What do you think is more important

[ryan]

But the shuttle is re-usuable unlike the Apollo command module for example, it coast less, then a command module, carrys more people, has more space then any other spacecraft flying.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

We needed an experimental module in space, but that could be accomplished by a space station with "shuttle" loads back and forth from Earth. They should have unmanned-boosted Skylab back into a higher orbit, then either worked with it till we could get a new station, or expanded it directly. I'd actually go with a new station in a 28* orbit. This way, we could use it as a jump off point going to the moon.
Plus, the shuttle had wasted mass: the wings. I used to be anti-capsule pro-wings, but recently I've changed that as I recognize the wasted payload mass wings provide. They only work in either a plane-boosted vehicle (pegasus, F-1 flyback) or a spaceplane (DG, Kulch's TX etc.) but for something rocket-boosted, parachutes work just fine.

 

[BlueDragon8144]

compared to using delta or titan launchers, using the shuttle to ferry satellites into orbit is actually much more expensive. Ever notice that the shuttle has almost stopped launching satellites, and those are left to the other launch vehicles?

And while the shuttle is reusable, it isn't 100% reusable, and then it hits the problem of maintenance, especially with the tiles and SSME's.

As for space, it has less space than any of the space stations put in orbit, and does not hold as much as stations. I was not even referring to the Apollo spacecraft at all, other than Skylab, but that is the only 100% American station we ever launched.

I also agree that the wings are dead weight, especially given how thick the shuttle's are.

 

[ryan]

For the people who voted for ''moving on to orion'' why do you think that's important?

 

[ryan]

Um..... very poetic.

 

[simonpro]

compared to using delta or titan launchers, using the shuttle to ferry satellites into orbit is actually much more expensive. Ever notice that the shuttle has almost stopped launching satellites, and those are left to the other launch vehicles?

Mostly because the main people wanting to launch satellites was the military, and they gave up after Challenger. There are also very strict rules regarding the propellants you are allowed in the cargo bay, which further limits the amount of satellites you can take up.
Couple that to NASA's policy of only going to the ISS and no-one can use it for satellite launches.

 

[ryan]

Why cant you use the ISS for luanching satilites, it will be much more easier and cheaper.

 

[BlueDragon8144]

Because how's a satellite going to get up to the station anyway?

You can't bring a factory up to the ISS to build satellites and then test them. Small satellites like cansats are fine, but if you want the bigger ones that are launched by the shuttle and other elv's, there's no way you can use the ISS to build them. Some rocket has to launch the satellite into orbit first.

 

[ryan]

Because how's a satellite going to get up to the station anyway?

You can't bring a factory up to the ISS to build satellites and then test them. Small satellites like cansats are fine, but if you want the bigger ones that are launched by the shuttle and other elv's, there's no way you can use the ISS to build them. Some rocket has to launch the satellite into orbit first.

Lol i could imagine a factory in the sky.:rofl:

 

[BlueDragon8144]

but not with the ISS

If it were the ISF instead though.....

 

[ryan]

but not with the ISS

If it were the ISF instead though.....

:rofl: Now that i couldnt imagine.

 

[Urwumpe]

I miss the option: Develop technologies for a economic access to LEO.

 

[ryan]

That's going back to the moon.

 

[Urwumpe]

That's going back to the moon.

No, that does not have something to do with each other. Going back to the moon is flags and footprints. Even if they design more, after the landing, the budget will be cut for something else.

Economic access to low earth orbit means, developing high technological risk applications, which will be helpful for spacelift providers. Or provide infrastructure.

Going to the moon, mars and beyond reads nice, but if you don't learn how to do the first 250 km economic, you can forget it.

 

[unussapiens]

No it's not. LEO is Low Earth Orbit, moon would be LLO (Low Lunar Orbit).

I agree with Urwumpe, before we go anywhere else, we need to get to nearby. If we build up orbital bases it allows us to gain much needed experience for self-sufficient missions, with capability for rescue if something goes wrong.

There are two main places you could practice for a mars mission:

1. Lunar Orbit - Allows you to practice similar maneuvers, which could just as easily be done in a simulator (not that it matters, as it will be controlled). Being in LLO makes you more remote from humanity, which despite the realism, is a hazard when trialling new systems. Also requires extra money to send the extra weight to the moon, have more fuel for returning to earth, requires a bigger launcher to launch the bigger craft...


2. Earth Orbit - Has all the advantages of the above, minus the remoteness, but it's much easier to get extra supplies etc. to the craft (if absolutely necessary). You could put the capsule and modules (assuming modular construction, which I am in favour of) on conventional boosters, reducing costs even further. The deorbting stage could be much smaller, and thus cheaper, and would be lighter, thus allowing you to get more into orbit using the same number of boosters.


One of the main advantages of having the craft near earth is that you can send up new technologies as they are developed, find bugs, and see which works better.

 

[ryan]

But those astronauts didnt volanteer to be astronauts to have NASA crawl over you with risks, but thats a good point you have there.

 

[Urwumpe]

unussapiens: You miss the Lagrange points or GSO. Both are places where we don't have human outposts yet. We also never had them. A manned or at least man-tended GSO platform over the USA would be a nice experiment platform for geo-sciences.

From the L4 and L5 points of Earth, you could do very good sun science, as you see the sun from a different angle as you see it from Earth (but it would be almost as remote as mars)

Even the Earth-Moon L1 would be a very good place to be - it is a good waypoint for lunar or interplanetary missions, as it forms some kind of keyhole on the way to moon and beyond.

From L1, you can get quickly to L2 and from L2, you can go rather quickly to Mars or Venus. unmanned probes or cargo could even be send with minimal fuel consumption, but it would need much longer as classic trajectories that way. But with some more fuel, you can do a very effective transfer to mars, as you follow at least almost the solar gravity potential.

 

[cjp]

I'd say that space colonization would be the most important long-term goal in human spaceflight. The earth doesn't have enough resources to support the current number of people with the current amount of consumption for a long time. So, in the long term we have three options:

1. Reduce our consumption (either by living more efficiently, or by living less wealthy)
2. Reduce the number of people
3. Colonize space (moon, mars, venus, asteroids, who knows)

I'd go for space colonization (but option 1 would be needed too).

Placing more flags on the moon doesn't contribute to that goal. Cheap LEO acces does, as does the development of self-supporting environments like Biosphere 2.

 

[Zatnikitelman]

The Self-Supporting envirionments seem almost critical to me now that I give it a bit more thought. One of the biggest space-taking payloads on a manned mission is the food and water. Why not build a hydroponic biosphere of sorts in LEO or elsewhere (nearer the moon for instance) then use heavier-mass cargo vehicles to deliver the food to the moon, or a Mars craft could grab its food on the way to Mars without having to launch it. Granted, some foodstuff would be missing from the biosphere such as meat products and those would have to be launched, but the reduction in weight needed to be launched wouldn't exactly be insignificant.
Water's another thing, if you're using the biosphere concept, then you just tank up with water on the way out, use your own no-waste (as much as possibe) water recycling system and return whatever water you have back to the biosphere on return to Earth. You still might need some top-off loads up from Earth, or from the Lunar Ice, cause no system is 100% efficient, but recycling even a little is that much less payload that has to be launched.

 

[ryan]

How do you think they could get this in LEO or between the moon? It would be pretty hard.