Resurrecting Apollo? The Orbital Spaceplane may be dumped. (1 Viewer)

[Philip Hamm]

I think we have demonstrated in use that we do not yet have the technological and/or logistic and/or financial means to maintain a reusable vehicle. We don't need to lose any more of our best people proving this again. Maybe in the future we can revisit this technology.

For now, the Russians have proven with their Soyuz spacecraft that we can use and maintain a single-use vehicle design and logistic system for decades at a time.

The Soyuz safety record speaks for itself, particularly when compared to the US Shuttle program.

IMO there's no reason other than hubris that we simply don't license the Soyuz technology. Use that in the near and mid term and don't waste any more money on anything but a -long- term solution.

 

[Ray B.]

The Soyuz safety record speaks for itself, particularly when compared to the US Shuttle program.

They're about the same, actually. They've had some misphaps that were widely publicized and some that weren't.

 

[CharlesD]

When was the last time Soyuz had a fatality?

 

[Win Joy Jr]

If I recall correctly, the technology used to construct the Apollo hardware was ordered destroyed during shuttle development.

The entire ISS design / development fell prey to political motivations. Many programs had to give up part of their budgets to pay the "Station Tax" when congress froze the funding levels for ISS. I was amazed when the first modules were launched without communications gear. Early station communications used a modified "PORTCOMM" system for communications.

Also, if you look at what the manifest was for the shuttle was before losing Columbia, you will note that most of the flights were ISS construction missions.

I can also confirm that a number of enhancements to the shuttles were canceled. One that I was involved in was replacing the S-band comm system with an updated one that used a phased array antenna instead of the current antennas embedded in the spaceframe.

Also, and I may be wrong about this, but I believe that there is not enough of the technology in place to build another shuttle. Endeavour (sp?) was constructed out of structural spares (both wings, body flap, tail, Payload Bay Doors) delivered after the initial order of shuttle had been completed. I am not aware that NASA ordered up replacements. And I think that the Palmdale facility has been closed, with Orbiter Refurb (Orbiter Maint Down Periods) now taking place at the Cape. It has been a few years since I left, and have lost touch / interest with all that was going on.

 

[Ray B.]

And I think that the Palmdale facility has been closed...

You are correct, sir. I doubt we'll be building any replacement vehicles. :frowning:

 

[Jack Briggs]

Yes, Vladimir Komorov lost his life when Soyuz 1's 'chute got twisted and the Descent Module struck the hard Russian steppes at close to 600 mph. Astronauts Dubrovolksy, Patsyev, and Volkov lost their lives when their Soyuz 11 spacecraft depressurized while still in orbit, and after the first successful mission aboard a rudimentary space station, Salyut-1. And the Soyuz 18a mission failed to achieve orbit for a dress-rehearsal mission in anticipation of the ASTP; the flight crew had an exciting ride back down, fearing they would end up landing in China.

Finally, the Soviets nearly lost a Soyuz-T crew in 1983 when the launch vehicle caught fire and exploded on the pad; the solid-rocket LES ignited just in time, pulling the Soyuz Orbital Module and crew away from the conflagration.

But please let me make clear something about all my posts: When I criticize some of NASA's actions I do so out of love and devotion to what the agency is all about.

The Space Transportation System, while not living up to NASA's own (and now embarrassing) hype of the 1970s, has proved invaluable as a testbed for manned spaceflight technology. We've never operated a semi-reusable manned spacecraft system before; we learn much, therefore, with each flight.

I mean what I say: Long before STS-107 I had been maintaining that the fragile STS should be used for missions for which it is uniquely suited.

Though there's merit in this uprated, Apollo-type proposal, reusable vehicles with wings seem the way to go. Eventually, at least.

About Gene Kranz: When he comes around JSC, does he still wear that vest? Great guy.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Also, Win: It would be a waste of resources to build another replacement Orbiter; Endeavour herself, after all, was built as a replacement for the other Orbiter we lost. The money should be earmarked for OSP or whatever it is we come up with as a crew-transport vehicle and CRV.

And then there's the longhaul: what remains of the SLI.

 

[Ray B.]

About Gene Kranz: When he comes around JSC, does he still wear that vest? Great guy.

Not any of the times I've seen him. He's around a lot, sometimes for book signings.

If you liked Kranz's book, I'd also recommend "Flight: My Life in Mission Control," by Chris Kraft. He was at JSC for a book signing last year, I think. Another cool guy.

 

[Jack Briggs]

I have it!

 

[Andrew Testa]

Brian,

I got the joke: I'm not worried about someone else from around here seeing my posts. There's only a few thousand of us working here at JSC. Now, If I saw a post from my boss saying "GET BACK TO WORK!" then I'd be busted. But that won't happen, because nobody in my office even buys a TV or receiver without coming to me for advice, so I know they won't be reading here!

I didn't realize that Soyuz used the same controlled entry method as Apollo. Cool.

I don't have much to add to what Ray and Win posted, good comments. Ray, I'd love to take you up on your offer to visit the big room. I won't even be doing MER anymore, since they only allow two RMS people in there and I'm lower on the feeding chain than others. But even more than that, since your here and all, tell me about your home theater! I had to drive to Katy to see another 'local' setup! Send me some email, since I think we've about exhausted this thread.

Jack, time to think up another interesting space topic for us all to weigh in on.

Andy

 

[Paul McElligott]

If I recall correctly, the technology used to construct the Apollo hardware was ordered destroyed during shuttle development.

An urban legend. Nothing was "ordered" destroyed. The machine tools were sold for scrap when they were no longer needed.

 

[Julie K]

MER duty = yuck.

Blasphemers. You better not be talking about a couple of fantastic little rovers...

 

[CharlesD]

Julie,

I think they are refering to the "mission evaluation room" (monitoring Orbiter sub systems during flight), not the Mars Expedition Rovers.

oops: thats Mars Exploration Rovers...

 

[Julie K]

Ok, just checking I've got MER on the mind right now and it's anything but dull.

 

[Ray B.]

Blasphemers. You better not be talking about a couple of fantastic little rovers...

The MER we're referring to is the Mission Evaluation Room, not the Mars Exploration Rover.

Edit: damn you guys are quick.

For those that don't know, the MER is downstairs from the White and Blue Flight Control Rooms (the ones you see on TV) and is used for real-time evaluation of problems. It shouldn't be confused with normal "back rooms," which support front room controllers all the time.

 

[Andrew Testa]

As Ray said. Working in the MER is like being on an emergency response team. You sit there slack-jawed for hours on end, listening to the flight controllers talking with their support people about gastrointestinal problems, how long they think they can hold their bladders until a break in ops, or how many jawbreakers they can fit in their mouths, and you can't tell them to shut up (no offense to present company intended, Ray). Then a problem occurs, and like a fire alarm going off randomly in an isolation tank, you are jolted into some semblance of frenzied action to find out, in excruciating detail, what happened and recommend a fix, write it up, send it to the flight support team, who them discuss it with the flight controller, who can tell the flight director. Then you fill out a ton of paperwork, and it's back to slack-jaw city for the next few hours, or days.

Fortunately, I don't sit in the MER. RMS only has two chairs available, so NASA and the Canadians do the hard work there. We've got a telemetry and voice channel feed to one of our labs, so we can monitor our arm telemetry software from there, and aren't restricted to the professional demeanor expected in the MER.

Andy

 

[Ray B.]

And, to jab at Andy a little, not all front room controllers have MER support. Those of us in flight dynamics don't, since we don't actually own any systems. We use a lot of them, like the rendezvous radar and the star trackers, but they're owned by other controllers. So I'm on my own out there, which is fine because I don't have 10 hours to wait for a response.

/massive tangent

 

[Andrew Testa]

10 hours!? sometimes they're lucky to get an answer before landing!

Andy

 

[Jack Briggs]

Hey, Andy and Ray: You have just been introduced to our longtime resident champion of unmanned interplanetary spacecraft, Ms. K. She's a colleague of sorts to you's guys. And very obsessed with the work of H.P. Lovecraft. We have an eccentric membership. (I'm completely normal, of course.) JB

 

[Julie K]

We have an eccentric membership.

Doesn't everyone adore HP Lovecraft???