Author Topic: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -  (Read 22103 times)

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« on: 12/26/2009 06:53 pm »
This is my proposal for how NASA should move forward with manned exploration. I am not an engineer or scientist, but I am a fan of space exploration. Please let me know what you think. Why it will work? Why it won't work? How to make this plan better?

As the Space Shuttle Program comes to an end, the United States is faced with the reality of only being able to buy tickets to put humans into space. The Constellation Program, intended to replace the Space Shuttle, was flawed from day one. Orion is not a spacecraft for the future but rather a return to the past. The Space Shuttle was suppose to mark the end of parachuting back to Earth and be the first space plane, instead under NASA’s current plans it will have been merely a generational interlude. Ares I and V, two massive rockets, are planned for Constellation. Ares I has already cost billions and will cost billions more and years more before its ready to fly. Ares V will cost billions more and it will be the better part of a decade before it flies. Constellation must be scraped immediately to save billions of dollars and allow NASA to develop a truly 21st century spacecraft.
 
The best option for the Space Shuttle’s replacement is a SDLV. My proposal is fairly straight forward. Take the Space Shuttle stack and remove the Orbiter. Replace the current SRBs with two 5-segment SRBs. The ET will keep its current configuration subject, however, to a reduction in size – and hopefully better remedies to deal with any potential foam loss.

The Space Shuttle Orbiter needs to be replaced with a more compact and lightweight craft. For these purposes, I will borrow the title CEV. The CEV is a lifting body based on the X-33 configuration. As with the X-33, its main engines are the RS-2200 Linear Aerospikes (must be capable of restart) which are more lightweight and efficient giving them two vital advantages over traditional rocket engines. The CEV will use the Space Shuttle’s RCS thrusters. The OMS engines will be replaced, however, with an engine to be used for both a deorbit burn and a TEI burn – all to be fueled by internal fuel tanks. The Logistics/Cargo Bay will have dimensions of approximately 25x15 and include a docking module, solar wings and the ability to carry the Space Shuttle’s Robotic Arm.

The CEV is mounted to the ET and on missions to LEO is discarded just as the Space Shuttle currently discards it. My primary focus here is thus on missions to the Moon and beyond. The ET will remain attached to provide fuel for the RS-2200 engines which will fire for the TLI burn. Once the TLI burn is complete, the ET will drop away entering heliocentric orbit. The CEV enters Lunar Orbit where it docks with Altair. Altair will have been launched ahead on the Side-Mounted SDLV (SMSDLV), currently discussed within NASA as an alternative to Ares. Flying a profile similar to the CEV will allow it to use the same engines for the ride uphill and for TLI. Altair’s decent stage engine will be used for LOI. Once the astronauts complete their mission, they dock with the CEV, depart Lunar Orbit for Earth and landing at the Kennedy Space Center.

There are numerous advantages to this proposal over both SMSDLV and Ares. By only launching Altair under the SMSDLV scheme, you do away with the need for so many throwaway engines. Implementing SMSDLV, as currently purposed by NASA, every mission to LEO would cost 3 engines, the service module and its engine. Lunar missions would cost 9 engines, the departure stage, the service module and Altair. The CEV scheme proposed here on a LEO mission cost a single ET and on Lunar missions a single ET, 3 engines and Altair (I maybe even so bold as to suggest Altair’s assent stage could be returned to Earth, in the Logistics/Cargo Bay, refurbished and reused.).

This proposal makes maxim use of existing proven technology and infrastructure. Moreover, what is unproven for example the RS-2200 engines weere far along in their development and proved successful in testing – putting it ahead of the curve. The CEV would be capable of flying into LEO aboard the existing ET and 4-segment SRBs allowing delayed development of the 5-segment SRB. The first generation RS-2200 engines would not be required to be capable of restart, since such capability will not be required until Moon missions begin. The CEV should make maximum use of the X-33 design, systems already under development for Orion and systems transferable from the Space Shuttle. This will allow for the reduction of development cost and time with the goal of the first manned flight of the CEV to be no later than June 2014.

To implement this program Congress should redirect a portion of the stimulus package to fund the rapid development of the CEV, while flying out the remaining Space Shuttle missions and saving real jobs. The rapid development of the CEV will also lead to the creation of real new jobs. Furthermore, to defray tax payer cost, necessary with outrageous and unacceptable deficits and national debt, NASA, while maintaining operational control of the CEV, should privatize its operations and allow said private company to sell flights for commercial purposes (Please note I am not suggesting weekend getaways. However, satellite deployments, testing of new technologies, experiments and possibly selling a seat on LEO missions should be permitted.). This will help reduce the overall cost of the program and incentivize efficiency and technological advancements. In awarding the contract two essential factors must be considered – what company is willing to make the largest investment to defray development cost and do the most to reduce operational cost.

This vehicle will allow the United States to maintain its leading role in space with a smaller gap. It will build on the best of the Space Shuttle and avoid a return to the past of capsules and splashdowns. It will reduce the throwaway of both Ares and, as currently proposed, SDLV. It will be a lasting tribute to the technological achievement of the Space Shuttle – allowing the Orbiters to retire with the honor they deserve. Finally, the CEV will resume exploration of the Moon and beyond. 

Offline Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #1 on: 12/26/2009 07:31 pm »
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.
Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has.
Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.
I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.
NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #2 on: 12/26/2009 07:32 pm »
and lightweight craft. For these purposes, I will borrow the title CEV. The CEV is a lifting body based on the X-33 configuration. As with the X-33, its main engines are the RS-2200 Linear Aerospikes (must be capable of restart) which are more lightweight and efficient giving them two vital advantages over traditional rocket engines. The CEV will use the Space Shuttle’s RCS thrusters. The OMS engines will be replaced, however, with an engine to be used for both a deorbit burn and a TEI burn – all to be fueled by internal fuel tanks. The Logistics/Cargo Bay will have dimensions of approximately 25x15 and include a docking module, solar wings and the ability to carry the Space Shuttle’s Robotic Arm.



None of this is needed for beyond LEO. 

Bad idea.  The shuttle paradigm is not the right one for the future.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #3 on: 12/26/2009 07:34 pm »


This vehicle will allow the United States to maintain its leading role in space with a smaller gap. It will build on the best of the Space Shuttle and avoid a return to the past of capsules and splashdowns. It will reduce the throwaway of both Ares and, as currently proposed, SDLV. It will be a lasting tribute to the technological achievement of the Space Shuttle – allowing the Orbiters to retire with the honor they deserve. Finally, the CEV will resume exploration of the Moon and beyond. 


It won't do any of this.  Capsules are not a step backwards.  Trying to make one vehicle do everything is not a step forward.

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #4 on: 12/26/2009 07:49 pm »
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.
Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has.
Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.
I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.
NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.

Yes, I understand the deadweight argument. My concern is which is more costly carrying deadweight or throwing away so much of the rocket and spacecraft? Please note I am not suggesting the ET be carried to the Moon but rather just through TLI and then discarded like the S-IVB.

The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 07:51 pm by Mr. Justice »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #5 on: 12/26/2009 07:55 pm »
The big problem with Orion is NASA is trying to make it do everything.
Separating the LEO transport from the deep space vehicle would be a good start.
It would be better to have vehicles made for each mission then one jack of all trades and master of none.

ESAS is probably one of the worst proposed lunar architectures in recent history.
When I first saw the ESAS plan I felt very disappointed that they were throwing away everything they learned with the shuttle and building ISS and were going to pretend they never happened.
Oddly enough NASA far had better ideas on this back in the 80s and 90s then what they have today.

A good example here is LUNOX and ELA
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

It's best to have an architecture that is not tied to any single LV such as Ares V which would allow for future expansion.

Instead what they choose used the worst of FLO combined with shuttle derived hardware.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/FLO.html
I call CxP FLO with brain damage.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 08:01 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #6 on: 12/26/2009 08:02 pm »

The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.

It is not designed to return from the moon

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #7 on: 12/26/2009 08:05 pm »
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.
Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has.
Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.
I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.
NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.

Yes, I understand the deadweight argument. My concern is which is more costly carrying deadweight or throwing away so much of the rocket and spacecraft? Please note I am not suggesting the ET be carried to the Moon but rather just through TLI and then discarded like the S-IVB.

The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.
The ET and first stage engines are too heavy to be carried though TLI you really need an upper stage.
Part of the problem with Ares V is the vehicle really needs either a third stage or boosters that contribute more delta V.

As for the X33s shape it never was intended for lunar return.
But the Lm CEV lifting body was and could have handled speeds even the Apollo shape could not.
It looks very different from the X33 because it's job is different.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 08:12 pm by Patchouli »

Offline cromandmitra

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • New York City
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #8 on: 12/26/2009 08:20 pm »
My primary focus here is thus on missions to the Moon and beyond                                                                                                                             Would this smaller shuttle have the adequate shielding the present shuttle lacks to protect the crew from you know what? Would this change your smaller design? Just curious.
"What goes up. must come down?"This depends on how far up you go.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #9 on: 12/26/2009 08:26 pm »
Would this smaller shuttle have the adequate shielding the present shuttle lacks to protect the crew from you know what? Would this change your smaller design? Just curious.

It isn't a shuttle, it is still a "capsule"

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #10 on: 12/26/2009 08:42 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7201
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #11 on: 12/26/2009 09:01 pm »
I just want to point out that the basic Shuttle design principle still holds:  if there is any part of a launch vehicle that it might make economic sense to bring home to a runway landing, it's the main engines.  The design challenge is that the only way to do that is to have the main engines physically near the wings.  Mounting them together -- with the crew -- on the side of a foam-insulated tank proved to be a mistake.

The obvious solution is to bring the crew home in a vehicle (capsule or otherwise) mounted on the top of the stack, away from the danger of liberated foam.  Note this does not prevent bringing the engines home on a side-mounted, un-crewed, winged vehicle.

On another topic:  given the delta-v required for TLI, taking any un-needed mass into the TLI burn is almost certainly a mistake.  I'm still amazed the current Constellation architecture, which burns propellant from the EDS tankage on the way to LEO, became the plan of record.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #12 on: 12/26/2009 09:04 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. 

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.


Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #13 on: 12/26/2009 09:36 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. 

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.



Apollo is history book material to me -- I was born in 1984.

I don't think there is a clear direction as to where we are heading in space. The history of manned space flight, from my perspective, has been one of a child opening a Christmas present and tossing it aside to get to the next present. After 25 years of planning and building, the space station is almost complete and we are already planning its demise. It seems people are still conflict over if we are going back to the Moon or to NEOs. To Mars? Well, maybe to Phobos and Deimos.

« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 09:38 pm by Mr. Justice »

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #14 on: 12/26/2009 09:51 pm »
I am not dead set against Orion. Orion is reusable which is a plus over Soyuz and previous American capsules. On the other hand, Ares should be scrapped.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #15 on: 12/26/2009 09:57 pm »
I am not dead set against Orion. Orion is reusable


That is not known at this time.  Nor does it matter.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #16 on: 12/26/2009 10:27 pm »
 
RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #17 on: 12/26/2009 11:46 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. 

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.


Agreed there Jim.  So, what would be a practical application with which an RLV would need such a fast flight rate?  The closest I could think of would be a suborbital ny to tokyo style flight.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #18 on: 12/26/2009 11:55 pm »

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

I don't understand why do you seek a justification for RLV. RLVs are not the goal. They are (one of possible) means to the real goal.

Thus flight rate should NEVER be adapted to the "need" to have RLV.

Instead, flight rate should be adapted to the real goal, and then, based on that rate, LVs / capsules / spaceplanes / whatever should be designed to achieve it economically.

Only an organization with unlimited supply of taxpayer $$$ it did not earn can afford to put the horse before the cart.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #19 on: 12/27/2009 12:10 am »
 
RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

I don't understand why do you seek a justification for RLV. RLVs are not the goal. They are (one of possible) means to the real goal.

Thus flight rate should NEVER be adapted to the "need" to have RLV.

Instead, flight rate should be adapted to the real goal, and then, based on that rate, LVs / capsules / spaceplanes / whatever should be designed to achieve it economically.

Only an organization with unlimited supply of taxpayer $$$ it did not earn can afford to put the horse before the cart.

No you misunderstand my question, I was not seeking justification for an RLV, I was merely curious about Jim's thoughts on the nescessary flight rate for reusable launch vehicles vs the the nescessary flight rate for just a reusable capsule.  Is it the same? Lower? Higher?

I completely agree with your points on RLVs in general.

Tags:
 

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