Boeing, Northrop May Have to Speed Shuttle Replacement Design

Bloomberg.com ^ | Feb. 2, 2003 | Edmond Lococo

[conservativecorner]

Washington, Feb. 2 (Bloomberg) -- Boeing Co. and Northrop Grumman Corp. may be asked to speed development of a replacement for NASA's aging fleet of manned spacecraft after the destruction of the 22-year-old Columbia shuttle yesterday, analysts said.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration in 2001 gave Boeing, Northrop and Orbital Sciences Corp. $26 million in contracts to design a spacecraft to replace the shuttle. The Columbia disaster leaves NASA with three manned spacecraft, which will be grounded while the accident is investigated.

[hopespringseternal]

The cost to design a complete shuttle replacement, which analysts estimated at as much as $30 billion -- twice NASA's annual budget -- would require approval from Congress. President George W. Bush said yesterday that the Columbia accident wouldn't end ``our journey into space.'' Based on existing plans, a replacement would likely come in 2020 at the earliest.

It all depends on how many bureaucrats and politicians feel the need to inject themselves into the process. This sounds like the ultimate worst case scenario, which is a best case for bureaucrats. They will try to make it as expensive as possible and take as long as possible.

[Moonman62]

The cost to design a complete shuttle replacement, which analysts estimated at as much as $30 billion -- twice NASA's annual budget...

$30 billion, that's about two years funding for Puerto Rico (the money goes in, but it doesn't come out), and about one third the total cost of the space station.

[csvset]

here's some images of proposed ideas.

The Boeing Company's concept for a Space Launch Initiative reusable launch vehicle.

Lockheed Martin's Space Launch Initiative systems and reusable launch vehicles. credit: Lockheed Martin

Northrop Grumman/Orbital Sciences Space Launch Initiative systems and reusable launch vehicles. credit: Northrop Grumman/Orbital Sciences

[ContemptofCourt]

Each shuttle was certified for 10 years or 100 missions. Columbia, first flown in April 1981, was on its 28th trip when it broke up over Texas Feb. 1 preparing to land at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The seven crew members were killed.

Discovery has had 30 flights. Endeavour first flew in 1992 and has notched 19 trips into orbit. Atlantis has had 25 flights.

I find this interesting....I believe that the original plan was to have each shuttle fly 10 missions a year...the current mission goal, for all of the shuttles combined, is 4 per year....

From a mechanical POV, the program now has 3 shuttles left, to fly approximately 80 more missions until 2020....and this is 1960's technology.....if these things are only certified for 10 years, they are all outside of their operational windows....

[jjm2111]

What is needed is that something that will take off and land as any ordinary aircraft.

I'm guessing here, but a powered descent at a smaller angle would create far less heat thereby allowing a smaller heat shield, reducing weight, and allowing more fuel. (Aren't those tiles heavy?). Launch would be much simplified w/out the need for booster rockets, external fuel tanks, etc.

However, the wings of my hypothetical spacecraft would need to support the vehicle in all levels of the atmosphere. The engines couldn't be anything we're currently using. Like I said, I'm no scientist.

[csvset]

I like the look of pic #3.

[anobjectivist]

Powered descent would be an huge waste of fuel, as it is a recurring cost, and not really that helpful. A shallower dive into the atmosphere is risky, as if the engine fails the space plane could skip off the atmosphere and enter an unwanted trajectory.

The original idea was to use an ablative heat shield (a material that is made to burn instead of structural materials, in effect taking the hit) but that was scrapped because it is too hard to remove after flight.

The cheapest solution would be to create some kind of acceleration track (which they are already working on, but from what I understand are not that funded) using a maglev to reach high speeds before leaving the ground. This would kill a huge amount of fuel costs, but the infrastructure would cost billions. However, a maglev built right could reduce enough costs for all space flight decades ahead, and would pay off within a few flights.

[daviddennis]

Is the reusable aspect of the shuttle worth the extraordinary costs?

I seem to remember that the Shuttle is horribly expensive compared to throw-away rockets, and by definition the throw-aways are always new and therefore don't have maintenance issues at all.

It doesn't seem to me that the Shuttle is being used enough for its reusability to be an economic advantage, so we should turn away from that type of gold-plated technology in the future.

I'm not saying we shouldn't go to space, just that we should go to space in a more cost-effective way that allows for more missions at the same or lower cost.

This article is also excellent food for thought.

D

[Doug Loss]

You want something like the Pioneer rocketplane.

[Ancesthntr]

(Aren't those tiles heavy?).

No, in fact they are very light. I saw a demonstration in 1981 of the capabilities of the tiles. The father of a girl in a production/operations management class that I was taking was an engineer working on the shuttle program. He brought in a broken tile (it had been dropped, and had some very small cracks), and applied a propane torch (approx. 3,000 degrees F.) to the same spot for about 5 minutes. That spot glowed cherry red. He took the torch off of it, and immediately put his hand on it. Nothing happened, because the tile had completely disbursed the heat. He then asked us how much we thought it weighed - the consensus was about 5 pounds (it was approximately 6" x 6" x 2.5" thick). It weighed less than 4 ounces.

Getting back to the main point - we definitely need a new vehicle. We can't let a few casualties, as heartbreaking as they are, stop progress. By that logic, we'd still be in the caves, debating whether to use fire. I don't really care what it costs, as the benefits to society (yes, including the tax effect years down the line) way more than justify the expense. The space program pays, despite the inefficiencies that attend every government program. And someday in the far future, it may pay a really huge dividend by giving us the technology to mine asteroids, develop unknown materials, deflect or destroy asteroids on their way to earth, etc. This isn't sci-fi, it is reality. My vote, for any Congressional staff that is lurking, is to spend lots more on space, beginning with a true spaceplane. We are the wealthiest country on the planet - why are we making due with 1960's technology? Don't our astronauts, and doesn't our nation, deserve better?

P.S. for lurkers: I'm not connected with the space program in any way, nor am I likely ever to be. I'm an estates and trust attorney - but I'm an American first, one who wants to see this nation continue to lead the world in all areas of technological development.

[upcountryhorseman]

I would suggest that the unmanned space program has
produced infinitely better results as far as pure
science is concerned. It seems to me the main purpose
of the manned space flights is PR. I think, because of
the poor economy, we could benefit from a cutback on manned
space flight.

[jjm2111]

Interesting points. It is my understanding that all our (our meaning humans) spacecraft are have very limitied maneuvering endurance once in orbit and their trajectories are planned way in advance.

From some of the other discussion threads, it seems that the orbiters take 4 months to prep for launch and do not have much in the way of maneuverability once in orbit.

I think, given the great leaps forward (pardon the expression) in technology in the past 40 years, we should have a vehicle that is capable of maneuvering once in orbit and being ready to launch in a few hours notice.

[jjm2111]

Yeah, 3 is one of the best looking ones.

[Lee'sGhost]

"The cost to design a complete shuttle replacement, "

Anybody know what the hell that means? Is that the cost of the design, or a shuttle replacement, or four shuttle replacements?

[jjm2111]

Thanks for the info on that tile. Very interesting.

I really do think the profit motive needs to be introduced into outer space. Space socialism might benefit the pure sciences (am I using that term correctly) and I don't deny NASA all of their accomplishments, but when people go into space because they think they can make money, space exploration will really pay off.

Hell, commercial sattelite launches are already becoming more and more commonplace. Sea Launch

[hopespringseternal]

All of them look pretty pathetic to me. You have to realize the primary goal of any aerospace company is to create something that means a lot of follow-on work for them.

The goal should be a launcher that a company could look at and envision a return on investment.

With the exception of very small craft, wings are a really bad idea. They are only useful for about 20 miles of a 300+ mile trip. On a large craft like the shuttle, they are a huge liability, complicating the structure and thermal protection while compromising a lot of strength.

[Rifleman]

A shuttle replacement is a really bad idea if those concept pictures are what they have in mind. We need a freight carrier and a space plane, two separate systems at least. Maybe even a "light lifter", a "heavy lifter" (both unmanned) and a "people lifter" (SSTO maybe?). Putting a crew on a vehicle that is just to carry payload is nuts, dangerous and expensive. Keep in mind that new rockets will be designed with 2003 materials and computer science. A properly managed project could probably have a launch vehicle putting up loads within a couple of years at a cost a fraction of the shuttle operating costs.

Those concepts look like they are designed to transfer max cash to the contractors rather than max payload to orbit.

[Ancesthntr]

I agree completely that the move must be made to commercial. The faster we get the gov't uninvolved, the better. I think that the perfect model is the discovery and development of the New World. It had to be government funded, along with the early colonization efforts. However, once enough people became aware that there were nearly limitless resources on this side of the Atlantic, commercial interests took over the primary responsibility of development. If you eliminate some of the negative aspects of the development (e.g. slavery and wars/genocides against the Indians), it really is the perfect model. All that applied then applies now and in the future regarding space. No, it won't be as hospitable an environment as another place on Earth was, but eventually large numbers of people will live off-planet. We still need the big gov't funding to get colonization started, and for more exploration of the Moon, Mars and the Asteroid Belt, but if done properly this phase will be completed within 30-50 years - then the capitalists should be unleashed.

[Oztrich Boy]

two separate systems at least.

Absolutely. The idea of an ummanned Heavy Lift launch vehicle built around the shuttle main engines and sold fuel boosters has been studied since 1976, and has always made sense. Except it would be too much competion for the shuttle capacity of 40 flights a year. The HLLV would only be justified if the space station was going to be built, and it wasn't.

Come the 90s, the the space station is going to be built, shuttle is only doing 4 flights a year, but "policy" made a committment to the shuttle alone back in the '80s and "policy" can't be changed.

With only 3 shuttles left. it's time to look at the HLLV again. the basic HLLV only requires design of a no-depost no-return cargo pod to replace the orbiter, and packaging the main engines with parachutes and an albative heat shield for return from orbit, and could be operational within 3-4 years.

Then fast-track the shuttle replacement for people transport. If it can be brought in service within 10 years there's a good chance of avoiding another shuttle loss in that timespan.