Direct (Jupiter) v. Ares...the debate continues

[Zatnikitelman]

Every thing you mentioned could have easily been launched by an EELV. The heaviest object, Kibo weighs around 14k kg. Attach a small thruster package to it and Kibo could auto-dock just like Zvezda did to Zarya.
What do you need for servicing? Just a small pressurized space with a lightweight truss-platform in back and a robotic arm. Propulsion doesn't need too much either assuming no large plane change maneuver.
STS was an "all-in-one" type vehicle. NASA launched a crew module, and a large payload all in one shot. That's comparable to sticking a large cargo hold on the back of a large cruise ship.

 

[Kyle]

True that, but saying the shuttle is useless and pathetic is just plain not true. And Chandra was the largest thing and heaviest ever shot up by a Space Shuttle, I heard that a Space Shuttle can carry more than a Delta IV.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

Sorry, I forgot to include Chandra's IUS. Yes, at 22,753 Kg, it was the heaviest payload launched by the Shuttle, but an EELV could use some its second stage for the final orbital insertion, and possibly a smaller 3rd stage depending on total vehicle performance.

 

[Moonwalker]

Well, the Russians have "only rockets" since ever and have space stations and all that since the 1960s, so I suppose yes...

And don't forget Skylab, which didn't need any Shuttle to be placed and operated in LEO. In my point of view this was a much more amazing space station than Mir and ISS together.

Ending the whole Saturn era was a mistake in my point of view. Using Skylab to enhance long duration experience in space while developing a bigger Apollo capsule and lander for Moon landings past Apollo 18 would have made more sense. Throwing away Apollo and Skylab to develope STS which didn't bring us really closer to what we are going to pick up again in about 10 years is a real pain to me.

Skylab and Apollo remains unbeaten by far anyway...

EDIT: But the whole stuff also shows the good capabilities of NASA. They did amazing things in the past, inlcuding the Shuttle of course. And I think it will continue with Ares 1 and Ares 5. Four people on the lunar surface for 7 days will be awesome. The only bad thing is the 50 year gap between Apollo 17 in 1972 and Orion around the Moon past 2020.

 

[Insane]

The way I see it, either NASA will figure out the oscillation woes they're currently experiencing with Ares I, and get it in production, or they'll admit their mistakes and look at viable alternatives. Either way I see Orion happening, the US surely won't like not having their own access system to Space, and I doubt they'll stick with a troublesome rocket design so long that it puts them 5 years behind schedule. While they quite possibly may be letting pride get in the way of logic at the moment, I don't see how it can go on much longer if the situation doesn't improve.

Little question though - say in mid 2009, NASA gives up on Ares I: how long would it take to get the other launch system (don't know which is most likely myself, any offers?) adapted and ready for Orion? Past 2015? I have no expertise at all in this but I realise it isn't as simple as plonking the capsule on top of another rocket, but would it lengthen the target moon return date significantly? How would Ares V be affected (cancelled??)? Cheers for any answers.

As for the shuttle - I don't think anything can be considered a waste. If you focus on what it has achieved, I think its done a fine job - over 100 successful launches, helped build a spacestation, took some interesting stuff up into orbit, and gave us an insight into how to build a spaceplane. It wasn't designed up to the potential that perhaps could have been reached, but since when have humans done everything perfectly? Its a lesson, there are good things about the shuttle and bad things, hopefully we'll learn from them with future designs. While capsules may be the best option for the short term, I would say that the future of earth to orbit (and return) crew transfer would be a fully reusable winged shuttle. Might take a while but we'll get there in the end.

Here's looking forward to going to the moon though

 

[GregBurch]

Using a tug to bring a satellite to a space station is not very effective as the docking of the crew + spare parts + bring the satellite to the station is with current technology more expensive as bringing a EVA work platform with spare parts and crew directly to the satellite.

At least as described, I just don't see what you've said as self-evidently true.

 

[Andy44]

While STS certainly was a failure in terms of cost effectiveness and safety design, it was a technical success and has capabilities no capsule system can match.

Someone mentioned separating the cargo lift from the personel lift systems instead of doing both as with STS. Having both the payload aboard and the crew to operate it, service it, or deploy it is the strength of an STS-type system. While the Russian program has had success building stations using unmanned rockets, each module has to be its own self-contained spacecraft with guidance and propulsion. STS-delivered modules come with a construction crew and a space tug (the orbiter).

STS also allows for the return of large objects from space to a gentle landing. Although not often used for more than non-deployable payloads like Spacelab, it is a nice capability to have nonetheless.

So the concept of a large cargo shuttle is not a bad one. The curse of STS is poor execution of an otherwise sound concept.

And I don't think the world has seen the last of the spaceplane idea.

 

[Spicer]

The russians are working on the Parom tug to do just that now. It's an effective way to work with large objects in space.

The Space Shuttle is an amazing piece of technology that has been updated to attempt to keep up with today's tech. I can't see any doubt in that. It was ahead of its time when it was designed, it was, however flawed.

Now it is a piece of 35 year old tech that really is a "white" elephant. I'm attached to the darn program...I'm 31 years old, and in my lifetime the US has never launched a person into space on anything but the shuttle.

It is larger than any other "orbiter" ever launched. No other orbital return vehicle ever launched is as large. Give the STS its props...it is amazing.

 

[nasakid]

Which again shows: Not all drawn on a napkin is automatically good.

Well I Drew A Model Rocket On A Napkin And It Launched Fine! (Both Napkin And Rocket!) :lol:

 

[Kyle]

Not like we can shoot up an Ares V every 2 months to get a new module up.

 

[Urwumpe]

At least as described, I just don't see what you've said as self-evidently true.

Well, I take my data from the OTV project, which was about the most bad-ass space tug you can get with current technology. The engine of it is even more effective as the SSMEs, by operating at higher chamber pressures.

There, the servicing of the reusable tugs also adds to the scenario of maintaining satellites.

 

[Native Son]

What I am concerned about is the integrity of the VSE itself. We could possibly have a repeat of the Apollo program where our missions are limited to a small number. With the amount of funding required to develop Ares I plus Ares V, we could be very well jeopardizing our future of space exploration. We may never step out beyond the Earth's SOI in the next few decades as planned, because the NASA administration is making poor decisions and not performing to the levels required by Congress for the VSE.

There are alternative and opportunities knocking at the door, but the NASA administration is stubbornly refusing to answer.

 

[GregBurch]

Well, I take my data from the OTV project, which was about the most bad-ass space tug you can get with current technology. The engine of it is even more effective as the SSMEs, by operating at higher chamber pressures.

There, the servicing of the reusable tugs also adds to the scenario of maintaining satellites.

At this point in the discussion, we enter the land of true "if-history," because the only refutation I can offer to your last observation is the alternative scenario in which a plan was implemented to build a true space infrastructure. This would include low-cost non-man-rated launchers for fuel transfer, and a fuel depot.

All of which would have required the space policy apparatus to have a lot of foresight. But the foresight was available -- all one would have had to do was look back to the von Brraun / Ley plans from the 1940s and 1950s.

Musing on this over a first cup of coffee, I think my generation has the major influence of having their first introduction to the "Big Picture" of space development in the "Colliers" pictures. On long, hot summer days, my mother would sometimes use the public library as a baby sitter (not uncommon in those days). With an older brother there to make sure I stayed out of trouble, this was a viable option for my mom.

Anyway, there are some formative hours for me and others of my generation, sitting and staring at the Bonestell paintings in the von Braun-Ley books. It's hard not to escape such a rational, but stirring depiction of how things were supposed to have been done.

 

[GregBurch]

We may never step out beyond the Earth's SOI in the next few decades as planned, because the NASA administration is making poor decisions and not performing to the levels required by Congress for the VSE.

As Obi-wan said, "There is another." NASA may have succumbed to the Dark Side, but there is a New Hope.

 

[Urwumpe]

Anyway, there are some formative hours for me and others of my generation, sitting and staring at the Bonestell paintings in the von Braun-Ley books. It's hard not to escape such a rational, but stirring depiction of how things were supposed to have been done.

Or play World of 2001 and realize how close to real technology this is.

 

[Andy44]

Or play World of 2001 and realize how close to real technology this is.

Yes, but 2001 had a real space shuttle, with stewardesses and an airline logo and all! And that was the first realistic depiction of space flight I was exposed to growing up.

 

[GregBurch]

The Day of Doom approaches:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/more-rumblings.html

 

[Kyle]

The Day of Doom approaches:

http://blogs.orlandosentinel.com/news_space_thewritestuff/2008/08/more-rumblings.html

No, thats the day of hope. That means they are considering a Direct like vehicle.

 

[Insane]

Where the article says it would use "the shuttle’s two four-segment solid rocket boosters, and a liquid engine with four RS-68 engines and no upper stage", is this more similar to the "stumpy" design that was around a year or two back than the direct proposal?

EDIT - Don't worry, just checked and they don't use an upper stage on Direct until the lunar missions either.

 

[movieman]

I know one of the two (Delta I believe) follows a non-optimal ascent profile that results in over 5G's at launch.

And they already demonstrated that they could change the profile to safely launch a CEV.

They aren't exactly proven designs. 1 with a 50% success/failure, 1 unlaunched.

The Saturns weren't exactly proven designs either; and I seem to recall that Atlas had failed a couple of dozen times before Glenn sat on top of one. That's why the astronauts have escape rockets.

For that matter, 'Ares' is nothing like a proven design either. It certainly appears to have far more technical problems than the EELVs.

I'm not aware of any good technical reason not to launch on an EELV. Direct at least serves some purpose in launching a larger payload, whereas Ares I is basically just a jobs program with minimal room for performance improvements.