Straight Wing Orbiter

[CalliArcale]

ronatu -- note that some of those concepts show a rather familiar looking first stage: an S-IC. That was the first stage of the Saturn V, a tremendously powerful stage with a fantastic performance record. Being a bit of a Saturn fan, I always liked those Shuttle concepts. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Part of me wonders whether the Saturn-derived Shuttle concepts were killed by politics. Somebody wanted Saturn dead, and a Saturn-derived Shuttle could help keep it alive. Whether that's true or not, it's kind of a pity. Saturn V was a magnificent vehicle, and it really takes my breath away to consider what we might be able to do with Saturns today. <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>

 

[halman]

CalliArcale,<br /><br />Perhaps the reason the Saturn was not used in conjunction with the shuttle was the desire for reusability. The thinking at that time was to get away from disposable launch vehicles, which were perceived to be a big part of the expense of exploring space. The complete termination of the Saturn program was something of a surprise to NASA, though, I think, because the shuttle was supposed to work in conjunction with other launch vehicles to build a space station. The Saturn would have been able to loft big chunks of station parts, which would be assembled using the arm in the shuttle. NASA did not want to limit itself to a single launch vehicle, but Congress was anxious to stop people thinking that most of the money being spent was being thrown away on big rockets.<br /><br />I seem to recall several proposals in the early 1970's which used Saturn components for returning to the Moon, as well as launching a space station. Saturn was supposed to be the workhorse while the bugs were worked out of the shuttle. But that was the age of optimism, when everyone believed that the government would go on spending 2 or 3 percent of the budget on space exploration, once Vietnam was settled. So many expectations were based on that belief that there were hardly any standby plans for continuing with less money.<br /><br />The shuttle came close to being scrapped several times, but there was nothing else available to support manned missions. The shuttle was considered too small to really be able to support construction of a space station, but planners cut the payloads down is size. This added dramatically to the cost of building a space station, which is why one was not built during the 1980's. If the Saturn had been available, a station could have been launched with about 3 or 4 launches. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>

 

[tomnackid]

Boeing had a plan for a fully reusable Saturn first stage. The so called "F1 Flyback" booster. It consisted of fitting a cockpit, wings and 10 turbojet engines to a Saturn V first stage so it could fly back to the launch site. I guess they were pretty eager to keep the Saturn production line open, the plan was very detailed. They even specified the type of tire the landing gear would use. But once again development costs had to be cut to the bone. Everybody seemed t think that operational costs were something to worry about later. <br /><br />Here is an quote from T.A. Heppenheimer's 1999 book about the development of the shuttle that I think is interesting given out current concepts for the "new" CEV...<br /><br />"What could be less ambitious than this glider? There was the possibility of modifying Apollo spacecraft to make them refurbishable and continuing to fly them using the existing Saturn I-B, on rare occasions. Another option called for developing the Titan III-M and its Big Gemini, a variant of this existing spacecraft that would grow to carry as many as nine people. Such alternatives might keep piloted space flight alive-but it would resemble a patient on life support."<br /><br /><br /><br />

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">Once again I have to remind you what the destination is: Bases on the Moon, a manned mission to Mars.</font>/i><br /><br />Off topic here... but one thing that bothers me about the political and NASA leadership is that (with some minor exceptions) they really don't talk about bases or colonies on the Moon. They talk about "missions" to the Moon, but they seem to mostly be about an extended Apollo-type program.<br /><br />I want the political leaders, then backed by NASA, to state clearly that our goal is <b><font color="yellow">colonies</font>/b> on the Moon and then colonies on Mars. I don't want flags and footprints.<br /><br />Give me colonies or abandon the manned space program!</b></i>

 

[7419]

Ballistic vehicles need not be restricted to landing on water or remote land areas. With the funds that will be freed up once the shuttle is finally retired and a CEV capsule is being used (I really don't care if it is the LockMart semi-lifting body, a cpasule or the Russian Klieper (sp)) we should be able to divert some funding into x-type test vehicles. Ultimately what we need IMO is something like the DC-X/Y. Ballistic re-entry with controlled vertical landing. Equiped with parachutes for reducing speed during the descent after re-entry it could then use rocket engines for the final approach. And we will need a vehicle something like this for lunar and Mars operations. The vehicle need not be a SSTO. Perhaps another option might be something like the Osiris flanked by two boosters. These could be derived from existing solids or liquid fueled core vehicles. The point is once we have a workable SSTO or 1- 1/2 SSTO operating here on Earth we have a vehicle capable of operating in other enviroments. True the extra weight of a thermal protection system for lunar operations would be a performance detriment but the vehicles would be able to be returned to either LEO through aerobraking or the original launch site for repair/refurbishment. The fuel problem I'll leave fro someone else to figure out. Martian operations can most likely be either LOX with either LH2 or LCH4. Lunar operations might we possible see a mono-propellant utilizing a slurry of LOX and Aluminum powder. Or would this be potentially too dangerous or abrasive to engine components?<br /><br />http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/history_of_the_phoenix_vtol_ssto_and_recent_developments_in_single_stage_launch_systems.shtml

 

[spacefire]

<font color="yellow">Yeah -- well an admittedly minor secondary reason why this won't happen is because the EELVs aren't a NASA program. Their development and continuing existence is funded by a piddly little agency called the US Air Force. But of course it's still NASA's fault that the EELV program won't be cancelled. After all, everything that you don't like about the U.S. space program is NASA's fault. </font><br /><br />No more EELV for scientific space exploration, and definitely no more EELVs for manned space exploration. It's a waste of tax dollars. I don't want to pay for a bunch of designs dating abck to the 50s when money should be invested into getting cheap access to LEO and building an infrastructure there.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[halman]

spacefire,<br /><br />I don't think that the EELV designs are unchanged since their days as ICBM's. However, there are really a small number of answers to the problem of getting into space. (Space elevators and their kin notwithstanding.) Rocketry is all about velocity, which means multiple stages for the most part. EELV's allow us to continue to fly probes, such as the Mars Reconissance Orbiter. Would you rather that nothing were flying right now?<br /><br />We cannot afford to be idealistic and say, "No more flights until we get a new booster." To do so would be to destroy one of the most important elements of the space program; creativity. Learning to use what is available is one of the greatest stimulants there is. Everybody should keep in mind that there is no presidential decree making the Vison for Space Exploration the law of the land. It is a position statement, a policy, a desire. Creating real, measurable goals, such as building a base on the Moon, has been avoided by politicians like the Black Death. Taking a position means taking fire, and every politician is concerned about one and only one thing; getting re-elected. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>