A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Heard too much and need to vent.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old July 23rd 03, 01:21 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.


Now I have been following NASA's odd ideas on space policy for a few
years now, where if you can forgive my desire I just need to make
myself heard.

These days of course it is all about the Shuttle and how this is a
flawed system. Well in my view this is just working out the little
left over flaws from the original design.

Hey it is not a bad system after all, despite the slip-ups, where
until someone goes out and builds something better, then they should
keep their mouth closed.

I do agree though that the Shuttle should be scrapped some time into
the near future, but this is not due to it going bang and taking out
another crew, but more an issue with launch mass.

Also I have heard many odd ideas over the years, but I can only feel
that anyone with ideas that is going to degrade launch mass should be
taken out back and shot.

So the one key flaw with the Shuttle is that the crew support system,
landing gear, wings and the whole structure to bind this together
makes for one hell of a heavy craft. Not a good idea, when what is
most important here is the mass of the cargo that you can get to
orbit.

Also lets face the fact that if NASA is going to build a brand new
craft, then they are likely to spend billions with only a slim chance
of getting something remotely better than the Shuttle out of it.

So if you are serious on replacing the shuttle, then to do this in the
shortest and least costly way, then the only option is to work with
what we already have.

Hence the most logical first step is to put some engines below the
main fuel tank. Get rid of the shuttle and already you have the base
system to launch 100 plus tons into LEO.

As I very much like the idea of maximizing the amount of cargo that
can be lifted, then what you choose to do with this after that is less
important. This after all can be serious ISS components, building
NASA's in orbit fuel station, lifting fuel alone, parts for a lunar
base, new in orbit craft, or my personal favourite of loads to paying
passengers who would quickly die due to lack of in orbit resources.

Well if NASA could launch them, then just maybe one of these
international companies could get the idea of having them go
somewhere, when after all no company would build an in-orbit tourist
attraction if there was no paying visitors.

So if NASA wanted to do something interesting, then they could fit
seating for dozens and offer a reduced rate trip. Just do one of those
up and down and they would attract a whole load of attention.

Ok so worst case scenario of dozens of US citizens falling to earth is
not the best idea, but should I need to say that they knew what they
were getting into when they purchased the ticket.

Also at this point I can only wonder about NASA's desire to use
kerosene based engines. As since I already know that hydrogen produces
the best reaction mass, then this to me sounds like another idea that
needs a slow and painful death.

In fact has anyone done any number crunching for a launch to orbit
example for both types of system? As not needing the thermal
protection on the main tank any more would reduce the launch mass, but
I still feel that it would be worse off.

One other thing that constantly annoys me is how everyone is on about
what should get people into orbit instead of the Shuttle, but ideas on
the much wider picture are lacking. Or at least in what I have been
reading.

And so if the Shuttle is one day scrapped, then lets not think about
the exact craft to replace it, but the whole method in that people and
cargo are moved up and down.

So lets break launch, in orbit transfer and getting the vitals back
down into three separate areas.

The most important craft that I would like to see is an in orbit space
tug, of whatever size and shape you desire. Since this craft does
little beyond moving items from A to B in orbit, then so is there no
need for re-entry capability.

Due to foreseeing the need to have this craft manned, then it should
certainly include life support. I do not see that they would have the
need to get outside that much, where if anything needs repair, then it
could always be dragged back to the ISS or future service station.

One very important use for this craft is that once it is available,
where two or three of them would be ideal, then so can you remove all
in orbit maneuvering capabilities from almost all launched cargo. As
after launch the space tug can just go and pick it up and move it to
where it needs to be.

My problem area is in figuring how to get the vitals back down again,
where I do mean vitals and not the junk that NASA often brings back
down. As to the junk then fit the ISS with a cannon type device and
blast it out of orbit to burn up on re-entry, where as an added bonus
you even get to raise the ISS a little.

Maybe that is a little on the extreme side, but I am sure that they do
not need to carry the junk back down again.

So the big question is how much vitals is there to bring back down?

If there is not that much, then making use of what Russia provides
would save hell of a lot of cost in doing it any other way. Still if
it is more, then the best if not only solution is to fit re-entry and
landing capabilities on some of what you launch.

As certainly if you remove the Shuttle, then you can connect many
different types of cargo containers to this setup.

Now as to getting people up there, then this should be done with as
small a craft as possible. So room for a small crew, support
capabilities to keep them alive long enough, with extra room for
bringing those vitals down.

Do I need to point out that Russia already has such a craft that has
been working very well for years, where they would only be happy to
share. As it seems to me that it is only a matter of national pride to
produce their better craft.

Well if they do want a new one, then I believe that this should be
flexible enough to be launched on different rockets if needed, but for
now lets stick it on top of our heavy cargo lifting capability.

Also is it just me or is NASA being a bit weird in their OSP
requirements concerning the injured crew member? When it is not like
some astronaut is going to fall off the roof and break a leg.

Sure there may be a valid reason, but it is not like they have ever
needed such an emergency situation before. After all in this
environment they will live on anyway or already be dead.

This I believe is just NASA not wishing to kill any more of their
employees, without realising that no rocket launch will ever be
totally safe.

I am sure that you will all be wondering about what to do with this
main fuel tank now blasted into orbit. Well I am sure some use can be
made for it, but if NASA really wants their engines back, then just
make them detachable.

Granted that it would not be easy to bring the engines back down, but
with such heavy lifting capability I am sure that something extra
could be blasted to orbit that would allow for engine re-entry and
recovery.

Well there are my thoughts to cover heavy lift, in orbit maneuvering
and getting things back down, where sure my plan may not be perfect,
but it is not bad either.

Then of course since the ISS is in a cud orbit, then maybe NASA should
build other things. Fuel in orbit would be very good, which could even
make use of some of those spare tanks if needed. You could even fit an
engine to the ISS and have it raise its own damned orbit.

Most of all I would desire to see a space station that simply orbits
between the Earth and the Moon constantly. This does not even need to
be crewed most of the time, when it is just for moving people and
cargo about between Earth and Lunar orbit and back again.

In other words to provide the life support capabilities and decent
living conditions for the short trip. Pick them up, drop them off,
where you have a station nearby to help out in building a lunar base.

Well in any case my main point is that with greatly increasing what
you can blast to orbit, then so can you include lots of extra stuff.

You are now free to pick apart my theory as you please.

Cardman.
In all NASA's greatest crime is that they spend billions launching
people and items to orbit, where this money is wasted when it all
comes back down again.
  #2  
Old July 23rd 03, 02:03 AM
Ian Stirling
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman wrote:
snip
Also I have heard many odd ideas over the years, but I can only feel
that anyone with ideas that is going to degrade launch mass should be
taken out back and shot.


Hence, all future NASA vehicles should be built using carbon nanotube
reinforced composites as primary structure.

They are several times lighter for a given strength than anything else
available, and they only cost $900 per gram.

--
http://inquisitor.i.am/ | | Ian Stirling.
---------------------------+-------------------------+--------------------------
Money is a powerful aphrodisiac, but flowers work almost as well.
-- Robert A Heinlein.
  #3  
Old July 23rd 03, 05:03 AM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 12:31:38 +1000, David Findlay
wrote:

They are several times lighter for a given strength than anything else
available, and they only cost $900 per gram.


Are they viable yet? I haven't seen any real world use of them yet. These
are indeed though the only way to really get the space program happening
again. Start really innovating and taking risks instead of doing what we
know is old and tried and tested.


One of NASA's problems in recent years is with trying to make new
technology happen, where as this is easier said than done, then they
usually end up abandoning projects due to it.

That is why I do like them taking the route of developing key
components like new rocket engines instead. Where this is just
improving old tried and tested technology with the latest ideas and
materials.

So in the end you get a much better rocket engine to use in your new
launch rocket.

Why are aluminium modules still being used? Surely even kevlar or similiar
would be lighter.


Outside my knowledge area. I presume this is a cost issue and that the
rocket fuel weighs a lot more.

Well if they wanted to shift more mass, then increasing the size of
the SRBs seems like the easy answer. Yet of course as the shuttle is
the beginning and ending of the cargo carrying limits, then there was
never the need.

Inflatable modules would give the station much more room.


And goes pop if hit by a micro meteorite, but I agree they could have
assembled larger sections if desired.

This new larger ISS component is the movie theater. ;-]

Cardman.
  #4  
Old July 23rd 03, 07:21 AM
Christopher M. Jones
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

"Cardman" wrote:
Just too bad that the shuttle itself eats a lot of launch mass by
protecting the cargo area within it. This has also imposed a size
restriction on everything that went up with it since, from the hubble
telescope to the ISS components.

I doubt that anyone can deny that getting rid of the shuttle would
give them the capacity to launch things that they can only now dream
of. Think of what would happen if they launched a huge space telescope
on such a system. They could even launch it in sections if desired and
assemble it in orbit.


As I pointed out in another post recently (to s.s.tech, I'm
not sure if it got moderated yet), the Shuttle Orbiters
weigh more than Skylab. And as I've pointed out on several
occasions over the years, the Shuttle stack is a Saturn V
class booster, with nearly the exact same payload to LEO
(Saturn V: 118 tonnes, Shuttle, 117 tonnes including the
orbiter but excluding the SSMEs). Except, of course, the
orbiter eats up 80% of the payload of the Shuttle stack.

Now, take some time to consider and to truly think about
the fact that each and every Shuttle launch is roughly the
equivalent of a Saturn-V launch. Think about what was done
with a mere dozen Saturn-V launches (including the one which
launched a complete space station) and think about the fact
that we've had about 5 Shuttle launches a year and over 100
total Shuttle launches since 1981. That's 8 Apollos.
That's at *least* 48 moon landings and 8 Skylabs.

  #5  
Old July 23rd 03, 07:23 AM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

David Findlay wrote:
Why are aluminium modules still being used? Surely even kevlar or similiar
would be lighter.


Because in very rough terms 2/3 of the mass of a station module
is something other than its hull, and all the pain and suffering
involved in making composite structures 14 feet in diameter and
40 feet long was not seen as worthwhile to save the 10% of gross
mass that you'd get by doing so.

The term 'false economy' jumps to mind. Saving a pound that costs
two thousand dollars to launch at an engineering and fabrication
cost of close to a million dollars (don't laugh, that has happened
before) is a really poor overall tradeoff.

Optimize *mission cost* for a given capability, not launched mass.
Mass is cheap. It's several times more expensive than it should
be given reasonable launch providers, but it's still cheaper than
engineer time. NASA spacecraft programs typically cost 3-5 times
what their launch cost is. Making them 2x as large but only half
as expensive otherwise to develop (larger margins, etc) would
go from not changing the cost much (for a project which costs
3x launch cost) to saving 20% or more (for a project which costs
5x launch cost). And the real tradeoffs with mass are usually
a much better payoff than 2x as large for half the cost,
it's often 2x as large for 1/10 the cost if developed right.


-george william herbert


  #7  
Old July 23rd 03, 04:21 PM
Cardman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

On 22 Jul 2003 23:23:37 -0700, (George William
Herbert) wrote:

Optimize *mission cost* for a given capability, not launched mass.
Mass is cheap.


Well how would you have liked to have been able to fully complete the
ISS in just five launches instead of dozens?

Removing the Shuttle from the setup removes the very heavy cost in
maintaining it, no tiles to replace, none of those flaws and cracks to
fix, none of those workers to pay...

All you need to maintain is the new main tank with engines, SRBs,
where in cargo mode you do not even have to worry about falling foam.

Also don't get me started on mission costs, when NASA could spend a
million just to launch a toilet roll.

Anyway, what we are doing here is optimizing launch costs, where to
say this is not important due to the mission costs is just making
excuses.

Get that launch system working, then you could think about having the
probes mass produced, when after all it does not cost that much more
to produce three or a hundred identical models instead of just one.

It's several times more expensive than it should
be given reasonable launch providers, but it's still cheaper than
engineer time.


And I am all for decreasing engineering time... Or more correctly to
refocus and optimize engineering time.

NASA spacecraft programs typically cost 3-5 times
what their launch cost is.


And what if the ISS had been made from "standard units", where NASA is
so into making everything unique. Just plug the ISS together like a
lego model and if you get bored you can always switch it around.

Sure you need the extras like the solar panels and canada arm, but
again these extras should be made as standard units.

In this way technology gets improved slowly between different units,
where someone has a bright idea and standard unit 3A is produced.

Had this all been done, then sure the initial cost would have been
high, but you would have completed the ISS by now. In fact there would
be many ISSs up there including a real big one (the Hotel!).

The probes and even craft can just be made the same way, when sure you
got to worry about different environments between different planets,
but at the core they can be the same.

In this environment your astronauts are then doing the useful and
interesting work of construction, which to be sure beats science
tricks, station maintenance and staring out of a window.

With the right leadership at NASA I could envision having a small Moon
Base within 10 years, where they could certainly put a lot of orbital
stations up there. Many around the Earth, one or two in a Earth to
Lunar orbit, one of two around the Moon and even one at Mars and
Venus.

And as these stations have all been built to handle this more extreme
space environment, then one station looks very much like the rest.

Also I can only see that NASA is making way too much fuss over
blasting astronauts out to visit other planets (at least to orbit),
when with a lower cost heavy launch facility you can send with them
everything they need and more.

Sure you have said that the launch cost is only the smaller part of
the overall cost, but what if instead of sending these unique probes
we sent my standard unit space stations instead.

Then suddenly you have people around other planets, where getting them
down on those planets is easy enough, even if getting them up again is
tricky.

I can only see that the correct way NASA should be doing things is to
wheel out their Shuttle and blast it off foam issues and all, with a
"out of the way, we have a station to build". Even though of course
this foam problem would be fixed in the process. As I mean that they
have launched well over a hundred Shuttles to date, where now it is
not good enough?

Astronauts know what they are getting into when they climb into the
thing after all. And even these days they are still saying the same
things as they said to begin with, which means delaying the
construction of the ISS by a year just due to waiting for the official
"red tape" stamp.

As you can tell I am a dictator... :-]

Cardman.
  #8  
Old July 23rd 03, 04:47 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman writes:
These days of course it is all about the Shuttle and how this is a
flawed system. Well in my view this is just working out the little
left over flaws from the original design.

Hey it is not a bad system after all, despite the slip-ups, where
until someone goes out and builds something better, then they should
keep their mouth closed.


Against the shuttle's original goals, set by NASA, of high flight
rate, low cost, and high reliability, it's a complete and utter
failure. These were the goals used to sell the shuttle to congress
and the (then current) administration. It was all b.s. The shuttle
will never attain those goals. It's a failure against those metrics.

I do agree though that the Shuttle should be scrapped some time into
the near future, but this is not due to it going bang and taking out
another crew, but more an issue with launch mass.


So cost per kg into orbit isn't important? Just the launch mass?
Please explain why cost isn't important.

So if you are serious on replacing the shuttle, then to do this in the
shortest and least costly way, then the only option is to work with
what we already have.

Hence the most logical first step is to put some engines below the
main fuel tank. Get rid of the shuttle and already you have the base
system to launch 100 plus tons into LEO.


Congratulations. You've invented a Shuttle-C variant. Shuttle-C has
been studied at length by NASA. The problem is the high cost per
launch and the flight rate, which is even lower than the shuttle since
you can launch more in one flight with Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C is a
failure on cost, since it would cost billions to develop and would do
little to eliminate the high cost of luanches.

Well in any case my main point is that with greatly increasing what
you can blast to orbit, then so can you include lots of extra stuff.


Look at the current launch market. There is an overcapacity right
now. We don't need ways to luanch more mass into orbit, we need ways
to launch mass into orbit cheaply. Cost per kg to orbit is the most
important factor here, not the number of kg's you can launch in one
shot.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
  #9  
Old July 23rd 03, 06:30 PM
jeff findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman writes:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2003 01:21:31 -0500, "Christopher M. Jones"
wrote:

As I pointed out in another post recently (to s.s.tech, I'm
not sure if it got moderated yet), the Shuttle Orbiters
weigh more than Skylab. And as I've pointed out on several
occasions over the years, the Shuttle stack is a Saturn V
class booster, with nearly the exact same payload to LEO
(Saturn V: 118 tonnes, Shuttle, 117 tonnes including the
orbiter but excluding the SSMEs).


Yes, except that we should keep in mind that the Saturn V was not a
very good concept due to the staging. As to just have the lower
engines doing all the work while the other engines sit ideal was not a
very good idea.


Actually, it wasn't so bad. On the two stage Saturn V, your second
stage J-2 engines could be optimized to run in vacuum. This means
that they didn't have to be as "high strung" as the SSME's running at
their significantly higher chamber pressures. Sometimes the "one size
fits all" approach of the SSME isn't so good.

Certainly, but I believe the cost factor comes into this, when the
complete Saturn V was not exactly cheap. So I believe that the Shuttle
removed launch system is considerably cheaper.


Where are the facts and figures to back this up? There was no large
scale reduction in the number of buildings or workers at KSC between
Saturn and shuttle operations. In fact, the shuttle uses much of the
same facilities that the Saturn V did. So how is it cheaper? Where
are the facts to back up your assertion that the shuttle is
"considerably cheaper" than Saturn V?

Besides, if Saturn kept flying and we never flew the shuttle, the
development cost of the shuttle could have been spent on upgrades on
the Saturn boosters. There is nothing fundamentally impossible about
gradually turning Saturns into reusable boosters. Starting with
recoverable first stages would have been a logical first step (so you
don't throw away five F-1 engines with each Saturn V launch).

Anyway, you have just made the same point that I did, when if cheap
standard station components are made, then you could certainly have a
lot of large stations up there in a short amount of time.


At what cost? How do you launch such things cheaply?

And as I said the key to all this is the "space tug", which will drag
all this newly launch cargo to where it should be and help slot it
together.


At what cost? Your "space tug" would certainly cost NASA billions to
develop and it would need constant refueling to keep it going. A
reusable "space tug" was dropped long ago by NASA due to cost.
Besides, with the shuttle, they didn't really need a space tug.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.
  #10  
Old July 23rd 03, 06:43 PM
George William Herbert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Heard too much and need to vent.

Cardman wrote:
Yes, except that we should keep in mind that the Saturn V was not a
very good concept due to the staging. As to just have the lower
engines doing all the work while the other engines sit ideal was not a
very good idea.


Staging is your friend. Stage early, stage often, or don't stage at all.


Ok, now I would really take anyone who says that the Shuttle should be
kept running out back and shoot them. ;-]


Keep the shuttle running.

Abandoning it before a functional replacement is in place is a
sure way to lose the manned spaceflight program in the US entirely.

For the same reason, ISS should be kept going.

Sunk costs and such are gone. As dumb as some earlier
decisions were, we have to go forwards to improve
things not give up because of all we have wasted.


-george william herbert


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:06 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.