Lockheed's).

      It didn't fail, in NASA's view - the innovative engines were developed, and aerodynamic studies performed. They just ran out of money and decided to stop it (the composite fuel tank technology was not completed). An end product wasn't really the goal for them - in the end of the program, Lockheed would have been responsible for building the actual vehicle, operating it, and marketing launch services - NASA would just be another customer. It was Lockheed's choice not to without the NASA funded prototype complete to show investors.

      In my opinion, the DC-Y was the best choice - no new technology, just build the prototype and go. But it the program had succeeded, I would have been wrong, so blame doesn't work unless you know the future ahead of time.

  • Space pessimism, or "where's my damn moon colony?" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cid Highwind ( 9258 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @01:51PM (#5981019) Homepage
    There is no next-generation space shuttle, and there never will be. Boosting NASA's budget doesn't get senators re-elected, and no private companies are willing to look far enough ahead to see the potential profits in spaceborne industry.

    Nobody cares about science or exploration, all that matters anymore is who owns which patch of oil-laden sand in the middle east. NASA has lost both the budget and the backbone for manned spaceflight. We went to the moon almost half a century ago, and now all we can do is putter about in low orbit building overpriced, underperforming space stations. Pathetic.

    The human race will die on this godforsaken rock.

  • Misguided Replacements (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr.Sharpy ( 472377 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @01:54PM (#5981038)
    It seems to me that all these designs are made for one thing alone, and that is to ferry astronauts back and forth to that other orbital albatross...the ISS. If they are never going to get any real science going on that damn thing I would much rather that they can the whole thing entirely. I would like to see NASA devote all the money that goes to the the shuttle, iss, and all the other NASA garbage to programs that will get humans out of Earth orbit and into the rest of the solar system.

    NASA research programs are sitting on all sorts of interesting innovations and inventions. I think it would be great if some of those innovations got the kind of funding that would allow them to be realized on a useful scale. I want to see a nuclear powered rocket fly to far reaches of our solar system. I want to see some of the technology put to use in putting humans on Mars and a permanent settlement on the moon.

    I'm tired of seeing tax dollars blown on orbital crap that can be done faster, better, and cheaper with robots and computers than by humans in flying tin cans when there are far more exciting possibilities for human exploration of space.
    • I agree with you regarding robotic exploration being better for most purposes.

      However the ISS should *not* be canned. It works and the infrastructure has already been built. Why not use it instead of wasting the spent money completely?

      The European and Japanese are working on making resupply vehicles that should be finished in a couple of years hence the shuttle will not be as required for routine maintenance. In the meatime the Russians have the means to keep it up.

      There are many science modules being bu
      • However the ISS should *not* be canned. It works and the infrastructure has already been built. Why not use it instead of wasting the spent money completely?
        Because it it of almost no value. The paltry results we could get from it do not justify the cost of continuing to operate it.
        • Because it it of almost no value. The paltry results we could get from it do not justify the cost of continuing to operate it.

          Unless of course we produce massive ammounts of space pr0n on it, then I'd imagine that the male readership of /. alone would fund the entire project at a profit!

  • Let's start building Saturn V's again (Score:5, Interesting)

    by multiplexo ( 27356 ) on Saturday May 17, 2003 @02:59PM (#5981358) Journal
    Suitably updated where necessary and with an eye towards reusability if feasible. The Saturn V kicked ass and shows what a kludge the shuttle is, we're talking about a booster that could put a Mack truck in orbit around the moon. The Shuttle was a huge step backwards in every area except for reusability.

  • Next Generation Boondoggle (Score:3, Interesting)

    by LaCosaNostradamus ( 630659 ) <LaCosaNostradamus AT mail DOT com> on Saturday May 17, 2003 @04:16PM (#5981911) Journal
    I read the article and have seldom seem such unassuming outrage in my life.

    The current shuttle is a terrible system that started out with too many compromises. It smacks of a political statement. The same system could have been accomplished with two other, smaller, cheaper systems: crew-mission ships (very X-15 like) and heavy-cargo lifters. But those were too functional (i.e. not sexy enough) and frankly couldn't have funneled that much money into a mondo-beyondo development program run by an aerospace company or three. So, instead, we got a moderate-lift, heavily-crewed ship that tumbles in the airstream of some mishap (thus being completely destroyed) once every 50 to 100 flights.

    What was NASA's response to this last November?: let's keep this good thing going ... to 2010! The engineers (at least those who are doing the acutal work) knew the shuttle was heading for another loss-of-all-hands.

    The article claims that for replacement programs, there's "no shortage of ideas" ... and goes on to present several. I'm not worried about options ... I'm worried about cost. With prior projections of $6 to $35 (!!!) billion, I don't feel particularly compelled to keep NASA in the space-shuttling business. Instead, with the basis for the current shuttle being $500 million per flight, see if we can task those much-vaunted aerospace companies to build a system and run it, at LESS THAN THAT COST. If it turns out for their launch system that they use a gigantic rubber band stretched between two immense pylons, and charge $10 million per flight, then ... GREAT!
    • If it turns out for their launch system that they use a gigantic rubber band stretched between two immense pylons, and charge $10 million per flight, then ... GREAT!

      funny really that's almost exactly what went through my head.
      "500 million per launch. Ok, get me 2 really big rubberbands, 4 paperclips and two hookers."
      "Two hookers, what for?"
      "Because man cannot live on bread alone my friend"
      "Oh, you'll be wanting some bread too then I take it?" ::Sigh:: It's no wonder people think I'm strange.
  • That rag could be called Popular Science-Fiction. Nothing in it ever really gets built. This new shuttle will never happen. Pop Sci has always been full of the silliness fifties futurists thought we would have by 2000. Maybe they could even call it Futurama magazine.

Slashdot Top Deals

"The one charm of marriage is that it makes a life of deception a neccessity." - Oscar Wilde

Close