End of the Shuttle Program

[ballaratdragons]

In an interview tonight a NASA spokesman said in 5 years the Shuttle program will close.

It is being replaced with old 'Capsule' technology.

He said "the 'Capsule' will sit atop a disposable rocket and will only be a Personel Carrier with little or no cargo area".

Now that's a step forward!!!! :reindeer:

Has anyone else heard about this?

[janoskiss]

Sounds like they are going to steal the good old proven technology that has been the Soviet & Russian space program for the past 50 years. It's probably for the best, as far as the safety of the crew is concerned. They could call it SoiUSA. :P

[ballaratdragons]

LOL!

I wonder if they will actually go back to the proven Saturn Rockets or come up with a completely new model. He didn't say.

Yes Steve, the Russians are up in space a lot using capsule and disposable rocket technology. It works quite well, but I thought we would be past that and onto something new once the shuttle was finished. Apparently not!

[MiG]

I haven't heard about this, but it isn't so crazy. Cargo will probably go in separate disposable rockets, like most satellites do these days.
For humans, capsules are a good option because they are more robust.

The thing that we will miss out on is bringing cargo back down from space. The shuttle is designed to be able to bring satellites back. AFAIK, there is no other solution that can currently do that, but that option never seems to get exercised anyway (although they are bringing back 3.5 tons of rubbish at the moment).

Edit: I forgot to mention that the shuttle is way cooler than these options :)

[ballaratdragons]

This might also explain why the constuction of the Collapsable fold-up 'Dobson Space Telescope'.

There's not a lot of room in a Capsule.

[ballaratdragons]

Not to mention a cease to further construction to the IIS. Or a Moon Base or a Mars Base etc. Until they build some sort of launchable Space Semi-Trailers.

[slice of heaven]

Old news guys.
This is the CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle) program.
NASA was originally going to have a flyoff between 2 prototypes by 2010 to choose the best setup. Now theyve jumped ahead and will choose the best option off the plans by 2008.
Yes, their using 1970 technology for launch ,but with upgraded 21st century technology for the craft.
It's also for the next lunar missions. So,no its not a step backwards.

[cometcatcher]

But it's so undignified (and dangerous) landing in the sea! Or are they going to land on the ground like the Russians?

[ballaratdragons]

Thanks Slick. I remember him using the term: CEV (Crew Exploration Vehicle).

I also wonder if this will make the civilian programs a bit more active in development, for example an improved SpaceShipOne, to gain contracts for carrying stuff to and from space like carriers. Interesting thought.

[slice of heaven]

Yep BD, Entrepenuers will play a big part in reusable spacecraft, but the money is in passengers, not cargo.

On the land I think Kevin.

The proposed lunar module will carry more than 20 tonne of cargo to the moon. As for launching heavy payloads into orbit , they havent decided but their looking at systems to carry 100 tonne payloads into orbit. They keep changing their options every week.
NASA have a budget of 6 Billion $$$$ to spend on this until 2010.

[janoskiss]

6 billion over the next 5 years? That is so little for something so grand!

[slice of heaven]

Thats doesnt include launching anything , its only research and development.
Launch costs will drop back to $100million ,CHEAP.
They've already spent $15 billion , and their total allocated budget for the next 20yrs is $200billion, which includes launches.

[ballaratdragons]

Of course they are going to change their minds weekly!

If they come up with a solution now, then their task is done and they will be unemployed sooner. They have to justify spending billions somehow. :D

Would you come up with a fast solution if it would put you out of work? or would you have fun tinkering with ideas for a few more years and keep yourself employed doing what you enjoy? :thumbsup:

*Actually I think they have enough projects to work on for the rest of their lives and soon the next generation of Space-Cadets will move up.

[rumples riot]

This is fairly typical. Republican governments tend not to provide a lot of money to the space program. Nixon, Reagan and now Wild Bill. All those administrations had more money devoted to weapons of war and being in wars than anything else. I think if they put half of what they put into war into space and the other half into their health budget and then stayed the hell away from everybody else then the world would be a much better place, and space would be the better for it. Using an antiquated system with updated electronics just cries budget cuts. What about developing another propulsion and re-entry system. That would be better!!

[Soldant]

It's a shame to see the Shuttle go, but they obviously have some flaws and they're getting past their prime. When you have accidents like these it's time to move on. Human spaceflight is a tricky business I guess, if possible it would be better to simply send unmanned probes to do the work for us with no risk to human life if it explodes or something because a heat tile fell off.

Humans need to explore though and see with our own eyes :)

[MiG]

Don't you think the objective is to get the job done rather than design extravagant nifty options? We already have one of those.
As much as it pains me to say it, I don't disagree with this article:
http://www.idlewords.com/2005/08/a_rocket_to_nowhere.htm

Capsules certainly get the reentry part done well. Throw them in the atmosphere so fast that they hit 5G of deceleration (IIRC) and they still survive. Just one disposable circular shield a few meters in diameter is required for this.

For anybody that is looking in the direction of Space Ship One and thinking "they can do it", don't. SS1 goes much slower so its thermal protection needs are smaller.

P.S.
NASA just said to the shuttle crew that the guy flying approaches around KSC is seeing St Elmo's fire around the plane. St Elmo's fire is a blue glow that occurs around conductors in highly charged areas, like thunder storms.

[Soldant]

Why exchange a system that works for something that looks cool? I also agree with the article. But like Pluto and the Hubble Space Telescope it's become so much a part of the public that people hate to see it go.

[Stu]

So they are just going to get the lunar lander and pull out the big calculator and add a Pentium 4?

What happens if they're half way there and Microsoft Windows crashes?

"Ah, Mr Bill Gates, this is houston, we have a problem!" :scared:

[ballaratdragons]

Stu,

They will have a sattelite internet connection so they can get upgrades on the way, if they can get off the gaming sites long enough! :whistle:

[slice of heaven]

Mig
I think he goes a bit over the top.
I wouldnt say the shuttle program was a total flop as he's suggesting.
In 'hindsight' it's always easy to find flaws.

[slice of heaven]

Its only the launch setup their thinking of using..Atlas IV ...Delta 5...
Humans can only take so much on liftoff and these rockets are at that limit.
The CEV is a totally new design, way above Apollo.
The CEV program is basically the Apollo program modernised.

[acropolite]

Hurling any sort of human cargo into space with tons of volatile rocket propellant has always been a risky business. Don't forget they lost quite a few lives just getting off the ground with pre shuttle technology as well...:anaut:

[Chrissyo]

I dunno about some of those points in that article there...



When the shuttle program started, they wanted the vehicle to be economical. Therefore, they wanted the ability to launch bigger satellites, or numerous at a time. Also having the ability to retrieve them is a good way to rake in money from companies wanting to repair, rather than rebuild and relaunch. Also, at the time, apart from Skylab and Suylats (SP?) they didn't have much in the way to complete experiments in space. The shuttle enabled not only 7 astronauts aboard, but offered the crew roles of Mission Specialists - Space Scientists, who didn't have to give a stuff about flying the shuttle. I think they ran about 5 Space Lab missions where they used the shuttle cargo bay as a module for study.

I guess the idea of reusable also plays a big part. They wanted it to be able to glide back in like a plane. With the size available, it wouldn't be able to launch itself with its main engines. They needed the SRBs to carry the shuttle so it would have the ability to glide back.

So, it makes sense to have a large crew compartment and cargo bay - they wanted science and they wanted the money from companies.


Because computers are temperamental. If one of the shuttles computers were to fail or have a bug which were to accidentally open the shuttles landing gears before reentry, they're screwed. The landing gear can only be shut on the ground by its engineers. I don't know why they made it like this, but there is probably some reason behind it. If the computer bugs out, then NASA just lost however many billion dollars an orbiter costs to make, not to mention possible cargo and crew.


The wings are not for flying, they are for landing. Adding jet engines would just be stupid - it would increase weight and size, and complexibility (which I believe the article goes on to say the shuttle is too complex as it is).


Because, regardless of how complex the main engines are, they are still not powerful enough to lift the shuttle all the way to orbit. Besides, the SRBs are one of the most reliable rockets ever used (or so I've read), and they are mostly reusable as well.


Once again, weight. The original plan was to use a thick alloy of some sort. Then they decided it would be way to heavy to be economical. So, they went to a much more precise and light method. Besides, I am getting the impression that the general public is taking the tiles to just some afterthought/thrown on thing. Each tile is individually placed on, and every one is cut individually for its space. They put ALOT of care into it.

The article goes on to speak about some Air force spy satellite thing. They ask why doesn't the shuttle have an air breathing engine...? Well... maybe because air breathing engines are only quite new, and the shuttle was designed and built in the 1970's?



I think they miss the point here. Lets face it, it doesn't really need a crew escape system. If during launch there is a problem, there isn't really much that can be done. Ejection seats wouldn't work for the average velocity - the shuttle travels too fast to make it safe. If there is a problem during reentry, same problem. If there is a problem after they've entered but leaves them unable to land, they do have protocol for that. Good 'ol fashion blowin' the hatch and ditching the shuttle. Also, they give the impression that the engines etc were not tested before hand? Not true. All rocket engines used on the shuttle were thoroughly tested before the launch. There were components that were not tested, but that was not due to 'laziness' but due to the incapability to do it without a launch. Besides, STS-1 DID have ejection seats etc just incase. Finally, if the SRBs stuff up, before they have reached the no-return barrier, they can ditch the SRBs and ET, and fly the shuttle back to KSC - no harm done.

I kinda phased out of the article after here. I quickly skimmed down the rest of the page, but didn't see anything that grabbed my attention.

I think one of the main things that everyone who is so keen to dismiss the shuttle program is forgetting is this: the shuttle is the first of its kind. I am sure that if the NASA people got together and redesigned it, they could get a much more useful vehicle that was safer and more economical too. The fact is, apart from Buran, no ones interested in an new shuttle type designs (which I believe is the right thing to do anyway). See Apollo. Everyone considers it reliable, useful etc. Why? Its third generation. The Mercury and Gemini's weren’t there for nothing (in fact, the Gemini's were built as a bridge for Mercury to Apollo, and is in some ways, more modern than the Apollo).

Oops, I didn’t realise how much I’ve written. I guess I kinda went off on a tangent! And its funny to think that I probably look all pro shuttle, when I actually believe we should mothball them all now, Launch the remaining components with unmanned rockets, give the Russians some extra money for their Progress craft and work like crazy on the CEV. I’m looking forward to what they come up with. (I must say, some of the designs I’ve seen are quite amazing :D ).

Ps: Everything I’ve written here is based on my memory of books I’ve read, articles, documentaries, other forums etc. Therefore, it may not all be 100% true.

Oh yeah - Go Discovery! :D

EDIT: Wow, I write slow. Since I started this post, there have been like 4 or so others posted :doh:

[MiG]

I don't know how to say this politely so I will just say it simply. You wasted your time by not reading the article.
The first series of points that you rebutted were prefaced with:
"Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands."

The point of taking such a strange point of view (archeologists) is to show that the design is a confused one, a bit like the x86 processor architecture. Saying "hindsight is 20-20" is not an excuse because we now have over 20 years of hindsight to work with. The overall point of the article is: why are we still using it?

You missed the meat of the article and the footnotes, a few of which make your points invalid.

[Chrissyo]

I was just writting a reply when the damn internet stuffed up. Now I gotta start again. So frustrating.

I did read the article. I read the first half fully, and only skimmed through the second half because 1) got too lazy and bored and 2) I noticed it was only rabbiting on about 'the shuttle doesn't do real science' or 'manned missions get more money for less'.

Your point is "Future archaeologists trying to understand what the Shuttle was for are going to have a mess on their hands."

Mine is "stuff future archaeologists, this isn't about what they 'might' think, but what is true and actually happening.

I think Slice of Heaven said it best: I think he goes a bit over the top.
I wouldnt say the shuttle program was a total flop as he's suggesting.
In 'hindsight' it's always easy to find flaws.

I'm not saying that shuttle like craft are the way to go. I have full confidence in capsule vehicles. I just don't think that article gives the shuttle the credit it deserves.

[rowena]

Well the interesting part is if and when they do retire the shuttles.... The remaining shuttles will become part of the Smithsonian (sp?) musuem! Smitsonian and NASA have an agreement that anything that NASA is no longer using will go to the musuem to preserve american space history.