Shuttle II Concepts

[RanulfC]

No, far from it.
a.  NASA influenced/dictated most of the requirements and technologies that prevent X-33 from being a successful test vehicle, hence LM was right in getting a contract that limited its financial exposure.  But LM did still put in a lot of its money.  MSFC management of the project was just as much to blame.

I would not call them blameless but I recall the concepts for STS. NASA asked for a 2 stage system and all the concepts from the various industry teams were 2 stage.

You're forgetting SERV! It was an SSTO design that had NOTHING to do with what NASA "said" it wanted and everything to do with what it "wrote" it wanted

And it was rejected BECAUSE it wasn't exactly like the other designs being submitted

Randy

[john smith 19]

You're forgetting SERV! It was an SSTO design that had NOTHING to do with what NASA "said" it wanted and everything to do with what it "wrote" it wanted

And it was rejected BECAUSE it wasn't exactly like the other designs being submitted

Reading commentaries around SERV the impression was it was unsolicited. I had not realized that it was designed to the detailed RFP.

Interesting the X33 solicitations were so different.

[Proponent]

SERV (note there's no `E' at the end) had a little winged craft on it in some configurations, which looked really odd and seemed a bit pointless, since the vehicle itself was re-usable intact.  I've seen it suggested that the whole reason for the winged bit was to make it conform to the RFP.

[john smith 19]

SERV (note there's no `E' at the end) had a little winged craft on it in some configurations, which looked really odd and seemed a bit pointless, since the vehicle itself was re-usable intact.  I've seen it suggested that the whole reason for the winged bit was to make it conform to the RFP.

Noted and changed.

SERV worked in 2 modes. Cargo and crew carriage. The cargo module met (and IRCC exceeded) the cargo spec. The winged crew module was needed either because of some black zones in the launch trajectory or because SERV as a semi ballistic vehicle did not have the cross range for the spec. Given that cross range was never used that would (in hindsight) to be an excellent trade of to get a SSTO

[Jim]

Given that cross range was never used that would (in hindsight) to be an excellent trade of to get a SSTO

No, you can't say that.  If you play that game, then manned launches from VAFB were still a requirement and AOA still a necessity.

[leovinus]

A study by VAB from 1985-1988
Objectives:

To define requirements, options, and concepts for a second generation space shuttle to provide a basis for advanced systems and technology planning.
To provide a key element in the post-2000 space transportation system to meet national needs in the most cost-effective manner

and more
https://web.archive.org/web/19980216082838/http://vab02.larc.nasa.gov/Activities/ShuttleII/STSII.html

[Blackstar]

When I worked on the CAIB, my group developed a policy history of all the proposals to replace shuttle up until that time. It was in the form of a Powerpoint presentation. It was pretty good, and it effectively made the case that NASA had never really thought out a shuttle replacement and stuck to that. And whenever a replacement program was canceled, they just extended the shuttle lifetime without doing a careful evaluation whether that was a good idea. I doubt I have that presentation anymore, but it probably ended up in the CAIB archival material.