Man, do the words "new Saturn V-class heavy-lift rocket" ever scare me. Let's all keep in mind that "Spirit" and "Opportunity" are now household names. Sorry, Boeing, but "Delta II" doesn't (and never will) enjoy the same family room appeal.

"could be derived from the space shuttle's launch stack"... Ahhh, now that's a bit better. Surely we can all live with on-orbit assembly where necessary?

Or perhaps I'm missing something?

- Dave

Consider the possiblities of a combination of both Saturn-V heavy lift, and Low Earth construction / docking of components ...

Daniel - Okay, I'll consider it. I'm Joe Taxpayer. Convince me why I should pay for a new heavy lift capability instead of relying on LEO construction?

- Dave

sorry - I want to rephrase:

"[...] instead of relying on LEO construction EXCLUSIVELY?"

- Dave

3 things:

Safety: Less docking between componants means less places where failures can occur.

Cheaper: If you can throw bigger things into orbit, there is less materials required to contain the same amount of space. Also, for unmanned support of manned missions (fuel depots perhaps) if you had to assemble in orbit you would need either manned mission to do the assembly, or spend extra money to send automated assmebly. As a programmer I do not yet trust computers to do that type of opperation unatteneded.

Flexibility: Maybe you need something big and maybe you want someing small in space. This allows for this. One size fits all makes it more expensive in the long run. This is the main reason the launch cost of the shuttle went from 20 million to in excess of 500 million. It was decided to be an all in one system and not a diversafied system. The main purpose of the "vison" is not to goto the moon or mars. But to create the infrastructure so we can goto the moon, mars, or any other point in the solar system. And do it safely, quickly and cheaply.

Besides we really don't need to develop a heavy lifter. The russians already have one. Much cheaper then we can do it. I'll grant you there are other problems that do arise from that option though.

In the end it will probably have to be both. There will be a couple of heavy things that will have to be lofted into LEO.

And as Matthew pointed out, HLLV is not exactly something we don't have at the moment either.

As for LEO Construction / Docking / Remote Assembly : This is technology that we have to develop and get comfortable with. There are a lot of things that robots are more suited for than humans: Construction / Manufacture (in space / Moon / Mars / Earth?) is one of those IMHO.

Nasa plans for HLLV include getting data from the funding of the Kistler Aerospace K-1 project. As in the article NASA Contract Could Jumpstart Rocket Start Up By Brian Berger Space News Staff Writer posted: 06:05 pm ET February 03 2026 http://www.space.com/news/kistler_nasa_040203.html

I feel that re-using some of the existing shuttle componentry may lead us to a heavy lift vehicle of low cost. There are probably other launchers (TITAN 4B) that once combined would also lead us to the same point of capability.

Ok so where has everybody gone. Not only on this site but from many of the other comment or forum style pages as well. How can we keep a program going if the amount of chatter only lasts a few weeks. When the actual mission planning will be in the decades.
But I digress, here is a though for the lunar lander or launcher that would believe consume less fuel.
Has the Space Elevator come to mind or perhaps the magnetic rail launcher to anyone else. I think both could find there way into a lunar application.

Well, i can only comment on here, as i've only commented on this site. This is a fairly new website so traffic is low.

But for what i figure for what you are seeing elsewhere. There is only so much that can be said till we start repeating ourselves with such a long development cycle. The Design phases will not even start till next year. Humans have a short attenion span. Unless we are bombarded with a constant flow of new information we will loose intrest quickly, even when we want this to happen.

This is the biggest hurdle the commisoon lastweek really stated. Keeping the public's intrest. Maybe they'll have good ideas in there report 4 months from now.

Even with the Mars rovers, the press conferences are less and less frequent and there is no new science data really being analyzed in it to keep the publics interest. Which is good for science but bad for PR.

But how can we keep the average american interesed , when the space ethusiast loses intrest? Thats the challange.

Well some of us have to work some time as well: can't spend all of our time on forums ;-)

Anyway: I read someplace that one of the NASA space centres were working on enabling technologies for a space elevator (MSSS I think). To be honest, I think investing billions in this might have a greater long term benefits than spending more billions on a new launch vehicle. (It's infrastructure in the end that is inherently re-usable.)

I'm actually surprised at the level of activity for comments. After all, the site is just now pushing 2 weeks old!

But I see it as my job to bombard you with the "constant flow of information" that Matthew spoke of. Expect an article soon on Project Prometheus and the 30+ year history of nuclear propulsion development, as well as new entries in the weblog as the news happens.

Thanks for your interest and for visiting Project Constellation!

Space elevator - I'm way out of my element here, but don't we need very long carbon nanotube cables first? I don't think we're close to mass production of carbon nanotubes in a way that would allow us to build long, strong cables in a cost-effective way.

Sorry, but I'm boring and practical. Let's stick to what we know, and evolve. Let's not blow the whole budget praying for a revolutionary breakthrough in one small aspect of the mission.

I'm not denying that access to space is an interesting problem that has lots of room for improvement. But the way to get improvement is to create more demand for access to space. When there are more missions to space, then there will be more discretionary funds (mostly in the private sector) lying around for investment in new and better ways to get there.

Why can't I find any serious CEV discussion about airplane ferries (a la White Knight/SpaceShipOne) as a means for safer access to space? Again, I'm out of my element here, but I've read that one of the biggest problems with ground-launched boosters is the engineering complexity of designing a rocket engine that works effectively all the way from sea level to the vacuum of space.

Airplanes do a very good job of hauling heavy loads in air. That's an engineering problem that we've pretty well licked. Get the airplane to ferry the cargo as high and as fast as possible, and then turn the job over to a simpler, lighter (b/c of the reduced need for fuel) rocket.

It seems to me that this is an even more compelling design for crew launches. The smaller and simpler the firecracker that you strap to your astronauts, the safer.

Thoughts?

The long carbon nanotube cables that you speak of were for an earth bound approach. For a space elevator to function, a cable with one end attached to the Earth's surface stretches upwards, reaching beyond geosynchronous orbit, at 21,700 miles (35,000-kilometer altitude). The competing forces of gravity at the lower end and outward centripetal acceleration at the farther end keep the cable under tension. The cable remains stationary over a single position on Earth. This cable, once in position, can be scaled from Earth by mechanical means, right into Earth orbit.
However on the Moon this cable would be by far shorter and the forces acting on the cable would also be reduced. Making nanotubes not necessary for its construction.
As for the SpaceShipOne it has had 6 glide flight test and cracked the sound barrier in Dec. 2025 for 24 seconds of main engine ignition. But had a tough landing with one of its gear folding up on touch down. This is a suborbital (100 kilometers or 62miles) vehicle entered in the Xprize.org contest.
As far as the CEV or the shape I think it should be both since final destination not just launch and preferred landing methodology are what determines the final vehicles characteristics. Also all studies should use mars time frames for experiments even if the destination is the moon for the trial run.
Which brings up safety, if nasa can not send a single ship to the Hubble, then how can they do the same when going to the moon or to mars.
The problem is redunancies or backups, which means dual CEV for splash down re-entry, but also a dual propulsion systems as well. Basically this means two ships linked to together one filled with the supplies for the extended mission and one for the experiments or construction gear. oh and lets not forget the lunar or mars lander which could be a seperate automated mission or part of the same ships construction. Since this is a lot of stuff then probably this will be an in orbit assembly rather than a single launch. The final vehicle and configuration will probably be a lot different in many ways when the journey begins to be sent to mars.
Which brings me back to the Presidents vision and the setting up of the moontomars.org which seems to be a little thin with keeping the forum input public live. So that we can all see and read about what should be in the final report that will be given to the President as of the details which are given by all of us who send in comments thus giving public input into this process.

It's the Marshall Space Flight Centre that is currently working on the concept. Here are a couple of links:

http://www.isr.us/SEHome.asp?m=1
http://flightprojects.msfc.nasa.gov/fd02_elev.html

Nano-production methods and quality is picking up speed - the limiting factor on this is probably more environment and ethical than the technology. There are still a lot questions on the impact of nano on the environment and society (And Michael Crichton's "Prey" did not help with this either.)

Just getting back to the original thread - from this (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/jimo_fin_040219.html) article on space.com its interesting to note that NASA is considering both the Shuttle-C variant for heavy lift or even LEO construction for JIMO. Interesting.

Developing the Shuttle-C variant for heavy lift will add a couple of zero's to the JIMO budget tho' ...

Did any see the latest opinion voiced on the spacedaily.com site
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/shuttle-04d.html
Is The Shuttle Grounded Forever
boy does that ever put a damper on any system developement that uses the shuttle componetry and existing assembly capabilities. I think they need to keep all of this going if they are indeed going to develope; not that they need to, there brand newly designed HLLV. JIMO this means more wasted $$ than all of us can afford. Use and cludge what is needed that works to get the job down now as you do the developement work if need be for the future.
1) use both CEV designs with current shuttle tanks and boosters for the Taxi service to the ISS.
2) use shuttle C cargo hauler for completing the ISS
3) develope rocket assembly at ISS practice with cargo containers and attaching process for CEV vehicle
4) develope skills for refueling ships in space or transfer of not needed fuel from ship to ship
5) develope safe haven rescue pod and or return backup capsule to be brought with shuttle or CEV for missions not to the ISS

contined logical steps are needed

To be honest - I've got a feeling that that article is not too far off the mark. Just a suspicion.

Anybody have any idea the cost & development time that would be needed to get Shuttle-C off the ground? I think this would be the most likely survivor of the STS programme (and most of the issues raised in the article and astronaut survivability would not be an issue with Shuttle-C)

Would you able to complete the ISS using the Shuttle-C configuration, I wonder?

Oh - and JIMO is at a minimum necessary purely from the viewpoint as a propulsion testbed. IMHO.

And it would keep all those people asking for robotic exploration off the backs of the human exploration programme.

Well here is the beginning of the end for all componentry for the shuttle and its osp replacement stated from different sources anouncing layoffs. 300 Huntsville jobs involved in project to replace shuttles
http://www.al.com/news/huntsvilletimes/index.ssf?/base/news/1077130055200180.xml
NASA Must Embrace New Ideas commentary
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,111821,00.html
Just another feedback aspect from the proposed vision just what we all needed were more unemployed people.

SpaceShipOne: Harold, are you dismissing the airplane ferry concept because of a minor (hey, Brian Binnie wasn't even injured) landing problem on the vehicle's first powered flight? To be clear, I'm not suggesting that CEV emulate SpaceShipOne's reentry design (I fully support the capsule/chute approach for that). Instead, I suggest that a ferried launch design (as a means to simplify the booster needed for access to space) is at least worth some consideration.

I hear your point on a lunar space elevator being simpler to build. But its associated payback would be far less than that of a huge improvement in Earth access to space. Also, while a non-nanotube elevator might work on the Moon, I doubt that the technology would transfer to Mars (atmospheric forces, far higher gravity). I don't forsee much funding being set aside in Project Constellation for lunar-only technologies.

Airplane ferries would marry two very familiar technologies. Space elevators still fall in the "advanced concept" realm.

Hubble: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the CAIB inspired Hubble decision applies only to the Shuttle (which, unfortunately, puts us beyond the expected lifetime of Hubble). The CAIB report concludes that remaining Shuttle missions (not all future crew missions) must provide some safe haven where reentry risks can be mitigated. This conclusion is based on the acknowledgement that the Shuttle has inherent design problems that can't simply be "managed out." This, in turn, is the reason why the CAIB report urged that we build a replacement for the Shuttle as quickly as possible.

Actually I have been following the progress of the Spaceship one as well as other xprise contestants since last year some time. It definetly is a great concept but falls short when reaching LEO at this time. Depending on modification to the heavy lifting airplane and to the rocket plane portion I think that is a very cost effective approach to getting back into space.
The lunar only technology could be the launch point to Mars rather than from Earth is what I was thinking of. As well as for base station devvelopement and transportation techniques.
As far as Hubble goes, are we Blaming the design of the Shuttle for its destruction or only the fore thought of not inspecting for damage before re-entry. Both have solutions that are simple.
I believe that a soyuz capsule will fit into the shuttle cargo bay. This was also a fore thought that was given to the x-33 developement which probably will get put on hold as well as many other advance technology r&d; projects.

One useful aspect of a lunar-based elevator would be the ability to slingshot out into the solar system (and for that matter, back to earth - just as a side-point.

The further development of a SpaceShip One type vehicle does make sense for crew transfer and resupply to LEO / ISS, but I'm not as sure how useful it would be for lofting (heavy) cargo into orbit.

Any word from Scaled Composites whether they would consider developing SS1 further to go into LEO? I do think the SS1 / WhiteKnight (?) design is elegant - probably miles ahead of the rest of Xprize contenders as well.

Harold: I'm blaming the design of the Shuttle (admittedly, with the advantage of 20-20 hindsight) for its inherent safety risks:
* Wings, the #1 albatross around the Shuttle's neck
* Reentry protection system exposed during boost
* Combined crew/cargo vehicle
* Rubber tires as a single point of failure
* Low mount of Shuttle on external tank (debris risk during boost)
* Complex reentry heat dissipation geometry
* Active control (as opposed to self-correcting geometry) required during reentry
If we had CEV today, it would have none of these shortcomings, and we could save Hubble.

What is the simple solution you speak of for inspecting (and I presume, fixing) the damage before reentry in a Hubble mission?

Soyuz in cargo bay: This would limit the crew size to three, and would sacrifice the Shuttle in case of damage (in a hypothetical mission to Hubble). With 35 more missions needed to ISS, risking 1/3 of the remaining fleet on Hubble is too high a risk.

Daniel: Yes, I was primarily wondering about the airplane ferry concept as a safer means of crew launch.

Scaled: I've heard Burt Rutan say that he has no interest in trying to capitalize off of his (suborbital) X Prize entry (he'll let others do that). What interests him is building experimental airplanes (and now space vehicles). So yes, I'm hoping that after he wins the X Prize (which he almost certainly will), he'll take what he's learned with SS1/WK and tackle LEO.

BTW, despite Burt Rutan's non-favorable opinions of NASA, it would be tragic if the Aldridge Commission did not seek his opinions in a public forum. It definitely would give the Commission more legitimacy if it seriously considered opinions such as Rutan's.

Ok here goes
Wings, this may be the Achilles heel of the Shuttle but the problem is due to the RCC panels being hung on a frame. This was done with no metal backing, to keep weight down unlike an airplane that has a complete skin. If wings were the real problem we would not have or want to fly planes.

Reentry protection system exposed during boost yes but it is also exposed in that it is basically glass very easy to brake.
Also a smaller ship with no cargo carrying capacity and mounted closer to the Tank would have been less unsafe with this design but still not worth a direct hit to the RCC panels.

Complex reentry heat dissipation geometry you are correct in that the surface area is too large and that a capsule is much simpler and safer. A metal replaceable heat dissipation system was in the works but due to weight was dumped early in design phase. This is another reason to make the design of the CEV a capsule with solid heat shield maybe with tiles to make it reusable. But I would like to see the attempt to make it reusable.

Crew/cargo vehicle being combined does make it easier for a more likely to chances of a direct hit by any object. That is why a capsule design is more likely the better choice as well for the CEV.

Rubber tires as a single point of failure I am not sure of this? How often do airplane tires go or is this just a function of under-design again with regards to weight vs. speed forces upon landing.

Low mount of Shuttle on external tank (debris risk during boost) If placed closure it would have a reduced chance of strikes but yes due to poor tank design of insulator foam application to surfaces and complacency it final happened.

Active control (as opposed to self-correcting geometry) required during reentry automatic pilot if this behaved more like a plane then manual stirring would be the preferred method but since it drives more like a falling brick it was felt that not enough sensory perception was available to judge how to control the vehicle.

If we had CEV today, it would have none of these shortcomings, and we could save Hubble.
I do agree that the capsule needs to be designed first but not necessarily a complete rocket for now. Design capsule for long term goals and adapt everything else until it is time.

What is the simple solution you speak of for inspecting (and I presume, fixing) the damage before reentry in a Hubble mission?
One of Nasa's Plans is to do a slow spin rotation or roll that would be viewed by camera's zooming in along the leading edges to inspect for visual damage. Same technique could be done at the Hubble if a camera and transmission system where brought along also. I believe since the RCC Panels are mounted on a frame with no backing that you must think of it as more like a giant rust spot in the side of a fender well in that a backing must be placed into the hole first before any bondo style filler system for filling the hole can be done. This may mean anything from multiple space walks to assess the damaged area, removal of adjacent RCC tiles, drilling and forming a sheet of metal to be attached and then forming the patch over the area. I am not saying that this would be easy but only doable if the 50% failure chance of this mission having this occur did conceivably happen.

Soyuz in cargo bay: This would limit the crew size to three, I am not sure on the last data for crew compliment when we last repaired the Hubble but I think that is more than enough to do the job.

As for sacrificing the Shuttle in case of damage in a hypothetical mission to Hubble or With regards to the 35 more missions needed to complete the ISS. I do agree that the Hubble is too high a risk at this point in time with regards to risking 1/3 of the remaining fleet. This is why we should be pushing the date back for such a mission to near too or after the ISS is complete.

Also a 45 to 90 day wait until a new shuttle could arrive to the ISS for a damaged shuttle (worst case for like in the Hubble mission) is also not right either if our only intent were to go to the ISS. This is also not possible for on a moon or to mars mission either to think in these terms for vehicle or crew safety.
Other options must be explored.

I think we should also build a small cheap spacecraft to see exactly what happens at/or near light speeds in space. Our physics here on earth are not the same as in space. Maybe Einstein was wrong,we will never find out the truth sitting on our behinds thinking that he was right. The cost wouldn`t be too much for a unmanned flight. If UFO`s really do get here, I wonder how? After all Einstein said it was impossible right?