How would you improve the Shuttle design?

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

The idea that manned missions are much more effective has several flaws, the most glaring of which is this: 1000x the rocks does NOT mean 1000x the science. The first Kg of material returned from mars will advance our knowledge more than all the other material ever returned. You could pick over the entire moon in microscopic detail and still do less for our understanding of our solar system than a single high resolution photo of a comet.

To put it simply, the best way to explore is to simultaneously go in as many directions as possible. With present levels of technology and funding that means robots, not people.

[NASAFanboy]

Yes, because working towards the latter goal ensures no missions will happen at all, and probably with good reason considering the enormity of the costs that would be involved. Might as well get some science out of it.

This brings up the debate of Colonization vs Exploration.

Look, the public needs a selling point. So does Congress. Unless it is a major breakthrough, they don't give a crap about it. They need a selling point, something to CONVIENCE them that their program is doing something to fulfill their always far-away dreams of sci-fi.

If you cut the manned program, you could expect a major cut in NASA's budget. Also, the blow would be devestating to American prestige and world power, at home and overseas. It would dramatically cut interest in space, and technically doom the agency. So, in the long run, that would mean no missions at all.

Think of manned missions as heavy-duty PR, with some science to go along with it. Think of robotic exploration as the dirty work, the behind-the-scenes, for science. Put them toghter.

Its worth the agency to cut some science for PR. They need PR for the budgets and to survive.

[NASAFanboy]

The idea that manned missions are much more effective has several flaws, the most glaring of which is this: 1000x the rocks does NOT mean 1000x the science. The first Kg of material returned from mars will advance our knowledge more than all the other material ever returned. You could pick over the entire moon in microscopic detail and still do less for our understanding of our solar system than a single high resolution photo of a comet.

To put it simply, the best way to explore is to simultaneously go in as many directions as possible. With present levels of technology and funding that means robots, not people.

Yes, but people are superior in every way to robots. If we are going to become a space-faring spieces in this century (If we don't, I can call my entire life a failure), we need to get our comrades out there, exploring. Manned missions are the PR of every agency.

[Holo]

Yes, but people are superior in every way to robots. If we are going to become a space-faring spieces in this century (If we don't, I can call my entire life a failure), we need to get our comrades out there, exploring. Manned missions are the PR of every agency.

Well except for the fact that we need food, water, air, psychological stimulation, communication, etc.

[Kryten]

They also insist on coming back. Bunch of moaners I say.

[brooksy125]

Well except for the fact that we need food, water, air, psychological stimulation, communication, etc.

Yes but humans don't have to be remotely programmed unlike robots, think of curiosity it has to move at a gruellingly slow pace and it can take put three minutes for new instructions to be relayed, humans can think independently and continue with their tasks even if comms with earth are lost.

[NASAFanboy]

Still, we need them to be the face of the agency, the heros of the people, the PR agents.... We need manned space-flight for our agency to survive.

[Kryten]

Manned space flight is killing your agency. Congesspeople vote for the budgets they think are cost-effective, and putting people on Mars is pretty much universally agreed by them to not be. You've effectively fallen into the trap of becoming dependent on ridiculously expensive missions that either won't, or in the worst case shouldn't, ever happen. You've already had to cut out your actual PR, and actual planetary science is about to be completely gutted. NASA isn't going to produce anything other than debt if you keep this up.

[DerekL1963]

Why are you assuming the slow pace of rovers is due to them working slower, rather than simply scrutinising every tiny thing they come across?

Why are you assuming the slow pace is because they're scrutinizing every little thing they've come across? In any event, I'm not assuming - I've actually read the books on the books on the rovers, follow the mission reports, etc... If you read Roving Mars you'll find an account of how it took four days to move one of the rovers around to photograph all sides of a rock. Four days to do what a human being could do (even suited) in a matter of minutes.

[NASAFanboy]

Manned space flight is killing your agency. Congesspeople vote for the budgets they think are cost-effective, and putting people on Mars is pretty much universally agreed by them to not be. You've effectively fallen into the trap of becoming dependent on ridiculously expensive missions that either won't, or in the worst case shouldn't, ever happen. You've already had to cut out your actual PR, and actual planetary science is about to be completely gutted. NASA isn't going to produce anything other than debt if you keep this up.

We cut it, and the interest budget drops like a rock.

[Kryten]

There is no interest budget. Look at Apollo; you had your precious PR, your footprints and flags, and the budget got cut to the bone.

[NASAFanboy]

There is no interest budget. Look at Apollo; you had your precious PR, your footprints and flags, and the budget got cut to the bone.

The missions galvanized the entire nation. We doubled the amount of science graduates. The space program started to think further, bolder, and better. We got started dreaming. The people's support ramped up.

Now, after 50 years of doing no manned explorations beyond LEO, NASA is a joke. We got politicians squandering money, little public interest, few who want to go into the Agency, rendering the program an inefficient, idiotic jobs program.

Manned exploration needs a devoted long-term effort. From everyone.

[Kryten]

And you think manned spaceflight for the sake of manned spaceflight is going to be anything other than an expensive jobs program? At this rate you're going to turn into Roscosmos.

[Fractal_UK]

Manned space flight is killing your agency. Congesspeople vote for the budgets they think are cost-effective, and putting people on Mars is pretty much universally agreed by them to not be. You've effectively fallen into the trap of becoming dependent on ridiculously expensive missions that either won't, or in the worst case shouldn't, ever happen. You've already had to cut out your actual PR, and actual planetary science is about to be completely gutted. NASA isn't going to produce anything other than debt if you keep this up.

Some research is expensive, this is not news. It does not automatically mean that that research is not worth doing. It is also not unusual for governments to be notoriously skeptical about spending on any large projects at the moment. Indeed, since the 80s many governments appear to have become seriously afraid of investing in any kind of large scale infrastructure, for example. Governments have a tendency to look at these large projects, be they in infrastructure, research, etc. and see huge cost savings while failing to remember that these projects are the ones that tend to actually produce significant economic return. Essentially, initial government investment tends to create new markets while private innovation tends to make them profitable but the second does not happen without the first.

It is worth remembering as well that governments have little incentive to actually plan extensively for the future, their primary interest is ensuring that things look good for the next election. No politician ever won any accolades for making the next 4 years a misery while setting up a flourishing economy for the next 40. You should consider that when you consider how their cost calculus is made.

[NASAFanboy]

And you think manned spaceflight for the sake of manned spaceflight is going to be anything other than an expensive jobs program? At this rate you're going to turn into Roscosmos.

Keep going, and we are not going anywhere.

Stop debating, get this back on topic, and accept the fact we need humans to cooperate with robots to get off this rock.

You want knowledge, I want a space-faring race. Deal with it, us two fanboys are never going to change.

[ThePyrateCaptain]

So you basically have no idea what you are talking about? You just throw some sci-fi stuff into the conversation? Let me tell you that: the current engines and technologies that can be build, are fully capable of bringing us EVERYWHERE in the solar system. And if you think there is nothing to see in our beautiful sol-system you're just wrong. Go back watching your star wars movies but stop playing KSP.

FTOP PCJR QWWL AGSQ QFDI SOQP QQFN BTTQ UVQL CJVQ ZQXG CHOW TBZG KUSZ SACS KRFQ EIJ

And I mean every word of that.

ENIGMA

[RRoan]

Congesspeople vote for the budgets they think are cost-effective

This is just wrong. The only time congress gives a damn about spaceflight is when they can use it to get political brownie points, which means either spending a lot of money (in their own district) or doing their best to cut the budget to show they're serious about fiscal responsibility (but only if they don't have spaceflight-related jobs in their district).

Congress being involved in the minutiae of NASA's budget is the single largest problem the agency has.

[Frandsen]

Ejection seats, or cockpit ejectionsystem..

Better electronics, but 'simple' not all LCD screens ect, (KISS keep it simple stupid) basicly what they had befor, but with improved hardware, better systems, security.

ow.. and cupholders!

[DerekL1963]

Ejection seats, or cockpit ejectionsystem..

Are very heavy and pretty much useless for most of the flight. You can't use them on ascent as the SRB exhaust will fry them, and by the time the SRB's are gone, you're too high. They're really only useful during the last few minutes of flight when you're subsonic and only minutes from landing anyhow. Not to mention ejection seats won't work for the mid-deck crew... they've got no ejection path.

Better electronics, but 'simple' not all LCD screens ect, (KISS keep it simple stupid) basicly what they had befor, but with improved hardware, better systems, security.

Really? It's 2013 and you think it's an 'improvement' to use ancient steam gauges and controls to make everything *harder* to do? The glass cockpit *is* the better hardware and systems.

[Nibb31]

This thread is about the Space Shuttle, not about manned exploration of Mars. Let's bring it back on topic.

The only advantages of the STS compared to a crew-only vehicle were:

- Capability of carrying crew + cargo on the same: This was useful for the orbital assembly techniques developed for the ISS, but the Mir proved that you can actually build a space station with automated docking, so this wasn't necessary.

- 1000 mile landing crossrange: This was a military requirement, but not needed for civilian operations.

- Ability to retrieve and return broken satellites: This was tried once as a demonstration, but was not cost effective.

On the other hand, as a payload launcher and a crew transfer vehicle it was way too expensive. It had flight duration and payload limitations. It was useless for exploration and its side-mounted design was fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Any of its other LEO missions could be done either on the ISS (or any other space station) or with a crew-only capsule like Dragon. There is no need for a space shuttle, redesigned or not.

Any reusable spacecraft is only useful if the flight rate is high enough. Many people say that an SSTO spaceplane would bring launch costs down, but that is simply not true, because the main driver of cost is launch rate and there is simply no demand for an orbital launch every 2 or 3 days. If you built a reusable SSTO spaceplane, it would spend most of its time in a hangar waiting for a launch because there simply isn't a market for frequent launches.

A reusable SSTO spaceplane would cost billions to design, build, and maintain (even if it was technologically feasible) and simply wouldn't be competitive against cheap disposable launchers, or even cheaper reusable multi-stage launchers, even if you doubled or tripled the demand for orbital launches. What brings the cost down isn't reusability, it's demand. It will still be a while before a reusable spaceplane becomes cheaper than mass-produced disposable launchers.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Nibb31

[Fuzzy Dunlop]

Any reusable spacecraft is only useful if the flight rate is high enough. Many people say that an SSTO spaceplane would bring launch costs down, but that is simply not true, because the main driver of cost is launch rate and there is simply no demand for an orbital launch every 2 or 3 days. If you built a reusable SSTO spaceplane, it would spend most of its time in a hangar waiting for a launch because there simply isn't a market for frequent launches.

I'm not sure, the Soviets were launching R7 rockets to orbit 60+ times a year for most of the late 70s, and that's just one rocket family. If you could canabalise the entire global launch market (there are 7 launches sheduled for June, and another 9 in July, to give you some idea of the frequency we're talking about) that would probably provide sufficient demand.

More importantly your overlooking the fact that lower costs should increase demand. At the moment a private seat to the ISS will cost you $50m, and so the potential market is tiny. Knock a zero off that figure and you suddenly are affordable to up to a million playboys across the globe, that will support a pretty decent flight rate (of course you'd also need your own space station).

[Nibb31]

I doubt that the market for a $5 million orbital flight would by a million passengers. It would mostly be a couple of hundred, because billionnaires often have better things to do than to float around in a tin can for a week. They can also rarely take a month or two off to train for spaceflight. Let's imagine that you might be able to attract a few thousand customers.

The problem is that before offering orbital flight as a tourist attraction, you need to provide a place for them to go and things to see and do. The ISS won't cut it, because it only has 6 crew slots and those are owned by various governments. You will need to build an orbital hotel as a destination before you can offer cheap space flight. An orbital hotel capable of catering for 6 tourists would have to be comparable in size (and cost) to the ISS. Let's go wild and imagine that you manage to design and launch a smaller one for 1/10th the cost of the ISS, it will still be in the $10 billion range, before you can even consider space tourism as a viable business. With a 100% occupancy rate over a 20 year depreciation, you will still need to bill $3 million to your 3000 customers for a week stay at the hotel before you even start making a profit.

And we haven't even covered launch costs. This is the cost of some aerospace programs:

F-35: $40 billion

Northrop B-2: $40 billion

SLS: $18 billion

Airbus A380: $15 billion

Boeing 787: $15 billion

A reusable spaceplane would arguably incur a similar development cost (if even possible). However, the number of actual vehicles would be much lower than for example, an F-35 or A380 aircraft. The market could probably only support a fleet of 2 or 3 vehicles, which means that most parts would be one-offs and the maintenance costs would be extremely high. A single vehicle would arguably cost between 5 and 10 billion, which means that at $5 million the ticket over 6 passengers, you would have to launch each vehicle 300 times before you start making a profit. And I'm not even including budget overruns, maintenance costs, logistics, infrastructure, facilities, fuel, etc...

The total upfront cost for starting an attractive space tourism business would be in the range of $20 or 30 billion at least for only a handful of tourists. Good luck in finding an investor for that kind of upfront money.

It will be a looooong time before space tourism ever becomes a profitable industry. The costs would have to be divided by 1000, not by 10, before it even becomes feasible.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Nibb31

[Kerbface]

If we could reduce the cost of sending people to space from $50 million to 5, I'm sure the cost of building stations would be reduced too...

[Nibb31]

If we could reduce the cost of sending people to space from $50 million to 5, I'm sure the cost of building stations would be reduced too...

That's why I quoted a cost of less than 10% of the actual cost of the ISS. The question is, how do you reduce launch costs in the first place?

We are stuck in a chicken and egg problem really. You can't build a cheap method for getting to orbit as long as their is not enough demand for very frequent flights. And you can't get frequent flights as long as there is no cheap method for getting to orbit.

There is also the problem of not having a worthwhile destination for people in orbit, and nothing particularly enticing to do once you're up there. As for commercial launches, other than comsats, there isn't much use for space at all. Even if you reduce the cost of an orbital launch to $1000 per pound, new markets won't emerge over night because there simply isn't much to do in space, except science.

The only reasonable way forward is to progressively reduce the cost of conventional expendable and reusable multi-stage launchers by reducing development and manufacturing costs, while remaining profitable. This will take decades, but it's the only way to sustain a research and development effort and to allow any new markets to emerge.

[Rune]

This thread is about the Space Shuttle, not about manned exploration of Mars. Let's bring it back on topic.

The only advantages of the STS compared to a crew-only vehicle were:

- Capability of carrying crew + cargo on the same: This was useful for the orbital assembly techniques developed for the ISS, but the Mir proved that you can actually build a space station with automated docking, so this wasn't necessary.

- 1000 mile landing crossrange: This was a military requirement, but not needed for civilian operations.

- Ability to retrieve and return broken satellites: This was tried once as a demonstration, but was not cost effective.

On the other hand, as a payload launcher and a crew transfer vehicle it was way too expensive. It had flight duration and payload limitations. It was useless for exploration and its side-mounted design was fundamentally flawed and dangerous. Any of its other LEO missions could be done either on the ISS (or any other space station) or with a crew-only capsule like Dragon. There is no need for a space shuttle, redesigned or not.

Any reusable spacecraft is only useful if the flight rate is high enough. Many people say that an SSTO spaceplane would bring launch costs down, but that is simply not true, because the main driver of cost is launch rate and there is simply no demand for an orbital launch every 2 or 3 days. If you built a reusable SSTO spaceplane, it would spend most of its time in a hangar waiting for a launch because there simply isn't a market for frequent launches.

A reusable SSTO spaceplane would cost billions to design, build, and maintain (even if it was technologically feasible) and simply wouldn't be competitive against cheap disposable launchers, or even cheaper reusable multi-stage launchers, even if you doubled or tripled the demand for orbital launches. What brings the cost down isn't reusability, it's demand. It will still be a while before a reusable spaceplane becomes cheaper than mass-produced disposable launchers.

+1 on pretty much everything you say here. But I do have a couple of things to say on what you say later... ^^'

First, a space station doesn't have to cost as much as ISS did. Especially if its only operational requirement is having a certain number of crew. Depending on how much Bigelow charges, substantially less than a billion including launch costs and excluding operations cost. And Thales Alenia or Energia I'm sure would be willing to talk similar prices. Likewise the operations cost would be greatly reduced without the science and pioneering engineering, and all the hungry mouths to feed at the government side. In fact I think you can make greater cost saving than in launch vehicles right there.

But even in launch vehicles an incredible improvement can still be made. Look at SpaceX, and the only thing they did is get a handle on their supplier prices by doing it themselves. Imagine if you had a market for true mass production, that could lead to some advanced projects (like Skylon, I like that one) becoming suddenly profitable.

Rune. It's a chicken and egg problem right now, but you if you squint your eyes, can see dinosaurs starting to look like birds.