I was speechless!

I'm over it now.
This is the longest I've gone between posts.

When the Obama administration killed the NASA Constellation Program I truly did not know what to think. Since I didn't want to start blathering like an idjit without knowing any real facts,
I just shut up. Too bad politicians and newscasters can't do the same. I do try to look at both sides of anything, thus I can't be gung-ho about every cool aerospace project that comes along,
or about a cancellation. I did NOT like the Constellation Program, particularly the Ares I, top and bottom. I won't miss it a bit. The Ares V/VI iterations looked better, but were plagued by problems as well. As near as I can tell, it needed bigger engines than are currently available. Until they re-approach or exceed the Saturn Program F1 engine they're wasting time and money. Now it appears that NASA is going to redirect research money in that direction. The "New Hydrocarbon Engine" is intended to meet or exceed the Russian RD-180 which puts
out 860,000 Lbs of thrust. Not big enough I say. Hydrocarbon is fancy talk for Kerosene. Not as much energy per pound as burning Hydrogen, but it's a LOT denser, which saves volume on the first stage where it can be used. Saved volume means less booster weight and height, and it doesn't need to be insulated, or defueled if a launch is seriously delayed.
Another article spoke of NASA initiating real research into orbital fuel depots. Another needed link in the chain to future space activities.

Between cancellation of Constellation and the Shuttle retirement, the job loss numbers are nothing short of staggering. I hear numbers like 20,000 jobs lost in Florida alone. Combined job losses in others states may rival that. This is a bad time to even threaten that, given the nation's financial woes. That's a lot of folks that aren't going to spend an extra dime towards improving the economy even while they can. Another factor to consider is the message this sends to our children. We are trying to get more kids interested in science and high tech educations, meanwhile the folks who currently hold those kinds of jobs are getting laid-off enmasse.

A recent report stated that it would take 2 years from the go signal to add new flights to the shuttle's remaining few. No big stumbling blocks besides putting the fuel tanks back in production. The shuttles will still be flying for most of this year, so that still leaves a bit of a gap. Maybe some overtime or the temporary shift of extra workers would close that gap somewhat.
I do think the STS system is aged, but we should not walk away from its' capabilities for any reason. I never felt that the STS should be our only major access to space, and now less than ever, but we should continue to use it where other vehicles won't suffice. At this point it would take quite a while to produce new improved shuttle orbiters, but we should get on with that. It'll always be more expensive to do so later.
Special thanks to the articles I found at Spaceflight Now.
http://spaceflightnow.com/

Shuttle Kvetch

Two possible versions of Shuttle-C.

Anyone who knows me, or who's read this blog, should
know that I love anything that flies, from paper
airplanes and match rockets to the Voyager probes
currently coasting in intersellar space.
I don't hate NASA, or the Shuttle. As those of us who
know anything about it know, the blame isn't all on
NASA's shoulders. For the sake of brevity [too late]
NASA will do for now.
Part of this first rant is going to spill onto the
International Space Station as well. More on the ISS
in the next installment.

I am mad at NASA for the way they screwed up the
shuttle program nearly every step of the way, until
it's admittedly too late to do anything about it.
What angers me most is that it's an obviously modular
system, and yet this is the most underutilized
feature of the system.

Ok class... who here knows that the original strap-on
boosters were supposed to be hybrid motors?
Huh, what happened? I admit I'm a hybrid proponent,
bigtime, but that floored me when I found out.
Hybrid motors are great because they are a lot simpler
and cheaper than liquid fuel boosters, and broadly
speaking, a LOT safer than liquid OR solid boosters. A
hybrid is vastly simplier than a bi-liquid system and
doesn't carry all that liquid kerosene or hydrogen that
makes such a pretty fireball. While a hybrid is more
complicated and heavier than an all solid rocket motor,
it's still safer because, if there's a problem, you can
shut them off.
Unfortumately, Hybrid tech was still very immature at
the time, it would still be a few years before AMROC
tested their big ones, and those weren't big enough.
However, there was no reason the shuttle couldn't fly
on solids initially, while Hybrid R&D was fast tracked.
Modular remember? The Hybrid strap-on boosters might've
been flying in time to avert the Challenger disaster.

After Challenger, NASA and Rockwell put heads together
and decided what improvements to make before building
a replacement orbiter. Bravo!
Of course having a large inventory of huge orbiter
components in storage helped speed construction. Endeavor
really is a B model orbiter. The other 3 orbiters received
the same upgrades wherever possible. After Endeavor flew,
and the fleet upgrades were finished, they should've sat
down AGAIN and planned an even better orbiter. Not just a
Challenger replacement, or 2nd Endeavor, but an eventual
fleet replacement, or supplement. Maybe a real departure
from the earlier orbiters, certainly more maintainable.
Modular!! As these new orbiters came on line, the older
units could be retired to museums. Read COLUMBIA!!!
If NASA had done this, the fleet would still be modern,
if not cutting edge, today. Hell, this still could've
[should've] been done when the SSTO initiative fell through.

At some time NASA had plans for Shuttle C. This would've
been an unmanned wingless cargo version. Little more than
a cargo bay with motors and guidance. Three reasons for
building it were to be able to fly heavier or larger loads
when needed, like station segments, and to reduce man hours
in space when not needed. Third would be hazardous payloads.
After Challenger, liquid fueled payload boosters were
outlawed for the shuttle for crew safety reasons, reducing
the types of missions STS could support.
Using Shuttle-C, station segments would be released in orbit
near the station, then crews would retrieve them for
assembly. Before the station was manned, they would've placed
2-3 modules in orbit, then sent up a manned orbiter, with
supplies and other components, to do assembly. Of course,
today the segments might be docked autonomously.
I always thought you could make even bigger station segments,
and attach the guidance/thruster package, and motor pack to
the segment couplers at each end, then fly it in place of an
orbiter. The flight components would be removed and saved,
eventually flying home in an orbiter cargo bay for reuse.
Of course either scenario assumes you want the STS system
involved in boosting the major station components anyway.
Read Saturn!!
The shuttle bay is dinky compared to a Skylab, and Skylab
was no strain on the Saturn V. I do not advocate resurrecting
the Saturns after all this time, they really are dinosaurs now.
I am saying we should never have fully retired them.
Incremental improvements have kept Atlas, Delta and Titan in
the air longer than Saturn's been on paper.

Plenty of folks like to second guess NASA and I'm genuinely
sorry to be lumped in with them. However I've had these opinions
for years, and even shared them with a few NASA engineers, who
happened to agree. Not just because I'm a size 2 1/2 biker
maniac either. It feels good to finally write and post this.


I'm sure this post could still use more editing, but if I held
onto it any longer it would turn into a book.