It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Space Shuttle Replacement

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 04:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by bpletcj
OK, OK I am sorry I kept pushing for another option when you already presented me with a solution.

I just thought maybe there would be something more exotic out there.


Sorry, guess I was a bit forceful there
NASA have already said that the CEV will replace the shuttle, so anything else is currently a fantasy or something for the far future.



So we can practically launch 3 CEV missions for the cost of 1 Shuttle mission?


Depends entirely on the cost of the CEV, but at the moment, if you dont take into account either the Shuttles cost or the CEVs cost, you could launch two CEV missions for one Shuttle mission (including payloads on both). And currently boosters can only get cheaper because of the volume demand.



What about payload capabilities? Does the CEV ( I know the payload and CEV are in separate stages) have the same payload capabilities as the Shuttle?


The CEV has whatever payload the booster can take - its not limited to a maximum payload like the shuttle, since the CEV payload would be jsut another load on the booster. The CEV will be adaptable to whatever booster comes up, so you could just slap it on top of something liek the Energia and get massive payloads far in excess of the shuttle, or you could put it on top of a really small booster for just manned missions to the ISS or whatever. Basically, seperating the manned part and the payload part gives you flexability that the shuttle could never manage.


[edit on 12/3/2005 by RichardPrice]




posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:04 PM
link   


What about payload capabilities? Does the CEV ( I know the payload and CEV are in separate stages) have the same payload capabilities as the Shuttle?

No...unless they are changing it, I believe I remember reading that the CEV could fit inside the Shuttle. (but that info was from back when it was planned to be just a earth to ISS platform, and a lifeboat on the station itself)

Also, Nasa has not confirmed that it will be a capsule.

There was 3 companies (Lockheed, Boeing, Northrop) working on individual concepts for Nasa, and one would get booted out this summer, then the last remaining 2 would have a "fly-off" (taking a page out of the USAF book), then the winner would be picked in 2006. But this is a big contract to win, so last year Boeing and Northrop Grumman have merged for the project, and as a result of that a couple months ago Lockheed has joined teams with Orbital Sciences.

The Air force has been doing fly-offs for decades, and its smart, the better one wins, this creates a healthy atmosphere of "one-uping" the other. I cant wait for the 2006 fly-off and see them both in action.

Also on a side note, In 2007 space commercialization will begin, and around that time we will see some exotic ways to get to space.

oh, and the reason capsules are still a good looking option is because they are smaller and can be done in an assembly line like process, and can be updated MUCH easier.

I (Unfortunatly) dont think that we will see anything awe inspiring. Although Nasa will probably use the Delta or Atlas Rockets I kinda wish they would just make there own...and have it be a hybrid, since they are way cheaper then the normal liquid or solid boosters. Nasa has built there own in the past, now they more rely on LockMart or Boeing, but there is still a possibility that they will create there own behemoth.

***new info***
The space agency' notice, dated March 1, outlines a three-phase plan for returning to the moon:

• A powerful new launch rocket, not yet designed, is supposed to boost the vehicle and four astronauts into orbit around the Earth and bring them back safely. An unmanned test flight is due by 2008. The target date for the first crewed flight is 2014.

• The spaceships will be fitted with a more powerful Earth Departure Stage that will allow them to soar across 238,000 miles of space to the moon. Between 2015 and 2020, several of these manned landings, lasting as least four days each, are proposed.

• After 2020, astronauts will spend months on the moon, exploring, doing science, and testing equipment for a manned landing on Mars.


Heres One of Lockheeds Concepts, a mini-winged space plane, and land by chute. I like this one the best.


Heres a site with Lockheeds and Boeing CEV concept pics.

Here is a link to Nasa's Vision (BTW, its a pdf)


[edit on 12-3-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Actually that does make sense, I didn't think about the fact that you could use different boosters depending on the power requirement.

Thanks again.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Murcielago

Thanks for the info and links. I agree a fly off does make more sense to increase creativity through competition.

I will check out the other concepts and get back with you.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

No...unless they are changing it, I believe I remember reading that the CEV could fit inside the Shuttle.



The CEV is for crew only, it *has no* payload as all payloads are sent up seperately.



Also, Nasa has not confirmed that it will be a capsule.


The wording of the CEV Procurement Requests For Proposals documents strictly include the word 'capsule' when referring to the CEV module. I dont care what the 'concept art' looks like, dont expect wings to be on any of the entries - they are expensive weight wise and you have very little need for them.

Available here when it ever comes back up...
exploration.nasa.gov...



Also on a side note, In 2007 space commercialization will begin, and around that time we will see some exotic ways to get to space.


Space has been commercialised for a long time, if you have the money you can have anything you liek put into space privately.



oh, and the reason capsules are still a good looking option is because they are smaller and can be done in an assembly line like process, and can be updated MUCH easier.


The main reason capsules are looking good is because they are SO much damn cheaper than Shuttles, regardless of how they are put together
The shuttle puts a lot of crap into orbit that really has no valid purpose these days - wings were only demanded by the Pentagon as a means of bringing classified payloads and foreign satellites back to US terrotory (that was precisely the way the Shuttle was sold - as a means of grabbing soviet satellites) but have never been used and as such are just a fancy accessory.

The CEV is also supposed to be reusable, and as you say its a lot smaller and thus the turnaround time is reduced.



I (Unfortunatly) dont think that we will see anything awe inspiring. Although Nasa will probably use the Delta or Atlas Rockets I kinda wish they would just make there own...and have it be a hybrid, since they are way cheaper then the normal liquid or solid boosters. Nasa has built there own in the past, now they more rely on LockMart or Boeing, but there is still a possibility that they will create there own behemoth.


Who do you think has made NASA rockets in the past? Sure, NASA made a few at the start, but from around the start of the 1960s, ALL construction was passed out to contractors - NASA just acts as a project guide. These days, as I said before, boosters are a commodity product, and anyone (within reason) can go to Boeing and say 'I want a rocket to put X kilograms into Y orbit.' and they will either sell you a full rocket, or a spot on a current rocket (indeed, if you are lucky, you might get the spot for $0, with just the loading costs having to be paid - boosters have to launch a minimum weight, and if their paylods come under that weight, water is loaded on as a payload. Stupid eh?)



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 05:47 PM
link   
geez.....I guess with Sir Richard I should watch my wording.


Space commercialization, what I meant by that is Space Privatization. In other words its around the time when we should expect average Joe to be able to go into sub-orbit, and it will only get better from there.

Oh, and I wasn't comparing capsules to shuttles. I was just talking about why Nasa might go back to capsules.

and what "lot of crap" are you referring to: What the shuttle brings up...it needs up.

and last but not least...the rockets.
What I was talking about is...well in a word "custom". Example: Boeing didn't make the Delta 4 heavy for the purpose of getting the CEV to the moon. What I meant is like, IF nasa puts out an order for whatever to be built and a sompany builds it, they built it with Nasa's mission in mind. While the rockets that they might choose were originally created for big heavy military satellies.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago
geez.....I guess with Sir Richard I should watch my wording.



I quite like that title. Now I demand SACRIFICE dammit




Space commercialization, what I meant by that is Space Privatization. In other words its around the time when we should expect average Joe to be able to go into sub-orbit, and it will only get better from there.


Ahh yes, close but they have two different meanings. Now youve said privitisation, I sort of agree with you. Sub orbit is not that far away anymore, what with the Virgin Galactic Explorer (or whatever Bransons called it
, but full orbit is, Id say, decades away at best.



Oh, and I wasn't comparing capsules to shuttles. I was just talking about why Nasa might go back to capsules.


Neither was I, I was just using the shuttle as a reference point.



and what "lot of crap" are you referring to: What the shuttle brings up...it needs up.


Mainly two things: wings and the cargobay. Both were developed with a specific mission in mind, one that never happened. You dont need wings in space, and you dont need wings to land - the Russians do fine without them. The cargobay is also a waste of weight - its empty 99% of each landing, and you cannot adjust its size for the payload, so when you send the shuttle up partially or fully empty, its useless weight. With both of these things, you need extra propellant to get them to orbit, and you need extra structural mass to safely contain them.

Replace the wings with parafoils once the breaking chutes have done their business. Tonnes of weight saved there! Replace the cargobay with a disposable eggshell around the cargo that goes on either the same booster as another payload or another booster altogether. Tonnes of weight saved there, as the CEV no longer has to support all that weight itself, and you can adjust the size of the cargoshell for each payload you want carried up.

There is also the three main engines that basically are useless as you have to get that weight all the way to orbit, rather than dump the heavy first stage motors lower down and have less weight to get up there.



and last but not least...the rockets.
What I was talking about is...well in a word "custom". Example: Boeing didn't make the Delta 4 heavy for the purpose of getting the CEV to the moon. What I meant is like, IF nasa puts out an order for whatever to be built and a sompany builds it, they built it with Nasa's mission in mind. While the rockets that they might choose were originally created for big heavy military satellies.


Yeah, the problem with custom designs is that they are bloody expensive
I agree with you, sometimes NASA has to make compromises, but thats the name of the game - it no longer has an infinite budget.



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:18 PM
link   
I'm going to assume then that your also not a fan of Japans Shuttle called HOPE-X?




posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:36 PM
link   
I skipped some post for this reply so please forgive me...

What about Venture Star? is that going anywhere?

As for the Hubble, ever heard of ESA's VLT? (Very Large Telescope), it is VERY powerful and it's based in Chile, it can make very good pictures using an array of 3 telescopes...IIRC

www.fas.org...

www.eso.org...



posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 11:39 PM
link   
Venture star died with the X-33.

and yes, i have heard of VLT, But i'm more interested in Nasa's LBT (Large Binocular Telescope). Over-all the VLT's images will be crisper, but its a Europe telescope.


Edit: oh, and in 2009 The Discovery Channel will have its own telescope, while it wont be revolutionary or great and only a 4.2 meter mirror, I will be awaiting its arrival because the discovery channel has several channels (most are very good), and with there own telescope they will broadcast what they see threw the telescope live. I just think it will be cool to have a tv station company show you there own pics of space.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 05:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

and yes, i have heard of VLT, But i'm more interested in Nasa's LBT (Large Binocular Telescope). Over-all the VLT's images will be crisper, but its a Europe telescope.



Its comments like this that make me wonder if i want to continue on this board or not.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:16 AM
link   
I agree...because its European??? what the hell does that mean?



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
I agree, whats wrong with European telescopes?

Also, I never heard much of the Japanese Shuttle. When will it be ready for launch?

Do you have any links to the Hope - X?


[edit on 13-3-2005 by bpletcj]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 11:48 AM
link   


and yes, i have heard of VLT, But i'm more interested in Nasa's LBT (Large Binocular Telescope). Over-all the VLT's images will be crisper, but its a Europe telescope


UGH, What the hell is that supposed to mean, sure France and the US might not be on good terms but the rest are relatively good friends with the US...

What's wrong with Europe? most people in Europe only really hate Bush, not Americans in general...and you never hear me say: I like a european satelite better because it's American...

-sighs-



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 12:42 PM
link   
You guys took that all wrong, that had nothing to do with France or Presidents...Purly on their (lack of) scientific information and pictures released. By that i'm talking about recent things like the SMART-1 (moon orbiter) and Huygens (Titan lander).

I dont see why they can call Huygens a total success. not to mention they say it took several dozens of pictures but have only release a few. Last year I remember live tv on Nasa.gov, and it showed pictues moments after they were took and showed the excitment of all the people who worked on the project, the live broadcast went on for hours, showing all sorts of incredible images, nasa released them right away...and didn't hold them, because if there being held everyone knows how easy it has become to manipulate pictures. and ESA's moon orbiter called SMART-1, hasn't took or they havn't released nearly enough pictures. There web site still hasn't been updated, they havn't released a new pictues in 1 1/2 months. and on a side not: for it being launched in 2003, I wish they would of made its camera color, and not the ol' black & White.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Murcielago]



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Murcielago

I dont see why they can call Huygens a total success.



Because it was? Because it fulfilled the mission spec completely? Because it wasnt a failure?



not to mention they say it took several dozens of pictures but have only release a few. Last year I remember live tv on Nasa.gov, and it showed pictues moments after they were took and showed the excitment of all the people who worked on the project, the live broadcast went on for hours, showing all sorts of incredible images, nasa released them right away...and didn't hold them, because if there being held everyone knows how easy it has become to manipulate pictures.


Because 99% of the images taken are of no use or interest to anyone but the scientists (and you can get 100% free access to them if you want to - go talk to the ESA). Because 99% of the images actually LOOK crap because they were taken with budget equipment designed and built in the middle of the last decade, with cameras that are outmatched by todays cellphone cameras.

The public at large takes one look at them and says 'so what?'. The scientists take one look at them and have a collective orgasm.

Guess what - we europeans dont worship our space program but the emphasis is placed on scientists - not impressing the public! The Huyguns probe lasted 2 hours, and a lot of the information collected (around 95%) wasnt in the visual spectrum and is worthless to anyone but the experiments creator. There simply isnt enough info there to sustain public interest, so wisely they make it available to the people who want access and the public get informed of results.



and ESA's moon orbiter called SMART-1, hasn't took or they havn't released nearly enough pictures. There web site still hasn't been updated, they havn't released a new pictues in 1 1/2 months. and on a side not: for it being launched in 2003, I wish they would of made its camera color, and not the ol' black & White.

[edit on 13-3-2005 by Murcielago]



Well theres a damn good reason why its a black and white camera - infact, there are two damn good reasons.

1. Theres no colour on the moon. WHY TAKE COLOUR PHOTOS?!

2. With a colour camera you get 1/3rd the resolution that you do with a black and white camera, simply because you need to capture red, green and blue channels instead of the singular white channel for B&W cameras and increasing the CCD size does not compensate for that 100%. Therefor you get 3x better photos from a B&W camera.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:33 PM
link   
Ya but why not disclose the scientific data Huygens collected? Chemical composition, temperature, etc.etc.

I thought I reap somewhere that Smart-1 was supposed to image the Apollo landing sites and the Russian landing site?

Maybe I missed the press releases.



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
SMART-1 will photograph the apollo 1 site. But the pictures have not been taken yet, it has only been stated that SMART-1 will take these pictures



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 01:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by bpletcj
Ya but why not disclose the scientific data Huygens collected? Chemical composition, temperature, etc.etc.


Quite simply because 99% of it is complete crap until its been processed and the general public cant really process the data. A lot of the information has been released to the scientific community and you can ask the Huygens team for the data if you want it.

www.sciam.com...
www.sciencedaily.com...
www.macnewsworld.com...

A lot of data has been released:

Raw images -
esamultimedia.esa.int...

Sounds -
www.esa.int...



I thought I reap somewhere that Smart-1 was supposed to image the Apollo landing sites and the Russian landing site?

Maybe I missed the press releases.



Smart-1 only started taking close images on January 27th 2005 and started imaging the landing sites from 7th March 2005 - so dont expect these to immediately be available, especially since it isnt certain the sites can be seen.

www.esa.int...



posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:24 PM
link   
That makes sense, I thought they started imagine in January. Didn't realize it just started.

I figured it would take a few months. Didn't mean to jump the gun there.

Thanks again.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join