Alternative to Discontinuation of the Space Shuttle

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

Stewie_Griffin

Guest
<p>When the Space Shuttle is discontinued in 2010 the United States will have no means of reaching the ISS besides catching a ride in a Soyuz. &nbsp;NASA has said that they require 2.5 Billion for every year they extend that deadline.</p><p>I was thinking that&nbsp;instead&nbsp;of fully discontinuing the shuttle they could keep two shuttles&nbsp;and two SRBs&nbsp;fully&nbsp;operational. &nbsp;With a few modifications to the Shuttles and the SRBs they could be made so that the shuttle attached to the top of the SRB and when it would be launched the SRB would act as a first stage and a fuel tank in the Shuttles payload bay would feed the shuttles engines to and would act as a second stage.</p><p>I would imagine that this would lower operational costs and while we couldn't bring much payload to the ISS we could bring 7 crew members which is better than not being able to do anything.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
A

aphh

Guest
If the fuel tanks resided in the payload bay there would be no bailing out the astronauts in the case of emergency during launch. The launch abort and bailout scenario during ascent is to release the orbiter from the external tank and solid boosters and glide away from harms way with no large amount of explosive fuel onboard the orbiter.
 
T

tanstaafl76

Guest
<p>I'm no expert Stewie but your idea doesn't sound remotely feasible. &nbsp;First the Shuttle was not designed to be stacked on top of anything, the amount of modification required to make that work would be massively expensive. &nbsp;Second, I dont' see how one SRB and the internal shuttle fuel tank would be near enough to get them up to orbit - why do you think they use two SRBs and a giant external fuel tank for the shuttle as it is now?</p><p>&nbsp;</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts