Author Topic: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?  (Read 177733 times)

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #200 on: 02/20/2016 08:25 am »
Quote
The issue is could any alternate shuttle design using early 1970s technology, the same development budget and having vaguely similar capability have been dramatically superior to the shuttle as flown. That is the ultimate reason for discussions like this -- not because of historical quibbles but the allegation there was some dramatically superior unchosen design.

http://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld001.htm

My opinion: there was no "superior"/ miraculous shuttle design to be picked up by NASA - only compromised designs. Fully reusable was too expensive and complicated. Partially reusable were more expensive to fly. No-one was considering ballistic TSTOs (Kistler and F9R - style)
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #201 on: 02/08/2020 03:51 pm »
Triamese Pdf found on my HD. Something that surprised me reading it: seems the Triamese orbiter used a Gemini-B for crew escape ! Certainly heavy and cramped, but at least mostly proven escape system. Weird.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #202 on: 02/12/2020 04:43 pm »
Triamese Pdf found on my HD. Something that surprised me reading it: seems the Triamese orbiter used a Gemini-B for crew escape ! Certainly heavy and cramped, but at least mostly proven escape system. Weird.

Libra,

Thats an interesting concept.  I don't think I'd ever seen that one before.
Some interesting things there.  Basically each of the 3 cores are the same from what I could tell.  So really just designing one ship, and then using 3 of them together.  at least the same from an aerodynamic and outer mold line standpoint.  The Orbiter and boosters are different internally.

And it would make flying the boosters back and landing easier than some other stacked boosters, because the booster pilot is on the nose, instead of back behind the orbiter.

However, one issue with this would be what ULA and SpaceX discovered.  Flying a tri-core rocket isn't as simple as stacking them together and launching like you would a single core.  It's more like launching 3 rockets at the same time. Which is one reason why SpaceX went away from it's earlier FX-H tri-core concepts to a single stacked LV for their ITS/BFR/Starship concepts and designs.
So there likely would have been challenges unforeseen at the start that may have created some real hurtles. 

Cool concept though.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2020 04:45 pm by Lobo »

Online envy887

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8144
  • Liked: 6801
  • Likes Given: 2965
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #203 on: 02/12/2020 08:30 pm »
The issue is could any alternate shuttle design using early 1970s technology, the same development budget and having vaguely similar capability have been dramatically superior to the shuttle as flown. That is the ultimate reason for discussions like this -- not because of historical quibbles but the allegation there was some dramatically superior unchosen design.

I have never seen anyone -- not John Logsdon or anyone else -- credibly articulate the authoritative engineering basis for exactly what this unchosen super design was. In fact the emphasis on macro-level design issues like wings, payload size, etc has diverted focus from proper historical scholarship.

No authoritative engineering basis, or really any engineering basis, but... using existing engines would have saved quite a bit of money that could have been put to booster recovery and reuse. Flyback jet engined boosters with a single F-1 each, much like the  booster recovery method later proposed for Energia, seem reasonably feasible. 6.6 m diameter boosters would have been MUCH easier to land horizontally than the proposed S-1C-based monster.

Take 3 of those (GLOM ~550 t each) strapped together, top with a stock S-IVB complete with Saturn's SLA petals to enclose the payload plus a small spaceplane. That stack would look and perform a lot like Dream Chaser mashed atop Titan IV or Falcon Heavy, able to reach LEO with a ~30,000 kg 5x10 meter cylindrical payload, plus the ~20,000 kg spaceplane.

The payload volume wouldn't be quite as big as Shuttle, but the S-IVB sans spaceplane would do DoD GTO/GEO missions, eliminating the length needed for IUS in the Shuttle bay. The downmass requirement would not be met, but was never really used. A robotic variant of the spaceplane with a small cargo bay might eventually bring back some downmass capability.

The small spaceplane would be much cheaper than Shuttle to develop, build, and operate and could have launch abort ability, and with top-mount to protect the TPS from debris strikes. IMO the expended S-IVB and SLA would be cheaper than the ET. The 3 liquid boosters would be more expensive to develop and build than SRMs, but much easier to recover and refly and thus cheaper overall.

If dispensing with the (totally non-feasible anyway) once-around mission is an option, I think something like this could have been done and fulfilled all the other Shuttle capabilities with lower operating costs and higher reliability.
« Last Edit: 02/12/2020 08:33 pm by envy887 »

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #204 on: 02/13/2020 12:20 pm »
The Triamese is one of my favorite Shuttle concept. Alas it was eliminated in September 1969 for the reasons mentionned by Lobo - achieving full commonality between boosters and orbiters proved too difficult. https://space.nss.org/the-space-shuttle-decsion-chapter-5/

I remember in 2002 when my first Internet searches brought me to this website. https://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/

Never heard of Starclipper and Triamese before. Never realized that Shuttle pre-history reached back as far as 1968, 13 years ahead of its first flight. My mind was blown.


Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #205 on: 03/11/2020 10:54 pm »
The Triamese is one of my favorite Shuttle concept. Alas it was eliminated in September 1969 for the reasons mentionned by Lobo - achieving full commonality between boosters and orbiters proved too difficult. https://space.nss.org/the-space-shuttle-decsion-chapter-5/

I remember in 2002 when my first Internet searches brought me to this website. https://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/

Never heard of Starclipper and Triamese before. Never realized that Shuttle pre-history reached back as far as 1968, 13 years ahead of its first flight. My mind was blown.

I think SpaceX has shown the best "Shuttle" design with the Starship/Booster design.  Better than a tri-core for the reasons listed above.  And better than the sort of modified tri-core that STS was...which had the additional complexity of a side mounted payload and off central thrust angle, rather than inline.

There were some concepts pretty similar to Starship/Booster with a larged winged orbiter and expendable S-II and S-1C stages reused for it.  (or more of an HL-20 or HL-42 sized, and use the S-1B and S-IVB stages with payloads going up separately unmanned)

Reusable Inline pretty much needs a stage to be able to land vertically on it's tail, and the state of the art just wasn't feasible to do that in the 70's.  So start with a reusable orbiter and expendable booster.  Trying to land a big round stage horizontally is almost equally as challenging.

I think the Starship/booster concept is about the most optimal option for a conventionally powered rocket system.  With a big fat symetical biconic shop rather than an asymetical winged orbiter.  Solving the tail landing issue opened this up to SpaceX, but was not really a viable option during STS development.


Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #206 on: 03/13/2020 12:23 pm »
Triamese Pdf found on my HD. Something that surprised me reading it: seems the Triamese orbiter used a Gemini-B for crew escape ! Certainly heavy and cramped, but at least mostly proven escape system. Weird.
I """"almost hate to add to the many many comments already here, but since I was deeply involved in the Gemini program.....  First the Gemini vehicle was a spacecraft, not a capsule.  NASA went to great lengths to make that distinction; it could change orbits, maneuver in space, dock with other vehicles, etc.  The Mercury was a capsule; it could not change orbits, etc.

I was the project test engineer on Gemini for Weber Aircraft.  We were tasked to design, test and qualify it for McDonnell Aircraft (MAC) and NASA.  We, Weber Aircraft spent three years in providing an escape system that was the most sophisticated and complex system ever envisioned.  It had to provide the astronaut occupants with safe egress and recovery from (1) a pad abort condition should the booster suffer a catastrophic failure.  The system had to eject the occupants more than 500 feet away and bring them safely to earth via a personal parachute, (2) a high speed max Q condition during the boost phase, (3) a high speed Mach 4 ejection at 45,000 and (4) a high altitude ejection up to 70,000 feet.  A whole lot more than those currently in service with the F-35, F-22, F-16, F-15, B-2, etc.  Weber also provided the lightweight systems used in NASA lifting bodies M2-F2, HL-10 and X-24 in addition to those for the LLRV and LLTV ( have the filmed footage of Neil Armstrong, Joe Algranti and Stuart Present ejecting from it).

Astronaut safety was the primary concern throughout the program and every conceivable failure mode and environment was considered.
Secondly, you were correct in listing the reasons for ejection seats.  Jim Chamberlain had always championed them and with good reason for the Gemini program.  The weight of an escape rocket system would have been many times that of the seats and they'd have spent much fuel getting to a safe altitude where the vehicle parachutes could be relied on to affect safe recovery.

Modern ejection seats have provided a 90% safe recovery rate for the past 50 years.  And a good deal of the 10% failures are pilots delaying the decision to eject.  There were some spinal compression fractures in early Martin Baker seats before we realized the importance of keeping onset rates below 150 gs/sec.  Once that was solved there have been very few back problems due to ejections.  More than 12,000 pilots have had their lives saved by ejection seats and I think they'd take exception to your comments regarding the safety and capabilities of ejection seats.

John Young and Gus Grissom were not at the Randsburg Wash facility of China Lake when the hatch problem caused only one seat to be ejected.  I was there and had Jim Lovell and Frank Borman with me.  And the seat did not "blast through the hatch."  The system works like this...when either occupant pulls his ejection control handle  to fire an initiator, the hot high pressure gas is routed to both hatch actuators.  The hatch actuator initiator fires to start the hatch opening sequence.  As the hatch actuator piston moves up it releases the hatch latches and starts opening the hatch.  When the piston reaches the top of the actuator and hatch is locked in the open position, hot gas is vented off to the rocket catapult (rocat).  The catapult ignites and moves the seat up the rails.  When the seat reaches the top of the rails, the catapult is stripped off and the seat rocket is ignited.  In this instance, the o-ring on the piston failed and hot gas was vented off to
the rocat before the hatch was fully open.  The seat moved up the rails and struck the hatch structure.  This jammed the seat on the rails.  Both the hatch structure and the seat headrest structure sustained some damage.  The test dummy's helmet was cracked.  When we were looking at the post-test damage, Jim looked over at Frank and inquired if maybe Frank might interested in trading seats; Frank thanked him for his kind offer, but decided that he was fully satisfied with his seat.  MAC installed double o-rings on the piston and no further problems of this kind were encountered.

Since the seat is at the top of the rails when the rocket is ignited there is no flame inside the vehicle before that and no problem with oxygen environment.

While our astronauts are extremely intelligent, super test pilots and true American heroes, none of them that I'm aware have any experience whatsoever in escape system design.  Several of them, including Tom S., did make derogatory comments about the Gemini seat system and that was unfortunate.  They are human just like the rest of us, but their comments should not be taken as gospel.   

Weber, MAC and NASA expended blood, sweat and tears for those three years (1962-1965) to provide our guys with the finest system available.  It's very easy 50 years later to make derogatory comments regarding why certain decisions were made, but where were you when the decision had to be made?

Thanks for letting me vent!

If you'd like to follow my blog visit me at https://geminihistory.com/welcome-to-my-blog/"""""""

A post from Gordon Cress,  the project test engineer on Gemini for Weber Aircraft, the manufacturers of the Gemini Ejection system.
From the off base video, "Why Aborting From Gemini May Have Likely Killed The Crew".  Rubbish title for a rubbish video IMO. For example, the crew "ejecting from Gemini May Have Likely Killed The Crew because the Gemini spacecraft was 100% oxygen."  I mean c'mon, the cabin is being filled by exhaust from solid rockets punching the crew out, it doesnt much matter what the atmosphere inside the cockpit is.

attac
1) pic used at the "Ejection Site"
2) gemini boilerplate at rocket sled facility to test ejection seats
3) the race for the seats to stay ahead of the fireball

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #207 on: 03/13/2020 03:36 pm »
Shirley... surely, you can't be serious.

I. just. said. I was.surprised. Triamese. used.a Gemini-B. as. an. escape. system.

Nothing. more.

 :o :o :o :o :o :o



people are turning crazy, really. Looks I took the wrong week to quit ... oh well


Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #208 on: 03/18/2020 09:27 pm »
Shirley... surely, you can't be serious.

I. just. said. I was.surprised. Triamese. used.a Gemini-B. as. an. escape. system.

Nothing. more.

 :o :o :o :o :o :o

Shocked? OK then.
Paul

Offline libra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1818
  • Liked: 1228
  • Likes Given: 2357
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #209 on: 03/21/2020 08:04 am »
And now for something completely different...

The Shuttle orbiter did not went from internal tankage to external tankage in one step.

It happened like this
1 - LOX / LH2 both internal
2 - LOX inside, LH2 in drop tanks
3- LOX/LH2 both external

Somewhat logically (but mastering NASA accronyms is important when doing Internet searches)
2- was called "External Hydrogen Tank" while 3- was "External Hydrogen Oxygen Tank"

One example of "External Hydrogen Tank" is Grumman H33 orbiter.

https://www.pmview.com/spaceodysseytwo/spacelvs/sld033.htm

I wonder if the drop tanks could be placed below the wings, somewhat in classical fighter aircraft fashion. although there is already the booster underneath the orbiter...

Online FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48176
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81668
  • Likes Given: 36939
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #210 on: 12/13/2022 04:56 am »
twitter.com/siwelthelongboi/status/1602440258028724226

Quote
Always down for more H-33 art

twitter.com/retroscifiart/status/1602436571596492800

Quote
Art by Robert McCall

https://twitter.com/siwelthelongboi/status/1602440749987270656

Quote
I also found an uncropped version

Offline LittleBird

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1113
  • UK
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 529
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #211 on: 12/13/2022 11:06 am »
You might well enjoy the book "Our World in Space" by Asimov and McCall from mid 70s, that particular one's a nearly 2 page large format image. Has  a few shuttle pics, mostly the near final design in a set of images that also became a NASA Facts poster: https://www.flickr.com/photos/numbersstation/51110712423/

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 635
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 861
  • Likes Given: 182
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #212 on: 12/13/2022 11:20 am »
"Wings are for groundhogs!"  ;D

Any of Bono's designs could be applied or adapted to be a reuseable space transportation system.
The Star Raker design..
There are literally catalogs of designs. Pick one, build it and fly it.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2022 11:21 am by tea monster »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #213 on: 12/13/2022 02:15 pm »
I wonder if the drop tanks could be placed below the wings, somewhat in classical fighter aircraft fashion. although there is already the booster underneath the orbiter...

I would think the high ratio of propellant to structure by mass and the large longitudinal accelerations would require very heavy wings.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1