U.S. urged to keep space shuttle flying past 2010

[comga]

"The advantage of air launched rockets is ..."<br /><br />There is a very well written discussion of this at http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/ Much more than can be put in a single forum post.

 

[scottb50]

I still think the best idea is a combined liquid/solid fly-back first stage and an attached upper stage that can handle any number of payloads.<br /><br />A crew return vehicle or payload Module could attach to the upper stage as needed. Using the upper stage tanks for building material and th engines and tanks for use as Tugs, it would be a highly efficient process. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[j05h]

<i>> <br />People object to launching perfectly safe Nuclear power sources into orbit. How do you think they would react to a direct entry Mars return capsule carrying samples from another Planet?<br /><br />While I seriously doubt it would be a problem I can't totally discount it as one. I would much rather see testing in LEO before samples are brought to the surface.</i><br /><br />Planetary protection is another argument for developing reusable in-space transportation. To my knowledge, no one has protested things like Stardust or Genesis sample-returns. Placing samples in LEO for analysis where? The ISS or a new free-flyer? It might strike the happy medium of being closer to Earth so can have better analysis equipment but creates crew-infection issues if the samples are biotic.<br /><br />On-topic, instead of keeping STS flying beyond the stop-date, a new broad-based approach to spacelift should be adopted. This would include set prices for crew taxi and intelligent support for creation of a new generation of human-space products. For NASA, much of this is just standards setting and price setting. <br /><br />Josh <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[holmec]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I expect you are thinking of the Shuttle concept with the belly to belly manned vehicles. One was a booster that returned to KSC while the other also had a large internal Propellant tank and was the Orbiter.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Sounds like it. I remember seeing a picture/artist's impression on it in National Geographic, this was when STS was under construction, late 70's. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#0000ff"><em>"SCE to AUX" - John Aaron, curiosity pays off</em></font></p> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

I never said that it would. However, the post I replied to simply stated we would use Orion to go to Mars. So I covered all possible meanings of that phrase. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[willpittenger]

Interesting. Was this system one of the STS proposals? Do any images survive? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[vulture2]

>>All of the Fly back boosters that were proposed were to use liquid propellant and thus their empty weight was low enough to allow them to be used as fly back boosters.<br /><br />As I recall, the plan was for flyback booster to be manned. Today a flyback booster could be autonomous, reducing cost significantly. I wonder about the return trajectory, though; was it something like a shuttle RTLS abort?

 

[no_way]

See http://www.starbooster.com/ for fly back booster experimentation. Some folks flew fairly big models of shuttle-like stack on RC control. They did have a heck of a lot of trouble in getting these things to fly, though, with main problem being getting the center of gravity being where it needs to be during the boosting and during the gliding.<br /><br />EDIT: heres one of the launch reports:<br />http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr011208.html<br />2002 one:<br />http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr020520.html<br />latest:<br />http://www.jf2.com/oldcsaweb/pr030517.html

 

[earth_bound_misfit]

"The serious proposals for fly back boosters were unmanned."<br /><br />A less serious proposal here <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> </p><p>----------------------------------------------------------------- </p><p>Wanna see this site looking like the old SDC uplink?</p><p>Go here to see how: <strong>SDC Eye saver </strong>  </p> </div>

 

[vulture2]

SG is correct, I was wrong; "The (North American Rockwell) booster was unmanned during space missions, but there were provisions for two crew to fly the aircraft during ferry flights." <br /><br />There were over a hudred concepts proposed early in the Shuttle program. Astronautix has a good page on the subject. In comparison to the shuttle of today, the original spec called for a higher flight rate but a smaller payload, making a liquid-fueled flyback booster preferable. When the specs were changed to meet military requirements in the early 70's the payload mass and required cross-range were increased; at the same time development funds were cut, putting the flyback booster out of reach. The "reusable" SRBs provided an obvious (but illusory) way out. <br /><br />There is an amazing amount of imagination and engineering in all those design studies, to which could be added both Shuttle experience and technology development (some still exists at NASA) such as the new Ames-developed flexible carbon heat shield. <br /><br />I have heard it said that a fully reusable launch vehicle is cost-effective only for very high flight rates. I would suggest instead that the critical parameter is not flight rate but total number of flights. If we plan to make ten or twenty flights and then terminate the program, then an ELV is cheaper. But if the next generation of launch vehicle for human spaceflight is to make over 100 flights, as we have done with the Shuttle, even if the flight rate is no more than 5-10 per year, then over the duration of the program operating costs will vastly overshadow development cost and a fully reusable launch vehicle could well have lower life-cycle cost.