Redesign Is Seen for Next Craft, NASA Aides Say

NYT ^ | August 2, 2005 | WILLIAM J. BROAD

[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....

[jbstrick]

Good Article. A must read.

(I searched before posting)

[oolatec]

Uh, well yeah... Duh NASA... Russia has been using the rocket thang for a long, long time...

[Jaysun]

Thank God. I was worried that NASA might end up being an irrelevant waste of money.

[BoBToMatoE]

"It's just too complicated. I know from flying it four times. It's an amazing engineering feat. But there's a better way."

---

For me, this looks like a gian step backwards. I think there are some good concepts for an interm solution - but I am afraid we are thinking backwards.

[green iguana]

I like the re-use of major shuttle components. Should speed development up.

[Andy from Beaverton]

100 tons? That's a freak'n lot! How does that compare to the French rockets?

[Paleo Conservative]

The new vehicles would sidestep the foam threat altogether, and its supporters say they would have other advantages as well. The larger of the vehicles, for lifting heavy cargoes but not people, would be some 350 feet tall, rivaling the Saturn 5 rockets that sent astronauts to the Moon.

NASA should never have terminated the Saturn V. It was already evolving into a heavy launch vehicle for very large payloads like Skylab which was just a reconfigured third stage Saturn V fuel tank.

[Boundless]

That Crew Veh looks like it's stacked on an SRB stage 1.
I see an apparent escape rocket assy on the cap.

This looks entirely ill-considered, as solids can't
be throttled or shut down, and in an emergency could
plow right into the capsule's escape assy.

Traditional laments about shutting down Saturn V
production may commence now.

NASA appears to be returning to yesteryear's designs
without applying yesteryear's safety standards.

[green iguana]

The Ariane 6 should be able to lift about 13 tons to geostationary orbit when it goes into use in '06. The current Ariane 5 is lighter than that. The article did say that the payload version would by far be the heaviest lift rocket in the world, but I wonder if the 100 ton figure is a typo.

[Frenetic]

"For me, this looks like a gian step backwards. I think there are some good concepts for an interm solution - but I am afraid we are thinking backwards."

- Sometimes you have to take a step back to be able to move ahead.

[norraad]

Maybe it won't blow up as much?

[green iguana]

SRB stage 1, LH/LO stage 2. Saturn V lamentations have already proceeded. Hopefully NASA has thought up some safety protocols for potential SRB problems...

[RightWhale]

I am afraid we are thinking backwards.

Is the Navy going to triremes in the next generation littoral craft?

[JRios1968]

Sometimes you have to take a step back to be able to move ahead.

Let's go back...to the Future!

[Cyber Liberty]

I still hate the idea of using solid rocket booters to carry people. Something wrong with using power that can't be throttled.

[glorgau]

100 tons?

That's an M-1 tank and a Bradley in orbit!

[Boundless]

>> This looks entirely ill-considered, as solids
>> can't be throttled or shut down

> How is that different than solids already on the
> current shuttle?

It's not, and that's the point.

Man-rating the solids was controversial, and arguably
they never were really man-rated. Had Challenger had
at least booster shut-down capability, it could have
shutdown before the ET burn-thru, and cut away before
the total loss of directional control, and perhaps
have executed an RTLS.

[Cyber Liberty]

How is that different than solids already on the current shuttle?

Nothing. That's why I hate them.

The original design called for liquid-fuel booster. Cost cutting is why we are launching astronauts with the same basic rockets the Chinese used for festivals a zillion years ago.

[Paleo Conservative]

, but I wonder if the 100 ton figure is a typo.

No, thats the weight of the current shuttle. The shuttle launch system wastes most of the energy used to put the shuttle and payload in orbit when the shuttle returns from orbit. It is much more efficient to use the system to send up a payload that stays in orbit.