No Pilots in Future Space Shuttles (NASA narrows field for shuttle replacement)

Yahoo News ^ | 5/1/02 | MARCIA DUNN

[Brett66]

No Pilots in Future Space Shuttles
Wed May 1, 6:23 PM ET
By MARCIA DUNN, AP Aerospace Writer

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. (AP) - The replacement for NASA (news - web sites)'s aging space shuttles may take off like a plane, be propelled by booster rockets that fly back to Earth and, in one of the more radical moves, eliminate pilots.

The reusable space plane, equipped with crew escape and automatic landing systems, would be far safer than the shuttle, officials said Tuesday in unveiling 15 design concepts. It also would be much cheaper to operate, they promised.

The goal is to have it flying by 2012, right around the time the space shuttles should be retiring.

"It's a little bit smaller vehicle so it may not be quite as impressive and loud and energetic maybe as when the shuttle takes off," said Dennis Smith, manager of NASA's $4.8 billion Space Launch Initiative program. "But it has some pretty neat attributes to it."

For instance, the booster rockets could peel away, turn around and fly back to the launch site. The shuttle's two boosters parachute into the ocean and are retrieved by ships.

NASA would use its new spaceship to transport astronauts and equipment to the international space station (news - web sites) — separately on slightly different types of craft. The commercial industry would use the same system to launch satellites, with military involvement likely as well.

Among NASA's main objectives: to lower the cost of delivering payloads to orbit from $10,000 a pound on the shuttle to $1,000 a pound or less, and reduce the risk of a deadly catastrophe from the current 1-in-almost 500 to 1-in-10,000.

The space shuttle lacks a viable crew escape system for launch, something that is crucial if NASA hopes to achieve its desired safety margin, Smith said.

"It's very aggressive, there's no question about it," he said.

Smith said ejection seats are being considered along with flyaway crew modules. Kennedy Space Center (news - web sites) likely would serve as the launch site, although that is not a requirement. Both vertical and horizontal liftoffs are being considered.

The spaceship might be able to double as a space station lifeboat. Pilots may not be needed to take up space station crews, Smith noted.

Over the past year, NASA whittled down the list of ideas from thousands to 15 represented by three industry teams: Boeing of Seal Beach, Calif.; Lockheed Martin Corp. of Denver; and a combined Orbital Sciences Corp. of Dulles, Va., and Northrop Grumman of El Segundo, Calif.

The concepts rely on two-stage rocketships, with engines propelled by kerosene, hydrogen or a combination.

NASA plans to settle on two concepts next year. Full-scale development of one of the ships would begin in 2006, with the first flight hopefully in 2012. In case of delays, NASA plans to keep the shuttles flying until 2020.

"We went to the moon in nine years and we developed the shuttle in eight years," Smith said. "Here we are 10 years away and really it comes down to a commitment to get behind the new system."

[Brett66]

Artist rendering of Orbital's "Space Taxi" concept shown with a reusable stage by Northrup Grumman. The replacement for NASA's aging space shuttles may take off like a plane, be propelled by booster rockets that fly back to Earth and, in one of the more radical moves, eliminate pilots. The reusable space plane, equipped with crew escape and automatic landing systems, would be far safer than the shuttle, officials said Tuesday, April 30, 2002, in unveiling 15 design concepts.(AP Photo/NASA)

[Brett66]

Ping.

[xrp]

If there is no crew, then why does the artist's rendition have windows? =)

[Brett66]

It's probably an option that NASA could excercise depending on the mission. So the shuttle would have a crew on one mission but on the next, it could just be an unmanned transport to the ISS. Sort of like Russia's Soyuz/Progress.

[BradyLS]

If there is no crew, then why does the artist's rendition have windows? =)

That's easy, the project couldn't get past the Senate subcommittee unless some senator's pet window contractor was invited to build windows for the crewless shuttle!

[AngrySpud]

Whatever NASA says it will cost, multiply it by a factor of 2.5 for the final answer.

[John Jamieson]

At this stage of the design your multiplier is far too low. 28 years NASA.

[John Jamieson]

Notice they are all 2 Stage. No single stage to orbit makes economic sense.

[Brett66]

Wasn't the space station originally forecast at 8 billion? They went just a teensy bit over that.

[Brett66]

Here's a photo of the same shuttle atop another booster,the EELV Delta IV booster.

Here's Boeing's concept:

Here's LockMart's concept:

[Gladwin]

It looks like none of them can carry cargo.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

It may not utilize human on-board pilots but for most payload delivery missions it would need a crew.
If it's delivering parts for the Space Station, how would these parts be dropped and assembled?
Unless this is for use WAY down the road when the construction crew is already up there. But then...how would they have gotten there?

[Brett66]

This is actually a field of 15 different concepts, so it's hard to say what they're wanting out of this system. My guess is that they want the same flexibility that the Soyuz/Progress vehicle has. It may just serve as a backup to the Russian re-supply vessel or maybe they want to kick the Russians off of re-supply duties.

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

It sure would be nice to have a fleet of different re-useables available depending on what the mission called for and what kind of functionality you wanted.
(Do I want to take the Diablo or the Range Rover to work today?)

But it sure would get expensive.

[John Jamieson]

I remember $10b.

The most interesting number I remember was $10 a pound to orbit for the Space Shuttle....only missed that one by a factor of a thousand or so!

It would be a giant improvement to get back to $1000 a pound of the SatV.

[John Jamieson]

I'm not sure, but it would be logical to require the same payload bay size and weight as the Shuttle. If so that last concept is very large.

[John Jamieson]

Looks like none of these can take off horizontally. Wings are just big enough to land with empty fuel tanks. Wings would have to be larger and farther forward for takeoff.

[John Jamieson]

People forget that the orginal Shuttle designs HAD fly back boosters. We couldn't find the money and slapped on the SRBs at the last minute. WVB would have been livid. I can't remember what year he died, but he hated SRBs.

[Brett66]

$10 a pound to orbit for the Space Shuttle

That person was obviously smokin' crack! LOL! The cost per pound on the Saturn V really is frustrating. The shuttle only has around one-fifth of it's payload capacity yet it's still far more expensive. I want the moon back and NASA can't deliver!

[gcruse]

Wasn't the Soviet shuttlecraft capable of pilotless flight? I seem to remember them scratching their heads at the risks NASA took sending expensive people up with the hardware.