Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Space Shuttles - Space Station
  A new space transportation system (STS)

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   A new space transportation system (STS)
kyra
Member

Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-09-2007 07:18 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kyra   Click Here to Email kyra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I'm not sure if this is a radical thought in the space community, but lately I've been thinking we need a new shuttle program.

There will be plenty of needs for a space truck of some type for the next generation.

The hundred plus flight experience, with successes and failures would be the perfect opportunity to create a vehicle that would truly deliver something closer to what was envisioned in the late 1970's for STS. "Assured Access to Space" could apply to crews and cargo. Apply the Goldin "Better, Cheaper, and Faster" with lots of COTS equipment. Engineering changes could involve:

  1. Creating a full Titanium or composite heatsheild instead of tiles.
  2. Making the crew module detachable in emergencies with recovery chutes (no more ACE suits needed)
  3. Upgraded modern avionics, GPS, glass cockpit as standard (not retrofit-less power needed.)
  4. Use of modern solar cells to augment a battery system.
  5. More structural use of composites, plenty of access points for servicing
  6. Alternative propulsion in space - such as plasma for orientation and velocity corrections with compressed nitrogen for steering in atmosphere.
In short, the best of old and new world space with turnaround time between missions in days and the ground staff measured in hundreds, not thousands.

If NASA doesn't do something along these lines, its only a matter of time before private industry does, IMHO.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 12-09-2007 08:19 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yup, I figure it will happen and NASA knows that they should do it as well. There is still a rather large contingent at the NASA facilities that favor a reuseable shuttle type vehicle over a capsule design, which is essentially what Orion is.

The biggest hurdle right now is funding though. The X-33 Venturestar project was the last major project in a series of four proposed shuttle follow on projected that died on the table. With the budget as it is these days, NASA can either support a space program, or build a vehicle for a new one. They can't do both.

So at this rate, it may indeed be private industry that comes up with something. Overt moves to do it probably won't occur until after the current shuttle fleet retires and (hopefully) Orion begins to fly. Reason being is at that point, NASA will begin to realize what capabilities they have lost by retiring shuttle and somebody will begin to look at fulfilling those needs.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-09-2007 11:26 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Good to see you online again, Kyra-

Yes your right. I have the same feelings, let's not reinvent Apollo. Apollo was great in it's day, it was made to do a job - go to the moon. It had it's day, planning to parachute into the ocean is not the way to go.

Everyone I talk to says one thing - the shuttle is just too big. Cheaper, faster, lighter, smaller, I couldn't agree more.

We have learned a lot about aerodynamics at high speed in the last 25 years let's not throw it away. I know someone is going to say "knowledge is never lost". But still, the people that worked on the X-15 slowly slipped away. There skill is gone.

Let's get back to basics - getting into LEO cheaply & quickly.

I'll get off the soapbox now, and make room for someone else.

-Lou

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 12-10-2007 12:02 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
A smaller space shuttle? To do what? And to go where? Stranded into LEO? I thought that was the space program's problem...

So you'll need another vehicle, aside this smaller shuttle, to go "elsewhere", another launcher to lift this shuttle (much like Ariane/Hermes combination?) and another big launcher to launch the necessary hardware to go wherever you want to go (Moon, Mars etc). There is no political will (bi-partisan and time span - several administrations) to do this.

The ISS will be dropped by 2015 (makes you wonder why that thing is being built in the first place)... Dropping programs as soon as they've matured... a tendency the Government has. Funny how all those discussions tend to blame NASA for not doing this or that. I'm sure the NASA folks would love to have space program worthy of its name but Washington doesn't see it that way - short-term politics and budgetary process don't work; maybe it will take world politics to change that (China) and the US will have to play catch-up game. Again. It really saddens me.

The X-33 died because of technical hurdles (failure of composite LH tank) and associated costs (trans. Washington didn't want to provide additional funds). So did the X-30 NASP: technology wasn't (and still isn't?) there no matter how much experience has been gained with the X-15 and shuttle.

Chris.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-10-2007 06:29 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Chris-
What do you want to do? Make a bigger shuttle?
-Lou

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 12-10-2007 08:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Chinal:
What do you want to do?
Personally leave this galaxy...

You can imagine the size of THAT shuttle! (ok, ok, technically it wouldn't be a shuttle- I'm not coming back!)

If we should drop Apollo-type of spacecraft on the sole idea that we've already been down that road (a capsule), then going to the Moon doesn't make any sense (been there, collected rocks... what else?).

I don't know what is the ideal space transportation system (maybe we should ask Dassault about their Hermes spaceplane; it's usually the ones with great ideas who do not have the corresponding budgets). Why not bring back Dyna-Soar? After all, the DoD will surely be interested...

Chris.

kr4mula
Member

Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006

posted 12-10-2007 02:13 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kr4mula   Click Here to Email kr4mula     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I think Chris hit the nail on the head, sort of. Anything like a new STS system is going to come out of DoD, not NASA (even if it's not Dyna-Soar redux). A reusable system with anything like current technology (still not cheap) will only be affordable on a per-mission basis if you use it a lot. NASA will never reach that many launches with its exploration mission. Only the DoD with its current interest in getting satellites up quickly will promote this sort of technology within the government. In fact, if you look at technologies the DoD has in development, they are pushing for just the sort of requirements Kyra brought up in the original post: thermal control, reusable engines/TPS, avionics, etc. Hopefully private industry will keep their end up with stuff like tourism and also invest in better LEO systems. Maybe their results will be a shuttle-like space plane or some amazing SSTO vehicle, but more likely it won't be. On the other hand, NASA certainly has no need for all the messy structure that comes along with an aero vehicle for its Moon/mars goals. But honestly, I think this separation between NASA and everyone else is the way things should be. Let the commercial sector and the military do the grunt work for making LEO accessible, that way NASA doesn't waste its money on routine operations and can instead get back to real exploration, research, and development. It may finally be time (if not now, then soon!) for NASA to give up the ghost of the LEO cash-cow that has kept its doors open over the last 30 years and move on to what made it great in the first place.

Cheers,

Kevin

mjanovec
Member

Posts: 3811
From: Midwest, USA
Registered: Jul 2005

posted 12-10-2007 02:23 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mjanovec   Click Here to Email mjanovec     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The big question is why would we need another STS? Future vehicals need to be designed around the mission they will carry out. Currently, the mission for the next spacecraft is to return to the moon. As such, it makes sense to build off of an already proven and successful design. A capsule is an ideal means of carrying humans for such a mission, given the available funding. A more elaborate and complicated design may be technically feasible, but will it be affordable in the near term?

kyra
Member

Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-11-2007 12:00 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for kyra   Click Here to Email kyra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That's the whole idea. To build something that is cheaper to launch to LEO that has similar capabilities to STS. Learn from the mistakes and successes to create something better with proven technologies and off the shelf technologies wherever possible. Complicated is exactly what should be avoided. Look for "elegantly simple" creative solutions.

If you look at the cost of a current STS mission compared to the cost of the vehicle within a few missions you may have well just built a new orbiter! Something happened after Challenger that exponentially raised the cost per flight. STS-6 (minus payload) cost $37 million, but STS-44 was closer to $500 million (plus payload). They were similar missions. Something happened here, and that is what is to be avoided on the next STS. It was already a dinosaur 16 years ago. I'm not anti-shuttle, or even anti Orion, for that matter. I just believe that we should find a way to meet the challenge of meeting what STS was designed for in those great colorful glossy pics of the 70's.

Where is that great solar collection facilty, the spoke and wheel space station with artificial gravity or the PLB mounted tour bus? Yes, continue outwards as well, but LEO still has many unexplored ideas. Make spaceflight available to more than a lucky hardworking few and support will grow to build the infastructure of a true spacefaring nation. Our future as a species is out there. Earth will not habitable forever. I suppose I'm just dreaming in the big picture, but ultimately by logic, space is that important.

Max Q
Member

Posts: 399
From: Whyalla South Australia
Registered: Mar 2007

posted 12-11-2007 02:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Max Q   Click Here to Email Max Q     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I feel that the World should take its place in the funding dilemma both corporate & Governmental. I feel that NASA should maintain its control over the space programs. Lets face it the benefits of the space program are global so why not finance it that way.

As far as the Shuttle is concerned old tech bin it ( Eventually ) what is the standing of the Space Elevator anyway funds for that would sort L.E.O.

Philip
Member

Posts: 5952
From: Brussels, Belgium
Registered: Jan 2001

posted 12-11-2007 09:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Philip   Click Here to Email Philip     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
NASA needs to start thinking & acting real 'space exploration' or it will fail its mission and fail to get budgets!

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-11-2007 03:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I guess the question is should NASA stay in the trucking business or get out? The Air Force set aside 10 tail numbers for the X-20. a lot would have been learned had it been flown.

1/2 billion dollars per flight! I still don't believe it.

Maybe we should bite the bullet and make a plan for Mars?

-Lou

spacecraft films
Member

Posts: 802
From: Columbus, OH USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-11-2007 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spacecraft films   Click Here to Email spacecraft films     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lou,

Do you know what those 10 tail numbers were? I'd love to put them on the X-20 on our Space Shuttle: First Flights set.

Mark

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 12-11-2007 04:54 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The thing about X-33 is even with the composite fuel tank problems is it didn't have to be killed. The X-33 project wasn't going to be the mature Venturestar anyway as it was supposed to be sub-orbital even with the tanks. There is so much other stuff they could have tested.

As for the fuel tanks themselves, apparently a Lockheed engineer licked the corrosion problem with them a few years after the X-33 project was cancelled. But guess what, they had no way to test them on a vehicle because, the X-33 project was cancelled!

It seems like whenever a project gets too hard or the money barrier gets too daunting, everyone involved prefers to cut their losses and move on with nothing practical to use except maybe the research and the hope that a new project will come along to allow them to use what they learned.

As for the arguement of LEO vs other things, put simply if we plan to utilize space for the benefit of mankind, then earth orbit is where most of the day to day activities will be. Before one can build the GEO based giant microwave power stations in orbit, they have to get parked in LEO and something has to haul that stuff up there and assemble it before moving it higher in orbit.

If it is one thing that shuttle has showed in terms of servicing equipment in LEO is that it is probably the best on site work platform anyone has come up with. The astronauts have an anchor point to work from and the power systems of a shuttle can support a large satellite on standby for several days. You can't just bungie a Soyuz to something like the Hubble Telescope and work on it, since the thing can't be powered down and everything would be drifting in three dimensions.

A shuttle vehicle also provides the capability of hauling large quantities of stuff back down from orbit. Granted industry on the ground has found ways to make certain items of high quality without the need for microgravity, but the time may come when something can only be manufactured in microgravity. Sure you can get it up into orbit easily enough, but getting it down can be more problematic and a shuttle vehicle provides the potential answer to that.

To me, the biggest failing of the space shuttle was not its capabilities, but rather I think it came too soon before the technologies matured enough to build it to be economical. Plus, it never really had a destination until late in its life. The problem as I see it for the next decade (2010-2020) is that there will be potential destinations, but no shuttle vehicle capabilities for them. Without shuttle, NASA will probably be taking a pretty hard look at where to go next. If the timing is right and the funding is right, hopefully somebody in the private sector will be there to step up to the plate with a vehicle.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1306
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 12-13-2007 11:40 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Mark-

No, I don't know what the tail #'s were . I was talking to an old AF type many years ago, he wasn't sure they were going to build all 10. But was sure of the number.

I'm not anti-shuttle or anti-Orion. But as the technologies matured I assumed a flight would be affordable on a per-mission basis because we would use it alot. That just hasn't happened.

A lot would have been learned from the X-33 also.

The commercial industry just does not have a good track record of jumping in unless there is going to be a return quickly. They don't look past the quarterly report.

I still vote with Kyra on this one.

-Lou

TellingHistory
Member

Posts: 63
From: Franklin, TN 37027
Registered: Dec 2007

posted 12-13-2007 04:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for TellingHistory   Click Here to Email TellingHistory     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is an interesting question and discussion. I've enjoyed reading your posts.

I sorta feel like a weener invited to a steakhouse here but here's my two cents.

I'm of the persuasion that if NASA keeps pouring money into a shuttle program then it will be decades more before we get back to the Moon, much less Mars.

Let's face it. Watching NASA TV of ISS operations - for all but the few geeks of geeks (and I are one) - is like watching a silo rust.

The sexy ideas and programs are lunar and solar exploration.

I'd like to see NASA focus on getting back to the Moon before 2010 and let the ESA and International community do the heavy lifting on shuttling people to the ISS or anything short of the Moon.

As we get closer to the year of putting a man back on the Moon interest in space and lunar exploration could likely hit white hot like it did when I was kid with the Apollo program. THAT would be good for NASA.

------------------
Kraig McNutt
Publisher
Today in Space History
http://www.TodayinSpaceHistory.com
tellinghistory@yahoo.com

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 12-14-2007 12:25 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by TellingHistory:
Let's face it. Watching NASA TV of ISS operations - for all but the few geeks of geeks (and I are one) - is like watching a silo rust.
Nice analogy!

(except maybe for the fact that the silo is "emitting" cracking noises as if it is bound to fall down... ever tried to figure out what the astronauts are talking about? Maybe that's part of the problem...)

Chris.

kyra
Member

Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003

posted 12-14-2007 08:52 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for kyra   Click Here to Email kyra     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes, a typical mission of late seems to be scripted. "Piece a mission together to fly, get into orbit (30 second news story), check out the shuttle for damage, drop off a module, exchange crew/cargo, fix some problem (1 minute news story), come home."

It reminds me of a government facility that is destined to be closed, but there are crews out doing sidewalk repairs and a staff busy rewriting the format of the forms used to track maintenance. Morale erodes to a type of tongue in cheek sarcasm, and the rank and file worry about rumours of RIFs.

The Shuttle/ISS programs have taken on a very expensive life of their own, but a new program would breathe new life into NASA, partcularly a program that continues on where the old program left off. Going back to the Moon and onward to Mars is an excellent long term goal (and more appealing to the public), but IMHO there is a lack of continuity in shelving the STS/ISS without a replacement. The science programs of both programs have been scaled back as the STS program is detoured to finish the ISS. There is still plenty of good science to be done in LEO. When we lost Columbia, things were just starting to get really interesting on the science end.

OK, time for me to get off the soap box

spacecraft films
Member

Posts: 802
From: Columbus, OH USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-14-2007 09:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for spacecraft films   Click Here to Email spacecraft films     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Lou,

Thanks for getting back on the background. The last reference I can find shows a planned build out of 8 vehicles, so I am going with that, and am using the sequential numbers after the X-15 (don't know if they were used or not). So this sequence of #4 the night before the launch is numbered appropriately.
Dynasoar pad animation test frame

Mark

cspg
Member

Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006

posted 12-15-2007 12:23 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for cspg   Click Here to Email cspg     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I don't know about you guys but this photo looks pretty cool to me!

The Ariane 5/Hermes design is somewhat similar but the Dyna-Soar is more appealing.

Chris.

art540
Member

Posts: 432
From: Orange, California USA
Registered: Sep 2006

posted 12-15-2007 12:41 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for art540   Click Here to Email art540     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I wonder if the the Titan 3C would have used solids with more segments due to the weight of the Dyna-Soar?

Any concepts for upgraded SM ever appear for this program?

spacecraft films
Member

Posts: 802
From: Columbus, OH USA
Registered: Jun 2002

posted 12-15-2007 08:49 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for spacecraft films   Click Here to Email spacecraft films     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This is the configuration when the program ended. The IIIM didn't come along with the 7 segments until MOL.

Mark

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2020 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement