Although whether it would be worth the development effort is a good question.
Seriously, what would it take to add teleoperational capability to the Shuttle? RMS seems tailor made for it. Surely the control inputs are electronic (rather than cable)? Same with the OMS flight controls? Once they were wired for it, couldn't it be flown to docking by a pilot situated aboard ISS? It doesn't seem like that would require a great deal of sophistication. Although whether it would be worth the development effort is a good question.
Too much lag for teleops.
Quote from: Jim on 09/13/2008 01:42 pmToo much lag for teleops.Hmm, the Russians/Europeans did not seem to mind the lag too much when designing the Buran RMS/ERAhttp://www.buran.su/buranvssts-comparison.php
The Astronaut Corp would never allow it anyway? Would put them out of a job.
Out of interest, will Orion be technically something that can fly unmanned?
Quote from: William Barton on 09/12/2008 04:11 pmSeriously, what would it take to add teleoperational capability to the Shuttle? RMS seems tailor made for it. Surely the control inputs are electronic (rather than cable)? Same with the OMS flight controls? Once they were wired for it, couldn't it be flown to docking by a pilot situated aboard ISS? It doesn't seem like that would require a great deal of sophistication. Although whether it would be worth the development effort is a good question.Too much lag for teleops. All the onorbit ops are manual. Payload bay door ops, attitude control, rendezvous and docking, oms burns, system reconfiguration, etc. The issue isn't computing power. The problem is wiring. The function of every switch need to be reconfigured to be done by avionics. Put it this way, what would it take to make every light switch, every thermostat, every appliance controller, every door, etc in a house to be remotely operated from a PC. The PC has the capability to do but the house doesn't
Quote from: Jim on 09/13/2008 01:42 pmQuote from: William Barton on 09/12/2008 04:11 pmSeriously, what would it take to add teleoperational capability to the Shuttle? RMS seems tailor made for it. Surely the control inputs are electronic (rather than cable)? Same with the OMS flight controls? Once they were wired for it, couldn't it be flown to docking by a pilot situated aboard ISS? It doesn't seem like that would require a great deal of sophistication. Although whether it would be worth the development effort is a good question.Too much lag for teleops. All the onorbit ops are manual. Payload bay door ops, attitude control, rendezvous and docking, oms burns, system reconfiguration, etc. The issue isn't computing power. The problem is wiring. The function of every switch need to be reconfigured to be done by avionics. Put it this way, what would it take to make every light switch, every thermostat, every appliance controller, every door, etc in a house to be remotely operated from a PC. The PC has the capability to do but the house doesn'tOn the house example I was able to automate many functions in my house via X10 controllers and it was very easy. I did not have to rip out the walls etc the controllers use the existing AC wiring for communications.
It may not open every door but it does control most of the lighting and the thermostat.
As for lag it didn't stop NextSat and Astro from performing several operations it's only 320 milliseconds anyway at worst double it if the signal has to be bounced twice.
You didn't compare automating the shuttle, to adding X10 contollers to your lamps, did you?
If you carry a DM in the payload bay how are they supposed to get into it? Other problems with this are - If you are carrying a Soyuz DM how do you use it? The payload bay doors are closed during entry. If you use it before hand how do you deorbit?
I believe such an escape pod concept was talked about before. High performance aircraft have used them, e.g. the XB70, IIRC.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 09/13/2008 09:13 pmHmm, the Russians/Europeans did not seem to mind the lag too much when designing the Buran RMS/ERAhttp://www.buran.su/buranvssts-comparison.phpBe aware that this is a amazing people website, not an official website, so its claims should be taken with a huge grain of salt.Buran RMS never flew and how well it would have worked if teleoperated is purely speculative.
Hmm, the Russians/Europeans did not seem to mind the lag too much when designing the Buran RMS/ERAhttp://www.buran.su/buranvssts-comparison.php
A slight twist on this, and the answer is probably no, but might the following scenario work:- shuttle is launched unmanned, perhaps with a payload, perhaps not- shuttle waits outside the ISS approach ellipsoid- Orion or Orion + (as yet non-existent) SSPDM + any downmass payload approaches the shuttle- shuttle's cargo bay doors are opened remotely from the ground- Orion docks with airlock (perhaps tailor-made == $$$)or - astronauts make EVA, perhaps assisted by robot arm on SSPDM, perhaps with MMU/SAFER- astronauts enter the shuttle, deploy payload and/or take downmass on board- astronauts return to Orion- Orion returns to ISS with SSPDM + payload and hands it over to the ISS robot arm or returns empty if no payload- shuttle cargo bay doors are closed from the ground- shuttle lands autonomouslyIf this works, it would be a way to preserve the shuttle workforce (politics), and solve any downmass problems while not putting a replacement SDLV on the critical path. As I said, probably too difficult, dangerous or expensive. Any idea how difficult, dangerous or expensive?
Flying the shuttle unmanned saves little to no money over flying it manned. EVA transfer increases risk. If you're going to keep flying the shuttle at all, fly it manned.
Quote from: Jorge on 05/11/2009 05:08 pmFlying the shuttle unmanned saves little to no money over flying it manned. EVA transfer increases risk. If you're going to keep flying the shuttle at all, fly it manned.I was thinking more of safety. Would the extra EVA and docking be more risky than manned launch and landing? And just out of interest: would this be technically possible?
In particular escape pods are such heavy systems for seven crew that every option which has been studied would each have seriously reduced the payload carrying capabilities of the Shuttle - which aren't exactly massive anyway.Essentially, trying to integrate such a system into the current Shuttle design would end up only making the vehicle a lot less capable and a lot less useful than at present - and that would only defeat the entire purpose of the Shuttle.Ross.
I had wondered about launching STS-135 since it would be ready to go anyhow. Maybe with a two man crew who could stay as part of the ISS crew, and landing the shuttle autonymously. "No, for continuous comm you need TDRSS and the one-way latency is around 6 seconds. The system was simply not designed for low latency. It could be upgraded but will cost $$$." I'm guessing you meant a one way latency of .6 seconds, and even then, wouldn't that add up to the two way time?
Plan B to avoid an extra EVA:Remote control the shuttle's robot arm from Orion (no TDRS needed, low ping bastard scenario with no latency) or use the SSPDM's robot arm to get the payload from the cargo bay or to stick the download mass in. That last bit sounds especially tricky, given personal childhood experiences with jumping from a small boat onto a jetty. Or more accurately, not jumping onto said jetty. Plan C to avoid cumulative risk:Have a crew that's already going up to the ISS for another mission or the return crew do this.Still doesn't solve the money problem of course.
No, I meant what I wrote. It's six, not 0.6. The system is old and has a lot of overhead that adds to the latency. Upgrading it will cost $$$.
I had an idea for a way to do that back when the Shuttle was still under development, very Rube Goldberg: Mount an Apollo capsule inside the (detachable) Orbiter nosecap, with a tunnel leading from the crew compartment to the capsule hatch. Attach a LAS tower to the outside of the nosecap with the idea if things went bad during launch, the LAS would extract the nosecap, capsule and all (caspule would then detach from nosecap and execute a normal entry/descent profile for an Apollo capsule). If things went wrong on reentry, nosecap and capsule would detach from failing orbiter, even if during aerodynamiuc breakup, and aero forces would turn the capsule heat-shield forward. Crew would ride in capsule up and down, of course. It would have been heavy, but not all that heavy. Doesn't the Orbiter already carry lead in its nose?
Quote from: William Barton on 05/11/2009 05:25 pmI had an idea for a way to do that back when the Shuttle was still under development, very Rube Goldberg: Mount an Apollo capsule inside the (detachable) Orbiter nosecap, with a tunnel leading from the crew compartment to the capsule hatch. Attach a LAS tower to the outside of the nosecap with the idea if things went bad during launch, the LAS would extract the nosecap, capsule and all (caspule would then detach from nosecap and execute a normal entry/descent profile for an Apollo capsule). If things went wrong on reentry, nosecap and capsule would detach from failing orbiter, even if during aerodynamiuc breakup, and aero forces would turn the capsule heat-shield forward. Crew would ride in capsule up and down, of course. It would have been heavy, but not all that heavy. Doesn't the Orbiter already carry lead in its nose? Since the more recent Unmanned Shuttle thread linked to here, and since you've posted something related to a question I've had:Rockwell came up with a similar idea once upon a time, evidently, using a modified Apollo CM with heat shield and RCS pack as an escape capsule for the Shuttle. Obviously, they'd have to use it from orbit, but the thing that's always bothered me is...where the heck were they going to put the capsule?http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aponcept.htm
Quote from: SirThoreth on 03/24/2010 01:10 amQuote from: William Barton on 05/11/2009 05:25 pmI had an idea for a way to do that back when the Shuttle was still under development, very Rube Goldberg: Mount an Apollo capsule inside the (detachable) Orbiter nosecap, with a tunnel leading from the crew compartment to the capsule hatch. Attach a LAS tower to the outside of the nosecap with the idea if things went bad during launch, the LAS would extract the nosecap, capsule and all (caspule would then detach from nosecap and execute a normal entry/descent profile for an Apollo capsule). If things went wrong on reentry, nosecap and capsule would detach from failing orbiter, even if during aerodynamiuc breakup, and aero forces would turn the capsule heat-shield forward. Crew would ride in capsule up and down, of course. It would have been heavy, but not all that heavy. Doesn't the Orbiter already carry lead in its nose? Since the more recent Unmanned Shuttle thread linked to here, and since you've posted something related to a question I've had:Rockwell came up with a similar idea once upon a time, evidently, using a modified Apollo CM with heat shield and RCS pack as an escape capsule for the Shuttle. Obviously, they'd have to use it from orbit, but the thing that's always bothered me is...where the heck were they going to put the capsule?http://www.astronautix.com/craft/aponcept.htmIn the payload bay. Obviously would not have worked with ISS as-designed, since several ISS modules and many of the truss segments took up most of the length of the bay aft of the ODS.