Author Topic: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?  (Read 83050 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #180 on: 02/19/2016 02:55 AM »

Very selective quoting......The shuttle bay was driven by the AF and satellite retrieval.


Wrong.  It was the proper quoting.  15 foot diameter was NASA's and not DOD requirement.  Max Faget quotes are selective ones.   He was the expert on the shuttle shape but he was not involved with the final dimensions, he was not involved with payloads.  The DOD didn't haven any 15 diameter payloads.  NASA did. "While NASA did not need so much length, its officials wanted a 15-foot diameter to accommodate modules for a space station."  and "The USAF appears not to be nearly as firm on the 15 ft. diameter requirements as they are in length."
This proves my point.

I can use bold too. 
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 03:07 AM by Jim »

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2130
  • Liked: 243
  • Likes Given: 676
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #181 on: 02/19/2016 07:15 AM »
I'm struggling with the vision of an orbiter with the same paylod bay length of 60ft but only 10 ft wide...  ::)

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #182 on: 02/19/2016 01:44 PM »

Very selective quoting......The shuttle bay was driven by the AF and satellite retrieval.

NASA never required a 15 ft diameter bay.   Max Faget was opposed to delta wings and the bay size..he also said solids were a major mistake.

The past conflict between NASA and the Air Force on Titan and Shuttle is quite intriguing history indeed.

Chapter5 The Shuttle Decision

Quote from: Chapter5ShuttleDecision
Draper proposed that both stages of Faget's shuttle should feature delta wings, rather than straight ones. Faget would have none of this.

The Air Force had other reasons to want once-around missions. Its planners were intrigued by the idea of using the Shuttle to retrieve satellites in orbit. They hoped to snare Soviet spacecraft in such a fashion—and because Moscow might defend such assets by deploying an antisatellite weapon, the Air Force took the view that if the thing was to be done at all, it was best to do it quickly. A once-around mission could snare such a spacecraft and return safely by the time anyone realized it was missing.

NASA needed Air Force support, both for payloads and in Congress. I {Michael Yarymovych, an Air Force deputy assistant secretary} told Mueller we'd support the Shuttle, but only if he gave us the big payload bay and the crossrange capability, so we could return to Vandenberg after a single orbit. Mueller knew that would mean changing Max Faget's beloved straight-wing design into a delta wing, but he had no choice. He agreed.

At a committee meeting on June 29, the Air Force gave a briefing on the size and weight requirements of DoD payloads. This began by disclosing the size and weight of current payloads, and went on to project the specifications of future payloads, eight to ten years ahead. The presentation also reviewed the history of Air Force launch vehicle payload capabilities and the length of payload fairings.

This briefing supported the Air Force demand for a 60-by-15 foot cargo bay. The length would accommodate both current and future payloads; the diameter would provide room for a space tug. It would also alleviate design complications associated with the restrictions of current launch vehicles such as the Titan III-D, which limited spacecraft to diameters of 10 feet.

In addition to this, NASA and the Air Force shared a concern that a shuttle might have to abort its mission and come down as quickly as possible after launch. This might require "once-around abort," which again would lead to a flight of a single orbit. A once-around abort on a due-east launch from Cape Canaveral would not be too difficult; the craft might land at any of a number of sites within the United States. In the words of NASA's Leroy Day, "If you were making a polar-type launch out of Vandenberg, and you had Max's straight-wing vehicle, there was no place you could go. You'd be in the water when you came back. You've got to go crossrange quite a few hundred miles in order to make land."

These Air Force leaders knew that they held the upper hand. They were well aware that NASA needed a shuttle program and therefore needed both the Air Force's payloads and its political support. The payloads represented a tempting prize, for that service was launching over two hundred reconnaissance missions between 1959 and 1970.

By now it was clear that the Air Force was very much in the pilot's seat when it came to steering the Shuttle program. Max Faget learned this late in 1970, when he wrote a memo to his deputy director at MSC: "The USAF appears not to be nearly as firm on the 15 ft. diameter requirements as they are in length. NASA has no need for 15 ft. diameter either. It is suggested that you attempt to have the payload diameter reduced to 12 ft."
So NASA accepted the 15 ft bay, gave up the straight wing, for the *tempting* prize of AF payloads, which were removed from shuttle. No launches from Vandenberg either.

Then Nixon added solids......Max Faget:  "and when [the solid rockets] stage at 4,000 feet a second, [the orbiter] had to have an awful lot of propellant left for the insertion, which meant that you had to have enough thrust to carry the weight of that propellant, and that increased the size of the engines in the orbiter, which moved the center of mass of the orbiter farther back than we would have liked in order to make it tail-heavy. As a consequence of that, the center of mass of the orbiter was well behind the center of volume of the payload bay. Being as we didn't have a tail on the damned thing, we had very little capability to move the center of mass and maintain stable, manageable flight. A consequence to that means that a good part of the front end of the payload bay is virtually useless, has been useless all the time".



Wrong.  It was the proper quoting.  15 foot diameter was NASA's and not DOD requirement.  Max Faget quotes are selective ones.   He was the expert on the shuttle shape but he was not involved with the final dimensions, he was not involved with payloads.  The DOD didn't haven any 15 diameter payloads.  NASA did. "While NASA did not need so much length, its officials wanted a 15-foot diameter to accommodate modules for a space station."  and "The USAF appears not to be nearly as firm on the 15 ft. diameter requirements as they are in length."
This proves my point.

I can use bold too.
Not quite... ;)

15ft was entirely driven by AF Special Projects...unless you feel the need to correct Aaron Cohen, Hoffman, and Pete Young, the AF  Special Projects Director as well. 

Quote from: SpecialProjectsDirector
As some of you are aware.. I served for many years not in what we call the regular Air Force but what is called the Office of Special Projects.
It is called an Air Force Element.
We did not report for the usual chain of command through the Air Force chains.
We went straight up to the secdef of the JCS.
We were given the responsibility to launch things quickly, quietly, with great national pressure.
And we did that.
And the machines we used to launch, payloads included, are Titans of various kinds, Atlases, as well as the Space Shuttle.
The story I am going to tell you is really the special projects utilization of the Shuttle.
More so than what I call the regular Air Force missions.
In any case, when I joined SAFSP in the late 1970s, life was really exciting.
We were in the midst of phasing out all the expendables for the Space Shuttle.
And when I went in there, I found within the first week they said the Space Shuttle is designed for our program, because we were flying on a regular basis out of the Western Range.
So, the payload that sits inside here is a form, fit and function drop-in in the Space Shuttle bay.
At the time, there were no Space Shuttle payloads of that size yet on the drawing boards.

The intent was to have a seamless transition from Titans into Space Shuttle, first for our program and then for others.
We drove the payload bay size, as you've heard from Hoffman and Aaron Cohen, 15 x 60.
The cross-range requirement dictated the configuration of the vehicle plus the wing size because the Air Force and the DoD was very, very insistent on having a return to launch base capability.
First orbit deploy, come back cross-range, land back at Vandenberg, recycle, be ready to go hopefully in a matter of days.
Phasing out expendables, ready to go in a matter of days....perhaps this dream will be realized by a vehicle other than shuttle someday....and not Vulcan v0 either.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #183 on: 02/19/2016 01:53 PM »
So, the payload that sits inside here is a form, fit and function drop-in in the Space Shuttle bay.
At the time, there were no Space Shuttle payloads of that size yet on the drawing boards.

Those sentences contradict each other.

And when I went in there, I found within the first week they said the Space Shuttle is designed for our program, because we were flying on a regular basis out of the Western Range.

Which was Hexagon and it was 55' x 10' dia.  Which means the the length was driven by it.

Pete Young, the AF  Special Projects Director as well.
 


He was not the director, nor was a program manager for any of the spacecraft.  He was just a staff officer.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 02:00 PM by Jim »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #184 on: 02/19/2016 02:05 PM »
So, the payload that sits inside here is a form, fit and function drop-in in the Space Shuttle bay.
At the time, there were no Space Shuttle payloads of that size yet on the drawing boards.

Those sentences contradict each other.
The AF Special Projects office designed a satellite of the future, but at that time, there was no space shuttle payloads of that size on the drawing boards...Space Station Freedom as not a concept in the 1970s, for example. And there were no funded satellites of that size either, so nothing on the drawing board.

The AF Special Projects really did want a LV that can be ready to relaunch in a few days, and had a satellite size in mind, which coincided with what could be transported across the USA, and Falcon has achieved this max dimension (need link).

"We were in the midst of phasing out all the expendables for the Space Shuttle."
"First orbit deploy, come back cross-range, land back at Vandenberg, recycle, be ready to go hopefully in a matter of days."

So to think any expendable version of STS makes any sense is really pathetic at best.  A decade of lost test flights at KSC too working now on an engine design initially for reuse but now to be made expendable...

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #185 on: 02/19/2016 03:01 PM »
...15ft was entirely driven by AF Special Projects...unless you feel the need to correct Aaron Cohen, Hoffman, and Pete Young, the AF  Special Projects Director as well. 
Quote from: SpecialProjectsDirector
...
We drove the payload bay size, as you've heard from Hoffman and Aaron Cohen, 15 x 60.
The cross-range requirement dictated the configuration of the vehicle plus the wing size because the Air Force and the DoD was very, very insistent on having a return to launch base capability.

This does not reflect the complete decision process. The book "Facing the Heat Barrier - A History of Hypersonics" by TA Heppenheimer (who previously wrote Space Shuttle Design Decision) elaborates on this:

Re straight-wing vs delta wing design:

"Faget wanted his shuttle stages to come in nose-high and then dive through 15,000 feet to pick up flying speed. With the nose so high, these airplanes would be fully stalled, and the Air Force disliked both stalls and dives, regarding them as preludes to an out-of-control crash."

Alfred Draper (head of NASA Flight Dynamics Lab): "believed that Faget’s straight-wing design would be barred on grounds of safety from executing its maneuver of stall, dive, and recovery."

"Faget’s thoughts indeed faced considerable resistance within NASA, particularly among the highly skilled test and research pilots at the Flight Research Center."

"NASA...embraced the delta wing. Faget himself accepted it, making it a feature of his MSC-040 concept..."

"In a memo to George Low, (Donlan) wrote that high crossrange was “fundamental to the operation of the orbiter.” It would enhance its maneuverability, greatly broadening the opportunities to abort a mission and perhaps save the lives of astronauts. High crossrange would also provide more frequent opportunities to return to Kennedy Space Center in the course of a normal mission."

"Delta wings also held advantages that were entirely separate from crossrange. A delta orbiter would be stable in flight from hypersonic to subsonic speeds, throughout a wide range of nose-high attitudes. The aerodynamic flow over such an orbiter would be smooth and predictable, thereby permitting accurate forecasts of heating during re-entry and giving confidence in the design of the shuttle’s thermal protection. In addition, the delta vehicle would experience relatively low temperatures of 600 to 800ºF over its sides and upper surfaces."

"By contrast, straight-wing configurations produced complicated hypersonic flow fields, with high local temperatures and severe temperature changes on the wing, body, and tail. Temperatures on the sides of the fuselage would run from 900 to 1,300ºF, making the design and analysis of thermal protection more complex. During transition from supersonic to subsonic speeds, the straight-wing orbiter would experience unsteady flow and buffeting, making it harder to fly. This combination of aerodynamic and operational advantages led Donlan to favor the delta for reasons that were entirely separate from those of the Air Force."

History of Hypersonics, pt 1: history.nasa.gov/sp4232-part1.pdf
pt 2: history.nasa.gov/sp4232-part2.pdf
Pt 3: history.nasa.gov/sp4232-part3.pdf

In the CAIB hearings Bob Thompson (Space Shuttle Program Manager from 1970 to 1981) said: "NASA did not put cross range in the vehicle because the Air Force forced us to. NASA put cross range in the vehicle because we thought that was the right way to build the vehicle and it just happened to give the Air Force some capability they wanted. But we wanted it for abort capability during the launch and we wanted to start flying the vehicle right at entry. We didn't want to keep the thing above stall all the way down to landing area and then flip it around. So the myth that the Air Force made us do something we didn't want to do is absolutely a myth." http://caib1.nasa.gov/events/public_hearings/20030423/transcript_am.html

The payload bay size decision was discussed in Thompson oral history interview for NASA:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/ThompsonRF/ThompsonRF_10-3-00.htm

"We went back and forth, and we finally settled on a fifteen-foot diameter, sixty-foot-long module. So that set the size of the payload bay."

"Now, you can read in the history of the thing that people were looking at ten-foot diameter, thirty-five-foot-long payloads. We looked at different-sized payloads, but we never were very serious about anything other than the fifteen-foot diameter, sixty-foot long, because modular space station, if you get the modules too small, aren't very practical."
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 03:26 PM by joema »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #186 on: 02/19/2016 03:23 PM »
had a satellite size in mind, which coincided with what could be transported across the USA,

That would not be 15' in diameter

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4420
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #187 on: 02/19/2016 03:32 PM »
"After Apollo" (http://www.amazon.com/After-Apollo-American-Palgrave-Technology/dp/1137438525) goes into a lot of the behind the scenes struggle to define and justify the Shuttle and should be included with "The Shuttle Decision" in reviewing the whole process of how the Shuttle came about.

It's very correct that the main "driver" of the payload bay dimensions was NASA's desire for the Shuttle to be used to carry, deploy, and support space station modules. Air Force "requirements" fit in well with the direction the majority of NASA was going with the "full-up" Shuttle, but AA points out that the actual DoD (read what became the NRO) tried to talk NASA out of meeting the set Air Force criteria. The head of the NRO actually meeting with NASA officials and telling them the Air Force requirements were in no way "firm" nor set. But the initial requirements were closer to what NASA wanted so they became the "official" requirements. This included the payload bay size and delta wings.

(Somewhat of an aside; The NRO folks seem to have realized early on what the Air Force folks missed in that in order to "economically" justify the full-size Shuttle NASA was planning on language that would force ALL US launch to use the Shuttle. Which was in fact the case, which the NRO wasn't comfortable with and the Air Force never liked but that was the situation as it stood. The Air Force was never really a "supporter" of the Shuttle and it seems initially the "requirements" given were more to annoy NASA than something anyone in the Air force took seriously, NASA on the other hand did, which worried the NRO over the eventual outcome)

In the end, though Nixon had specifically avoided setting a "goal" for NASA to build a Space Station (which the Shuttle would build and support obviously) the overall factors that drove the Shuttle design and budget (from the Administration POV at least) ended up making a Space Station inevitable at some point. It took 10 years for another President to finally "commit" to building the implied Space Station and another 14 years before it actually began construction.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #188 on: 02/19/2016 03:39 PM »
It's very correct that the main "driver" of the payload bay dimensions was NASA's desire for the Shuttle to be used to carry, deploy, and support space station modules. Air Force "requirements" fit in well with the direction the majority of NASA was going with the "full-up" Shuttle, but AA points out that the actual DoD (read what became the NRO) tried to talk NASA out of meeting the set Air Force criteria. The head of the NRO actually meeting with NASA officials and telling them the Air Force requirements were in no way "firm" nor set. But the initial requirements were closer to what NASA wanted so they became the "official" requirements. This included the payload bay size and delta wings.

(Somewhat of an aside; The NRO folks seem to have realized early on what the Air Force folks missed in that in order to "economically" justify the full-size Shuttle NASA was planning on language that would force ALL US launch to use the Shuttle. Which was in fact the case, which the NRO wasn't comfortable with and the Air Force never liked but that was the situation as it stood. The Air Force was never really a "supporter" of the Shuttle and it seems initially the "requirements" given were more to annoy NASA than something anyone in the Air force took seriously, NASA on the other hand did, which worried the NRO over the eventual outcome)


There were no difference between the NRO and USAF requirements.  The USAF requirements were actually the NRO's. As usual, the USAF was a front for NRO requirements.  The USAF was still a minor player in space (only had DSCS, DSP and the beginnings of GPS).  None of those required the shuttle dimensions.
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 03:42 PM by Jim »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #189 on: 02/19/2016 04:28 PM »
...15ft was entirely driven by AF Special Projects...unless you feel the need to correct Aaron Cohen, Hoffman, and Pete Young, the AF  Special Projects Director as well. 
Quote from: SpecialProjectsDirector
...
We drove the payload bay size, as you've heard from Hoffman and Aaron Cohen, 15 x 60.
The cross-range requirement dictated the configuration of the vehicle plus the wing size because the Air Force and the DoD was very, very insistent on having a return to launch base capability.

This does not reflect the complete decision process. The book "Facing the Heat Barrier - A History of Hypersonics" by TA Heppenheimer (who previously wrote Space Shuttle Design Decision) elaborates on this:

The payload bay size decision was discussed in Thompson oral history interview for NASA:

http://www.jsc.nasa.gov/history/oral_histories/ThompsonRF/ThompsonRF_10-3-00.htm

"We went back and forth, and we finally settled on a fifteen-foot diameter, sixty-foot-long module. So that set the size of the payload bay."

"Now, you can read in the history of the thing that people were looking at ten-foot diameter, thirty-five-foot-long payloads. We looked at different-sized payloads, but we never were very serious about anything other than the fifteen-foot diameter, sixty-foot long, because modular space station, if you get the modules too small, aren't very practical."

Quote from: ShuttleDesigners

And so we actually did do a demonstration just in the shuttle's cargo bay, but we've never actually done a real refueling of a satellite in orbit.

But they're still working on it.

Now I think the military is still working on possibly robotic refuelling technologies.

For whatever the next version of the shuttle or crew vehicle would be, is it necessary or even a good idea to have this huge cargo bay?

Well, I think that's what they're eliminating.


Quote
If I understand it right, the kind of human factor studies at the time said that people would be unwilling to live in tubes less than 14 feet across for long durations.

Quote
The Air Force requirements were 55,000 pound payload, 60 foot long payload bay, 15 foot in diameter, it had to be returned with a 1200 nautical mile cross-range.  At least 32,000 pounds of it had to be returned.  It was classified at that time.   It is no longer classified.

The AF drove the requirement.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #190 on: 02/19/2016 04:38 PM »

The AF drove the requirement.

Wrong, the Shuttle program director said otherwise

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #191 on: 02/19/2016 05:16 PM »
The AF drove the requirement.

Much of the above evidence indicates NASA desired a large payload bay. As shuttle program manager Bob Thompson said, it would have been highly inefficient to build a space station with tiny little payloads.

However the underlying allegation is that somehow, someway a shuttle with a smaller payload bay would be significantly better, cheaper, etc. Or stated another way, the alleged Air Force requirement for a large payload bay somehow made the shuttle far more expensive to develop and operate, less reliable, etc.

It turns out that both development and operational costs were relatively insensitive to payload bay size and weight, within any reasonable size range having practical utility. There is no credible evidence that a smaller payload bay would have somehow transformed the shuttle. See attached chart from Dr. John Logsdon's recent book "After Apollo", page 257. It would not have made a major difference in development or operating costs, and would have significantly increased payload cost per pound.

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4420
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 774
  • Likes Given: 32
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #192 on: 02/19/2016 05:30 PM »
It's very correct that the main "driver" of the payload bay dimensions was NASA's desire for the Shuttle to be used to carry, deploy, and support space station modules. Air Force "requirements" fit in well with the direction the majority of NASA was going with the "full-up" Shuttle, but AA points out that the actual DoD (read what became the NRO) tried to talk NASA out of meeting the set Air Force criteria. The head of the NRO actually meeting with NASA officials and telling them the Air Force requirements were in no way "firm" nor set. But the initial requirements were closer to what NASA wanted so they became the "official" requirements. This included the payload bay size and delta wings.

(Somewhat of an aside; The NRO folks seem to have realized early on what the Air Force folks missed in that in order to "economically" justify the full-size Shuttle NASA was planning on language that would force ALL US launch to use the Shuttle. Which was in fact the case, which the NRO wasn't comfortable with and the Air Force never liked but that was the situation as it stood. The Air Force was never really a "supporter" of the Shuttle and it seems initially the "requirements" given were more to annoy NASA than something anyone in the Air force took seriously, NASA on the other hand did, which worried the NRO over the eventual outcome)


There were no difference between the NRO and USAF requirements.  The USAF requirements were actually the NRO's. As usual, the USAF was a front for NRO requirements.  The USAF was still a minor player in space (only had DSCS, DSP and the beginnings of GPS).  None of those required the shuttle dimensions.

According to interviews and such actually there WAS a "difference" in that those in the AF whom NASA approached for "requirements" gave them some based on possible future needs of the AF/NRO. Not long after the higher ups in the DoD, (specifically Deputy Secretary of Defense David Packard) began telling NASA higher-ups that the Air Force "requirements" (cross-range, payload weight and size) were "artificial" and more "flexible" than the Air Force was suggesting.

Unfortunately at this point, (October of 1971) NASA was fully committed to the Shuttle as proposed and had internally rationalized the AF requirements as their own and were NOT happy about what seemed to be DoD waffling over the requirements. And logically they were right in doing so given their own requirements and they admitted this to Packard and everyone else at the time. But Packard and others in the DoD and NRO were less than thrilled about the idea of being "forced" to use the Shuttle for all flights and with good reason as history shows.

The Air Force initially "tossed out" some numbers that NASA used to define and eventually rationalize into requirements THEY already wanted, but as noted DoD higher ups and NRO people in the know were nervous about the "numbers" the lower down Air Force people had given for various reasons but by the time they became involved NASA was already committed to what they considered "their" requirements which included the numbers the Air Force had tossed out.

Jim's right; The Air Force didn't "drive" the requirements at all, neither did the DoD/NRO. What they did was offer a rationale to NASA for requirements they already had in mind that they could then justify as having been given them by the Air Force for National Security needs. That the Air Force nor DoD/NRO actually never gave more than lukewarm "support" for the Shuttle at any point pretty much shows how "important" it was to them from the start.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #193 on: 02/19/2016 06:37 PM »
The AF drove the requirement.

Much of the above evidence indicates NASA desired a large payload bay. As shuttle program manager Bob Thompson said, it would have been highly inefficient to build a space station with tiny little payloads.
LOL.  look at the $/lb....flawed study... ;)

So build it with 5 launches of Ares V and then retire it?   Build it with 20 launches with a smaller LV?   The resupply missions are in the Falcon 9 class, or even smaller....

So look at Mir at what 2.4m (8ft)...    of course bigger is better at only $200/lb. 

The shuttle bay was too big for NASA and it was driven by the AF requirements, and NASA believed $200/lb, so they eased up on the diameter requirement....sounds like Orion, no?
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 06:47 PM by muomega0 »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #194 on: 02/19/2016 07:39 PM »


The shuttle bay was too big for NASA and it was driven by the AF requirements, and NASA believed $200/lb,

no, because in reality NASA drove the 15' diameter.  Your posts don't change that fact or reality.

The "we" is NASA as stated by the Shuttle Program Director

"We went back and forth, and we finally settled on a fifteen-foot diameter, sixty-foot-long module. So that set the size of the payload bay."

" We looked at different-sized payloads, but we never were very serious about anything other than the fifteen-foot diameter, sixty-foot long, because modular space station"
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 07:41 PM by Jim »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31819
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10366
  • Likes Given: 316
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #195 on: 02/19/2016 07:44 PM »

So look at Mir at what 2.4m (8ft)..


No, 4.15m (13.5ft) per your link (page 104)
« Last Edit: 02/19/2016 07:52 PM by Jim »

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 860
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #196 on: 02/19/2016 08:46 PM »

So look at Mir at what 2.4m (8ft)..


No, 4.15m (13.5ft) per your link (page 104)
Well, if you look at, say Salyut 6 or 7, there is quite a bit of extra space from the 2.9m to the 4.15m OD to arrive at the interior volume.    Here are a few images.   

http://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/salyut6.jpg
http://revelationnow.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/S3000024-Third_Salyut_7_space_station_crew_1984-SPL.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Model_of_Salyut-7_with_two_Soyuz_spacecrafts.JPEG


So given a couple of dozen assembly flights  and about 100 cargo  and crew resupply flights, and given that fact that it would take 28 flights a year to edge out Titan III, why would one build such a large cargo bay unless economics are not a metric?    its like buying a SemiTractor Trailer to move the family then use it to commute to work.

Edit: adding link to Titan III
« Last Edit: 12/05/2017 12:45 PM by muomega0 »

Offline joema

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 259
  • Liked: 24
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #197 on: 02/19/2016 09:09 PM »
...The shuttle bay was too big for NASA and it was driven by the AF requirements...So build it with 5 launches of Ares V and then retire it?   Build it with 20 launches with a smaller LV?   The resupply missions are in the Falcon 9 class, or even smaller....
Unfortunately the assigned objective was to build a reusable launcher which could partially or mostly replace expendable launchers. NASA could not have backtracked and said "BTW we want to build a larger Dyna-Soar and keep the Saturn V line open for big payloads".

Yes it was technically possible to build a little shuttle which would have cost less. That is evading the design problem, not solving it. It would have had very limited utility and necessitated continuing production of a large expensive ELV.  A few Saturn Vs could have launched 2-3 Skylabs, which tied together would have more habitable volume than the current ISS.

But that is not a different shuttle design, it is a different reality in an alternate universe. It was never in the cards, and was not compatible with plans for a modular zero-gravity space station.

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.

Offline RocketmanUS

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2226
  • USA
  • Liked: 71
  • Likes Given: 31
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #198 on: 02/20/2016 12:49 AM »
Shuttle was ended up not being fully reusable, so-

LRB's also able to be the 1st stage for another launcher. Each booster to be powered by two F-1A's. The core to be the Saturn V 2nd stage powered by five J-2S's.

A booster could of had a 2nd stage on top of it for a good amount of payload as it's own launch vehicle. 2nd stage could have been a Centaur or the 3rd stage of the Saturn V.

On top either a fairing with payload or a large reusable capsule. Have the capsule land-land for reuse. Crew flights are only needed two or three times a year. For lower cost the capsule could have had an escape system like the Boeing CST-100. A capsule with that size could have brought up as many people as the shuttle did plus a large amount of cargo.

A better STS ( Space Transportation System ) needed to be able to do the job, that also included BLEO. Such a launch system could have been flexible enough to deliver future crewed space craft to orbit such as a shuttle ( space plane ). A fully reusable launch system would have been better to slowly develop over time by several different companies.

Offline MATTBLAK

  • Elite Veteran & 'J.A.F.A'
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4011
  • 'Space Cadets' Let us; UNITE!! (crickets chirping)
  • New Zealand
  • Liked: 896
  • Likes Given: 1646
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #199 on: 02/20/2016 01:08 AM »
I used to imagine a machine very similar to the one we ended up with, but with some important details differences:

1: Ejectable Cockpit Module, similar in concept to the F-111 system, though with a hatch leading to the Middeck area etc.

2: Liquid flyback fully reusable boosters, instead of solids.

3: Non-toxic RCS systems.

Otherwise, very much like the Orbiter and STS we knew, including the expendable External Tank. Expensive to operate? Yes, but with a lot of capability. 'Shuttle 2.0', I guess.
« Last Edit: 02/20/2016 01:09 AM by MATTBLAK »
"Those who can't, Blog".   'Space Cadets' of the World - Let us UNITE!! (crickets chirping)

Tags: