let's forget the CEV and think of a Shuttle Version 2!

[spacefire]

Assuming we want to use as much existing technology as possible, this is how I would see a successor to the shuttle:<br />Lifting body orbiter(of course) <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />, reuses the SSMEs for the sake of commonality. LOH-LOX tanks are inside the orbiter. Having an external tank that can shed pieces coming almost in contact with the tiles obvioulsy was a very wrong design.<br />The SRBs can be used, being attached to the sides of the orbiter.<br />Because of it's lower weight loading during landing-more empty volume because of the internal fuel tanks- a landing profile similar to that of the current Orbiter can be achieved.<br />I see this design as a logical successor to the Shuttle and a step towards SSTO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[j05h]

You just described the X-33/Venturestar, minus the aerospike engines. Didn't work then, won't work now. Not being negative, the idea of a monolithic launch system is a non-starter at this point. There are plenty of rockets to fly payloads on, just figure out how to make money doing your favorite mission. No magic "next generation" vehicles are needed - if they are, the market should generate them organically.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[spacefire]

the Vstar didn't employ SRBs though. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[strandedonearth]

Hmmm.... Take 2 ET's, strap them together side-by-side, cover with a VentureStar shaped shell. Fill empty spaces at the "wing"tips with landing gear and RCS consumables. Stick a detachable crew cabin/ rescue module at the nose and stuff a payload bay along the top. Cover the bottom sidean leading edges with tiles. Stick as many SSME/RS-68/AeroSpike/BFRE's as you need at the bottom. Strap 2 5-segment SRB's to the top, 2 more to the bottom (relative to landing configuration), presumably in-line with the ET centers. Reinforced as needed, of course.<br /><br />For the non-returning version, scratch the landing gear and tiles, make a removeable engine rack and wet-lab the tanks once in orbit <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" />

 

[tap_sa]

Shuttle 2

 

[frodo1008]

Almost all the early designs for the STS system showed both a completely resuable fly-back booster and an orbiter with internal tanks. I personally fully support this kind of design myself. The only problem that I can see here is the sheer size of the external tank! <br /><br />The three SSME's have to run not only from lift-off, but a full 6.5 minutes after SRB separation. That takes a LOT of liquid hydrogen and oxygen! Even if you were to use a different fuel/oxidizer combination the tanks would still be quite large.<br /><br />There were some ideas that would have the fly-back boosters be the first stage. Then a reinforced tank used as a second stage would have the obiter placed in front of the booster and second stage tank combination. This would then get the orbiter far closer to orbital velocity than the SRB's now do alone. This would then make it possible for smaller internal tanks to take the obiter on to orbit. It might even give the orbiter a far higher orbital altitude than now possible.<br /><br />It IS an interesting problem now, isn't it?

 

[john_316]

I think we need to focus on CEV and worry about a shuttle 2 system after we get CEV and heavy lift up and running then they can revisit the system...<br /><br />Unless the CEV isnt going to be capsule and be lifting body like X-38......<br />

 

[spacefire]

frodo, I know what you're talking about. I think, initially, the system was supposed to be a SSTO.<br />but never a lifting body configuration was even discussed! strange... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

There is a truly terrific book on both the history and the operating of the STS system. It is called:<br /><br />SPACE SHUTTLE<br /><br />A HISTORY OF THE NATIONAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM<br /><br />THE FIRST 100 MISSIONS<br /><br />BY: Dennis R. Jenkins<br /><br />I know that it is available through Borders.com and I would imagine any of the other bbok stores.<br /><br />It is truly worth the money! It even has a section on the most unusual proposal by Chrystler. <br /><br />

 

[spacefire]

I'll look it up. Thanks Frodo. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">It is truly worth the money! It even has a section on the most unusual proposal by Chrystler <br /><br /><font color="white">What was that then? Cars in space……. ?<br /></font></font>

 

[vt_hokie]

I think NASA is taking the right approach in separating heavy lift capability and crew transport capability, rather than trying to do everything with a single vehicle.