The future of Manned Spaceflight

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I wouldn't mind, but Boeing's division is formerly that of Rockwell which built the Saturn V and the Shuttle orbiter. It's essentially the most expieriened company in the world in terms of space vehicles.

I think you'll find that the first manned Russian Soyuz Spacecraft was before the first manned Apollo or Saturn V.

The Soyuz rocket of course can trace it's ancestory back to the 1950's

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I think you'll find that the first manned Russian Soyuz Spacecraft was before the first manned Apollo or Saturn V.

The Soyuz rocket of course can trace it's ancestory back to the 1950's

Energia has built Soyuz, Energia and Buran.

Rockwell built Mercury, Gemini, Apollo and Space Shuttle architecture.

In fairness, both companies have a similar track record baring the fact that Saturn V actually got off the launch pad, put people on the moon and put Skylab into orbit, unlike the N1, which exploded many times before being shelved.

Factor in that the Buran shuttle never actually carried a crew ever and never carried cargo at all into orbit.

I would imagine that the technical know how at Boeing's aerospace division outstrips that at Energia.

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

I would imagine that the technical know how at Boeing's aerospace division outstrips that at Energia.

N1 was the result of political interference (and it's engines are still among the most efficient ever flow, the Americans had used their "technical know how" to prove to themselves that such an engine would be virtually impossible to build. The Russians built them, in part by trial and error.)

Space Shuttle was the first manned craft to not have an unmanned test flight. Could an accident then have killed off the shuttle program ?

In theory the US might have more advanced man rated launchers, at some point in the future, at a cost that isn't extortionate.

What is the difference between theory and practice ?
In theory there is no difference, in practice there is.

And at the end of the day the Russians can still put people into space using off the shelf hardware that can be transported by train.

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

N1 was the result of political interference (and it's engines are still among the most efficient ever flow, the Americans had used their "technical know how" to prove to themselves that such an engine would be virtually impossible to build. The Russians built them, in part by trial and error.)

Rocketdyne (division of Boeing) designed maybe the most efficient rocket engine in history in the XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Space Shuttle was the first manned craft to not have an unmanned test flight. Could an accident then have killed off the shuttle program ?

NASA and Rockwell took the decision that the landing gear couldn't be opened on the Shuttle by computer to avoid it opening by accident in space. This as you say, necessetated a manned test flight.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

And at the end of the day the Russians can still put people into space using off the shelf hardware that can be transported by train.

Often heard one of the main reasons for the N1 failures was due to the insanely complicated plumbing and the fact that it was transported in parts via train from Moscow to Baiknour.

markfla

Not sure if people saw this video before, but an inspiring talk on private manned space flight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m8PlzDgFQMM

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

Rocketdyne (division of Boeing) designed maybe the most efficient rocket engine in history in the XRS-2200 Linear Aerospike.

Let me know when someone tries an aerospike with a payload.
What is it's specific impulse or thrust to weight ratio ?

I just remember too much hype about the SSME's back in the day.

NASA and Rockwell took the decision that the landing gear couldn't be opened on the Shuttle by computer to avoid it opening by accident in space. This as you say, necessetated a manned test flight.

They could have used a relay to push the button if that was the only reason. This and the O ring and the tiles shows that NASA were taking unnecessary chances. Why bother wasting billions on trying to develop more reliable equipment when the human factor means you won't actually achieve those benefits. Might be interesting to figure out how often the human factor causes missions to fail to give a base line figure for reliabiity. Stuff like metric-imperial conversions is now a problem peculiar to the US.

Often heard one of the main reasons for the N1 failures was due to the insanely complicated plumbing and the fact that it was transported in parts via train from Moscow to Baiknour.

True.
again political decision to use existing components against the wishes of the engineers. Most "accidents" are the result of several failure occuring in sequence. This is why reducing part numbers and connections improves reliability. The electric fan in your computer has one moving part.

And a lot of people died when a Vostok exploded because they used lead free solder on filters. Yet another example of changes that can have unintended consequences. A new design will have to go through all that stuff all over again.

Chuck Stone

I have, a possibly dumb, question lads.

Is there anything that humans do in space that can't be done robotically?

Turtwig

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I have, a possibly dumb, question lads.

Is there anything that humans do in space that can't be done robotically?

Technically speaking human's greatest use is the ultimate failsafe. Robots are best for everything, but for projects that just cannot fail there is nothing better than having a human up there in case the machine gets a little screwed. Imagine how easy a rover like spirit would be to fix.
Ultimately though machines can do everything and more. I mean we could send a human to the edge of the solar system they'd never return to Earth and they might not make it their alive but we could do it.

Plug

Humans can also improvise on the spot. Lets say if they were looking on the surface of Mars if a human saw something strange, pick it up and examine it. No arsing around.

Turtwig

Personally speaking I see manned exploration as a colossal waste of money. I was almost fit to cry when Spirit ceased communications. To put it simply humans are not capable of enduring long hauls in space or undertaking long term missions like the Mars rovers did. That said, Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a good point here about how manned space flight captures the vision of many. In a more reasonable world though, robotic missions would be just as awespiring. I mean feck sake when you think of the challenges we overcame just to get a probe to orbit Mercury. The skill and ingenuity shown by NASA for plotting the mission of the Messenger probe were nothing short of utter brilliance. Yet to most its accomplishment was barely even noted. Don't get me wrong the thought of landing people on Mars astounds me, but I'm in no hurry to get there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o

Messengers Trajectory.(Not the greatest illustration : The orbits should be more elliptical and more "weighted" the Earth comes closer to the sun on side of the curve than it will on the opposite.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ownzbb1mKxs

AugustusMinimus

Malty_T wrote: »

Personally speaking I see manned exploration as a colossal waste of money. I was almost fit to cry when Spirit ceased communications. To put it simply humans are not capable of enduring long hauls in space or undertaking long term missions like the Mars rovers did. That said, Neil DeGrasse Tyson makes a good point here about how manned space flight captures the vision of many. In a more reasonable world though, robotic missions would be just as awespiring. I mean feck sake when you think of the challenges we overcame just to get a probe to orbit Mercury. The skill and ingenuity shown by NASA for plotting the mission of the Messenger probe were nothing short of utter brilliance. Yet to most its accomplishment was barely even noted. Don't get me wrong the thought of landing people on Mars astounds me, but I'm in no hurry to get there.

The primary objective of the US Space Programme is the settlement of space firstly and secondly, science.

Robotic missions do no achieve the first objective.

AugustusMinimus

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Let me know when someone tries an aerospike with a payload.
What is it's specific impulse or thrust to weight ratio ?

I just remember too much hype about the SSME's back in the day.

There's no definite figures for those Linear Aerospike engines. However, they perform much better than standard bell rockts at lower altitude.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They could have used a relay to push the button if that was the only reason. This and the O ring and the tiles shows that NASA were taking unnecessary chances. Why bother wasting billions on trying to develop more reliable equipment when the human factor means you won't actually achieve those benefits. Might be interesting to figure out how often the human factor causes missions to fail to give a base line figure for reliabiity. Stuff like metric-imperial conversions is now a problem peculiar to the US.
.

That would leave you with the same problem of the relay pushing the button in error.

Chuck Stone

It seems kind of counter intuitive to send men out to Mars. I mean if exploration is the primary motivation then by the time we had a few men on Mars we could have probably used the money to land loads of robotic missions on lots of the interesting places in the solar system.

Turtwig

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It seems kind of counter intuitive to send men out to Mars. I mean if exploration is the primary motivation then by the time we had a few men on Mars we could have probably used the money to land loads of robotic missions on lots of the interesting places in the solar system.

Yeah but I feel uneasy about leaving tonnes of robots abandoned in places in the solar system.:( Those little guys put their hearts and souls into their jobs.

Chuck Stone

Lol ^^ yeah, I seen that before. It actually makes you feel sorry for the poor thing.

Turtwig

NASA just released some lovely computer animations of what the asteroid mission might look like. Honestly I hope it goes ahead, but in the current climate I'm pessimistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNTGV334wA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgCR_DODE_Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwIIrYGl1c

Beeker

Malty_T wrote: »

NASA just released some lovely computer animations of what the asteroid mission might look like. Honestly I hope it goes ahead, but in the current climate I'm pessimistic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gNTGV334wA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AgCR_DODE_Q

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnwIIrYGl1c

I thing it will happen but not as soon as we hope.:(

Beeker

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It seems kind of counter intuitive to send men out to Mars. I mean if exploration is the primary motivation then by the time we had a few men on Mars we could have probably used the money to land loads of robotic missions on lots of the interesting places in the solar system.

Robotic missions are great, I wish the money was there to send more out to explore places like Titan, Enceladus, Europa, Io, and a major exploration of Mars. We are likely to find life on one or more of these worlds but it is going to take a long time at the rate we are exploring today.:( Human flight is expensive but is very productive and it has been said that in one day a Human on Mars could do as much work as the Spirit and Opportunity have done in the last few years. So yes robots are good but Humans will also be needed to move forward.

Chuck Stone

Looks quite easily achievable by automated flight. (asteriod capture)

Turtwig

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Looks quite easily achievable by automated flight. (asteriod capture)

I wouldn't be so sure.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=02U3mBgxXYM

*Flees Thread.*

Beeker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cFdhyVtNUw

Capt'n Midnight

AugustusMinimus wrote: »

There's no definite figures for those Linear Aerospike engines. However, they perform much better than standard bell rockts at lower altitude.

says who ?
any independent analysis of that which also takes into account the engine weight ?

ducts around rocket engines would give greater thrust in lower atmosphere too, but no one uses them

That would leave you with the same problem of the relay pushing the button in error.

you push the button by remote control , using a different system that isn't linked to the computer

really dumb system could be linked to air pressure and temperature so it wouldn't open in a vacuum or while still hot from reentry , even dumber would be linked to altimeter radar. Or they could just have a guy with a remote control near the runway. There is no need to endanger humans just to press that button.

karaokeman

To me it still seems like a terrible waste that NASA spent so much on the Shuttle programme when it just took astronauts about 200-300 miles compared to 250,000 that they did back in the Apollo years.

Does anyone else think they will survive in the current economic climate and now without a replacement for the Shuttle, I'm not sure of anything else that would get funding.

To me I could easily see the Indians, Chinese and so fort taking over with the rate they are growing.

djhaxman

They'd better survive, I want to work there when I graduate

slade_x

djhaxman wrote: »

They'd better survive, I want to work there when I graduate

There will always be such a program,
ESA does good work too and is a little bit closer to home

karaokeman

djhaxman wrote: »

They'd better survive, I want to work there when I graduate

Move to Asia perhaps?

I would love to work somewhere that far off. That in my mind would be a much better experience.

Tomk1

Is the Shuttle the end for NASA?

Don't worry African space research: Dreaming of a manned shuttle

If anything this is the start of NASA returning to science, NASA is involved with other commercial space companies, that can/will deliver passengers/cargo to the ISS. The whole idea of the shuttle was to have a cheap fast turnaround craft, which it didn't achieve. (Also in part it was a military craft built to launch military satellites) The only reason they kept it going was to build the ISS.

I think the shuttle has hindered NASA's advancement of knowledge, by absorbing all their money in a gaint white elephant.
Now NASA can return to exploration, with the GRAIL moon space-craft which will launch in September, as part of the "discovery-mission".

djhaxman

slade_x wrote: »

There will always be such a program,
ESA does good work too and is a little bit closer to home

Yeah I know, NUI Maynooth were involved in the Herschel and Planck telescopes so there's a connection with ESA there. Ideally I'd like to work for JPL, but might be a bit long in the tooth and not American enough for that :pac:

Beeker

Bring it on:)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p176UpWQOs4

Plug

I think they might be a bit optimistic on the idea of landing the stages using rockets. It will take a massive amount of fuel to land them and you will have to bring extra fuel to make sure it can do that and eventually the rocket will get way too big.
Using a smaller amount of fuel to slow it down on its decent and then parachutes to guide it to the ocean might be a better idea.