What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-10-11 06:50:11

The current STS system was designed 35 years ago and mostly uses technology at least 30 years old.

What would a system designed today with similiar requirements look like?

That is able to launch normally with a seven man crew, 10 in an emergency.

Able to put into LEO a payload of at least 30,000 lbs.

Orbital duration of about 10 days maximum.

And of course maximized for quick turnaround on the ground.

Rxke · 2007-10-11 07:59:44

Shuttle looks the way it looks now, mainly due to cost. There were better designs, but they were more expensive. So is money at a limit in your what if... question?

cIclops · 2007-10-11 08:28:03

What would a system designed today with similiar requirements look like?
That is able to launch normally with a seven man crew, 10 in an emergency.
Able to put into LEO a payload of at least 30,000 lbs.
Orbital duration of about 10 days maximum.
And of course maximized for quick turnaround on the ground.

It would look like this:

Yes that's right because nobody knows how to design a vehicle with Shuttle + capabilities, especially the quick turnaround.

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-10-11 08:31:40

What would a system designed today with similiar requirements look like?
That is able to launch normally with a seven man crew, 10 in an emergency.
Able to put into LEO a payload of at least 30,000 lbs.
Orbital duration of about 10 days maximum.
And of course maximized for quick turnaround on the ground.
It would look like this:

Yes that's right because nobody knows how to design a vehicle with Shuttle + capabilities, especially the quick turnaround.

I think you could build one today with a one month turnaround.

Atlantis was once flown again just 50 days after landing.

cIclops · 2007-10-11 14:09:11

And Shuttle has had two major failures in 119 missions. It's not a safe or a reliable system, every flight has to be painstakingly prepared to minimize the risk of another failure. Currently four missions are flown a year using three shuttles. Turnaround time is several months per Orbiter. That's why NASA has decided to return to a capsule design with a launch abort system for crew and to launch cargo separately.

A safe, reliable fully reusable vehicle is still not possible, maybe in ten years one can be built if someone is willing to spend a LOT of money developing it.

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-10-11 20:15:29

And Shuttle has had two major failures in 119 missions. It's not a safe or a reliable system, every flight has to be painstakingly prepared to minimize the risk of another failure. Currently four missions are flown a year using three shuttles. Turnaround time is several months per Orbiter. That's why NASA has decided to return to a capsule design with a launch abort system for crew and to launch cargo separately.
A safe, reliable fully reusable vehicle is still not possible, maybe in ten years one can be built if someone is willing to spend a LOT of money developing it.

What if you built a modernized shuttle today with a launch escape system?

Based on the escape pod concepts from the F-111, B-1A, and B-58 bombers.

Perhaps returning to the original shuttle concept with a reusable, flyback booster stage

cIclops · 2007-10-12 02:11:34

What if you built a modernized shuttle today with a launch escape system?

Based on the escape pod concepts from the F-111, B-1A, and B-58 bombers.

Perhaps returning to the original shuttle concept with a reusable, flyback booster stage

Every ton such an escape system weighs is a ton less cargo to orbit and it does nothing to improve the reliability of the system. Saving the crew is important of course but losing a Shuttle and its cargo once every 60 flights is very expensive and causes extremely long delays. Shuttle is far too complex, 5 engines, tile TPS etc etc it has about 2 million parts!

There have been lots of concepts using flyback boosters, recently RpK tried again with K-1 - it failed.

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-10-12 05:43:02

You could eliminate the main engines from the shuttle.

Like Buran.

You could also probably replace many of the heat resistant tiles with todays materials.

Commodore · 2007-10-12 20:35:27

Hopefully we would not make the same compromises again. Primarily that of combining manned with heavy cargo hauling into one system.

Instead, we would have separate and manned and cargo launchers like what we are working on now. Only different.

The HLLV, would be quite similar to the Ares V. I would use liquid fly back boosters in a paired configuration instead of SRBs. 0, 2, 4, 6, or maybe even 8 boosters would be added depending on the load. If possible, I'd make the main stack reusable, but at the very least recoverable. 200 tons to GEO should be the goal.

As for the manned launcher, we should be able to do a two stage to orbit space plane. With a hypersonic sub-orbital carrier, and a 12-15 seat/light cargo/resupply orbiter, what we really need to work to is the "scramble" capability. In other words, we should be able to identify a need (say, a damaged satellite, or a broken component on a space station), and be able to launch the new piece and the crew to repair in in very short order. The orbit should also be capable of moving between a wide range of orbits.

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-10-12 22:58:48

How large would a shuttle be that had say the same crew capabilities as the current shuttle and minimal cargo carrying capabilities?

Say around 5,000 lbs. to LEO.

Allowing it to carry a crew to the ISS and some of the most vital supplies.

Terraformer · 2007-10-13 10:57:45

How much for a fully reusable craft? It cost 25 mil to develop a fully reusable suborbitle craft that can carry 2 passengers (SpaceShipOne.)

Dayton Kitchens · 2007-10-16 05:47:30

By the way, I think combining the astronaut carrying capacity and at least some substantial cargo capacity into one spacecraft does have some value.

publiusr · 2007-11-09 12:22:11

You could eliminate the main engines from the shuttle.
Like Buran.
You could also probably replace many of the heat resistant tiles with todays materials.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … 48&start=1

Thats how I would go.

There is a new book on Energiya Buran
http://www.amazon.com/Energiya-Buran-So … 323&sr=8-1

Nice links here
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums … &posts=560

Here is a concept for all the folks here who do artwork on conceptual spacecraft.--Put a block II type shuttle side mount against Ares V.

___________________________________________________________

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2007-10-11 06:50:11

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#2 2007-10-11 07:59:44

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#3 2007-10-11 08:28:03

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#4 2007-10-11 08:31:40

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#5 2007-10-11 14:09:11

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#6 2007-10-11 20:15:29

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#7 2007-10-12 02:11:34

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#8 2007-10-12 05:43:02

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#9 2007-10-12 20:35:27

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#10 2007-10-12 22:58:48

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#11 2007-10-13 10:57:45

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#12 2007-10-16 05:47:30

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#13 2007-11-09 12:22:11

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

#14 2007-11-16 07:51:52

Re: What Would A Space Shuttle System Look Like If Built Today?

Board footer