Just a reminder that the biggest problems with the Shuttle were it's funding arrangements.Assuming you can get a sensible funding arrangement you then need to work out what it's going to do.A "shuttle" implies regular, routine access to space. So what is it sized to carry? A satellite? A satellite with upper stage to get to GEO? Space probes to other planets? ISS sized modules? Experiment racks?
BTW It can be said there already is a 2nd generation shuttle operating. It's called the X37b. It's uncrewed yet manages an unpowered runway landing.
There is a perception that the Shuttle "proves" you should not have crew with other payloads but SX wants to go with as much commonality as possible between the crew and cargo Dragon versions (although the new version looks more like a lifting body). My sense is most of the Shuttle living space could be made into a removable module, increasing cargo capacity.
Shuttle had an actual failure rate of about 1.5%. For prolonged, large scale use this failure rate has to drop by orders of magnitude. That suggests designing out failure modes and avoiding the unnecessary design constraints (like needing return to the launch site on 1 orbit, or engines you can't turn off).
The reason why the Shuttle had no escape system was the (misguided) belief it's failure rate (in the 10s of 1000s) would not need it. Had that belief been correct it would not have. It wasn't. The question is could a next gen Shuttle be designed to actually deliver that safety level, or should an LES be designed in from day one?
Quote from: john smith 19 on 02/04/2017 09:43 pmJust a reminder that the biggest problems with the Shuttle were it's funding arrangements.Assuming you can get a sensible funding arrangement you then need to work out what it's going to do.A "shuttle" implies regular, routine access to space. So what is it sized to carry? A satellite? A satellite with upper stage to get to GEO? Space probes to other planets? ISS sized modules? Experiment racks?7 tonnes to GTO, 25 tonnes to LEO is quite a good size. Can both launch the biggest comsats, and can launch quite big space station modules and bring lots off supplies and crew to space station.
Honestly, Spacexs ITS just about nails it. You would need to modify the spaceship to have better access to the cargo bay but that's about it.
So I don't think a Shuttle 2.0 will exist in the foreseeable future.
The Russians got it right with their Energia/Buran system. It could fly uncrewed to remotely controlled service or collect a satellite from orbit. Its launch stack could, and did, fly without shuttle, so the SLS was already a part of it. And its liquid boosters still fly as independent Zenith launchers.
Quote from: TakeOff on 02/05/2017 04:03 amThe Russians got it right with their Energia/Buran system. It could fly uncrewed to remotely controlled service or collect a satellite from orbit. Its launch stack could, and did, fly without shuttle, so the SLS was already a part of it. And its liquid boosters still fly as independent Zenith launchers.It was also possible with STS to fly unmanned with the installation of a large cable connecting forward and aft deck controls and a smaller cable as needed connecting mid-deck with flight deck. I forget the exact name of the cables.
That is a bit harsh! Besides, the probability of the second shuttle floundering in orbit, too, would have been low...
7 tonnes to GTO, 25 tonnes to LEO is quite a good size. Can both launch the biggest comsats, and can launch quite big space station modules and bring lots off supplies and crew to space station.
I think there's a message in the fact that of the four crewed space vehicles placed in development since the Shuttle (ESA's Hermes, Orion, Dragon and CST-100 [make it 5 if you count Dream Chaser]), none looks much like a Shuttle. And Blue Origin isn't going the route of a Shuttle either. True, Hermes and Dream Chaser have wings, but only for a small crew/cargo capsule, not for a major propulsion unit.