Redesigned Shuttle

[vt_hokie]

A) I think runway landings are superior to "spam in a can" crews returning via splashdown (or airbag cushioned crash on land).<br /><br />B) CEV will not increase flight rates or make access to space more routine, and will ensure that we can only send a few astronauts per year into space at a cost of billions of dollars. Best case scenario: we send a crew of 4 up on the CEV maybe half a dozen times per year. Better than nothing? I guess, but a far cry from the routine access to space once envisioned for the new century and considered to be a realistic goal.

 

[chidave]

“A) I think runway landings are superior to "spam in a can" crews returning via splashdown (or airbag cushioned crash on land).”<br /><br />This is just aesthetics, who cares? <br /><br />“B) CEV will not increase flight rates or make access to space more routine, and will ensure that we can only send a few astronauts per year into space at a cost of billions of dollars. Best case scenario: we send a crew of 4 up on the CEV maybe half a dozen times per year. Better than nothing? I guess, but a far cry from the routine access to space once envisioned for the new century and considered to be a realistic goal.”<br /><br />However, we are escaping LEO, which is not possible with a winged design at the moment. Would you rather have 20 orbital missions, or a fewer number that will culminate in the Moon and Mars? To me it’s no contest. The CEV is another step forward to the ultimate goal of most of us here, the establishment of a human presence on other worlds. It has me at least, extremely excited.<br />

 

[qso1]

Could you elaborate? I said "Yes" a few posts back because any rocket should be able to carry a small winged vehicle at the top, especially a heavy lift vehicle. This is what was studied on the Dyna Soar concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[jschaef5]

How about wings that unfold in space <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[qso1]

True Dyna Soar booster had huge fins. But it could have been built. Perhaps not as stable as a capsule but doable, especially if couple to todays computer tech. The flying wing B-2 bomber is inherantly unstable as a design but with a modern computer system constantly updating inflight parameters, the stability problem is still there but manageable.<br /><br />Basically, the idea of a small winged craft on top of a rocket is not as stable as a capsule, making it probably costlier economically, but it is possible to do. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Possible, but more complexity added and one in which the crew would have to be certain no problems were caused in deployment that could affect re-entry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Why can't you make a capsule re-usable?</font>/i><br /><br />NASA hopes the CEV capsule will be reusable a number of times.<br /><br /><br /> /> <i><font color="yellow">What components are expensive and what components <br />are cheap.</font>/i><br /><br />I think this is the primary problem of making the capsule reusable -- I don't think there is a lot of value in it. If you could reuse <b><i>both</i></b> the capsule and the engine, then that would be something useful. I suspect the only way to get the engines on the ground safely is via a runway landing (lifting body or wings).</i></i>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">A payload with wings makes the problem unsolvable. </font><br /><br />No it doesn't. The largest payload ever returned gently to Earth from space was by a winged vehicle. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Sure, capsules are are easier to launch, and if all we want is a half-assed space program, that's all we need. Just like Piper Cubs are cheaper and easier to build, maintain and fly than F-22's. If you want a half-assed air force, get a fleet of Piper Cubs. They are cheap and easy. <br /><br />What I fear is that we are going to get a Piper Cub capability with an F-22 price tag. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Any payload with wings, even a lifting body causes very serious problems with vehicle stability. Did you see that in the Dynasoar concept the booster needed hugh fins? </font><br />all the more reason to have a winged flyback first stage <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[tomnackid]

I think this is the primary problem of making the capsule reusable -- I don't think there is a lot of value in it. If you could reuse both the capsule and the engine, then that would be something useful. I suspect the only way to get the engines on the ground safely is via a runway landing (lifting body or wings).<br />-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------<br /><br />I saw a design for a hypothetical CEV with a reusable service module. Essentially the SM is a duplicate of the command module. It is mounted to the CM heat shield to heat shield with a short interstage adapter. The docking port on the apex is replace by the SM engine. The inside of the SM would replace the CM's pressure hull with fuel tanks and equipment bays. The SM would detach just before reentry and reenter on its own. The only thing that would be destroyed on reentry would be the interstage. The advantage of this (other than being able to reuse the SM engines and electronics) is that you have more flexibility in reentry since you don't have a large, heavy SM following the CEV out of orbit that has to be disposed of in an unpopulated area.

 

[scottb50]

I think a winged flyback first stage with the ability to lift any number of upper stages and payloads is the simplest and safest way to progress. <br /><br />I've been toying with an idea that might make a lot more sense. <br /><br />Once in orbit the second stage maneuvers the payload, whatever it may be, to a station, detaches from the payload and is prepared for re-use as needed. Upper Stages are used as Tugs, added propellant Modules for Tugs and are used to build Stations and Vehicles, of any number of uses or at any number of locations.<br /><br />Returning payloads are attached to a Re-entry Vehicle. The Vehicle takes the payload to Mach 5-6 and releases it. An attached Upper Stage takes the Vehicle back to the LEO Station for re-use.<br /><br />With this system you could launch a slightly modified LEAR JET with 8-10 passengers and crew, inside a throw-away protective fairing, and return to a landing at virtually any airport. Then fly back to the launch site for re-use, or just land at the launch site to begin with.<br /><br />If a first stage failure occurs the Upper Stage could be used to get the vehicle away. If an Upper Stage fails the fairing would protect the aircraft to a safe speed and if a failure occurs after reaching orbit another Tug, actually an Upper Stage, comes to the rescue. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">I suspect the only way to get the engines on the ground safely is via a runway landing (lifting body or wings).</font>/i><br /><br />No, you are WRONG! <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> A vertical landing vehicle could do it, with the engine also serving as the heat shield. The 1/3 scale DC-X is a good example of the concept; although, it was never designed to go orbital.<br /><br />It might be interesting to see how a vertical landing rocket could be combined with a flyback first-stage booster.<br /><br />Information and video of the DC-X can be found at:<br />http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/DCX/</i>

 

[vt_hokie]

<i>Sure, capsules are are easier to launch, and if all we want is a half-assed space program, that's all we need. Just like Piper Cubs are cheaper and easier to build, maintain and fly than F-22's. If you want a half-assed air force, get a fleet of Piper Cubs. They are cheap and easy. <br /><br />What I fear is that we are going to get a Piper Cub capability with an F-22 price tag. </i><br /><br />Well stated. That's basically how I feel about it.<br /><br />And to answer chidave's question, yes, I'd rather have 20 missions to LEO than 3 or 4 per year to the moon.

 

[j05h]

>Could you elaborate? I said "Yes" a few posts back because any rocket should be able to carry a small winged vehicle at the top, especially a heavy lift vehicle. This is what was studied on the Dyna Soar concept.<br /><br />Since Shuttle_guy didn't address it specifically: a winged object on the front of a rocket will tend to cause the rocket to flip over during flight. Like the viens of an arrow, the spaceplane's wings/winglets will want to be in the trailing direction. This require much more thrust and TVC to compensate. A payload fairing that covers the wings (or folding wings) adds mass and complication to an aspect of vehicle design that is extremely mass sensitive. <br /><br />We need cheap(er) space transport, that is very reliable. I don't see spaceplanes in the nearterm fulfilling that role. SS1 was very cool, X-15 as well, but they aren't orbital precursors , yet. Soyuz is only $20million/seat. I know that reads like I'm a broken record, but you need to keep that in mind with all these fantasy postings. <br /><br />If you want cool American Space Ships that were Never Built, check Boeing's old Leo booster or any of Phil Bono's designs such as ROMBUS. 500 tons to orbit is where it's at.<br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

Jo5h<br /><font color="yellow">We need cheap(er) space transport, that is very reliable. I don't see spaceplanes in the nearterm fulfilling that role. SS1 was very cool, X-15 as well, but they aren't orbital precursors , yet. Soyuz is only $20million/seat. I know that reads like I'm a broken record, but you need to keep that in mind with all these fantasy postings.</font><br /><br />There is a difference between "cheap" and "good" Hot air balloons are very cheap......but they don't haul a lot of freight. Neither does Soyuz. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[rfoshaug]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What I fear is that we are going to get a Piper Cub capability with an F-22 price tag.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Well, if the Piper Cub could fly 1,000 times as high as the F-22, maybe that's the best option.<br /><br />A CEV orbiting the Moon will have an "altitude" above Earth that is roughly 1,000 times as high as your average Shuttle mission. If we have to leave the wings to do that, then we should go wingless.<br /><br />As I see it, there are two ways of "pushing the envelope" of human space exploration:<br /><br />- Going higher and faster, starting at LEO and then expanding to the Moon, then expanding to more difficult landing sites on the Moon, before expanding on to asteroids, Mars and so on<br /><br />- Going to LEO. When your spacecraft is all worn out, you build another one that does the same job but in a more difficult ("technological") way - ie. SSTO space planes or reusable vertical-landing rockets. But you're still confined to LEO - the only difference is that you find new and more difficult ways of getting there.<br /><br /><br />I'd rather fly to the moon in a Piper Cub than to ISS in an F-22. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>

 

[john_316]

Shuttle and the idea of Shuttle-2 are quite done for once CEV starts flying.<br /><br />I think its a mute point until 2020 when we can think or build something else as technology matures....<br /><br /><br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[qso1]

I agree a winged orbiter would be less stable for launch but it is doable.<br /><br />Soyuz is $20 mil a seat but thats not its total cost.<br /><br />Why do you refer to my posts as fantasy?<br /><br />It was someone else who asked about folding wings. I mentioned that if one wanted to build a winged vehicle that sits atop a rocket, todays computer tech would make the flight profile easier to manage.<br /><br />I have a book that I have had since I was in my teens (1970s) that has the Rombus and other 1960s designs that never flew. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

<font color="yellow">"There is a difference between "cheap" and "good" Hot air balloons are very cheap......but they don't haul a lot of freight. Neither does Soyuz.</font><br /><br />Measured in lbs per kopeck, you're most certainly not going to find a cheaper manned space vehicle anywhere.

 

[j05h]

>I agree a winged orbiter would be less stable for launch but it is doable. <br /><br />On top of the rocket, without a shroud? It's very, very difficult and adds all sorts of new failure modes. Like I said, the rocket will tend to "flip" into a bow-and-arrow configuration. The OSP-on-DeltaIV graphics that had the spaceplane on top spurred a discussion about the physics of it a while ago. I'm very suspicious of the Clipper's winglets in this regard - they must be looking at a shroud to mitigate.<br /><br /> />Soyuz is $20 mil a seat but thats not its total cost. <br /><br />I read recently a Russian exec saying that the tourist flights paid for themselves- including salaries of support staff and construction of the launcher and crew vehicle. Don't have the time to dig up a link, sorry.<br /><br /> /> Why do you refer to my posts as fantasy? <br /><br />I refer to the endless stream of "X-33 as Venturestar", Shuttle Redesign, Spaceplane Fetish postings as fantasy. I've been reading this same fanboy fantasy for 13 years now (ever since I went online). Soyuz is a commercial reality, we just need to figure out how to make money in orbit - Space Adventures is doing it. <br /><br /> />It was someone else who asked about folding wings. I mentioned that if one wanted to build a winged vehicle that sits atop a rocket, todays computer tech would make the flight profile easier to manage. <br /><br />Yes, folding wings would be another fantasy - that is one serious failure mode (again I think Clipper will end up as a lifting body "sled" instead). One of the more aeronautically gifted posters can elaborate on why rocket-on-top is a bad idea. The thrust-vector needs to keep the wings in front will seriously degrade your payload to orbit. <br /><br /> />I have a book that I have had since I was in my teens (1970s) that has the Rombus and other 1960s designs that never flew.<br /><br />Sweet! I've got Heppenheimer's Colonies in Space and Space Settlements Study, CiS has a couple of great draw <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[rocketwatcher2001]

<font color="yellow">A CEV orbiting the Moon will have an "altitude" above Earth that is roughly 1,000 times as high as your average Shuttle mission. If we have to leave the wings to do that, then we should go wingless. </font><br /><br />I'm not knocking the CEV, I think it needs to be in our fleet. what I am knocking is the notion that the CEV is a replacement for the Shuttle. It's not. They are complementry systems. LEO is halfway to anywhere, and losing the Shuttle is losing the mastery of LOE that we're capable of now. In 30 years, our program is going to be very anemic if all we have is the CEV. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[barrykirk]

Well there is a folding wing vehicle that I think that <br />most of the capsule people would go for.<br /><br />The Rogallo wing.<br /><br />See wikipedia article.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogallo_wing<br /><br />According to that a rogallo wing could be used up to Mach 25 if made of the correct stuff. I don't think that<br />extreme velocity is necessary for a capsule. Subsonic<br />should do the trick.<br /><br />I would believe that the terminal velocity for a capsule<br />would be subsonic.<br /><br />The idea is that most capsule designs do generate some<br />lift. Enough lift that they can be steered and their <br />trajectory controlled during re-entry.<br /><br />I know the reference in the Right Stuff about <br />"Spam in a Can", but I remember that even with<br />Mercury, John Glenn had to steer his capsule.<br /><br />So, don't think parachute, think Rogallo wing. Use a <br />parachute as an emergency backup.<br /><br />Remember that a vehicle with a fixed or folding rigid<br />wing is going to need a more complicated, larger, and<br />probably more fragile TPS system.<br /><br />Also, that TPS system is going to be located in a much<br />more vulnerable position. I can have the best wing in<br />the world, but if my TPS is damaged, that wing won't <br />survive to get me to the ground.

 

[j05h]

sure, packable wings are OK by me. I'm just not interested in spaceplane fantasies that border on physics violations. I am definitely interested in people actually building spaceplanes: Scaled, Pioneer, XCOR, etc. I think that capsule-on-rocket is the way to go for LEO access in the near to mid-terms.<br /><br />Like I said above, 40' cargo containers to LEO. <br /><br />Have you ever seen/played Battetech? Eventually we need to be able to build DropShips. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

JO5H:<br />I refer to the endless stream of "X-33 as Venturestar", Shuttle Redesign...<br /><br />Me:<br />Fair enough. When I post about them, it usually is in the context of a string of designs that never would be which is too bad. I see it now as the inability of American ingenuity to overcome the challenge of designing vehicle like Delta Clipper or Venture Star. Reasons for being unable to overcome this challenge include working within the constraints of government, the cost barrier, and ultimately the technical challenge is too great. Now, before anyone gets the idea I'm slamming American ingenuity...I will point out nobody else in the world has solved this problem either.<br /><br />One area of American ingenuity that has yet to be tested as far as a Venture Star or any SSTO design is private enterprise doing it without NASA contracts or constraints.<br /><br />JO5H:<br />Sweet! I've got Heppenheimer's Colonies in Space...<br /><br />Me:<br />The one I have is "Frontiers Of Space" by Pilip Bono and Kenneth Gatland" pubbed in 1969 and revised in 1976. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[j05h]

>One area of American ingenuity that has yet to be tested as far as a Venture Star or any SSTO design is private enterprise doing it without NASA contracts or constraints. <br /><br />Which is why the private, non-cost-plus companies are the shining hope of so many space advocates. I tend to disagree on the technology aspect, though. I think economical passenger spaceflight is practically around the corner. The real hold ups are economic now, any new enterprises have got to make a buck. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>