Shuttle Design/ Build 101

[dan_casale]

marcel_leonard:<br />I believe Spectra 2000 has the strength to build an elevator from the lunar surface through L1. http://www.tethers.com/TUPubs.html has a number of papers on tether systems that will work in Earth orbit using Spectra 2000.

 

[smradoch]

I think that shuttle redesign is nonsens. In broad contents NASA needs HLV and every reusable vehicle I know about is with payload up to 15t or so. Let private companies to design light vehicles to LEO and to develop private space industry. NASA needs SDV HLV with minimum develpment cost and aim Moon (and much later Mars).

 

[dan_casale]

The shuttle orbiter is part of the STS system. If you replace the orbiter with a cargo container it becomes Shuttle-C. Shuttle-C is projected to have a LEO capability of over 77,000Kg. Not quite as big as Apollo, but 7x better than the next closest ELV. The STS is a very capable system and as most of the ongoing cost is assigned to the orbiter portion of STS, I suspect it would be very low cost as well.

 

[smradoch]

I absolutely agree, but I wouldn't use Shuttle-C, but SDV smaler than Ares (see discusion at Ares thread). This SDV would have common SRB, redesigned ET with two RS-68 and upper stage (serving as EDS stage too) with RL-60. This would be able launch 20t oneway cargo to the moon or crew of 3 to the moon base. But you can't call that Shuttle any more.

 

[fatjoe]

<font color="yellow">smradoch-<br />I think that shuttle redesign is nonsens. In broad contents NASA needs HLV and every reusable vehicle I know about is with payload up to 15t or so. Let private companies to design light vehicles to LEO and to develop private space industry. NASA needs SDV HLV with minimum develpment cost and aim Moon (and much later Mars). </font><br /><br />Why would you think that upgrading the orbiter is nonsense? The only nonsense I see is the fact; that in the past 35 years they haven’t retrofitted the damn thing…<br /><br />

 

[smradoch]

Because it's quite clear that it's going to be retired soon. And you will have nothing similar to STS Orbiter.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">that in the past 35 years they haven’t retrofitted the damn thing…</font><br /><br />where have you been?<br /><br />They have upgraded the SSME, TPS, Cockpit, etc..... <br />

 

[magick58]

Reading this thread from top to bottom I think that we can all agree the current system (shuttle) needs to go away. It's too costly and its turn around time is horrible. Even for the possible "rescue" mission that will take place if Discovery is damaged is unacceptable. 1 month to get Atlantis up there to pick every one up and there just going to toss Discovery in to the ocean. Does any one else see the problem.<br /><br />Think that we need to go for a small craft and have more of them. Then need to be lunching ever 2 weeks and that’s at a norm. The craft has to be able to take off any were and we need to get rid of the vertical launch thing. Something about the size of a C-130 which can carry a good amount of cargo or over 50 people, just for upgrade ability. It should be able to take off from a 10,000' run way go to a high enough altitude and punch up into space and be completely reusable.<br /><br />I might have my science mixed up so some one please correct me if I get this all wrong.<br /><br />One of the reasons that we need the amount of heat shielding that we do is because we use the atmosphere to slow the shuttle down. That generates all that heat and the danger. If the craft just slows down more before it hits the air not as much heat and less danger. <br /><br />I think the capsule idea is done for anything but an emergency escape vehicle on the ISS or any other craft for that matter. <br /><br />You are all probably going "lofty goals" but using just what I know from our currant technology. We could certainly pull this off. I saw that in the beginning of the post allot of people were talking about using a combination jet and rocket engine I think that is a good idea but your still using some type of fuel in the atmosphere that takes up allot of weight and room. Ram jets just need a source of heat to operate. The SR-71 uses a cryogenic fuel. What if we just Nuc'ed a Ram jet, of course before I get slammed for not mentioning it yes they only work well at high speed

 

[marcel_leonard]

<font color="yellow">magick58-<br />What if we just Nuc'ed a Ram jet</font><br /><br />I think it's worth exploring a completly titanium built scamjet spacecraft into LEO.... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[nacnud]

A scram jet won't get you to LEO, titanium or other wise. They just arn't able to fly fast and high enough.

 

[nacnud]

<font color="yellow">Think that we need to go for a small craft and have more of them. Then need to be lunching ever 2 weeks and that’s at a norm.</font><br /><br />Reasonable starting point…<br /><br /><font color="yellow">The craft has to be able to take off any were and we need to get rid of the vertical launch thing. Something about the size of a C-130 which can carry a good amount of cargo or over 50 people, just for upgrade ability. It should be able to take off from a 10,000' run way go to a high enough altitude and punch up into space and be completely reusable.</font><br /><br />…Unreasonable requirements. It is nice to imaging rockets with wings but an orbital rocket has no need for them. In your initial point you seem to want lots of cheap launches rather than a few expensive ones. The closest thing currently in development to what you would like to see is the European Hopper, this would reduce cost to orbit by about half and cost billions of Euros to develop. It is comparable in many ways: reusability, cost to orbit, payload etc to the Falcon V. Except the Falcon V would be much, much cheaper to develop and probably cheaper to operate as well. <br /><br /><font color="yellow">One of the reasons that we need the amount of heat shielding that we do is because we use the atmosphere to slow the shuttle down. That generates all that heat and the danger. If the craft just slows down more before it hits the air not as much heat and less danger.</font><br /><br />There is barely enough fuel in a rocket to get into orbit in the first place, there is not enough left to reduce velocity and therefore re-entry heating by a significant amount.<br />

 

[magick58]

I don't think that having a craft that works in atmosphere and in space is an unreasonable requirement. If you’re not using any fuel in atmosphere, as in the concept that I was talking about, then why is so unattainable? Also the idea I had is supposed to be able to have enough fuel onboard to slow the craft down enough to not have to air brake as much. I can see now that I didn’t make that clear.<br />Why are we hanging on to old technology so much? If the US is going to build something new lets make it a challenge. Let’s stop sending up things that are already 10 years old when they roll off the assembly line. I know that there is going to be a lag between what we build and what the current technology is, but at the moment the gap is just too much.<br />Someone early on in the thread was saying that we all sound like were back in the early days of aviation, where we didn’t have the engine technology to sustain heaver aircraft with retractable landing gear and have metal frames. If the block is lifting power then that is what we need to work on the most. Though rocket technology still has the most bang for the buck, it’s old. To move in space you need a propellant, something to be thrown out the back with enough force to be any use. In atmosphere a jet uses air and heat. To provide that heat you need fuel, right now we use refined kerosene. Ok that’s starting to sound like I’m talking down to people but I’m not trying to. In space we don’t have to light a fire to get moving, if we can get past using rockets or just stop throwing them away it would be a big step. Right now I would just be happy if we had a vehicle that from launch to recover was completely reusable. No recovery teams to go find booster rockets nothing. Even if it was a two peace system, as long as the first stage just flew back home. <br />

 

[holmec]

Bigger is not always better. SpaceshipOne is totally reusable and it didn't require huge engines, just an understanding of forces excerted on the ship and to work with them instead of forceing the ship into space.<br /><br />All large air and spce craft will be 10 years old by the time they roll out. Its just the nature of the beast and a reality we currently have to live with until someone comes up with a better way. The relief for this are upgrades to the individual systems on the vehicle. The Shuttles have gone through many. The Air Force constantly upgrade their planes.<br /><br />Having one vehicle may be forcing the issue, if you divide the problem you may see you need more than one type of vehicle. Also something to consider is reentrying earth is really different than Mars. So for now the best way would probably make a different vehicle that is designed for the job, ie one for earth reentry and another for Mars reentry. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[marcel_leonard]

Okay point well take; now how about a slightly larger heavy lift Arianspace booster w/ a top payload caption of a modified European Hopper version of a smaller Orbiter? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[dan_casale]

>>There is barely enough fuel in a rocket to get into orbit in the first place, there is not enough left to reduce velocity and therefore re-entry heating by a significant amount.<<<br /><br />However, when SCRAMJET technology develops a little more, a tether system will be able to reduce re-entry heating by a significant amount. Check out www.tethers.com for more information.

 

[marcel_leonard]

What about a ScramJet/VASIMR mix of plasma propulsion? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

Since its common knowledge that the shuttle will be retired in 2010. Since this is only five years away it makes me think that NASA has already selected a replacement orbiter. So what does it look like? Or is that a top secret?

 

[nacnud]

Whatever the CEV ends up looking like, we will have a better idea in a month when the next report from lockmart, boeing, t/Space and all is due.

 

[marcel_leonard]

It looks like OSP has won the race to that bid... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[craigmac]

With the 16.5e9 budget ear-marked for NASA to spend on CEV and like deep space exploration projects; first to the Moon, and then on to Mars I don't see why a portion of that can't be used to develop a more cost effective avenue from runway to earth orbit. <br /><br />My guess is that the so-called Space Coalition is behind the allocation of these funds. That is to say Boeing/Lockheed is going to spend tax dollars like water on big ticket items that produce little result in the long run. Let's face it folks we've already successfully landed on a man on the Moon, and we've seen the sunrise on Mars from Pathfinder. The only thing left is to go there in person. I for one think we can have cost effective manned missions if we would simply open up the closed door NASA bidding process.<br /><br />I'm all for more funding for space exploration. I'm just not willing to give the so-called Space Coalition Carte Blanche when it comes to the bidding contracts; which is the main reason we've been stuck with the 35 year old STS program instead of the next generation of reusable orbiter.<br /><br />The funny thing is for a fraction of the cost we could retro-fit a fleet of Delta 4 HLRs w/ http://www.space.com/php/multimedia...rnational Space Station. CRED</safety_wrapper

 

[marcel_leonard]

That seems to be going against the Bush objective as he stated in his "Space Exploration Overhaul: Next Five Years 'Critical'" directive... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> "A mind is a terrible thing to waste..." </div>

 

[fatjoe]

I think Boeing/Lockheed will have a monopoly for the forseable future unless some modern day version of the wright Bros. can come up with a private sectors version Kitty Hawk into orbit.<br /><br />The powers that be in DC; are just too rooted to be move one way, or the other. If only the Bush administration would have the polictical backbone, and courage to stand up to the aerospace special interest and open up the NASA contract bidding process...