|
Author
|
Topic: Members ideas: Compromise for NASA's future
|
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-08-2010 07:07 PM
   
Just for the fun of it, let's see if we cS members could come to a consensus on what compromise we would write for NASA's future. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 05-13-2010 01:18 PM
I guess this is the best place to ask this question. What is considered "heavy lift?" How many pounds into LEO is that? The reason I'm asking is why couldn't we use shuttle derived hardware, ET and four segment SRBs to do the job? Obviously we need to develop single use main engines - but we know this vehicle can park a 100 ton orbiter in LEO. Couldn't it park a 100 ton departure stage there as well? Wouldn't using existing hardware shorten the development time? What am I missing? |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-18-2010 08:10 AM
I'm not sure the term heavy-lift regards a specific number of pounds. I assume it means a similiar amount to the shuttle cargo bay, or significantly more than a Progress vehicle can haul into orbit. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-18-2010 08:14 AM
Just did some research -- heavy lift means capable of geostationary, geosynchronous or beyond-Earth orbit missions. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-18-2010 08:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
I'm not sure the term heavy-lift regards a specific number of pounds.
The higher the number of pounds per orbit (and depending what orbit), the more likely the vehicle will be classified as a heavy-lift. The most powerful of rocket's version could be classified as a heavy-lift. |
cspg
Member Posts: 6347
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-18-2010 08:50 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
What am I missing?
Simple: A destination or a goal.But I agree with you. I fail to see why such hardware hasn't been developed (post-Challenger for a start) and now we're going to throw (mostly) everything away - again. If it were my tax dollars, I would be writing my representatives like crazy... |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-18-2010 11:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by cspg:
we're going to throw (mostly) everything away - again. If it were my tax dollars, I would be writing my representatives like crazy...
Why not petition our "representatives" in the European Parliament to authorise ESA to convert ATV into a manned spacecraft? It seems silly to have ISS operational for another decade (or more), but have no means for European astronauts to get there. Except as passengers on US or Russian vehicles (though what that US vehicle is post-Shuttle remains to be seen). I notice that not one of the new ESA astronaut-candidates is training in Houston like the Japanese and Canadians. Could that be the reason why? As for a "compromise"? Retain the Orion CEV, flying initially as a taxi to ISS then Beyond Earth Orbit (Asteroid, Mars or the Moon). And select a HLLV design as soon as the shuttle has flown its final mission. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 05-26-2010 08:44 AM
I'm suprised that there are so few posts to this thread considering how many people have given pro/con positions to the President's plan.I would continue to get the private sector involved, fly the last ET with Atlantis, use Orion for the ISS and then the Moon and Mars. If the Atlas or Delta can be man-rated and/or be cheaper than Ares, that would be the way to go. |
Duke Of URL
Member Posts: 1316
From: Syracuse, NY
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-27-2010 06:33 AM
No doubt there are a million good reason why not, but if we're only talking about going to the ISS, why not just design a capsule to go with one of our existing boosters?Building the craft can't be that hard. We've been doing it for 50 years. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 05-27-2010 09:28 AM
The only real alternative plan I have heard is that of Buzz Aldrin. He went over it a few weeks back during an episode of This Week in Space. To paraphrase what he said:No Gap: Keep the shuttle flying 'till the US has an alternative LEO vehicle. Heavy Lift: Develop Shuttle C and modify/upgrade over time as funds allow. (Notice how he does not throw away existing capability...uses existing infrastructure and expands it.) Develop the next generation space shuttle...a crew only winged reusable vehicle, which would be a "commercial" vehicle once operational. The Space Shuttle now stands down. NASA develops deep space vehicles. NASA designs, develops, and builds craft for transportation to Mars and landing on its surface. (I would modify this in that while a moon base may not be a necessary requirement to get to Mars, I believe once again having the capability to land on the moon and stay for a few days to a week must be done first. So a moon landing craft would be added to the mix.) Aldrin then has the US on Mars within 25 years. It's a real plan, making use of existing hardware, skills, etc. It truly advances the state of the art in spaceflight through development of a second generation shuttle, heavy lift, interplanetary craft, etc., not a couple of the sardine can proposals existing now. It also does one thing everyone seems to miss: it develops infrastructure. A mix of vehicle types, support facilities, etc. is required to make a trip to Mars or elsewhere possible. His is the only plan that does this. His plan most likely has one problem: more money. It will no doubt require a manageable funding increase for NASA. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 50516
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 05-27-2010 09:36 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
No Gap: Keep the shuttle flying 'till the US has an alternative LEO vehicle.
As Aldrin acknowledges and the space shuttle program has confirmed, even were you to add the STS-135-converted-Atlantis-LON flight, there will still be about a two year gap before a new shuttle mission can be flown as a result of the time needed to fabricate new external tanks (from existing parts) and other logistical constraints. That doesn't negate Aldrin's ideas, just mentioning that a gap until 2013/2014 exists regardless of the plan at this point. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-27-2010 10:10 AM
quote:
Originally posted by BNorton:
Develop the next generation space shuttle...
VentureStar comes to mind. I watched the STS-132 post-landing press conference with NASA officials and it was obvious they still have great enthusiasm for the shuttle programme. But even they know the reality is that flying/maintaining a shuttle orbiter would consume the annual budget. And the US Congress is not going to increase that budget just to keep the shuttles. Plus, what if there was another disaster after shuttle extension was authorised? On the positive side, KSC will have a makeover. Pad 39B is being modified to accommodate any type of rocket chosen to launch NASA astronauts. |
BNorton
Member Posts: 150
From:
Registered: Oct 2005
|
posted 05-27-2010 12:59 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
That doesn't negate Aldrin's ideas, just mentioning that a gap until 2013/2014 exists regardless of the plan at this point.
You are obviously correct. "No gap" is incorrect. I believe his (Aldrin's) intent is to minimize the gap that will now exist regardless of the plan, as you point out. Also, Adrin suggests a reduced flight rate for the Space Shuttle, about two flights a year if memory serves. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-28-2010 05:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Duke Of URL:
why not just design a capsule to go with one of our existing boosters?
If the US Congress really wishes to flex its muscle then it should demand Orion be retained as that "capsule", and launch it atop either a Atlas V or Delta IV.I would hope the supporters of Ares swallow their pride and think what's most expedient for NASA. The Congress must also insist the heavy-lift design be chosen as soon as the final shuttle mission hits wheelstop. And in my opinion, it should be based upon the shuttle system. |
KSCartist
Member Posts: 3047
From: Titusville, FL
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 05-28-2010 05:32 AM
In my opinion, Orion should be able to be launched aboard an Ares I, Delta IV and an Atlas V. For that matter since they're building a Soyuz pad in South America why not adapt the Arianne V to carry it just in case. Redundancy. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1106
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 05-28-2010 06:40 AM
quote:
Originally posted by KSCartist:
Orion should be able to be launched aboard an Ares I.
I'm all for "redundancy", but it's widely understood Ares I was simply not up to the task of launching Orion CEV.I'm not averse to an Ares Lite or Ares IV being chosen, but wouldn't it be quicker to man-rate Atlas and Delta? Anything to shorten 'the gap' after the shuttle. Of course, if Falcon 9 works as advertised then it should be full-steam ahead with converting Dragon into a viable capsule. Hopefully, whatever is chosen it will launch from Pad 39B. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 05-29-2010 09:49 AM
quote:
Originally posted by issman1:
I'm all for "redundancy", but it's widely understood Ares I was simply not up to the task of launching Orion CEV.
Try widely misunderstood. Yes, Orion grew in weight. But EVERY spacecraft and booster design goes up in weight during its development. The Apollo CSM experienced it, the LM experienced more then its fair share of it and both were hobbled by the increase in weight of the Saturn V (so much so that North American went to the common bulkhead for the LOX and LHX tanks to cut weight from the S-II design). Usually those weight penalties are figured out when sheet metal begins to get cut as the engineers find slicker ways of making things. I have no doubt that if Ares 1 is allowed to develop as a booster that the performance would hit its target and that Orion would be light enough to fly properly on it. Why? Because engineers are smart people. If they are given a task to do something and the proper resources, they will succeed. The main groups that were touting the overweight Ares 1 were pretty much the same groups that were promoting their own architecture for flight, such as the Jupiter direct rocket. They had an axe to grind with Ares on day one. |
bcrussell
Member Posts: 77
From: Madison, AL. USA
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 06-09-2010 10:35 PM
Ideas on ways to launch manned flights out of the U.S. in 2011 and 2012.Why does Bolden say no NASA manned launch before 2015 and Elon Musk says 2013? |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1739
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 06-09-2010 11:49 PM
I'm would be in favor of scrapping Ares I in favor of Delta/Atlas if it would shorten the gap, and keep Constellation alive. However, from what I have been reading elsewhere, the Administration doesn't seem to be interested and is moving full-steam ahead with the plans to kill Constellation. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 06-10-2010 12:43 AM
Okay, I admit I am posting this sort of in a half joking fashion. But the oil mess in the gulf and how it is impacting the local economies has the gears grinding in my brain.Some people (critics mainly) have called NASA a space age WPA for the type of projects it does (the ISS being a prime example). Well, in that case, why NOT use a little WPA to help out those economies? Louisiana has Michoud along the gulf coast, the facility that makes shuttle External Tanks and is tasked with making the Orion spacecraft, possibly the Ares 1 second stage and core element of Ares V if Constellation continues. Then there is the Stennis center in MS which does rocket testing and of course Marshall Space Flight Center is in Alabama (granted it is in northern Alabama, but it is in the state). As such, why cut Constellation? Why not expand its work? That way you help keep contractor jobs in those states and maybe help out the economies somewhat? Granted it likely won't help the people most affected right on the coast (the fishermen), but it could help keeping some of the other businesses in the area. And in the meantime, NASA might finally get the boosters they have always wanted. |
advertisement