NASA's New Shuttle 476
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... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Why fly... (Score:5, Interesting)
I wish we could be honest. Nobody really can be bothered to put a man on the Moon or Mars. It's faster, cheaper and easier to have a little wheeled avatar nipping around for us, searching out prime real estate and letting us know that the nightlife in these places isn't a patch on Vauxhall, daahling.
I mean, I'd like it to happen, but we all know it won't, right?
Martin
I, explorer (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
That's Entertainment! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're looking for drama, go join a theatre company. It's not ethical to waste astronaut's lives solely for our entertainment.
Re:That's Entertainment! (Score:4, Insightful)
Be one of the first humans on Mars. All expenses paid trip to Mars one way, See a new planet. Do some research. There will be no return trip.
I'm absolutely sure you would have 1000+ volunteers that would consider their life a fair trade just to go, just to SEE it with their own eyes.
Re:That's Entertainment! (Score:3, Insightful)
And NASA would lose a lot of public support.
You don't send someone into a reactor core for the T.V. ratings.
Re:I, explorer (Score:3, Insightful)
Capturing the publics imagination is another thing that robots do well. I'll bet Spirit and Opportunity have much better name recognition than any of the ISS crew, or the crew of the most recent Shuttle mission. They got huge media coverage.
Without humans in the mix, what does that leave us with?
So basically, NASA should have humans doing exploration so it doesn't hurt our self-esteem? Honestly, I do think there is some value to ha
Re:I, explorer (Score:5, Insightful)
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." - JFK 1962
We didn't go to moon to find out what the moon is made of we went to the moon to find out what we are made of!!! Ever since we went to the moon it became the benchmark or our planet, "If we can get to the moon why can't we ...."
I am really scared about our lack of ambition I know our best years are ahead of us but let's hope we have the guts to get there.
Brains vs. balls (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:I, explorer (Score:3, Interesting)
True. But it is hardly conceit for humans to explore space and further the technologies to do so. If we never start exploring and learning how to survive in space, we will never colonize. Baby steps. The mars rovers figure out where we want to go and what resources are available when we get there, the lunar missions teach us how to get there and survive in the process, then we actually
Re:Why fly... (Score:5, Funny)
Only on Discovery Channel.
(Hey, I'd watch it.
Re:Why fly... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why fly... (Score:3, Informative)
Worst part of that was that over half of the cost was already spent.
*Then* they kill it.
IIRC some of the tunnels were used for mushroom farming.
Seems the ISS is getting the same treatment. Spend most of the money, but starve it enough to accomplish nothing.
Re:Why fly... (Score:4, Funny)
It's being used for mushroom farming?
Re:Why fly... (Score:3, Interesting)
A few private companies (Score:3, Informative)
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 orb
Re:Why fly... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why fly... (Score:5, Informative)
A Moon based space elevator would reach almost halfway to the Earth since the Moon only rotates once per month. However, it wouldn't help get stuff from the Earth to the Moon, since the boost out of the Earth's gravitational field is 90% or more of the energy required. However, the combination of an Earth elevator, ion propulsion, and a Moon elevator would make it much cheaper. Look for this in about 50 years.
Re:Why fly... (Score:3, Informative)
Sigh.
Google: lunar space elevator - ooh, a link to:
Wikipedia: lunar space elevator [wikipedia.org]
And, what do you know! There it is. You don't go to "lunostationary" orbit. That would be the Earth's orbit, so to build a "classical" lunar space elevator you'd need a cable reaching from the Earth to the Moon. Instead, you can just go to a libration point: L1 or L2 would work fine. Both of those are far, far shorter
Re:Why fly... (Score:2)
Re:Why fly... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Why fly... (Score:3, Interesting)
Good Design (Score:5, Informative)
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 [wikipedia.org] design. The BG would have been a very large capsule (more crew than the Shuttle!) with a parawing [nasa.gov] for smooth touchdowns on Earth.
Re:Good Design (Score:3, Funny)
Imagine a...
Oh never mind
Increasing HLV Capacity with more SRBs (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
SSME complications (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:SSME complications (Score:5, Interesting)
I suspect that development and certification of the SSME for orbital restarts would take significantly less time and money than the restarting of the entire J-2S program.
Re:SSME complications (Score:2, Interesting)
On the big launcher, there has been talk of using the RS-68 engines from the Delta IV instead of the SSMEs. Supposedly that would increase the payload capability of the craft. No idea if that's going to go anywhere.
Re:SSME complications (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good (Score:3, Insightful)
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 shou
Re:Good Design (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Good Design (Score:2)
They had plans for reusing both the strap-ons and the main booster, but no-one knows how far that went - certainly the main engines were discarded. I wonder how/if Nasa plans to re-use the main engines? Since they were designed for reusability, I guess the SSMEs are not cheap and chee
Re:Good Design (for 1960) (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Good Design (Score:3, Insightful)
I wonder if it would be possible to come up with an EHLV rev ("Extra Heavy"...) with four SRBs strapped on instead of 2. That would give an extra 6.6Million pounds of thrust.
Bad Post: Misinformative and Wrong (Score:4, Informative)
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?
Re:Good Design (Score:3, Informative)
In the Saturn V, the engines were inlined and timed to fire after a previous stage fell away. Which meant that the 5 F-1 engines would fire, fall away, then the three J-2 engines would fire and fall away.
In this configuration, you fire 5 SSMEs and 2 SRBs simultaneously, then let the SRBs fall away as the SSMEs carry you to orbit. The advantage to this design is that the SSMEs firing in the first stage help improve the overall efficiency (Isp) of the rocke
Re:Good Design (Score:3, Informative)
Well, all the engines don't fire all the way to orbit. The SRBs are sort of half a stage since they separate early in the process.
But I agree that all engines firing in parallel at launch is a good thing. If any of the SSMEs fail to start, the launch is scrubbed. That increases reliability over traditional staging. A second stage engine failing to ignite can be a real nasty surprise.
Admittedly, you pay a penalty in hauling more tankage and engine mass to orbit than a true second or third stage would.
Re:Good Design (Score:3, Informative)
10x safer? (Score:5, Insightful)
Jerry
http://www.syslog.org/ [syslog.org]
Um, duh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Um, duh (Score:2, Funny)
Re:10x safer? (Score:2)
Perhaps the materials used in construction have 10x the tensile strength? Or statistically they expect it to last 10x longer before requiring scheduled maintenance or retirement? Or the test runs they've done have resulted in 1/10th the number of accidents, Loss Time Injuries or just p
Re:10x safer? (Score:2)
Well, you're not far off. In a complex, even chaotic system, you can develop metrics - or measurable elements. It is not the same as certainty, but it's better than having no clue.
Each component has a failure rating
Each system has a failure frequency
Each potentially failing sy
It's meaningless blurb (Score:5, Informative)
Re:10x safer? (Score:2)
If that's the case, then NASA needs to go back to high school [fotuva.org].
Let's hope these are more realistic calculations than they did on the Columbia and Challenger statistics...
Great. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Great. (Score:5, Funny)
From the illustration... (Score:5, Funny)
(if we're going back to 1969, can we also drop the war on drugs? thanks.)
humans on on the moon by 2018? (Score:3, Funny)
based on Space Shuttle technology (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:based on Space Shuttle technology (Score:2)
The Sat V launch was one heck of a show and I miss real rockets.
Re:based on Space Shuttle technology (Score:3, Insightful)
yeah, 10 times safer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:yeah, 10 times safer... (Score:2, Funny)
New wine, old bottle (Score:3, Interesting)
Back to where they begun? (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [nasa.gov] ) despite it posessing payload and operational capacities superior to those of US Shuttle...
Re:Back to where they begun? (Score:3, Interesting)
The Buran never flew again, because Russia went bankrupt and experienced a coup. There was no money left to fly the Buran (or much else until the US starting pumping $$$ into it), and the orbiter and facilities were all pawned to the Ukrainian government for a loan.
Re:Back to where they begun? (Score:2)
Still, ironic that the US is ditching the shuttle and going back to capsules as the Russians are going the opposite way.
I wonder (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: Back to where they begun? (Score:3, Informative)
> 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.
FYI, the new capsule is supposed to be reusable as well, although with a limit of ~10 trips.
Doubtful (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Apollo on steroids, how true... (Score:4, Insightful)
Any comments on the following analyses? Transterrestrial Musings [transterrestrial.com]
Space Access Update #112 [space-access.org]
How to privatize the manned space (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [geocities.com], 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.
Erratum: $100M - $100B of course. (Score:2)
Re:How to privatize the manned space (Score:3, Insightful)
Public subsidization for private profits?
I like it, but I also have questions and doubts. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:5, Informative)
Saturn C-5 max payload: 127 metric tons
New Booster may payload: 100+ metric tons [spaceref.com]
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.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:5, Informative)
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!)
No tubes in the COMPUTER, but other systems (Score:3, Interesting)
A nit (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:5, Informative)
- 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).Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:3, Informative)
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 [dunnspace.com] ("This indicates a potential paradox in
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:I like it, but I also have questions and doubts (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks familiar (Score:2)
Not the sexiest thing you'll ever ride in.... (Score:2)
I'd hate for all of my alien friends to see me driving around in this thing. Give me a deathtrap shuttle anytime!
Launch costs (Score:2)
Also, why use SSMEs? They are wickedly powerful, but they're also the most expensive engines available. Why not develop a less complex engine?
What's different? (Score:3, Insightful)
That sure is a long time (Score:2)
Safety, shmafety (Score:2, Informative)
Whether it's seat belts in cars, kids wearing helmets on bikes, or the severe risk-intolerance that afflicts our space program, we've become a society of cowards, insisting on safety above all.
If that trend continues, and I expect it will, soon we won't ever venture into space, underwater, or outside our own fenced in back yard.
Besides, calling something "10 times safer" sets off my B.S. detector. 1/10 as much likeli
More informative link (Score:2)
(registration required)
the striking difference between this mission plan and apollo is the earth orbit rendezvous of the excursion module and the exploration module. i guess this is because the heavy-lift vehicle is not man-rated. doesn't matter--separate crew/cargo launches just mean more payload to orbit, and like someone else said, the extra bonus cargo capacity means nasa has greater in-orbit construction capacity.
Not going to happen (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Taco's spelling to improve too (Score:3, Insightful)
"from the stuff-to-listen-too dept"
Scientists predict that Taco's spelling will be 10 times more accurate, with sufficient funding from Congress.
"the new system is designed to be 10 times safer" (Score:3, Funny)
Pure Government Theft (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Deja vu (Score:2)
I suppose with all that 3Ghz computer gear running on it, it'll take more power than the original Apollo command module did.
I'm not impressed. There is nothing here to replace the things the shuttle can do? How do you deal with repair of craft all ready in orbit, etc?
There are simply some missions only a space-shuttle type vehicle can accomplish.
Re:Deja vu (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the cost of an earth-orbiting sat is ultimately the launch vehicle.
Re:Deja vu (Score:3, Insightful)
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 sco
Re:10 times safer?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:News? (Score:2)
C'mon this isn't news. BBC was reporting it yesterday FFS, and as other pointed out the Wikipedia page on the CEV has a lot of detailed info on the launchers, mission plans etc.
Took the words right out of my mouth. The briefing and much more all available here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4261522.stm [bbc.co.uk]
Re:News? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm sure he could.
http://transformspace.com/ [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
Re:10 times? (Score:2)
Re:Wasring money? (Score:2)
I have heard that shooting at the White House gets their attention. Maybe you could try that.
PS
Mr. FBI agents, I'm not suggesting it, so don't come kick my door down.
Re:NASA, you suck.. (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:A Bit of a Time Gap (Score:3, Informative)
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.