The other Shuttle hardware...

[Polishguy]

Consider. Now that the Shuttle is being retired, the External Tanks and SRBs are too. And if Obama's killing of Constellation progresses, facilities to build these things die with the Shuttle. The company in Utah that builds SRBs was already gearing up to build for Ares 1, right? Well, now they won't. Ditto for Lockheed Martin and the ETs.

But, what if we were to keep at least these two lines open? I'm sure there's plenty of stuff we can do with just them, even unrelated to Constellation (Shuttle-C, for example). Maybe we can launch a new space telescope. Maybe a heavier Outer Solar System probe, like something for Neptune or Europa. Or maybe a heavier lifter, an ET with 8 SRBs around it and 4 SSME's on the bottom.

I dunno, just having idle ideas run around my head on the ETs and SRBs.

 

[EarthlingX]

If that thing, which was to be Ares 1 on some non-defined day, is such a treat, they should be able to compete with Delta IV H and Atlas V, no problem.
They can, if nothing else, carry fuel to the fuel depots, that would be nice work for a 'cheap' rocket.
But it has to get at least to LEO.

As to the other parts, they are mostly for 'sale', but only for respectful customers, as much as i know.
Perhaps there's a company that could make it work ?

 

[moreandless]

absolutely...the architecture for heavy lifting is already in our possession.the shuttle main engines
weigh about 10 tons, leaving us with the ability to put 100 tons!!! in orbit. the payloads of course
are a matter of intense interest to those of us who still believe great things can be just around the
corner. Shuttle-C was a fine idea as a reusable. Other configurations might possibly sacrifice SSME
hardware while carrying planetary mission-capable units into orbit.I have been urging my representatives
to push this agenda and others.

 

[EarthlingX]

absolutely...the architecture for heavy lifting is already in our possession.the shuttle main engines
weigh about 10 tons, leaving us with the ability to put 100 tons!!! in orbit. the payloads of course
are a matter of intense interest to those of us who still believe great things can be just around the
corner. Shuttle-C was a fine idea as a reusable. Other configurations might possibly sacrifice SSME
hardware while carrying planetary mission-capable units into orbit.I have been urging my representatives
to push this agenda and others.

I would very much like to hear more about it.

 

[Polishguy]

absolutely...the architecture for heavy lifting is already in our possession.the shuttle main engines
weigh about 10 tons, leaving us with the ability to put 100 tons!!! in orbit. the payloads of course
are a matter of intense interest to those of us who still believe great things can be just around the
corner. Shuttle-C was a fine idea as a reusable. Other configurations might possibly sacrifice SSME
hardware while carrying planetary mission-capable units into orbit.I have been urging my representatives
to push this agenda and others.

Absolutely, and Shuttle-C was one of the older plans. I think NASA estimated it would but 78 tonnes in LEO before they introduced the Super Light Weight Tank. Now, that payload may go up to 85 tonnes. Shuttle-C can be done quickly, but I propose another renovation for a Super Heavy Lift Vehicle. My idea is to take a standard Shuttle External Tank, put 8 SRBs around it, and put 3 SSMEs on the bottom (with parachutes, for reuse). On top, you put an interstage and a payload. I'm not sure how to calculate this, but how much payload would 3 SSMEs and 8 SRBs put in LEO?

 

[moreandless]

One additional SRB would add 40% more thrust to the launch system...
these shuttle derived launch systems have been studied in depth since
the early 90's.I was reading about the 94 mars plan that someone
mentioned and found out that Nasa believed in the feasibility of a strictly
Cargo vessel lacking reusability. At that time it was thought that 6 launches
of Mars mission hardware would be required; roughly 500 tons. my Dad
helped design the external fuel tank, i am a mere technician. It's possible
that additional SRBs would require the tank to be put back to its' original
strength and weight.

 

[EarthlingX]

What can be done with zero or close changes ?
Just SSMEs, ETs, SRBs ? Very DIRECT ? Is there something ready to be put on ? What TRL is J2-X ?
Could carbon materials be included in the design without too much pain ($) ?

DIRECT on Wikipedia

 

[moreandless]

excellent post earthling ,the Ares5 was after all a shuttle-derived program
a happy meal that DHUH wanted to buy for 99cents??
still what would be the harm of preserving our heavy lift capabilities
and a pair of shuttles for emergencies?
the private sector would not be prohibited from promoting itself as Nasa has
the goal of course is more affordable access to space

 

[MeteorWayne]

Ever hear of sentences, paragraphs, and proper punctuation?

It would make your posts moreorless easier to read and understand!

 

[moreandless]

isn't she beautiful sitting there on the launch pad?

 

[Polishguy]

What can be done with zero or close changes ?
Just SSMEs, ETs, SRBs ? Very DIRECT ? Is there something ready to be put on ? What TRL is J2-X ?
Could carbon materials be included in the design without too much pain ($) ?

DIRECT on Wikipedia

Yes, DIRECT is what inspired me. I was thinking of something that can be done (If NASA's not building anything, the MAF in Louisiana will be unchanged for a few years) with the Shuttle assembly lines. But even looking at the plans makes me wonder if I'm the only one who ever thought of just slapping more SRBs on it.

Carbon can probably serve as the aerodynamic cone on top.

How about RL-10 as the upper stage? It's already been used in flight, so we can put that on top of the ET.

And the Private Sector can build this! Maybe Bigelow can launch a whole series of BA 330s in one throw, build its CSS Skywalker at once! Maybe someone could buy one of these for asteroid mining.

 

[EarthlingX]

So, who has the money for it ? Forget NASA. Let them do their thing.
I have a silly idea about it though:
what if NASA people, working on the Shuttle, create a company, with a tiny help from NASA ? Use facilities there ? Would anyone be interested, could they on their own put money together .. ?

We have seen arguments on this forum, that it should be reasonably expensive, but i'm under impression, there might be a slight problem with financing .. ?
We can dream about it, but someone out there with the money, can make it real, or not.