Posted on 08/02/2005 8:56:13 AM PDT by jbstrick
For its next generation of space vehicles, NASA has decided to abandon the design principles that went into the aging space shuttle, agency officials and private experts say.
Instead, they say, the new vehicles will rearrange the shuttle's components into a safer, more powerful family of traditional rockets...
..."As long as we put the crew and the valuable cargo up above wherever the tanks are, we don't care what they shed," he said. "They can have dandruff all day long."...
...A main advantage, supporters say, is that the big rocket could lift five or six times as much cargo as the shuttle (roughly 100 tons versus 20 tons), making it the world's most powerful space vehicle. In theory, it would be strong enough to haul into orbit whole spaceships destined for the Moon, Mars and beyond....
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
It would be if the components were actually reusable. It is probably more appropriate to say they are refurbishable.
First of all, dropping expensive aerospace hardware into the ocean is not conducive to reusability. The SRBs need a lot of work to get them back into shape.
Next, the space shuttle main engine needs insanely high chamber pressures to generate the thrust required at the pad and provide the necessary throttleability. That drives its operations cost right out of the realm of reasonable reuseability.
Then there is the reentry profile/thermal protection system. Sure it is reusability, but it is so labor intensive that you would be better off using ablatives.
Shuttle reusability is an example of losing sight of your goal. The goal isn't reusability for the sake of reusability. Reusability has to pay for itself. The real goal you are trying to reach with reusability is reduced operations costs. NASA implemented reusable systems that were more expensive than the expendable systems they were intended to replace, blindly assuming that because they were reusable they would magically be cheaper.
Now they are retreating headlong from reusability, having "proven" that it doesn't work. They have proven anything except that enough bad management can sour even the best ideas.
Almost no system on the shuttle is actually useful moving forward, because almost every one was developed with scant attention paid to how much it would cost to maintain and operate it.
You're right...too bad this man is still a household name in the news....he should be confined to the "scrapheap of liberal ideals" (and inept losers) as has been so aptly said.
That's a whole lot of tungsten Hypervelocity Rod Bundles
http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2005/050608-gods-rods.htm
It would be relatively easy to have "drogue" panels deploy at upper-stage separation to provide the necessary drag if the escape tower can't pull the upper command module away fast enough. Or even have the service module thrusters kick into reverse at separation of the upper module.
This is not difficult.
Albeit, definitionally, it IS ROCKET SCIENCE! :-)
Even worse problems with the landing gear and fuselage clearance. Ever walk under a BUFF?
I still hate the idea of using solid rocket booters to carry people. Something wrong with using power that can't be throttled.
---
What about being able to be gimbled?
Nah, the military already has launch vehicles that can get those into orbit. They need not be all that large anyway.
The throttle the main engines on the current shuttle to 75% to conserve fuel. I guess that would be one good reason.
Well if they didn't, then it wouldn't be a redesign.
The Russians almost landed in China once, and they rolled down a hill and spent the night, nearly freezing, keeping the wolves at bay with their pistol.
The Apollo escape system generated something like 6.5g for 15 or 20 seconds. It would have been unpleasant for the crew, but not as bad as the alternative.
Branson, Burt Rutan's customer/partner in Virgin Galactic, also owns Virgin Atlantic. Therefore he has access to a few 747s that might otherwise be mothballed or sold at some point.
Branson is rich and powerful, but somehow I doubt he has any B52s in his stable. And uncle doesn't sell those in flyable condition, only as scrap.
Thats right, it generated something like 150,000lb of thrust.
Folks here are kinda silly thinking that their back of the hand calculations are better than the hours of computer time and years of experience that these ROCKET SCIENTISTS have. Of course they have thought these things through. This is old technology, nothing new, tried and true.
Then, have a crew member get out there and crank the valve in order to control the thrust.
Its a great idea, what I've been for all along.
The Russians had a good model with Energiya by having the rockets attached to the ET and having the shuttle ride as cargo.
Having a simple crew launch vehicle (with escape tower rocket) is prudent, and the way to go. Sending people up should be cheap and easy, spend the money and technology once you are up there.
The Russians had a launch where the escape rocket was triggered as the rest of the rocket exploded.
Saved their lives.
One of the astronauts will repair the hanging chads tomorrow. First he will try pulling them out with his fingers. If that doesn't work he will try a pair of pliers. If that doesn't work he will use a hacksaw blade they have kluged to a handle aboard the ISS. If that doesn't work he will hit it with a piece of shuttle tank foam.
*snrk*
What happened to the next generation of reusable craft?
What happened to the all in one using a scamjet?
It seems if we want to develope the ECCONOMY and industry of space we need a craft that can travel with the ease of a cargo airplane.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.