Re: Instant Shuttle turnaround ?

"Damon Hill" <damon1SIX1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Xns9B6985C9C51F4damon161attbicom@xxxxxxxxxxxx
"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_deleteth1s@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
news:ruudndvUatf_QKvUnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:


If I were building a Mark II shuttle, I'd focus on the engines,
OMS/APU/RCS subsystems and the toilet. (Folks left out the toilet!)

The TPS I'd work on improving, but at this point for something that
large, not sure how much you could improve it.

It's far better than it was, that's for sure.

While the ideal Shuttle replacement has usually been conceived as
SSTO, that's too expensive to develop--even now I don't think the
technology is available at even unreasonable cost. But a fully
reusable TSTO ought to be relatively easy, and most of it off the
shelf.

Well note above when I was referring to a Mark II shuttle, I meant keeping
the same moldlines.

Simply replace the OV-10x model with a OV-20x model. I still think there's
a lot of merit in that, but that's a different discussion.



My preferred idea for a "new Shuttle" would be along the lines of two
essentially identical airframes; one a kero-lox booster with minimal
TPS if any at all, and the other a hydrogen-lox orbiter with metallic
shingles instead of ceramic tiles. They'd launch in tandem and the
booster would return to launch site. No solids and no linear aerospike
engines; conventional RD-180 or RD-191 and SSMEs/RL-10 engines, and
alcohol/LOX/peroxide thrusters. Otherwise it's just a scaled up
X-33-like 'Bimese' concept as has been proposed several times over the
decades.


I was going to say this sounded like the Bimese concept that's been around
since at least the 70s.

Would you design it to to be VTHL or what?


The booster ought to have fast turnaround, but it'd be cheaper and
thus a stable of two or three boosters per orbiter could be just as
workable.

Don't you mean the other way around? (i.e one booster could turn-around
faster and launch 203 orbiters?)


The orbiter will be the weight sensitive part because it'll have to
be more complex and carry a robust TPS plus a useful payload bay.


I'm not sure how much more complex it really would be. Both would need life
support, landing gear, guidance, etc.

I agree you'd definitely need a more robust TPS though.


The orbiter shouldn't be any larger than needed to support ISS; use
the boosters with an unmanned conventional cylinder tanks to launch
heavier/bulkier payloads. I wouldn't rule out an unmanned orbiter
to haul water/propellants/whatever--that'd save weight and improve
payload.

If you're using COTS, sure. I wouldn't want to see a whole other platform
built just for this.


No hydraulics either; fully electrical systems powered by fuel cells
are mature enough technology. I think everything else in current use
is good enough, or make stuff like the toilet a plug-in module.

Definitely. In fact, I'd really make sure to design for re-usability at a
sacrifice in payload.



This still wouldn't be airline-type operations, but it'd be a lightyear
ahead of current Shuttle systems.

We don't need airline-type operations, yet. I'd settle for SR-71 type
operations where you can sortie on fairly short notice and turn around in a
reasonable amount of time.


Of course no one's developing such a system; any new launch systems are
conventional derivatives of known technology such as SpaceX is doing
with Falcon and Dragon--because it's probably cheaper to develop.

But I think we're really going to miss Shuttle's capabilities, and that
will eventually drive development of new Shuttle-like systems.

Despite what some have claimed, I think the loss of MPLM capability will
hurt. One of the great strengths of the ISS design was that you could
easily carry large items up AND down easily.



--Damon



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


.

Relevant Pages

  • OT: Interesting Shuttle/NASA article
    ... for those who indulge in detailing, the story says that the shuttle ... The orbiter is lowered onto the solid rocket boosters and the external ... Space shuttle Discovery is scheduled to launch Wednesday evening. ... and the main tires are replaced. ...
    (rec.models.scale)
  • Re: Instant Shuttle turnaround ?
    ... perhaps a whole new Shuttle design fundamentally different from ... and the other a hydrogen-lox orbiter with metallic ... booster would return to launch site. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Next NASA Shuttle Set To Explode On Independence Day
    ... Sending Discovery up through the stormy clouds around Cape Canaveral ... "We've concluded that we're not going to have a chance to launch ... Discovery crew as they sat strapped into their shuttle seats. ... If the orbiter does not get away by Wednesday, ...
    (rec.sport.pro-wrestling)
  • Re: shuttle landing sites
    ... When I viewed the Florida End-Of-Mission landing site, ... I take it that that's the Shuttle ... solid rocket boosters are stacked for launch. ... processed in the Orbiter Processing Facilities. ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)
  • Re: CEV and habitable space
    ... > shuttle. ... provide for 40 racks. ... This design used the majority of the length of the orbiter cargo bay. ... You want to launch *stuff* and as ...
    (sci.space.shuttle)