In Buzz aldrin's book "The return" they actually encounter this problem.
( http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...257060X&itm=10 )

****spoilers****
In the book at the end they go to the failing space station and rescue the crew. The shuttle fleet is grounded and can't rescue the Iss crew in time. So one of the character's secret black ops project is put into motion. It seems that they have been making a multi-stage multiple use rocket system. It consists of a standard base. Then several attachments are added as needed. It comes in many sizes, from small payloads/quick turnaround, to very heavy payload/long turnaround. They can add a crew compartment, or a payload compartment, or any number of additions. They explain it alot better than i can, but you get the gist.

(He co-authored the book. I reccomend it. Good for the shuttle program. It actually has a massive disaster in space and deals with ISS getting in trouble and having a group of scientists save them in a realistic fashion. To me after reading on this board it seems very on the level and good. Check it out. [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img])

__________________
GIYUL :-)
"It takes Thousands to fight a battle for a mile, Millions to hold an election for a nation, but it only takes One to change the world." - Dan Sandler 2002

Well, we've taken a real shot to the gut with Columbia's loss. The Bush admin has reassured us, that the trek to space will continue, and they had already increased NASA's budget by about a half a billion dollars before Columbia's liftoff. Well that should show they're serious.
The current administration has submitted a budget, that includes about a 300 billion dollar deficit. The previous record deficit was in 1992, and was about 270 billion. That's before any new round of tax cuts, and the Iraq war, we may be spending our childern's and grandchildern's money, but at least we are doing it with compassion and integrity.
Thou most shuttle replacement design projects have been mothballed, am sure public interest, as well as other interests, (Boing Boeing, Lockneed, for instance), will be ready to push their vision forward with government money, our money, as soon as the check clears. Have heard that they are quickly dusting off Prometheus, the nuclear rocket project, even now.
Why not use this severe loss as a turning point in humanity's march to the stars? We still have three shuttle craft, and current plans are to extend their useful life till about 2020/2025. Go with that, and use their time left to 'leapfrog' current technology and timetables.
Were I king of the freeworld, would use that time to forge stronger bonds with our spaced parnters, to collectively pay and reap the rewards, for a real off-world step. Forget Mars for the moment, the ISS would become a depot and construction facility. Would make a bee-line for the southern lunar pole and estabish a 'colony' here, and lock it up for us, ASAP. Have read that there is enough ice there to support about five thousand for a hundred years. That should be enough time for humanity's next step, the planets and their moons.
Nuclear rockets, not on my world, build them off world. Put the "go" on full for the 'space elevator.' NASA was aiming for a launch every three months, with it, you could deliver an obital payload every three days if needed, with no eviromental impact to speak of. Last I read, estimates are, fully funded and brained, one could be completed in ten years. Conventional space-trucks using rockets and maybe nuclear ones as well, could be built in orbit. Without having to climb out of earth's gravity well, they could be much smaller, cheaper, and efficent, too.
OK, have at it... [img]/phpBB/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

One of the better columns I've read on the topic, from Charles Krauthammer:

It's Time To Dream Higher

"The point is that the first 150 or so miles of space travel -- braving the gravitational well of Earth and shooting through the atmosphere -- is the most difficult and dangerous; the next million miles are comparatively easy. Yet going up and down that first 150 miles is the least glorious, least inspiring of all space adventures; it is the stuff beyond low-Earth orbit that speaks to our yearning as a restless, seeking species."

_________________
"... to strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield." - Tennyson, Ulysses

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: ToSeek on 2003-02-04 11:21 ]</font>

Nice story, I like Charles's work in the Post, but I think he's missed the mark a bit on this one. He spoke about the relative safety of the "next million miles" (minus rocks, radiation, extreme cold, physical deterioration in extended weightlessness,but we can look past that for the time being.) and spoke of the unglorious and dangerous first 150 miles. I hate to call him on this, but we'd need to know how to handle those first 150 miles as "safely" as we do the "next million" or the whole venture is pointless. As cold as it sounds, that's only going be done by trial and error and death and survival. We're going to someday find a solution to those first 150, but the price is going to be paid in hard work, sweat, anxiety and blood. That's life, folks. How many wooden hulks line the shore and ocean floors from the early days of exploration? How many hundreds of lives have been lost in hurricanes, tidal waves, iceberg impacts, reefs, and sandbars across the world? Exploration is not safe, we either get used to it or we bury our head in the sand and snuggle with our teddy bears.

The end point is, that even if the shuttle and the station aren't the "grand adventure" the common schmoe is looking for in manned space flight, it IS the most important training for those grand adventures we must undertake. There is no point leaving if its too dangerous to come home triumphant.

However, doing it the same way over and over again, via the shuttle, isn't much of a learning experience. If we really want missions to the planets rather than a "space truck," then we need to be trying newer, better ways of getting to orbit.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

The core concept of the shuttle as a launch vehicle is sound, there are elements of it which must be refined through experience and observation and technological improvement; The O-ring changes, lighter flight control systems, new docking systems, more durable insulation (the latest one), less brittle tiles (hopefully coming soon). The overall system works, it is just shaking itself out as we use it more often, the lesson it teaches will assist us in designing its successor. Even the Saturn series rockets evolved constantly, though they thankfully never lost a crewman in operation. As each rocket was built, lessons learned from previous missions were applied. The second fully assembled Saturn rocket (unmanned) that was launched was lost due to internal vibrations that had been detected in the first (manned) mission, but were considered a manageable event at the time, by the time the next Saturn went up (unmanned), the vibration problem was solved, the missions proceeded as scheduled (revised). This is the same reasoning used in shuttle operations. Heck, its even the same reasoning used in commercial aviation. After ever accident, there is a thorough analysis done for each situation brought about my mechanical failure and the rest of the planes in operation (hopefully) are retrofit with improvements (Concorde comes to mind, as does the 737-300). It is tragic that these heretofore unknown flaws cost lives, but there is often no other way to find them. Vehicles like these are seldom ever perfect the from the time they are certified operational, and many over time develop flaws the designers could never account for. No preflight test known can uncover EVERY flaw, its just not possible. No matter what engineers do, something will come up that leaves tehm desperately scratching their heads looking for a fix to keep the system flying. Its a fact of life. We use the shuttle because it works, even if not perfectly.

Excellent analysis, Doodler.

We are accustomed to equating space technology with commodity consumer technology, which may in many cases be less problematic but isn't trying to solve nearly the same problems.

Prior to 1986 O-rings were things you found in faucets. Homeowners dealt with eroded O-rings by letting the faucet drip until nagged to replace it. It was a revelation that an O-ring would, in some cases, have to function perfectly every time in order to preserve someone's life.

Homeowners are also familiar with spray-on foam insulation. But that foam isn't meant to handle -400 F at one surface and 1000 F an inch away, with several hundred pounds per square foot aerodynamic loading. That's pretty impressive foam.

So laymen get the idea that accidents like this are simply sloppy workmanship and lackadaisical management. Our efforts to relate space technology to that which the layman might recognize sometimes backfires when the layman expects the space program to operate within the comparatively sloppy tolerances of consumer technology.

Nobody remembers the early crashes of the 707s and 727s. Pilot error. Why? Because the 30-degree sweep of the Boeing wing made possible enormous savings in drag and enabled these airliners to be commercially successful. But it came at the cost of low-speed performance. The stall characteristics of a swept wing are abysmal, and pilots who tried to fly them by the seat of their pants quickly found themselves in a smoking crater. You must fly these aircraft "by the numbers".

Today we think nothing of this. We don't consider that the airliners we fly on have airfoils with narrow aerodynamic margins -- "unnecessarily risky". This is because the early failures led to increased pilot awareness, better training, and improved flight control systems.

The Challenger accident caused sweeping changes. The Columbia accident will likely cause sweeping changes. We are discovering how to fly in space. And yes, there are perhaps other ways outside of the STS arena that may look more attractive, but the fundmantal problem of engineering remains: you can never anticipate all the problems. This is why engineers search for the two-pronged solution. First, reduce the risk of failure. Second, mitigate the effects of failure. But not all problems lend themselves to ideal solutions.

I'm reminded of one of the maxims of engineering: "Any yahoo can build a bridge that stands up, but it takes an engineer to build a bridge that just barely stands up."

The lesson is that engineering is not merely about solving problems. It's about solving problems within the given constraints. A lot of talking heads are lamenting that but for a few dollars (or so they say) STS could be made virtualy risk-free. No escape module? Too expensive. No patch kit? Too expensive.

Look at all the overpasses that collapsed in the Bay area during the earthquake several years ago. Don't you think it was within engineers' capacity to build those structures to withstand the forces which failed them? Yes, absolutely. But the resulting structure would have been far too expensive.

99% of a system's theoretical reliability can be achieved using 99% of its allocated resources. The remaining 1% requires the other 99% of the resources. What if the average automobile price were $150,000, but nobody ever died in one? Nobody would buy or sell cars. This price-performance curve is even sharper in aerospace.

We travel at unsafe speeds on the freeways because we accept risk in return for convenience. We'd rather hurtle along at 70 mph instead of a much safer 25 because we don't want a 60-minute commute. And in return for that convenience we accept the increased probability that someone may have to hose us off the pavement.

Our lives are governed by "acceptable risk." We find that sweet spot right between inconvenience and recklessness. 55-65 mph is acceptable risk for everyday freeway driving in the U.S. We're still, apparently, defining "acceptable risk" for STS.

Can STS be made safer? Yes, and it will. We'll change the way we build it. We'll change the way we fly it. We'll change the way we evaluate its performance. But there's no need to placate extremists who want to halt manned space flight. That would be an extraordinarily stupid thing to do, if just for the reason that by stopping it we'll soon forget how it's done and then we'll have to learn all these hard-won lessons again sometime in the future.

__________________
"Facts are stubborn things." --John Adams
Clavius Moon Base

http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ts_030204.html

Manned launches for the sake of manned launches are a waste of time. But a program that seeks to build space infrastructure and extend human presence further like Von Braun envisioned, it certainly worth its price.

It's certainly worth more than channeling billions of dollars into developing newer and better weapons of mass destruction.

I hope from this disaster, public opinion gets stirring so that Congress will get NASA back on track to getting a true program of exploration underway.

How about, "Nothing ventured, nothing gained"?

Hmmm... "Venture"... good name for a spacecraft.

I can't argue that we're not learning from the shuttle; however, if our primary purpose were to learn better (cheaper, safer) means of getting into low-Earth orbit, this isn't how we'd go about it. We'd be trying various technologies to see what worked best, which, ironically, would be far more dangerous in the short run, if safer eventually.

I'm not sure what you're referring to here, though it sounds like the evolution of the Saturn V:

Apollo 4: unmanned, successful
Apollo 6: unmanned, unsuccessful due in part to vibration ("pogo") problems, but problems were believed to be understood
Apollo 8: manned, successful (still can't believed that Saturn V was not only man-rated after Apollo 6 but sent men to the Moon!)

So far as I know the only unmanned Saturn launched after the first manned Apollo launch (7) was the one that put Skylab into orbit.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Along this same line of thought...
I'm hoping that the American public will not be lulled into a false sense of "if we just send up a escape module and a tile repair kit, space will be safe". That line of reasoning begs disaster.

Space travel is a dangerous business, but with big risks come big rewards. We can try to make it as safe as possible, but there is only so much we can do and still maintain a viable space program.

My signature, more appropriate now than I originally intended, says it all...

The next step should be to forget all about going into space at all. We have enough problems here on Earth without trying to find other planets to populate. Really when you look at the whole picture, the whole space program has been a huge waste of taxpayers money which could have been used to cure aids, cancer, MS, Meningitus, etc, etc. We have third world countries starving to death and yet the US Government sends up the Shuttle into space every few months for little purpose (maybe other than the invention of Teflon). NASA decide to keep a 20 odd year old shuttle in commision which even airlines would not do. Space travel is a risky business and all NASA could say after last weeks crash was 'Well, we will find what went wrong and send another 7 suckers up to see if were right'.

Save the money and spend it on this planet!

Diablo

Oh yes and before I forget, if they saved money on the Shuttle perhaps they could refinance Jim Obergs book which will try to explain the Apollo Hoax theories... or did they pull out because they were worried of being found out?

Diablo

Oh yeah and heres one for Jay Utah

Its not he who has the loudest voice, but he who has something to say that the people will listen to.

Diablo

Exactly. That's why we listen to Jay and not you.

__________________
Old laser physicists never die, they just become incoherent.
These days, every Tom, Dick, and Harry thinks he knows what a photon is, but he is wrong. - Albert Einstein

Diablo,

if you think that monies diverted from Shuttle or Station would make a material difference in conquering various diseases, I suggest you take a good luck at how much is spent on disease research in the US, let alone worldwide, then come back and explain why taking Shuttle/ISS money out of a two trillion dollar budget and throwing it at some disease would be particularly effective, or beneficial to the economy for that matter.

If you think we didn't land on the Moon, why don't you go to the Lunar Conspiracies forum and defend some of your earlier claims. Or make some new ones and defend them.

And as for tossing insults at Jay, you might stop to consider that (a) it's bad manners and (b) Jay has established a long track record here of reasoned and detailed arguments.

Bring out any specific claim and we'll talk about it. If you just want to insult people, there are forums where flaming is considered acceptable.

...and yet the US Government sends up the Shuttle into space every few months for little purpose (maybe other than the invention of Teflon).

Teflon was not a discovery or development of the space program; it was discovered when a Dupont researchist noticed a strange rattle when he moved an old cylinder of flourine gas.

What the manned space program has given us - either directly or as a spin-off - is:
Kevlar (bullet-proof vests for police officers);
MRIs;
Cat scans;
Mammography;
ER and ICU medical telemetry;
Microgravity research on cancer, osteoperosis, cardiovascular disease, kidney function...;
Cool suit technology for multiple sclerosis patients;
And so on.

__________________
Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by ignorance or stupidity.
Isaac Asimov

Nitpick:
The second full-up launch of the Saturn V was not lost. It did experience severe pogo vibrations and other serious failures, but made it into orbit and was good enough for NASA to pronounce it a success, in that it met all mission objectives. It also provided a lot of data that allowed Huntsville to prevent pogo on later launches, and repair the other problems.

However, had that been a manned mission, it probably would have been aborted because of the pogo.