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.

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.

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.