A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Future Robotic Shuttles?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 14th 10, 12:33 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

get real.

NASA NEVER WANTED to cut their workforce, most upgrades would of meant
cost savings which equal fewer workers. Thats why a shuttle
replacement never got built it really wasnt wanted because it would
cost jobs....

Sadly the safety boards ordering the end of shuttle was the only way
to get the agency movbing and even then pork ruled which got us
constelation.

while existing delta and atlas would of done the job just fine.......

so nasa sees shuttle end with no clear replacement and mega jobs
lost....

typical government program costly wasteful inefficent run by congress
who is owned by contribuitors.
  #12  
Old September 14th 10, 01:49 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

In article ,
says...

Jeff Findley wrote:

No. Too expensive to resurect.


At the end of the day, aren't all options for space travel
"too expensive"


Not at all. Continuing to use Soyuz and Progress to resupply ISS isn't
too expensive. Continuing to fly ATV and HTV to the station isn't too
expensive.

By the looks of things, it seems like the US thinks that building and
flying a shuttle derived HLV and Orion isn't too expensive either.
Going to the moon is another story...

What NASA should have done in the mid 1990s is to get funding to build a
new and improved shuttle. An evolution.


They tried, there was no money. They also tried to make incremental
improvements along the way (i.e. non-toxic OMS/RCS, electric APU's, and
etc). Only the smallest of upgrades were funded, and most of those were
post Challenger and post Columbia and were very tightly bound to safety.

Instead, it has tried many times for the "revolution" with totally new
designs and each time, those projects were cancelled because of cost
overruns and uncertaintly in the project's success.


NASA always funded studies into next generation vehicles. Yes, you are
right, the money was never forthcoming. NASA always counted on
additional funding for these projects. That's not politically viable.

NASA should have had funding to build one new orbiter every 5-8 years
with more improvements as it retires the oldest remaining one. This
would hace reduced costs over time as improvements were made.


If wishes were fishes...

The cost of building a new and improved orbiter would have been offset
by the savings of not having to do the heavy maintenance on the oldest
orbiter being replaced.


That remains to be seen. There have been some age related problems with
the shuttle, but really not that many. Things like the TPS, toxic
propellants, SRB's, SSME's, and etc. are what kept costs high. And
you're not going to reduce those costs much without a wholesale
redesign.

Yes, there would have been incompatibilities, but in the long term,
costs woudl have gone down. NASA was able to live with part of its fleet
having upgraded glass cockpits, and part having the ODS/airlock while
one was left with the airlock in the crew compartment.


Flying hardware that's different costs additional money and introduces
the possibility for errors.

NASA was able to upgrade SSMEs and apply the upgraded engines to the
fleet progessively.


Yes, but the costs never dropped by much. They improvements were
incremental, not revolutionary.

So it seems that NASA was quite able to live with disparate fleet of
orbiters.


They were never so disparate. Again, the improvements were
evolutionary, not revolutionary.

Airplanes are re-usabel too. But airlines are constantly buying new ones
and retining old ones because the new ones offer lower operating and
maintenance costs.


Not really. There are still DC-3's flying. As for the jet age, I still
see Boeing 737's flying routinely, despite the fact that they were
introduced decades ago. And as for the military, it always seems like
there will never be a replacement for the venerable B-52's. That
airframe seems like it will never die.

And if you look at Boeing and Airbus, an aircraft model gets
improvements during its production lifetime. A320s being built today
incorporate many improvements not found in the original A320s built in
the lat 1980s. The 737 is perhaps a better example since it has gone
through 2 major improvement cycles (so 3 "models" since the 1960s). And
even in the latest iteration (the "Next Generation"), the 737s have seen
many improvements made since the first 737NGs were built in the 1990s.


They do get improvements over their lives, but these are still
evolutionary changes. The cost and safety problems with the shuttle
could never have been completely solved with evolutionary changes.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
  #13  
Old September 14th 10, 11:41 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 04:33:32 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

NASA NEVER WANTED to cut their workforce, most upgrades would of meant
cost savings which equal fewer workers.


Not particularly. Most would have meant faster turnaround (more
flights) with the same workforce, which is what NASA wanted for the
Space Station era. Look at non-toxic OMS/RCS, for example. You still
need all the people working OMS/RCS but with non-toxic propellant,
that work can be done without evacuating everyone else from the pad,
etc. It was argued at the time that Liquid Flyback Booster would have
required a larger workforce than SRB.

Thats why a shuttle
replacement never got built it really wasnt wanted because it would
cost jobs....


Facts not in evidence.

Sadly the safety boards ordering the end of shuttle was the only way
to get the agency movbing and even then pork ruled which got us
constelation.


The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said
NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level
if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010. And even that was only
a recommendation, not an order.

NASA says that the Return To Flight effort meets the criteria of the
recertification recommendation.

Brian
  #14  
Old September 15th 10, 01:07 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Sep 14, 7:28*pm, JF Mezei wrote:
Brian Thorn wrote:
The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said
NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level
if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010.


They gave all the ammunition needed for a politician to kill the
shuttle. So at the end of the day, they effectively killed the shuttle
even if the text of theirrecommendations doesn't explicitely kill it.


as of today could the shuttle get a reprieve?

keep the workforce together and restart production till a replacement
system is up and running
  #15  
Old September 15th 10, 11:52 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 17:07:17 -0700 (PDT), bob haller safety advocate
wrote:

as of today could the shuttle get a reprieve?


Yes.

keep the workforce together and restart production till a replacement
system is up and running


It would be expensive (no kidding) and the flight rate would be low in
the meantime because we didn't do this two years ago, when we should
have (when the Constellation writing was on the wall.) Back then, we
could have spread out the remaining 10-11 flights over four or five
years instead of over two years. Now we only have two modern External
Tanks, one Katrina-damaged Tank, and one elderly Lightweight Tank from
the 1990s. Building more will take 2-3 years, so we only have four
flights to cover perhaps 3 years. Each flight would therefore cost
about $2 billion.

Brian

  #16  
Old September 15th 10, 11:53 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Tue, 14 Sep 2010 19:28:56 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

The "Safety Board" didn't order the end of Shuttle. They only said
NASA should do a complete recertification, down to the subsystem level
if NASA wanted to fly the Shuttle beyond 2010.



They gave all the ammunition needed for a politician to kill the
shuttle.


Like Columbia's loss hadn't already done that?

Brian
  #17  
Old September 17th 10, 02:03 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Wed, 15 Sep 2010 23:54:02 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:


as of today could the shuttle get a reprieve?


Yes.


What I find interesting is that it wasn't long ago that it was stated
rather categorically that there were 2 tanks left with absolutely no
change of additional flights until the tank manufactiring could be
ramped up again (a couple of years).


Not long ago? STS-134 has been on the books for well over a year, and
that meant one of the "2 tanks left" was pressed into serivice for LON
back then. ET-122 (the Katrina victim) and ET-94 (the elderly LWT)
have been known to be sitting around for a long time now. But both had
problems: ET-122 would need to be repaired, something that makes NASA
nervous in the post-Columbia period, and ET-94 was a guinea pig for
the CAIB and needs a lot of work to be put back into flightworthy
shape, even then it comes with a 7,000 lbs. payload penalty (its a LWT
not a SLWT.)

The parts for other Tanks is a big unknown. How many parts and what
are they? How long will it take to build the parts that don't exist?
How long will it take to certify the new foam (the old foam is now
defunct.) How long will it take to get back all the employees who know
how to build Tanks?

So it was true that there were only 2 tanks left. The parts for others
are decidely a question mark (if you have to build whatever parts
don't exist, then we're still two years minimum from being able to use
them.) One of those Tanks (ET-122) was ordered to be put back into
service over a year ago when Congress ordered STS-134 (with ET-122
becoming the STS-335 LON Tank, although NASA might swap the ETs for
134 and 135 to fly the newest tank last.)

Brian
  #18  
Old September 17th 10, 08:33 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

The truth is that due to politics and short termism, so far nobody has
managed to make an evolutionary manned space program.
To me, the up and down mass should be some kind of seperate system, maybe
accurate parachuted landings and conventional take offs, but manned vehicles
should be evolving toward winged vehicles for convenience and safety as
well.

I'd imagine a winged return vehicle for just people is a lot less of a
problem than trying to do it for large lumps of gear.


Brian

--
Brian Gaff -
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"JF Mezei" wrote in message
...
Jeff Findley wrote:
The cost and safety problems with the shuttle
could never have been completely solved with evolutionary changes.


No, they would never be COMPLETELY solved.

But the shuttle system would improve over the years, fine tuned and
using new materials where possible.

And more importantly, it would not reach a date where all shuttles are
declared too old and the whole system is shutdown.



  #19  
Old September 17th 10, 07:52 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
snidely
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,303
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Sep 12, 1:18*pm, "Eddie Lyons" wrote:

But the problem is that the American (government) way of doing manned
spaceflight is not evolutionary -- the existing capability is thrown away to
be replaced by something new. Look at the Shuttle -- the most capable
spacecraft ever developed is being scrapped so it can be replaced by Apollo
2.0 (if Congress gets its way). Yes, the Shuttle should be replaced -- by
the right vehicle, not a replay of 1967-75. It should be replaced by a
worthy successor, which Orion clearly is not.


And what would be a worthy successor? The jury is still out on that,
as many of the features of the shuttle moldlines involve
vulnerabilities or performance penalties. How much could the shuttle
haul to orbit if it wasn't lugging around those damned wings? And if
you move the shuttle from the ice-exposed side mount to a top mount,
you have to deal with the aero surfaces having greater torque. What
is the next generation heat shield going to be?

Not insurmountable problems, but either difficult or expensive to
solve. Meanwhile, capsules, like an old Datsun 510 station wagon,
provide your basic transportation with a much smaller standing army.
They may not be great for cargo downhaul, but it's not like we have
large industries producing huge volumes of products for the earth-
bound consumer. The most important loss of downhaul for quite a
while will be the after-use inspection of failed station components,
and perhaps something like MOOSE could be used for some of that.

Hey, it would be nice to eat at Morton's Steak House more often, but
my wallet is more Sizzler sized. That's happened to the space
program, too. But the good news is that Elon or Robert or someone is
going to open a Red Robin pretty soon, and we'll see some new ideas on
the menu.

/dps
  #20  
Old September 18th 10, 10:35 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Sep 18, 1:36*am, JF Mezei wrote:
snidely wrote:
And what would be a worthy successor?


Exactly, there are no worthy successors. NASA tried and tried to get a
totally enw successor and for whatever reasons, those projects did not
get funding to completion.

Even the return to 1960s Apollo got canned. Which is why incremental
improvements to a existing product have greater odds of getting results.

The jury is still out on that,
as many of the features of the shuttle moldlines involve
vulnerabilities or performance penalties.


Despite the wings, tail, toilet and kitchen sink, isn't the shuttle one
of the most capable cargo carriers in existance ?

And if they built a Shuttle V2.0 with modern materials, shouldn't they
be able to shave a tonne or two off the weight of the orbiter,
increasing its cargo capacity ?

the russians already have a commecial taxi operation, and there is still
a chance that some of the private companies might one day get something too.

But nothing on the horizon approaches the flexibility and capabilities
of the shuttle.

And if
you move the shuttle from the ice-exposed side mount to a top mount,
you have to deal with the aero surfaces having greater torque.


looks to me like NASA is able to build tanks with good foam when it is
tasked to do so. Yes, this design adds the issue of chunks falling
against belly and wings of orbiter, but isn't NASA able to mitigate this
when it puts its energy into fixing things ?

A nitrogen filled shroud between shuttle and tank would prevent
formation of ice in that area and greatly reduce this. Remove the shroud
seconds before lifoff, or at liftoff itself. I am sure NASa would have
tons of ideas on how to deal with the problem, especially if it had an
open mind about MODIFICATIONS to the shuttle.

Remember that there were naysayers after Columbia that spoke with
authority and stated caterocixally that it woudl be absolutelyt
impossible to extend the arm to allow astronauts to inspect/fix wing
leading edges or belly of orbiter. It didn't take long for MDA to
suppl;y NASA with the boom extension, complete with sensors, and EVA
foot holds.

Instead of having a "can't be done" attitude for every new idea, those
NASA employees should instead have a "lets look into it, this might have
potential".

What
is the next generation heat shield going to be?


Nobody knows. We're not yet at the point where the shuttle has a
deflector dish that can not only project a heat shield, but also shield
against micro meteorids, and space alien phasers and exploding
flashlights (photon torpedoes).

But should the lack of totally new heat shielding technology prevent
other improvements on the shuttle ?

Perhaps NASA might be able to develop a cost effective way to
manufacture large carbon-carbon parts and make a shuttle belly out of a
dozen carbon-carbon panels instead of thousands of tiles.



Not insurmountable problems, but either difficult or expensive to
solve. *Meanwhile, capsules, like an old Datsun 510 station wagon,
provide your basic transportation with a much smaller standing army.


Works for the Russians. And you'll note that every couple of years, they
do come up with improvements to their Soyuz.

Just s NASA was told not to do commercial launches, it shouldn't get
into "old" tech. Let private enterprise develop capsules using NASA's
1960s experience, while NASA focuses on trying to evolve the state of
the art of space flight.


well the shuttle is ending for primarily 2 very solid reasons.

It has killed 2 crews and lacks launch boost escape

It is horendously expensive to operate.

while a safer shuttle could be built given its job, a do everything
truck too expensive probably cant be solved.........

so nasa decided a capsule system for humans and a heavy lifter for
cargo.

I support these ideas, why risk lives to send cargo to orbit? it makes
lifting cargo too costly..

NASA in attempting to pay off existing shuttle contractors instead
managed to pick a bad idea that was unworkable and still way too
costly.

thus nasa put itself out of the business of taking people to space.
thats sad but might be best. nasa appears incapable of bringing
anything new thats manned on time on budget with a soild design

cause too much playing politics on design.

 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
better, safer, smarter, cheaper, simpler, lighter, shorter Ares-1design for the Shuttles' replacement (Orion) and (maybe) also for a (future)NEW (smaller) Shuttle gaetanomarano Space Shuttle 17 April 3rd 08 06:32 PM
NASA and robotic research [email protected] Policy 28 June 18th 06 07:03 PM
M27 with the Bradford Robotic Telescope Robin Leadbeater UK Astronomy 4 June 16th 05 12:49 PM
If we lost ISS would the shuttles be retired too? What of the future? Hallerb Space Shuttle 17 November 7th 03 02:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:52 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.