Author Topic: Next Gen Shuttle-Capable vehicle interest as secret effort to save orbiters ends (Read 196593 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 12/19/2011 12:59 pm »

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/next-gen-shuttle-vehicle-secret-effort-save-orbiters-ends/

Technically two articles in one (as much as the big second angle is related to next gen vehicle quotes at the end). We agreed to embargo when we were first made aware, so as to cause no harm to the meetings, etc.

--

There is follow up coverage/Q&A with some of the people involved in this on L2:

Shuttle Restart Effort:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27570.0
Shuttle-Capable Next Gen Vehicle (and continued coverage into 2012):
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27571.0

AdamH · « **Reply #1 on:** 12/19/2011 01:00 pm »

Interesting effort. It is really amazing to see the amount of money that was put forward in this effort.

But awesome news! I wonder where the money for this upcoming idea will come from however. Hopefully it does not take away from commercial funding. That and I hope it uses fixed price bidding..

I hope also that the same amount of effort will be put into making the case for a well equipped yet cost efficient shuttle replacement that also does not remove the market for commercial vehicles. NASA still needs to continue to buy flights with dragon(etc) once they come online.

The question is whether the effort will be proposed as under the shuttle model or split up under something fixed price. I'm guessing since this was funded by (seemingly) random investors instead of just major shuttle involved companies it is not simply about maintaining labor for only them. I hope this leads to a proposal that can be split up into multiple market bid fixed price bids such as with commercial resupply.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #2 on:** 12/19/2011 01:01 pm »

Epic news!

Lampyridae · « **Reply #3 on:** 12/19/2011 01:02 pm »

w00t! Big mug of tea is ready and can't wait to read!

rdale · « **Reply #4 on:** 12/19/2011 01:03 pm »

Congrats on keeping this under the wraps and breaking the big news! Unfortunate that it didn't end better...

Lampyridae · « **Reply #5 on:** 12/19/2011 01:04 pm »

Reading this, and seeing the UK connection, I wonder if Skylon is an obvious candidate? I'm sure others must be thinking this.

EDIT: Given that the emphasis here seems to be on capitalising on shuttle heritage, probably not! It'll be interesting to see what the trades are like. Maybe more like Max Faget's shuttles?

DavisSTS · « **Reply #6 on:** 12/19/2011 01:12 pm »

Wow! Shuttle without being on the NASA budget and SLS was the problem. But a next gen shuttle! Amazing read.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #7 on:** 12/19/2011 01:14 pm »

Bittersweet for Shuttle people.

I wonder how many other "commercial" programs are out there, still under the radar?

Lampyridae · « **Reply #8 on:** 12/19/2011 01:17 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 12/19/2011 01:14 pm

Bittersweet for Shuttle people.

I wonder how many other "commercial" programs are out there, still under the radar?

Bittersweet indeed. People are waking up to the fact that humanity has lost its first true "spaceship."

Bubbinski · « **Reply #9 on:** 12/19/2011 01:20 pm »

Looking forward to seeing more about the next generation Shuttle. Could the original concept of a fully reusable flyback 1st stage finally be economically doable with new technology?

I've got a thought as far as a purpose for a next gen shuttle goes: launch commercial space hotels and other space stations, build them in orbit like the original Shuttle did. And then resupply these space stations, and perhaps use the new shuttle to resupply ISS as well under a commercial contract?

MP99 · « **Reply #10 on:** 12/19/2011 01:21 pm »

Quote from: DavisSTS on 12/19/2011 01:12 pm

Wow! Shuttle without being on the NASA budget and SLS was the problem. But a next gen shuttle! Amazing read.

Presumably, this would be a new vehicle, not a revamped STS?

Given the legacy of Shuttle which has gone into SLS, wondering whether SLS's propulsion will then feed forward into NG Shuttle?

If not, will be fascinating to see what a clean-sheet RLV looks like using 2012 technology.

cheers, Martin

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #11 on:** 12/19/2011 01:22 pm »

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/ - comments from "Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, who helped lead strategic development and served as the primary government and industry liaison for the team designing the restart plan".

Namechange User · « **Reply #12 on:** 12/19/2011 01:24 pm »

Quote from: Bubbinski on 12/19/2011 01:20 pm

Looking forward to seeing more about the next generation Shuttle. Could the original concept of a fully reusable flyback 1st stage finally be economically doable with new technology?

I've got a thought as far as a purpose for a next gen shuttle goes: launch commercial space hotels and other space stations, build them in orbit like the original Shuttle did. And then resupply these space stations, and perhaps use the new shuttle to resupply ISS as well under a commercial contract?

The intent behind returning the orbiters to flight was for a business plan that existed purely outside of NASA. In other words, not one dime was required from NASA to subsidize any of this. Obviously, if this could have been pulled off, then NASA could have been a customer, and almost certainly would have been, like anyone else. However, NASA NOT being a customer, etc was a basic premise to the still undisclosed business plan.

Rocket Science · « **Reply #13 on:** 12/19/2011 01:27 pm »

It was worth the “Hail Mary “ pass….

Martin FL · « **Reply #14 on:** 12/19/2011 01:28 pm »

Wow. I hope NASA don't live to regret this if SLS doesn't fly and CCDev fails.

Huge silver lining with the next-gen.

Namechange User · « **Reply #15 on:** 12/19/2011 01:29 pm »

Quote from: MP99 on 12/19/2011 01:21 pm

Quote from: DavisSTS on 12/19/2011 01:12 pm
Wow! Shuttle without being on the NASA budget and SLS was the problem. But a next gen shuttle! Amazing read.

Presumably, this would be a new vehicle, not a revamped STS?

Given the legacy of Shuttle which has gone into SLS, wondering whether SLS's propulsion will then feed forward into NG Shuttle?

If not, will be fascinating to see what a clean-sheet RLV looks like using 2012 technology.

cheers, Martin

Something to keep in mind. Assuming a shuttle 2.0 goes forward, this will be a commercial venture with the intent to have a ROI and become profitable with the business case as soon as practical and therefore it can be assumed that the desire is to not push the envelope for the sake of pusing the envelope.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #16 on:** 12/19/2011 01:33 pm »

That makes 4 and two half billionaires with significant commercial spaceflight ventures that we know about... Paul Allen, Bezos, Bigelow, Branson, Musk, and this guy (I assume he's got to have a net worth of at least several hundred million in order to be able to leverage this amount of investment).

psloss · « **Reply #17 on:** 12/19/2011 01:38 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 12/19/2011 01:22 pm

http://www.marylynnedittmar.com/ - comments from "Dr. Mary Lynne Dittmar, who helped lead strategic development and served as the primary government and industry liaison for the team designing the restart plan".

Thanks for the pointer, Chris. (And Dr. Dittmar for the additional background.)

(belated edit to fix spelling error)

AdamH · « **Reply #18 on:** 12/19/2011 01:41 pm »

When they say a "next generation space transportation vehicle" I hope they don't mean a shuttle clone. I don't think we need another billion dollar shuttle. I figure we should instead take what we have learned and create something completely new.

I think a modular system would be very interesting. Creating a system of interchangeable spaceship modules and then using a different combination for various missions. Think of modules for: increased habitation, propulsion, fuel storage, earth ascent/descent, power generation, artificial gravity, food production, construction, medical, etc.

All would have to be designed with a unified interface which did not compromise other modules despite configuration. Sort of like a set of interplanetary capable ISS modules. These could be bid to separate groups for commercial design, only limited in exterior size, cost, compatibility requirements, and minimum utility. That is the basic idea at least.

Longhorn John · « **Reply #19 on:** 12/19/2011 01:44 pm »

Amazing! If only they could have saved them, but thanks to that team for trying! New shuttle sounds funky!