Orion Shuttle time gap

[Fred]

Hi Folks,
i was wonderring if I am reading the pertinent material correctly. If i understand it the shuttle retires in 2010 and orion does not launch till 2014. Does this mean for four years the US will have no manned launch capacity?
Cheers
fred

 

[DaveCombs]

That's correct. Mike Griffin commented about that during a shuttle/ISS press conference. I think he also testified about it when the gov't put the shuttle retirement deadline on him. He was NOT pleased about leaving everything to the Russians to take care of the ISS.

 

[Medaforce649]

Yup that is right. Maybe the chinese should help with the station too.

 

[DaveCombs]

Yup that is right. Maybe the chinese should help with the station too.

Sure. Even lead is weightless in space.

 

[DaveCombs]

Here's Griffin's testimony (PDF):

https://www.nasa.gov/pdf/147653main_mg_house_20060330.pdf

 

[Robert Davidson]

Is this really how he US is going to return to the moon? If there going to take this stance on manned space travel/exploration it'll be twenty years before there's another moon landing. NASA doesn't have the political support for large scale orbital vehicles anymore. All the Aerospace companies that have grown fat on the shuttle program just want to scale back thier involvement so they can promote smaller more disposable (unmanned) rockets because they make more money per launch that way. The Shuttle was created with the purpose of saving NASA money on a re-useable space craft and not waste so much funding on rockets that were considered non-returnable as soon as they left the pad. Not to mention putting a larger "human" habitat into orbit that could be used as a bonified science/research platform. The Orion crew vehicle is design with only one purpose in mind and that is to let policaly backed Aerospace companies waste more US funding (Tax Money) on space programs that will go nowhere except back to draining federal reserves. Any future space programs deperately need a re-usable heavy-lift ground-to-orbit vehicle! The shuttle may not be the craft it was intended to be when first put into use but we can not afford to abandon the design elements it taught us to appriciate while we had them.

We can't throw out the baby with the bath water just because it became a troublesome teenager. This is when things just start to become interesting.

 

[Nerull]

Is this really how he US is going to return to the moon? If there going to take this stance on manned space travel/exploration it'll be twenty years before there's another moon landing. NASA doesn't have the political support for large scale orbital vehicles anymore. All the Aerospace companies that have grown fat on the shuttle program just want to scale back thier involvement so they can promote smaller more disposable (unmanned) rockets because they make more money per launch that way. The Shuttle was created with the purpose of saving NASA money on a re-useable space craft and not waste so much funding on rockets that were considered non-returnable as soon as they left the pad. Not to mention putting a larger "human" habitat into orbit that could be used as a bonified science/research platform. The Orion crew vehicle is design with only one purpose in mind and that is to let policaly backed Aerospace companies waste more US funding (Tax Money) on space programs that will go nowhere except back to draining federal reserves. Any future space programs deperately need a re-usable heavy-lift ground-to-orbit vehicle! The shuttle may not be the craft it was intended to be when first put into use but we can not afford to abandon the design elements it taught us to appriciate while we had them.

We can't throw out the baby with the bath water just because it became a troublesome teenager. This is when things just start to become interesting.

STS is the very definition of a space program that goes nowhere and costs lots of money. The shuttle and ISS budgets kill most of the actual exploration missions, because they suck up so much money.

 

[dwinings]

Is this really how he US is going to return to the moon?

I'll put money on the US NOT returning to the moon. At least not with the current plans

 

[cjl]

The Shuttle was created with the purpose of saving NASA money on a re-useable space craft and not waste so much funding on rockets that were considered non-returnable as soon as they left the pad.

And in that goal it failed miserably. It costs more per pound of payload than just about any other rocket ever, and is more expensive to fly than any disposable craft of comparable performance. With the current technology, it simply doesn't make sense to attempt to make a reuseable vehicle for spaceflight, especially one with wings, when all that wings really are for a vehicle like the shuttle are extra weight to carry into orbit, and really inconveniently shaped bits during reentry that are difficult to shield from the heat adequately. They are only useful during the last little bit of flight - at all other times, they are a liability and decrease the peformance and safety. As wonderful as the concept is, it is expensive and impractical, and will continue to be as long as we still have to use the current propulsion technology. No matter how elegant something seems, if it is more expensive and dangerous than another solution, no matter how crude, the decision should be made by cost and safety considerations rather than elegance on paper.

 

[Bigander]

And in that goal it failed miserably. It costs more per pound of payload than just about any other rocket ever, and is more expensive to fly than any disposable craft of comparable performance. With the current technology, it simply doesn't make sense to attempt to make a reuseable vehicle for spaceflight, especially one with wings, when all that wings really are for a vehicle like the shuttle are extra weight to carry into orbit, and really inconveniently shaped bits during reentry that are difficult to shield from the heat adequately. They are only useful during the last little bit of flight - at all other times, they are a liability and decrease the peformance and safety. As wonderful as the concept is, it is expensive and impractical, and will continue to be as long as we still have to use the current propulsion technology. No matter how elegant something seems, if it is more expensive and dangerous than another solution, no matter how crude, the decision should be made by cost and safety considerations rather than elegance on paper.

Not to mention that the wings use a lot of material to make making it cost more!

 

[cjl]

Yep. They decrease payload, add cost, and are useless for most of tle flight. Why even bother with them when capsules work so well and are so much more efficient and cheaper?

 

[Fred]

Capsules may be cheaper then the shuttle but the shuttle as originally envisigated would have been a much differant bird. I often wonder if Orion is a huge retreat from what we should be looking at. I think either a plasma or nuclear powerred spacecraft of some sort is necessary if we are to journey to the moon , mars and elsewhere. Its constant propulsion compared to conventional rockets means journey times would be considerably less and being able to use it for more then one voyage would be a plus. Throwaway one shot birds are fine for flag planting and missions driven by poltical imperatives but if we are going to stay then something else is needed in my opinion. Have a look at this guys. I am not an expert but there seem to be some interesting thoughts expressed there.
https://www.nuclearspace.com/
I also beleive it is a huge problem that for four years that manned spaceflight will not be avaible to US or its major allies except on the whims of others but that is a discussion for another board
Cheers
fred

 

[ghost]

I'll put money on the US NOT returning to the moon. At least not with the current plans

Returning?? Who said we even got there?? :rotflol:

 

[cjl]

Again, there are currently no real major alternatives to capsules and/or massive throwaway cargo launchers to get stuff off the surface. Definitely stuff like ion drives, nuclear, etc is the way to go for larger interplanetary and similar craft, though for lunar stuff, there isn't much of a point, as that is pretty easy to do in a reasonable time as it is.

As for the shuttle as originally envisioned? The biggest problem with that is that with the current technology, we physically could not achieve the launch rates and costs originally claimed in shuttle development. By their very nature, spaceplanes are more expensive to launch, even with the reusable components, than standard rockets. SSME's are very expensive to maintain. Other engines, like the RS-68, are much cheaper (the RS-68 has 80% fewer parts than an SSME, and only suffers a 10% loss in specific impulse).

 

[cjl]

Returning?? Who said we even got there?? :rotflol:

 

[Fred]

Again, there are currently no real major alternatives to capsules and/or massive throwaway cargo launchers to get stuff off the surface. Definitely stuff like ion drives, nuclear, etc is the way to go for larger interplanetary and similar craft, though for lunar stuff, there isn't much of a point, as that is pretty easy to do in a reasonable time as it is.

As for the shuttle as originally envisioned? The biggest problem with that is that with the current technology, we physically could not achieve the launch rates and costs originally claimed in shuttle development. By their very nature, spaceplanes are more expensive to launch, even with the reusable components, than standard rockets. SSME's are very expensive to maintain. Other engines, like the RS-68, are much cheaper (the RS-68 has 80% fewer parts than an SSME, and only suffers a 10% loss in specific impulse).

it depends on what surface you are talking about Cj If we are to go beyond LEO or the moon old style rockets are not the most cost efficent way. The extended voyage times to mars expose the crews to prolonged periods of weightlessness and possible radiation hazards that alternative forms of propulsive energy could reduce. We are focussing on building old technology to be used in the old way. There are any number of large dumb boosters to loft payloads up there quite nicely. We should be assembling spacecraft in orbit perhaps that can make reapeated voyages. Orion on the surface looks like a great taxi for the ISS and is cheaper then the shuttle but instead of being the prime mover for interplanetry work it should just be the way off the surface to the real ship in orbit.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/D...ropulsion Concepts AIAA NAM 02-2005 (2.0).ppt
Lots of interesting stuff in this guys notes. Orion is no doubt a capable spacecraft but is it a big enough leap compared to what we could be doing?
Cheers
fred

 

[stantonjtroy]

Is this really how he US is going to return to the moon? If there going to take this stance on manned space travel/exploration it'll be twenty years before there's another moon landing. NASA doesn't have the political support for large scale orbital vehicles anymore. All the Aerospace companies that have grown fat on the shuttle program just want to scale back thier involvement so they can promote smaller more disposable (unmanned) rockets because they make more money per launch that way. The Shuttle was created with the purpose of saving NASA money on a re-useable space craft and not waste so much funding on rockets that were considered non-returnable as soon as they left the pad. Not to mention putting a larger "human" habitat into orbit that could be used as a bonified science/research platform. The Orion crew vehicle is design with only one purpose in mind and that is to let policaly backed Aerospace companies waste more US funding (Tax Money) on space programs that will go nowhere except back to draining federal reserves. Any future space programs deperately need a re-usable heavy-lift ground-to-orbit vehicle! The shuttle may not be the craft it was intended to be when first put into use but we can not afford to abandon the design elements it taught us to appriciate while we had them.

We can't throw out the baby with the bath water just because it became a troublesome teenager. This is when things just start to become interesting.

Don't get me wrong. Ilove the STS program and all it envisioned but the fact is, the STS became NASA's white elephant as soon as the first launch cleared the tower. The technology, for the most part, is fourty years old. As a heavy lifter it has won by default and the money needed to keep it flying has drained the coffers for development of a better heavy lifter. The Orion is largely reuseable and is comprised of mostly off the shelf components. Much of the technology is the more current stuff borrowed from STS, ISS and improvements in Delta guidence. Orion is a compilation of the best currently available with a little cutting edge thrown in. It's what is needed to put some forward momentum back into the space program. The shuttle has simply become too expensive and has too narrow of a mission profile.

 

[cjl]

it depends on what surface you are talking about Cj If we are to go beyond LEO or the moon old style rockets are not the most cost efficent way. The extended voyage times to mars expose the crews to prolonged periods of weightlessness and possible radiation hazards that alternative forms of propulsive energy could reduce. We are focussing on building old technology to be used in the old way. There are any number of large dumb boosters to loft payloads up there quite nicely. We should be assembling spacecraft in orbit perhaps that can make reapeated voyages. Orion on the surface looks like a great taxi for the ISS and is cheaper then the shuttle but instead of being the prime mover for interplanetry work it should just be the way off the surface to the real ship in orbit.
https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/D...ropulsion Concepts AIAA NAM 02-2005 (2.0).ppt
Lots of interesting stuff in this guys notes. Orion is no doubt a capable spacecraft but is it a big enough leap compared to what we could be doing?
Cheers
fred

Exactly, and the biggest advantage of something like that is that it could be built extremely well for the purpose. There are still many problems with that approach of course, but I don't see it as fundamentally flawed, like the idea of the shuttle from the earth's surface. For LEO type stuff, something like the Soyuz is a much better choice.

 

[Nerull]

Ion drives are only faster over very long distances - outer planets, perhaps. SMART-1 reached its target lunar orbit almost 2 years after it was launched. I don't think the Apollo crews would have liked that!

NERVA style nuclear engines have the problem of dumping large amounts of very radioactive waste in LEO if used near earth, though this problem goes away if you wait until your out of the system to fire it up. Orion (not this orion) style nuclear drives aren't very practical at the moment. (An Orion drive involves chucking small nukes out the back, and detonating them, pushing the ship forward)

 

[Nerull]

Also, to address what someone said early on, Russia should not be the only other nation supplying the station when the shuttle retires. ESA should have the ATV up and running, and there is some possiblity of JAXA doing something.

ESA is also building launch systems for Soyuz rockets at their launch site in South America, but I think thats mostly for commercial launches. I havn't heard any plans for Soyuz or Progress capsules, though Klipper might have been a posiblity before it was cancled.

 

[Fred]

Also, to address what someone said early on, Russia should not be the only other nation supplying the station when the shuttle retires. ESA should have the ATV up and running, and there is some possiblity of JAXA doing something.

ESA is also building launch systems for Soyuz rockets at their launch site in South America, but I think thats mostly for commercial launches. I havn't heard any plans for Soyuz or Progress capsules, though Klipper might have been a posiblity before it was cancled.

What this means is the only ones for four years with the ability to put people up with will be the russians and the Chinese. I wonder why this acceptable? The united States did have a similar time between Skylab and the shuttle i think.
Cheers
fred

 

[Robert Davidson]

Looks like I stirred things up alittle. What I meant to say was that the next generation of LEO would be better off being designed after a lifting body. Yes CJ the shuttle as it is designed now is very expensive and leaves alot out in current technolgy. It definitely can be improved upon. Stubbier wings and a body that could be twice its current size could act as a better lifting wing. This would increase internal space and remove alot of the wing hazzards these components experience. Even during the eighties people pointed out how fragile and high mantanice the shuttles heat tiles were. I belive the first shuttle took 18 months to cover fully in heat tiles when the orignal quote for the project was only a few months. The problem was the adhesives that were being used simply weren't good enough. During Columbia first launche it lost a few heat tiles in non-sensitive areas. This could also be improved upon. Orion is a good craft as it stands. It just seems like were going backward rather than forward.

 

[Gesundheit!]

Wasn't NASA looking into having a private agency fill the gap in between the shuttle and the Orion?

 

[Nerull]

Wasn't NASA looking into having a private agency fill the gap in between the shuttle and the Orion?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_Orbital_Transportation_Services

 

[Fred]

Are any companies actually cutting metal on this?
Cheers
Fred

 

[cjl]

Looks like I stirred things up alittle. What I meant to say was that the next generation of LEO would be better off being designed after a lifting body. Yes CJ the shuttle as it is designed now is very expensive and leaves alot out in current technolgy. It definitely can be improved upon. Stubbier wings and a body that could be twice its current size could act as a better lifting wing. This would increase internal space and remove alot of the wing hazzards these components experience. Even during the eighties people pointed out how fragile and high mantanice the shuttles heat tiles were. I belive the first shuttle took 18 months to cover fully in heat tiles when the orignal quote for the project was only a few months. The problem was the adhesives that were being used simply weren't good enough. During Columbia first launche it lost a few heat tiles in non-sensitive areas. This could also be improved upon. Orion is a good craft as it stands. It just seems like were going backward rather than forward.

Again, even as a lifting body, it is a waste for almost the entire flight, and not worth the safety or weight penalty with the current propulsion technologies. If you can get an engine with an Isp of 800 seconds that has enough thrust to get something off the ground, wonderful. Until then, it's capsules and cargo modules for the easiest and cheapest way into space, pretty much regardless of flight rate.

 

[Fred]

Are they still researching using a laser to put a ship up. I know they put up a small model There was also talk i beleive in using some sort of magnetic rail to accelerate payloads up to orbital speed. Then things will change
Cheers
fred

 

[bob jablonski]

New propulsion would be great if the time was available to develop it. And the way safty freaks cry when a nuke powered probe go's up could you imagine a large ship? And when the next president comes in office he or she will cut or outright cancel the whole deal. They were test firing nuke engines in the 60's so the technology is there. But we all know thet has been moth balled instead of improving it.
I love space exploration but I think people worry more about a $20 mil sports contract than hire more engineers. I could go on for hours on the subject but I will stop for now.

 

[Fred]

I share your fustration with some aspects of it all.
Cheers
fred

 

[user 1400]

Are they still researching using a laser to put a ship up. I know they put up a small model There was also talk i beleive in using some sort of magnetic rail to accelerate payloads up to orbital speed. Then things will change
Cheers
fred

"Lightcraft" utilized a ground-based laser to detonate thin layers of propellant on the underside of the craft, propelling it upward. Unfortunately, a quick search online has only provided information about their progress from the year 2000 or before.

My personal favorite methodology for routine, inexpensive shuttle service is pretty well outlined at Alternative Accelerators. By utilizing a ground-based initial thrust system such as a maglev rail, an air breathing carrier craft to reach the uppermost useable atmosphere, and rockets for only the nearly frictionless last leg to space; efficiencies are maximized by using each propulsion system where it performs best. Moving the craft from zero to near mach can be done with resources on the ground so that the craft need not supply any of this propulsion, thereby leaving more room for propellant, crew, and cargo. An airbreathing stage utilizes atmospheric oxygen instead of onboard oxidizer to burn it's fuel, again leaving more room for propellant, crew, and cargo. Also, an airbreathing carrier could separate from the spacecraft proper at the edge of its operating envelope, removing the unnecessary wings and weight associated with it. The last stage to orbit would utilize the rockets where they work best and could easily be almost any shape deemed necessary for it's specific purpose and viable for reentry.

Spaceship One used a carrier from ground to 50,000 feet operating two regular jet engines before the ship itself detached and ignited its own hybrid rocket motor for ascent to over 100km. It's an approach that differs only slightly from the X-15 project years ago, and if I'm not mistaken - it's the design that won the X-prize.

For interplanetary and galactic travel, I think it would be best to put the pieces of a larger ship into orbit where they would be assembled before departure. The ship could simply remain in orbit for maintenance upon return, while the crew shuttled down to the planet surface for drinks and conjugal visits. The larger ship could make use of a different kind of engine, perhaps one that provided approx. 1G of acceleration over a long period of time to provide the crew with some simulated gravity.

Peace,
Mike