Posted on 02/04/2003 9:08:47 AM PST by TLBSHOW
Shuttle Loss Highlights Need for New Space Vehicle
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The loss of the space shuttle Columbia underscores the need to develop a next-generation U.S. space vehicle, and could help reinvigorate the nation's "lethargic" space program, aerospace experts said.
Our Business Section is growing!
Check new sections for: Stock Markets, Earnings, Economy and more... Business Front
"When a disaster like this occurs ... it does change people's thinking," said John Douglass, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association and a member of a U.S. commission that ended its work last year with an urgent call for more funding for human and robotic space flights.
"If history repeats itself, we will see not only a re-emergence of interest in the space program, but also a greater willingness to fund it," said Douglass, a former assistant Navy secretary and congressional aide, on Monday.
"I think it's going to focus people's attention on the need to field a shuttle replacement," said Douglass, noting NASA (news - web sites) secured a boost in funding for shuttle missions after the 1986 Challenger disaster, which like that of Columbia, killed all seven astronauts on board.
NASA has begun work on developing a successor to the shuttles in its program, but NASA's head of space flight admitted last November there was no timetable for retiring the current fleet, now numbering three after Columbia's loss, despite earlier plans eyeing a 2012 date.
NASA documents showed the 20-year-old shuttle program might continue to operate in some form through 2020 and beyond, but those plans could come under closer scrutiny after Saturday's accident, according to industry experts.
Columbia and the other shuttles were built in the 1970s, based on technology dating back to the 1960s.
Robert Walker, who chaired the 12-member Commission on the Future of the U.S. Aerospace Industry, said the United States could not afford to lose its leadership role in human space exploration, despite a lack of funding and "sense of lethargy" that characterized the program in recent years.
CHINA COMPETING FOR SPACE ROLE
He said China was striving to put humans in space within a year and to reach the moon within a decade -- and possibly sooner.
(Story continues after advertisement)
Walker acknowledged the Bush administration faced competing demands for funding as it prepared for a possible war with Iraq and continued its war on terrorism, but said space exploration was an important arena for driving technological developments.
"You're always evaluating these things in terms of the immediate need, but once we figure out that the Chinese have ambitions in this area, we will not want to fall behind," said Walker, a former Republican lawmaker from Pennsylvania.
Walker said NASA programs were clearly underfunded in recent years, and the commission's report cited concerns about the aging launch infrastructure used in the shuttle program.
It noted that the checkout, control and monitoring subsystem developed in the 1970s for shuttle testing and launch was so old there were not enough space parts for 10 percent of its components.
Walker said there had been no suggestion funding shortfalls were in any way responsible for the shuttle disaster.
But he said the tragedy was riveting public attention to the space program and could help shore up funding for increased work on space flight programs, including work on a vehicle to replace the shuttle.
President Bush (news - web sites) Monday proposed a 22 percent increase for the space shuttle program in his fiscal 2004 federal budget request to Congress, which was prepared before the Columbia disaster. He requested $3.9 billion for the program, compared with $3.2 billion in 2003.
Administration officials say it is too early to consider whether to replace the lost shuttle and what the consequences will be for work on developing a successor spacecraft.
SHUTTLE REPLACEMENT
Under current plans, NASA expects to make a decision around 2006 or 2007 about what type of spacecraft would succeed the shuttle, with a new spacecraft to be put into operation by the end of the decade.
It took 32 months for NASA to resume space flights after the 1986 Challenger accident, but officials are already saying flights should resume more quickly in this case, not least because of a need to service the International Space Station (news - web sites).
"There is no real option to the shuttle going forward in the near term," said Walker.
He said the accident underscored the inherent dangers of putting humans into space, citing a statistical 1-in-100 chance of a catastrophic event on every shuttle flight, especially aboard a shuttle with decades-old technology.
Developing the next-generation space vehicle, with far more modern technologies available, would help reduce those frightening statistical odds, Walker said.
Yes! Why don't people get this! The research is a joke too. "Growing diatoms for terraforming other planets!" That's the kind of junk science they are calling research.
Until 5 years ago, the processors in your VCR were more powerful than those in the shuttle
How exactly does this change the fact/the physics that A) you have to get into space and B) you have to re-enter the earth's atmosphere, preferably via non-powered flight (like the shuttle - little cost in extra required fuels, etc.)?
What's plugged in back there in the electronics bay and doing control of the flight surfaces is rather irrelevant - if it gets the job done.
Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project awayRiddle me your answer on the re-entry 'phase' - do you have a better material or re-entry method in mind rather than the present scheme that requires heat tiles as presently used (a cite, a paper, a web site would do your arguments good too).
Evolution is the technique nature has used to 'solve the problems' of life in various life forms, yet man thinks he can can create techically comparable miracles from scratch? Ha ha ha ha. Even innovation in industry doesn't work that way (witness Jack Kilby's invention of the IC for instance).
Come to think of it - wasn't the shuttle the result of 'clean slate' throw-out-the-huge-non-resuable launch vehicle thinking too? Ans where has it gotten us ...
And a real bargain at 200 billion dollars. That's the actual price I'm hearing.
THIS argment is wholly lame.
We have, even during the 20 odd some years of the STS made *substantial* improvements and changes to the shuttle "series" - in *all* areas: TPS (heat tiles), propulsion, cockpit instrumentation, computers, APUs, basis frame design - *you* name it and tht system has been redesigned and improved *based* on actual operation.
A *new* system - one based solely on concept will have to undergo this *same* 'learning of lessions' that the contracters and NASA have had to learn - and here, with the shuttle, we have already learned those IMPORTANT lessons, drawn up the prints, designed the gear, written the test and operational procedures, tested it and FLOWN it ...
Again, this arg is wholly lame and not in any way comparable to the reality of the situation ...
What if - what if I told you they use carbon-carbon already?
Hmmm?
Once the lunar base is established, go to Mars...
Go ahead, on your dime. I'd opt out if they didn't have their guns trained on me.
I agree. I also think that it's time to review the idea of a reuseable payload section, and go to far cheaper big dumb boosters built for a tiny fraction of the cost of a reuseable shuttle.
What sense does it make to bring back to earth after every flight a huge empty payload bay? How many times have we needed a shuttle sized bay for bringing a cargo back down to earth?
Big boosters which are one shot deals could be built in shipyard type settings for pennies on the dollar compared to reuseable shuttle type vehicles that are built in "clean rooms". IOW, you can buy 50 Ford F-250s for the price of one Formula One race car.
The booster gets the payload and crew into orbit, then you ditch it in the ocean! Enormous, and very safe boosters can be CHEAP to build...if they are built for one shot instead of 100.
Bring the crew back in an Apollo type capsule purpose built for safe reentry and recovery, without the vulnerable wheel wells etc.
Whatever the insulating material, it must be PROTECTED on the way up, to ensure that it is pristine for reentry!
That is where the "Big Dumb Booster" excells. The small crew only reentry vehicle is totally protected on launch, Apollo style.
What is the point of bringing down enormous EMPTY payload bays, and trying to land like a glider? Why not use huge CHEAP boosters to get the payload to orbit, and have a purpose built capsule for the crew?
One shot boosters would be cheaper in the long run than what we are spending on shuttles...and safter too.
You might generate less flames if you would check the attitude.
Who said they didn't? I was speaking of the next vehicle.
If the '70 Chevy had been well maintained and retrofit with high-quality aftermarket components over the years (wherever possible), why not? It'd still be quite functional.
I have no problems with taking a good look at newer shuttle designs at this point in time. I'm just not prepared to assume that a "new" design is going to be a panacea for the challenges that face the "antiquated" design. Let's face it, both a '70 Chevy and a '03 Chevy still have 4 wheels. But it's the '70 Chevy that is likely to have space for a full size spare tire. Plus you have a little extra elbow room to change the spark plugs and oil filter.
From the Space Shuttle handbook:
The RCC panels are mechanically attached to the wing with a series of floating joints to reduce loading on the panels caused by wing deflections. The seal between each wing leading edge panel is referred to as a T-seal. The T-seals allow for lateral motion and thermal expansion differences between the RCC and the orbiter wing. In addition, they prevent the direct flow of hot boundary layer gases into the wing leading edge cavity during entry. The T-seals are constructed of RCC.Since carbon is a good thermal conductor, the adjacent aluminum and the metallic attachments must be protected from exceeding temperature limits by internal insulation. Inconel 718 and A-286 fittings are bolted to flanges on the RCC components and are attached to the aluminum wing spars and nose bulkhead. Inconel-covered cerachrome insulation protects the metallic attach fittings and spar from the heat radiated from the inside surface of the RCC wing panels.
The nose cap thermal insulation ues a blanket made from ceramic fibers and filled with silica fibers. HRSI or FRCI tiles are used to protect the forward fuselage from the heat radiated from the hot inside surface of the RCC.
I'm just curious if you also think it's an insult to homicide, robbery, or assault victims when their family and friends exercise their God given talents to investigate who
carried out those crimes, when the police are unable to asertain who did it? In this instance we have an agency that has two vested interests, full disclosure and the
welfare of the agency itself. Why it would be an insult to the astronauts to make sure they weren't short-changed in the process, is beyond me.
I have seen the product of your logic before. It's generally interesting, but seldom very sound. Don't give up.
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.