Author Topic: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -  (Read 22105 times)

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« on: 12/26/2009 06:53 pm »
This is my proposal for how NASA should move forward with manned exploration. I am not an engineer or scientist, but I am a fan of space exploration. Please let me know what you think. Why it will work? Why it won't work? How to make this plan better?

As the Space Shuttle Program comes to an end, the United States is faced with the reality of only being able to buy tickets to put humans into space. The Constellation Program, intended to replace the Space Shuttle, was flawed from day one. Orion is not a spacecraft for the future but rather a return to the past. The Space Shuttle was suppose to mark the end of parachuting back to Earth and be the first space plane, instead under NASA’s current plans it will have been merely a generational interlude. Ares I and V, two massive rockets, are planned for Constellation. Ares I has already cost billions and will cost billions more and years more before its ready to fly. Ares V will cost billions more and it will be the better part of a decade before it flies. Constellation must be scraped immediately to save billions of dollars and allow NASA to develop a truly 21st century spacecraft.
 
The best option for the Space Shuttle’s replacement is a SDLV. My proposal is fairly straight forward. Take the Space Shuttle stack and remove the Orbiter. Replace the current SRBs with two 5-segment SRBs. The ET will keep its current configuration subject, however, to a reduction in size – and hopefully better remedies to deal with any potential foam loss.

The Space Shuttle Orbiter needs to be replaced with a more compact and lightweight craft. For these purposes, I will borrow the title CEV. The CEV is a lifting body based on the X-33 configuration. As with the X-33, its main engines are the RS-2200 Linear Aerospikes (must be capable of restart) which are more lightweight and efficient giving them two vital advantages over traditional rocket engines. The CEV will use the Space Shuttle’s RCS thrusters. The OMS engines will be replaced, however, with an engine to be used for both a deorbit burn and a TEI burn – all to be fueled by internal fuel tanks. The Logistics/Cargo Bay will have dimensions of approximately 25x15 and include a docking module, solar wings and the ability to carry the Space Shuttle’s Robotic Arm.

The CEV is mounted to the ET and on missions to LEO is discarded just as the Space Shuttle currently discards it. My primary focus here is thus on missions to the Moon and beyond. The ET will remain attached to provide fuel for the RS-2200 engines which will fire for the TLI burn. Once the TLI burn is complete, the ET will drop away entering heliocentric orbit. The CEV enters Lunar Orbit where it docks with Altair. Altair will have been launched ahead on the Side-Mounted SDLV (SMSDLV), currently discussed within NASA as an alternative to Ares. Flying a profile similar to the CEV will allow it to use the same engines for the ride uphill and for TLI. Altair’s decent stage engine will be used for LOI. Once the astronauts complete their mission, they dock with the CEV, depart Lunar Orbit for Earth and landing at the Kennedy Space Center.

There are numerous advantages to this proposal over both SMSDLV and Ares. By only launching Altair under the SMSDLV scheme, you do away with the need for so many throwaway engines. Implementing SMSDLV, as currently purposed by NASA, every mission to LEO would cost 3 engines, the service module and its engine. Lunar missions would cost 9 engines, the departure stage, the service module and Altair. The CEV scheme proposed here on a LEO mission cost a single ET and on Lunar missions a single ET, 3 engines and Altair (I maybe even so bold as to suggest Altair’s assent stage could be returned to Earth, in the Logistics/Cargo Bay, refurbished and reused.).

This proposal makes maxim use of existing proven technology and infrastructure. Moreover, what is unproven for example the RS-2200 engines weere far along in their development and proved successful in testing – putting it ahead of the curve. The CEV would be capable of flying into LEO aboard the existing ET and 4-segment SRBs allowing delayed development of the 5-segment SRB. The first generation RS-2200 engines would not be required to be capable of restart, since such capability will not be required until Moon missions begin. The CEV should make maximum use of the X-33 design, systems already under development for Orion and systems transferable from the Space Shuttle. This will allow for the reduction of development cost and time with the goal of the first manned flight of the CEV to be no later than June 2014.

To implement this program Congress should redirect a portion of the stimulus package to fund the rapid development of the CEV, while flying out the remaining Space Shuttle missions and saving real jobs. The rapid development of the CEV will also lead to the creation of real new jobs. Furthermore, to defray tax payer cost, necessary with outrageous and unacceptable deficits and national debt, NASA, while maintaining operational control of the CEV, should privatize its operations and allow said private company to sell flights for commercial purposes (Please note I am not suggesting weekend getaways. However, satellite deployments, testing of new technologies, experiments and possibly selling a seat on LEO missions should be permitted.). This will help reduce the overall cost of the program and incentivize efficiency and technological advancements. In awarding the contract two essential factors must be considered – what company is willing to make the largest investment to defray development cost and do the most to reduce operational cost.

This vehicle will allow the United States to maintain its leading role in space with a smaller gap. It will build on the best of the Space Shuttle and avoid a return to the past of capsules and splashdowns. It will reduce the throwaway of both Ares and, as currently proposed, SDLV. It will be a lasting tribute to the technological achievement of the Space Shuttle – allowing the Orbiters to retire with the honor they deserve. Finally, the CEV will resume exploration of the Moon and beyond. 

Offline Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #1 on: 12/26/2009 07:31 pm »
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.
Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has.
Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.
I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.
NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #2 on: 12/26/2009 07:32 pm »
and lightweight craft. For these purposes, I will borrow the title CEV. The CEV is a lifting body based on the X-33 configuration. As with the X-33, its main engines are the RS-2200 Linear Aerospikes (must be capable of restart) which are more lightweight and efficient giving them two vital advantages over traditional rocket engines. The CEV will use the Space Shuttle’s RCS thrusters. The OMS engines will be replaced, however, with an engine to be used for both a deorbit burn and a TEI burn – all to be fueled by internal fuel tanks. The Logistics/Cargo Bay will have dimensions of approximately 25x15 and include a docking module, solar wings and the ability to carry the Space Shuttle’s Robotic Arm.



None of this is needed for beyond LEO. 

Bad idea.  The shuttle paradigm is not the right one for the future.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #3 on: 12/26/2009 07:34 pm »


This vehicle will allow the United States to maintain its leading role in space with a smaller gap. It will build on the best of the Space Shuttle and avoid a return to the past of capsules and splashdowns. It will reduce the throwaway of both Ares and, as currently proposed, SDLV. It will be a lasting tribute to the technological achievement of the Space Shuttle – allowing the Orbiters to retire with the honor they deserve. Finally, the CEV will resume exploration of the Moon and beyond. 


It won't do any of this.  Capsules are not a step backwards.  Trying to make one vehicle do everything is not a step forward.

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #4 on: 12/26/2009 07:49 pm »
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.
Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has.
Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.
I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.
NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.

Yes, I understand the deadweight argument. My concern is which is more costly carrying deadweight or throwing away so much of the rocket and spacecraft? Please note I am not suggesting the ET be carried to the Moon but rather just through TLI and then discarded like the S-IVB.

The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 07:51 pm by Mr. Justice »

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #5 on: 12/26/2009 07:55 pm »
The big problem with Orion is NASA is trying to make it do everything.
Separating the LEO transport from the deep space vehicle would be a good start.
It would be better to have vehicles made for each mission then one jack of all trades and master of none.

ESAS is probably one of the worst proposed lunar architectures in recent history.
When I first saw the ESAS plan I felt very disappointed that they were throwing away everything they learned with the shuttle and building ISS and were going to pretend they never happened.
Oddly enough NASA far had better ideas on this back in the 80s and 90s then what they have today.

A good example here is LUNOX and ELA
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/LUNOX.html
http://www.astronautix.com/craft/earccess.htm

It's best to have an architecture that is not tied to any single LV such as Ares V which would allow for future expansion.

Instead what they choose used the worst of FLO combined with shuttle derived hardware.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/moon/FLO.html
I call CxP FLO with brain damage.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 08:01 pm by Patchouli »

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #6 on: 12/26/2009 08:02 pm »

The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.

It is not designed to return from the moon

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #7 on: 12/26/2009 08:05 pm »
The way I see it, you are taking far too much to the moon.
Wings are only needed for re-entry. For the rest of the mission, they are just dead weight. And the further you take them, the more affect that extra weight has.
Taking the ET to the moon? Again, unnecessary dead weight. the tank will be at most a quarter full, and the rest of the tankage is therefore unneeded.
I agree, going back to a capsule from shuttle seems like negative progress, but shuttle is an LEO vehicle, as are all winged spaceships. A capsule landing with an ignominious thud or splash might not be as "beautiful" or "noble" as a winged spaceplane gliding back too earth, but beauty is not the motivation for the space program.
NOTE: I don't disagree with you regarding the ares rockets, though.

Yes, I understand the deadweight argument. My concern is which is more costly carrying deadweight or throwing away so much of the rocket and spacecraft? Please note I am not suggesting the ET be carried to the Moon but rather just through TLI and then discarded like the S-IVB.

The lifting body design of the X-33 does not use wings.
The ET and first stage engines are too heavy to be carried though TLI you really need an upper stage.
Part of the problem with Ares V is the vehicle really needs either a third stage or boosters that contribute more delta V.

As for the X33s shape it never was intended for lunar return.
But the Lm CEV lifting body was and could have handled speeds even the Apollo shape could not.
It looks very different from the X33 because it's job is different.
« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 08:12 pm by Patchouli »

Offline cromandmitra

  • Member
  • Posts: 11
  • New York City
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #8 on: 12/26/2009 08:20 pm »
My primary focus here is thus on missions to the Moon and beyond                                                                                                                             Would this smaller shuttle have the adequate shielding the present shuttle lacks to protect the crew from you know what? Would this change your smaller design? Just curious.
"What goes up. must come down?"This depends on how far up you go.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #9 on: 12/26/2009 08:26 pm »
Would this smaller shuttle have the adequate shielding the present shuttle lacks to protect the crew from you know what? Would this change your smaller design? Just curious.

It isn't a shuttle, it is still a "capsule"

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #10 on: 12/26/2009 08:42 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #11 on: 12/26/2009 09:01 pm »
I just want to point out that the basic Shuttle design principle still holds:  if there is any part of a launch vehicle that it might make economic sense to bring home to a runway landing, it's the main engines.  The design challenge is that the only way to do that is to have the main engines physically near the wings.  Mounting them together -- with the crew -- on the side of a foam-insulated tank proved to be a mistake.

The obvious solution is to bring the crew home in a vehicle (capsule or otherwise) mounted on the top of the stack, away from the danger of liberated foam.  Note this does not prevent bringing the engines home on a side-mounted, un-crewed, winged vehicle.

On another topic:  given the delta-v required for TLI, taking any un-needed mass into the TLI burn is almost certainly a mistake.  I'm still amazed the current Constellation architecture, which burns propellant from the EDS tankage on the way to LEO, became the plan of record.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #12 on: 12/26/2009 09:04 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. 

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.


Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #13 on: 12/26/2009 09:36 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. 

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.



Apollo is history book material to me -- I was born in 1984.

I don't think there is a clear direction as to where we are heading in space. The history of manned space flight, from my perspective, has been one of a child opening a Christmas present and tossing it aside to get to the next present. After 25 years of planning and building, the space station is almost complete and we are already planning its demise. It seems people are still conflict over if we are going back to the Moon or to NEOs. To Mars? Well, maybe to Phobos and Deimos.

« Last Edit: 12/26/2009 09:38 pm by Mr. Justice »

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #14 on: 12/26/2009 09:51 pm »
I am not dead set against Orion. Orion is reusable which is a plus over Soyuz and previous American capsules. On the other hand, Ares should be scrapped.


Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #15 on: 12/26/2009 09:57 pm »
I am not dead set against Orion. Orion is reusable


That is not known at this time.  Nor does it matter.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #16 on: 12/26/2009 10:27 pm »
 
RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #17 on: 12/26/2009 11:46 pm »
Jim,

Are you opposed to the shuttle concept generally or just because it is not  feasible beyond LEO?

The current flight rates don't support the need for one. Also, it is not feasible beyond LEO. 

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.


Agreed there Jim.  So, what would be a practical application with which an RLV would need such a fast flight rate?  The closest I could think of would be a suborbital ny to tokyo style flight.
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 gospacex

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3024
  • Liked: 543
  • Likes Given: 604
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #18 on: 12/26/2009 11:55 pm »

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

I don't understand why do you seek a justification for RLV. RLVs are not the goal. They are (one of possible) means to the real goal.

Thus flight rate should NEVER be adapted to the "need" to have RLV.

Instead, flight rate should be adapted to the real goal, and then, based on that rate, LVs / capsules / spaceplanes / whatever should be designed to achieve it economically.

Only an organization with unlimited supply of taxpayer $$$ it did not earn can afford to put the horse before the cart.

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #19 on: 12/27/2009 12:10 am »
 
RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

I don't understand why do you seek a justification for RLV. RLVs are not the goal. They are (one of possible) means to the real goal.

Thus flight rate should NEVER be adapted to the "need" to have RLV.

Instead, flight rate should be adapted to the real goal, and then, based on that rate, LVs / capsules / spaceplanes / whatever should be designed to achieve it economically.

Only an organization with unlimited supply of taxpayer $$$ it did not earn can afford to put the horse before the cart.

No you misunderstand my question, I was not seeking justification for an RLV, I was merely curious about Jim's thoughts on the nescessary flight rate for reusable launch vehicles vs the the nescessary flight rate for just a reusable capsule.  Is it the same? Lower? Higher?

I completely agree with your points on RLVs in general.

Offline Patchouli

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4490
  • Liked: 253
  • Likes Given: 457
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #20 on: 12/27/2009 04:42 am »
Killing the HLV architecture and moving to a fuel depot could provide the needed flight rates for an RLV to be come economical.

As for a reentry vehicle I feel landing on a runway is safer then splash downs.
But a capsule or small space plane can be mounted at the top of the stack and either can be given an escape system.

One big complaint I have with the Apollo OML used on Orion is it's not a very efficient shape as far as usable interior space is concerned.
The LM lifting body gives you a cylinder which is much easier to use.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #21 on: 12/27/2009 01:09 pm »

RLV's need flight rates more than 3 per month.

I'm curious Jim, what are your thoghts on the flight rate nescessary for just a reusable capsule as opposed to the whole launch vehicle?

Would it be realistic to have a fully reusable capsule at current amounts of manned launches?

It depends on what it takes to refurb the capsule.   Ocean landings aren't good for that, neither is a once used heat shield

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #22 on: 12/28/2009 02:26 am »
You know, looking at the history books, the Saturn I's first stage was a bunch of existing RLV's mated together.  If all else fails, what would a modern day "Saturn I", let's call it Uranus I, be if we tied, oh, 7 Atlas V cores together?
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 Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #23 on: 12/28/2009 08:00 am »
the Saturn I's first stage was a bunch of existing RLV's mated together.
No it wasn't. None of the components were re-usable. And it wasn't as simple as bunch of first stages mated together.It had tanks from a jupiter and a redstone with entirely new engines.

Offline John Duncan

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 453
  • Odenville, Al
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #24 on: 12/28/2009 11:44 am »
A capsule is fine, a reusable capsule that is cost efficient would be great.

A super cool winged spaceship which flies around between Luna, Earth and Mars would be nice but is pure fantasy at this point.  I hate to say it but Sci-Fi has conditioned us to expect these things.  I want that cool ship too but don't hold your breath.

As a people, we have not come up with a compelling reason for an all out assault on exploration which requires that stuff but maybe when the alien overlords arrive...we will.  :)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #25 on: 12/29/2009 09:06 am »
the Saturn I's first stage was a bunch of existing RLV's mated together.
No it wasn't. None of the components were re-usable. And it wasn't as simple as bunch of first stages mated together.It had tanks from a jupiter and a redstone with entirely new engines.
ELV's, finger flipped while typing.

But my idle thought has merit, yes?
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 Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #26 on: 12/29/2009 09:18 am »
the Saturn I's first stage was a bunch of existing RLV's mated together.
No it wasn't. None of the components were re-usable. And it wasn't as simple as bunch of first stages mated together.It had tanks from a jupiter and a redstone with entirely new engines.
ELV's, finger flipped while typing.

But my idle thought has merit, yes?
Yes, it would work better than the Saturn I, because it would be much bigger (26.81 MN vs 6.7 MN) and the mass-production of cores would lower costs, and the cost of an Atlas V would decrease as well. However, Russian engines would be a problem.
EDIT:Also, it is in no way shuttle-derived, which is mandated by congress.
« Last Edit: 12/29/2009 09:24 am by Idol Revolver »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #27 on: 12/29/2009 09:37 am »
the Saturn I's first stage was a bunch of existing RLV's mated together.
No it wasn't. None of the components were re-usable. And it wasn't as simple as bunch of first stages mated together.It had tanks from a jupiter and a redstone with entirely new engines.
ELV's, finger flipped while typing.

But my idle thought has merit, yes?
Yes, it would work better than the Saturn I, because it would be much bigger (26.81 MN vs 6.7 MN) and the mass-production of cores would lower costs, and the cost of an Atlas V would decrease as well. However, Russian engines would be a problem.
EDIT:Also, it is in no way shuttle-derived, which is mandated by congress.
Quite true, this is the idle thought thread however, as it is for a 21st century space shuttle/ship.  The key for any new program is to economize, yes?  "Cheaper, faster, stronger" and all that.  First you need to economize the lifter, to get the flight rate up to the point that a 21st century shuttle even begins to make sense.
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 Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #28 on: 12/29/2009 09:47 am »
"Cheaper, faster, stronger" and all that.
actually it was faster, cheaper, better.

Offline MP99

Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #29 on: 12/29/2009 03:16 pm »
On another topic:  given the delta-v required for TLI, taking any un-needed mass into the TLI burn is almost certainly a mistake.  I'm still amazed the current Constellation architecture, which burns propellant from the EDS tankage on the way to LEO, became the plan of record.

For a two-stage SDLV, you get higher performance if the EDS burns during ascent, since you deliver far more payload (inc prop) than you waste in extra mass pushed through TLI.

Saturn V was three-stage, and also burned it's EDS during ascent. Although this had a kerolox first stage, I understand the same would apply for an Ares-type first stage.

cheers, Martin

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #30 on: 12/29/2009 06:26 pm »
As the person who started this thread, I agree with the criticism of the Space Shuttle/Ship concept. It is what I expected, and sadly I can't argue against those criticisms. I am quite impressed with Orion. However, disappointed to read Jim's comment that it may not be reusable. I was under the impression only the heat shield would not to be replaced and the capsule was intended for up to ten flights.

On the other hand, I have no love for Ares. I favor DIRECT. I only hope DIRECT will be NASA's new course in 2010 to launch Orion.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #31 on: 12/29/2009 09:27 pm »
On another topic:  given the delta-v required for TLI, taking any un-needed mass into the TLI burn is almost certainly a mistake.  I'm still amazed the current Constellation architecture, which burns propellant from the EDS tankage on the way to LEO, became the plan of record.

For a two-stage SDLV, you get higher performance if the EDS burns during ascent, since you deliver far more payload (inc prop) than you waste in extra mass pushed through TLI.

Saturn V was three-stage, and also burned it's EDS during ascent. Although this had a kerolox first stage, I understand the same would apply for an Ares-type first stage.

cheers, Martin

Ah yes, thanks for the explanation!  It looks as though drop tanks, like Briz uses, don't gain enough to be worthwhile.  Taking Apollo 17 as an example, the S-IVB first burn consumed 66,656 lbs of propellant, or about 30 mT.  That's something like 28% of the 239,388 lbs in the tanks at the start of the burn.  Dropping 28% of the tankage dry mass wouldn't be big enough to justify the complexity.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline MP99

Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #32 on: 12/30/2009 02:12 am »
Also, two sets of tanks will mass more than one integrated set of tanks, and would require some sort of structure to integrate them into the launch stack (interstage, etc).

One possible simplification - the O2 tank is quite compact & light compared to the H2, so maybe just use H2 drop tanks?

Still, with a payload mounted above the EDS, the physical layout becomes a challenge - side mounted? But what would that do to the aerodynamics during launch?

cheers, Martin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #33 on: 12/30/2009 03:31 pm »
LEO and Deep Space are two (2) different environments and the ships that traverse them should be designed for their respective environments.

RLV's will ultimately be necessary if launch costs are ever to become reasonable, but I don't foresee them becoming practical for a while. A good interim step would be a reusable spacecraft launched on an expendable rocket. But that's where it gets complicated because it will cost a lot of money to develop two (2) different types of reusable spacecraft; one for LEO and one for deep space.

Personally, I'd prefer to see runway landings for the LEO spacecraft, but I do not want to see wings; they are just too much wasted mass that needs to be orbited. A lifting body of some type would likely fit the bill. For deep space operations something along the lines of LANTR would be good. But again, where are we going to get that kind of money?

In the mean time, I think we are going to be stuck with the single-use capsule launched on an expendable rocket. For the foreseeable future, I don't see sufficient flight rates of either type of spacecraft to justify going the route I suggested.
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Rabidpanda

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 532
  • Liked: 123
  • Likes Given: 572
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #34 on: 12/30/2009 05:55 pm »
LEO and Deep Space are two (2) different environments and the ships that traverse them should be designed for their respective environments.

RLV's will ultimately be necessary if launch costs are ever to become reasonable, but I don't foresee them becoming practical for a while. A good interim step would be a reusable spacecraft launched on an expendable rocket. But that's where it gets complicated because it will cost a lot of money to develop two (2) different types of reusable spacecraft; one for LEO and one for deep space.

Personally, I'd prefer to see runway landings for the LEO spacecraft, but I do not want to see wings; they are just too much wasted mass that needs to be orbited. A lifting body of some type would likely fit the bill. For deep space operations something along the lines of LANTR would be good. But again, where are we going to get that kind of money?

In the mean time, I think we are going to be stuck with the single-use capsule launched on an expendable rocket. For the foreseeable future, I don't see sufficient flight rates of either type of spacecraft to justify going the route I suggested.

Agreed.

Reusable deep space spacecraft will be a lot easier to design then RLVs especially if we implement technologies such as aerocapture and fuel depots.

I'm not sure about the economics, but I would guess that, with the high price of launch costs, the larger upfront cost will be worth the fact that only new propellant has to be launched.

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #35 on: 12/31/2009 07:09 pm »
Perhaps, in the future a spaceship will be constructed in LEO. The spaceship could be constructed and serviced by a X-33 type craft. Astronauts would board the spaceship and head out for their mission. Upon their  return to LEO they would slow and dock with the X-33 and land.

This would require regular launches to service the spaceship helping reduce launch cost. While more fuel would be required for the spaceship to decelerate to enter LEO. The cost of fuel seems like it may be a bargain compared every mission throwing away so much hardware.

Offline Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #36 on: 12/31/2009 07:32 pm »
Perhaps, in the future a spaceship will be constructed in LEO. The spaceship could be constructed and serviced by a X-33 type craft. Astronauts would board the spaceship and head out for their mission. Upon their  return to LEO they would slow and dock with the X-33 and land.

This would require regular launches to service the spaceship helping reduce launch cost. While more fuel would be required for the spaceship to decelerate to enter LEO. The cost of fuel seems like it may be a bargain compared every mission throwing away so much hardware.
The problem being, you double the delta-v, so either beyond-LEO fuel depots, NEP, or SEP.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #37 on: 12/31/2009 08:05 pm »
Perhaps, in the future a spaceship will be constructed in LEO. The spaceship could be constructed and serviced by a X-33 type craft. Astronauts would board the spaceship and head out for their mission. Upon their  return to LEO they would slow and dock with the X-33 and land.

This would require regular launches to service the spaceship helping reduce launch cost. While more fuel would be required for the spaceship to decelerate to enter LEO. The cost of fuel seems like it may be a bargain compared every mission throwing away so much hardware.

See the orginal version of SEI, circa 1988.  The Space Station (Freedom) would have served as a harbor for moon and Mars exploration craft and the Shuttle/Shuttle-C was to service all of them from a ground to LEO perspective. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Mr. Justice

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #38 on: 12/31/2009 08:32 pm »
I have no objections to nuclear power. However, we can't even build a nuclear power plant because of fear. Of course, New Horizons and Cassini both drew to protest because of their RTGs. Politically it seems NEP is a nonstarter.   

Fuel depots are great.

The best near term solution maybe methane fueled rockets.
« Last Edit: 12/31/2009 08:37 pm by Mr. Justice »

Offline MP99

Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #39 on: 12/31/2009 08:48 pm »
Perhaps, in the future a spaceship will be constructed in LEO. The spaceship could be constructed and serviced by a X-33 type craft. Astronauts would board the spaceship and head out for their mission. Upon their  return to LEO they would slow and dock with the X-33 and land.

This would require regular launches to service the spaceship helping reduce launch cost. While more fuel would be required for the spaceship to decelerate to enter LEO. The cost of fuel seems like it may be a bargain compared every mission throwing away so much hardware.

The problem being, you double the delta-v, so either beyond-LEO fuel depots, NEP, or SEP.

If you choose to perform a propulsive braking at Earth, would using the Interplanetary Transport Network reduce the total delta-V (with reasonable transit times):-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interplanetary_Transport_Network

cheers, Martin

Offline clongton

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12053
  • Connecticut
    • Direct Launcher
  • Liked: 7348
  • Likes Given: 3749
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #40 on: 12/31/2009 08:51 pm »
I have no objections to nuclear power. However, we can't even build a nuclear power plant because of fear. Of course, New Horizons and Cassini both drew to protest because of their RTGs. Politically it seems NEP is a nonstarter.   

Fuel depots are great.

The best near term solution maybe methane fueled rockets.

The nuclear "fear" is hype fostered on a population that is uneducated in what is and isn't possible with today's technologies by the Gas, Oil and Coal lobbies. Quite frankly they don't give two cents about what's best for the country as long as they can keep lining their pockets with the cash that they get by raping the planet. Don't get me started on those greedy bastards. They make my blood boil!

I have no problem with responsible use of gas, oil and coal. But that's not what those lobbies have in mind. Their moral standards make the Wall Street Investment bankers look like God's own angels. In my humble opinion - of course. YMMV
« Last Edit: 12/31/2009 08:54 pm by clongton »
Chuck - DIRECT co-founder
I started my career on the Saturn-V F-1A engine

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #41 on: 01/04/2010 01:56 pm »
I just realized, the title is "21st Century Space Ship"... why are we discussing lifting vehicles at all?

This is what I'd do, if I was to design a "21st Century Space Ship."  Replace the 1.5 launch approach, or 2 launch, or 3 launch, or whatever, with a more logical arrangement.  You build an earth-to-LEO crew transport, Orion simplified if you will, or, my personal favorite, an HL-20.  It serves one job, and one job well, getting the crew to the space ship, and returning them to earth afterwards.  In space you have the real travel vehicle, a crew habitation, servicing unit, and mount-points for the mission "pods."  You launch up the mission pods as you need them, say you're building a super-sized telescope, you launch up the parts in cargo-pods, you launch up EDS units which mount to the back, all on Delta IV/Atlas V.  This way you serve multiple purposes.  The service-unit can be used to attach the mission pods remotely before the crew arrives. 

This method combines the "assemble-in-orbit" and depot approaches in a different manner, by having a dedicated re-usable core with expendible modules.  And by not having to re-lift these essential long-term support functions, we save overhead on each mission.
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 JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #42 on: 01/04/2010 02:30 pm »
I think the public sees capsules as a step backwards, the advantages of simplicity and cost are not well marketed.  Carrying wings to the Moon is a waste of mass.  The shuttle, or X-33 should be evolved as a LEO crew vehicle, I think.  RLV's are a means to a goal, but the goal is unclear, largly because, I think, of the temperature of the debate.  Still, the flight rate is the result of the goal as implemented by the architecture.

This is a good observation: "...manned space flight, from my perspective, has been one of a child opening a Christmas present and tossing it aside to get to the next present..."  That behavior is obviously immature to the adult watching that child.  I think part of our HSF problem has to do with what seems to be immaturity on behalf of the American people and their politicians.

I think Jim has suggested several times his estimate that 52 flights a year are needed to make an RLV justifiable.  I would guess half that, but in any case, it would be a large number of flights.

"Don't get me started on those greedy bastards..."  Me neither.  They are really part of the problem, and not at all a part of the solution, especially if one considers that kerolox rockets could be a viable way of both increasing flight rates of RLV's and launching OldSpace rockets in the 100-200mT range.  And "viable" is not the same as "highest efficiency" or "highest ISP".

Oh, and Downix:  I'd gladly have another look at Saturn.  Just don't make me look at... the next planet.  Sorry.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Online sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7202
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2050
  • Likes Given: 1962
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #43 on: 01/04/2010 03:16 pm »
build an earth-to-LEO crew transport [that] serves one job, and one job well, getting the crew to the space ship, and returning them to earth afterwards. 

This assumes the space ship can return to LEO, which is technically challenging.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Idol Revolver

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 153
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #44 on: 01/04/2010 03:50 pm »
build an earth-to-LEO crew transport [that] serves one job, and one job well, getting the crew to the space ship, and returning them to earth afterwards. 

This assumes the space ship can return to LEO, which is technically challenging.
Not if you go nuclear (my personal favourite). The safety concerns? Well, its spaceflight. It's risky. If it was to somehow re-enter the atmosphere, the pollution would be tiny, spread out across the whole planet.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #45 on: 01/13/2010 05:10 am »
For a "21st Century Shuttle":
I'd prefer a biamese HTHL TSTO concept (not unlike some of the early Shuttle proposals... or the image of the Shuttle Enterprise mounted on the modified 747 on forum.nasaspaceflight.com ;) ) or a VTVL/VTHL TSTO with the first stage being a hydrocarbon VTVL rocket and the second stage being, say, a methane-powered (modified RL-10?) lifting-body integrated into the crew capsule. I feel like hydrogen is just not dense enough, it makes the launch vehicles unwieldy and need troublesome insulation.

One version of this would be for crew, the other as a propellant tanker. The VTVL lower stage would be the same for both. A propellant depot system would be developed based on methane/LOX (or, if you wanted a hydrolox upper stage, you'd need a depot system using hydrolox), making boil-off not as much a concern and allowing for immediate synergies for Martian ISRU. If the crewed version wanted to go to L1/L2 (to a station or interplanetary/lunar vessel), it could be refueled after entering LEO to go there (and then return to Earth after a retrofire and perhaps a skip reentry to reduce loading on the reusable thermal protection system).

Both of these systems would be far smaller than the Shuttle, and would not be capable of large non-propellant payloads. That's for expendables. Expendables would be used to launch non-expendable hardware, like we do today (comm sats have a long enough life-span to be effectively "non-expendable").

The "21st Century Space Ship" would be an interplanetary vessel capable of, say, 5.5 km/s delta-v and enough thrust to take off of Mars. It would be methane-lox powered, as well as having life-support and reaction-control and power systems (and drinking/washing water) being able to use the same methane/lox as the fuel (this would require filtering and quality-control to ensure safety), at least during emergencies. This interplanetary vessel would be capable of at least 10 complete refuelings before needing refurbishment or replacement. A typical mission to the Moon and back to LEO would require 3 fuelings (only 1 fueling would be needed for going from L1/L2 to the Lunar surface and back to L1/L2... there are lots of advantages to a L1/L2-based architecture). This vessel would be placed in orbit by whatever (most likely expendable) launch vehicle could reliably place it in LEO. Such a vehicle would also be capable of autonomous operation, allowing a beyond-LEO rescue mission to be staged without risking any more crew.

Since this vessel would be capable of 5.5 km/s and all its expendables and power can be supplied via methane/LOX, it simplifies the logistics of any exploration architecture tremendously while allowing enormous flexibility. For instance, since it doesn't rely on solar power and has 5.5 km/s performance, it could be used (basically unmodified) for manned sortie missions to and from Callisto's surface from a mothership in orbit around Jupiter or Callisto without requiring a staging event or refueling (except at the mothership).

And this vessel could do a fully-propulsive descent onto Mars, avoiding the need for a heat shield or the Rube Goldberg-style Entry-Descent-Landing system we seem to like to use for Martian rovers ;). Since it already runs on Methane, it can take advantage of refueling with ISRU Methane/LOX on Mars' surface (hopefully also using Martian water ice) generated beforehand.

You would have propellant depots pre-placed in orbit around whatever you wanted by solar-electric propulsion (solar only really working well in the inner solar system, of course), which could perhaps be integrated into the depot itself.

Of course, if hydrolox ends up being pretty easy to prevent boil-off (even on Mars), then just replace every instance of "methane" with "hydrogen" and take advantage of increased performance. (This is something we should figure out before building the space ship).

Either all-hydrolox or all-methane-lox, don't use both. Decide beforehand and use the same fuel for your whole (vacuum) infrastructure (not counting hydrocarbon first stage of the "shuttle"). Either one has enough performance and flexibility and ISRU-ability. The RL-10 is a great engine to use for this (both the interplanetary "space ship" and the upper stage of the "shuttle"), since it is reusable, restartable, high-Isp, capable of greater than 11:1 throttling, has a human-rated heritage, and can be modified to use different fuels. I think you can get by with only one of them, too, even on Mars.

The solar-electric tugs and depots would be placed in orbit by whatever launch vehicle is convenient and is up to the task (like an EELV). I'd imagine the tugs/depots would be reusable (and refilled in LEO by the reusable tanker upper stage I mentioned before).

EDIT: Another advantage to using just two fluids (LOX and a toss-up between methane and hydrogen) for propulsion (on both tanker, crewed shuttle, and all propulsive maneuvers of the interplanetary vessel), RCS, Martian entry/descent/landing, power, life-support, and water is that margins in one category of uses can overlap with those in another, leading to powerful synergies as margin one category can be used as margin in another category, while also standardizing material requirements and allowing increase in mission capabilities as margins are retired early in the mission. This can greatly reduce costs, as well.
« Last Edit: 01/13/2010 05:43 am by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #46 on: 01/13/2010 07:02 am »
Forget the methane. Hydrogen just has too many advantages and we have far more experience with it in aerospace (including as fuel cells in the Shuttle, for instance).

What finally convinced me was the logistical simplification of being able to use hydrogen as propellant for solar electric propulsion (in fact, I believe it is most efficient Isp-wise) without having to provide another propellant for the electric propulsion (it also can be used for a nuclear thermal rocket, which future-proofs this architecture). By using gaseous hydrogen (and oxygen) for all the systems (including reaction control) besides the main propulsion, a lot of the cryogenic plumbing can be eliminated. The cryogenic nature of liquid hydrogen can, in a pinch, also be an advantage in that it can be used as a backup should the radiator fail to deploy.

The high-Isp of hydrogen for electric propulsion is also a problem (not enough thrust for a given power). But it is one that can be solved with higher power density as technology improves. Also, thermal insulation efficiency will only get better as technology progresses and boiloff could be eventually eliminated altogether with active cooling (plenty power would be available on the solar electric tug/depot combo).

The sun shade and bulkiness plus the embrittlement of metals is what originally what drew me away from hydrogen, but these can be overcome. Once boiloff is eliminated through active cooling, then ISRU on Mars using ice deposits could be simpler with hydrogen than methane.

And, a mass fraction of 3.5 nets you 5.7 km/s of delta-v with the RL-10B-2, plenty for an L1/L2-based cislunar architecture. And good for trips to asteroids.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2399
  • Liked: 1693
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #47 on: 01/13/2010 08:41 am »
Mostly reusable Dragon-like capsule capable of reentry from EML1/2 and reasonably precise dry landing at Edwards AFB or similar location.

Separately-launched habitat module for transportation to/from EML1/2 and beyond.  Also derived for surface habitation.

Lunar platform with hypergolic engines for terminal landing and an optional wheeled trailer undercarriage for surface mobility.

Reusable lunar crew lander derived from the reentry capsule for transport between EML1/2 and the lunar surface.

Common propulsion stage: LOX-rich staged combustion cycle engine with dense liquid hydrocarbon fuel (RP-1, diethyl cyclohexane, bicyclic monoterpene), bipropellant transfer, and low boiloff.  Upper stage ascent to LEO, EDS to EML1/2, crasher to lunar surface, lunar ascent to EML1/2, departure for Mars, depot at LEO and EML1/2.

Launch vehicle: two-engine sustainer with two four-engine strap-on boosters, LOX/hydrocarbon with common engines and tankage.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10974
  • Delta-t is an important metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 1257
  • Likes Given: 724
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #48 on: 01/13/2010 02:33 pm »
As to a shuttle, there should be a small crew only RLV, like x-33, mounted on top of a launch vehicle, along with an abort system.  At first that LV is expendable, but then recoverable. Two variants, one for the Moon, one for Mars.

Two cargo only LV's, the smaller to LEO only, the larger to LEO or the Moon.

Two spaceships, the smaller as a multipurpose tug between Leo and the Moon.  The larger as a mother ship to and from Mars.

A space station/depot in LEO.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline tnphysics

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1072
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #49 on: 01/18/2010 12:20 pm »
I would use an all-nuclear lightbulb architecture.

Offline HappyMartian

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2713
  • Tap the Moon's water!
  • Asia
  • Liked: 16
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: 21st Century Space Shuttle/Ship -
« Reply #50 on: 01/20/2010 07:46 am »
On the Direct thread a baby, the J-140SH, is busy getting born and the parents are a bit excited. Ross quoted William Barton’s post of  01/17/2010 10:26 PM “How much deltaV would it contribute with a direct (heh) ascent trajactory? Enough the Orion SM could get the capsule the rest of the way to L1 or -2?”

Ross replied: “Not nearly enough. You must have some sort of Upper Stage if you want any chance to get beyond LEO.”


True, an upper stage on a J-140SH is needed if you want to use it to help you get beyond LEO in the near future, but one may wonder if such a situation will always be true. The Delta and Atlas rockets have evolved extensively during the last 50 years. Who knows what further improvements the next 50 or more years may bring? 

A J-140SH might also evolve and eventually use different propellants and rocket engines. As impressive as the SSME is, might higher performing main core engines and Solid Rocket Boosters be feasible in ten or thirty or fifty years?

As a thought experiment consider a tank full of a solid form of hydrogen embedded in zillions of aluminum or carbon nanoballs, along with another tank full of a solid form of oxygen similarly encased in aluminum or carbon nanoballs. Such high density propellants might improve the overall efficiency of some type of future J-140SH variant. Similar types of nanoballs might also be added to the J-140SH Solid Rocket Boosters and allow them to make a greater contribution to the J-140SH’s performance.

Nanoballs with small amounts of anti-matter might also be injected into some future J-140SH rocket engines. Some day the J-140SH might have efficient main engines that are built in Brazil, Britain, China, Germany, India, Japan, or Nigeria. None these possibilities may ever be practical, but other ways to enhance the performance of future J140SHs might be possible, at least in a thought experiment.

Long before Lunar or Martian In Situ Resource Utilization, or ISRU, can be used to provide propellant for spacecraft, the upper layers of the Earth’s atmosphere should be tapped to provide oxygen and hydrogen for refueling rockets such as the J-140SH.  The gasses would be skimmed off the Earth’s upper atmosphere by the propellant storage depot.

Another thought experiment for a near term variant might have two SSMEs and two J-2Xs mounted as the main engines of the J-140SH. The J-2Xs would only start after getting above 60,000 feet. While refueling the J-140SH in orbit at the propellant storage depot, the two SSMEs could be removed. Since the remaining two J-2X main engines have restart capabilities, this would still give you a very large orbiting EDS or the equivalent of a massive “Second Stage.”     

Imagination might also give you a J-140SH with four variant J-2Xs as the main engines. The variant J-2X engines would have extendable nozzles and can serve as the main engines for the core. The J-2X variant’s nozzles would only be extended after docking at the propellant storage depot. This should allow the J-2X engines to be started prior to liftoff from the launch pad on Earth. One could also imagine a J-140SH with some American main engines other than SSMEs or J-2Xs.
     
Concerns about insulation popcorning off an orbiting J-140SH might be resolved by a Mylar condom that is automatically zippered over the rocket once it is in orbit... The use of a different type of insulation material might also solve the popcorn problem. Some new insulation methods might be devised in the next few decades. Popcorning insulation really shouldn’t be an unsolvable problem. The reuse value of an in orbit and refueled J-140SH that is just hanging around and begging to be reused as an EDS should motivate a rocket design team to make sure that popcorning insulation won’t become a show stopper to the vast potential opportunities in reusing a J-140SH once it is orbit.

After a 32 year period of gestation, the J-140SH is finally being born, and its evolution should be interesting to watch in the decades to come. The Delta and Atlas rockets may not even have achieved the midpoints of their respective lives. They too may have very long futures ahead of them. Can you imagine the core of a future J-140SH, Delta, or Atlas landing at a Lunar or Martian Spaceport?  Babies do grow up and sometimes manage to do amazing things.

Cheers!
« Last Edit: 03/17/2010 12:35 pm by HappyMartian »
"The Moon is the most accessible destination for realizing commercial, exploration and scientific objectives beyond low Earth orbit." - LEAG

Tags:
 

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