Not many people would try to drive an 24 year old American car coast to coast on Interstate 80 this summer, but thats a fair description of the launch of the Shuttle Discovery, built in 1981 and flown into space many times. Discovery is a well maintained antique that wont be retired until 2010. NASAs Return to Flight Task Group oversaw the implementation of 15 recommendations made after the Columbia breakup and Discovery is a much improved craft that is safer than any of its predecessors.
The shuttle is a flying truck with no military applications. NASA likes this, but when the Shuttle concept was first discussed (ancient history: the Nixon Administration) Air Force played a role in its design as people assumed that there would be military activities that the shuttle could perform. This was before it became clear that unmanned craft did better at everything in space.
There is still an attraction for a space plane or trans-atmospheric craft, albeit unmanned, that could be based in the United States and perform Afghanistan-like air bombardments without the need for expensive overseas deployments, bases, or multiple refueling. The latest program is called FALCON (Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States), part of a larger concept called Global Strike that guides Air Force thinking about its future role. FALCON phase I would be a hypersonic glider not really a space plane. FALCON phase II would be a reusable, sub-orbital UAV.
FALCON is the latest in a long line of hypersonic aircraft or space plane programs that the U.S. has started. Unlike the earlier efforts, which were usually abandoned somewhere in the middle of testing, this one may actually enter into service, in part because of the skills and technologies developed for long range UAVs like Global Hawk. Seeing FALCON as a space weapon excites arms controllers, but in its first phase, despite its long range and high altitude, its not really a space vehicle.
Falcon raises the question of whether the US civil space program should abandon reusable spacecraft and return to an Apollo-like single use vehicle like the planned CEV (cheaper, reliable, old fashioned). Note to space-race watchers: the Europeans recently announced they would support a new Russian plan for a space plane named Kliper that could replace the Soyuz capsule. Kliper would have the capabilities of a king-cab pickup truck (6 passengers, 1000 lbs. of cargo).
|
Unmanned is better
« « Urban surveillance networks | Buy or Build » »
Leave a Reply |
|
Quote:
“Not many people would try to drive an 24 year old American car coast to coast on Interstate 80 this summer, but thats a fair description of the launch of the Shuttle Discovery, built in 1981 and flown into space many times.“
Please.….what kind of comparison is that??? everything is relative.
How often you change something is based on how much that something costs.
Example: If you buy an mp3 you can replace it in a few years because of its low cost, you will replace your tv not as often, and (normally) you would keep your car longer then you would keep that tv, and you would keep your private jet longer then you would keep your car, and (if you had one) you would replace your spacecraft less often then you would replace you jet.
You have to view things that cost a lot of money in relative terms!
“You have to view things that cost a lot of money in relative terms!“
More fundamentally, you should also look at why it cost more initially and what its current replacement cost should be.
There has been a lot of progress made in the last few years on privately funded commercial space projects. Paul Allen’s Spaceship One demonstrator may not be a practical space platform, but it shows what a small company can be do with $20 million for a custom ship.
The design problems for orbital capability are an order of magnitude greater, but just think what you might be able to own if you took the $500 million that a single shuttle launch costs and plugged it into a competitive fly-off between, say, XCOR and Scaled Composites — $150 million each to produce a set of production-ready prototypes and a $200 million production contract to the winner. Sure, the resulting vehicle couldn’t haul 25 tons into orbit in one lift, but think about being able to routinely fly 60 or 70 “ash and trash” round trips with a 2– or 3-ton payload each year, with a ground-support team numbering dozens (not hundreds).
Quote:
“Not many people would try to drive an 24 year old American car coast to coast on Interstate 80 this summer, but thats a fair description of the launch of the Shuttle Discovery, built in 1981 and flown into space many times.“
“Fair comparison” my baby blue keester! If I had a 24 year old American car that was maintained by the Shuttle processing crew I would drive it anywhere with no fear.
The “FALCON” mat be fine for AF applications but NASA still needs a truck. Private space projects are also great but they will NEVER reach the cargo potential of the Shuttle. I agree that the STS is long in the tooth but that is NO reason to abandon the capability. Without the cargo in space, where will all of these private “space tourists” go? IMAX films, and Disney,can give the
tourists the same experience for a LOT less money.
In order to explore/exploit the rest of the Galaxy we need to start those mission outside of our little blue gravity well. That means the parts for this ship/vessel must be assembeled in orbit. How are we going to get the components into orbit without a space truck ?
Quote:
“Not many people would try to drive an 24 year old American car coast to coast on Interstate 80 this summer, but thats a fair description of the launch of the Shuttle Discovery, built in 1981 and flown into space many times.“
That’s part of the problem with our economy today. It’s a throw-away economy. I drive a 1981 Pontiac Phoenix. Just last year I drove said Phoenix from Maine to Illinois; I would have driven it to CA if that was where I was going. It made the trip with no problems. One of the reasons for that is that I do periodic maintenance on a daily basis. I take nothing for granted, not fluid levels, air pressure, etc. I have often hoped that our government would develop this type of thinking when spending my tax dollars, especially on the space program. The shuttle program is the best thing that they have come up with. It is reminiscent of the C130 & the B52, both workhorses of the USAF.
Drive 24 yr old (Or much older cars) coast to coast? These guys would.…
THE GREAT RACE 2005
http://www.landroverparts.us/GR05/greatracePartic.html
Interesting comments but we need to maintain our momentum. The issues of falling debris hitting the external fuel tank is one that may not be solved until they redesign the delivery system using modern technologies. Certainly we’ve learned something over the last 25 years that can solve these problems! Lets build in what we have learned at NASA. Military applications that exclude the manned component are folley! Look at the potential for tactical variations in weapons systems deployments and you can see the liabilities with solely unmanned deployments of such technologies as the Falcon.
If the Shuttle is so worn out, then why wont the “Powers That Be” Start flying something better? Because the congress of the USA wont break loose the money, they would rather spend it on something that will get them votes at home.
Okay, picture a saturn 5, with a payload of a hundred or more cruise missiles…
But if your launching you space/cruise missile platform how do you avoid trigering a nuclear alert…
The space shuttle is an old space dump truck that should have been replace long time ago, but NASA still want to use an old relic from the past. As far as I know, there were two major disasters that claimed human life with the space shuttles Challenger and Columbia. Are we going to wait for a third disaster and loss more human life to keep this old relic flying back into space? Don’t get me wrong, I think the space shuttle was an aerospace vehicle marvel back in the late 70’s and 80’s, but it need to be
replace with a newer one that will take us into the future for our space program, safer and more reliable than what we got right now.
We should have a good space program in some form or shape. The shuttle never delivered on its advertized cost per pound to deliver whatever and we clearly kept it operation past any reasonable safety limit. So be it, now it is time to move on to the next generation/phase of a meaningful space program. Our first problem is getting any poltics out of the process and letting our engineers and scientist have some maneuvering room. Good luck.
Now, the age of the aircraft cannot be compared to the likes of a family car for all kinds of reasons. Stress cycles, materials, weathering, maintainance and a mirriad of other things. Remember that the average age of civil aircraft is pretty large too, if you take data from http://av-info.faa.gov/GetFleetAge.asp (and pay attention to the disclaimer). The shuttle was also designed to make many more flights than it has. Hence, don’t use age alone as a basis for retirement.
Since shuttles are fairly individual craft with a range of novel manufacturing techniques you have to play by ear and observe any problems that may be occuring such as fatique based crack propogation, or indeed foam falling off, and if possible fix them.
I just hope the shuttle can work for its remaining lifespan with no further disasters.
I like this longer entry format where you give much more context… do more!
As long as I can’t afford a new vehicle NASA can do with what they have. Government programs have always been fat in the wallet for those “unforseen” items of urgent need. Well! I still works just fine! When my car breaks I fix it and always try to be more proactive to prevent any “unforseen” emergencies. The shuttles are (were) more than one and they don’t fly them daily like we do our cars. All those engineers can’t seem to fix old Humpty Dumpty. Why not ask an Air Force enlisted radio technician to do it. Oh, sorry they got outsourced to save money. Guess we need to throw it away and buy a new one. NOT!!! Fix the *#@!% thing already and move on.
The debris falling from the external fuel tanks has been called the foam insulation. Can someone tell me why there is insulation on components that do not go into space. I can understand ice but insulation.
From a non technical point of view isn’t it time to lock some bright (and not so bright) non space people into a room for a brainstorming session. Sometimes being to close to a problem blinds you to the obvious solution.
Yes, the space program should continue but with the KISS principle as the designing criteria for a new resuable spacecraft. The space plane is a first critical step in access and ferry people to space for eventually research, manufacturing, tourism and exploration. Goods could be launched using alternate technologies, such as, the RAIL GUN to low earth orbit. The energy needed could come from a nuclear reactor or new solar technology which keeps a kilowatt produced down to 50 cents.. see National Geographic.
The Breakthrough physics program needs to continue seeking alternate physics and technology to access space… The rewards in all areas of human endeavors will benefit with our pursuit and establishment of a permanent presence in the cosmos.
lou
I think its a great idea that the US seeks space supprimacy with vehicles like this “glider” and the technology for making a real spaceplane are not far away. Like f.eks. the pulse-detonation-engine, or the scramjet such techknolegys could easyly been used in a real spaceplane, that could strike anywhere on the globe in minuttes. I really hope Oncle Sam can pulled it off, because no other nation must be allowed to have these capabillytyes.
Hans-ole from Denmark.
The tank was insulated because florida is hot and they fill that tank with LOX Liquid Oxygen. The tank can’t sit filled up for long without the fuel starting to evaporate and expand. Most of what is seen falling from the vehicle on launch is ice that has collected on the tank. The engineers came up with a way to rapidly fill the tank moments before launch, and decided that the insulation would not be neccesary anylonger but the point is moot since the shuttle will never fly again.
Here’s answers to two points. First, foam insulation on the STS fuel tank is meant to prevent ice buildup due to the cold skin from the LOX and liquid hydrogen. But it doesn’t prevent all the build up and can come loose from moisture between it and the tank as tragically demonstrated. Also, the foam helps keep the tanks cool to prevent “boil off” or pressure build up of the lox and bagels, oops, fuel.
Secondly, the shuttle may seem twenty five years old and the technology even older to many amateurs. However, most of the major systems have been upgraded and even replaced with newer parts several times. It’s an ongoing program.
Consider this, we fly B-52s that are technically 40–50 years old which were conceived and designed during WW II. They too have been upgraded many times, even including the skins of the aircraft.
Useful topic
Thanks
I have found two interesting sources http://fileshunt.com and http://filesfinds.com and would like to give the benefit of my experience to you.