Shuttle termination?

[Dr Mordrid]

This posted on NASA Watch;

Is OMB Considering Shuttle Termination?

Editor's 19 Sep note: David Radzanowski at OMB (Office of Management and Budget) issued an action to NASA at the beginning of September asking the agency to provide him with an estimate of what shutdown costs would result from a termination of the Space Shuttle program in FY 2006. NASA provided a response to OMB on 9 September.

Editor's 21 Sep note: Reporters have been calling NASA PAO to get a comment on this NASA Watch posting. PAO's response is something along the lines of "we continue to hold regular meetings with OMB ..." i.e. no confirmation, no denial. Meanwhile, OMB PAO has been calling NASA and asking them what they should say in response to media inquiries and telling reporters to call NASA. Stay tuned.

Editor's 22 Sep note: The issue of whether or not to shut down the Shuttle program is still under discussion at the White House. The fact that the issue has not been dropped has a number of people involved rather concerned.

Shuttle Launch Not Likely Until May, NASA Boss Says, Washington Post

"Griffin acknowledged that "we're in a hole" but said it would not be cost-effective to abandon the shuttle because it would "decimate the workforce" needed to build the new spaceship and manage the spaceflight program, as well as "cause a lot of [other] collateral damage" that "wouldn't save much money."

Personally I'd mothball the fleet to the Air and Space Museum and put that money towards converting the shuttle boosters for use with a modular CEV & heavy lifter using Rutans CXV as the prototype for the CEV.

Dr. Mordrid

[Lizzard[MPE]]

Did they design a new space shuttle?

I'm thinking i might have seen that on tv a few weeks ago but cant remember

[Dr Mordrid]

The idea of an areospace plane like the current shuttle is one whose time has come and gone. Lessons learned.

Because of the problems of launching/re-entering a large vehicle with both cargo and humans the (better) notion of using capsules is back in force. With capsules you can more easily include escape systems and capsule re-entry is inherently safer than the way the shuttle does it.

Basically in the new system is a modular one. They'll use the capsule launched on top of a solid fuel booster derived from the shuttle SRB's + a liquid 2nd stage to get humans up and down. The new vehicle is called the CEV, or Crew Exploration Vehicle.

Cargo will be launched separately on a new heavy lift launcher with nearly the power of the old Saturn V booster used for the moon missions. This booster will be able to put at least 100 tons, and later 120-160 tons, into orbit. These will be the mission modules: habitats, mission engines etc. etc.

The CEV, habitats and other modules will be assembled in space, do their job then the crew will return in the capsule after the mission is over. These images are representative of the proposals.

Old vs. new:



CEV lunar mission modules:



Lander:



Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

NASA buying Soyuz vehicles?



Personally...it would be great IMHO (even thought that's not really my business and not my taxes). They can retire a Shuttle while remaining operational with the most succesfull currently crew vehicle and at the same time not needing to hurry with CEV, so it will be better suited for its main mission.

But can NASA really get rid of "not invented here" syndrome?

[Dr Mordrid]

The use of a Soyuz short term is a good idea, but long term they need either the CEV as proposed by the "big 2" (Lockheed & Boeing's groups) or something based on the t/Space CXV, which is basically a Burt Rutan design and IMO the better and simpler system.

t/Space CXV

Popular Science article on CXV

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T/Space

CXV is being partially funded by NASA and mostly by other partners like Bigelow Aerospace (they're working on inflatable space station modules). They've already drop tested mockups of the CXV and its launch vehicle to test the landing system and the idea of a high altitude vertical launch from a plane. Given the speed with which Rutan & Co. develop their systems the thing could well be flying before NASA's system.

This would, of course be at a small fraction of the cost of a NASA system and again show that bigger isn't always better.

Dr. Mordrid

[KvHagedorn]

Okay, Doc.. you just kinda threw that out there. Why is a capsule inherently better than a shuttle? Why has its time "come and gone?" The shuttle's problems have resulted from poor implementation and shoddy management. And even with the dream team of the 60s, it's not as if Apollo was all smooth sailing either..

I would assert that there is a place for either technology, depending upon the application. You must admit, the shuttle is more like a space ship.. more easily identified with.. has a great deal of space usable for many applications, and again, it can bring stuff back if absolutely necessary. Its problems would be better addressed with the sort of genius NASA once had, though, rather than the PC bullshit committee running it now.

[Dr Mordrid]

1. Why does a SPACE SHIP need wings when there is no air in space? Every spaceplane design has 'em, and for 99% of the mission they are useless!!. IMO the very definition of stupidity would be a "CEV" with wings on a lunar mission

Sound stupid? Yup...and yet shuttle is a capsule with 100 tons of extraneous garbage hanging off it because some group of morons in the '70's decided it was "greener" to launch the mission cargo with the crew in a "recyclable" vehicle. Don't believe it? Check the records.

All this did was make it more risky for the crew and the missions as a whole.

2. The biggest problem with shuttle is system fragility due to the heat shield being exposed. If a lousy piece of foam hitting your heat shield breaks it up then so will a bird.

Yes, you could cover the heat shield during launch then jettison the cover, but this would seriously affect the payload capacity and introduce another danger: the possibilty that the jettisoning of the heat shield cover could itself damage the shuttle.

On the other hand capsule heat shields are already enclosed in the service module, protecting it from launch damage. In addtion to this capsules use either an ablative metal or ceramic heat shield, which is more durable than the shuttles tiles or carbon-carbon wing elements. This type of system is more practical on capsules because of their smaller size cross sectional area.

3. To institute a launch escape system in the shuttle would be complex and expensive, involving either splitting the shuttles pressure hull off and deploying a parachute system or the use of ejection seats. To do the same thing with a capsule is simple and cheap: use an escape tower, which is a perrect example of KISS (keep it simple stupid).

4. in a shuttle a complex set of maneuvers is necessary to perform a re-entry. Complex "S" trajectories are necessary to bleed off speed by friction, and if they are not performed correctly the process can be...ahhh...less than sucessful. This requires triple redundent computers, so if they mess up you're screwed.

On the other hand capsules have several times re-entered with the pilot aligning the craft to the horizon by eye and doing a seat-of-the-pants trajectory when the onboard computers have failed. IIRC in one such case a Mercury capsule came so close to its recovery ship that there was concern of a collision.

Perhaps a small shuttle launched inline (on top of the booster) would better protect its heat shield, but if it only carries 2-6 people then a capsule is still cheaper, simpler and more easily produced. They can also by virtue of their simpler design be more easily reconditioned for reuse.

5. Because of their lower mass it's even possible for capsules to re-enter without all the fire and brimstone. The t/Space CXV is designed to do just this. It's also designed to be ballistically self-stabilizing during re-entry, something I'd like to see a space plane even try to accomplish if its computers failed.

Dr. Mordrid

[Nowhere]

Yeah Doc, the capsule based system can do everything (well...everything that's not useless) shuttle can and more...and at much smaller price.
And KvH, remember we're talking here about chemical rockets...

And IMHO no, bringing large stuff back is never absolutelly necessery.
Oh, yeah, identification with something and sentiments...

[Nowhere]

BTW Doc, perhaps you can answer this one...I've heard that the Shuttle launch is a bit shaky, full of vibrations and a bit unconfortable experience up to the point of jettisonning SRBs...
So...seeing as the new crew launcher will be based on SRBs...will future crews have more fun rides all the way up?

edit: you know, Soviet Union collapsing is all nice and good, but...too bad it meant death for Energia. Think about it...20 years ago they had the system NASA is building now: small and reliable rocket/spacecraft for manned flights and super-heavy cargo booster derived from space plane program...

[GT98]

I was watching the morning show this morning and they where talking about how the goverment was figuring out how to pay for Katrina and the Wars in Iraq and Afganstain and you guessed it..they where already talking about killing the Moon program that was just signed off on.

Personally I'm thinking the shuttle program isnt worth it and if they have to kill it off..well thats the best thing to do and put the $$$ into the new capsule program

oh KH..the capsule is KISS...keep it simple/stupid...less for it to go wrong.

[Dr Mordrid]

BTW Doc, perhaps you can answer this one...I've heard that the Shuttle launch is a bit shaky, full of vibrations and a bit unconfortable experience up to the point of jettisonning SRBs...
So...seeing as the new crew launcher will be based on SRBs...will future crews have more fun rides all the way up?

edit: you know, Soviet Union collapsing is all nice and good, but...too bad it meant death for Energia. Think about it...20 years ago they had the system NASA is building now: small and reliable rocket/spacecraft for manned flights and super-heavy cargo booster derived from space plane program...

The basic tech of the SRB's will be used for the CEV launcher, but that doesn't mean it'll be exactly the same ride. There will be more segments (the tubes are made up of several segments) using a different forumulation of the solid fuel. It also will have an existing liquid fuel 2nd stage. Some have suggested bringing a Saturn V upper stage engine out of retirement (the tools still exist as well as several un-used engines), but there are other options.

The new heavy lifter will be derived from the existing shuttle launcher. They'll keep the existing main tank & SRB setup, perhaps with more SRB's to increase the payload in some models, with several shuttle main engines under the tank and existing liquid fuel upper stage(s), again possibly one of the Saturn V upper stages.

The whole idea is to get both a manned launcher and a heavy lifter of near Saturn V capacity out of as much existing tech as possible.

IMO this is something they should have done back in the 70's instead of building the shuttle. Can you even imagine what a 4th or 5th generation Saturn V would be like?

Dr. Mordrid

[DGhost]

this is where i roughly mention having to acctually bring things back into the earth atmosphere.

not saying a capsule idea is a bad one, just that one of the principles of the space shuttle was the fact it could land on earth when it was done, saving the cost of having to maintain it and crew in orbit.

[Elie]

1. Why does a SPACE SHIP need wings when there is no air in space? Every spaceplane design has 'em, and for 99% of the mission they are useless!!. IMO the very definition of stupidity would be a "CEV" with wings on a lunar mission
Dr. Mordrid

Uhm Doc, these sapce ships have wings so they can land on a runway back on Earth, if there were no wings the ship will be useless on re-entry as a capsule would have to deploy a parachute , but at that point 80% of the ship itself gone, just like Appolo 13 etc.

So if you want to reuse a ship over and over again, it better have wings to properly land back on earth to be relaunched at a later time.

Cheers,
Elie

[KvHagedorn]

There should be at least a couple of shuttles maintained in case something needs to be brought back from space. This is an option capsules just don't have. There is also a HECK of a lot more room in the shuttle for crew comfort and activities than there would be in a capsule. There is usually enough room right in the cabin for whatever work or experiments that need to be done, and there's a separate bathroom and lower deck for sleeping while other crew members are working. Why don't you ask John Glenn or John W. Young, who flew in both capsules and shuttles which they would prefer to go to space in? Even with their conditioning, I'm surprised that some of those Gemini guys never got a deep vein thrombosis from sitting in their tight quarters for such an extended period.

You do have a point, though, in that it's a waste to use shuttles to launch satellites and other such payloads when you could just stick them on top of a booster. For certain missions, a capsule might work just fine, too, but for longer flights or more complex operations, gimme a shuttle any day.

[RedRed]

The shuttle has serious problems, no doubt about that and a replacement is overdue.
There does appear to be a need to be something to bring stuff back, but I am not sure you can have both a capsule and a shuttle... the cost of maintaining both would be exorbitant.

What is needed, really?

An unmanned heavy lifter with the ability to lift 100-200 tons into a mid-earth orbit, often.

The ability to lift people to the same orbit. Often (the space program would die without this)

The ability to return stuff - probably - some trips necessary

Could a capsule be designed to lift people and perhaps rendezvous with something up there for return trips?

that way you get the best of both - a heavy lifter to take stuff up (one thing might be a 'cargopod') which could be docked with ISS or the capsule - only returning stuff when its necessary to return stuff?
Indeed, the cargopod might sit on earth and only be sent up to rendevous as necessary - maximising flexibilty in orbits?

The advantages would be that relatively simple rockets get you up (the size dependant only on payload (as I believe the russians did with their 'strap on' boosters, adding more as necessary).

True there are potentially 2 launches, which are inherantly dangerous, however havent NASA got resonably reliable at basic liftoffs?