Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Shuttle Loss Highlights Need for New Space Vehicle
reuters ^ | 2/4/2003 | Andrea Shalal-Esa

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.


TOPICS: Government
KEYWORDS: shuttle
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: Gary Boldwater
The science spinoffs from NASA are marginal to non existent.

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.

21 posted on 02/04/2003 10:10:12 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: chilepepper
Yep. We could have had the Delta Clipper operational. But Lockheed-Martin, flush from selling secrets to China, was flush with cash, and offered more money to develop the now-dead X-33. . .
22 posted on 02/04/2003 10:10:27 AM PST by Salgak (don't mind me: the orbital mind control lasers are making me write this. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: biblewonk
NASA needs a new mission for sure,,,I hear that Mars is still available,,,,,,LOL
23 posted on 02/04/2003 10:12:52 AM PST by aspiring.hillbilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
You said it well with that statement!
24 posted on 02/04/2003 10:16:32 AM PST by TLBSHOW (God Speed as Angels trending upward dare to fly Tribute to the Risk Takers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
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 away
Riddle 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 ...

25 posted on 02/04/2003 10:23:13 AM PST by _Jim (//NASA has a better safety record than NASCAR\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: aspiring.hillbilly
NASA needs a new mission for sure,,,I hear that Mars is still available,,,,,,LOL

And a real bargain at 200 billion dollars. That's the actual price I'm hearing.

26 posted on 02/04/2003 10:25:27 AM PST by biblewonk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Would you continue to throw money into a 1970 Chevy

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 ...

27 posted on 02/04/2003 10:30:53 AM PST by _Jim (//NASA has a better safety record than NASCAR\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
On the next vehicle, use carbon-carbon

What if - what if I told you they use carbon-carbon already?

Hmmm?

28 posted on 02/04/2003 10:32:50 AM PST by _Jim (//NASA has a better safety record than NASCAR\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
We need to develop a new type spacecraft and establish a small, manned, lunar base of exploration on the Moon.

Once the lunar base is established, go to Mars...

29 posted on 02/04/2003 10:33:21 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TLBSHOW
We do not need to look ahead at developing a new space vehicle that is more up to date. However I think we need a replacement shuttle rather than a shuttle replacement. In other words I think that any new vehicle that suits the needs of NASA would have to be an outgrowth from the designs of the current fleet. This process should begin immediately in light of losing Columbia. Yes we do need to look into what went wrong with Columbia and revise the plans of any new space vehicles accordingly. However we do not need to go back stage rockets which just continue to pollute the upper atmosphere with space junk, which would make space flight more dangerous and eventually impossible.
30 posted on 02/04/2003 10:38:29 AM PST by miloklancy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Hadenuf
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.

31 posted on 02/04/2003 10:39:32 AM PST by Protagoras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: miloklancy
Excuse me I just noticed I put that we "do not" need to look at designs for a new space program. I meant we "do". I apologize for the error on my part.
32 posted on 02/04/2003 10:39:44 AM PST by miloklancy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Face it, sometimes it's easier to simply throw a project away and start fresh, than to continue using obsolete designs.

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.

33 posted on 02/04/2003 10:47:52 AM PST by Travis McGee ("The only easy day was yesterday.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ThomasJefferson
As years go by, private enterprise will eventually lap the government in space exploration. It's just a matter of time.
34 posted on 02/04/2003 10:49:22 AM PST by Joe Hadenuf
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Having "breath on them and they break" fragile tiles a few yards from the boosters tons of frozen insulation, which has a habit of breaking off at mach on liftoff is stupid, just a very poor design concept, a gun pointing at the head of the crew Russian roullette style. "Do you feel lucky today" is not the best we should strive for!

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.

35 posted on 02/04/2003 10:53:04 AM PST by Travis McGee ("The only easy day was yesterday.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
What if - what if I told you they use carbon-carbon already?

You might generate less flames if you would check the attitude.

Who said they didn't? I was speaking of the next vehicle.

36 posted on 02/04/2003 10:53:38 AM PST by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
Would you continue to throw money into a 1970 Chevy (bottom of the line, using parts made from the cheapest vendor), or buy a new car and start fresh?

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.

37 posted on 02/04/2003 10:54:40 AM PST by Willie Green (Go Pat Go!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: hopespringseternal
RCC is, BTW, no substitute for insulation of some sort, so, you still need to come up with what might be called the system solution that also meets the requirements for light-weight in the design goal ...

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.


38 posted on 02/04/2003 10:58:10 AM PST by _Jim (//NASA has a better safety record than NASCAR\\)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CWOJackson
I find that you have posted his about ten times across the forum. Evidently embarassing yourself on just one thread wasn't bad enough. Here's what I said to you on the other posts.

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.

39 posted on 02/04/2003 11:01:42 AM PST by DoughtyOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Hodar
I went to the website to search one of "their" spinoffs of which I'm very familiar with (I invented it years prior to NASA and have the patent and research to back it up). The NASA search engine kept locking up, it never worked. NASA claimed it was "their" baby and would revolutionize the field until they went to file a patent and found it was invented elsewhere. Besides the infringement (they actually used it several times on space missions), they seemed to have lost any and all interest in this "revolutionary" technology. I'm not saying all of NASA are a bunch of kooks, but I will say a good deal of time is spent by them justifying their existence by less than upright means.
I will go back and try to find something useful and justified by the cost that they have done. I am hopeful something turns up.
40 posted on 02/04/2003 11:03:16 AM PST by Gary Boldwater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson