Author Topic: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?  (Read 177728 times)

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #40 on: 04/26/2012 06:21 pm »
VentureStar would have... had a much larger surface area exposed to damage in LEO, and a much larger surface exposed to the extremes of reentry.  Seems those things would in reality necessitate a LOT more on ground process than originally thought (just as the Shuttle did), and wouldn't surprise me if significantly more than the Shuttle.

No, the larger surface area is one reason it wouldn't have required as much.  The lower ballistic coefficient meant it could use an advanced metallic TPS, which was much more robust and much easier to refurbish.
« Last Edit: 04/26/2012 06:24 pm by 93143 »

Offline Gene DiGennaro

  • Armchair Astronaut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 625
  • Baltimore, Md
    • Glenn L. Martin Maryland Aviation Museum
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #41 on: 04/26/2012 07:33 pm »
At the time of the early 70s shuttle downmass was considered extremely important. Again read Heppenheimer's book. ( it's free online http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm ) It was thought that having the shuttle's ability to bring malfunctioning satellites back to earth would lead to cheaper satellites.

Here's how it was thought to work. Satellites were and still are built to expensive high reliability standards. There exists a whole process for approval of materials and equipment for use in space. It HAS to work, no-one can go and fix it if it fails.

Shuttle was going to change all that. The downmass capability meant that less expensive, less reliable, more commercial off-the-shelf material could be used in satellite construction. If it failed prematurely, there would be less concern. After we could send a shuttle crew up to repair in situ or bring home malfunctioning satellites. This was a major selling point of shuttle.

I also remember a Newsweek article from about 1976 or so showing how the DoD could use the shuttle to kidnap Soviet satellites from orbit. What a way to trigger WWIII!

Offline spacecane

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #42 on: 04/27/2012 11:29 am »
At the time of the early 70s shuttle downmass was considered extremely important. Again read Heppenheimer's book. ( it's free online http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm ) It was thought that having the shuttle's ability to bring malfunctioning satellites back to earth would lead to cheaper satellites.

Here's how it was thought to work. Satellites were and still are built to expensive high reliability standards. There exists a whole process for approval of materials and equipment for use in space. It HAS to work, no-one can go and fix it if it fails.

Shuttle was going to change all that. The downmass capability meant that less expensive, less reliable, more commercial off-the-shelf material could be used in satellite construction. If it failed prematurely, there would be less concern. After we could send a shuttle crew up to repair in situ or bring home malfunctioning satellites. This was a major selling point of shuttle.

I also remember a Newsweek article from about 1976 or so showing how the DoD could use the shuttle to kidnap Soviet satellites from orbit. What a way to trigger WWIII!

Interesting info.  It was a great idea except for the fact that the highest the shuttle ever reached was almost 22,000 miles too low to reach a satellite in GSO to bring down for repair.  I guess the satellite could have been sent down to a lower orbit for capture? 

If we were to design this better STS now, how much downmass would be required on a regular basis.  In my concept with a payload pod to save on vehicle size there would always be the option to bring up a reentry craft if a large satellite needed to be brought to earth.  The reentry craft would just be a cover with an ablative heat shield, some thrusters to control the de-orbit and a parachute system to splash down somewhere. 

My concept of attaching payload to the exterior of the orbiter would eliminate the need to have the ridiculously large payload bay of the Shuttle.  In order for my concept to work it would have to be a series staged design so as not to have to carry so much fuel for the second stage. 

For the orbiter, I'm picturing a Dreamlifter merged with a Centaur.  The crew cabin and small payload bay would be down the center.  The fuel tanks to the left and right.  The engine(s) in the back.  The docking adapter would probably need to move to the top.  The first stage booster would be some kind of RP1/LOX flyback booster.  The first stage booster should be common with expendable 2nd stages for cargo only launches.  No reason for people to go on every launch like STS was planned for.
« Last Edit: 04/27/2012 05:28 pm by spacecane »

Offline spaceStalker

  • Member
  • Posts: 91
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #43 on: 04/27/2012 01:35 pm »
No top postings please!

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #44 on: 04/27/2012 03:43 pm »
VentureStar would have... had a much larger surface area exposed to damage in LEO, and a much larger surface exposed to the extremes of reentry.  Seems those things would in reality necessitate a LOT more on ground process than originally thought (just as the Shuttle did), and wouldn't surprise me if significantly more than the Shuttle.

No, the larger surface area is one reason it wouldn't have required as much.  The lower ballistic coefficient meant it could use an advanced metallic TPS, which was much more robust and much easier to refurbish.

Ahh...interesting.  I wouldn't have guessed that.
Good to know.
Was the Shuttle too large for something like PICA, but too small for some type of metallic TPS, or something?

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #45 on: 04/27/2012 04:06 pm »
At the time of the early 70s shuttle downmass was considered extremely important. Again read Heppenheimer's book. ( it's free online http://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm ) It was thought that having the shuttle's ability to bring malfunctioning satellites back to earth would lead to cheaper satellites.

Here's how it was thought to work. Satellites were and still are built to expensive high reliability standards. There exists a whole process for approval of materials and equipment for use in space. It HAS to work, no-one can go and fix it if it fails.

Shuttle was going to change all that. The downmass capability meant that less expensive, less reliable, more commercial off-the-shelf material could be used in satellite construction. If it failed prematurely, there would be less concern. After we could send a shuttle crew up to repair in situ or bring home malfunctioning satellites. This was a major selling point of shuttle.


Ahh, well that’s good to know.  However, in this exercise, we must assume a little bit of foresight (hindsight now) to realize that reusability in the 70’s wasn’t going to be as economical as expendable, and that even a better STS probably wouldn’t be cheap enough to make a mission to bring back a malfunctioning satellite and then take it back up again.  A rescue and repair mission on at satellite would require two STS launches to do, because that’s all there’d be OMS fuel for, to get to the one target and back.  So to make that capability feasible, two STS launches would have to be cheaper than a new satellite + ELV.   I doubt even a better STS would do any better than break even for most satellites.  If so, then a better STS wouldn’t need that large downmass capability.


I also remember a Newsweek article from about 1976 or so showing how the DoD could use the shuttle to kidnap Soviet satellites from orbit. What a way to trigger WWIII!

Only if they can prove it! 
But likely if they considered that, they figured we’d already be in WWIII, and so starting something would be a moot point, which in the 70’s was a real concern. 

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #46 on: 04/28/2012 03:54 pm »
Would the "better" STS be "better" enough to need only days to reprocess for a subsequent mission? 

What do the economics look like with the originally envisioned high flight rate of 50 missions per year?
« Last Edit: 04/28/2012 03:57 pm by Hog »
Paul

Offline spacecane

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #47 on: 04/28/2012 04:09 pm »
Would the "better" STS be "better" enough to need only days to reprocess for a subsequent mission? 

What do the economics look like with the originally envisioned high flight rate of 50 missions per year?

The better question is (even flying all possible payloads on the better STS) could you actually have 50 missions a year to fly?  When I say "mission" I mean useful missions not inventing a reason to send some astronauts up to studdy how roaches behave in microgravity.  I don't think the total US launches per year (even before Shuttle retirement) comes close to that.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #48 on: 04/29/2012 05:45 am »
Would the "better" STS be "better" enough to need only days to reprocess for a subsequent mission? 

What do the economics look like with the originally envisioned high flight rate of 50 missions per year?

The better question is (even flying all possible payloads on the better STS) could you actually have 50 missions a year to fly?  When I say "mission" I mean useful missions not inventing a reason to send some astronauts up to studdy how roaches behave in microgravity.  I don't think the total US launches per year (even before Shuttle retirement) comes close to that.
Exactly.  However you *can* come up with 24 missions a year if you tried, especially if Skylab was kept aloft.  With the original planned 6 shuttle fleet, and pipelined processing, it is easy to make a 24 mission schedule work.
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 Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #49 on: 04/29/2012 06:06 am »
Would the "better" STS be "better" enough to need only days to reprocess for a subsequent mission? 

What do the economics look like with the originally envisioned high flight rate of 50 missions per year?

The better question is (even flying all possible payloads on the better STS) could you actually have 50 missions a year to fly?  When I say "mission" I mean useful missions not inventing a reason to send some astronauts up to studdy how roaches behave in microgravity.  I don't think the total US launches per year (even before Shuttle retirement) comes close to that.

True, launch rates circa 1970 did not come close to filling 50 Shuttle cargo bays per year.  NASA announced that "payload effects" would generate more traffic.  Specifically, it was claimed that the Shuttle's unique capabilities would generate more and larger payloads.  For example, satellites were supposed to become heavier and cheaper as exploitation of the Shuttle's lift capacity encouraged designers to shift away from making everything as light as possible.

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #50 on: 05/14/2012 02:40 am »
I wonder how economically viable the STS design would be if made with near future tech, and far more money.

Liquid reusable boosters in place of the solids.

Titanium, or superalloy, metal frame, <0.01% impurities. New high tech aerogel insulation. Circuits and sensors built into silicon carbide heat shield tiles. Engine sensors out the wazoo.

The computers and sensors could rapidly determine the soundness of the structure, and tell how soon various parts need to be replaced, and the quality of the repair job. Trillions of transistors, and miles of microscopic fiber optic cables will be used. Only a few humans will be needed.

It would probably cost in the tens of billions to design and build, maybe even a hundred billion or two. No vehicle has ever been built with such a level of built in computer monitoring, and like the F-35 it will probably go way behind in schedule and over budget. Would it be worth it for a vehicle that could put ten tons into orbit every several hours? Would there even be demand for such capacity into LEO?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #51 on: 05/14/2012 02:46 am »

The computers and sensors could rapidly determine the soundness of the structure, and tell how soon various parts need to be replaced, and the quality of the repair job. Trillions of transistors, and miles of microscopic fiber optic cables will be used. Only a few humans will be needed.

no need for such monitoring at any level

Offline 93143

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3054
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #52 on: 05/14/2012 03:30 am »
The way I hear it (on this forum, from Downix mostly), the SSME Block III was basically what you're asking for, though perhaps not quite so extreme.  The RS-25E won't need the in-depth health monitoring, but the improvements that make it cheaper and more robust will stay.
« Last Edit: 05/14/2012 03:45 am by 93143 »

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #53 on: 05/14/2012 12:55 pm »
For me a better SLS would look like the SPACEX Falcon XX. 150 MT in orbit so much more capable, 10 metre fairing so could launch much more capable deep space Habitat, the present proposal will probably send the inhabitants nuts. Only €300  mill a launch versus a $1 bill+. With potential for reusability bringing that cost down by an order of magnitude. Freeing up cash for more deep space operations

Thats is what a perfect SLS would look like

 

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #54 on: 05/14/2012 03:48 pm »
For me a better SLS would look like the SPACEX Falcon XX. 150 MT in orbit so much more capable, 10 metre fairing so could launch much more capable deep space Habitat, the present proposal will probably send the inhabitants nuts. Only €300  mill a launch versus a $1 bill+. With potential for reusability bringing that cost down by an order of magnitude. Freeing up cash for more deep space operations

Thats is what a perfect SLS would look like

 

The title of the thread is what would a better "STS" have looked like, not "SLS".
If you look at my opening comments, this intellectual exercise is assuming that we are back in the 70's and the decision to go with a reusable space plane had been made, but we knew some lessions then that we know now.  Things like, if the booster had been built differently, and it could fly on it's own without the orbiter, could we still have had a BLEO LV along with the Shuttle?  FXX is all well and good, but we had basically an FXX in Saturn V back in the early 70's already.  THe decision was made to retire it for STS.  So we are picking up at that point.  A big, monolithic ELV was dropped for a partially reusable system.  Starting there, what could have been done differnetly to make it a better system?

Offline corneliussulla

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 249
  • Liked: 88
  • Likes Given: 48
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #55 on: 05/14/2012 04:08 pm »
Oops sorry.

Offline veedriver22

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 268
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #56 on: 05/14/2012 04:16 pm »
 I have wondered if some kind of swing wing could be used.  Possibly the wings would not have to have tiles if other methods were used to slow it down before deploying.  I guess the first issue would be the increased complexity.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #57 on: 05/14/2012 05:04 pm »

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #58 on: 05/14/2012 05:12 pm »
Better STS? Launch abort system, no doubt about it.

Second to that, air breathing engines for lower energy landings.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21450
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #59 on: 05/14/2012 05:20 pm »
.

Second to that, air breathing engines for lower energy landings.

That would not make it a better STS.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0