Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

SpaceNut · 2004-07-27 08:01:59

One could say using a Delta or Atlas derivative is also the way to go but much like the shuttle derivatives is it economical since neither is a man rated vehicle to start with. Only the shuttle hardware is at this point.

In either case the question is where is the cash for developement going to come from under a squashed budget?What is the timeline to manned flight?

Enough said about the rocket lets talk about the most important place on the rocket which houses the crew. Now depending on the launch format(winged or capsule) and the return re-entry landing style everything else is about size of crew, duration of use and easy of use to inside space demensioning.
Everthing else that is needed is an add on module and or boosters for each stage.

Now lets not forget the reason why we are in this situation in the first place.
Foam that sheds on launch from the external tank that could and does strike the orbitor. Not fixed as of yet but being worked on for return to flight.
No escape abort of launch if severly damaged since unit did not have real time broadcast of data though it had recorded the damaging strike. Note this is one of the fixes for return to flight with leading edge sensors.
If a strike does make a hole no means for repair was possible while in orbit. Last I checked they where still working on hole size variety of patch capability.
This also introduced the need for safe haven retreat or secondary shuttle rescue launch if unrepairable.

Now with those things said some of these things could be difficult even under a clean slate design to resolve.

Just trying to re-steer the conversation back to the proper link.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-28 12:41:59

I do not know if others are interested but there are a series of articles being presented by guess writers on the Project Constellation site about the CEV.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news/
The second part of this series is about shuttle derivatives.

Commodore · 2004-07-28 15:46:18

I do not know if others are interested but there are a series of articles being presented by guess writers on the Project Constellation site about the CEV.
http://www.projectconstellation.us/news … n.us/news/
The second part of this series is about shuttle derivatives.

Interesting.

OK, here a question. Just how much "shuttle" does there have to be in a Shuttle-C?

Obviously, you need an engine that uses the fuel in the ET, and manuvers the cargo in orbit. Some guidence computers, and an outer shell that makes the whole thing aerodynamic, and you've got a cargo pod that really doesn't require anything that even resembles any part of the shuttle.

I suppose you could spice it up a bit by making the engine reuseable, but the money spent on it probably isn't worth it. In fact theres probably quite a bit that could be gutted from the current shuttle engine simply because it only needs to be used once.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-28 17:02:52

To answer that question here is a link for A full-scale mock up of a Shuttle C concept sits at the Marshall Space Flight Center in Alabama in this 1989 image.
http://www.space.com/php....0image.
An artist's concept from the early 1980s shows a Shuttle-C cargo element in Earth orbit carrying the Galileo probe to Jupiter.
http://www.space.com/php....upiter.

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/shuttlec.htm

Shuttle-B: Flexible Use of NASA's Space Transportation System
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zzs.html

Many more sites are still to be found some dating back to the early 80's.
Personally I like the build full scale mock unit from 1989.

BWhite · 2004-07-28 17:14:28

SpaceNut, here is a http://www.nsschapters.org/ny/nyc/Shutt … .pdf]great SDV link.

And an old http://www.newmars.com/forums/viewtopic … 80]NewMars thread.

Grypd · 2004-07-28 17:23:37

A basic shuttle C would have the same external tank and SRBs as the shuttle does today with the fixes being imposed at the moment.
But as the shuttle component will not be coming back and the shuttle C is not to be a man carrier it will not need all the expensive and heavy parts that come with that. Also the attitude thrusters and main engine do not need to be reusable so major weight savings there too.
The lack of major wings also increase the cargo capacity again and no heat shield or heavy wall support for reentering atmosphere.
And as for guidance computers it will be brand new more modern ones.

This all leads to a lot more cargo carrying less cost to taxpayer vehicle. Shuttle C could be the vehicle that leads man back to the moon and mars as it will allow us to put a lot of infrastructure into space a lot faster and cheaper than we do now. Frankly the ISS would have been childs play to launch if we had shuttle C do it.

RobertDyck · 2004-07-28 17:59:47

My favourite configuration of Shuttle-C is http://www.astronautix.com/graphics/s/shuttled.gif]this one. It has the same external tank and SRBs as the current Shuttle, and only the engines from the orbiter. Rather than a cargo bay, it has just a payload fairing like Titan-4B or Delta-IV Large. Payload would be directly supported by the engine thrust support structure, which means it sits on the engine pod just like payload in a traditional rocket sits on the upper stage. The only difference between this configuration of Shuttle-C and Shuttle-B is whether the main engines are SSME or RS-68. When Dan Golden was NASA administrator and looking for a reusable spacecraft, I advocated an engine pod that had an ablative heat shield like Apollo and parafoil like X-38. That would make it as reusable as the current Shuttle but able to lift roughly 5.7 times as much payload to ISS. With the change of administration the total cost of operations has to be examined: is it cheaper to re-use an engine pod with 3 SSME's or just use an expendable pod with 2 RS-68's? We've argued the options, but we can't resolve that last question here. It has to be resolved by a formal engineering study and contractors bidding on the result.

Ps. When I did my weight calculations for Shuttle-C, I included OMS pods. OMS engines could be used to rendezvous with ISS, and RCS engines on the OMS pods would be enough to stabilize the payload for a tug to grab it. If the tug only has to pull modules a few hundred metres from a Shuttle-C engine pod to ISS, how complex would the tug have to be? Keeping the Shuttle-C engine pod attached to the payload during the time from orbital insertion to rendezvous with ISS and stabilization while the tug pulls off modules means the payload becomes an inert mass. Reusable engine pod and reusable tug, both remotely piloted.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-28 22:53:21

I don't think that the SSME setup will be more economical, either the waste of engines on each flight or the cost & weight penalty for making them reuseable, than the RS-68. Two of them cost around $30M, on or abouts, which is a great deal.

A five-segment version of the SRB has actually be tested. I don't see any reason why the improved version shouldn't be used, as it was planned as an option to add capacity or engine-out ability to the Shuttle. Using them would increase the payload to near 100MT.

Euler · 2004-07-28 23:42:15

I don't think that the SSME setup will be more economical, either the waste of engines on each flight or the cost & weight penalty for making them reuseable, than the RS-68. Two of them cost around $30M, on or abouts, which is a great deal.

SSMEs have a significantly higher isp than RS-68(455 vs 420), so you would also have to factor in the difference in payload capacity between the two options.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-29 10:13:06

As others have noted the SDV was never intended to be man rated but only as a cargo ferry. This is a great first step in reducing ISS transportation costs of construction and of resupply as needed. But this does not resolve the need for a crew transport only the number of forced trips by the shuttle for this purpose. I feel that a capsule mounted on top of the External tank with a small menuevering booster would be a good place for the CEV man rating to happen. This would further off load the shuttle need for being the main crew transport.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 10:31:36

The Shuttle main tank, equipped with RS-68 or SSME engines, would hardly get off the ground at all under its own power, it was never intended to be used without the SRBs or some other kind of booster rockets.

Plus, putting the CEV on top of that would be a supreme waste... it would be four or five times more powerful than it needs to be for ISS crew missions, an EELV with stretch fuel tanks and no SRBs makes a much better choice, and would be more useful in the long run, though it would cost money to develop.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-29 10:46:33

Being four or five times more powerfull than needed for the load factor at launch. Would that not mean then that the external tank could be brought to orbit rather than throwing it away with fuel remaining still in it. Could then be adapted to the role of boosting the ISS orbit.

GCNRevenger · 2004-07-29 11:16:17

The main tank just isn't worth all that much, except maybe to those fools at Space Island... The ISS reboost is already going to be taken care of by the ESA's ATV.

SpaceNut · 2004-07-30 12:07:09

The external tank has value in that is also refined material from which to do experiments on as well as to utilize for construction or for destructive purposes. Also the remaining Fuel is of value since when combined it is water. Lets not waste what cost so much to get from the Earths gravity well to LEO.

RobS · 2004-07-30 16:40:00

The Planetary Society's website has a link to a report titled "Extending Human Presence into the Solar System." It's 34 pages long, a pdf. Print it out and skim it; quite interesting. They advocate a whole new family of boosters based on the shuttle. The advantage of the family is that it would use the pads and the VAB, and would utilize and build on the shuttle's technology. To launch the CEV, they suggest a single SRB (the solid-fueled booster) as a first stage and a new second stage that would be LH2/LOX, with the CEV on top. They point out that the solids have been reliable for 176 firings--every shuttle launch since the first disaster--and they have an excellent record. The CEV would be a capsule and would sit on top with a launch escape system. For heavy lifting and cargo, they would use two SRBs, the main tank with expendible engines (not the SSMEs; the RS-68s) on the bottom, and a cargo fairing on top of the tank (no more side-mounting of cargo, with the problems of debris shedding and torquing that causes).

They note the the Atlas and Delta families, the Ariane, Proton, and even the Sea-Launch Zenit could be used to launch the CEV and it would be a good thing to use some of these systems as well; the resulting CEV could be sold to many nations and commercial ventures for their own use. (Poland could launch its own men into space from Kourou, for example). But a shuttle-derived family of vehicles would have a heavier launch capacity than any other family and thus would be needed for the later steps beyond LEO.

They also advocate development of solar or nuclear ion, solar-thermal, and nuclear-thermal propulsion systems, as no SDV can launch an entire Mars mission in one go.

Very interesting report.

-- RobS

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-02 08:19:11

The Space Shuttle tank is still pretty worthless... we are a looong way from the level of space construction capability to dismantle it or refurbish it on orbit to do anything useful with it, and what little remaining fuel left over would be very difficult to remove under zero-G conditions.

Mmmmm sounds like SDV Magnum to me... i'm not too keen on launching manned CEVs on a big solid rocket though, reliable as it is. Escaping the running, failing booster is substantialy more risky than a liquid fueled rocket.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-03 06:21:06

FYI
We already know how to transfer these items in zero- g as indicated and As noted in this article Russian Progress cargo ship docks with ISS.
http://www.spacedaily.com/2004/04052714 … 6t02y.html

SpaceNut · 2004-08-12 06:26:16

Here is another news soruce for what Nasa can not do when it comes to repair while in orbit.

NASA Abandons Rigid Overwrap For Patching RCC Holes
http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow....114.xml

Snipet:
After encountering "significant technical challenges," NASA is abandoning attempts to develop a rigid overwrap to patch large holes in the space shuttle's reinforced carbon-carbon (RCC) panels in the event of damage during flight, and instead is pursuing other methods that probably won't be ready in time for the shuttle's return to flight, according to agency officials.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-13 07:46:23

There were 11 completed external tanks at Michoud when Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana. Those tanks, which cost $40 million apiece, must be retrofitted.

The Michoud plant's work force stands at about 2,000. Under existing contracts, Lockheed Martin will continue to produce external tanks through 2008.

Official: Redesigned shuttle tanks will be safest ever
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/081 … s001.shtml

So lets see if I have the thought on the number of tanks still yet to be made. Roughly 30 flights give or take to complete the ISS minus the 10 equals, 20 tanks at 40 million a piece to make. Or 800 million spead over the next 3 or 4 years in budgetary demands.

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-13 08:01:00

Which is really pocket change... Shuttle costs about $4.3Bn per year, so we're looking at around $22Bn from 2005-2010 ISS completion deadline.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-13 12:44:37

I want to be the lint, lining those pockets.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 12:58:00

There were 11 completed external tanks at Michoud when Columbia disintegrated over Texas and Louisiana. Those tanks, which cost $40 million apiece, must be retrofitted.
The Michoud plant's work force stands at about 2,000. Under existing contracts, Lockheed Martin will continue to produce external tanks through 2008.
Official: Redesigned shuttle tanks will be safest ever
http://www.2theadvocate.com/stories/081 … s001.shtml
So lets see if I have the thought on the number of tanks still yet to be made. Roughly 30 flights give or take to complete the ISS minus the 10 equals, 20 tanks at 40 million a piece to make. Or 800 million spead over the next 3 or 4 years in budgetary demands.

The workforce and tooling to build those giant external tanks is one of the arenas where we are ahead of the Russians and Ukrainians. After a shaky start and the Challenger disaster, Thiokol SRBs are another.

Lift with the capacity of Delta IVH? The Russians blow our socks off in terms of value and price per pound to LEO with Zenit & Proton.

So why abandon an arena where we are ahead (the ability to build reliable BIG rockets) to compete in an arena where we are behind (flying smaller rockets)? The orbiter must go, but why everything else?

High STS costs are from bad management and fixed overhead.

Not because the Michoud ETs and the Thiokol SRBS are bad technology. Why should we believe the management will be any better if we start flying Deltas and Atlases exclusively?

GCNRevenger · 2004-08-13 13:33:31

Well, the idea behind the SDV is a good one on paper, but it really is a valid question mark if the development cost can be kept sane and if the price per launch can be seriously reduced. If its going to cost more than $5-6Bn to develop or more than $500M a flight, then it really may not be much of a deal compared to an uprated "Atlas-VI" or a bulk order from Boeing for Delta-IV HLV's. The Delta-IV and Atlas-V cost only a small fraction of the cost of a Shuttle shot and are in production right now. Their costs are well known, development costs will be low or zero to use them for PlanBush, and a simple scaling up the Atlas-V fuel tanks & SRM count may give any SDV a real run for its money per-pound... and is a much more "sure thing." If SDV is going to cost in the region of $10Bn, we might as well go clean-sheet and make an "American Energia" with RS-68+RD-180 or SRB to escape the direct payload mass limitations of SDV (120MT).

The certainty of cheaper than STS per-pound flights with Delta-IV

The high probability of easy Atlas-V uprating to SDV-competitive levels for a low-risk sum

Or the possibility of SDV, which has a big question-mark pricetag, and may not be able to free itself from the Shuttle Curse.

SpaceNut · 2004-08-13 13:51:13

The problem with the higher cost of the SDV is that it is supported by Nasa in that it is entangled into there operations and Shuttle infrastructure.

Where as an Atlas or a Delta have no such over head in there cost per unit price.

BWhite · 2004-08-13 14:03:25

The problem with the higher cost of the SDV is that it is supported by Nasa in that it is entangled into there operations and Shuttle infrastructure.
Where as an Atlas or a Delta have no such over head in there cost per unit price.

NASA operations are run by the United Space Alliance, correct? Isn't that essentially Boeing and Lock-mart?

I agree with GCNRevenger that a Delta V superheavy or Atlas VI might be cheaper than SDV, but why should we assume EELV+ will escape the crippling overhead paid by STS?

Its the same people who will be running either program.

If Delta IV was an economical system, Boeing would not have bailed out of the commercial launch market.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#76 2004-07-27 08:01:59

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#77 2004-07-28 12:41:59

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#78 2004-07-28 15:46:18

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#79 2004-07-28 17:02:52

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#80 2004-07-28 17:14:28

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#81 2004-07-28 17:23:37

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#82 2004-07-28 17:59:47

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#83 2004-07-28 22:53:21

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#84 2004-07-28 23:42:15

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#85 2004-07-29 10:13:06

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#86 2004-07-29 10:31:36

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#87 2004-07-29 10:46:33

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#88 2004-07-29 11:16:17

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#89 2004-07-30 12:07:09

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#90 2004-07-30 16:40:00

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#91 2004-08-02 08:19:11

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#92 2004-08-03 06:21:06

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#93 2004-08-12 06:26:16

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#94 2004-08-13 07:46:23

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#95 2004-08-13 08:01:00

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#96 2004-08-13 12:44:37

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#97 2004-08-13 12:58:00

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#98 2004-08-13 13:33:31

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#99 2004-08-13 13:51:13

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

#100 2004-08-13 14:03:25

Re: Might Shuttle C - save Hubble?

Board footer