What if STS orbitter problmes in late 70's

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pmn1

Guest
If there had been more problems and delays with the orbitter part of the system in the late 70's and talk of cancellation, what are the chances of being able to salvage a Direct or an Ares I/V system from the work already done or is it more likley that everything would be cancelled? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
Everything cancelled. The system needed the orbiter and without it, nothing could be flight tested or proven out
 
Q

qso1

Guest
The shuttle main engines and thermal protection system were the main culprits regarding delays in the 1970s. Main engines had caught fire, even exploded on test stands during test firings. The tiles themselves worked well, but the adhesive used to bond the tiles to the aluminum skin of the orbiter wasn't working so well.<br /><br />Had the orbiter part of the program been cancelled, they would have possibly developed an SDV (Shuttle Derived Vehicle) but there was no apparent requirement for one considering that was one of the reasons Saturn-V production was shut down. This indicates that the shuttle as a whole would have been cancelled had problems been worse than the were. <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>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
Had NASA decided to proceed with a shuttle "C" type vehicle, the orbiter would not have been required to test the system as a whole. Having said that, one of the late 1970s problem areas were the SSMEs and a shuttle "C" type vehicle would have required SSMEs or some equivalent. Had an equivalent been required due to insurmountable SSME development problems, a shuttle "C" type or SDV could have been developed with an alternate engine design. <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>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Had NASA decided to proceed with a shuttle "C" type vehicle, the orbiter would not have been required to test the system as a whole."<br /><br />Not so. A shuttle C is the same as a shuttle except without wings and a crew. The shuttle C concept only existed because of the shuttle. No shuttle, no shuttle C.<br /><br />The shuttle was sold based on reusability, Shuttle C wasn't, so if shuttle was cancelled, the standard ELV's would have resumed their roles
 
Q

qso1

Guest
A shuttle derived vehicle which would include the design known as shuttle "C" could have existed without the orbiter had there been a requirement for one. For one thing, such vehicles were being studied even before the shuttle encountered development problems as indicated in the link below.<br /><br />http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/shuttle.htm<br /><br />Of particular note is the Boeing 1977 SDV study since it utilizes the shuttle launcher elements (ET/SRB). <br /><br />In addition, the Russian equivalent, Energia launcher when first tested, was tested with a payload pod rather than an orbiter.<br /><br />If somehow we had had an SDV cargo element before the shuttle orbiter, the system could have been validated to a pretty high degree before putting humans aboard. You may recall how the shuttle was called the first manned system not to be manrated in the traditional way.<br /><br />Of course the shuttle was sold on reusability and in the event the orbiter encountered late term development problems, ETs would have already begun production as would SRBs. Therefore, it would seem to me that someone would have realized that a heavy lift vehicle would have been much easier to develop with existing elements and the SRBs are reusable which would have made the idea of an SDV that much more attractive.<br /><br />As for resuming standard ELVs roles. None of the ELVs at that time had the payload capacity the shuttle system offered. <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>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"A shuttle derived vehicle which would include the design known as shuttle "C" could have existed without the orbiter had there been a requirement for one"<br /><br />Completely wrong!<br />No shuttle, no shuttle-C. shuttle-C only existed because it used elements of the orbiter. No orbiter, no shuttle-C. <br /><br />Big IF. But as you said there was no requirement<br /><br />"As for resuming standard ELVs roles. None of the ELVs at that time had the payload capacity the shuttle system offered."<br /><br />That is irrelevent. The initial payloads that flew on the shuttle only used a part of the shuttle capabilities. The PAM-D payloads could fly on Delta and some did. PAM DII could have flown on Atlases. The Titan-IV could have been developed earlier <br />
 
Q

qso1

Guest
jimfromnsf:<br />Completely wrong! <br />No shuttle, no shuttle-C. shuttle-C only existed because it used elements of the orbiter. No orbiter, no shuttle-C.<br /><br />Me:<br />The shuttle "C" that we came to know was derived in part from orbiter components, particularly the boattail section. These were components that could have been designed without an orbiter had a shuttle "C" been designed in 1979 rather than 1989. The shuttle "C" if totally dependant on orbiter flights as you say, could not have existed for long before running out of orbiter parts. Only five operational orbiters have ever been built and Endevour was built from the remaining spares plus some parts not built under the original shuttle contract. Where would shuttle "C" have gotten orbiter parts once these production parts were depleted?<br /><br />More importantly, a design very similar to shuttle "C" could have existed in 1979 had NASA so chosen and as evidenced by the 1977 Boeing study. In that study, Boeing proposed using SSMEs on a recoverable boat tail. If they decided not to depend on orbiter produced components. A slightly modified boattail could have been built housing two Saturn-V F-1 engines as an example.<br /><br />Payload capacity of early shuttle flights, indeed as it has turned out, many shuttle flights, are well below what the shuttle initially offered. There were a few missions flown by shuttle that deployed multiple satellite payloads that otherwise would have required individual Delta rockets. Of course, in hindsight, individual Delta rockets would still have been less expensive. Certainly the Titan-IV could have been developed earlier. This post is all about hypotheticals and I agree, expendables of the time could have still been used even if more of them were required. But at the same time, a shuttle vehicle derived payload pod could have been developed completely independant of the orbiter which would have in effect, killed two birds with one stone. Having the shuttle, and having Satu <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>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts