Author Topic: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?  (Read 177725 times)

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #60 on: 05/14/2012 05:31 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.

If you go back and look at my first post, I have some ideas on the booster.

I’m not a big fan of space planes now, but back in the 70’s they seemed like the logical next step, so we probably would have gotten some form of space plane on way or the other.
Back in the 70’s, it would have been even harder to do a swing wing than today.  So that might have just made STS’s orbiter cost and complexity problems worse.
Although, you might have been able to do some sort of biconic shape like NASA’s Mars DRM 5.0 aeroshell, or Blue Origin’s Biconic.  Still a big surface to cover with a TPS, but at least you have a more volume efficient geometric shape, that’s not a liability during launch, space operation, and reentry.  You could make add simple swing wings to the top of the biconic.  So that they’d be protected by the bicionic itself during reentry, and could deploy once in the atmosphere.  Could be something similar to Angara or how Energia planned to have reusable flyback boosters for Energia-2.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/energia-2%20flyback%20booster/Edward_Wolf/FlybackBooster.png

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=16860.0;attach=129269;image

The main problem with this, or any deployable wing, is how do you have a cargo bay access in orbit?  Your stowed wing would block your access to your cargo bay.  If the wing were stowed within the body itself, then where?  It can’t be too high up on the hull, because it would impinge into the cargo bay then.  IF it were stowed low on the hull, around where the Shuttle’s wing sits, then you’d have to figure out how to have the wing deploy out through the TPS tiles.  You could have some sort of long hatch on either side that opens so the wing can deploy, like how is done for the landing gear, but now you have more gaps in your TPS system in addition to the gaps for the landing gear, to allow for those hatches.  And if the wing hatches didn’t deploy perfectly, your orbiter will be a smoking crater in the ground.  Although you could have some sort of ejection system in that scenario because just the wingless tube should be able to be slowed enough due to air friction for a safe eject.  But without deployed wings, the hull might tumble dangerously.  So it’d have to be a biconic stable shape of some sort.

Seems like it’d introduce a lot of potential issues, for the few issues it would solve.

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #61 on: 05/14/2012 05:51 pm »
.

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

That would not make it a better STS.

I suppose we need a definition of "better". Using hindsight, "better" to me means "safer". STS-31? STS-37? Would 37 have grounded the program if the landing were at KSC?

"Better" for safety margins, "worse" for payload - I agree with that.

Thinking about it more, now, perhaps my second choice would be the ascent imagery post 107. Had that been a program requirement in the first place, could 107 have been avoided? I think yes. Maybe even 51-L. What if 51-C had shown a glimpse of something? Would that have changed more minds? Impossible to know, of course. But that post 107 imagery was excellent and of all the stuff in aerospace that is complicated, I don't think bolting cameras on the tank and boosters ranks that highly. You can never have too much information!

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 #62 on: 05/14/2012 07:25 pm »

1.  "Better" for safety margins, "worse" for payload - I agree with that.

2.  Thinking about it more, now, perhaps my second choice would be the ascent imagery post 107.

1.  Still unneeded.  Fixed the problem and not add a crutch.  Engines are not needed for winged entry vehicles.

2.  See #1

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #63 on: 05/14/2012 07:29 pm »
I’ve hit some of this before, but gleaning through my own iterations, and input from people posting this thread, I think a better “STS” might have looked like this:

1)  3 X 6-6.6m kerolox cores, powered by existing (in the early 70’s) F-1A engines.  2 Engines per core, for 10.8mLb lift off thrust.  Look like a large D4H.  FXH would be more accurate.  Each core could launch by itself with an upper stage for a stand along MLV.  Block 1 boosters would be expendable, transitioning to reusable flyback boosters like Angara or Energia-2 in a planned Block 2 evolution.

http://media.photobucket.com/image/energia-2%20flyback%20booster/Edward_Wolf/FlybackBooster.png

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=16860.0;attach=129269;image

2)  S-IVB upper stage, powered by existing (in early 70’s) J2S engines.  Might need more than one for LEO performance, so it’s MPS would be changed so the correct number of engines could be put on for required performance.

3)  Instead of a space plane orbiter riding on the side of the stack, there would be a reusable large capsule riding on top of an expendable cargo module.  The capsule would be something along the lines of Big Gemini, and the cargo module would be something along the lines of Direct’s SSPDM.  It’d be a big, dumb, “trunk”.  The capsule would do all of the RCS/OMS work.  The capsule would have a Dragon-like pusher LAS system, and if there was no need for an abort, then that propellant could be used either for in space RCS/OMS work (as the capsule would be used as a tractor to maneuver the cargo module into whatever orbit it required.  So would probably need a fair amount of OMS/RCS propellant on board.) , or for a Dragon like propulsive landing.  If it was the former, then the capsule would use a Gemini-like soft wing for a runway landing, with landing gear built in to the side (bottom) of the capsule, as was originally envisioned for Gemini.

http://www.astronautix.com/craft/bigemini.htm

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-uMjpTLq-rOg/To_pGOcCrXI/AAAAAAAAAa8/-D9EHf6SOj8/s1600/paraglide-gemini-capsule-web.jpg

http://blog.nasm.si.edu/2011/01/

http://defense-update.com/features/du-1-07/aerialdelivery3-gps.htm

In case of an abort over water, it would obviously have inflatable ballasts like Gemini used for all of it’s water landings.
Some trade studies could have been done to determine would way would have been the best to go back in the early 70’s.  It might have been too early then for a propulsive landing.   Since Big Gemini was being looked at for a parasail landing, I’m guess that’d be the way to go at that time.

This Big G-like capsule, would be roughly the size of the Shuttle cabin.  So a crew of 7 could inhabit in relative comfort for a couple of weeks in LEO like they did the Shuttle Cabin.  It would have a stowable robotic arm for manipulating cargo in the aft cargo module.  It would have an airlock too.  So all of the expensive systems would be safely landed and reused.  The landing gear would be stowed in the side (bottom) of the capsule so the heat shield wouldn’t need to have any landing gear hatches in it.  It’d just be a big Gemini or Apollo like disk shield that would be protected until reentry.  Capsule wall angle would be a shallow as possible to allow maximum internal volume.  So the shape of Big Gemini or Dragon vs. the steeper walls of Apollo and Orion.

Here’s some ideas of how it might have looked in Orbit.

(except there would be a cargo module instead of this hab module.  Scale Big Gemini and the cargo module up some to more STS proportions)
http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/m/mol480.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Big_Gemini.png

Big Gemini itself:
http://www.frontiermodels.co.uk/images/cache/b846c12df745d625b92b83d50a42db78.jpg

http://www.friends-partners.org/partners/mwade/graphics/b/bigmock2.jpg

http://www.frontiermodels.co.uk/images/cache/ae3dccfa0c195afd5b027bc228bfdb8e.jpg

(Less the wings and rear engine.  The segment just below the man’s feet would be the separation between the capsule and cargo module)
http://ninfinger.org/models/gemini/wg_02.jpg



Ok, so in my uneducated opinion, here’d be the pros and cons of such a system over STS.

Cons:
1)  No real downmass capability for satililtes.  To be fair, the Shuttle didn’t use it’s large downmass capability very much.  Hindsight tells us we really didn’t need it.
Although the capsule would have some decent pressurized ability for downmass from a space station, they way cargo Dragon will, or the Shuttle had via a MPLM.

2)  The “SSPDM”/Cargo module would be expended, where the cargo bay of the shuttle was reused.  But this portion should be able to be made pretty simple and cheap (relatively), as it would be a static structure.  Little more than a Payload Fairing.

Pros:
1)  Flexible boosters that can launch by themselves in medium and heavy lift capabilities.  Uses existing F-1A engines, of a barrel size the same or close to S-IVB.  Single CCB, two CCB, or tri-core three CCB.

2)    Boosters would be upgraded to full flyback, rather than having to pluck them out of the ocean like SRB’s.  Better reusability options there.

3)   The upper stage would be the only booster portion that would be expended in Block 2 upgrade, but that wouldn’t be much different than STS’s expended ET.  It would be based on existing S-IVB stage and use existing J2S engines.  That upper stage can fly on a single CCB booster for Medium lift, of on a tri-core for heavy lift.    A two core version would be an option too for an intermediate lift, like the NLS concept.

4)   The reusable orbiter capsule would be much more geometrically simple and efficient.  It wouldn’t have any of the TPS protection issues that the Shuttle had, either foam debris or in-orbit debris.  Yet the would provide NASA every capability the shuttle had other than large unpressurized downmass.

5)   The soft wing is not a liability during launch, orbital operations, and reentry.  It’s not out until it’s needed.

6)   LAS system and propellants double for orbital RCS/OMS or propulsive landing (if they could do a reliable propulsive landing of a capsule this size in the 70’s.  It would actually probably be easier than building the Shuttle given how complex that was.  But we want to keep things as easy as possible).  I envision the LAS system abortion the whole large capsule, unlike Large Gemini which only aborted the crew cabin.  I –assume- a hypergolic pusher system like Dragon or CST-100 would be able to be upscaled large enough for a large capsule like that that would be maybe 20mt-ish dry?  I just don’t really like the idea of putting an access hatch in the heat shield if we can help it, although obviously you can if you have to.  Big Gemini planned to use the Apollo LAS tower, so it probably couldn’t abort the entire Big Gemini capsule without a new larger tower. 

7)   For missions that didn’t require medium-heavy or heavy lift (2 or 3 CCB’s), this capsule could launch on a single CCB with upper stage.  Say, for a space station mission.  In fact, since one CCB would be able to get around 40-45mt to LEO with upper stage, it should be able to get this capsule, plus a small supply module/MPLM to a space station for supplies during a crew rotation.  Such a launch should be much cheaper than a full Shuttle stack launch for a space station rotation and resupply. 

8)   This system could put far more mass into LEO than STS, and wouldn’t need the capsule to do it.  But the capsule can go on missions where it’s beneficial.  It retains heavy lift, but with intermediate lift capacities as well.  It has a reusable crew module similar to the Shuttle’s cabin. 

9)   This system has an LAS system that the Shuttle does not.


So, in General, we get a system that has many more pro’s than con’s over STS, in my view.  Not as sexy as the shuttle, but should be much for functional, flexible, and cost effective.  It would use engines that were mostly developed and based on proven engines in the F-1A and J2S.  It would use boosters with the same diameter (or similar) to S-IVB.  So there could be some communization all to that diameter without the larger 10m barrel diameters.  Should make handling easier than ET or 10m Saturn stages.  Certainly easier than the SRB segments.

I think this would have been a better STS.  :-)   Here’s some more info on Big Gemini for anyone who doesn’t already know about it.

http://www.astronautix.com/data/bigg67.pdf

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=2858.0


Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #64 on: 05/14/2012 08:22 pm »

1.  "Better" for safety margins, "worse" for payload - I agree with that.

2.  Thinking about it more, now, perhaps my second choice would be the ascent imagery post 107.

1.  Still unneeded.  Fixed the problem and not add a crutch.  Engines are not needed for winged entry vehicles.

2.  See #1

1. OK, agree.

2. Now that just doesn't make sense. What's the first thing John Young did after exiting Columbia on STS-1? Run all around the underbelly looking for lost tiles! I think on-vehicle ascent imagery would have benefited the program immensely had it been there from the start.

But we are just nitpicking the existing design. If I understand the OP, he is thinking about radically different STS's. Turn the clock back to 1970 and start over.

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #65 on: 05/14/2012 09:33 pm »
I would like to  suggest a 40 ton reusable space plane 2 jet engines for return with the cheapest booster possible .One with a decent r&d so that a better model would be available every 5 to 10 years so that flaws can be rectified with each successive generation.

Thanks for the book reference.

Offline A_M_Swallow

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8906
  • South coast of England
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 223
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #66 on: 05/14/2012 11:07 pm »
Use high level requirements from aircraft.  For instance the engines should have been required to perform 10 flights without being serviced.  The hydraulics should have had a MTBF such that they only need servicing twice a year when subject to weekly flights.

Offline M_Puckett

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 482
  • Liked: 96
  • Likes Given: 63
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #67 on: 05/14/2012 11:11 pm »
Although somewhat fictional, this was what I had in mind for a next generation shuttle. Definitely have to get away from the side mounted orbiter so I thought one mounted at the apex would allow for some sort of escape.

And again probably do not need a huge payload bay.

Keith

http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega1g%20-%20small.jpg
http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega3l%20SMALL.jpg
http://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega12h%20SMALL.jpg

Watch much Gerry Anderson by chance?:)

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 #68 on: 05/15/2012 12:18 am »

2. Now that just doesn't make sense. What's the first thing John Young did after exiting Columbia on STS-1? Run all around the underbelly looking for lost tiles! I think on-vehicle ascent imagery would have benefited the program immensely had it been there from the start.


It makes very good sense.  Have a robust TPS that doesn't need ascent imagery.  Every launch site is not going to have that capability nor shoud they.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2012 12:20 am by Jim »

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #69 on: 05/15/2012 02:46 pm »
It makes very good sense.  Have a robust TPS that doesn't need ascent imagery.  Every launch site is not going to have that capability nor shoud they.

Agree on the fragile TPS.

Imagery is a launch vehicle capability, not launch site.

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 #70 on: 05/15/2012 03:10 pm »

Imagery is a launch vehicle capability, not launch site.

No, it is launch site, it is downlinked.

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 743
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 159
  • Likes Given: 4
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #71 on: 05/15/2012 03:53 pm »

Imagery is a launch vehicle capability, not launch site.

No, it is launch site, it is downlinked.

But that part is optional. Boosters are recovered, they could have just as easily contained film cameras like Apollo.

ET imagery could be stored on a flight data recorder aboard the Orbiter and reviewed post-landing. That lessens the value of it, of course, but doesn't make it zero.


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 #72 on: 05/15/2012 04:03 pm »

But that part is optional. Boosters are recovered, they could have just as easily contained film cameras like Apollo.

ET imagery could be stored on a flight data recorder aboard the Orbiter and reviewed post-landing. That lessens the value of it, of course, but doesn't make it zero.

Does nothing for the vehicle when it is on orbit.
You are also ignoring ground based imaging.
« Last Edit: 05/15/2012 04:04 pm by Jim »

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #73 on: 05/17/2012 04:27 pm »
no need for such monitoring at any level

Then why the large number of people to get the orbiter ready? If human intelligence is not needed to decide which parts to the shuttle need to be replaced between flights, why not make a giant investment in automation, and keep the STS as is? Computer and sensor technology have made giant advances since the first Shuttle flew. If so, I guess I am interested in a thread, "What would a better STS ground refurbishment operation look like?".

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #74 on: 05/17/2012 04:34 pm »
no need for such monitoring at any level

Then why the large number of people to get the orbiter ready? If human intelligence is not needed to decide which parts to the shuttle need to be replaced between flights, why not make a giant investment in automation, and keep the STS as is? Computer and sensor technology have made giant advances since the first Shuttle flew. If so, I guess I am interested in a thread, "What would a better STS ground refurbishment operation look like?".
One of the issues is that they designed certain areas around the idea that it would not need to be maintained between flights, like the engines.    Add that to dozens of such "not to be replaced by design, but need to be replaced and serviced in reality" and you get a huge workforce needed to support.  Had they used the more modular system approach, it likely would have needed a far smaller support force. 
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 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 #75 on: 05/17/2012 04:51 pm »
no need for such monitoring at any level

Then why the large number of people to get the orbiter ready? If human intelligence is not needed to decide which parts to the shuttle need to be replaced between flights, why not make a giant investment in automation, and keep the STS as is? Computer and sensor technology have made giant advances since the first Shuttle flew. If so, I guess I am interested in a thread, "What would a better STS ground refurbishment operation look like?".

It would look like airliner turn around.  Airliners don't need the massive amount of instrumentation you proposed.

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 #76 on: 05/17/2012 04:53 pm »
why not make a giant investment in automation,

Because what you proposed the development cost would out weigh any operation cost savings and would literally outweigh any payload capability

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #77 on: 05/17/2012 07:02 pm »
Because what you proposed the development cost would out weigh any operation cost savings and would literally outweigh any payload capability

With the current volume into orbit, true. Flight rates would have to be much higher to make the development of extensive automation pay off. The world launch market would have some trouble absorbing the Shuttle's original 50 flights per year.

As for weight, submillimeter equipment has a very low volume, and thus mass. A cubic millimeter of silicon, I believe weighs around 2.5 milligrams. Half of the orbiter's payload would be about 4 billion such devices. Yes, that is a very simplistic assessment, but I don't think weight alone will rule out a high tech, sensor laden space shuttle.

Offline quanthasaquality

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 146
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: What would a better STS Have Looked Like?
« Reply #78 on: 05/17/2012 07:20 pm »
It would look like airliner turn around.  Airliners don't need the massive amount of instrumentation you proposed.

Airliners can also have payload comprise a quarter of their takeoff weight. For the STS, it is ~1.2 percent. For expendable rockets, it is in the mere 3-4 percent range. Even more high performance airplanes like the SR-71 and the F-22 fighter require active servicing. Is it possible to make reusable launch vehicles with high enough margins to be serviced like a commercial airplane?

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 #79 on: 05/17/2012 07:26 pm »
I believe weighs around 2.5 milligrams. Half of the orbiter's payload would be about 4 billion such devices. Yes, that is a very simplistic assessment, but I don't think weight alone will rule out a high tech, sensor laden space shuttle.

Yes, it would.  You are forgetting the wiring, the wiring mounting hardware,  the data handling equipment, the data storage, the additional power, transmitters for any downlinking, the adhesive for mounting the sensors, etc.
strain gages are not silicon, neither are accelerometers, thermocouples, tachometers, position indicators, etc.

And there is no need for such volume of data as stated before.

This idea is ludicrous.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2012 07:27 pm by Jim »

Tags:
 

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