Shuttle "C" and SKAM.

[qso1]

After viewing some of the ideas for inexpensive access to LEO, I decided to throw my hat into the ring with an idea I had back in 1990 when ISS was known as SSF or Space Station Freedom. The problem of getting the components up was what drove many ideas including shuttle "C" which is where my 1990 proposal originated.<br /><br />First off, this is not intended to be a detailed engineering study, just a general proposal. I'm sure there are those here who will shoot the idea down but after seeing proposals to bring back the Saturn V, build Sea Dragon and Orion, SKAM seems almost conventional school of thought.<br /><br />SKAM stands for SKylab Assembly Method and as the name implies, it would utilize the shuttle "C" payload carrier as a spacecraft in a manner similar to how it was done for Skylab.<br /><br />Basically Skylab was a dry Saturn V S-IVB stage internally outfitted as a space laboratory rather than as a propellant stage.<br /><br />The SKAM would integrate payloads into shuttle "C" like containers that would be somewhat assembly line produced with standard features such as power systems, ACS, for the payload. The primary advantage of this method over External Tanks to Orbit (ETO) is that the payload can be checked out to the maximum extent possible on the ground.<br /><br />Another advantage, the NASA "C" proposal threw away the carrier once it achieved its primary mission of getting SSF elements to LEO. SKAM would allow the carrier to be developed in a manner as to provide payload support, in effect becoming part of the payload.<br /><br />This method also allows for more reasonable sized payloads as opposed to building a gigantic Sea Dragon for million pound payloads that do not exist.<br /><br />The concept is evolvable, that is, early versions could start with standard shuttle ET/SRB followed later by LRB, larger payload carriers similar to the NASA follow on to shuttle "Z" but not quite as large.<br /><br />No doubt there would be some disadvantages, one that comes to <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]

Another image, this one demonstrating maximum possible use of existing facilities. The PCR would have to be extended upwards probably 20 feet to accomodate the longer payload carrier.<br />For the large version shown in the launch image, I showed an MSS modified with twin towers. This was not featured in the 1990 proposal but was part of my recent use of it in a book. The idea being after the shuttle retires, one pad would have the extended PCR for the shuttle "C" sized carrier and the other pad PCR would be permanently rolled back and as NASA says "Abandoned in place". <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]

And finally on orbit. The difference between this carrier and shuttle "C" is no attempt is made to recover the engines which could be less expensive lower performance versions of the SSME. These engines are mounted to what I refer to as a propulsion bucket which in this image has already been jettisoned to allow automatic deployment of the SPAs. <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>

 

[jwsmith]

qso1 writes: >> After viewing some of the ideas for inexpensive access to LEO, I decided to throw my hat into the ring with an idea I had back in 1990 when ISS was known as SSF or Space Station Freedom. <<<br /><br />Not a bad idea. It is somewhat like what I want to use to get my Mars habitat modules into orbit. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="2">John Wayne Smith, CEO</font></p><p><font size="2">1000 Planets, Inc</font></p><p><font size="2">Http://www.1000Planets.com</font></p><p><font size="2">203 W.Magnolia St.</font></p><p><font size="2">Leesbutg Florida 34748</font></p><p><font size="2">Ph: 352 787 5550</font></p><p><font size="2">email jwsmith42000@aol.com</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

In the case of the Mars mission. The propulsion system for a transit craft could also be put into LEO as well. Once the transit craft is assembled and checked out, the prop system would get the craft on its way to Mars and back to Earth. Nuclear electric would be my choice of propulsion system and it would be inert or as inert as possible at Earth launch. <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>

 

[rocketman5000]

did you create those graphics? If so I was wondering if you could do comparison graphics of a NTR or Vasimr type craft compared to a conventional and show how the ships size would vary with changes in specific impulse

 

[qso1]

I did the graphics a year or so ago based on my 1989 drawings. As I recall, the only one that would actually change ISP is VASIMR. Except for NTR, I don't think a size relationship would be feasible to demonstrate because VASIMR is still in a research phase. I did the concepts for a book and so they are not necessarily absolutely accurate.<br /><br />I determined that the propulsion unit (NTR or VASIMR) would go up as a single launch on the large vehicle shown in the graphic here. Propellant would be launched in tanks aboard another HLV of the type shown. How many tanks is not known to me because I do not know how much propellant NTR or VASIMR would require for a Mars mission. <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>

 

[why06]

These are nice pictures the only problem with your craft is you will lose the ability to do service missions such as with hubble.<br /><br />I always wondered why NASA never strapped their payload directly onto their rockets. <br /><br />Could you explain to me what some of your specialized jargen means...such as "shutttle Z and C"-it is very cofusing. Even a brief summary shall suffice.<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

You wouldn't loose the ability to service Hubble because under my original plan, this system would be operated along with shuttle orbiter missions. Now however, with the shuttle being retired, your loosing the Hubble service option anyway. Hubble's design life was 15 years and it has already exceeded that. It has also revolutionized astronomy. But within 5 years, ground based telescopes will begin to equal hubble, maybe exceed it if interferometry is shown to work.<br /><br />Shuttle "C" was the 1989 NASA proposal to put cargo vehicles in place of the shuttle orbiter on some missions. There were plans to have a 2 engine, and 3 engine version. The 3 engine version would put over 50 tons to orbit if memory serves me.<br />http://astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm<br /><br />Shuttle "Z" was a huge, oddly shaped follow on cargo container to the "C" version and could put quite a bit more payload into orbit.<br />http://astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlez.htm <br /><br />NASA didn't strap payloads to rockets because the most efficient way to do payloads is to put them on top and there was never a need for side mounts until shuttle.<br /><br />One reason side mounted payloads are not normally used is they are a bit more complex for the LV to maneuver during launch and ascent because the mass is asymetrical. <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]

In this image, the SPA boom deploys automatically from the aft end where the propulsion bucket was. Note also, the fairing doors. In some cases, these would probably be jettisoned to increase payload capacity. But in cases where a manned station might be going to orbit, these doors can close and serve as micrometeoroid protection.<br /><br />The vehicle shown here is a propellant resupply vehicle. <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]

The SPAs are stowed in a manner similar to an SPA carried aboard Discovery in 1985. They occupy little stowed space. They deploy to around 100 feet. The single panel that deploys perpendicular to the SPAs is the heat radiator panel. Communications antennas also deploy. The attitude control systems are mounted within the vehicle structure near the forward and aft ends and the docking system is mounted at the nose and becomes visible once the nose cone is jettisoned.<br /><br />Another thing to consider in regards to hubble servicing. This system would be designed with private industry in mind and if HST is still in use by the time private industry starts putting people into orbit. The vehicle private industry will utilize should be capable of HST servicing as well as docking with these un-manned or man tended platforms. <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>

 

[why06]

Will there be any astronauts onboard... if so where is the re-entry vehicle?<br />Oh and very nice graphics<font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

On these cargo type missions, no astronauts would be aboard. However, you could have a cargo vehicle with a small manned craft on top of it that could separate in an emergency or separate once on orbit to expose the docking portion of the cargo vehicle. <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>

 

[why06]

So this ideal will not only get the payload to orbit, but also get thehe ET up there? Which is what you wanted? <font color="yellow"></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

It can get the ET up there but I'm not that certain that putting an ET into orbit is all that practical when you consider what has to be done up there to turn it into something useful. If your going to put an ET into orbit, this concept can theoretically accomplish that with either cargo container as the primary payload or shuttle orbiter. This dual mission configuration would be most economical I would think.<br /><br />I have an image of how getting an ET to a stable orbit is accomplished.<br /><br />Note the mini SRB on the tank. This could be either SRB or LRB. I chose SRB with direct ascent to orbit after jettison. To carry the dead weight of the SRB before it fires, the main SRBs are extended 8 feet. <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>

 

[CalliArcale]

I don't have much of use to say, but I did want to say that those are really beautiful graphics. You do lovely work, qso1! Thank you very much for sharing it with us! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

I agree, but this is more a general concept that I did for a book and I didn't get quite as into the details as I should have. In fact, the ETO concept I showed in my last graphic was an idea I came up with in a drawing I did in 1982. <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]

Thank you very much. <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>

 

[why06]

I believe it will be very easy to attach a small crew capsule on top of the payload to attach to help guid your load into position. Also if your only launchinc a payload wouldn't it make more sence to due without the ET and just use a completely vertical rocket? What are your plan for launching it this way? Does it have any benefits? <br /><br /><br />I need to know this so that we can either improve on it or correct things about it. If you are using the ET so that it may later be used as a spacestation please state how or why<font color="yellow"><br /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[qso1]

You are correct, you could put a crew capsule on top of the cargo vehicle. I have a drawing of just such a concept and one in which a small winged spaceplane is mounted. I didn't upload these graphics because I have many illustrations of this concept and I selected the ones I thought would best show its use and so as not to take up too much SDC bandwidth. While it would be a nice feature to have, a crew is not required to guide the vehicle into position. This would only increase cost. <br /><br />It would have made sense to just use a verticle rocket but at the time I developed the concept, the economics of utilizing ground facilities and shuttle LV hardware that already existed made this concept more attractive. In addition, a verticle rocket with the payload capacity of shuttle "C" or equivalents did not exist in the U.S. Titan IV was the largest payload capacity we had not counting shuttle (Circa 1990). <br /><br />Also keep in mind, I wasn't planning for this concept to be actually used. I used it in a story I wrote and illustrated and simply wanted a credible looking concept which included the cost effectivity that would have been a part of NASA planning in what is always a tight budget environment. <br /><br />Use of an ETO was shown mostly to show it was possible. I did not do a detailed plan of what the ET was to be used for but suggested they could be used to provide raw material for space construction. <br /><br />IMO, the value of the concept is more in the ability to make the payload carrier part of the vehicle and as with any concept. No concept is a "Be all bend all" solution. If such a solution existed, we'd probably be a lot further along. <br /><br />One other thing, one of the major payloads would be industrial space facility type vehicles where use of an ETO might benefit. Both as raw feedstock for industrial space facility use and possibly a station once on orbit techniques for outfitting such a station could be shown to have a significant advantage over g <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]

You are correct, you could put a crew capsule on top of the cargo vehicle. I have a drawing of just such a concept and one in which a small winged spaceplane is mounted. I didn't upload these graphics because I have many illustrations of this concept and I selected the ones I thought would best show its use and so as not to take up too much SDC bandwidth. While it would be a nice feature to have, a crew is not required to guide the vehicle into position.<br /><br />In a space station type of application a crew vehicle could serve to put the crew and station up together allowing operations to get underway the day the station arrives at LEO. The vehicle could then serve as the lifeboat as well. <br /><br />It would have made sense to just use a verticle rocket but at the time I developed the concept, the economics of utilizing ground facilities and shuttle LV hardware that already existed made this concept more attractive. In addition, a verticle rocket with the payload capacity of shuttle "C" or equivalents did not exist in the U.S. Titan IV was the largest payload capacity we had not counting shuttle. <br /><br />Also in mind, I wasn't planning for this concept to be actually used. I used it in a story I wrote and illustrated and simply wanted a credible looking concept which included the cost effectivity that would have been a part of NASA planning in what is always a tight budget environment. <br /><br />Use of an ETO was shown mostly to show it was possible. I did not do a detailed plan of what the ET was to be used for but suggested they could be used to provide raw material for space construction. <br /><br />IMO, the value of the concept is more in the ability to make the payload carrier part of the vehicle and as with any concept. No concept is a "Be all bend all" solution. If such a solution existed, we'd probably be a lot further along. <br /><br />One other thing, one of the major payloads would be industrial space facility type vehicles where use of an ETO might bene <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>