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.
Quote from: wolfpack on 05/14/2012 05:12 pm.Second to that, air breathing engines for lower energy landings.That would not make it a better STS.
.Second to that, air breathing engines for lower energy landings.
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.
Quote from: wolfpack on 05/14/2012 05:51 pm1. "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
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.Keithhttp://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega1g%20-%20small.jpghttp://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega3l%20SMALL.jpghttp://www.keithmcneill.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/Omega12h%20SMALL.jpg
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.
Imagery is a launch vehicle capability, not launch site.
Quote from: wolfpack on 05/15/2012 02:46 pmImagery 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.
no need for such monitoring at any level
Quote from: Jim on 05/14/2012 02:46 amno need for such monitoring at any levelThen 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?".
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
It would look like airliner turn around. Airliners don't need the massive amount of instrumentation you proposed.
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.