soyuz the underappreciated workhorse?

[NASAFanboy]

The space shuttle was a concept too early for its time, and was not used to its full potinetal.

The reason NASA is going back to the capsules is because they want to relive their glory days of Apollo on a Mars base around 2040. Not because it is innovative or anything. The Space Shuttle can survive a single tile missing, however, large amounts of fractured and damaged tiles/mising tiles will cause loss of craft on reentry.

What you forget is that the safety ratio of the Shuttle, is in fact, higher than that of the Soyuz or that of any other craft. The Soyuz is still underhanded by many design limitations today, and is nowhere near perfect, and is being updated over and over. The Shuttle stood the same for fifty years of spaceflight, and oversaw many operations in LEO. It could bring as much cargo as four Progress cargo ships and return as much home, and it could take in twice as many crew as a Soyuz. And innovation is never cheap. Never, ever cheap.

One single launch of an SLS and Orion with a crew on a circumlunar trajectory will cost around 450 million, as much as a single shuttle launch.

One single lunar expedition of an Orion will cost around 700 million.

The costs of the Orion and SLS are no more than the STS program, and no less. However, they have traded their ability to service satellites and construct spacestations for the capability to go to destinations beyond BEO. In all cases, the Orion is just another shuttle, but this time, going beyond LEO and without cargo transport capability. Anyways, can we stop talking about the shuttle? Such an argument will get us nowhere, since none of us will likely change our viewpoints.

Anyways, stop using "lol" in your texts, that gets to my nerves alot and has a tendency to be viewed as offensive. Just say'in, before the mods intervene again...

[Rokker]

Btw, the soyuz would be cancelled too if they were sending up the same capsule over and over for the last 30 years.

[Albert VDS]

Oh, should I want efficiency, well thanks for telling me what I should want. Honestly though, I think what I want for my tax dollars is innovation and change. Something new, something different, something that paves the way for the spacecraft of the future. Leave cost efficiency to companies because governments are never good at it in the first place.

You can have both, but NASA doesn't choose to do so (most of the time).

It's like the cancellation of the advanced sterling RTG is a good example of NASA not wanting both.

It is innovating and cost efficient and they are not mutually exclusive.

If they were then no one would be using ion drives.

Why launch 2 rockets to launch a satellite and perform experiments when you can do them at once. Also, the 4 Hubble service missions were possible because of the shuttle

You don't need a Shuttle to EVA and dock 2 crafts and do maintenance/fixing.

I think most of the people on this forum can imagine a way to service something like the Hubble with a capsule setup.

There were no alternatives so their only choice was using the Shuttle.

[Nibb31]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/67/Space_Shuttle_vs_Soyuz_TM_-_to_scale_drawing.png

Fold in the solar panels, you could fit more than one... Enough said.

As for the shuttle being a waste of resources, it made orbital construction a lot easier in the process. I'd like to see something the size of the ISS built without the shuttle. The big solar panels alone would be difficult to get there without the shuttle. I'm pretty sure we all see your point here in saying that the shuttle was a waste of resources, but look at the present time, if it wasn't for the shuttle, the international space station would not exist.

The ISS as it exists was designed to be built by the Shuttle. If you didn't have a Shuttle, you would design it differently. You would dock autonomous modules together like MIR or the Russian segment or you could just launch big monolithic stations like Skylab whenever you need them. The Russians and the Chinese don't need a Shuttle to build their stations, and neither does Bigelow intend to use one to assemble his inflatable modules.

If an ISS successor was to be built with SLS, you could put up the entire mass of the ISS in less than 4 launches.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Nibb31

[crazyewok]

Double post

Edited January 28, 2014 by crazyewok

[crazyewok]

The ISS as it exists was designed to be built by the Shuttle. If you didn't have a Shuttle, you would design it differently. You would dock autonomous modules together like MIR or the Russian segment or you could just launch big monolithic stations like Skylab as you need them. The Russians and the Chinese don't need a Shuttle to build their stations.

If an ISS successor was to be built with SLS, you could put up the entire weight of the ISS in less than 4 launches.

Forget it. In there minds spaceplanes and delta wings are cool there for =better.

[Nibb31]

And what do we lose? Progress in technology and experiences. I like to imagine a future where space travel is common and satellites can be fixed by a neat little maintenance crew rather than having to send up satellite too replace a still orbiting, broken satellite, littering space with more and more debris until we end up with some hellish Kessler syndrome that ruins space for the next decade. I want a world where spacecraft can be reused rather than essentially "throw it away when its done." To me, achieving this is worth the extra cost.

You are confusing the means and the goals.

Sending people to space to do plumbing or maintenance work in EVA is not a goal in itself. It's one way of solving a problem. Solving that problem is your goal, and the best way to solve it might or might not involve sending up humans to fix stuff.

Having a flashy Buck Rogers spaceship is not a goal in itself. A spaceship exists to perform a task. That task is your goal, and the best way to reach that goal might or might not involve a nice flashy spaceship.

Our biggest problem is that we simply haven't found a real purpose for sending people to space in the first place.

It's unlikely that spaceflight will ever be "common", because the amount of energy involved in getting stuff into orbit is huge and the equipment for handling that sort of energy will always be expensive and potentially dangerous.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Nibb31

[crazyewok]

Anyways, stop using "lol" in your texts, that gets to my nerves alot and has a tendency to be viewed as offensive. Just say'in, before the mods intervene again...

I will talk how I darn well like. lol in not offensive. Anyway I find your telling me what opinion I am allowed to have andhow im allowed to speak offensive.

[Rokker]

You can have both, but NASA doesn't choose to do so (most of the time).

It's like the cancellation of the advanced sterling RTG is a good example of NASA not wanting both.

It is innovating and cost efficient and they are not mutually exclusive.

If they were then no one would be using ion drives.

You don't need a Shuttle to EVA and dock 2 crafts and do maintenance/fixing.

I think most of the people on this forum can imagine a way to service something like the Hubble with a capsule setup.

There were no alternatives so their only choice was using the Shuttle.

With the Stirling engine, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. It is not an RTG, it is nuclear powered Stirling engine. It is still currently under testing by NASA, that is why it is not in use. (I should know, I asked about it during my recent tour of the Glenn Research Center.) Also you appear to be mixing up the definition of efficiency that I am using, which is understandable because there are a lot of meanings for efficiency. What I mean by efficiency is "Can it be made cheaply and without a large amount of R&D. Can it be specialized and made in very small numbers and still be cheap." and in the world of science, especially aeronautics and space, the answer is no, it can not. Ion drives have cost a lot in R&D they are not cost efficient at all. They have a high ISP yes, but thats not the efficiency I meant.

Also, this is real life, not KSP, astronauts don't just float around untethered that's why they used the Canadarm for servicing the Hubble, not to mention the Hubble did not have anything to hold onto meaning you would have to make speed with RCS, which is not as easy to do as you think. To do it like we KSP players would not be possible while following the basic rules of NASA.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Rokker

[Rokker]

You are confusing the means and the goals.

Sending people to space to do plumbing or maintenance work in EVA is not a goal in itself. It's one way of solving a problem. Solving that problem is your goal, and the best way to solve it might or might not involve sending up humans to fix stuff.

Having a flashy Buck Rogers spaceship is not a goal in itself. A spaceship exists to perform a task. That task is your goal, and the best way to reach that goal might or might not involve a nice flashy spaceship.

Our biggest problem is that we simply haven't found a real purpose for sending people to space in the first place.

It's unlikely that spaceflight will ever be "common", because the amount of energy involved in getting stuff into orbit is huge and the equipment for handling that sort of energy will always be expensive and potentially dangerous.

Well crap, someone better tell all the space tourism companies that are working towards orbital space tourism that will become cheaper and cheaper over time. And no, there is no reason to send people to space, but overall there is not reason not to. It makes humanity feel good about themselves. Not to mention its freaking awesome.

I agree that all space ships have a goal, the shuttle had many and it achieved them fairly well.

Let me ask, why do you have such a hard-on for proving the shuttle was useless?

[Kryten]

With the Stirling engine, you obviously don't know what you are talking about.

How obviously?

[Nibb31]

With the Stirling engine, you obviously don't know what you are talking about. It is not an RTG, it is nuclear powered Stirling engine. It is still currently under testing by NASA, that is why it is not in use. (I should know, I asked about it during my recent tour of the Glenn Research Center.)

The Stirling engine would be used as a replacement for RTG applications. I'm not sure about its current status at NASA, but it has the huge problem of using moving parts, which means that it is likely to wear and break down. It will be hard to build a Stirling generator that would outlast a conventional RTG in long duration space missions.

Also, this is real life, not KSP, astronauts don't just float around untethered that's why they used the Canadarm for servicing the Hubble, not to mention the Hubble did not have anything to hold onto meaning you would have to make speed with RCS, which is not as easy to do as you think. To do it like we KSP players would not be possible while following the basic rules of NASA.

What are you on about? Hubble had grappling and docking fixtures as well as handrails. Its internal parts were mounted in racks with extendable rails with removable covers and doors. And those replaceable units had their own covers and bezels and fixtures. In fact, there was a lot of extra mass on Hubble to make it serviceable. It would have been a whole lot cheaper and lighter (and therefore easier to replace) if it didn't have all that extra hardware. It also had to be in an orbit that was reachable by the Shuttle, but was not optimal for astronomy.

If you didn't have the Shuttle, you would design the satellite so that it would be servicable with whatever vehicle you have. You would fit it with a docking fixture and you could send an Orion with a repair module that would contain EVA equipment, replacement racks, tools, and even an arm if you really need one. You could leave the repair module attached to Hubble for future missions.

Well crap, someone better tell all the space tourism companies that are working towards orbital space tourism that will become cheaper and cheaper over time. And no, there is no reason to send people to space, but overall there is not reason not to. It makes humanity feel good about themselves. Not to mention its freaking awesome.

Citation needed?

I don't see anyone working towards orbital space tourism right now, and especially not cheap orbital tourism. Virgin is a quarter-million dollar suborbital roller-coaster ride. Space Adventures has no more seats to sell on Soyuz. Bigelow is still waiting for a proper business model to emerge. That's about it.

When you are talking about spending millions of dollars for a seat to orbit, unless you are in the 0.01% who have that level of disposable income, you're always going to need a good reason to send people to space.

I agree that all space ships have a goal, the shuttle had many and it achieved them fairly well.

The Shuttle had one goal after Saturn V and Apollo, which was to provide routine and affordable access to space. It was to be jack of all trades because NASA lacked focus and funding for a specific mission.

The problem at NASA was the same as today with SLS: focus on a building the sexiest rocket instead of building the best vehicle for a given task.

Let me ask, why do you have such a hard-on for proving the shuttle was useless?

And why do you have a hard on for wings in space?

I'm not saying it was useless. I'm saying that many of the unique things that it did accomplish only existed to justify its existence, but had no real value or could have been done easier or cheaper with other means. The Shuttle was valuable though as an impressive technical achievement and a necessary learning experience.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Nibb31

[sjwt]

And its time for a lovely application of..

Before we resort to the