5-Segment SRB Question

[mikejz]

What was the increase in ISS payload for the shuttle with the proposed 5-segment SRB?

 

[willpittenger]

Some time ago I remember hearing that both the tank size and the number of SRB modules varied depending on the mission. Is that true?<br /><br />Also, could the shuttle boost ISS or Hubble any higher with more modules? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[mikejz]

Thanks for the answer:<br /><br />Now another question: Given the likely inability to meet the current launch schedule, and the fact that the CLV looks to be 5-segment: might the option of flying the last few shuttle missions with 5-segment SRBs be an option for making allowing for meeting the construction requirements?

 

[rybanis]

There probably isn't any reason to, I would think. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"However the % segment booster was never developed."</font><br /><br />I assume you meant <b><i>5</i></b> segment SRB.<br /><br />I was under the impression that the 5 segment SRB <b><i>had</i></b> been developed and even static tested at least once. Is my recall in error?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"One sub scale static test was performed. There is a lot more to a development program."</font><br /><br />Thanks for correcting my misremembrance. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[spacefire]

can the Shuttle fly piggyback on the HLV with the CEV on the other side and a spacesuit pony on top?<br /><br /><br />the Shuttle is dead.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

"can the Shuttle fly piggyback on the HLV with the CEV on the other side and a spacesuit pony on top?" <br /><br />Well maybe, if you had Orion powering the thing. Otherwise I bet the thing would never make it off the ground. But if you could, why would you? Using the shuttle along with the CEV's HLV would be pretty redundant since the CEV is ment to break us out of the pattern we have gotten into with the shuttle: circling and circling around in LEO with no forseeable end. That and you would just need the HLV to lift cargo and the CEV to carry people, so the shuttle is unnecessary.<br />BTW, what do you mean by a "spacesuit pony"?<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy

 

[rybanis]

With an extra segment, wouldn't the SRBs be even with the tip of the ET? That would require some extensive testing for areodynamics... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

it would probably destabilize the HLV. But 2 Shuttles, one on each side, it might work.<br />How about a Super shuttle with TWO orbiters on each side of an enlarged external tank and 4 SRBs?, 2 mated on each side. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[baktothemoon]

"How about a Super shuttle with TWO orbiters on each side of an enlarged external tank and 4 SRBs?, 2 mated on each side."<br /><br />You might as well just launch two shuttles at the same time if you are going to double everything. Since you would need a fuel tank twice as big as the one we have now. If we just launched two shuttles then we wouldn't have to mess around with developing this Super shuttle, launching two seperate shuttles would achieve the same thing.<br /><br />"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." John F. Kennedy<br />

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>. If we just launched two shuttles then we wouldn't have to mess around with developing this Super shuttle, launching two separate shuttles would achieve the same thing.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Note quite. A super shuttle would have a larger cargo bay capable of handling larger ISS modules (or existing modules with more preassembly done. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[mattblack]

An intriguing idea, for certain. But think of the negatives: a crew of 14 and TWO vehicles in danger from falling foam, and twice the chances for engine, TPS, and other assorted system failure!!!<br /><br />(shudder).<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[spacefire]

Ok, here's another idea!<br />If we're gonna can the Shuttle anyway, why not send them up in space with hardware one last time? With reduced crews (2,2,3)<br />I wonder if three Shuttles can put up a hab module, a propulsion module and a lander for a manned Mars mission.<br />The three could be parked close to eachother in Leo, one crew of 7 could 'shuttle' between the Shuttles to complete the assembly operations, then 3 people can return home with one CEV and 4 depart to Mars. Since the Orbiters can then be landed automatically, the risk of a Columbia-like accident with casualties is zero, and yet if needed the Orbiters are recovered. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nibb31]

Another idea that has already been discussed many times.<br /><br />1) because of their fuel cells, Shuttles lose power after 15 days or so in space. Once they have lost power, they are dead, and cannot be brought back to life. There's nothing that can be done about that, except redesigning the whole power circuit, which would be too expensive for an end of life mission.<br /><br />2) The CEV won't be available before the retirement of the Shuttle fleet. If you wait until CEV availability, or mars hardware availability, that would mean keeping the shuttle fleet flightworthy for many more years. This has a huge cost. <br /><br />3) Also, your plan would require to have the STS system running in parallel with the CEV hardware. Because the CEV replaces the STS, their will probably be modifications made to the VAB and the launch pads, so there will be no turning back.<br />