Author Topic: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.  (Read 11093 times)

Offline floss

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 549
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 131
Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« on: 03/10/2018 09:02 pm »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?

The shuttle has removable Crew quarters, payload bay ,robot arm ,OMS and a heatshield .A far simpler machine capable of staying in space for a month .

Crew would transfer to and from the shuttle using Dragons and Boeing CST 100 .

By doing this Hubble could be repaired and ISS modules can be returned .



Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #1 on: 03/10/2018 11:20 pm »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?
No.
All of the tooling is gone, documentation is spotty, most components used are no longer made, and the modifications required to both systems would be large, and the shuttle is really, really heavy.

Also, most of the actual designers are dead, or at best retired.

It would probably make more 'sense' to get one of the old orbiters flying.

There is really no point at all in returning ISS modules.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 01:42 am by speedevil »

Offline Aussie_Space_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #2 on: 03/10/2018 11:29 pm »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?

The shuttle has removable Crew quarters, payload bay ,robot arm ,OMS and a heatshield .A far simpler machine capable of staying in space for a month .

Crew would transfer to and from the shuttle using Dragons and Boeing CST 100 .

By doing this Hubble could be repaired and ISS modules can be returned .

Feasible, possible and practical to do easily or conveniently

Possible most definitly.

Practical to do easily or conveniently I'm not so sure.
A Shuttle without big engines that sits atop a 2nd stage perhaps. But how would the crew escape in an emergency.
A Shuttle that includes big engines and is effectively the 2nd stage sounds like the go. But that is the SpaceX BFR/BFS currently being worked on.

However you mention crew coming & going via capsule. So why a shuttle. Why not a permanent spaceship? No need for a heatshield. Design the OMS such that it is Modular & easy to replace or extremely long lasting. Perhaps use the new generation of electric thrusters that last "forever". It doesnt matter if it takes a long time to get to say hubble so long as the crew arrives in a capsule, does the work, then goes home in the capsule. Spaceship flies off to its next appointment without crew. With launching crew hopefully becoming cheaper via the new crop of commercial capsules this could be a way forward.

Offline Aussie_Space_Nut

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 280
  • South Australia
  • Liked: 130
  • Likes Given: 430
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #3 on: 03/10/2018 11:33 pm »
But then again wouldn't a bigger capsule with a couple of "arms" and a large airlock do the job?

Offline SweetWater

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 130
  • Wisconsin, USA
  • Liked: 140
  • Likes Given: 119
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #4 on: 03/11/2018 01:37 am »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?

The shuttle has removable Crew quarters, payload bay ,robot arm ,OMS and a heatshield .A far simpler machine capable of staying in space for a month .

Crew would transfer to and from the shuttle using Dragons and Boeing CST 100 .

By doing this Hubble could be repaired and ISS modules can be returned .

What missions require a "new" shuttle? Hubble was fit with a soft capture/rendezvous system on the last servicing mission back in 2009, and it could be repaired by an Orion/Dragon/CST-100 or similar capsule - provided it were fit with the appropriate docking mechanism and supplied with the appropriate replacement parts and tools.

As speedevil has noted above, there is no point in returning ISS modules.

If a mission requires more expansive living quarters and is going to LEO, there is the ISS. If said mission is going somewhere else, you can launch a dedicated module that a capsule can rendezvous with.
« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 02:04 am by SweetWater »

Offline Ludus

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1744
  • Liked: 1255
  • Likes Given: 1017
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #5 on: 03/11/2018 01:48 am »
The SpaceX BFS will be able to function as an uncrewed Shuttle Orbiter with a payload bay 4X the diameter with a price that’s a tiny fraction of a Shuttle mission.

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #6 on: 03/11/2018 01:55 pm »
As Ludus said, really.

Well, when you think about it, BFR/BFS is strikingly similar to the original 1969 Space Shuttle, the fully reusable one. One big booster, one orbiter - minus all the aircraft around the rockets: wings, tail, jet engines, undercarriage, which were pretty heavy. Also LH2 replaced by methane.

This one



BFR / BFS



Funnily enough, with Falcon 9R Musk re-invented the familiar, 1972 Space Shuttle. Let be clear: not in shape (the two vehicles are completely different) but in capability.

And with BFR / BFS, he goes a step further: he re-invents the other Space Shuttle, the 1969 fully reusable ship. This time the shapes are a little closer. Ain't that funny when you think about it ?

EDIT: between IAC 2016 and IAC 2017 BFS grew a tiny delta wing not dissimilar to a Shuttle in overall shape.
« Last Edit: 03/12/2018 07:22 am by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #7 on: 03/11/2018 04:25 pm »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?
The shuttle was an amazing machine but a terrible idea. Why do you want it back?
It set back the American space program until it retired.

Even ISS could have been made cheaper, with bigger and fewer modules, using a Saturn V derived launcher, as with Skylab.

The shuttle was a bad idea, let it die.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #8 on: 03/11/2018 05:07 pm »
The shuttle was an amazing machine but a terrible idea. Why do you want it back?
I disagree.

BFS _IS_ reinventing the space shuttle with almost the same idea.

It's just it's doing it without throwing away any solids, and with refurbishment costing (perhaps many) thousands, not most of a billion.

Reusability is _expensive_, if you look at it with the wrong hat on.

It halves the payload of BFS/R to orbit.

If you were to do a fully expendable version without any of the reusability features, you can get three times  payload to orbit, or the same payload with a much smaller launcher.
Pretty much the same as the shuttle if you were to junk  the reusability.

It's just that BFS makes it cheap. (hopefully)
It's not the idea that's bad, it was the execution. (if it was technically possible to execute the idea at the time is a different question)


« Last Edit: 03/11/2018 05:10 pm by speedevil »

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #9 on: 03/11/2018 07:05 pm »
The shuttle was an amazing machine but a terrible idea. Why do you want it back?
I disagree.

BFS _IS_ reinventing the space shuttle with almost the same idea.

It's just it's doing it without throwing away any solids, and with refurbishment costing (perhaps many) thousands, not most of a billion.

Reusability is _expensive_, if you look at it with the wrong hat on.

It halves the payload of BFS/R to orbit.

If you were to do a fully expendable version without any of the reusability features, you can get three times  payload to orbit, or the same payload with a much smaller launcher.
Pretty much the same as the shuttle if you were to junk  the reusability.

It's just that BFS makes it cheap. (hopefully)
It's not the idea that's bad, it was the execution. (if it was technically possible to execute the idea at the time is a different question)
No, they are completely different, from the lack of side mount, lack of wings to the propulsive landing.
The only common thing is a promise of reusability.
BFR derives from early shuttle concepts, where a Saturn V 1st stage would lift a top mounted vehicle and then do a propulsive landing.

Online mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2304
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 369
  • Likes Given: 260
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #10 on: 03/11/2018 08:25 pm »
Let's be clear.  No one knows how much BFR/BFS is going to cost.  Things always take more time and cost more than you think they will.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #11 on: 03/11/2018 08:53 pm »
Let's be clear.  No one knows how much BFR/BFS is going to cost.  Things always take more time and cost more than you think they will.

Sure.
There are - I would hope you agree - good reasons to assume it may at least be cheaper per launch than shuttle though.

Online spacenut

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5183
  • East Alabama
  • Liked: 2588
  • Likes Given: 2896
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #12 on: 03/11/2018 10:35 pm »
If the shuttle system was a better idea, Musk could use 4 Falcon 9's around a core like Braun, and have a space plane.  He wants BFR/BFS to be more than just a shuttle to and from earth orbit, but to go to Mars and back.  So wings are not needed in space.  BFS will have a couple of stubby winglets for re-entry to earths atmosphere and maybe at Mars.  They will serve a similar purpose as the grid fins do on the boosters.  Since the BFS will already have engines, just use those to land vertically.  No need for the extra weight of wings all the way to Mars (or the moon) and back. 

Offline high road

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1688
  • Europe
  • Liked: 837
  • Likes Given: 152
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #13 on: 03/12/2018 02:35 pm »
If the shuttle system was a better idea, Musk could use 4 Falcon 9's around a core like Braun, and have a space plane.  He wants BFR/BFS to be more than just a shuttle to and from earth orbit, but to go to Mars and back.  So wings are not needed in space.  BFS will have a couple of stubby winglets for re-entry to earths atmosphere and maybe at Mars.  They will serve a similar purpose as the grid fins do on the boosters.  Since the BFS will already have engines, just use those to land vertically.  No need for the extra weight of wings all the way to Mars (or the moon) and back.

Agree with all that except fot the weight part. it's not like fuel doesn't have mass. Rather no need for extra complexity of wings (and their heat shield) on a system that already has engines.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #14 on: 03/12/2018 03:00 pm »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?

The shuttle has removable Crew quarters, payload bay ,robot arm ,OMS and a heatshield .A far simpler machine capable of staying in space for a month .

Crew would transfer to and from the shuttle using Dragons and Boeing CST 100 .

By doing this Hubble could be repaired and ISS modules can be returned .


No, because it doesn't work on a falcon Heavy.  And why would the crew need to be launched from another vehicle?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #15 on: 03/12/2018 03:01 pm »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?

The shuttle has removable Crew quarters, payload bay ,robot arm ,OMS and a heatshield .A far simpler machine capable of staying in space for a month .

Crew would transfer to and from the shuttle using Dragons and Boeing CST 100 .

By doing this Hubble could be repaired and ISS modules can be returned .

Feasible, possible and practical to do easily or conveniently

Possible most definitly.


It is none of those, it is impossible.  The Falcon is not designed to fly such a heavy winged vehicle.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #16 on: 03/13/2018 08:48 am »
With the workforce still alive from Shuttle and Buran would it be feasible to build a new shuttle to fly on falcon heavy I am thinking of a 2 launch mission ?
What exactly do you want here? The US Space Transportation System Orbiter weighed about 190 000 lbs without payload. That's about 84 tonnes.

Quote from: floss
The shuttle has removable Crew quarters, payload bay ,robot arm ,OMS and a heatshield .A far simpler machine capable of staying in space for a month .
So not in fact a new build Orbiter, but a completely new vehicle loosely based on the Shuttle concept.
BTW Shuttle on orbit life was about 15 days, limited to fuel cell consumables.
Quote from: floss
Crew would transfer to and from the shuttle using Dragons and Boeing CST 100 .

By doing this Hubble could be repaired and ISS modules can be returned .
If that's your goal then you may have your wish sooner than you think.

It will be called the Big F* Spaceship and will be part of the SX B F* Rocket vehicle.

You might like to do a little more research on Shuttle and FH before asking such a question. Search engines are quite handy.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline alexterrell

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1747
  • Germany
  • Liked: 184
  • Likes Given: 107
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #17 on: 03/13/2018 10:43 am »
Might be an idea, but why not scale down the shuttle so it can be more easily launched. Perhaps drop the cargo bay (it was never a good cargo lifter). Then we have something like this:
https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/dream-chaser-space-vehicle/
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(spacecraft)

I can see other organisations apart from SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, Russia and China wanting to be able to launch crew, and this might be the way.

It wouldn't be able to return ISS modules - but they're worthless on Earth, other than as museum pieces.
« Last Edit: 03/13/2018 10:45 am by alexterrell »

Offline chipguy

  • Member
  • Posts: 92
  • Ottawa Canada
  • Liked: 97
  • Likes Given: 30
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #18 on: 03/14/2018 04:10 pm »
Might be an idea, but why not scale down the shuttle so it can be more easily launched. Perhaps drop the cargo bay (it was never a good cargo lifter). Then we have something like this:
https://www.sncorp.com/what-we-do/dream-chaser-space-vehicle/
or this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermes_(spacecraft)

I can see other organisations apart from SpaceX, Blue Origin, Boeing, Russia and China wanting to be able to launch crew, and this might be the way.

Let's drop to fundamentals. What problem are you trying to solve?

Is it to create a payload for an available launcher to transport people
from earth to LEO, either dock with something or perform some other
set of functions independently, and return them to earth?

If so why is anything to do with STS - improved, scaled down, or both
a good starting point? Hauling the dead weight of wings to space and
then thermally protecting them back through reentry seems a hugely
wasteful exercise in nostalgia. There is a reason that capsule based
architectures emerged first and after STS, proliferated. It seems to be
widely recognised as the most efficient and safe engineering solution
for these type of manned LEO activities with existing technologies and
launchers.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #19 on: 03/19/2018 10:28 am »
As Ludus said, really.

Well, when you think about it, BFR/BFS is strikingly similar to the original 1969 Space Shuttle, the fully reusable one. One big booster, one orbiter - minus all the aircraft around the rockets: wings, tail, jet engines, undercarriage, which were pretty heavy. Also LH2 replaced by methane.

This one



BFR / BFS



Funnily enough, with Falcon 9R Musk re-invented the familiar, 1972 Space Shuttle. Let be clear: not in shape (the two vehicles are completely different) but in capability.

And with BFR / BFS, he goes a step further: he re-invents the other Space Shuttle, the 1969 fully reusable ship. This time the shapes are a little closer. Ain't that funny when you think about it ?

EDIT: between IAC 2016 and IAC 2017 BFS grew a tiny delta wing not dissimilar to a Shuttle in overall shape.
The original Saturn Shuttle VTVL?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn-Shuttle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Saturn-Shuttle_model_at_Udvar-Hazy_Center.jpg

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #20 on: 03/20/2018 06:50 pm »
Nope: Boeing Space Freighter from the 1976 SBSP studies.
http://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=86

and it even used methane fuel, at least the first stage !





Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline indaco1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #21 on: 03/24/2018 12:01 pm »
The reasons because the Shuttle had big wings was cross range and horizontal landing.

DoD asked over 1k mile cross-range because they need single polar orbit missions to return home photo films.  Yes, this was the reason. This requirement has been made obsolete by electronics a long time ago, well before the shuttle has been flown.

Horizontal landing, and very heavy wings and landing gear, were already a dead requirement, but has been killed again by the retro-propulsive landing introduced recently by SpaceX, Blue Origin and others.

I still think parachutes and mid air retrieval could be more cheap and more safe for a crewed vehicle, but no wings.

PS:  BFR has little "wings" for pitch and roll control to land it in a variety of planetary atmospheres with a variety of payloads.  I don't know if they also improve a little of cross range that could be useful for fast reentry and rapid reusability.
Non-native English speaker and non-expert, be patient.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #22 on: 03/26/2018 02:38 pm »


DoD asked over 1k mile cross-range because they need single polar orbit missions to return home photo films.  Yes, this was the reason. This requirement has been made obsolete by electronics a long time ago, well before the shuttle has been flown.


no, it was for abort once around. Not the one orbit mission.

Offline testguy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 607
  • Clifton, Virginia
  • Liked: 625
  • Likes Given: 599
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #23 on: 03/26/2018 04:51 pm »
Let's be clear.  No one knows how much BFR/BFS is going to cost.  Things always take more time and cost more than you think they will.

Sorry just got to disagree.  It is not a given that cost and schedule will exceed the initial estimate.  With proper planning (including budgets and schedules) and yes a little bit of luck, the execution of major aerospace projects can under run both cost and schedule.  I have been fortunate enough to be involved with said projects.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #24 on: 03/27/2018 08:44 am »
Let's be clear.  No one knows how much BFR/BFS is going to cost.  Things always take more time and cost more than you think they will.

Sorry just got to disagree.  It is not a given that cost and schedule will exceed the initial estimate.  With proper planning (including budgets and schedules) and yes a little bit of luck, the execution of major aerospace projects can under run both cost and schedule.  I have been fortunate enough to be involved with said projects.
True.
In fact aerospace cost models already have an allowance for cost and schedule overruns built into them, IE a "standard" level of excessive budget and schedule.

They are also based on decades of (mostly) cost plus projects, which have little incentive to save money or time. 

So if you're not a cost plus project funded by the government, and the area you're dealing with is remotely familiar territory, you'd have to work damm hard to exceed that time frame.

BTW regarding the actual Shuttle. The team were permitted no allowance for inflation and no budget for contingencies.
AIUI the 70's were a period of quite high inflation in the US economy. When you factored those items in (IIRC a normal number for contingencies is 10% of the budget without a contingency allowance) Shuttle came in within budget.

IIRC an estimate of the full STS programme in current $ came to about $60Bn. Of course you know have all the TPS technology you could draw on and the actual knowledge of what was expensive to service versus what people thought would be expensive to service from the Shuttle flight history.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline indaco1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #25 on: 03/27/2018 11:13 am »


DoD asked over 1k mile cross-range because they need single polar orbit missions to return home photo films.  Yes, this was the reason. This requirement has been made obsolete by electronics a long time ago, well before the shuttle has been flown.


no, it was for abort once around. Not the one orbit mission.

This is the source.
https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/ch5.htm
Quote
The charge-coupled device grew out of the work of two specialists at Bell Labs, William Boyle and George Smith. In 1969, such technology still lay in the future. The view in the Air Force was that the CIA would need piloted spacecraft to produce the real-time photos. The late lamented MOL had represented a possible method, for an onboard photointerpreter might take, develop, and analyze photos on short notice. Now, with MOL in its graveyard, attention turned to the Space Shuttle. It might fly into space, execute a single orbit, and return to its base with film exposed less than an hour earlier.
...
While a satellite orbit remains fixed in orientation with respect to distant stars, the earth rotates below this orbit. This permitted single reconnaissance missions to photograph much of the Soviet Union. However, it meant that if [215] a shuttle was to execute a one-orbit mission from Vandenberg, it would return to the latitude of that base after 90 minutes in space only to find that, due to the earth's rotation, this base had moved to the east by 1100 nautical miles. Air Force officials indeed expected to launch the Shuttle from Vandenberg, and they insisted that the Shuttle had to have enough crossrange to cover that distance and return successfully.
...
In addition to this, NASA and the Air Force shared a concern that a shuttle might have to abort its mission and come down as quickly as possible after launch. This might require "once-around abort," which again would lead to a flight of a single orbit. A once-around abort on a due-east launch from Cape Canaveral would not be too difficult; the craft might land at any of a number of sites within the United States. In the words of NASA's Leroy Day, "If you were making a polar-type launch out of Vandenberg, and you had Max's straight-wing vehicle, there was no place you could go. You'd be in the water when you came back. You've got to go crossrange quite a few hundred miles in order to make land." 34

My english is really bad but I understand they required crossrange and single orbit to abort missions and to return films home in hurry, at least at the very begining.

Great invention, CCD.

The book is really interesting for me. It me gives some answers to the topic: reasons for shuttle and reasons for wings. I hope it's accurate also, but it's published on nasa.org domain after all.

https://history.nasa.gov/SP-4221/contents.htm
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 11:14 am by indaco1 »
Non-native English speaker and non-expert, be patient.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #26 on: 03/27/2018 05:28 pm »

In addition to this, NASA and the Air Force shared a concern that a shuttle might have to abort its mission and come down as quickly as possible after launch. This might require "once-around abort," which again would lead to a flight of a single orbit.


That is the real reason.  NASA too had the requirement.

The one orbit mission was never intended to fly over the soviet land mass.  It was a satellite deployment mission which could avoid overflying the USSR during the one orbit.
« Last Edit: 03/27/2018 05:34 pm by Jim »

Offline IRobot

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1312
  • Portugal & Germany
  • Liked: 310
  • Likes Given: 272
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #27 on: 04/09/2018 08:42 am »
Let's be clear.  No one knows how much BFR/BFS is going to cost.  Things always take more time and cost more than you think they will.

Sorry just got to disagree.  It is not a given that cost and schedule will exceed the initial estimate.  With proper planning (including budgets and schedules) and yes a little bit of luck, the execution of major aerospace projects can under run both cost and schedule.  I have been fortunate enough to be involved with said projects.
True.
In fact aerospace cost models already have an allowance for cost and schedule overruns built into them, IE a "standard" level of excessive budget and schedule.

They are also based on decades of (mostly) cost plus projects, which have little incentive to save money or time. 

So if you're not a cost plus project funded by the government, and the area you're dealing with is remotely familiar territory, you'd have to work damm hard to exceed that time frame.

BTW regarding the actual Shuttle. The team were permitted no allowance for inflation and no budget for contingencies.
AIUI the 70's were a period of quite high inflation in the US economy. When you factored those items in (IIRC a normal number for contingencies is 10% of the budget without a contingency allowance) Shuttle came in within budget.

IIRC an estimate of the full STS programme in current $ came to about $60Bn. Of course you know have all the TPS technology you could draw on and the actual knowledge of what was expensive to service versus what people thought would be expensive to service from the Shuttle flight history.
No matter how you paint it, even $60Bn would be enough for some 100 Saturn V flights or more, considering cost savings. The problem is not on the project execution. The project went wrong on the requirement phase.

Offline Hog

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2846
  • Woodstock
  • Liked: 1700
  • Likes Given: 6866
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #28 on: 04/09/2018 11:24 am »
Let's be clear.  No one knows how much BFR/BFS is going to cost.  Things always take more time and cost more than you think they will.

Sorry just got to disagree.  It is not a given that cost and schedule will exceed the initial estimate.  With proper planning (including budgets and schedules) and yes a little bit of luck, the execution of major aerospace projects can under run both cost and schedule.  I have been fortunate enough to be involved with said projects.
True.
In fact aerospace cost models already have an allowance for cost and schedule overruns built into them, IE a "standard" level of excessive budget and schedule.

They are also based on decades of (mostly) cost plus projects, which have little incentive to save money or time. 

So if you're not a cost plus project funded by the government, and the area you're dealing with is remotely familiar territory, you'd have to work damm hard to exceed that time frame.

BTW regarding the actual Shuttle. The team were permitted no allowance for inflation and no budget for contingencies.
AIUI the 70's were a period of quite high inflation in the US economy. When you factored those items in (IIRC a normal number for contingencies is 10% of the budget without a contingency allowance) Shuttle came in within budget.

IIRC an estimate of the full STS programme in current $ came to about $60Bn. Of course you know have all the TPS technology you could draw on and the actual knowledge of what was expensive to service versus what people thought would be expensive to service from the Shuttle flight history.
No matter how you paint it, even $60Bn would be enough for some 100 Saturn V flights or more, considering cost savings. The problem is not on the project execution. The project went wrong on the requirement phase.
100 Saturn V flights, that's a scary thought.  At least there was a LAS.
Paul

Offline Archibald

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2611
  • Liked: 500
  • Likes Given: 1096
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #29 on: 04/09/2018 04:38 pm »
The shuttle was (pretty brutally) cost-capped by Caspar Weinberger OMB at $5.15 billion (or burst). NASA got the message and managed to keep the budget on track at least until 1978, when the SSME and TPS started to fall appart. In the end even with the delays the shuttle development ended with a 20% cost overrun, that is slightly above $ 6 billion.
And yes, that was a very good performance from NASA, compared with its own usual cost overruns BUT also with military aircrafts, all the way from Lockheed C-5 Galaxy to... the F-35.

Quote
The one orbit mission was never intended to fly over the soviet land mass.  It was a satellite deployment mission which could avoid overflying the USSR during the one orbit.

No question about this. The real, bitting, and unbelievable irony was that in 1974 or so, Keldysh mathematical institute computed that one orbit flight... and got the motive completely wrong.

I mean, they got scared exactly by what Jim mentionned - a possible shuttle overflight of the Soviet Union, from Vandenberg, with a single orbit.

The reason why they scared themselves was that, while the U.S military only intented to flight that profile to launch the NRO Key Holes (KH-9 and beyond) into polar orbit -  the Soviet mistook it for a very crazy, paranoid scenario.
The shuttle would overfly Moscow, sneak between the SAM and ABM belts and drop a Minuteman warhead on the Politbure. Decapitations strike.
This scared the hell out of Keldysh, who went to Ustinov, who went to Brezhnev, and Brezhnev requested an orbiter with a similar shape and crossrange (I didn't said Buran was a carbon copy of the shuttle), and the result was Buran... Keldysh, Ustinov and the late era Brezhnev were pretty paranoid, and so was Andropov and his KGB. 

What is really interesting is that, a decade after the shuttle, the Soviet leadership draw equally wrong conclusions about the SDI offensive potential. No kidding, they feared that Reagan spaceborne lasers, which he intented to zap ICBMs, might be used to zap... the Politburo and Moscow ! I've read very serious documents about this.
« Last Edit: 04/09/2018 04:39 pm by Archibald »
Han shot first and Gwynne Shotwell !

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #30 on: 04/09/2018 06:33 pm »
The shuttle was (pretty brutally) cost-capped by Caspar Weinberger OMB at $5.15 billion (or burst). NASA got the message and managed to keep the budget on track at least until 1978, when the SSME and TPS started to fall appart. In the end even with the delays the shuttle development ended with a 20% cost overrun, that is slightly above $ 6 billion.
And yes, that was a very good performance from NASA, compared with its own usual cost overruns BUT also with military aircrafts, all the way from Lockheed C-5 Galaxy to... the F-35.

Quote
The one orbit mission was never intended to fly over the soviet land mass.  It was a satellite deployment mission which could avoid overflying the USSR during the one orbit.

No question about this. The real, bitting, and unbelievable irony was that in 1974 or so, Keldysh mathematical institute computed that one orbit flight... and got the motive completely wrong.

I mean, they got scared exactly by what Jim mentionned - a possible shuttle overflight of the Soviet Union, from Vandenberg, with a single orbit.

The reason why they scared themselves was that, while the U.S military only intented to flight that profile to launch the NRO Key Holes (KH-9 and beyond) into polar orbit -  the Soviet mistook it for a very crazy, paranoid scenario.
The shuttle would overfly Moscow, sneak between the SAM and ABM belts and drop a Minuteman warhead on the Politbure. Decapitations strike.
This scared the hell out of Keldysh, who went to Ustinov, who went to Brezhnev, and Brezhnev requested an orbiter with a similar shape and crossrange (I didn't said Buran was a carbon copy of the shuttle), and the result was Buran... Keldysh, Ustinov and the late era Brezhnev were pretty paranoid, and so was Andropov and his KGB. 

What is really interesting is that, a decade after the shuttle, the Soviet leadership draw equally wrong conclusions about the SDI offensive potential. No kidding, they feared that Reagan spaceborne lasers, which he intented to zap ICBMs, might be used to zap... the Politburo and Moscow ! I've read very serious documents about this.
BFR would be more "capable" of such scenaio, even for non nuclear tactical strike. 100 tons of warhead.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #31 on: 04/09/2018 07:34 pm »
BFR would be more "capable" of such scenaio, even for non nuclear tactical strike. 100 tons of warhead.
Do you think that's going to encourage countries to look favourably on it overflying them for P2P transport?

Although it could be said BFR is the heir to the Shuttle concept that is quite a mixed legacy.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #32 on: 04/10/2018 01:49 am »
BFR would be more "capable" of such scenaio, even for non nuclear tactical strike. 100 tons of warhead.
Do you think that's going to encourage countries to look favourably on it overflying them for P2P transport?

Although it could be said BFR is the heir to the Shuttle concept that is quite a mixed legacy.

At least not to land in China (as shown in the BFR presentation), this is forbbiden by ITAR.

I have reversed (conspiracy) idea that "P2P transport" is a marketing cover word for military application.

Same history happened to scramjet (early 2000s) and boost glide hypersonic vehicles (early 1950s).

The presentation of BFR could demonstrate its military potential to USAF, without scaring the public.

P2P passenger transport with BFR is also too dangerous and expencive for airliner applications, but USAF could be more tolerant on hazard and cost, either for transporting military personnel or dropping warhead.
« Last Edit: 04/10/2018 01:55 am by Katana »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #33 on: 04/10/2018 01:37 pm »

No matter how you paint it, even $60Bn would be enough for some 100 Saturn V flights or more, considering cost savings. The problem is not on the project execution. The project went wrong on the requirement phase.

No payloads for 100 Saturn V's.  That is the problem with these comparisons. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #34 on: 04/10/2018 01:38 pm »

100 Saturn V flights, that's a scary thought.  At least there was a LAS.

No, there wasn't.  The Apollo spacecraft had one but not the Saturn V. 

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #35 on: 04/10/2018 01:42 pm »

P2P passenger transport with BFR is also too dangerous and expencive for airliner applications, but USAF could be more tolerant on hazard and cost, either for transporting military personnel...

No, it is useless for that.  That has been fallacy since day one.  There is no benefit.  It is not clandestine and the troops have no support or means of extraction.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #36 on: 04/10/2018 01:42 pm »
100 tons of warhead.

That applies to any launch vehicle.

Offline Katana

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 378
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 20
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #37 on: 04/10/2018 02:02 pm »
100 tons of warhead.

That applies to any launch vehicle.
But far low $/kg compared to ICBM and ICBM derived boosters of HTV and AHW.

Probably comparable to $/kg of ammunition carried by fighters, if P2P passenger transport have reasonable price.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37443
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21452
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #38 on: 04/10/2018 02:20 pm »
100 tons of warhead.

That applies to any launch vehicle.
But far low $/kg compared to ICBM and ICBM derived boosters of HTV and AHW.


That doesn't matter

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #39 on: 04/10/2018 06:11 pm »
No payloads for 100 Saturn V's.  That is the problem with these comparisons.
Much like SLS in that regard.  :(

Hard to believe 50 years have passed since the stop work order on Saturn V.
No, it is useless for that.  That has been fallacy since day one.  There is no benefit.  It is not clandestine and the troops have no support or means of extraction.
Not quite that bad. In principle a system that delivers 150t of troops can also deliver a fair chunk of their support hardware. And BFS (if empty) is meant to be able to a sub orbital flight back to base without the booster.

Provided there is a big tank of LO2 and CH4 at the landing site.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline john smith 19

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10351
  • Everyplaceelse
  • Liked: 2431
  • Likes Given: 13606
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #40 on: 04/10/2018 06:13 pm »
100 tons of warhead.

That applies to any launch vehicle.
But far low $/kg compared to ICBM and ICBM derived boosters of HTV and AHW.

Probably comparable to $/kg of ammunition carried by fighters, if P2P passenger transport have reasonable price.
That's not really a Shuttle though, is it?

That's a weapon system. 

So its OT for this thread and pretty much the whole site.
MCT ITS BFR SS. The worlds first Methane fueled FFSC engined CFRP SS structure A380 sized aerospaceplane tail sitter capable of Earth & Mars atmospheric flight.First flight to Mars by end of 2022 TBC. T&C apply. Trust nothing. Run your own #s "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" R. Simberg."Competitve" means cheaper ¬cheap SCramjet proposed 1956. First +ve thrust 2004. US R&D spend to date > $10Bn. #deployed designs. Zero.

Offline indaco1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #41 on: 04/10/2018 08:54 pm »
Provided there is a big tank of LO2 and CH4 at the landing site.

And a BFR booster, also.

Destination has to be an air base, a sea port, an ASDS or similar.
Non-native English speaker and non-expert, be patient.

Offline speedevil

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4406
  • Fife
  • Liked: 2762
  • Likes Given: 3369
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #42 on: 04/10/2018 09:01 pm »
And a BFR booster, also.

Destination has to be an air base, a sea port, an ASDS or similar.

You need about a hundred tons of propellant, and the BFS alone to ferry it empty 300km.
If you top it up, it can go literally anywhere empty.

Offline indaco1

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 283
  • Liked: 64
  • Likes Given: 37
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #43 on: 04/10/2018 11:36 pm »
We'll see if they will use this method to ferry them (boosters and orbiters) from California to Florida. But BFR is OT here.




It could be one of the reasons they made Shuttle with big wings was because it's more sexy? :-)
Non-native English speaker and non-expert, be patient.

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 578
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 616
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: Reasons for building a new commercial shuttle.
« Reply #44 on: 04/10/2018 11:52 pm »
Before considering building a new shuttle, you have to have a business case for it. Right now, there isn't one to justify it. Also, why go digging into old plans, tooling and workforce for something that was designed in the 1970's? Use the new technologies out there, and with propulsive landings replacing wings, there's no need. Let's look forward, not backwards.

Tags:
 

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