Time: A Return to Apollo?

Time.com ^ | Sept 2, 2003 | Broward Liston

[mikegi]

NASA has seen the future, and it is the space capsule. Seven months after the Columbia debacle the agency is giving serious consideration to bringing back a new version of the Apollo capsule, the expendable spacecraft that served the U.S. space program during its glory days in the 1960s through the mid-1970s. Supporters say they are not retreating into the past so much as waking up, at last, to the dangers of attempting spaceflight with winged shuttles, a notion given ample support by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board's report released last week. Boosters on Capital Hill, in the aerospace industry and even inside the astronaut corps point out the capsule has is a more versatile design: it is modular and can be outfitted to the specific needs of any mission. And unlike the shuttle, it can venture beyond low Earth orbit, which means the U.S. could once again send astronauts to the moon.

...

[mikegi]

This is the smart course to take. The space shuttle really only needs its wings for the final few seconds of flight, the rest of the time they're just dead weight.

[xrp]

Mission by mission, aren't the space shuttles having a more proven success percentage as opposed to Apollo capsules?

[Wonder Warthog]

"This is the smart course to take. The space shuttle really only needs its wings for the final few seconds of flight, the rest of the time they're just dead weight."

Not. What is needed is a completely and economically re-usable earth-to-LEO SYSTEM (i.e. the ORIGINAL space shuttle design concept, with both booster AND orbiter fully recoverable). The current space shuttle was and is a kludge forced on NASA by budget cuts forced on the space program by the "welfare Democrats".

What should be done now is focus on the NEXT-GENERATION fully recoverable earth-to-LEO system, built using today's technology--not a retreat to 1960's technology.

[SamAdams76]

We should just build this elevator into space that the scientists keep talking about. I'm talking about that 40,000 mile long cable that will reach into space from a ground station and "dangle" in space in geostationary orbit (apparently it's quite doable). Then we can build massive space stations and construct space vehicles in space as needed. Supplies, materials and "astronauts" can just go up the elevator.

No more worries about re-entry. But you wouldn't want to lose power and get stuck in this particular elevator!

[Eala]

(apparently it's quite doable)

I've heard that, somewhere... but what do they use for the cable? How costly would that be. (But then again, now that they've discovered how spiders produce silk...)

[Fitzcarraldo]

If NASA can't run the shuttle program safely, how the hell will they do with a manned lunar or Mars program?

[Timm]

Here's another alternative. Collect $50 billion in hard currency, pile it up on a Florida runway, and light it on fire. That would have us years of effort, at least.

[ARCADIA]

Seven months after the Columbia debacle the agency is giving serious consideration to bringing back a new version of the Apollo capsule

It's time to get a new agency; these guys are entirely bankrupt of ideas, guts, and common sense.

[Wonder Warthog]

"...that 40,000 mile long cable that will reach into space from a ground station and "dangle" in space in geostationary orbit (apparently it's quite doable)."

"...but what do they use for the cable? How costly would that be. (But then again, now that they've discovered how spiders produce silk...)"

The cable technology isn't QUITE there yet. VERY close though. "Buckytubes" look like the current best bet from a sheer strength standpoint, but producing them in bulk is problematic at this point.

I also saw an article recently that said that there had been a breakthrough in understanding how spiders spin webs with varying properties, and that a first try using that approach to an "artificial spider silk" had resulted on fiber that was (I think) four or more times stronger than the best natural spider silk and somethng like twenty times stronger than Kevlar.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Collect $50 billion in hard currency, pile it up on a Florida runway, and light it on fire. That would have us years of effort, at least."

Yeah, and Isabella's funding of Columbus was just a sheer waste of money, wasn't it???

[Alter Kaker]

Yeah, and Isabella's funding of Columbus was just a sheer waste of money, wasn't it???

Isabella did not have access to robotic explorer. There is no current need for manned space travel. Nothing an astronaut can tell scientist that a rover cannot. But it is your money, not mine, and you can make whatever decision to so you choose.

[mvpel]

Robots can't notice an interesting rock formation glinting in the sunlight, then immediately walk over and pick it up for a closer look.

[ihatemyalarmclock]

I think the problem is psychological. Throwaway boosters and capsules with ablative heat shields (which never failed) just seem so darn clunky and Model T.

Yet, for all the technological advancement, it STILL costs about 10 thousand dollars a pound to put something into low earth orbit on the Space Shuttle.

After 23 years of watching shuttles go up and (except for two occasions) come back safely, truly the only difference I see is that the shuttle cabin is more spacious and comfortable on a two-week mission.

And, well, maybe the food is better. Hope so: your lunch and the water to rehydrate it costs 10 grand.

[poindexter]

We should never have stopped building the Saturn V!

It seems to me there is nothing keeping us from making the capsule reusable. Nowadays, aeroshells are used for re-entry vehicles rather than the old ablative heat shields. I'm starting to like this idea!

[mikegi]

I think the problem is psychological. Throwaway boosters and capsules with ablative heat shields (which never failed) just seem so darn clunky and Model T.

That's the form over substance mentality. The objective is to get into space efficiently. A giant slingshot would be fine with me if it worked! The Shuttle is an amazing technological achievement but not the most efficient way of getting people into space (and back).

[Charlotte Corday]

Mission by mission, aren't the space shuttles having a more proven success percentage as opposed to Apollo capsules?

Well, we lost one Apollo crew out of sixteen - the first one, in what was intended to be the first shakedown flight.

I think a better comparison would be to Soyuz, which had two fatal accidents (again early on) and over a hundred safe flights ever since.

The problem with the shuttle is that its hazards are inherent in the design and can't be eliminated by any amount of incremental improvement.

[KevinDavis]

It does not matter what NASA does anyway with the X-Prize is about to be won by Burt. As for humans not belonging in space, sorry humans do belong in space. Robots are so limited. One example was the Mars Soujorner mission. There was a time lag to send a command (10 mins to Mars) and a time lag to respond (10 mins from Mars). Not a whole lot got accomplished. Had humans been on Mars, a lot would have been done.

Space Ping! This is the space ping list! Let me know if you want on or off this list!

[RadioAstronomer]

Nothing an astronaut can tell scientist that a rover cannot

I disagree. I worked on interplanetary spacecraft and there is only so much you can do with a sensor and telemetry.

[RadioAstronomer]

Thanks for the ping. :-)

[RadioAstronomer]

X-Prize is about to be won by Burt.

If he is allowed to fly.