The End of U.S. Manned Spaceflight Looms Ever Closer

Space Daily ^ | 7/10/03 | Jeffrey F. Bell

[Paul Ross]

Sigh. NASA continues to fritter away time and money.

[Support Free Republic]

These Guys Don't Want You To Donate!
	Tick them off! Donate Here By Secure Server Or mail checks to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD- It is in the breaking news sidebar!

[DoughtyOne]

Following the model of all problem government agencies, look for NASA to be renamed, duties diversified under several subtitles and the whole mess declared cured.

Hey it worked for the INS. All problems with illegal immigration and problematic immigration from terrorist states have been resolved.

[Paul Ross]

Ping.

[AndrewC]

Hmm. Are we to cede our technological advantage? Or was it illusionary all along. I kinda figured "American" would be spoken on Mars someday, but maybe it will be French.

 

 

 

 

 

NOT!

[yankeedame]

Once again, NASA has proposed to develop a replacement for the troubled Space Shuttle. This year's project goes by the ungrammatical moniker "Orbital Space Plane". An interim version of OSP called the CRV (Crew Rescue Vehicle) to ...

Cheeze louise! "Orbital Space Plane"?? "Crew Rescue Vehicle"?? This stuff sounds like it comes straight off Thunderbirds Are Go!....and the mental image that goes with it.

Look, you pencil necks at NASA, like or not PR is the name of the game- its how you get money, support, backing, you name it. Get yourself a top notch PR firm. Have them polish up your image - big time - and, for the love of pete, get better names for your goods and services!

[KellyAdmirer]

NASA should be abolished after evacuating the space station, the shuttles sent to the museums where they belong, and NASA's entire budget (INCLUDING the useless space probes that the Gang that Couldn't Keep Meters and Yards Straight keeps sending up) should be redirected toward encouraging and supporting private space initiatives.

I don't think the bureaucrats understand that our system of capitalism and free enterprise is our advantage over the dictatorships, communists and welfare states that challenge us. Trying to out-bureaucratize command economies like China is not a good idea in the long run.

Give a $10 billion prize to the first outfit that perfects a reusable launch vehicle with commercial prospects (tourism alone should suffice), and let's see how long it takes!

[DoughtyOne]

The shuttle was designed 40 years ago. NASA has no idea what they are going to replace it with. Please tell us how you spin that one for success.

That's only one of many many issues NASA hasn't even a third grade level response for.

We landed on the moon in 1969. We haven't been back since the early 1970s. Our first Mars mission will probably be after 2050 or thereabouts. Even then we'll
probably visit, cut and run.

Outside of high-school level experaments, I'm at a loss to figure out what the shuttle has been good for. We fixed the Hubble and one or two other satellites. While
I like that, was it worth the expense? If it would have been used as a stepping stone vehicle, to move at least some of the human race off planet, I'd support it.
Instead it seems like a enormous failure. BTW, I don't count two to five people on a space station in danger of never being completed to be a shining success. No
this is not the example of moving people off the planet I had in mind.

We have a space station designed with pre 1950s ideas. Even Disney and Stanley Kubrik knew about artificial gravity. We know of the problems with bone loss,
yet didn't incorporate artificial gravety into the design. We could have achieved weightless structures along-side a facility with gravity. We didn't bother.

I could go on. The list is longer than my arm.

We developed the space program, entered space and landed on the moon in a little over ten years. In thirty-four years since, what have we done? Thirty-four
years!!!

[DoughtyOne]

Yeeeeup! I totally agree. I'd make one stipulation though. The Loral-like corporation that passes on one national security secret should have it's executives taken out back and shot!

[RoughDobermann]

In thirty-four years since, what have we done? Thirty-four years!!!

Well, NASA have managed to have two pretty spectacular boo-boos in the last thirty years... And to think that all those 14 people were involved in some pretty significant research when they died. I, for one, truly believe that we MUST know how microgravity affects plant growth...

[snopercod]

The author of this piece made a number of serious errors of fact, and several omissions. I stopped reading about half way through.

The shuttle does have RTLS capability, although it's never been used.

The fact that two shuttles have been lost in 120 missions in no way predicts that we will lose a shuttle every 60 missions. Both losses were due to design deficiencies, one of which has been corrected, and the other will be.

The Titan IV has just as much lift capability as the shuttle. I don't know where this bozo got his numbers.

The author didn't even mention orbital planes at all (at least in the first half that I read) - he should have explained that AlGore killed the manned space program when he and Chernomyrdin insisted that the ISS be in the 51 degree orbit. We lose over 30% of our lift capablity by being forced to launch into that orbit. Not much we can do about it now, though...

[JOE6PAK]

..."AlGore killed the manned space program when he and Chernomyrdin insisted that the ISS be in the 51 degree orbit. We lose over 30% of our lift capablity by being forced to launch into that orbit". ...

I am a true dunce about this. Could you explain this to me in simple terms.

[Paul Ross]

We have to launch the Shuttle from the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. From that latitude, the orbital alignment is significantly at variance from the orbital alignments of launches from Tyuratam, in the former Soviet Union. For the sake of Russian participation, so their Soyuz could rendezvous with the ISSS, we parked it in an orbit considerably more congruent with their most-economical orbital orientation.

To move the Shuttle from its most-economical orbital orientation (i.e., it's initial post-launch orbital insertion), the Shuttle's vector for insertion has to be directed away from its optimal West-East alignment which gives it a hefty 'centrifigal' boost, and allows it to go either higher in orbit or carry more payload. PLUS a heavy series of burns of the OMS engines is required to reposition the orbit. And then, when ready to leave, this positioning with the ISSS has to be UNDONE with even more OMS burns just to get things ligned up for re-entry and landing at the Cape...

[Paul Ross]

I was wondering about that. As for the Shuttle's RTLS capability it seems likely it will never be tested....anything major enough to cause an abort usually is terminal--instantly. This might be different in the event of a different approach.

What this article did do for me was give me a clearer understanding, if not misconcieved, what the weight consequences are, and why the ballistic return is so much more cost-effective than with wings.

I too thought the extrapolation of failure rates and losses of the space-craft was way too cavalier, and unscientific.

[narby]

The bias in this article toward expendable rockets is sad.

Space flight was done with rockets for one reason only. Because the Vaughn Braun's of the world got the inspiration to ride rockets in the late 20's before high performance aircraft began to knock on the door of real space flight.

The ineficiences of lifting a vehicle straight up using thrust, totally using on-board oxidizers, when there's plenty of O2 in the air is staggeringly stupid.

The energy efficiency of launching horizontally using wings, and why not return the same way cause we've got the infrastructure, is the obvious answer.

A proposal I saw 20 years ago would still be better than all this junk. Take a 747 and stick a single Shuttle main engine on the tail. And put a small shuttle style vehicle on the roof powered by shuttle manuvering engines. Accelerate the 747 above the atmosphere (supersonic flight would only be necessary in extreemly high altitude, thin air), kick off the small orbiter and away you go. The entire project uses existing equipment, except for the orbiter.

I think this was a NASA proposal, so it had to have been at least marginally possible to pull off.

[RightWhale]

Not much we can do about it now, though...

The ISS orbit could be changed. No big deal, except the Russians would then have the launch burden.

[The Duke]

One of my late granddad's favorite sayings was ... "Can't never could do nothin'!"

[Physicist]

Previous thread.

[Paul Ross]

Dang! This did NOT show up on the search engine when I looked! Sigh.

Well, if its any consolation, it does look like there is more serious discussion here.

Timing is everything--George Burns

[JOE6PAK]

Thank you Paul. But as RightWhale posted,why CAN'T we boost the ISS into a higher orbit. Or would this "Screw the Rooskies".