How would you improve the Shuttle design?

[The Jedi Master]

Reject the launcher altogether, make it an SSTO instead.

[NASAFanboy]

Robotic sample return would still be far cheaper than sending humans anywhere.

Personally, I support sending robots first, then using manned expeditions to construct semi-permenant/permenent outposts on the surface. Not the flags and footprints, but building outposts for more science.

Also, manned exploration convinces the public that their space program is actually DOING something. And in the world of democracy we live in today, that is the major selling point for the budget. Noone (Outside KSP and NASA) really listens/cares that much about robots.

Does anyone in my class know about Cassini? No. IRIS? No. James Webb? No. Curiosity? Long forgotten. Viking? Nope. Voyager? Maybe, but little chance. The 2020 Rover? Noone in my class knows about its mere existence.

Do people in my class know the STS? Yes. The ISS? Yes. Apollo 11? Yes.

[Kryten]

You convince people the budget is being spent wisely by spending most of it on the things that are least cost-effective? Are you a congressman by any chance?

[Canopus]

It is an actual proposed launcher.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System

Sorry i thought you were talking about the picture i posted:blush:

[GJames]

Robotic sample return would still be far cheaper than sending humans anywhere.

It would be far, far cheaper, but would you ever turn down a chance to fly to Mars and suggest they send a robot instead? I wouldn't, because it would be insanely amazing and your name would be remembered by billions of people for centuries to come. Would they remember a robotic mission? Probably not.

[NASAFanboy]

You convince people the budget is being spent wisely by spending most of it on the things that are least cost-effective? Are you a congressman by any chance?

No. I stated my support of robots as a human precursor to outposts and colonies. Think about it, the first expedition to the moon will be remembered for centuries, but everyone forgot Curosity after a few months.

NASA needs a selling-point, something to convience the public, to get them dreaming.

Manned spaceflight is the thing.

[Kryten]

Manned spaceflight is a black hole that's absorbing all the money that could be used for something useful. Look what Apollo actually did for NASA funding; it was cut down below the point they could sustain it before Apollo 11 even landed.

[GJames]

Kryten, just a quick question. Why do you play KSP if you think manned missions are a waste? Surely you must be interested and excited by the prospect of men landing on the Moon or Mars?!

[Kryten]

Because playing games isn't the same as allocating budgets. Do you think everyone who plays GTA is in favour of randomly shooting people?

[The Jedi Master]

I'm going to assume my idea was flawed in some horrid way?

[softweir]

SSTO is horribly difficult. The main problem is lifting into orbit ALL the engines and tanks that you need to move the first inch, which means the whole thing becomes ridiculously heavy. It might be possible with HTOL concepts such as Skylon which limit engine power to just that needed to fly off a runway, but not with VTOL. However the technology for Skylon is still in very early days and we have no idea how long it will be before it (or an alternative) comes to fruition. NASA can't wait, they have to make plans to produce systems with the technology available now, or that can be researched in the short-term.

[DerekL1963]

What's the point of doing those? Robots can explore far cheaper, and frequently better.

That's the theory. Unfortunately, existing evidence suggests otherwise - at a minimum, humans are far more flexible, can plan and execute repairs, and can improvise procedures on the fly. Examine the landings of Apollo 11 (headed into a dangerous landing area), Apollo 12 (manual reset of a circuit breaker during ascent, executed final corrections by eye that allowed a close landing to Surveyor 12), and Apollo 14 (failed landing radar) for some insights.

Robotic sample return would still be far cheaper than sending humans anywhere.

Far cheaper, yes. Actually cheap. no. It's still a very complex and difficult mission and it's not at all clear that robotics will be up to the task anytime soon.

[Kryten]

It won't be clear if they'll be up to it? They've been doing it since 1970. There's some very simple arithmetic involved in which is cheaper; if I want to return a rock sample; do I return the rock sample, or the rock sample and a person, who has to be kept alive?

[LaydeeDem]

More Explosions!!!

What the hell is wrong with you?!

[NASAFanboy]

It won't be clear if they'll be up to it? They've been doing it since 1970. There's some very simple arithmetic involved in which is cheaper; if I want to return a rock sample; do I return the rock sample, or the rock sample and a person, who has to be kept alive?

While humans are expensive, clumsy, and inefficient, but they can fix mistakes, perform check-ups and repairs, stray away from original mission to examine an analomy, and most importantly, they can think.

I think we should use an base on Deimnos or Phobos to serve as staging ground for a manned Mars landing....and to tele-operate and deploy robotical craft. This will likely happen in the future, as part of Lockheed Martins "Red Rocks Mission" (You won't be able to find much of this over the Internet.)

When we pair human and robot toghter, we get a great team.

[Kryten]

If we lose ten sample return missions due to mistakes easily fixed by humans for every one that works, that'll still be value for money, easily. Looking at actual missions, we've achieved a lot better than that.

[Holo]

The universe is probably littered with the one-planet graves of cultures which made the sensible economic decision that there's no good reason to go into space--each discovered, studied, and remembered by the ones who made the irrational decision.

Cost isn't the only factor in manned and unmanned missions

[Canopus]

Holo is right. We can't just stop manned space exploration just because it is expensive and dangerous. Where would that get us?

[Holo]

Holo is right. We can't just stop manned space exploration just because it is expensive and dangerous. Where would that get us?

Just Earth, probably.

[NASAFanboy]

If we lose ten sample return missions due to mistakes easily fixed by humans for every one that works, that'll still be value for money, easily. Looking at actual missions, we've achieved a lot better than that.

Manned spaceflight is what causes people to dream, to reach for the stars. Like it or not, (And you will probably deny it), our world is ruled by the people/Corrupt Polictians. They WANT results. By results, they mean people/Colonies in space, not the basic chemistry of a rock floating in space. If you cut that, the budget of NASA and the interest in space exploration will fall like a rock.

Cost is unimportant when it comes down to our survival. At the rate we over-populate and such, and depending on war, I think that humanity will wipe itself out in the next 1000years, unless it spreads out into space.

[Kryten]

If that was true, ESA wouldn't exist at all. It's entire focus is unmanned research done on the cheap. It'd also mean Apollo wouldn't have been cancelled before it even got anywhere, N1 would have gone forward, et.c. etc.c. It's seeing the world as you want it to be, not how it is.

[Canopus]

our world is ruled by the people/Corrupt Polictians. They WANT results. By results, they mean people/Colonies in space...

No, the sad thing is that no politician wants colonies in space. They aren't even interested in space travel at all. Thats why they give all their money to the militaries instead to the space agencies.

[Fractal_UK]

If that was true, ESA wouldn't exist at all. It's entire focus is unmanned research done on the cheap. It'd also mean Apollo wouldn't have been cancelled before it even got anywhere, N1 would have gone forward, et.c. etc.c. It's seeing the world as you want it to be, not how it is.

ESA is what it is because of the funding that it has. If you provide a space program with very limited funds then we have only to thank the ingenuity of those involved that we have still managed to achieve reasonable results. If ESA were funded more heavily then missions could be accomplished in the areas of both robotic exploration as well as human spaceflight. Certainly, a lot can be gained through robotic exploration, space telescopes, sample return and eventually resource return from the rest of the solar system but ultimately avoiding human spaceflight is just a way of ignoring an important avenue of human advancement. Colonisation of other planets and moons within our solar system will need to happen eventually, so ignoring human spaceflight simply avoids gaining knowledge that you otherwise could have gained - something that is never a wise policy.

[Kryten]

Why will it need to happen? What could possibly happen to the earth to make it less habitable than, say, Mars?

[Rune]

That also makes the vehicle *much* more susceptible to cross winds (both ballistic winds high up in the atmosphere and ordinary wind down at the runway) and makes landing... somewhat 'sporty'. That's one of the big reasons NASA went with the "flying brick" (I.E. a small dense orbiter) rather than the Faget orbiter - it just punched through.

Hum. I wonder how regular airplanes do it, then. Or blimps, if we take it to the extreme. And I've always been under the impression that low landing speeds were desirable, not a problem.

Seriously, dude, really? It's amazing what a guy can say defending the shuttle. I mean it looks cool, but that won't change physics any time soon.

Anyhow, some other thoughts about what is going on in the thread:

Reusable SSTO is very, very difficult, and the jury is still out as to whether it is actually possible at all on chemical engines. Even if it is, the extreme engineering challenges might make it more expensive than other alternatives. Hell, we have yet to build a reusable staged launcher that works.

Separating crew and cargo makes sense, because both payloads have wildly different requirements. Using the same launch vehicle for both, however, can rapidly build up a flight history, which increases safety and lowers cost (i.e: Soyuz). Hence my "same launcher, different upper stage" approach.

And I don't think wings would be the most effective design solution, too, chutes are light, and you are taking with you engines with more than enough T/W for a soft land touchdown.

Rune. My more than two cents, this topic fascinates me.