Another change in plans for the Shuttle successor?

[JLM]

this shuttle doesn't really need to land on the moon. the lander can be stored in the PLB. and fuel isn't the problem - you can modify the ET so that it will work almost like the B-58 Hustler centerline tank - two halfs and you can jettison the bottom half once it is empty.

Or you could just have two big external tanks. side-by-side?

[Steven]

this shuttle doesn't really need to land on the moon. the lander can be stored in the PLB. and fuel isn't the problem - you can modify the ET so that it will work almost like the B-58 Hustler centerline tank - two halfs and you can jettison the bottom half once it is empty.

Or you could just have two big external tanks. side-by-side?

Way too much weight.

[JLM]

Okay, then somehow make the Shuttle vehicle lighter in weight?

Maybe mostly carbon fiber, and maybe some titanium alloy.

And a few areas made of steel and aluminum.

[Steven]

Okay, then somehow make the Shuttle vehicle lighter in weight?

Maybe mostly carbon fiber, and maybe some titanium alloy.

And a few areas made of steel and aluminum.

She would also have to come into reentry as she does now.  Carbon Fiber would never stand up to that kind of heating.

[desktopsimmer]

Carbon fibre, under that heat and vibration, it would de-laminate very quickly

[spaceboy7441]

Guys don't forget that we should (In Theory) think logical and what a lot of peaple forget is that it must be within a cost range.

[Twabi2]

Indeed, if you're going to rebuild the entire space shuttle out of a different material, you might as well design a completely new system...

[JLM]

I have a few ideas with heat insulation upon reentry for the second generation space shuttle. Why not have the ablative insulation material like on the Apollo spacecraft put over on top of the thermal protection tiles which would make it safer, and prevent a lot of damage from the external tank foam falling off and striking the Shuttle?

And second, somehow create a weak magnetic field around the shuttle that is strong enough to deflect the plasma. Here is what I mean:

(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics))In physics and chemistry, plasma is a partially ionized gas, in which a certain proportion of electrons are free rather than being bound to an atom or molecule. The ability of the positive and negative charges to move somewhat independently makes the plasma electrically conductive so that it responds strongly to electromagnetic fields.

[davidrobinsonjr]

The Shuttle is aerodynamically pretty sensitive. An ablative material might work for re-entry but it has to fly once back in the atmosphere. Not sure if that wold work with the rough surface that would result. Also it probably would add to much weight.

I am not a physicist, but the magnetic feild would probably require alot of power even a weak one. Sounds like alot of weight with todays or even near future technology.

[RMS Driver]

I see what yiu are saying about the magnetic field, but the tech. does not yeat exisit. They are going to use small magnetic fields in nuclear fusion reactors to keep the plasma away form the interior of the reactor. However, AFAIK this type of tech is still 10+ years away.

Also, if you wanted to protect the TPS more, the way to go would be to shape the ET to fit against the underside of the shuttle. It would still be covered in foam, but it would not ba able to fall off and strike the TPS since it would fit against the underside of the shuttle.

Here's a good example:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh-ELmXUq70&feature=related at 2:00

[JLM]

Nice Video. I wonder why NASA didn't think of that before(fitting the external tank around the underside of the shuttle.)

[fwagner]

At issue is the Ares series of rockets, currently being built to carry crew and supplies to the International Space Station, the moon and possibly Mars. These rockets have been plagued by questions over their design and cost, and are unlikely to be ready until 2015, leaving a gap in astronaut-launch capability if the space shuttle retires in 2010 as expected. The Ares programme looks likely to be reviewed by the new US administration.

A possible alternative to Ares that was mooted last year and now appears to be facing fresh scrutiny would be to use Atlas V or Delta IV rockets to carry astronauts. These are mainly used by the US military to loft heavy satellites but could both be modified to become "human rated".

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126902.400-obama-team-to-raise-questions-over-ares-rocket.html?DCMP=OTC-rss&nsref=online-news

They make a good point. Why invent the wheel twice?
Or even better: just take some superglue, a space shuttle and an Atlas V, put together in a bowl, stir... Tadaa! You're now ready to go to the moon

NASA Will never do this because they are to busy thinking inside the box instead of being innovative. Hell they should of redesigned the shuttle along time ago. Like replacing aluminum with carbon fiber  composites where applicable and find an replacement for the tiles.

[RMS Driver]

Another thing you have to remember is that the world is a very different place than 28 years ago when the shuttle was first launched. Humans had only been flying in space for 20 years at this point, and there were barely any commercial space companies, let alone ones who could design and build rockets. NASA no longer needs a heavy-lifting vehicle to go to LEO, because they have the Atlas and Delta rockets to do that now. They are safer, cheaper, and since they are expendable do not require lengthy downtime as the Shuttles do.

[JLM]

Based on this article in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Space_Shuttle_program

This is a list of things that shuttle is supposed to do:

1.launch crew members
2.launch payload and carry home payload
3.Cheaper costs on maintenance (failed to do this)
4.Perform experiments in biology, and life sciences and human response to zero gravity
5.Study how things could be manufactured in space
6.launch and repair satellites.
7.Land on runways like a conventional airplane
8.reusable
9.dock with space station


Things to get rid of and change in order to just have a crew craft:

Get Rid of:
1.launch payload and carry home payload
2.perform experiments in biology and life sciences and human response to zero gravity (that is what the ISS is for)
3.study how things can be manufactured in space (once again, that is what the ISS is for.)
4. launch and repair satellites

Keep it:
1. launch crew members
2.cheaper costs on maintenance
3.Land on runways like a conventional airplane.
4.reusable
5.dock with space station

[gablau]

I didn't log on for several weeks. First I browsed through this entire section.
Here are some remarks.

The original idea behind the Space Shuttle: that the entire operation will be much cheaper, being reusable. That has miserably failed for many different reasons.

Opposed to some other posters who indicated that political issues shouldn't be included are wrong, because they are included. They are, because financial reasons play a major role in the space program. Obama even made some remarks about the possible downscaling of the space program. The country is currently not in a financial shape to research the origin of the universe and other, mostly theoretical and/or philosophical issues, costing billions.

Return to the Moon? Why? For a few more bags of rocks? Anyone could claim any other reasonable possibilities? A Moon base? Give me a break. The ISS, since its inception, is basically spending most of its time to keep the thing going, repair what is broken, being put together. For more than a decade (and it is not done). And it is "right next door", not on the Moon. Go to the Mars by 2050? Give me even more break. Yes, we have the technology that people could go there, but we don't to bring them back. Surely, there is no reason for a mission which hauls 3 people there, out of which 2 would land on Mars, collect some sand/rocks and come back. What else promising is there what some robot couldn't currently do?
Surely, they won't be able to take some vehicle, which would allow them to roam the planet for weeks, months and do some proper research. Which would aim exactly for what at this point? We safely know that there is no developed life there. So what if they find some microbe, besides some highly theoretical answer we would get? Life elsewhere exists? Whoopi doo. Then what?

In my not so humble opinion, mankind is kind of stuck on planet Earth, and while its curiosity may one day take it to Mars, even some moons of the Jupiter or Saturn, all are likely to be practical dead end streets. To think outside of our solar system at this point is science fiction. For any such serious thoughts mankind would have to INVENT a totally new means of propulsion. Unfortunately, even a near speed of light vehicle wouldn't allow much outside of our solar system exploration. Thus we can only hope for some currently unknown law of physics which one day allows mankind to travel true galactic distances.

In the meanwhile we are stuck in Earth orbit.