Which STS systems would you reuse?

Odd thought while reading the CAIB report... but first we set it up
so that the concept almost makes sense:

Say you were designing a shuttle derivative for the OSP...

Or, in other words, "Let's get small."

Drop the cargo bay (it's passengers-only), trim the wings (no need
for the orbiters' military-mandated crossrange), Put your first
stage liquid-fuel engines anywhere _but_ on the mini-orbiter
('nuff said), and scale the boosters and ET accordingly.

And, of course, the boosters get liquid or hybrid.

The question I'm leading up to is: What current shuttle systems
have worked so well that you'd use them in your new OSP?

Normally, commonality hasn't been big in NASA manned spacecraft
designs since the capsule days... and the only thing since the
capsules has been the orbiter

Thus my elaborate set-up: We know of the publicized failures, but
what STS systems have worked well enough that you'd keep them...

....if it was a viable option?

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"Chuck Stewart" wrote in message
...
The question I'm leading up to is: What current shuttle systems
have worked so well that you'd use them in your new OSP?

Not many. The shuttle and an OSP (which I still think is a bad idea) are
such completely different vehicles that you just can't reuse much.

I can think of a few things that could be recycled for OSP: the airlock and
docking system (is the OSP expected to be able to support contingency
EVAs?), the crew seats, the middeck locker system, the TPS tiles, and some
of the ECLSS equipment.

I think, OTOH, that the chances of using some other systems are near zero:
for example, anything structural (obviously), the avionics, communications,
and data processing systems, and the propulsion system.

Some of the cost and entry-date projections going around for OSP now seem
quite optimisitic, to say the least. OSP is not going to be a simple vehicle
by any means: no reasonably safe manned vehicle is likely to be, and the
marginal costs of an OSP mission (including launcher, OSP refurbishment and
processing, mission-specific crew training, and mission planning) aren't
likely to be a great improvement on the existing shuttle, especially when
the lesser capability of OSP is considered.

--Chris

So...
....
when all is said and done...
the shuttle legacy will be a lot of people flown, a lot of tonnage
lofted, a fair amount of science done, 14 people killed, and a
substantial knowledge base acquired on how _not_ to do it...
assuming that the knowledge base is retained and used.

Fair assessment?

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 18:55:16 +0000, Dan Foster wrote:

Seems to me that unless the AO willingly signs off on it, we're most likely
going to end up seeing a vehicle design that requires at a bare minimum,
one crew person even if it's just accompanying a small cargo load.

Featherbedding?
Perish the thought...

-Dan

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"Chuck Stewart" wrote in message
...
| Odd thought while reading the CAIB report... but first we set it up
| so that the concept almost makes sense:
|
| Say you were designing a shuttle derivative for the OSP...
|
| Or, in other words, "Let's get small."
|
| Drop the cargo bay (it's passengers-only), trim the wings (no need
| for the orbiters' military-mandated crossrange), Put your first
| stage liquid-fuel engines anywhere _but_ on the mini-orbiter
| ('nuff said), and scale the boosters and ET accordingly.
|
| And, of course, the boosters get liquid or hybrid.
|
| The question I'm leading up to is: What current shuttle systems
| have worked so well that you'd use them in your new OSP?
|
| Normally, commonality hasn't been big in NASA manned spacecraft
| designs since the capsule days... and the only thing since the
| capsules has been the orbiter
|
| Thus my elaborate set-up: We know of the publicized failures, but
| what STS systems have worked well enough that you'd keep them...
|
| ...if it was a viable option?
|
| --
| Chuck Stewart
| "Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
|

Having read this thread so far, it seems to me that not many of the Shuttle
systems ar applicable to anything else, least of all the copsule.

Are they planning of shifting people in more than three's? If so, could
such a thing be done in a capsule that could be made to fit several
launchers?

If only in three's, then seems to me that something like a slightly larger
Soyuz with some space for some cargo etc, might be the bestbet. I do think
that unless someone can actually define the needs, then its pointless
faffing about with all these options.

As for a space plane, why not go the whole way and have jet engines as well
and so it could land anywhere, that would be a great mistake in the true
tradition of spaceflight..):-))

Brian

--
Brian Gaff....
graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them
Email:
__________________________________________________ __________________________
__________________________________




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.515 / Virus Database: 313 - Release Date: 01/09/03

"Dan Foster" wrote in message
...
In article , Colonel K
wrote:

Everything I've seen points to OSP being able to fly with anywhere from
0-4
people.

That in itself would require an interesting cultural adjustment from the
Astronaut Office (for one) since there has been a long-standing historical
reluctance to accept manned vehicles that could be completely flown in a
purely automated manner.

Guess they'll just have to adjust their thinking. The pilot lobby has been
too strong for its own good. Early OSP traffic models show the first few OSP
flights to be unmanned CRVs stuffed with cargo. They'll serve as
demonstration/qualification flights.

While it is more likely that such a design would be hand-flown for at
least
some phases while manned... one of the questions is, will they accept such
a design where 100% automation is possible?

If they want to keep their jobs they'll have to, 'cause OSP will have that
capability. The capacity for hand-flying will be included to some degree,
but full automation is a requirement.

Today, the Shuttle cannot be flown in a completely automated way even
though it is technically possible to add the modifications to do so...
much
due to this historical reluctance and long-standing philosophy about the
man vs machine control.

Since OSP is slated to make unmanned flights, the astronauts will just have
to deal with it. We have too many as it is. Might be time for a RIF.

Some of it perhaps justified due to fears over risks of failure modes
(e.g.
what happens if landing gear unexpectedly deploys early and throws off the
energy management such that you crash short of the runway?) but seems more
grounded in overall philosophy.

That kind of thing boils down to having fail-safe software with interlocks
(e.g., the FCS orders gear down, but the radar altimeter says the altitude
is not below 300 ft.). It's not an insurmountable obstacle. In any event,
the simplicity of the OSP system will remove many of the failure modes
Shuttle possesses or has had to work around.

Seems to me that unless the AO willingly signs off on it, we're most
likely
going to end up seeing a vehicle design that requires at a bare minimum,
one crew person even if it's just accompanying a small cargo load.

This will likely become more of an issue as the design solidifies. It's
already been reasonably discussed to some degree by the astronauts detailed
to OSP. In response to some early comments we've shown historically that
astronauts are not required in the loop during ascent, so this issue will
likely be put to bed in the near future, though perhaps not without a fight
by some of the astronaut stalwarts.

-Colonel K

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:36:48 +0000, Steven D. Litvintchouk wrote:

First of all, you left out that the Shuttle also retrieved some payloads
from orbit and returned them to earth-- something that was just not
possible before the Shuttle.

Granted.

Secondly, it's unreasonable to expect you can reuse a lot of the
technological solutions of the Shuttle for a new vehicle that is going
to be designed against very different requirements than the Shuttle was.

I was just curious as to what shuttle-originated systens people
thought worth adapting for future spacecraft.

So it's not a "knowledge base on how _not_ to do it." It's a
knowledge base for handling a quite different problem.

But I tried to frame it as a similiar problem...

I've never been a fan of the Shuttle, but let's try to be fair.

Nah...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:35:10 +0000, Jason A. Ciastko wrote:

My first thought would be the fuel cells. IIRC we've been using basically
the same type since at least Apollo. There've probably been updates and
such, but basically the same device.

Well, it was larger and much more powerful.

On a bit more reflection the seats my be a possibility, but not likely. If
the OSP's will be able to do multiple roles, the seats will need to be
removable. I don't think the two forward seats are and I'm not sure how
"crashworthy" the mid deck/ aft flightdeck seats are. Now if they're going
to have different versions (OSP-Human and/or OSP-Cargo), the seats may be a
possibility.

Does the orbiter seat design have any adavantages asides from being
already designed?

The ECLSS seems to work fine.

But was glitching still, even recently... nothing major.

As does the mid-deck storage,

Shuttle lockers?

galley,

Don't recall hearing much about that in operation?

and waste disposal (a la toilet).

I heard some things about that...

I read in another post the RCS. I'm not 100% behind the idea. Recalling
Kim's posts about having to vacate the pads when they're being fueled,
maintained, etc,

Well, they were in the process of being refitted to use less toxic
fuel... that should continue.

While the RCS was designed to manipulate the mass of the orbiter,
and while the OSP will be a lot smaller than the orbiter... I don't
think that a compressed gas system will have the power needd for
manuevers.

Anyway, enough rambling from me.

Dunno... it beats hearing local news

Jason

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 03:23:50 +0000, Kim Keller wrote:

"Chuck Stewart" wrote:

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 23:35:10 +0000, Jason A. Ciastko wrote:

and waste disposal (a la toilet).

I heard some things about that...

I think OSP will fly without a toilet. Mission duration and weight
limitations seem set to nix that. Back to diapers and bags, kids.

hmmm... that could impact the tourist trade...

I read in another post the RCS. I'm not 100% behind the idea. Recalling
Kim's posts about having to vacate the pads when they're being fueled,
maintained, etc,

The current thinking is for OSP to be delivered to the pad with fuel already
loaded. The only loading that would be done at the pad is the cryos for the
fuel cells.

OMS included?

Well, they were in the process of being refitted to use less toxic
fuel... that should continue.

Nah, the non-toxic RCS wasn't getting funded.

.... of course it wasn't... -_-

I don't think a cold-gas system has the capacity or ISp for OSP's mission.
Looks like hypers or some non-toxic bi-prop system is going to get the nod.

Hmmm, are all hypergolics as toxic as the current RCS propellants?

-Kim-

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"

"Chuck Stewart" wrote in message
...
Odd thought while reading the CAIB report... but first we set it up
so that the concept almost makes sense:

Say you were designing a shuttle derivative for the OSP...

Snips

The question I'm leading up to is: What current shuttle systems
have worked so well that you'd use them in your new OSP?

Normally, commonality hasn't been big in NASA manned spacecraft
designs since the capsule days... and the only thing since the
capsules has been the orbiter

Thus my elaborate set-up: We know of the publicized failures, but
what STS systems have worked well enough that you'd keep them...

...if it was a viable option?

--
Chuck Stewart

My first thought would be the fuel cells. IIRC we've been using basically
the same type since at least Apollo. There've probably been updates and
such, but basically the same device.

On a bit more reflection the seats my be a possibility, but not likely. If
the OSP's will be able to do multiple roles, the seats will need to be
removable. I don't think the two forward seats are and I'm not sure how
"crashworthy" the mid deck/ aft flightdeck seats are. Now if they're going
to have different versions (OSP-Human and/or OSP-Cargo), the seats may be a
possibility.

The ECLSS seems to work fine. As does the mid-deck storage, galley, and
waste disposal (a la toilet). These could also be swung over. Off the shelf
it seems.

I read in another post the RCS. I'm not 100% behind the idea. Recalling
Kim's posts about having to vacate the pads when they're being fueled,
maintained, etc, plus their short operational life (must be service with in
a certain period of time after use) makes me wonder about the hypergolics.
I'm wondering if a compressed gas system ( similar to the MMU) might not be
better. Probably easier and definitely safer to work with. The only problem
may be the weight of all of the extra tanks of fuel.

Anyway, enough rambling from me.

Jason