Author Topic: Flipped shuttle??  (Read 8406 times)

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Flipped shuttle??
« on: 09/04/2007 08:15 pm »
Here's a wild idea that occurred to me while reading about all the TPS issues shuttle has had (before and) since Columbia.  I know it isn't practical to do it now but maybe this is the way it should have been done when the thing was first designed, had the TPS issues been foreseen...

What if the stack had been designed with the orbiter's bipod mount in front of the payload bay doors and the ET/propellant lines mounting somewhere near the OMS pods?  Yes I know the rudder would be in the way but the rudder design could have been changed early on.  That way the wing leading edges would be probably 10 feet or so farther from the foam shedding ET than now, and the entire belly TPS of the orbite would be facing AWAY from the tank.  Additionally there would be no openings in the TPS at launch, unlike the orbiter as it's designed with the doors open over the lower ET mating points and propellant lines entering the orbiter through the bottom.  I've always kinda squirmed wondering if those propellant feedline doors would close properly and what would happen if they didn't.  I know the geometry of the SSME's and all would be weird but considering the 'weirdness' of the side mount design when it first came out it wouldn't seem to be an insurmountable problem.  

Just a wild thought... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline meiza

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3067
  • Where Be Dragons
  • Liked: 5
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #1 on: 09/04/2007 08:26 pm »
You could have a V tail to enable better mounting. :)

The crew couldn't see much though.

Then there's the Colani shuttle:
http://www.io.tudelft.nl/public/vdm/fda/colani/col071.htm :)

Offline stockman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6916
  • Southern Ontario - Canada
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #2 on: 09/04/2007 08:29 pm »
Interesting idea however my first thought on it if I am picturing it correctly is that you would NOT have access to the payload bays once the shuttle was stacked. You would have to fully integrate the payload prior to rollover to the vehicle assembly building and would loose all access once stacked.
One Percent for Space!!!

Offline Ford Mustang

  • Live Coverage Editor
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12473
  • Virginia
    • Astro95Media
  • Liked: 375
  • Likes Given: 36
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #3 on: 09/04/2007 08:56 pm »
Interesting idea, indeed, but.. Wouldn't you rather have minor hits to the TPS (or repair if needed), rather than something coming down and busting a hole in the window?  Once in space, that'd be more deadly than a TPS hit... Risks either way you go, to be honest.  That's what the industry is about, taking a risk to learn, build, and evolve.

Offline Flightstar

  • Lurking around OPF High Bay 2
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1894
  • KSC, Florida
  • Liked: 78
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #4 on: 09/04/2007 09:01 pm »
Problem, among others, attach points

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #5 on: 09/04/2007 10:01 pm »
Debris hitting the windows.    Payload bay access is the killer

Offline shuttlelegs

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Gladstone Qld Australia
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
RE: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #6 on: 09/04/2007 10:53 pm »
Would it not just be easier to design a stronger leading edge or something other than foam on the external tank. Or give the tank internal piping and a outer body over the foam.

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
RE: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #7 on: 09/04/2007 11:01 pm »
Or, you could do something like the Grumman H-33 (LOX internal, LH2 in overwing tanks), just with SRBs instead of a big huge flyback booster...

Simon ;)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
RE: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #8 on: 09/04/2007 11:47 pm »
Quote
shuttlelegs - 4/9/2007  6:53 PM

Would it not just be easier to design a stronger leading edge or something other than foam on the external tank. Or give the tank internal piping and a outer body over the foam.

more weight

Offline nacnud

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2691
  • Liked: 981
  • Likes Given: 347
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #9 on: 09/05/2007 12:06 am »
Put the insulation inside the tank? But then you have engine ingestion problems...

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #10 on: 09/05/2007 12:14 am »
Quote
nacnud - 4/9/2007  8:06 PM

Put the insulation inside the tank? But then you have engine ingestion problems...

And ice could still form since the propellants could penetrate the foam

Offline shuttlelegs

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Gladstone Qld Australia
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #11 on: 09/05/2007 12:16 am »
The old design of a flyable booster where double walls with insulation in between.

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #12 on: 09/05/2007 01:24 am »
Quote
stockman - 4/9/2007  3:29 PM

Interesting idea however my first thought on it if I am picturing it correctly is that you would NOT have access to the payload bays once the shuttle was stacked. You would have to fully integrate the payload prior to rollover to the vehicle assembly building and would loose all access once stacked.

Quite true...  didn't think about that much before... how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS?  For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS??   If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around... Dunno... OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8526
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 1199
  • Likes Given: 65
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #13 on: 09/05/2007 01:28 am »
Quote
luke strawwalker - 5/9/2007  3:24 AM

Quite true...  didn't think about that much before... how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS?  For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS??   If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around... Dunno... OL JR :)
Now-a-days all payloads are installed at the pad.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #14 on: 09/05/2007 01:35 am »
Quote
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007  9:24 PM

1.   how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS?  

2.  For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS??  

3.  If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around..)

1. most.  even when the payload was installed horizontal, there were requirements to still access the payload bay at the pad

2.  None since spacelab is gone.  Spacelab was about the only payload* installed horizontal.  Less than 20%

3.  nope, payload installation at the pad is a hard requirement, just like all other US LV's



* there were a few exceptions

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #15 on: 09/05/2007 01:37 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  5:01 PM

Debris hitting the windows.    Payload bay access is the killer

True but aren't the windows a LOT tougher than the TPS??  Seems like they could take a whump a lot easier than the TPS could, but I could be wrong...

Payload integration would have to be done before stacking, probably would make it a non-starter.  

True that WLE CC would still be lower than the tank and still COULD be hit but the additional distance between the wing if the orbiter was inverted and the tank would make it a lot less likely, especially during the flight phase around max Q when foam coming off the tank decelerates the fastest and hits with the greatest impact force.  As I understood from the briefings on the foam coming off the tank Wayne Hale described the most dangerous time as being when the stack was accelerating rapidly in thick air which put more pressure on the foam and also would decelerate any detached foam the quickest via air drag.  The stack is moving so fast it accelerates right into the decelerating foam like speeding through a hailstorm.  From what I gathered, as the shuttle gets above most of the atmosphere, the danger lessens even though the speed is an order of magnitude higher, since there is little drag to decelerate the foam rapidly as the shuttle is still accelerating, and so the foam just sorta drifts along with it and falls behind fairly quickly as the stack accelerates away...  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline luke strawwalker

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1032
  • Liked: 9
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #16 on: 09/05/2007 01:41 am »
Quote
Jim - 4/9/2007  8:35 PM

Quote
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007  9:24 PM

1.   how much of the payload stuff is done in the RSS?  

2.  For that matter are any of the payloads installed in the bay before the orbiter is added to the stack or is it ALL done in the RSS??  

3.  If it were 72 again it could probably be designed around..)

1. most.  even when the payload was installed horizontal, there were requirements to still access the payload bay at the pad

2.  None since spacelab is gone.  Spacelab was about the only payload* installed horizontal.  Less than 20%

3.  nope, payload installation at the pad is a hard requirement, just like all other US LV's



* there were a few exceptions

About number three... I guess you're referring to EELV's with that comment, and of course shuttle since that's what we're talking about, but the Saturn V moon missions were all integrated in the VAB were they not??  I don't remember seeing any LEM's being winched up the tower, or the CM/SM or LES either for that matter... so if it were 72 again and that 'hard requirement' hadn't been invented yet.... Hmmmm...

Oh well, ain't 72 no more and that's for darn sure!  OL JR :)
NO plan IS the plan...

"His plan had no goals, no timeline, and no budgetary guidelines. Just maybe's, pretty speeches, and smokescreens."

Offline mikeh

  • Regular
  • Member
  • Posts: 63
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #17 on: 09/05/2007 01:42 am »
Quote
nacnud - 4/9/2007  7:06 PM

Put the insulation inside the tank? But then you have engine ingestion problems...

According to the book "Stages to Saturn" the S-IVB utilized internal insulation whereas the S-II used external spray on foam much like the ET. The reason for the external foam was that the North American engineers wanted to use a special aluminum alloy for the LH2 and LOX tanks that was 30% stronger once it came in contact with the cryogens.  That meant that they could use thinner tanks thus saving weight.  Same rational I suppose went into the decision for external foam on the ET.  

By the way, the external foam on the S-II  gave the engineers fits right up till the end of the Saturn program.  Seems they had problems with foam loss and cryo-pumping (sound familiar) whereas the S-IVB never had problems with the internal foam because it was applied with and was coated with a heat cured epoxy coating.  Turned out to be quite durable and safe.
===========================================
"You can't BS physics".

Don Arabian-Head of MER during Apollo

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #18 on: 09/05/2007 02:10 am »
Quote
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007  9:41 PM

1.  About number three... I guess you're referring to EELV's with that comment, and of course shuttle since that's what we're talking about,

2.  but the Saturn V moon missions were all integrated in the VAB were they not??  I don't remember seeing any LEM's being winched up the tower, or the CM/SM or LES either for that matter...

3.  so if it were 72 again and that 'hard requirement' hadn't been invented yet.... Hmmmm...

1.  No, I are referring to ELV's, a larger group

2.  Apollo was a manned spacecraft , not comsat or planetary spacecraft.  Apollo was fueled at the pad.  The Apollo spacecraft is comparable to the orbiter not the orbiter's payload.

3.  All ELV's were payload at the pad before Apollo.

Offline shuttlelegs

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 202
  • Gladstone Qld Australia
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 8
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #19 on: 09/05/2007 02:47 am »
I believe the shuttle payload on the pad installation was originaly a DoD requirement so they could replace a payload quickly and install there's if need to in a hurry and keeping things secret easier.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #20 on: 09/05/2007 03:00 am »
Yes, it was a DOD requirement but it also was the status quo

Offline yinzer

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1509
  • Liked: 3
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #21 on: 09/05/2007 05:28 am »
Soviet LVs all transferred their payloads to the pad with the rocket.  It's not like it can't be done.  Even today, the Atlas V and Ariane V both have payloads fully integrated off the launch pad and then roll the entire vehicle out to the pad on a mobile launch platform.  I think access to the payloads requires the vehicle to be rolled back; however this can happen in a manner of hours rather than days.

It may be noteworthy that Soyuz-from-Kourou will integrate the payload on the launch pad, as opposed to the off-pad integration done at Baikonur and Plesetsk.  This could be either out of a desire to avoid the loads from horizontal transfer, or due to longer on-pad processing times for the Soyuz rocket.
California 2008 - taking rights from people and giving rights to chickens.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #22 on: 09/05/2007 11:29 am »
Quote
yinzer - 5/9/2007  1:28 AM

Soviet LVs all transferred their payloads to the pad with the rocket.  It's not like it can't be done.  Even today, the Atlas V and Ariane V both have payloads fully integrated off the launch pad and then roll the entire vehicle out to the pad on a mobile launch platform.  I think access to the payloads requires the vehicle to be rolled back; however this can happen in a manner of hours rather than days.

It may be noteworthy that Soyuz-from-Kourou will integrate the payload on the launch pad, as opposed to the off-pad integration done at Baikonur and Plesetsk.  This could be either out of a desire to avoid the loads from horizontal transfer, or due to longer on-pad processing times for the Soyuz rocket.


Russians have different safety rules. They allow fueled spacecraft in their assembly halls

The Atlas V VIF is consider part of the complex.  It is the MST, but instead of the VIF rolling back from the pad, the LV rolls to the pad.  So, basically, it is the same as all the other CCAFS pads

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
RE: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #23 on: 09/05/2007 05:25 pm »
The Biggest Thing I would have changed would be to have the feed line internal like the new Ares V with only mounting points on the outside.  The Biggest foam problem today is the feed line, since the Bipod is basically foam free and the lower attach points blows foam into the shuttle's plume.

Offline Dana

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 440
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #24 on: 09/05/2007 11:20 pm »

Quote
luke strawwalker - 4/9/2007 6:41 PM

I don't remember seeing any LEM's being winched up the tower, or the CM/SM or LES either for that matter...

Here ya go-although since this was Apollo 7 it's on a Saturn IB, not a Saturn V.

"Apollohttp://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/alsj/a410/ap7-68-HC-465.jpg" width="640" border="0" />

"Don't play dumb with me! You're not as good at it as I am!"-Col. Flagg

"'Second Place' is just the first loser."-Bobby Allison

Offline jeff122670

  • Missing the Shuttle more and more everyday!!!! :(
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Louisville, KY
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: flipped shuttle??
« Reply #25 on: 09/15/2007 10:45 pm »
Or, how about this: We just never fly the shuttle again. That is about the same idea. It seems to me that these vehicles are, by virtue of what they do, dangerous.

Remember, the only way for a ship to be safe is to stay in the harbor, but that isnt what they are designed to do.

Just my $.02

Jeff
Jeff Ray

Online Chris Bergin

Re: Flipped shuttle??
« Reply #26 on: 09/15/2007 11:30 pm »
Quote
jeff122670 - 15/9/2007  11:45 PM

Or, how about this: We just never fly the shuttle again. That is about the same idea. It seems to me that these vehicles are, by virtue of what they do, dangerous.


With that defeatest attitude there would be no point having a space program. I'd expect that kinda sentiment on a youtube comment section filled with shuttle bashers (not that I think you are), not this site's forum. Packing up a program because it's "dangerous" is the same as banning cars because they are also "dangerous."

Quote

Remember, the only way for a ship to be safe is to stay in the harbor, but that isnt what they are designed to do.

Just my $.02

Jeff

Errr, right. What's your point? Only fly ships again when they are "safe" - we'll all be long dead before that happens.
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline kevin-rf

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8823
  • Overlooking the path Mary's little Lamb took..
  • Liked: 1318
  • Likes Given: 306
Re: Flipped shuttle??
« Reply #27 on: 09/16/2007 07:16 am »
Quote

Remember, the only way for a ship to be safe is to stay in the harbor, but that isnt what they are designed to do.

Just my $.02

Jeff

Odd coment, when a hurricane is coming most ocean going ships put to sea and don't sit arround the harbor waiting to be tossed like a pile of childrens blocks.

When you are developing a technology you have to be prepared for failure. When you are flying an operational vehicle failure is unacceptable. The problem with the shuttle is they tried to make an operational vehicle out of what should have been a test vehicle.
If you're happy and you know it,
It's your med's!

Tags:
 

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