Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Bruce Perens

Wed Jul 05 18:58:13 -0700 2006

manage

But ISS has no scientific mission.  So, there's not really a need for the shuttle.

Let's face it, folks: the dream of affordable spaceflight today remains a dream. Maybe, if we're really lucky, it'll be worked out by private enterprise, but not by NASA. NASA and/or the U.S. Government have killed every project in the X- series that could possibly lead to it.

There's no sense in going to Mars with bigger versions of 1960's technology, either, unless someone's going to stay there. And we're not close to that. Robotic missions would get more science done.

    Bruce

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Peter

Wed Jul 05 19:38:31 -0700 2006

manage

I believe there is a fundamental difference between manned and unmanned spaceflight that is not measured in the effectiveness of the scientific experiments performed.  It's very likely that robots will perform the expected science experiment more cheaply and more accurately than humans sent out to do those same experiments.  Robots will not, however, innovate space travel.  They won't bump up against rough edges in space craft and fix those on the fly.  They won't take unecessary risks and learn how to recover from them. 

Early airflight progressed as quickly as it did, in a large part, because test pilots and engineers were working so closely.  Test pilots died.  They died by the dozens, but the science advanced very quickly.  When you don't have people's lives depending on better development happening quickly, there isn't the same kind of motivation.  Obviously loss of enormous blocks of cash isn't an incentive or NASA would be perfect by now.

If your goal is the promotion of current scientific goals, then I think a robotic space initiative is a no-brainer.  If, however, your goal is the human exploration of space, I think the best way to advance that science is to put real people up there.

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Bruce Perens

Wed Jul 05 22:01:30 -0700 2006

manage

Your thesis would fly if we were innovating space travel. Our current national direction is to go from a (admittedly over-complex) space plane to a larger version of the 1960's rocket design. The proposed Mars configuration looks a whole lot like Apollo.

I am a big fan of space flight, and am just having a hard time believing that this reverse progression is worthwhile.

    Thanks

    Bruce

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Peter

Thu Jul 06 01:10:07 -0700 2006

manage

Sorry, I should have made it clear that I was only arguing against your last comment that "Robots would probably get more done."  I am in complete agreement with the rest of your analysis.  My only regret is that I live about 3 hours from Ridgecrest and didn't manage to make it out to see SpaceShipOne win the prize.

Peter

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Martin Blank

Thu Jul 06 06:30:53 -0700 2006

manage

It's not a matter of regression.  Yes, the CEV looks a lot like Apollo, and that's intentional, because Apollo worked.  It takes enormous complexity from the concept, keeping with the KISS principle.  It's safer -- there is a viable escape procedure through most of the ascent, and no energy-bleeding maneuvers that alternate stress on the airframe.  It's simpler to design -- no off-balance ideas like hanging the orbiter off the side of the launch vehicle.  And it goes with what we -- and Russia and China -- know works.

Someone might make an elegant SSTO launch vehicle at some point.  Commercial ventures may require it.  Remember that the giant cargo planes of today owe their existence to the four-seat passenger planes of the 1920s.  But in the meantime, it's better to stay with the simple and practical to get the important things done.

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Martin Blank

Wed Jul 05 20:35:07 -0700 2006

manage

The ISS has no scientific mission because its minimum practical caretaker crew is three, and it's been at two for a while now.  With future missions expanding the crew to six or seven, there will be more to do.  At the very least, the Hubble needs one more mission.

I know it's a weak argument on its own.  But if the ISS is abandoned, it could do irreparable harm to international space missions.  Since the fall of the Soviet Union, there has been little reason other than basic pride in manned space travel keeping NASA alive in the minds of the average person.  If the shuttle were cancelled, there would be strong calls to strip that entire budget from NASA and redirect it, calls that would be difficult to ignore.  Manned spaceflight is an institutional skill that is difficult to develop, and letting the shuttle go without a handoff to the CEV in a reasonably short period of time would be severely damaging, as a lot of learning that would otherwise be passed from old generation to new would be lost.  (Just to clarify, I'm all for a much lower-manpower launch vehicle, and I'm not in favor of keeping the shuttle around for charity jobs to engineers.  However, the skills of those still there are useful in a capsule-based program as well.)

Russia, despite its newfound oil wealth, is either unable or unwilling to spend the money required to undertake a Cold War-level space program.  Neither Japan nor Europe have the expertise necessary nor the financial willingness to ramp up their programs to take over for NASA.  China is a long shot at best for the next fifteen years, despite their ambitious plans.

The major failure of the US space program is having a need for an advanced concept like the shuttle.  The modular method with the payload on the end is a much better one, and one that we use for all of the other payloads that we launch.  Without the space shuttle, manned spaceflight will not only fade from the public mind -- as it does when shuttle flights were something vaguely common -- but possibly disappear entirely.  I, for one, believe in the idea of a permanent manned presence in space, with a permanent space station in LEO and another at the Earth-moon LaGrange point, and eventually a permanent base on the moon.  Were there a checkbox on my taxes to allow more money to go to those programs, I would gladly chip in.  I won't lose sight of that dream, but I can't say the same for the rest of the country.

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

mcrbids

Thu Jul 06 00:39:58 -0700 2006

manage

Let's face it, folks: the dream of affordable spaceflight today remains a dream.

Hey, then. Let's face it: affordable FLIGHT is a dream for most people, at least for General Aviation. You can get a "sky bus" ticket for a few hundred bucks a la Southwest, if you don't mind being human cargo. (and I do it  regularly)

But General Aviation - owning or renting a small plane and flying wherever your want at whatever speed suits you - is almost dead for the middle class. At an average cost around $100-$150 per hour, it's just not in comfortable reach of somebody making $40,000 per year to afford it, unless they don't do much else. When I describe my training as a pilot to people, it's not uncommon to hear things like "life on the other side".

So where is this going? Nowhere it seems - the high prices of fuel today is killing General Aviation, and may end up aborting space flight long before it reaches the common man.

At this point, it's a race - fossil fuel depletion vs. Scientific advancement of sustainable, "alternative" energy sources. If the former wins, civilization as we know it collapses.

Scary, but (AFAICT) true.

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

AB3A

Thu Jul 06 04:55:05 -0700 2006

manage

Topic drift, I know, but while general aviation is quite expensive, recreational aviation (the new sport pilot certificate) is within reach of those who seek it.  Sport aircraft cost about what one would spend on a luxury car. 

Let's face it: aviation didn't really start getting practical until some time after WW I.  And the biggest problem was that there weren't too many reliable designs for building an engine with reasonable power to weight ratio.

And so it is with spaceflight.  Right now, manned space flight is not particularly practical and the market for efficient space vehicle designs with decent rocket engines simply isn't all that strong.  It will happen, but right now we need to focus on building the demand.  Toward that end, there seems to be some interesting developments with the Rocket Racing League.  We may start seeing some interesting innovations with rocket engine design. This in turn may lead to better performance of pulse or scramjet designs.  Conversely someone may decide to re-examine the notions of the Aerospike design. 

The other half of this problem is that we only need to transport humans with expensive rockets.  There are other ways of flinging cargo in to space which may be more efficient.  For example, the Fuel/Air dart guns have been able to accelerate projectiles to something like Mach 25.  What if we built dart shells containing nothing more than compressed oxygen or water to fling in to orbit? 

Government programs for research will take us only so far.  The next step is to set goals so that entreprenurial competition can take hold. 

The Shuttle has served it's purpose.  I think it's late, but still necessary to start designing a replacement.  And this time, I think we should not stop with just one do-it-all design, but allow for a variety of them from various aerospace firms. 

regular gas

zogger

Fri Jul 07 10:34:22 -0700 2006

manage

The one guy who flies a lot out of the airport here where I live had his 172 converted to run on regular gas instead of aviation fuel, but I have never asked him how much it costs an hour to fly either. He used to fly every weekend out to the midwest (to his folks place) from here in north georgia, and he's a high school teacher to give an indication of his pay scale. I know it must have cost him quite a bit, but 150$ hr seems excessive, but I don't know either.

regular gas

n8ur

Fri Jul 07 13:33:01 -0700 2006

manage

I'm not a pilot, so this is all sort of vague based on talking with the several pilots I know.  From them, I gather that while fuel isn't cheap, maintenance and insurance are two very large components of the cost of running a private plane.

One friend's son has a Cessna 172 and recently had to have the engine overhauled, which I think is required every 2000 hours of flight time.  It's a little 4 cylinder engine that might run an old VW very nicely.  There was nothing fundamentally wrong with the engine; its hours were just up.  His son paid about $12,000 for that.  And an overhaul on his higher performance Bonanza would run over $20,000.  Annual inspections and maintenance can run another grand or so. 

Insurance premiums can vary wildly.  My friend and his son are pretty experienced, so their insurance (given the age of their planes, I'm assuming liability only) runs about $1700/year.  But for a club where the members have very different experience levels, the premiums can be huge, and more than one club has shut down due to premiums (particularly if they've made a claim or two).

Why is the Shuttle Still Necessary?

Chris Hopkins

Thu Jul 06 04:30:37 -0700 2006

manage

Take a look at the shuttle replacement (the ares V) - no where in any NASA blurb have i seen anything about it being used to service the space station/lift new space station components.
Ok the Ares I - the CEV - the other bit of the shuttle replacement it gets mentioned in passing. Why?
Why does the next generation ignore the ISS? Because people are so jaded by it?