Here's a thought;Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built. Anyone looking at this?
Here's a thought;Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to make it safer and easier to operate and maintain.Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built. Anyone looking at this?
Quote from: Paul Adams on 08/10/2009 03:33 amHere's a thought;Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built. Anyone looking at this?Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul
Back on topic, is Mr Shannon's HLV team trading in-line vs side-mount? Or just concentrating on side-mount at this stage?Not that it really matters. If HLV is selected, I suspect the first step in serious development would be an in-line trade. Unless specifically prohibited.Which brings me to another concern. If NASA is directed to switch from Ares to a 'true SDLV', how would that be enforced? By all appearances, MSFC like to tinker. How do you make them keep to the simple/soon path?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/10/2009 04:00 amQuote from: Paul Adams on 08/10/2009 03:33 amHere's a thought;Given a five year development period and X amount of dollars, what could be done to improve the current shuttle orbiter design to make it safer? Take the current design and do everything you can to safer and easier to operate and maintain.Perhaps the metalic TPS that was developed for X33, the improved SSME engine bells and new shead resistant foam on the ET? I wonder what other improvements could be incorporated?Continue flying the current vehicles at a reduced rate while the improvements are designed and new airframes built. Anyone looking at this?Not sure what that's got to do with this - as let's face it, they ARE retiring, just a question of when... but the shuttle is the safest it's ever been. I don't know if spending years and years developing a "new" orbiter (X-33 TPS - for the sake of what? Avolding cosmetic damage - cause that's all they've had since Columbia) would be either affordable (SSME changes) or anything short of pointless (non-shedding foam? Wayne Hale "Foam is a tough science" time).Kinda waiting for Jorge to say no, no, and no....but even I'd be confident in saying that's a big fat no, Paul I guess my point is, if you are going to do side mount, why not improve the vehicle you have rather than develop a completely new one. As far as the metallic TPS goes, you answered my question "foam is a tough science", thus build a stronger TPS. In addition, don’t the current tiles prohibit the shuttle flying through any rain on the way back in? Stronger tiles would help reduce that damager just in case a shower popped up unexpectedly.If you aint got the dosh to design a whole new vehicle properly, improve what you already have.
but pose a real risk of crippling the development of an adequate replacement (AresV) just as Flex-Path and Lunar bases risk crippling manned exploration.
ISS science can easily be supported by Commercial/International vehicles rather then these 'gap fillers'
I know all the juice stuff (PDF, Images, etc.) is in L2, but could we "leeches" get a better graphical glimse at the proposed SD HLLV? The small images in the article just doesnt make it justice :-)