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
  #1  
Old September 11th 10, 02:44 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

A thought occurred to me today, catching up on the status of the ISS EVAs to replace the broken ammonia pump (sorry I know it's old
news, but I've been busy) that without the shuttle large pieces of broken hardware might collect around the station over time unless
missions are tasked to de-orbit them. And a destructive de-orbit of broken hardware will take the mysteries of their failure
with them.

Again, over time, the inability to return large objects via the shuttle will have an impact. Something to consider. Maybe the old
robotic Buran will see a comeback?

Dave
  #2  
Old September 11th 10, 03:10 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Eddie Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

Buran is long dead and buried. The more likely option is that a more capable
successor to the likes of Dragon might have the down-mass capability to
return failed ORUs from the ISS US segment. But that's dependent on the
overall lifetime of the ISS from now: is it going to be retired after 2020,
or get extended beyond? If it's retired as early as 2020 then there would
likely be no incentive to redevelop the sort of return capability the
Shuttle allowed, because the operational lifetime of such a new spacecraft
would be too short to justify the investment.

Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK


"David Spain" wrote in message
...
A thought occurred to me today, catching up on the status of the ISS EVAs
to replace the broken ammonia pump (sorry I know it's old news, but I've
been busy) that without the shuttle large pieces of broken hardware might
collect around the station over time unless missions are tasked to de-orbit
them. And a destructive de-orbit of broken hardware will take the mysteries
of their failure
with them.

Again, over time, the inability to return large objects via the shuttle
will have an impact. Something to consider. Maybe the old robotic Buran
will see a comeback?

Dave



  #3  
Old September 11th 10, 05:11 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Sep 11, 10:10*am, "Eddie Lyons" wrote:
Buran is long dead and buried. The more likely option is that a more capable
successor to the likes of Dragon might have the down-mass capability to
return failed ORUs from the ISS US segment. But that's dependent on the
overall lifetime of the ISS from now: is it going to be retired after 2020,
or get extended beyond? If it's retired as early as 2020 then there would
likely be no incentive to redevelop the sort of return capability the
Shuttle allowed, because the operational lifetime of such a new spacecraft
would be too short to justify the investment.

Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK

"David Spain" wrote in message

...



A thought occurred to me today, catching up on the status of the ISS EVAs
to replace the broken ammonia pump (sorry I know it's old news, but I've
been busy) that without the shuttle large pieces of broken hardware might
collect around the station over time unless missions are tasked to de-orbit
them. And a destructive de-orbit of broken hardware will take the mysteries
of their failure
with them.


Again, over time, the inability to return large objects via the shuttle
will have an impact. Something to consider. Maybe the old robotic Buran
will see a comeback?


Dave- Hide quoted text -


- Show quoted text -


a obvious solution would of been converting the shuttle to unmaned or
minimal manned and continue flying.

this could of retained the jobs and capabilities.

  #4  
Old September 12th 10, 08:19 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,312
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

The way consumer electronics has gone, maybe we should give the Shuttle to
the Chinese, let them make and launch them cheap and buy back the required
capacity.
It would annoy the heck out of the electorate though!
Funny how we are all happy to buy Chinese made cheap stuff, and yet we seem
oblivious to what its doing for jobs.
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
...
Eddie Lyons wrote:
But that's dependent on the
overall lifetime of the ISS from now: is it going to be retired after
2020,
or get extended beyond? If it's retired as early as 2020 then there would
likely be no incentive to redevelop the sort of return capability the
Shuttle allowed,


And if depends if, before the ISS is de-orbited, plans for a martian
mission would get under way. With such plans, the launchers users to
support the ISS would become useful during the construction and supply
phases of the expedition ship.

But if, at the time the ISS is de-orbited, there is no such project,
then there will not be any need for technologies that allow cargo
up/down lift, automated docking/berthing, robotic arms to assemble new
modules etc.

The Shuttle and ISS are great tools in the evolution of space travel.
They may not be enough to get us to Mars, but they are a step in the
right direction.

There are lots of designs/devices in the ISS that could be re-used in
the development of an expedition ship. Unfortunatly, if ISS is
de-orbited a fair bit of time before a mars project is started, it is
likely that all the technology and experience gained with ISS will be
forgotten.



  #5  
Old September 12th 10, 02:02 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
bob haller safety advocate
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 615
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Sep 12, 3:19*am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
The way consumer electronics has gone, maybe we should give the Shuttle to
the Chinese, let them make and launch them cheap and buy back the required
capacity.
*It would annoy the heck out of the electorate though!
Funny how we are all happy to buy Chinese made cheap stuff, and yet we seem
oblivious to what its doing for jobs.
Brian


boy is that the truth.

without manufacturing our economy will never recover..........
  #6  
Old September 12th 10, 09:18 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Eddie Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?


"JF Mezei" wrote in message
...


The Shuttle and ISS are great tools in the evolution of space travel.
They may not be enough to get us to Mars, but they are a step in the
right direction.


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. Of course, it's too late now
to develop a genuine Shuttle replacement. So the only option is to continue
the usual American stop-start method of "developing" manned spaceflight. The
only bright spark at present is the hope that the commercial options
(especially SpaceX) at least can develop a taxi service for ISS crews (or at
least for the American half). That is unless Congress succeeds in killing
that initiative because of misplaced vested interests.

Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK


  #7  
Old September 12th 10, 09:18 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Eddie Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?


"JF Mezei" wrote in message
...


The Shuttle and ISS are great tools in the evolution of space travel.
They may not be enough to get us to Mars, but they are a step in the
right direction.


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. Of course, it's too late now
to develop a genuine Shuttle replacement. So the only option is to continue
the usual American stop-start method of "developing" manned spaceflight. The
only bright spark at present is the hope that the commercial options
(especially SpaceX) at least can develop a taxi service for ISS crews (or at
least for the American half). That is unless Congress succeeds in killing
that initiative because of misplaced vested interests.

Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK


  #8  
Old September 12th 10, 09:18 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Eddie Lyons
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?


"JF Mezei" wrote in message
...


The Shuttle and ISS are great tools in the evolution of space travel.
They may not be enough to get us to Mars, but they are a step in the
right direction.


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. Of course, it's too late now
to develop a genuine Shuttle replacement. So the only option is to continue
the usual American stop-start method of "developing" manned spaceflight. The
only bright spark at present is the hope that the commercial options
(especially SpaceX) at least can develop a taxi service for ISS crews (or at
least for the American half). That is unless Congress succeeds in killing
that initiative because of misplaced vested interests.

Eddie Lyons
Portsmouth, UK


  #9  
Old September 13th 10, 01:34 PM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

In article , nospam@
127.0.0.1 says...

A thought occurred to me today, catching up on the status of the ISS EVAs to replace the broken ammonia pump (sorry I know it's old
news, but I've been busy) that without the shuttle large pieces of broken hardware might collect around the station over time unless
missions are tasked to de-orbit them. And a destructive de-orbit of broken hardware will take the mysteries of their failure
with them.

Again, over time, the inability to return large objects via the shuttle will have an impact. Something to consider. Maybe the old
robotic Buran will see a comeback?


No. Too expensive to resurect.

Jeff
--
The only decision you'll have to make is
Who goes in after the snake in the morning?
  #10  
Old September 14th 10, 03:39 AM posted to sci.space.station,sci.space.shuttle
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default Future Robotic Shuttles?

On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 19:07:16 -0400, JF Mezei
wrote:

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

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


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.


They did have various "evolutionary" Shuttle Mk.II proposals, starting
in 1985 and really gaining steam after Challenger. Shuttle II studies
(most of which looked like a Shuttle External Tank with wings and a
bulbous payload bay) kept going for quite a while, as a fallback /
partner to X-30, and seems to have died around the time of the Space
Exploration Initiative fiasco, along with ALS/NLS.

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.


Rockwell offered two updated Orbiters after Challenger. NASA said no,
because the new-builds (OV-2xx)) would not be compatible with the
Columbia-class Orbiters (OV-1xx) and operations cost would have gone
through the roof. Boeing made the same offer after Columbia, but by
then anything with wings was considered eeeeeevvvvviiiiiilllll.

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.


But the added costs of now having to maintain two different families
of space vehicles was prohibitive, especially along side the added
costs of designing, qualifying, and building the updated model. The
budget for it was never there, especially in the Space Station
design/development era. Even the relatively cheap ASRM was
unaffordable.

This applies also to the Orbiter Update program, with things like
Liquid Flyback Booster (RFS) all-electric APU, and non-toxic OMS/RCS,
all of which were in development for implementation on the current
fleet between the collapse of X-33 circa 2000 and the loss of Columbia
in 2003.

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,


They had no choice: they couldn't get spare parts for the original
anymore, and they had to operate both a lot longer than planned
because of Station and Shuttle delays (Endeavour didn't get its glass
cockpit until after Columbia was lost.)

and part having the ODS/airlock while
one was left with the airlock in the crew compartment.


Same airlock. Just outside instead of inside. Not a huge problem.

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


But they didn't co-exist for long... a couple of flights of a new
turbopump, and then fleetwide replacement. Then a couple of flights of
the other turbopump, and ditto. It would have been years before the
last of the Columbia-class was replaced.

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


Not nearly to the degree an updated Orbiter would have inflicted.

Brian
 




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 07:44 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.