New use for old birds?

[gulfdiver]

[B][SIZE=3][FONT=arial][COLOR=blue]Acknowledging that there are any number of vehicles in development by various agencies interested in lunar exploration, are there any likely lunar missions for which the existing space shuttles could serve?

[timeshifter]

easy. Lunar landings, planetary orbitings, space station parts. Burning up in reentry. These are just a few of the uses for space shuttles.

[K6-III]

You could do quite a bit with the Shuttle assuming you bring the External Tank to orbit....

Alternatively, a pair of Atlas V/Delta IV Heavy's could perhaps do a lunar mission with a soyuz capsule...

[timeshifter]

In that regard, I will have to agree. But, don't you think they/we could get so much more up there using our own Saturn's? I mean, those are the suckers we use to get 70-ton shuttles into space, so I would think they can handle a few 20-ton Soyuz capsulses.

[K6-III]

Saturn IB and Saturn V are dead.

If NASA wanted a super-heavy and soon, the best choice would probably be Shuttle-C.

Energia-M, like Saturn V, is unfortunately dead as well and beyond repair.

Proton-M, Ariane V ECB, Angara, Delta IV Heavy, Altas V heavy are all of roughly the same capabilities, with Angara in a slight lead, but it has not yet flown. Of the rockets above, on the Proton is a viable choice today.

No angara has flown. There has been one flight of Delta IV medium and the regular Atlas V. The ECA version of the Ariane V failed and the ECB is nowhere in sight.

Other than that list, a more risky choice is the Japanese H2-A, which is somewhere around the Delta IV medium.

On the other hand, given their reliability record, flights could presently be very cheap. Could be worth launching a small lunar module perhaps....(1 person LM)

The Chinese really don't have a large booster yet, nor does India.

Supposedly Kruchinev has a vehicle design ready with the capability to launch 4x proton, but the funds to complete
it are not available...(what a shame)...

[K6-III]

Well, now that I did some searching, the Indians are talking about building the GSLV MK3, which should be a Delta IV/Atlas V class vehicle.

Perhaps it could be put into service launching Soyuz's....

[irizarry]

The Chinese have announced a proposed Shenzhou lunar fly-by but the booster for this has not been identified.

Another alternative would be using the present heavy-lift systems in numbers. Launch two with two lunar excursion components. Assemble in space and go.
This approach wouldn’t be just limited to two launches. Several launches could be used to assemble the mission of choice. The sky’s the limit (no pun intended).

What would be neat is a synchronized earth-moon orbit using the ISS. Then use an off- the-shelf system to re-supply and rendezvous with the ISS. Sort of killing two birds with one stone. The old Mir would have been ideal for this. It was going to get trashed anyway!

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

They have a heavy lift CZ-X-5 in development which should work fine for flyby using the Shenzou capsule...

Rendezvous in lunar orbit would be the way to go with a multi-vehicular launch...

[irizarry]

To continue…….

A recent article has reconfirmed China’s interest in lunar exploration. They are interested in mining Helium-3. So this must mean they are developing an engine that can use this fuel? The article is at:


http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/china_moon_030304.html


Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[irizarry]

Sorry I think that last link choked.....the lunar article can be found at:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/china_moon_030304.html


Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

Originally posted by irizarry
To continue…….

A recent article has reconfirmed China’s interest in lunar exploration. They are interested in mining Helium-3. So this must mean they are developing an engine that can use this fuel? The article is at:


http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/china_moon_030304.html


Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

The Chinese would be interested in He3 for use in ground-based Nuclear fusion reactors, something that is at least 25 years off.

Nonetheless, whoever controls He3 when fusion becomes available then has an energy monopoly over the world...

Seeing as they realize that creating the infrastructure on the moon to mine it would require roughly the same period of time, they are rightly beginning development now.

[irizarry]

In February this year NASA released one-page requirements for its Orbital Space Plane (OSP). In turns out that the OSP does not exactly have to have wings. After some public controversy NASA said a capsule (Apollo style) could be a candidate if it were safe and inexpensive. After all the Russians have been landing capsules for a long time without incident. People totally against this idea claim that launching “trash cans” back into space is a step backwards. I think we could take an old idea and make it new. However, I have this bias that even aerodynamically designed “trash cans” are going to squash my dreams of seeing a rather “spiffy” and sleek airframe takeoff from a spaceport and return a few days later. Is this a matter of taking one step back before we take two steps forward?

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

Capsules are the most efficient thing we can work with today, given a reasonable development budget and short development window.

On the other hand, reusables may indeed come to pass if there is demand for them. In other words, there must be more than just THE SPACE STATION to go to. There must be space stations galore, space hotels, manunfacturing facilities, etc....

[PhysBrain]

As far as shuttles go, they are only useful for putting humans and fairly large payloads into low Earth orbit. It would be difficult to adapt them to any other use. The only way that they could really support a manned lunar exploration mission is to launch and assemble components for a lunar transfer vehicle and associated support hardware for a lunar lander and base. However, there are better ways to go about doing this.

Personally, I'd like to see the shuttles phased out as soon as possible; probably as soon as they have completed assembling and supporting the ISS or another means of doing so becomes available. With the budget currently consumed by space shuttle launches, NASA could do much more useful development of future spaceflight technology and robotic exploration of the solar system.

Shuttles have served their purpuse in the grand scheme of manned spaceflight, but I think it's time to move on and begin focusing more on what comes next than on how long we can extend the shuttles' lifetimes by finding new missions for them.

[neubjr]

I just read in a spacenews article that the boeing X-37 program has been revived with a new contract, which is quite nice news to me. I agree that the shuttle should be phased out. However, the question is what should or will a new launch vehicle be capable of? I would reall like to see a launch vehicle capable of returning to the moon, but I don't think that NASA has plans to develop this anytime soon. From what I read, all plans of developing a reusable launch vehicle will again be limited to LEO. Do you think that this will again trap us into the space shuttle dilemma twenty years down the road?

Joshua.

[K6-III]

Originally posted by PhysBrain
As far as shuttles go, they are only useful for putting humans and fairly large payloads into low Earth orbit. It would be difficult to adapt them to any other use. The only way that they could really support a manned lunar exploration mission is to launch and assemble components for a lunar transfer vehicle and associated support hardware for a lunar lander and base. However, there are better ways to go about doing this.

Personally, I'd like to see the shuttles phased out as soon as possible; probably as soon as they have completed assembling and supporting the ISS or another means of doing so becomes available. With the budget currently consumed by space shuttle launches, NASA could do much more useful development of future spaceflight technology and robotic exploration of the solar system.

Shuttles have served their purpuse in the grand scheme of manned spaceflight, but I think it's time to move on and begin focusing more on what comes next than on how long we can extend the shuttles' lifetimes by finding new missions for them.

Not quite true. An option remains for super-heavy lift with Shuttle-C.

[PhysBrain]

The Shuttle-C concept has also been around since the late 70's. The fact that no hardware has been flown in that time leads me to believe that there may be some aspects of the system which are uneconomoical. Most likely, the Shuttle-C concept would suffer from the same drawbacks as the Shuttle, namely: infrequent flight opportunities, long turn around times, only partially reusable flight hardware, and expensive to operate. From what I've read, it also seems like they never really came up with a solution for how to safely return the main engines on the cargo pod.

In my opinion, the manned launch vechiclees need to be developed separately from the cargo lifters. The launch requirements for putting an inanimate payload into orbit are much more flexible than a manned payload. By separating the manned launch vehicle from the cargo launcher, more attention and resources can be devoted to crew safety, and vehicle reliability and reusability. I've seen the comment made in several places that the primary mission of the shuttle is to put people in space and return them safely. The crew is the most valuable and most fagile cargo that we need to launch. I think dedicating an entire vehicle to purpose of launching and returning people safely is well worth it, especially if reducing the cargo capacity makes it possible to develop a fully reusable launch vehicle.

As for the unmanned cargo lifters... Well, many options exist for those. They range from big dumb boosters, to Shuttle-C type semi-reusables. To date, I have seen no designs for fully reusable unmanned cargo lifters.

Once we have developed these two modes of launch vehicles to a point where it is much more economically feasible to launch many times per year, then we can move on to discuss the on-orbit assembly of other types of vehicles which will each be taylored to carry out a specific mission, or class of mission (ie. orbital transfer, or on-orbit repair/assembly/salvage).

This is all a little something I like to call: INFRASTRUCTURE, of which we have next to none at the moment. I have mixed feeling about whether or not NASA will be able to develop the kind of infrastructure necessary to support economical manned space exploration. I have no doubt that they will continue to play a dominant role in technology development and preliminary exploration for some time to come. Unfortunately though, significant manned presence in space will have to wait for the infrastructure to be put into place.

[K6-III]

There is no real need for reusables until existing flight rates can justify them.

What we need is indeed a very large variety of BDB's targeted to various payload mass requirements, but based around a core platform. The smaller BDB's could be used to send up manned capsules. The larger ones could send up whole stations, pharmaceutical labs, processsor test fabs, etc...

[irizarry]

I am reading in many journals the desire to bring back an Apollo-esque type capsule for use as a temporary stop gap measure for the shuttle. At first this seemed to me like taking a step backwards. But the capsule technique really never had a chance to materialize the numerous potential concepts that designers had invented. So maybe this is a good thing. Now, I can see a capsule with skid type landing gear and a huge parafoil for a controlled landing. Possibly carrying as many as five astronauts.


Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

Parafoil weighs too much.

A parachute and retrorockets like in Soyuz would probably be better.

Landing on land, rather than in the ocean, brings considerable savings as well.

[irizarry]

Maybe I have the terminology wrong-I was thinking of that wedge shaped thing that acts like a wing and a parachute made of fabric-shaped like a wedge sometimes, sometimes with a cross section similar to a double gull wing . Based on the same weight would I need more parachute than parafoil to have a soft landing? I always thought that the parachutes or collection of parachutes were very large compared to a parafoil. I guess a second question would be if I wanted to touch down at 100 knots (115 mph) would I need a bigger parafoil than one I would use for 150 knots (173 mph)? I think I have believed in the wrong thing for a long time. That is parafoils used less fabric than its equivalent parachute but with more control? If what you say is true I’m disappointed. Had my plans ready for a capsule and now they are useless-its back to the drawing board.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[irizarry]

Here we go again. Some at NASA are proposing to build yet another shuttle to replace the lost one but this time include all the improvements thay have learned over time. Why does this some funky to me? Haven’t they been including upgrades all along. The shuttle definitely qualifies as an old bird! How about an elongated shuttle or even a shorter version.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[irizarry]

There is a skylab (complete I believe) from the 70’s at Huntsville, Alabama. Is there any reason we can’t send this guy to mars or orbit it around the moon. We will have to dust it off and give it a new paint job!

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

Many reasons why not to...

Wiring decay, ancient computers not worth hauling up there, metal corrosion, etc, etc...

On top of all that, we no longer even have a launch vehicle that can even get it to orbit...

A better way to go, rather than waste taxpayer dollars on a lunar mission, is to put up some prize money for the first habitable station orbiting Mars. For this application, inflatable structures appear almost a must...

[irizarry]

Actually that was my point. What would have to be done to launch this thing (Skylab II in mothballs). Sort of picture this scenario. Your household has three cars and two adult workers. One car breaks down. What must be down to the third car to get it running so everyone can get to work. Same sort of thing with the Skylab. However, your point about the booster is well taken. I forgot about the national booster problem. This is the plight to heavy lift we are nationally suffering. So, in your opinion say an emergency has called you to arms as an aerospace engineer and we have to get this thing off the ground pronto, what do we do for a booster in a pinch? What do you think we could get away with, say a couple of Delta V’s, etc. As far as the internal workings, if the mission is a habitat for observation, I think ripping out the old electronics and putting in new equipment would not be so expensive. Again, we can scrap out from other systems and stick with off the shelf stuff. A primary question would be is the Skylab structurally sound laying around for so long?

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[raptor]

You could do quite a bit with the Shuttle assuming you bring the External Tank to orbit....


I have seen a design for a space station constructed from used fuel tanks.

If you could design the space station parts to carry the shuttle fuel it could use the fuel then take the empty parts into orbit and return alone.

[irizarry]

Sounds good to me raptor


If your going to haul a chunk of metal ¾ or so – of the way to orbit (last stage), why not just loft it the rest of the way? After all you have already paid for most of the trip! Assuming the last stage is usable. If not it can be designed to be a piece of the next installation. This is why I’m in favor of single-stage-to-orbit vehicles, but not ones that you would use again but ones that can be used for additional structures (one-time shots).

There is probably a cost comparison study somewhere that says just the opposite of what I’m proposing. I know that its not just a matter of adding a little mass and money to the last leg of the trip. You are actually adding the costs to the entire trip because you still have to get the additional mass off the ground or farther into orbit (meaning the added fuel). No free ride in rocket science!

So my proposal is not single mission minded but multi-mission minded. Payload is used for one mission, last stage leftovers used for a second “building” mission.

It’s a good thing I’m not running NASA we would all be bankrupt!

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[irizarry]

I know that some chemicals (like hydrazine) left over are not healthy for humans. Not all of this gets outgassed! So now we have an additional cleanup expense.

Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

The Shuttle main tank stores liquid hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which are toxic...

As for the Shuttle RCS thrusters, they use Hydrazine and I'd rather stay far away...

[irizarry]

Does the Hubble telescope quality as an old bird?

What would be this old birds new mission. Since algorithms are now available to compensate for the wavyness of earth’s atmosphere ground telescopes can now see as well as the Hubble telescope. I would like to see the hubble pushed out into a parallel orbit with the asteroid belt and have its eye turned on the asteroids as it permanently orbited. Some communications modifications will be needed.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[irizarry]

My previous comment should read

Does the Hubble telescope qualify as an old bird?

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[raptor]

The Shuttle main tank stores liquid hydrogen and oxygen, neither of which are toxic...

As for the Shuttle RCS thrusters, they use Hydrazine and I'd rather stay far away...

I thought the main tank burned up anyway.

[irizarry]

I was thinking along the lines of pushing the main tank into orbit so it can be used. One of these tanks are on display (or least was several years ago) at NASA Huntsville, Alabama. I was doing some work at Redstone across the street. Anyway the NASA folks told me there was hydrazine in the main tank too. Maybe I misunderstood. Which is why I said there would be additional clean up. Maybe some of you Shuttle pros can steer me in the right direction on this one. I also thought – I could be wrong here too – that if the shuttle had no cargo in its bays that orbiting the external tank was almost achievable. Can anyone elaborate on this.

Irizarry

\|/
O
/|\

[K6-III]

This had been suggested before. Make sure to check out www.spaceislandgroup.com for the latest commercial attempt...

[irizarry]

K6-III, great site. I saw the picture of what looked like an external shuttle tank with solar arrays. What a thing that would be.


Thanks for the info
Irizarry
\|/
O
/|\